Shortly after the
events of 9/11, the Bush administration announced a "War on Terrorism", and
within weeks, Americans saw many of their
constitutional
guarantees of freedom stripped away by the Patriot Act and
Military Commissions Act with their plethora of legislative changes
which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law
enforcement agencies in the United States.
These Acts did not,
however, provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally
safeguards
civil liberties in the face of such legislation. Many of
the provisions of these tyranical Acts relating to electronic surveillance were
actually proposed before September 11th, and were subject to much
criticism and debate. Following 9/11, criticism and debate was squelched in
favor of "protecting America."
Was 9/11 an Inside
Job?
How fortunate for the U.S. government that just when they are
planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that
government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into
support for an invasion. "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could
have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan
but for what happened on September 11." Tony Blair. July 17, 2002
[Guardian]
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin
Whether the U.S. government had any direct involvement, the evidence shows US authorities certainly did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested. It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with airplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Project for the New American
Century
While Americans were freely giving up many of their
Constitutional rights in exchange for so-called "security" and now needing a
scapegoat to rationalize their loss, President Bush moved to the next stage of
the globalist New World
Order agenda.
President Bush and his cabinet were planning
a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' long before the
events of 9/11 and even before he took power in January 2001. See
Rebuilding America's Defences:
Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century
The blueprint for the creation of a 'global Pax
Americana' was written in September 2000, a year earlier than the 9/11
attack, by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century
(PNAC). Drawn up for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others,
the New World Order
plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region
whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.
It says:
'The
United States has 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.'
The Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S.
presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq
Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a
coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the
pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress.
It has hence been learned that
once elected, President Bush engaged the Department of Defense to begin a
years-long secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion and
occupation of Iraq. The mission of this program placed it within the field
controlled by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a White House task-force
formed in August 2002 to market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The
group included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Mary
Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and James R. Wilkinson.
The
WHIG organized a media blitz in which, between September 7-8, 2002, President
Bush and his top advisers appeared on numerous interviews and all provided
gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by Iraq. The timing was
no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained in an interview regarding waiting
until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action
against Iraq, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products
in August."
The Bush government executed a calculated and wide-ranging
strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into
believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein on
the one hand, and the attacks of September 11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other
hand, so as to falsely justify the use of the United States Armed Forces
against the nation of Iraq as well as to fraudulently obtain and maintain
congressional authorization and funding for the use of such military force
against Iraq.
Weapons of Mass
Destruction
The WHIG produced
white papers detailing so-called intelligence of Iraq's nuclear threat that
later proved to be false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that
Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that the high strength
aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China were to be used for the sole purpose
of building centrifuges to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence
Estimate of 2002, the WHIG's white papers provided "gripping images and
stories" and used "literary license" with intelligence.
Whipping up fear into Americans
once again, President George W. Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq on March 20,
2003, under the guise of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. 
While NONE were found, both Bush and Blair
continued their charge that WMD existed with the fervor that would make
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf proud. Why would Bush and Blair insist Iraq had these
weapons of mass destruction? Because we sold them to Sadam Hussain and
never expected him to be smart enough to dispose of them before we invaded.
Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under his direction and control that Iraq's stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998 and that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that showed otherwise. In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that concluded: "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions…[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has-or will-establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving that such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the President and his subordinates and agents made numerous false representations claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons that it was developing to use to attack the United States.
On 1 May 2003 George W. Bush announced the end of "Major combat"
operations in the Iraq war, yet that did not mean that peace had returned to
Iraq. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on
September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men
-- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized
world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one
terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of
America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and
their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force
our retreat from the world. They have failed." (Speech of President Bush on
U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.)
Iraq has been subsequently marked by violent
conflict between U.S.-led soldiers and forces described as insurgents,
including but not limited to violence between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims within
Iraq over long-standing cultural differences.
Defeat the Taleban
- Control the Oil
President Bush had also planned to attack
Afganistan months before the 9/11 attacks in America. The media in India was
reporting in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government's announcement that it
would support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
26 June 2001: "India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."
In a Sept. 18, 2001 story published by the BBC, "A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks."
In a May 16, 2002 story published on MSNBC, Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson reported, "President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski. "The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred."
The overriding
motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are
beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim
world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more
importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. A report from the
commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most
promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would
relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the
Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the
Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. (Michael Meacher, UK environment
minister from May 1997 to June 2003)
A report prepared for the US
government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that
"the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising
influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East".
Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended
that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention"
was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that
would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas
fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and
Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to
accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press
Service, November 15 2001). 
