(a) It is EXTREMELY unlikely that G.W. Bush has had a vast ideological "falling out" with his father.
Let us look at what Bush 41 SAID about "the future":
"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the
United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth
pledge their allegiance."
1992 -- President Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N
HOW would such a shift in allegiance be facilitated? It is certain that no President could "shift" the allegiance of the American people by words or philosophy ALONE. Let us now look at what was said regarding the explicit role Iraq would play in the future of this "New World Order::
"The world can therefore seize the opportunity (the Persian Gulf crisis) to fulfill the long held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."
—President George Bush Sr. in his State of the Union Address, January 29, 1991"
Now, BEARING IN MIND, that it's unlikely that G.W. Bush has had any ideological "falling out" with his father, what evidence do we have that Bush 41 policies are in full effect currently?
We have the choice of cabinet by G.W. Bush. He chose the very same individuals his father used, not the LEAST of which is Colon Powel. Powel is a critical figure in all of this, for HE was the one deemed most responsible for influencing the first Bush to LEAVE Saddam where he was, and right now, he APPEARED to be the "voice of moderation" and lead the way to taking this supposed "problem" to the U.N.
What is Powel's TRUE role than, and does it actually have a consistency underlying the continual appearance of his "taking the heat" for "Bad decisions"?
The simplistic term for the roles being played out is "Good cop/bad cop".
Let us examine another statement made by these people regarding Iraq and it's role in "facilitating" the destruction of the ENTIRE concept of "sovereignty" EVERYWHERE:
"We have a much bigger objective. We've got
to look at the long run here. This is an example -- the situation
between the United Nations and Iraq -- where the United Nations is
deliberately intruding into the sovereignty of a sovereign
nation...Now this is a marvelous precedent (to be used in) all
countries of the world..."
CIA director Stansfield Turner July, 1991
Now who can doubt that this "Bigger objective" and "Long run" as described, represents a policy being effected right now? Only those who are so naive as to believe that American foreign policy changes every four years with a new President. IT DOESN'T.
Now then, let us go once again to the choice of associations which have been made by G.W. Bush POST 9/11, and what we can glean of their understanding of the future and ambitions to effect it.
G.W. Bush CHOSE Kissinger to head the commission to "investigate" the causes of Sept. 11th. This choice alone smells bad, but in light of the following statements by Kissinger which are WIDELY known by everyone inside including Bush, the following statement MUST be taken very seriously and APPLIED to gaining an understanding of the current situation with regard to the United States vs. The U.N. :
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles
to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be
grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an
outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether
real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that
all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this
scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee
of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." (Dr.
Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991 )
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
