Bomb Texas

[p. 26]

Bush's conpiracy

Not a day passed, during which the present ongoing life and death struggle between Arab, American and Israeli minds took the student of international relations aback by incomprehensible noises from all sides. ‘I am not a textbook player, I am a gut player,’ said George Bush to Bob Woodward, author of Bush at War. (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2002). This president kept talking of ‘his instincts’ as if they were a second religion. Five days after 09-11 Bush barked an order to General Colin Powell, that he should at once issue an ultimatum to the Taliban ordering them to hand over bin Laden. Even a Texas High School student recognizes that it does not work that way. Bush threatened, ‘And if they do not comply, we will attack Afghanistan. Let's hit them hard. We are going to rain holy hell on them. You have got to put lives at risk. We have got to have people on the ground...’ Powell wanted time to consider this ultimatum. Bush consented. ‘I want them quaking in their boots,’ he warned. (Woodward pp. 97-98)

The president insisted that he needed bin Laden dead or alive. ‘That is how I feel,’ he added. He quickly signed a White House secret directive ordering us forces and the cia to capture or kill bin Laden. No-one, neither Bush nor Blair, ever proved that bin Laden was the 09-11 mastermind behind the killings. The world simply took Bush's word for it and the blind accusation was parroted millions of times. Afterwards, everybody took this to be the truth, whilst others than Al Queda could have very possibly committed this crime.

Anyone who follows the news these days is faced with the impossible task of trying to decode and bring into perspective an avalanche of lies, weird mixtures of fact, fiction and pronouncements that are linked to downright criminal behavior in the highest echelons of the White House. The result of these us tactics of whipping up global fear is that anxiety for possible more of these 09-11 disasters has taken possession of people everywhere. This is noticeable from the corridors of the United Nations to the streets of Gaza, and Jerusalem. As a real fear is exists that terrorism may strike anywhere at any time.

Even in an age where man can execute a suspect by firing a rocket from an unmanned Predator drone, the central nervous system of human beings remains an enigma. Listening to the current leader of America, one is reminded of Sigmund Freud's warning. Take into account that most people live in a reality that is half fact and half fantasy. As David Brooks reported in the London Times (March 7, 2003), the sudden waffle-free directness of the us president when speaking about Iraq alarms the fashionable doubtful commentaries about the man. ‘There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position,’ wrote Brooks. Time magazine was equally disturbed about ‘the blinding glare of the president's certainty.’ The Los Angeles Times described Bush's attitude with the headline ‘a questionable certainty.’ The New York Times ran a full-page editorial calling for more discussions, followed by another urgent plea the next day not to go to war. Nevertheless the man from Texas kept saying

[p. 27]

that he had inalterably decided to take out the man from Baghdad and he continued to depict Saddam as a menace to America and the world. Another ignominious lie.

Bush's neighbor, Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, went on television to describe Bush's warnings about Saddam as nonsense. Iraq had been defeated in 1991, and has since been sufficiently disarmed as not to be a threat to anyone. With the constant presence of us and uk warplanes in the skies of Iraq, Saddam has since the Gulf War been the prisoner of the allied powers that defeated them. ‘You cannot exercise your powers to the point of humiliating others,’ Chretien warned. He also added that he was not prepared to allow the Americans what his policies should be. ‘Canadians do not want to be looked upon as the 51st us state,’ he said. (Financial Times, September 13, 2002).

Another classic White House dirty trick was revealed in the London Sunday Telegraph, March 9, 2003. This was the very week that one of the most crucial votes in international affairs had to be decided upon. Was there to be a war against Iraq? ‘Bush's Blood Feud’ read the headline in the Sunday Telegraph. The report reminded readers of rumors, spread by the cia in 1993, that Iraq had tried to kill the then President Bush during a visit to Kuwait celebrating the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War. George junior had stayed behind, because he was busy finding a new stadium for the Texas Rangers baseball team, which he was managing at the time. Instead of his son, daughter in law Laura accompanied then President Bush to the festivities in Kuwait.

