BUSH’S MISSION
EXPECTING THE SECOND PLATFORM OF MORAL OUTRAGE

By: joseph b. ehrlich

BUSH’S MISSION: EXPECTING THE SECOND PLATFORM OF MORAL OUTRAGE

The debate in early 2003 as to whether to proceed militarily against Iraq evidenced rifts in transatlantic relations between the United States (“U.S.”) and the European Union (“EU”). The first question to confront is whether the rifts were real or by mutual consent. To raise the question suggests an agenda in play far beyond the specter of an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein and to capture Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”) to spare the world the “imminent” threat the U.S. claimed Saddam and his WMD represented.

Particularly noteworthy accordingly is the admitted absence of a U.S. strategy in dealing with post war Iraq. A Pentagon and State Department that plans for nearly every contingency had no plans in play in how to deal with post war Iraq. Thus, this suggests the second question as to whether there were plans for a wide array of post-war contingencies, but the post war Iraq that did in fact materialize was one unanticipated and if so the reasons it evolved as it did contrary to U.S. planning expectations.^[1]

The third question raised is one that lays a foundation to answer the first two questions posited above: who had more to gain from Iraq’s use of WMD? The U.S. clearly believed and relied upon intelligence that Saddam had WMD. Thus, one must channel into U.S. planning to grasp the degree of confidence U.S. planners carried regarding the certainty that Saddam would use WMD, resulting in their devising a schematic showing how Saddam’s anticipated use of WMD could prove beneficial to long-term U.S. interests.

The invasion of Iraq served three different plateaus of support: those aiming to stem the loss of influence of the United States in the Middle East; those seeking to control Middle East oil through privatization; those seeking to secure the next critical phase in multi-polar world government.

first plateau

Regarding the first plateau, it was generally recognized that during the Clinton term the U.S. lost a great deal of influence and control over the Middle East. China under the leadership of Jiang Zemin made great inroads into the Middle East and those inside the government assigned to such oversight noted the re-emerging trend of a movement to undermine the U.S. dollar.[2] During the Reagan Presidency, Vice-President George H.W. Bush (“Bush 41”) who had originally applauded Japan for its support of U.S. policy in the early to mid 80’s to reduce historically high U.S. interest rates to platform the U.S.’s ability to revitalize the U.S. economy, ultimately witnessed that Japan never accepted the premise that it lost World War II, and waged an attack on the United States in covertly moving to undermine the U.S. dollar,[3] an attack that came to a head in the spring and summer of 1995,[4] during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, where Japan had no reservations about engaging the U.S. in a trade war.[5] The end result was that Japan succumbed, with the U.S. gaining historical political influence in Japan where it thereafter assured that the Japanese leadership was one compliant with New World Order interests. However, the memory of the way Bush 41 was treated in Japan during his trip to Tokyo in January 1992, with the Japanese parading a monkey in the streets of Tokyo to reflect their sentiment toward the President, and then his keeling over during a dinner, was never far from the memory of the Bush family. Now, after allowing China to prosper under a major policy of appeasement, to prepare them economically to join the new world order foray, the United States saw Iraq take the first step in a new effort to undermine the U.S. dollar, where Saddam Hussein would only accept euros in payment for Iraqi oil.[6] Now, the campaign began to spread to where both Iran and Venezuela were prepared to follow the same course followed by Saddam. Thus, the United States concluded that China, under Jiang Zemin’s steerage, would gain undeserved power and prestige in the Middle East, effectively locking out historical U.S. influence in the region, and something had to be done to preclude an attack on the U.S. economy via the U.S. dollar and thus on the U.S., resulting in the type of mayhem and damage witnessed by Israel.[7] [8]

second plateau

Regarding the second plateau, the President of the United States was surrounded after his controversial Presidential victory with a dominating cabal of advisors, aligned with the oil and defense cartels, who admitted after the war that as far as they were concerned they wanted to cajole the U.S. to attack prior to the events of 9-11[9], admitting that their plans required a 9-11, thus supporting the brazen proposition proffered in the President’s post 9-11 National Security Strategy (“NSS”, September 20, 2002), calling for pre-emptive actions against any country or party perceived to be a present or future enemy of the United States (especially it seemed against those sitting on dominant world oil reserves). [10]

Richard Perle de facto declared on Meet the Press [11] that that while there was overseas terrorism prior to 9-11 and there were plans of continued terrorism, the Bush administration could not go forward with the extreme agenda espoused by the National Security Strategy, which Perle thought the President should have had the courage to undertake prior to 9-11, until there was an incident of major DOMESTIC terrorism. Ipso facto, there was a group in the administration who were waiting, plans in hand, for successful implementation of major domestic terrorism to allow them to push forward an agenda in contravention to U.S. precedent, to wit: preemptive regime and culture change against countries perceived to be a current or future threat. The real giveaway however is that when implementing a campaign against terrorism, the United States had no reason to contravene its historical and constitutional mandate by asserting to the world through the NSS and the President of the United States that it intended to pursue both regime and culture change. In fact, this brazen course initiated itself with Bush 41, who, once seeing the Soviet Union dismantled, sought someone more compliant with the New World Order agenda than Gorbachev. Thus Bush 41 stood by, as Bush 43 sought to do in Venezuela, when a coup effectuated regime change in Russia, replacing Gorbachev with a more compliant Boris Yeltsin. This regime change allowed Bush 41 to extirpate Communism from Russia, and likewise now Bush 43, seeking to follow in his father’s footsteps, moves for regime change in several states in the Middle East to eradicate Islamic fundamentalism.

The neo-conservatives desired to control, for national security interests, as defined by the NSS, the entire Middle East region[12]. Thus, without equivocation, the anticipated use of WMD by Saddam would provide a required second platform of moral outrage to move against Syria and Iran under the unilateral precepts of the National Security Strategy.[13]

Unfortunately for this cabal of planners, their plans were uprooted when the statistically improbable and then, to their minds, impossible occurred on the primary and back up dimensions. On the first dimension, Saddam did not use WMD. On the secondary back up dimension, no WMD could be found inside Iraq.

The one scenario the Pentagon could not factor correctly was the one seen, an impotent Iraq, sitting defenseless, not deploying WMD and in the worse case scenario having none to be found. The plans of the neo-conservatives aligned with the oil cartel fell to the wayside, only able to secure Iraqi oil after seeing their attempt for regime change in Venezuela, fail.^[14]Thus, the U.S. in its initial panic to justify the platform it laid to the world for unilateral U.S. action, shifted from focusing on the use of WMD, to its discovery, to, in the last resort, allowing the President of the United States to take a position with legerdemain before the world that the one thing he is certain about is that Saddam had WMD programs, not stating that the truth of this assertion was that it was connected to a far earlier time.[15] Moreover, in this very regard, in the midst of war, on or about March 27, 2003, President Bush summoned British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Washington. It was clear that President Bush and his cabal of advisors were surprised, if not shocked, when Iraq did not deploy WMD at the most opportune moment of the campaign[16], and one cannot stand blind that the Bush-Blair love fest cooled considerably since the time of this very trip. Moreover, it is also noteworthy to highlight that Prime Minister Blair subsequent thereto was subject to unrelenting attacks at home, all which could have been allayed, had at least WMD been discovered in Iraq.[17]

How far was the Bush administration ready to go to implement its preferences for the Middle East as brazenly outlined by President Bush in his Rose Garden remarks on June 24, 2002?[18] In view of the open affiliation between the President’s family and the oil industry, it appears quite far[19]. The Congress, media and manifestly the public accepted proffered administration arguments, but albeit acquiescence the administration did undermine the fabric of the nation,[20] raising the serious specter of whose interests were now paramount to this Presidential administration: the interests of the United States as a sovereign country or the best interests of the New World Order, one world government?[21]

Thus this plan had to have a reach by necessity far beyond Saddam Hussein and WMD; far beyond the reach of occupying Iraq and securing a government by choice to the approval of the Bush administration. The initiation of war against Iraq – had Iraq deployed WMD -- would give the cabal the second platform of moral outrage to enter and occupy all Middle East countries declared to be covert and overt plotters and planners in supporting terrorist access to WMD to wit: Syria and Iran. So anxious was this cabal to move to satisfy the true scope of its plan and design that after the war, albeit no use of WMD or discovery thereof, they engaged in war mongering against Syria and Iran, with criticism arising globally against these provocative insinuations as a prelude to further attack.[22] The Bush administration ultimately declared that it had no intent to militarily enter or engage these countries albeit the Bush administration thereafter continued to mount new claims and efforts to support doing so, including the need to bring democracy to the Middle East regardless of the U.S.’s current relationship with the current regime, putting both Saudi Arabia and Egypt into play under the NSS,[23] the President seeking to complete the covert mission seeing himself on the eve of the next Presidential election in the quagmire he is in Iraq, which would not be the case had he been able to move against Syria and Iran had he had in hand a second platform of moral outrage.[24]

Had WMD been deployed, the entire focus of the global community would have been on the horrific massive deaths suffered by U.S. troops. Before the dust settled from its use, hand selected new leaderships would have been in place in Iraq, Syria and Iran, without any global intervention and without the need to engage in the war mongering against Syria and Iraq witnessed since the time of the invasion that resulted in no use of WMD. Had any of the Middle East countries attacked Israel, causing death, destruction, and devastation to her, it would only have given the U.S. additional justification and opportunity to legitimatize what everyone now can glean as the true scope of its agenda and mission in waging war against Iraq. This free ticket for instant regime changes would be the consequence of two recorded historic acts of declared terrorism against the U.S. The U.S. thereby could have circumvented completely any argument that it was an aggressor and would have postured itself as a multiple victim of terrorism. Moreover, none of this introspection would have seen the light of day, or if it did, it would have been summarily dismissed. That Iraq did not use WMD and no WMD were to be found was the strategic defense to short circuit the full scope of the Bush administration’s intended invasion.

Thereby, the planned mission and agenda did not evolve or unravel, giving the U.S. the problems it faces in Iraq, without an exit strategy. Moreover, with the failure to achieve the second platform of moral outrage, allowing invasion of Syria and Iran, President Bush’s Rose Garden remarks and his NSS have come full circle to bite him, and bite him badly, on the near eve of election, when troops are dying daily in Iraq.

Third plateau

Regarding the third plateau, it is apparent that when the U.S. Congress, the media, and thereby the public at large, sit quietly when an administration creates the foundation for a police state, engages in a broad range of now admitted propaganda, seeks war, seeks to change the regimes and cultures of foreign countries, and also dilutes the relevancy of the Constitution by forging ahead with a preemption doctrine in contravention thereof; not to say allows itself to flaunt conflicts of interest and give patronage to its friends and political and business allies, that the United States of America has adopted and accepted a “New America.” [25] The position reflecting the “Old America” can be seen at footnote 13 and by reading the other poignant addresses on the Senate floor by the Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd (offered in full on his web site).[26] When no wall of opposition arose under the legitimate “Old America” premises Senator Byrd offered, then America changed right then and there.

Thus, the nation by its appointed representatives, committing itself to the new course, has supported a President that has irritated and alienated the rest of the world and thus now the U.S. has no choice, particularly under the first plateau, but to continue on to Syria and Iran. Should it not, it is highly problematic that it can prevail, even over time, in a war of attrition in Iraq. The religious commitment of those within Iraq, with the clandestine support of Syria and Iran, not to discount Saudi Arabia, assures no success for the Bush team and agenda. Thus, this would undermine those supporting the war under the second plateau. Moreover, here in the third plateau, it would prove a devastating blow to the deep commitment made for multi-polar central world government. Without control over OPEC oil pricing, and with the handwriting on the wall that one day the U.S. would leave Iraq, the predicate would exist for all those seeing themselves the target of Bush’s NSS to move on the first plateau and immediately undermine the dollar by shifting their nation’s wealth into the euro and enlisting payment for oil in the euro. Moreover, in doing so, they would only attest to other nations, even friendly nations, that there was no future for the dollar, and then two major events would lie ahead a. devaluation and b. removal of the dollar as the international reserve currency. Without control of the oil and with a successful sabotage of the U.S. dollar, New World Order globalization aims would be severely compromised and therefore if President Bush does not move for regime change in Syria and Iran, there is no way he can find genuine support for a second term from his new world order backers, and his failure in the mission will have dealt a serious blow to their agenda.[27]

Thus, there was no surprise when the Congress, aside from granting the administration the $87 billion it requested for Iraq, at the time of the finalization of this paper, passed the Syria and Lebanese Accountability Act, again giving the President another foundation to ultimately move against Syria and Iran.[28] Now, with his trip in mid-November 2003 to England, President Bush will unquestionably seek to convince Prime Minister Blair again of the importance of “finding” WMD. The Bush administration at this point is willing to take its chances. Finding WMD, even with the suspicions that will arise, is better than continuing on without finding it at all.

However, it does appear that the Bush administration and now the country wish to buck heads with both biblical and secular history. While Rome, after seeing its own heyday pass, came to the conclusion that global conquest served the best interests of Rome’s future, no doubt history clearly attests that such policy, enmeshed openly, as today, in corruption and cronyism,[29] is doomed to failure, after running a course of death and devastation.

Similar to the time of Rome, there appears, as part and parcel of a policy of global conquest, a need to separate people from God^[30]and to look for solutions in an all powerful omniscient, omnipresent and unchallengeable central/universal government.

The problems faced by the U.S. today in Iraq and elsewhere do not connect to a war against terrorism, but a war against changing the culture of the region, part and parcel of the perceived movement to separate the region from its biblical roots and foundation. To show equal application of guiding principles, this agenda also applies to the U.S. and other countries incorporated by choice or otherwise into the new world order realm^[31].

The consequences of accepting the current course leading to the “New America” can be gleaned in looking more deeply into the facets of the Bush failing in Iraq. It defies description or understanding that a claimed advanced and educated population would want to stand oblivious to a government that represents ultimately an oppressive if not a failed future for them and their descendants.

The failure in the Bush plan is attributable to one reason and one reason alone: the failure in the interpretation that Saddam in the first instance would use WMD and in the worst-case scenario, if not, that WMD would be found. To his credit, Prime Minister Blair to date has resisted finding a solution outside the pale of democratic leadership, highlighting the need to identify and question the policies, tactics, techniques of the current administration, rejected by history, and which lead to heightened levels of abuse and corruption, and ultimately failure for all those involved and concerned.

News reports concurrent with the imminent and actual invasion were replete with stories of the anticipated use of WMD and how the Pentagon had prepared troops accordingly. No doubt the cabal anxious to initiate the second platform of moral outrage provided President Bush on March 19, 2003, with intelligence where he authorized the launch of thirty six missiles and two bunker buster bombs to take out the Iraqi leadership, said to include Saddam’s two sons, before the US commenced ground troop movement.[32]

By next morning, Washington time, President Bush learned that the missile strikes did not pay off as anticipated. However, what is important to focus upon is that within thirty five minutes of the strike, Iraq commenced a military response, and U.S. troops, remaining static and dormant in Northern Kuwait for some 24 hours after the war commenced, needed to don on and off protective gear numerous times. U.S. troops were thereby sitting targets, without any standing order to move against Iraq. What is thereby manifest is that the launch on March 19th encouraged Iraq to respond militarily, when US troops were clustered in Northern Iraq. After Iraq eviscerated itself militarily in complying with US influenced UN mandate to do so, the fourth question arises: what assets did Iraq have to counter the US invasion?[33] The Bush administration all along attested to the anticipated, the expected, deployment of WMD by Iraq, and thus what were U.S. troops sitting there to think when they are directed to repeatedly go into a “MOPP-2” level” requiring them to put on a gas mask, charcoal-lined jacket and pants, rubber boots and rubber gloves in the scorching desert heat, awaiting word of their purpose in sitting there stagnant and stationary after war commenced?[34] Televised field interviews with lower level commanding officers in Northern Kuwait showed them mystified why they were kept sitting there putting on and removing several time a day considerable gear to deflect WMD, with what they themselves saw as the commencement of war.

