SECRET AGENDA
PART 1 of 2
By Dr. Stanley Monteith
March 17, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Most Americans believe the U.S. won the Cold War, yet Russia is deploying a new generation of rockets "designed . . . to bypass western anti-missile defense," China is modernizing its nuclear warheads, Peru has declared a "state of emergency" in the south where Maoist revolutionaries (Shining Path rebels) seized a town and Sri Lanka is fighting Maoist rebels who control a large part of that country. India, Britain, and the U.S. have embargoed arms shipments to the King of Nepal who is fighting Maoist rebels who are trying to overthrow his government. If the U.S.-backed embargo is successful, the democratically elected government of Nepal will fall. [1] Why are these things happening? The situation is confusing unless you are old enough to remember the tragic events that took place during the twentieth century.
Following World War II the U.S. embargoed arms shipments to the Nationalist Chinese, and brought Chairman Mao's regime to power [2] The U.S. embargoed arms shipments to Cuba, ordered President Batista to leave, and brought Fidel Castro to power [3] The U.S. embargoed arms shipments to Nicaragua, told President Somoza to leave, and brought the Sandinista to power.[4] CIA officials met with the Ayatollah Khomeini before the Iranian revolution. The U.S. undermined the Iranian government, told the Shah to leave, and brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power [5] The U.S. embargoed arms shipments and essential supplies to Rhodesia, and brought Robert Mugabe's Maoist government to power. [6] Why did the U.S. destabilize many pro-western governments, and bring Marxist governments to power? Why is the U.S. undermining the democratically elected government of Nepal today?
General Gamal Abdel Nasser faced that dilemma when he ruled Egypt (1953-1970). He wrote a letter to President Kennedy that asked:
"Why does the United States, a country established on foundations of freedom and by means of a revolution, oppose the call of freedom and revolutionary movements, and line up with reactionary forces and enemies of progress?" [7]
Elsewhere, General Nasser wrote:
"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something we are missing." [8]
I believe U.S. foreign policy is designed to confuse the American people and national leaders who are unaware of the Spiritual Hierarchy's plan to "establish an enlightened democracy among the nations of the world."[9] The tragic situation in the Middle East is an excellent example of that strategy. If you analyze the events taking place, they defy logic. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly elected President of Iran, has announced his country will continue enriching uranium despite the objections of the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), the UN, the U.S., Israel, and many other nations.[10]
President Ahmadinejad could have agreed to negotiate the issue, and covertly continued Iran's nuclear program, but he didn't. He spurned Russia's offer to provide enriched uranium, he rejected the UN's offer to negotiate the dispute, he "called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map,'" he denied the Holocaust took place, and suggested "the Jewish state should be moved to Europe." [11]President Ahmadinejad seems to be trying to inflame the passion of the Israelis, and their allies in the United States. Why would a rational man risk imposition of UN sanctions on his country? Why would a logical man encourage a pre-emptive attack on his nation? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insane? Is he demented? Is he affiliated with the Spiritual Hierarchy that controls most governments?
Last month's Radio Liberty letter discussed Congressman John Murtha's November 17, 2005, address to Congress which revealed:
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. . . . Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. . . . The main reason for going to war has been discredited. . . . The intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. . . . I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals. . . . What demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace. . . . The future of our military is at risk. . . . Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. . . . Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. . . . We must rebuild our Army. . . . Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. . . . Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. . . . Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. . . . Insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. . . . Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. . . . We have become a catalyst for violence. . . . A poll . . . shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified."[12]
President Bush responded to Congressman Murtha's remarks on December 18, 2005. Speaking from the Oval Office, President Bush proclaimed:
"Three days ago . . . Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders. . . . This election will not mean the end of violence. But it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East. And this vote . . . means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. . . . Yet our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us."[13]
If you analyze President Bush's opening statement, and understand the Spiritual Hierarchy wants to expand the war in the Middle East, you can anticipate what lies ahead. The U.S. will remain in Iraq because "our work is not done. There is more testing and sacrifice before us." The fighting will continue, many more young Americans (and Iraqis) will die, but their deaths are justified because the Iraqi election "is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East." Does the creation of a "constitutional democracy" justify the U.S. attack on Iraq? Will a "constitutional democracy" in the Middle East restore the lives of the young Americans and the Iraqi civilians who have died?
President Bush claims he ordered the attack on Iraq because he was misled by faulty intelligence:
"It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[14]
In actuality, the intelligence reports President Bush received were correct. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used them on several occasions. The American people have been deceived by media pundits and politicians who debate the wrong issues. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs. The proper questions are:
1. Where did Saddam Hussein get the materials required to build his WMDs?
2. Was Saddam Hussein's regime a threat to the U.S.?
3. What happened to Saddam's WMDs?
4. Why wasn't Saddam Hussein sent to Europe, and tried by a UN court?
You can't understand the events taking place in the Middle East today unless you understand the answers to those questions.