The word in 1993 was that after the Bushes had safely returned to America, the Kuwaiti authorities had discovered a Toyota Land cruiser loaded with 175lb of plastic explosives allegedly organized by Saddam Hussein, to blow up the visiting Bush family. The attack was said to have been planned either for the arrival at Kuwait Airport or during the President's speech at Kuwait University. When I discussed this story later at appropriate levels in Baghdad, the Kuwaiti version of these cia fabrications was denied. However, what never emerged was the fact that Laura Bush had also been in Kuwait.

The London paper revealed that Laura's husband wanted to avenge this supposed scheme by Saddam to kill both his father and wife. Of course, the so-called assassination plot was another cia fabrication in collusion with the Kuwaiti puppets. Being the son of a former cia director and obviously immature enough to accept anything coming out of the cia as biblical truth, junior - according to the prestigious London paper - was lending biblical truth to whatever the cia presented him with. Hence, the title of the story, ‘Bush's Blood Feud.’

Having lived for over 50 years in the United States, I know of no other people more gullible and easily taken in by misleading stories, as those dished up by the cia and other spy organizations, and widely circulated by the media. The Hollywoodisation of the American mind has been going on for more than half a century. Nowhere are facts and fiction as easily blurred as in the us press or on us television screens. When an otherwise sophisticated nationwide German audience could fall for a de-

[p. 28]

magogue such as Adolf Hitler, it is not surprising, that a far less civilized and cultured us electorate could fall for a light weight like Bush junior. How is it possible that in March 2003 no less than 40 per cent of us public opinion is convinced Saddam was involved on 09-11?

After 09-11, the planning of the Afghan war started at once. A general was sent to brief the president on preliminary war plans. One option was shown on color slides showing various methods of poisoning Afghan food supplies. Condoleezza Rice was horrified and took the slides to Rumsfeld. She complained about how anyone could have been so dumb as to suggest adopting bin Laden tactics. A poison attack was what Washington feared from Al Queda. How could the us even think about doing something similar to Afghanistan? Rumsfeld reportedly scrapped yet another planned war crime.

‘It is visceral,’ Richard Reeves wrote in The New York Times, when Bush shouts about his loathing of North Korean leader Kim Yong II. The president was reported to have said, ‘May be it is my religion. I feel passionate about this. I am not foolish. They tell me, we do not need to move too fast because the financial burdens of the Korean people will be so immense if we try to ... if this guy were to be toppled. Who would take care of North Koreans? I just don't buy that. Either you believe in freedom, and want to - and worry about the human condition, or you don't.’

Following this badly phrased and unintelligible presidential sentence, Reeves wrote, ‘Whatever that means - it could mean that the most powerful man in the world is planning to get rid of that loathsome creep in Pyongyang no matter who else gets hurt.’ Reeves added that the babble of the president of the United-States was, ‘also contradictory and sometimes almost incomprehensible.’ Reeves further quoted Bush directly as follows, ‘You can't talk your way to the solution of a problem. We are the leader. And the leader must combine the ability to listen to others, along with action. I believe in results. It is like earning capital in many ways. It is a way for us to earn capital in a coalition that may be fragile. And the reason it will be fragile is the reason that there is resentment towards us. I mean, you know, if you want to hear resentment just listen to the word unilateralism. Bush is an unilateralist. America is unilateral. You know, which I find amusing.’

During the many years I lectured in America, I often met people like George Bush, who equated criticism of the us with jealousy or envy for the general American public's personal wealth. Now Congressmen and editorial writers came up with the same nonsense, especially after China, Russia, France and Germany disagreed in the Security Council with Bush's policy of wanting to go to war. One day, Washington asks for regime change in Baghdad, the next they ask for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, French president Jacques Chirac was crystal clear. All member nations of un had to abide by the Charter, including the us. Chirac reasoned on the basis of existing international law. Bush, however, preferred to follow his Texas instincts and gut feelings always changing and improvising as events developed. ‘Are the

[p. 29]

us and France heading for divorce?’ asked Joseph Fritchett in the Herald Tribune. Philip Delves Broughton already added in the Daily Telegraph, that French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, was holding a gun to America's back.