When a government uses its military in such a horrid fashion[35], and has no good reason to explain why troops are kept as sitting ducks for Iraqi response after it encourages Iraqi military response, when the government itself is expecting the use of WMD, as attested to by the training given the troops and directives to put on and take off protective gear in such regard, it leads many to focus on the reality that despite promises by President Bush for a full investigation of 9-11 that none was ever truly forthcoming,[36] with those in Washington complaining often that the Bush administration was the impediment in chief to moving forward to full and complete discovery.[37] Thus, the foundation is there to explain the “New America” as one possibly carrying more reason to worry about than the one in Rome. [38]

Moreover, Americans should better understand that the EU nations are prime beneficiaries of the current and potential future oil confiscations/privatization and that the U.S. currency, its military and its economy must be compromised to make the nation compliant to accepting the eventual invitation to relinquish its historic independence and sovereignty. The EU has always been married to the US leadership since Bush 41, in pursuit of the new world order agenda. In the waging of a war for occupation, control and national treasures, there was no need to implicate unnecessary and unneeded parties, as long as the mission was allowed to proceed. Once it succeeded, hand selected leaderships in Iraq, Syria and Iran would ultimately assume high profile roles at the United Nations, including the Security Council, to move forward the agenda to the next plateau. With the mission failing, this is not possible and the EU is far better positioned than otherwise, albeit it is clear that they have been cooperative in allowing the Bush administration to control Iraq, including the oil, albeit the failure of the premises given for war.

Conclusion

President Bush has no intent to leave Iraq. Further if he fails to effectuate regime and culture change in Syria and Iran, the new world order agenda is not only stayed but stymied, allowing China to resurface again to take paramount control of the Middle East[39] with Middle Eastern regimes ready to move against the U.S. dollar. [40]

Thus, President Bush’s need to complete the mission is more important today than before he launched against Iraq. Once hand picked governments are installed in Iraq, Syria and Iran, then authority should shift to the UN to legitimatize the next wave of actions and events to bring the world to a central world government. In the interim, there was no need to taint the true beneficiaries of the campaign, the EU, married to the U.S. leadership, since Bush 41, in the one world government platform. Without doubt, all those responsible for giving the current President Bush the incorrect underpinnings for the strategy devised are in the woodshed. Thus, all the more incentive for them to make certain that there are no such major failings again in the mission and campaign. Now having included Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the platform for change and democracy, the President has put enormous tension into the Middle East, compelling current regimes to band together in an offset that the Bush administration only hopes translates into another platform for him to move forward militarily to fulfill fully his original mission under his NSS.

The real basis of the war is connective with the refusal of the Arab/Islamic nations to be cooperative participants in the new world order agenda. In this regard they follow their biblical mandate,[41] whereas Israel seemingly has gone the path of contravening its biblical mandate, showing the willingness to join the new world order to be a nation among nations. Thereby, many students of bible and history find the current conflict and situation to be one where under biblical mandate the Arab/Islamic nations are hard pressed to lose regardless of the absence of comparative military prowess. In this regard, noting the dismal economic status of Israel, and noting the abysmal failure of the Bush team to complete their full mission, due to the unexpected, it behooves all of us to watch how events unfold. It would appear, before seeing them unravel, that the “Old America” was a treasure to honor and defend, before allowing the type of influences that could so readily cause Americans to discard it for what replaced it.

Joseph B. Ehrlich

Hewlett Harbor, New York

November 19, 2003

[1] It would be specious to suggest that the United States fully relied on the argument that the Iraqi people would simply welcome U.S. invading forces with open arms.

[2] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing for the Telegraph filed the following on January 7, 2002: China backs euro at dollar’s expense: “The Chinese government gave the euro its much-coveted seal of approval yesterday, announcing that it would switch part of its vast dollar reserves into the world’s emerging “reserve currency.”” This seemingly innocuous event no doubt had major repercussions in Washington for the reasons discussed, infra.

[3] Such hostility was made no secret from the media. The New York Times on January 10, 1992, reported: "Bush's Painful Trip. There was no specter of nuclear war, of course. But negotiators seemed to realize that if the huge and growing trade deficit between Japan and the United States was not brought under control, it could drive Tokyo and Washington apart, hurt their economies and damage Mr. Bush's re-election prospects….It was too early to discern the American political effects of the Tokyo talks. But the widespread view in Japan was that the negotiators' efforts would not help the American economy or Mr. Bush's political fortunes, and indeed that they could lead to even deeper Japanese-American antagonism."

Japan was noted in the above New York Times article as a “rival superpower to the U.S. in the post cold-war area.” What riled Bush 41 and the United States was that the U.S. in its pursuit of assistance was treated as a welfare case, seeking sympathy of foreign governments. The New York Times wrote: “All week, Prime Minister Miyazawa appealed to Japanese and to Japanese auto companies to make some sacrifice for the United States out of sympathy or compassion (emphasis added). At a news conference at the Shinto shrine of Ise, he tried to stir sympathy for the American condition but sounded, to some Americans, very patronizing.” This picture of pathos was only further embellished under the fact that just prior to these statements calling for “sympathy” President Bush collapsed at a state dinner. The New York Times reported, “{Japan} was being asked to respond from a position of strength to help what the Prime Minister called ‘a friend in need.’” All that occurred came to a head ultimately in 1995, confirming that what was in play was a covert plan to undermine the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency and thereby the U.S. economy and the U.S. Tantamount to the Palestinian suicide bombings on Israel, the true target was the U.S. economy. See footnote 7, infra.

[4] In the Spring of 1995, on ABC’s This Week with David Brinkley, Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey and former Trade Representative Carla Hills, warned that America could get hurt by playing hardball with Japan. Last minute intense negotiations were taking place in Geneva. As negotiations approached the June 28th deadline, Japan opened personal attacks against U.S. lead negotiator, Mickey Kantor. Japan’s chief negotiator, Ryutaro Hashimoto, was someone who was an open foe of the United States. He, as chairman of the Japan War Bereaved Families Association, fiercely opposed apologies for Japan’s wartime actions. He represented Japan in U.S. trade negotiations. He gave up nothing. So when Kantor presented Hashimoto with a kendo bamboo marital arts sword as a gift, Hashimoto, according to the news reports, " brandished the sword, known as a shinai, under Kantor's nose with a broad smile, he then handed it to an aide...." If this wasn’t insult enough for Kantor and the U.S., Hashimoto told the world media that "...arguing with Kantor is ``more scary than even my wife when I come home drunk.''

[5] The New York Times noted the consequence of the covert agenda against the U.S. dollar when on March 8, 1995, it noted that Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin “was forced to spend hours on the telephone today with finance ministers around the world amid growing concern in Washington that further instability might threaten both the nation’s prestige and the dollar’s position as the pre-eminent reserve currency.” By April 19, 1995, concurrent with the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Japan the dollar was in a near crisis status. The New York Times on that date noted: “ More traders and analysts worry now that the weak dollar is at last beginning to pull down stocks and bonds with it. While no steep fall of all three markets together has yet occurred, the fear that the dollar’s weakness could sour other much healthier markets makes analysts and Government officials concerned that its fall could precipitate a crisis.”

[6] On October 27, 2000, in a small blurb carrying enormous implications, The New York Times noted: “EURO RISES. The euro rose on speculation that Iraq’s demand that its oil exports be sold for euros rather than dollars will bolster the currency. In New York, the euro settled at 82.96 cents, up from 82.81 cents on Wednesday. The euro currently trades well above par with the U.S. dollar. The Bush administration made it clear that it carried no historical reservation about the techniques it would deploy to quiet this danger, made manifest in its support in 2002 for regime change in Venezuela. See footnote 13, infra. However, now it becomes clearer day-by-day that brutal tactics and techniques tend to backfire. Not only was Bush 43 unsuccessful in regime change in Venezuela, not only did he fail to complete the true covert scope of the mission in waging war against Iraq, but on April 15, 2003 the Wall Street Journal reported: “According to Ibrahim Ado-Kurwa, an independent Nigerian Muslim scholar and writer from Kano, many Muslims think that the antidollar, pro euro campaign must continue beyond the Iraq war. He argues that pressing for adoption of the euro is the only way ordinary people can fight the U.S. ‘Muslims, as we can see, don’t have a fighting chance in a military campaign against America.’ Said Mr. Ado-Kurwa. “So our fight must be economic and it will take time.”” The same Wall Street Journal article further noted: “Still, the common European currency has presented the first real competitor to the dollar in world markets since the modern system of international exchange was adopted in 1944. If the euro maintains its strength over time, big oil producers could begin denominating their sales in euros, or at least away from dollars, toward a basket of other currencies without suffering much, if any, economic pain, say some economists. Over the long term, “It would be a great mistake not to treat the threat seriously,” saying Robert Mundell, a Columbia University professor whose research provided much of the theoretical foundation for the establishment of the euro.”

[7] When Israel first encountered the escalation in 2002 in suicide bombings, it was first remiss in realizing that the strategic goal was to compromise the Israeli economy. By curtailing tourism, committing Israel to call up reserve troops, and demoralizing the nation with a generalized state of fear, it could undermine the state by damaging its economy. As a net result, Israel once identifying the true agenda, enlisted additional financial assistance from the U.S. to counter the strategy. Naturally, the U.S., if faced with the same agenda via an attack on the U.S. dollar to extirpate its role as the international reserve currency, could not enlist similar relief from any other source. Therefore, it had to deal head on with the perceived attack, as it ultimately did with Japan. Here the U.S. moved against Iraq, and also as discussed herein, set its sights on Iran.

[8] Ironically, contrary to the help Bush 41 did not get from Prime Minister Miyazawa, Prime Minister Koisumi attempts to offer help to Bush 43: “Some analysts even suggest that Mr. Koisumi is politically shrewd for trying to weaken the yen now – Japan has spent a record 13 trillion yen ($119 billion) buying dollars this year – rather than in 2004, when Mr. Bush will have to face voters on the campaign trail. If Japan’s strategy succeeds and a broader economic recovery takes hold, then Mr. Koisumi will be able to back off on exchange rates next year, giving Mr. Bush some political breathing room.” New York Times, In Japan, Bush Faces Tough Sell on the Dollar, October 15, 2003.

[9] Thomas Friedman as cited by Haaretz in April 2003 declared: “It’s a war the neo-conservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.”

Theretofore he eloquently expressed the change in attitude in the current administration from any administration before it by writing on March 9, 2003, in the New York Times as follows: “I went to President Bush's White House news conference on Thursday to see how he was wrestling with the momentous issue of Iraq. One line he uttered captured all the things that are troubling me about his approach. It was when he said: ''When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.'' The first thing that bothered me was the phrase, ''When it comes to our security . . .'' Fact: The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did. This is not a war of necessity. ***Because if Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a decent Iraq, but something more important -- America's efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world. A story. In 1945 King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia met President Franklin D. Roosevelt on a ship in the Suez Canal. Before agreeing to meet with Roosevelt, King Abdul Aziz, a Bedouin at heart, asked his advisers two questions about the U.S. president: ''Tell me, does he believe in God and do they [the Americans] have any colonies?'' The real question the Saudi king was asking was: how do these Americans use their vast power? Like the Europeans, in pursuit of colonies, self-interest and imperium, or on behalf of higher values? That's still the most important question for U.S. national security. ***Think about F.D.R. He had just won World War II. America was at the apex of its power. It didn't need anyone's permission for anything. Yet, on his way home from Yalta, confined to a wheelchair, F.D.R. traveled to the Mideast to meet and show respect for the leaders of Ethiopia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Why? Because he knew he needed them not to win the war, but to win the peace (emphasis supplied).”

[10] The escalation of Chinese influence in the Middle East caused real US concern when China forged a new relationship in Venezuela after the failed coup. The following news article, Chinese Premier Meets Venezuelan Foreign Minister, shows the reasons for concern: “ December 3, 2002: China and Venezuela have seen frequent exchanges of high-level visits, enhanced trade and economic cooperation and closer consultations and coordination in international affairs in recent years, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji said Monday. Zhu made the remark in a meeting with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Roy Chaderton Matos, giving high evaluation of the development of bilateral relations since China and Venezuela forged diplomatic ties. He mentioned in particular the visits between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in April and May last year, which defined a strategic partnership for common development for the two nations in the new century. China values its relationship with Venezuela, and pledges continued efforts to further friendly ties, Zhu said. Chaderton praised China's achievements since his last visit 21 years ago, saying the country is building its future in line with its magnificent blueprint. He said Venezuela attaches importance to developing relations with China, and the two countries' long-term friendship and strategic partnership will benefit both peoples. Chaderton conveyed President Chavez's greetings to Zhu, who asked to send his regards to the president, and also expressed condolence on the casualties caused by a blaze in Venezuela's capital Caracas last night.

The source of the article suggests a message to U.S. authorities: People's Daily Online --- http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/ , especially so since China to the knowledge of the U.S. made similar inroads in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

China had already cited its displeasure with the NSS as follows: Xinhua: September 23, 2002, Military supremacy at core of US security goals WASHINGTON: Now it is final: The Cold War strategy of deterrence is dead, the United States can take pre-emptive action against hostile states or terrorist groups when it sees fit. This aggressive strategy and the clear target of maintaining US military supremacy in the world were at the core of the first national security strategy adopted by the Bush administration. The White House released the strategy document on Friday. In the 33-page document, Bush said the task of defending the United States against its enemies - "the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government" - has changed dramatically since the country now faces a new type of threat. In the past, enemies needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger the United States, the document said. "Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank." The grave danger the United States faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology, the document said. Therefore, the United States should seek to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and adopt a new strategy in the new security environment. "Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy" who is "stateless and targets innocents," the document said. To forestall or prevent hostile acts by the enemies, "the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively," it said. It was widely believed that Bush's strategy of pre-emptive strikes was shaped by the September 11 terrorist attacks. The international community has cast doubts over the concept of pre-emption, saying it contradicts the concept of self-defence defined by the United Nations Charter and would encourage other countries to take actions against their rivals without clear threat. Nowadays, the world is nervously watching the intensified debate in the United States about a possible "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq, which Washington accuses of seeking weapons of mass destruction. The consequence of such a strategy has yet to unfold. In its national security strategy, the Bush administration shows no desire to hide its intention of consolidating a unipolar world by maintaining its military superiority. "The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy - whether a state or non-state actor - to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends," the document said. "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." Compared with the last national security strategy published by former US President Bill Clinton at the end of 1999, the new US strategy shares the goal of maintaining the US position as the only superpower in the world, but adopts different approaches. While the Bush administration pinpointed terrorism as the biggest threat to the United States, the former Clinton administration regarded global economic problems as the biggest threat facing the country. Although the Clinton strategy stated that the United States "must always be prepared to act alone," it did not use the word pre-emption. Another sharp difference lies in the attitudes of the two administrations towards international treaties. The Clinton administration saw international treaties including those on arms control and nonproliferation as "essential elements" of the national security strategy. But the Bush strategy dismisses most of those efforts, arguing that the nonproliferation effort has failed and celebrating the administration's withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty last year (emphasis supplied).

[11] NBC transcript excerpt (February 23, 2003): MR. PERLE: Excuse me, the lesson of September 11 was that you shouldn’t have been voting on September 12 because we should have acted against al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We heard the communications. We knew that they were planning additional acts of terror as they had undertaken previous acts of terror. And we waited. We failed to take action in a timely manner and the congressman is now saying that we have to wait. REP. KUCINICH: Are you saying that to be critical of President Bush? Is that what you’re saying? MR. PERLE: I’m critical of the failure to recognize the threat that Osama bin Laden posed before— everything we did after September 11 could have been done before September 11. But if we had proposed doing that, I have no doubt the congressman would say, “There’s no evidence. There’s no imminent threat (emphasis added).”

[12] The following article by Margo Kingston on September 22, 2002, reflects the global critical perspective to what they read in the National Security Strategy (Manifesto for world dictatorship):

“Now we know. The Americans have spelt it out in black and white. There will be a world government, but not one even pretending to be comprised of representatives of its nation states through the United Nations. The United States will rule, and not according to painstakingly developed international law and norms, but by what is in its interests. In declaring itself dictator of the world, The United States will have no accountability to non-United States citizens. It will bomb who it likes when it likes, and change regimes when and as it sees fit, it will not be subject to investigations for war crimes, for torture, or for breaches of fundamental human rights. When it asks the United Nations to move against Iraq, it is not demanding agreement to a strong case for action. It now admits it has no evidence that Iraq is preparing to use weapons of mass destruction against any other country. The Americans have stopped pretending, and now demand outright capitulation to its hegemony. The world will be policed in American interests. Full stop. So now American history screams from background discussion to the forefront of debate. The Americans - despite their promises to be a benevolent dictatorship, do not aim to build, stabilise, and promote democracies. They aim to impose puppets, and agree to Faustian deals which brutalise and disempower citizens. They pay no heed to the disastrous results of such dictatorships when imposed in the past. Australia's choice is to become a non-enfranchised satellite state of the United States - and thus responsible for its aggression and a legitimate target for those fighting to win back countries the Americans take by force, or to fight like hell to save the United Nation's dream of world government by negotiation. The United Nations itself - the dream of multilateral solutions to problems only the world acting together can solve, is on the brink of collapse. This could be one hell of a debate, and I can't see Labor going for American unilateralism and the crushing of the UN. Yes, it's true, much of the sentiment against United State's behaviour is anti-American. It's also pro-Australian, French, or whatever country you feel you belong to. The stunning New York Times scoop - publishing President Bush's new national security strategy, to be given to Congress - is a frightening document. But as David Plumb said in The Crusade's progress, "It is time to stop being outraged by the directness and aggression of realpolitic". What can the rest of the world do? “

[13] President Bush despite no use of WMD still moved to enlist support for a campaign against Syria and Iran. He argued that there was a need to assure democracy in the Middle Eastern countries, and he included Egypt in the scope of the discussion. See footnote 23, infra. This controversial inclusion suggested the same dynamic Bush 41 faced in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. While Mikhail Gorbachev was instrumental in its collapse, regime change was needed to obtain a leadership that would better play into the new world order agenda. The excuse is nearly always the need to quickly bring democracy, but the Bush administration’s legerdemain in deploying the argument was made evident in the way he supported regime change in oil-laden Venezuela. Andrew Redding who directs the Americas Project of the World Policy Institute in New York wrote on April 19, 2002 for the Pacific News Service: “None of these {Latin American} Presidents has much sympathy for Chavez. Most would love to see him removed from office at the ballot box. But they all understand there is something far more important at stake – development of respect for democracy and the rule of law in a region long vulnerable to military over throws of elected governments. By aligning himself with a failed coup, President Bush has done incalculable damage to long-term U.S. interests in Latin America. He has made it seem that ensuring a steady supply of Venezuelan oil means more to Washington than the future of constitutional government in Latin America. Once again, U.S. support for democracy in Latin America is seen as hollow: only in cases where its friends are elected does support materialize.*** Like Bush himself, Pedro Carmona, the interim president who was backed by the White House, is a former oil executive. Until recently, he headed the country’s most prominent big business lobbying organization. Carmona lent substance to the worst caricatures of the United States — and President Bush in particular — as an ally of wealthy foreign elites with despotic tendencies. In just one day in power, Carmona suspended the constitution, dismissed Congress and the supreme court, and dispatched security forces to arrest cabinet members and members of Congress. In other words, he did more harm to the constitutional order in one day than Chávez had done in years (emphasis added).

In an editorial entitled W's Venezuela Disgrace, the hypocrisy of claims of democracy to pursue militaristic preemptive solutions explained the new levels of disrespect for the U.S.: “The Bush administration disgraced the USA's commitment to democracy and also bungled relations with one of our top oil suppliers when it embraced the April 12 military/business coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Congress must step up to investigate what role the Bush administration played in the abortive coup that tried to replace the populist Chávez with a business-oriented dictator more palatable to the Bush White House.*** The irony that Bush, who was put in office by the Supreme Court in 2000 after he lost the popular vote, would lecture Chávez, who was overwhelmingly elected in 1998, is not lost on other nations who are used to self-righteous rhetoric from the norteamericanos.*** On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America to his office. When the representative from Brazil said his country could not condone a rupture of democratic rule in Venezuela, Reich reportedly responded that the ouster of Chávez was not a rupture of democratic rule because he had resigned and was "responsible for his fate." Reich said the US would support the Carmona government and other Latin American countries "had to support the new government," a diplomat told the New York Times. But while 19 Latin American heads of state denounced the coup as a violation of democratic principles, only the Bush administration in the name of the USA endorsed the military action. Newsweek reported in its April 29 issue that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was investigating contacts between US officials and the Venezuelan military officers involved in the botched takeover. Among those suspected of financing the plot is Gustavo Cisneros, a media tycoon and fishing buddy of former president George H.W. Bush. (Cisneros denies any role, Newsweek said. But Pedro Carmona, the president of Fedecámaras, the main national business confederation, who was sworn in as Chavez's replacement on April 12, was seen coming directly from Cisneros' office.) After Chavez's reinstatement, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice warned Chávez to "respect constitutional processes (emphasis added)."

Due to the failure of Iraq to deploy WMD, the Middle East leaderships now clearly know the full scope of the Bush design, and his Rose Garden remarks and NSS doctrines now turn to bite the Bush administration badly, the threat of a move to supplant the dollar with the euro increasingly real and sinister. Thus the Bush administration is desperate for the completion of the full scope of the mission, or else its failure will have dire implications for the U.S. and could unravel the New World Order agenda.

[14] The fact that the U.S. moved immediately to guard and protect the oil fields, while allowing children to languish and die because hospitals were left unguarded and unprotected, with the concurrent destruction of historical Iraqi artifacts, did little to diminish the argument that the U.S. was out for the oil. The hypocrisy and true character of the Bush mission is also seen by oil company and U.S. complicity in Equatorial Guinea (see footnote 23, infra).

[15] Tom Brokaw in an NBC television interview with President Bush in on April 24, 2003 had the courage to highlight the administration’s deceit: BROKAW: One of the reasons you justified this war was that he {Saddam} posed a real threat to the U.S. If he couldn't defend his own country -- and we have not yet been able to find the WMD, which were not even launched in defense of Iraq, (President Bush: "Right"), was that threat overstated? PRESIDENT BUSH: "No, not at all." The consequence of the legerdemain was that both North Korea and Iran moved to augment their nuclear weapons program. These countries no doubt saw how the US manipulated Iraq into standing as a militarily inept nation, and Saddam’s reward for compliance with UN mandates was to see Iraq subject to the devastation of “shock and awe” attacks, in what history can only record as an invasion.

from transcript Polish TV interview with president bush on May 31, 2003:

Q: But, still, those countries that didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war? THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them (emphasis added).

BUSH VOWS TO FIND WMD CRAWFORD, Texas (May 3) - President Bush said Saturday it is a matter of when - not if - weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq while suggesting that task is getting little help from Saddam Hussein's captured confederates. ''We'll find them,'' Bush said of Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. ''It'll be a matter of time to do so.'' Iraq's alleged possession of such weapons was Bush's main rationale for war, but none has been found since Saddam's government fell more than three weeks ago.

In discussing the third plateau, infra, the door is still open for the President under policies and techniques shown under the realm of this administration to still find them, especially in light of his visit in mid-November 2003 to England, but the dynamic will always be open, in contravention thereto, that if Saddam Hussein had such weapons, what purpose did they have if they were not deployed in defense of his country?

In another blow to the President, on November 16, 2003, Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, reported that he found no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

[16] See full discussion, pages 19-24, infra.

[17] BLAIR ADVISOR ADMITS THAT US AND UK WENT TO WAR FOR THE OIL MAY 14, 2003: “International Development Secretary Clare Short quit the Cabinet Monday with a House of Commons speech lambasting Blair for a "control-freak style" that was concentrating power "into the hands of the prime minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who make decisions in private without proper discussion. "Increasingly those who are wielding power are not accountable and not scrutinized," she added. Blair and a group of young colleagues took leadership of the fractious Labor Party in the mid 1990s, jettisoned many of its long-held left-wing policies and led it to power in 1997 after 18 years in opposition. Criticisms of Blair's obsession with image have flourished ever since. His chief spin doctor, Alastair Campbell, is a household name and a satirists' favorite. Blair employs a raft of "special advisers" -- his office would not disclose how many -- among the 190 staff in his 10 Downing St. office. "The premiership in Britain has become much more presidential," said Anthony Seldon, editor of "The Blair Effect," a book about the prime minister. "No. 10 is 10 times bigger than it was 25 years ago."

British ex-PM Major launches fierce attack on Blair "spin" October 24, 2003: “ Former British prime minister John Major launched a stunning attack on his successor Tony Blair, accusing him of eroding the trust of the people and undermining parliament. In his first significant political intervention since retiring from parliament two years ago, the former Conservative leader denounced the Labour prime minister's manipulation of the media as "the pornography of politics". In a pamphlet published in Friday's right-wing Daily Telegraph, Major said Blair's apparent indifference to the views of parliament and cynical news management had "done immense damage to politics". "It is fatal to the conduct of policy if the word of any government is disbelieved until proven beyond doubt to be true," Major said. "The erosion of trust has now reached the point where it is undermining the ability of the government to call on the trust of the people," said Major, who was prime minister from 1990 until the Conservatives lost 1997 general elections to the Labour Party led by Blair. Major has up until now resisted requests for interviews since he retired from active politics. But in the pamphlet titled "The Erosion of Parliamentary Government", Major said: "Spin is the pornography of p