In
1998, "as a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region,
Unocal (now owned by Chevron), which serves as the development manager for the
Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities
involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan. In his testimony to the
U.S. House of Representatives on Feb 12, 1998, Mr. John J. Maresca, vice
president of international relations, Unocal Corporation, said "One obvious
route (for an oil pipeline) south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for
American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other
possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique
challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two
decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it
clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan
could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the
confidence of governments, lenders, and our company."
- On Oct. 7, 2001, President Bush said the United States opened a new front in the war against international terrorism Sunday with its attacks on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and al Qaeda terrorist camps. (CNN.com)
- On June 13, 2002, Former UNOCAL Consultant Hamid Karzai Elected as New Afghan Leader .
- On December 27, 2002, an agreement was signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and subsequent threats
of biological warfare against US citizens have prompted calls by public health
officials to prepare for mass vaccination campaigns for anthrax and smallpox.
National vaccination programs targeting civilians, including children, are
being proposed in model state legislation that would give public health
officials the power to use the state militia to enforce vaccination during
state-declared health emergencies.
Some in Washington seem determined to
ignore the Constitution and to make some vaccinations (usually the most
profitable ones) mandatory. One proposed homeland security bill would allow the
head of the Health and Human Services department to order Americans to receive
potentially deadly smallpox vaccines against their will. Called the Defense
Department's Total Information Awareness program, it would be administered by a
totally new department called the
Security Advanced Research Projects Agency, and gives HHS
authority to declare an actual or potential bio-terrorist incident while giving
the secretary the power to "administer 'countermeasures'" - like forced
immunizations - to "a category of individuals or everyone."
There has
recently been a spate of cases where officials, with the assistance of directed
media propaganda, have attempted to cajole parents into believing that laws
require vaccination.
In February 2007
one such media hoax fooled parents in Texas and other areas
of the country into believing that the HPV vaccine, which experts have slammed
as untested and has continued to be linked to dangerous side-effects, is now
required by law and that young girls must take it. Merck Pharmaceuticals hit
the headlines after it was revealed that the company was set to capitalize on
this fraud by making obscene profits from a crony deal with Governor Rick
Perry, while children were put at risk. Governor Rick Perry issued an executive
order mandating all schoolgirls entering the sixth grade as of 2008 must be
injected with a 3 round vaccination for a sexually transmitted form of cancer.
The vaccine in question, Gardasil, is being lobbied by its manufacturer New
Jersey based Merck in 17 states. Ultimately Merck would like to see this
vaccine placed on the mandatory vaccination list on all 50 states, however
Texas is the only victory to date.
There is currently no law in
America, aside from those applying to medical workers, that says you or your
child has to take any vaccine whatsoever, no matter what any executive order,
requirement, mandate or policy dictates, there is no situation where you can go
to prison for refusing a government vaccine under the U.S. constitution and the
law of the land. As in the case of all other vaccines, Perry's executive order
merely states that the vaccine is "recommended," yet the mass media drumbeat
constantly conditions people to believe that if they don't take their shots
they will be kicked out of school, arrested and thrown in jail.
Last
November we reported on a
case in Prince George's County, Maryland, where parents of
more than 1600 children were told they could be put in jail for failing to get
their kids vaccinated. At the time a local Fox News affiliate reported, "A new
law was passed last year requiring children from 5th through to 10th grade to
have the vaccine," which was a total lie. A state prosecutor involved in the
case then admitted that there is no law that mandates any vaccine."
Read
more at
InfoWars.com
Another thing the government is doing
right now is doing mental health testing of everybody in school and they're
putting a lot of pressure, in a way forcing kids to be put on psychotropic
drugs.
"At the present time there are growing public and professional
concerns about the safety of currently mandated childhood vaccine programs, as
reflected in by a series of annual Congressional hearings in Washington DC that
have taken place since 1999, sponsored by the U.S. House Government Reform
Committee under the chairmanship of Congressman Dan Burton. At an annual
conference of the American College for the Advancement of Medicine during April
2001, with several hundred physicians in attendance, when one of the speakers
asked how many in attendance had concerns about the safety of current childhood
vaccines, a large majority raised their hands. The Autism Research Institute of
San Diego is now widely known as an active support group for families with
autistic children and is one of the more active organizations in this field.
Its founding director, Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., has provided the statistics
that, in their experience, from 50 to 60% of parents with autistic children
believe that their children were damaged by vaccines. In our own office we have
seen many autistic children in recent years, and our own experience has been
very similar, many parents reporting that deterioration of their children took
place following vaccines." -
Dr. Buttram