De Villepin was the chief architect of the French-German-Russian initiative to prevent the United-States from going to war. But both German Joschka Fischer and Russian Igor Ivanov argued together with their French counterpart, that the weapons inspectors should be given more time to complete their work in Iraq. Bush and Tony Blair both remained adamant and seemed to have decided long ago on regime change. Let's remember that the Bush gang united in the Project for the New American Century had its war plan against Iraq ready in 1998, two years prior to the Texas oil mob grabbing power. What was being played out at un headquarters in 2003 was a gigantic battle of brains among the conspirators of the oil lobby and unsuspecting western friends and allies.

Joe Klein observed in Time, ‘George Bush abandoned his studied air of mild sedation only once during a primetime press conference. His eyes lighted up when he was asked if he would call for another un vote on Iraq. A poker metaphor escaped from his Inner Cowboy, ‘It is time for people to show their cards’, he said, as if he actually enjoyed the prospect of a confrontation with France, Russia and others. The tactic was unexpected: the belligerence revealing.’ Later he displayed a classic case of being chicken. He did not dare to ask for another vote in the Security Council, knowing Colin Powell and us diplomacy had totally failed to gather meaningful support for the policy of naked aggression against Iraq. Three permanent members of the Council, China, Russia and France, representing 1,5 billion people were against war. The us & uk, representing 350 million citizens in this world were for. Concluding that they would loose they abandoned the vote and launched their war. Bush and Blair acted like war criminals.

The 43rd president of the United States offers analysts plenty of food for thought. He was calling other power's bluff in a truly breathtaking gamble. When he earlier told President Saddam, ‘The game is over,’ the Prime Minister of France reminded Bush, ‘Matters of war and peace are not a game.’ However, the rich kid from Texas didn't know any better. His inner broncobuster mentality remains an obstacle. ‘Do not put me on a couch,’ he told biographer Bill Minutaglio. Junior's answer to those who try to make sense out of the mess he is making of us foreign affairs is the standard reply, ‘Do not bother me with psycho-babble.’

Nevertheless, his biographer told Newsweek, that he became convinced that Bush 43 intended to surpass his dad. He bears the same name, he went to the same school, the same college, the same fraternity, and engaged in the same line of work. However, he was never as successful as his dad in anything was. This time the son intends to prove his worth. But, how can, being an illiterate in world affairs. Even recently, he said to the press, ‘If it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission.’ He apparently does not know the significance of the us signature under the Charter of the United Na-

[p. 30]

tions. This dilettante statesman probably has no clue as to what obligations America accepted under the terms of the many treaties it signed.

Times correspondent, Thomas Friedman, picked up the blunder uttered by this screwed up president. He reported in The New York Times, how troubling it had been to hear the president utter troubling statements. Friedman underlined that there was no indication that Iraq had the intention or the capability to threaten America. If it did, the Iraqis would be simply wiped off the map. ‘This is not a war of necessity,’ wrote Friedman. ‘That was the case in Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice.’ Friedman apparently accepted his government's accusation, that it was Osama bin Laden, who launched the 09-11 attack. As a journalist, I do not accept Washington's word that Al Queda was guilty of the 2001 attacks. Without the submission of facts and substantial proof, how can anyone take Washington's word for it? From this, it follows that the us and others had no actual right to invade Afghanistan. The United-States ousted the Taliban because that they harbored Al Queda and its leader bin Laden. At a future date, when more facts and information become available, it is quite possible that Washington's Afghan adventure was another us war crime.

Again, we all heard Bush waffle on for months about a coalition of the willing, prepared to die for the freeing of the people of Iraq. Support amounted to 39 per cent among Americans in favor of war: 22 per cent of the Australians: 15 per cent of the Britons: 15 per cent of the Italians: 13 per cent of the Bulgarians and only 2 per cent of the Spaniards. Delusion remains a tyrant inside the Self. Delusional imagery frequently evolves around critical foreign policy issues. Persistent and systematic delusions are characteristic for psychotic states. (See: Delusion: Internal Dimensions of Political Life, by James Glass, University of Chicago Press, 1985). Hence, the gang of four in Washington is the victim of its collective inner tyrant. The White House had literally nothing to fear from their declared enemy in Baghdad. Nevertheless, they are shamelessly lying to their electorate and needlessly warning them that Saddam was a danger to America and the world. Each time, when I heard Bush or Blair repeat this blatant lie over and over again, I wondered whether they had reached the point of realizing no longer that they were deceiving themselves as well.

Increasingly it became more and more difficult to find one single nation, ready to support the us against Iraq. Gary Younge noted in the Guardian, ‘Every time turning on the news it's like watching a juggernaut heading towards a crowded play-ground in slow motion. We can see the catastrophe coming, but feel powerless to stop it.’ And why does the world feel powerless? Younge: ‘The irony of a man who lost an election and won a court case now all of a sudden ‘installing' democracy in the Arab world is not lost on many. Not least, because if we had anything like representative democracy in the West, Bush would be in no position to do so.’ (March 10, 2003).

Likewise, Blair suffered from a fit of delusion. He kept hoping that arm-twisting; horse-trading, phonetapping and vote-buying would gain the us-uk alliance sufficient votes in the

[p. 31]

un Security Council to launch an ultimatum to Iraq demanding total surrender by March 17, 2003. The Bush-Blair Axis of Evil similarly expected, that one week of bombing Baghdad from stratospheric heights, would simply result in killing or capturing President Saddam. Such a happy event would automatically end the war.

Washington has intended all along to install another Pinochet in Iraq. Some people seem to have forgotten, what monsters the us placed into position to do so.

Of course, Washington is aware of its record of global crimes against humanity, the current one taking place in Baghdad. Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the un recently attended the swearing in of 18 judges of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This court is empowered to hear cases concerning war crimes against humanity, including genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture committed after July 1, 2002, regardless of the nationality of the accused. As professor Michael Byers, who teaches International Law at Duke University in North Carolina has said, Washington, with soldiers deployed in 140 countries around the world, was seriously worried that us foreign policy and military decisionmaking could be subjected to unwanted judicial scrutiny if America ratified the Court. So far, 89 countries have signed up, 50 signed but still have to ratify. Again, the United-States is entirely alone in doing everything possible to undermine this Court.

Washington has already passed legislation authorizing the President to use armed force to liberate American citizens, if the Court in The Hague held them for war crimes. The us launched a campaign to secure promises from individual countries never to surrender us military personal or American officials to the International Criminal Court. Britain broke ranks in September 2002 and sided with Washington on the subject. Still, as Professor Byers underlined, if British soldiers or American pilots were to commit war crimes in Iraq, all Saddam Hussein would have to do is send a letter to Kofi Annan. The present statute explicitly strips all leaders of all countries from immunity that might normally benefit heads of state under international law, whether their nations ratified the statute or not. This includes, according to professor Beyers, the possibility of having Bush and Blair arrested for committing war crimes.

When American Lt. Colonel Gary Fabricius brags about 40ft long lightweight unmanned drones under his command, with an armory of Hellfire missiles, that can observe, find, shoot and eliminate, he should, at the same time, be aware of the fact that executions from the skies, like Israel and the United-States have now made common practice, might very well fall under competence of the newly installed International Court of Justice in The Hague. For mysterious reasons, Americans and Israelis have adopted over the past years on apparently incurable habit of executing suspected enemies from the skies. American generals nowadays have the luxury of sitting back in their viewing rooms and watching the events of modern warfare unfold on their tv screens. ‘That's the beauty of Predator drone,’ said a us sergeant, ‘We can take much higher risks with these aircraft

[p. 32]

and not worry about the human consequences.’(Daily Telegraph, March 11, 2003). These drones are already operating from an airbase close to the Iraqi border.

Scott Ritter, former un weapons inspector (1991-1998), maintained that Bush's desired regime change in Baghdad was not only a violation of international law, but also unconstitutional within the context of Bush's attack on Saddam. Ritter expressed strong opposition to granting Bush sweeping war powers. For him it was a breach of constitutional responsibility on the part of Congress, which alone, under the us Constitution, is authorized to declare war. ‘I am opposed to President Bush's rush to war with Iraq,’ he wrote. ‘As signatories to the un Charter, Americans have agreed to abide by a body of international law that explicitly governs the conditions under which nations may go to war.’

The London Independent in a front-page appeal directly addressed to Tony Blair put it on March 9, 2003 this way:

You do not have the evidence.

You do not have un approval.

You do not have your country's support.

You do not have your party's support.

You do not have the legal right.

You do not have the moral right.

You must not drag Britain into Bush's unjust and unnecessary war.

What was Tony Blair's crafty reply? I am only doing what I think is right and in the interest of the country. We all know that he thinks he is right, even when The Independent clearly proves he is wrong, Tony still feels he is right. It all proves that Blair should consult a shrink. Some call it self-confidence, others call it arrogance, and others call it plain stupidity. This reminds us of Chancellor Dr. Konrad Adenauer's observation to Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British High Commissioner in Bonn, ‘It is a great pity that God limited the intelligence of man without limiting his stupidity.’ (Power and Diplomacy, Dean Acheson, Harvard University Press, 1958, pp. 94). Adenauer's dictum applies to Bush, Blair and those who plotted this illegal war with them.

Who remembers what George Bush said during the election in 2000 when he painted his opponent Al Gore as a naive moralist who strived to become the world's policeman? David Aaronovitch recalled in the London Observer that junior shouted that America was overcommitted around the world, was throwing its weight too much around, and was telling other countries far too often how to run their affairs. ‘We need to scale back, be humble and get out of the nation-building business,’ said the son of the former president in 2000 running for the White House. Who managed to make the ignorant son of a bitch change his mind?

It must be recalled that June 3, 1997 a group of rightwing zealots, among them the president's brother, Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the notorious Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzaf and others established, what they called the Pro-

[p. 33]

ject for the New American Century or pnac. Their message three years prior to the coup to bring Bush junior to the White House, they postulated, ‘The key challenge for the us is to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests. This requires a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges. It requires a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad. It requires national leadership that accepts United States' global responsibilities.’

On January 26, 1998 this ultra rightwing lobby group wrote to President Bill Clinton, urging him to enunciate a new open imperialist us foreign policy. They asked in 1998 for the speedy removal of Saddam Hussein from power. If Clinton failed to act, this would endanger the safety of American troops in the region, as well as cast a dangerous shadow over friends and allies, like Israel and moderate Arab states. At the same time, a significant portion of the world's oil supply would be put at risk. American policy, according to the ultra reactionaries in Washington, should not be allowed to be sabotaged by a misguided insistence on unanimity within the un Security Council. What they were saying was, when we use our veto 76 times in the Security Council that's fine, because we know what is best for the world and for Israel. France used its veto 18 times, the ussr 4 times and China 2 times. We will not allow others to frustrate our plans by their misguided veto right, since they do not know anyway what is good for America and the world.

Three years prior to descending on the White House, the Bush junior plotters gave ample indications, as to where they stood. They were not prepared to allow the United Nations - for instance through a veto by a lesser power like France - stand in the way of their design for the 21st century. Had the world known earlier about this secret pnac pressure-group, few would have been surprised, when in the end junior Bush, as an executor of the Project for the New American Century, ignored the un and went ahead with his insane war against Iraq regardless what most of the rest of the world said or felt. Naturally, one of the organizers of the pnac, Richard Perle, commented afterwards in March 2003 in the Spectator, ‘Thank god for the death of the un.’ In 1936 Hitler and Mussolini displayed similar satisfaction upon the collapse of the League of Nations. It meant in practical terms, that from the moment they declared the League dead - as Perle declared the un dead - they felt free to walk into other territories. Three years later, their ‘incursions’ resulted in World War II.

Oxford University behaviorist Richard Dawkins wrote, that Bush 43 came to the White House ‘by a kind of constitutional coup d'état.’ How was it possible, he asked, that among 300 million citizens, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful people on earth, George Bush had to emerge on top? The way junior became president was indeed the result of a constitutional coup, when conservative judges on the Supreme Court handed him the presidency. However, it was also a political coup, because nobody among the electorate was aware at the time that a secret society like the pnac existed

[p. 34]

and had worked diligently for three years to ensure, that one way or the other their man would become the president. Dawkins concluded (Guardian, March 22, 2003), ‘Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighborhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for bin Laden...’ Writer Harold Pinter added next day in the program Panorama on the bbc, ‘The us with George Bush is a monster out of control.’

The pnac ideals reflected the principle that naked us power had to become the sole controlling authority in the world. It was Senator J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who in the 60's and 70's first sounded the alarm bell, and warned that the us was moving unmistakably in the direction of similar Nazi behavior.

It is abundantly clear that the pnac'ers had intended, long before they grabbed power and installed their dummy in the White House, to take complete military control of the Gulf region. The only Arab leader standing in their way was Saddam Hussein. Three years prior to 09-11 the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Perle-Wolfowitz-etcetera document literally read, ‘The us for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.’ As the Neil Mackay report stressed at the time, ‘a secret blueprint for us global domination reveals that president Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure regime change even before he took power in 2001.’

In fact, it was George Monbiot in the Guardian (March 11, 2003), who, to my knowledge, first drew his reader's attention to the existence of the pnac. The secret ‘Bush for president’ insider machinations were going on in Washington several years prior to the 2000 presidential election. The rightwing pnac fanatics clearly aimed at total us hegemony, which means global law and order, us style. Closer examination of the statement of principles, dated June 3, 1997, of the Project for the New American Century fully justifies the conclusion, that indeed the most contested election in us history, the rise to power by Bush junior, was another us Putsch along the same lines as Dallas was in 1963 or Watergate, and the removal of Richard Nixon from the White House.

Late 70's another secret lobby emerged in Washington, called, The Committee for the Present Danger, which specifically aimed at the eventual overthrow of the ussr. It was clearly a forerunner of the pnac. The earlier rightwing lobby was manned by figures like Paul Nitze, Eugene Rostov, Walt Rostov, Richard Alien, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt and others. I interviewed and corresponded with these five conspirators, whose distinct aim was the fastest possible overthrow of the Soviet Kremlin. They selected Ronald Reagan as their ideal actor spokesman. Next, they managed to get him into the White House. The choice was an excellent one serving their purpose. Ronnie was accustomed to read Hollywood scripts. Since he was also a diehard anti-communist from day one onwards, he suited the

[p. 35]

purpose of the Committee perfectly. Others did the thinking for him. They wrote his speeches, knowing full well his brain was sufficiently blank to ask any pertinent questions.

Perhaps one of the most accurate and informative books on the fall of the ussr was written by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California, a cia thinktank. The title, Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union (The Atlantic Monthly Press, New-York, 1994). The entire strategy to bring down Marxism-Leninism in its final stage is shown to have been restricted to members of Reagan's inner circle. What is occurring now in the White House, during the Bush II Administration, is a clear repeat of the tactics followed by The Committee on the Present Danger in the 80's. Again, a group of conservative extremists selected a largely ignorant man, but a willing tool, to present their Machiavellian conspiracy to the public and the world. Monica-gate and efforts to have Bill Clinton impeached, was a political interlude and effort for a mini-coup, that failed but was a clear forerunner of the total victory that was achieved in 2000-2001 by the pnac'ers.