1. Where did Saddam Hussein get the materials required to build his WMDs?
An article in the January 6-12, 2003, National Weekly Edition of The Washington Post answers that question. During the 1980s:
"The United States 'actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure Iraq had the military weaponry required'. . . .
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.
The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret. In February 1984. . . . The Iraqis continued to use chemical weapons against the Iranians until the end of the Iran - Iraq war. . . .
Although U.S. export controls to Iraq were tightened in the late 1980s . . . Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite U.S. government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents."[15]
The U.S. funded Saddam Hussein's war with Iran, and provided the materials used to produce Saddam's WMDs. Was anyone in the U.S. Commerce Department fired or censured for supplying the lethal material? If not, we can assume the officials did what they were told to do.
2. Was Saddam Hussein's regime a threat to the U.S.?
Before he retired from the U.S. military, four-star Marine General Anthony Zinni was Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and special envoy to the Middle East. When Steve Kroft interviewed General Zinni on CBS's 60 Minutes on May 23, 2004, Kroft quoted General Zinni's statement:
"Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the US invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress."
When General Zinni addressed Congress, he stated:
"This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on, and I don't feel it needs to be done now."
Steve Kroft named several generals who opposed the war:
"You said that this is really a war that the generals didn't want."
General Zinni agreed, and said:
"I believe that. . . . We felt that this situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones, the sanctions that were imposed on him. Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al-Qaeda, we were engaged in Afghanistan. . . . And I think most of the generals felt, 'Let's deal with this one at a time, let's . . . deal with this threat from terrorism, from al-Qaeda.'"[16]
If Saddam Hussein was "effectively contained," and his regime wasn't a threat to the United States, why did the Bush administration attack Iraq?
3. What happened to Saddam's WMDs?
Joel Skousen, Avi Lipkin, and Dore Gold, the former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, claim that most of Saddam's WMDs were transferred to Syria, some may have been sent to Iran. Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, the former Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, verified that fact during a recent interview.[17]
You can confirm their information by going to Google and typing in "Iraq WMD Syria." There are 1,640,000 references on the site. How could that be?
Why does the Bush administration claim there were no WMDs in Iraq? I suspect the weapons will be found when the U.S. invades Syria, or topples that government.
4. Why wasn't Saddam Hussein sent to Europe, and tried by a UN court?
U.S. officials had to control the judicial process, and prevent mention of the fact that Saddam worked for the CIA in the late 1950s, was financed by the U.S. in the 1980s, and received most of the materials used to produce Iraq's WMDs from U.S. companies.[18]
Why did the U.S. undermine pro-Western governments and replace them with Marxist dictatorships during the latter half of the twentieth century? Why did the CIA undermine the Shaw of Iran and help bring the Ayatolla Khomeini to power in 1979? Why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein during the 1980s? Why is the U.S. trying to topple the government of Nepal today? The Secret Agenda: Part II explains what is taking place. For part 2 click below.
Click here for part-----> 2
Footnotes:
1, [Read] [Read] [Read] [Read]
2, Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, Eighty-second Congress, Second Session, S Res. 366: July 25, 1951 - June 20, 1952: Institute of Pacific Relations, pp. 204-205.
3, Earl E. T. Smith, The Fourth Floor, Random House, New York, 1962, p. 82: See Also: Cuba: The Untold Story video: Available from Radio Liberty.
4, Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua Betrayed, Western Islands, 1980, p. 353. See Also: John Rees, "Anastasio Somoza and Jack Cox," The Review of the News, Oct. 1, 1980, p. 45.
5, Fereydoun Hoveyda, The Fall of The Shah, Wyndham Books, New York, 1979, pp. 198-200.See Also: [Read]
6, Radio Liberty interview with Peter Hammond. Available from Radio Liberty.
7, Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2005, pp. 139-140.
8, Ibid., p. 120.
9, Manly P. Hall, The Secret Destiny of America, The Philosophical Research Society Inc., Los Angeles, p. 80.
10, [Read]
11, Ibid.
12, [Read]
13, [Read]
14, Ibid.
15, Michael Dobbs, "When an Ally Becomes the Enemy," The Washington Post, National Weekly Edition, January 6-12, 2003, p. 9.
16, Transcript, General Anthony Zinni interview, 60 Minutes, May 23, 2004, p.2.
17, Ira Stoll, "Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says," The New York Sun, December 15, 2005,
18, [Read]
© 2005 Stanley Monteith - All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment