E-mail this page link

"Just like Adolf Hitler, who also made promises and signed treaties, trashing them when it became convenient, it is now politically convenient as well as expedient for Rumsfeld, PNAC and therefore Bush, to renege on the Geneva Convention."



Control In America 
Posted May 13, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org

By: Ted Lang

After I recently finished reading William L. Shirer's monumental work, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, I came to a horrific conclusion. Comparing the summary of reported events Shirer used to describe the circumstances immediately preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, it must be understood that he merely reiterated what was known and accepted at the time. Comparing what was then accepted information to what is now known, a shocking conclusion is easily drawn.

Space does not permit laundry listing the dichotomies. Suffice it to say, that facts in Shirer's book and what is known today prove indeed that FDR and American government knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor before it happened. Said another way, they let it happen! Now, here comes the tough part. I asked myself: What would I have done if I had been in Roosevelt's shoes? I regret to inform, I can't see him having any other choice!

Back then, in 1941, Germany was the most powerful nation on Earth when Hitler invaded Russia. Had he not delayed by putting down an anti-Nazi coup in Yugoslavia, an action he took in an extreme fit of rage which delayed the Russian invasion by three or four weeks, he would have conquered Russia. That would have left the United States alone to fight Germany, Japan and Italy. In my judgment, we would have lost that war. And Hitler was predicting, and doing so publicly for worldwide consumption, that Russia would fall before the winter of 1941!

Therefore it can be said, that rage was all the rage at that time! The anger and rage that Hitler had towards Jews, international bankers, the British and French for their rape of Germany via the Versailles Treaty ending WW I, as well as the Balfour Declaration, allowed him to magnify his anger and rage through the German people via the Nazi Party and his Wehrmacht. Anger is indeed a strong motivator. Hitler's delay in attacking Russia was indeed "blind" anger.

War is not only an acceptable form of political expression, it is also, of course, an expression of collective anger on the part of one people against another. And it can be blind collective anger. Hitler knew how to use the anger of the German people, an anger that festered because of their sense of being double-crossed by Versailles and Balfour and the bankers. The German people were ripe for manipulation. But isn't that what all politics is about?

I sincerely believe FDR would have preferred to avoid war, but with Hitler growing in power, and it being known that Hitler eventually planned to attack America, as he had attacked other nations in Europe and Africa, it was only a matter of time before he was at our doorstep. But Americans vehemently opposed war with Hitler, and so did their representatives in Congress.

But that's the difference between Pearl Harbor and all the other politician-manufactured necessities offered as an excuse for war since America's justifiable involvement in WW II. And this was further reflected in the need for Roosevelt to ask the Congress to declare war, a rule no longer followed. For today, any American politician, banker, or rich and powerful individual or group of individuals, can simply request the President of the United States to attack any nation of their choosing and for any reason. And if the president cannot be approached or bribed, well then there's always the alternative of approaching his advisors.

How soon we've forgotten the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, whereby President Bush's Zionist advisors clamored for the United States to attack Iraq, which posed absolutely no threat to our nation. This was indeed a form of hostile political expression, the reasons for which may never become clear. But the unnecessary and increasingly deadly war was engineered and planned by the PNAC cabal in every way similar to Hitler's plotting of invasion after invasion prior to WW II. And of course, it entailed making promises and signing treaties, all of which Hitler broke and reneged on when politically expedient and convenient.

Have PNACers offered any justification for the invasion of Iraq? Of course they have, and here they are: "it was doable;" "it was an opportunity;" "there aren't as many good targets in Afghanistan as there are in Iraq." And since the Internet blew this "logic" to smithereens, justification for the unjust invasion rose to the top of the Bush administration's "must do" list. Enter now the plotting of America's most dangerous plotters, overseers and controllers: the Central Intelligence Agency, a very dangerous oxymoron.

It has been very strongly suggested in many circles that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a collaborative plot between organized crime and the CIA. The mob plotting against BOTH Kennedys is understandable; the dependency of Kennedy patriarch Joseph Kennedy on organized crime to rally the miners' union and control Cook County to get his son John elected president was rewarded by Robert Kennedy's attack on mobster union boss Jimmy Hoffa. It is much more difficult to see what motivated the CIA, but in a nation where anyone rich and powerful can orchestrate wars for no easily discernible reason, why should we now rack our collective intellect?

And now we have intelligence "failures" regarding "yellowcake," the exposure of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, and the involvement of the CIA in the bungling of pre-9-11 intelligence. In addition to the plotting of the CIA, we have the efforts on the part of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a key and integral part of the PNAC cabal, planning on deliberately violating many of the specific principles of prisoner of war protections as articulated in the Geneva Convention, a treaty signed with 190 other nations around the world.

Just like Adolf Hitler, who also made promises and signed treaties, trashing them when it became convenient, it is now politically convenient as well as expedient for Rumsfeld, PNAC and therefore Bush, to renege on the Geneva Convention. This is the real crime as regards the Iraqi POW scandal, a scandal that shows all indications of spreading broadly across many more POW detention centers.

Rumsfeld's Pentagon prearranged and planned deliberate violations of the Geneva Convention to justify the Iraqi invasion, thereby not only turning our troops into war criminals, but also leaving them defenseless as well should they be captured by the enemy. And on the surface, it appears that this is precisely what happened to American civilian Nick Berg.

What is needed to establish an appropriate perspective is a review of all the fraud, lies, propaganda, cover-ups and despicable political maneuvering typified by this totally out-of-control administration to get a realistic handle on precisely what's going on. Consider the lies involving WMD, "regime change" and "bringing democracy to the people" while never ever planning to remove our military presence in Iraq or the Mid East. Consider the AA587 cover-up, and the cover-up of the non-bidding violations of government contract and procurement law arranged for Bechtel and Halliburton. Recall the embarrassment of the Boeing KC-135 fiasco. Recall Bush's obstruction of the 9-11 investigation. Recall his redaction of 28 pages of a report from the 9-11 commission. Recall the O'Neill, Kaye and Clarke scenarios, as well as the Joseph Wilson scandal. An appropriate perspective has now been established.

Now for the all-important question: Who do you believe; the family of Nicholas Berg or Bush's secret cabal government of liars, plotters, schemers and war criminals? Who do you believe - the Bergs or the CIA/FBI? I for one believe the Bergs are telling the truth and that the FBI is lying, as usual. Why is this important?

The Berg family says that Nick Berg was in custody in Iraq by Iraqi officials per the directions of the United States government conveyed through the FBI. I believe this to be true. So what would this portend? It offers that the CAI/FBI had at their disposal a potential American victim, a victim that could be brutally sacrificed at the right time. I saw the horrible video of the Berg butchery. It generated in me such a level of rage and anger, that I believe I regressed to a level necessary to kill another human being. It took me basically a day to get over it. Then, I started to think, especially after hearing the rants of non-thinking emotionalists and Bush sycophants.

Why is it so important for the United States government to conceal the fact that Berg was in custody because of their intent and directions? What precisely was their intent? Remember the admonition offered by FDR that nothing in politics occurs unintended, and everything is executed according to a pre-determined plan?

How completely convenient for the Bush administration to have this ghastly, anger and rage-generating video available for public consumption when a growing exposť of Geneva Convention violations and war crimes begins to unfold. And of course there is no rock-solid evidence of this being a deliberately staged psychological operation [PSY-OPS] plotted by the CIA. But what is beginning to evolve as a new source of irrefutable proof, is the vehement denial on the part of a lying, plotting, planning and despicable government, one which increasingly resorts to violence and deceit, and unjustly kills innocent people.


© Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 5/13/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S. citizens. editor