When junior entered the White House, what he needed most was a crash course in international politics. His general ignorance also meant that he was an easy prey for ultra-nationalist power-hungry maniacs. Soon after becoming the most powerful man in the world, Bush announced a rather naive but very ambitious missile defense program aimed at shooting down incoming nuclear missiles. Monbiot clarified that the real purpose of this nutty project was to turn space into a new theatre of war. The proposal was based on a document prepared by the Pentagon entitled Vision for 2020.

In the eighties, when working in Moscow, I recall rumors that the Russians had developed laser weapons that were to be placed on the moon capable of striking anywhere on earth that the Kremlin deemed fit. Bush favored the production of similar weapons systems that could destroy any target on earth. He made the public believe that the system he proposed was merely defensive. What he really wanted, in tandem with his pnac buddies, was full spectrum dominance over planetary security. Suddenly, like lightening from the skies, three commercial airliners flew into three buildings in America. A fourth was prematurely brought down by the heroism of its passengers. Some professionals identified 09-11 as a comprehensive military operation, which could hardly have been planned or executed from imaginary headquarters in an Afghan cave. Nevertheless, most of the world blindly believed what the pnac plotters had asked Bush 43 to tell them.

What if they had lied? What if they themselves were the men behind yet another combined cia-Mossad operation, organized in Al Queda's name, to trick Muslim suicide bombers into attacking the wtc and the Pentagon? By blaming Al Queda for 09-11, the gang of four obtained massive global support for a War on Terrorism. Who benefited most from 09-11? Not Osama bin Laden, whose reward was a death warrant from Washington for what he supposedly had done. He also saw an incredibly high price, in us dollars, put on his head, to be paid

[p. 36]

to anyone who would deliver his scalp to the White House. He was also immediately faced with the full force of us military might which underwent an intensive manhunt to find him in the Tora Bora mountain range. Everybody knows, that when Muslim freedom fighters carry out an operation against the common enemy (mostly the us and Israel) they openly claim their action. Nobody in the world claimed 09-11, while the pnac'ers in the White House were the sole connivers who profited on a wide front from that disaster. They obtained the justification and pretext they needed to embark on a global crusade against terrorism.

Whoever did order 09-11, it gave Bush the opportunity to establish quickly an entire new range of military bases in Central Asia under the aegis of his global War on Terrorism. In reality, the inauguration of us military bases in former Soviet territories amounted to a camouflaged imperialist invasion of former enemy Soviet territory. The 09-11 disaster that led to the much-heralded War on Terrorism enabled Washington to perform the classic Trojan horse trick. It allowed the Pentagon to establish provocative forward military into Asia in favor of the pnac's intended policy of global us hegemony. Likewise, us soldiers and jets were stationed with the utmost speed in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Georgia, which according to Washington had the sole aim of combating terrorists.

In reality, the pnac conspirators were shamelessly exploiting the naive incredulousness of the world community, which has never even considered the possibility that ultra conservative Americans might be prepared to blow up their own people and buildings to create a super shock effect. This would obtain national and international reverberations, creating sympathy and compassion from the entire world for the wtc disaster and its three thousand victims in Manhattan.

George Monbiot posed in the Guardian this vital question, ‘Why do supporters of the War on Terrorism find it so hard to see what is happening? Why do the conservatives who go berserk when the European Union tries to change the content of our chocolate bars look the other way when the us seeks to reduce us to a vassal state? Why do the liberal interventionists who fear that Saddam Hussein might one day deploy a weapon of mass destruction refuse to see, that George Bush is threatening to do just this against an ever-growing number of states? Is it because they cannot face the scale of the threat, and the scale of the resistance necessary to confront it? It is because these brave troopers cannot look the real terror in the eye?’ (Guardian, March 11, 2003).