Sympathy for Mr. Cheney
To prepare for this article:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.htmlby F. Tupper Saussy
Now that Michael Ruppert (
www.fromthewilderness.com) has shown that the whole 9/11 attack on America was masterminded and overseen by Dick Cheney, I suppose the Vice-President is preparing an apologist to take the heat. Of course, the media gateways will do everything in their power to prevent the public's being as informed as Mr. Ruppert, but thanks to the internet, people are being brought up to speed very quickly.
Before too long, millions of people are likely to be furious, perhaps even vengeful, at Mr. Cheney. He has thus far been very effective at enshrouding his responsibilities in darkness and confusion, but I doubt that he is prepared to defend in the clear light of day. Until his apologist appears, I hereby tender my unsolicited services, but only pro tem.
The United States of America (USA) is a type of corporation, having a President, Vice-President, a cabinet serving as the equivalent of a board of directors, and millions of stockholders who, by voting, give power to congressmen and senators to represent their interests in the corporation. Should individual stockholders grow dissatisfied with a representative, satisfaction is often unattainable until the representative stands for re-election, and even then is not assured.
The President is also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, which means that the USA is a war-making corporation, having a beast's capacity to exercise life and death power over its inferiors. Indeed, the biblical term "beast" best describes the heart, soul and nature of the USA, which after all confesses itself to be a beast (an eagle), while its dominant political parties characterize themselves as an elephant and an ass.
The USA lives in a beast's reality, a military reality defined by generals, men and women who have risen to supremacy through successful competition. Competition produces winners and losers, and generals are winners. The Commander-in-Chief is the general of generals: the Superior General. But he has an alter ego. If, in order to structure a deeply secret operation, the President is unable to act as Superior General, Art. 2 Sec. 1, clause 6 of the Constitution empowers the Vice-President "to discharge the Powers and Duties" of the presidency in case of presidential inability.
Every general knows that winning, whether in war or the jungle, requires exceptional skills in deception. A well-designed and executed ruse, aimed at an enemy or the general's own men or nation, can confound, instill fear, provoke to fruitless extremes, tap precious resources, sap energies, and ultimately make the general a conqueror with very little actual combat. The ruse is, by far, the most economical weapon in the Commander-in-Chief's arsenal.
As Michael Ruppert's evidence clearly shows, the events of 9/11 were a ruse. The objective of the ruse was to motivate, first, the American public and then other nations, to surrender voluntarily, in the illusion of avenging an indefinite nemesis, huge amounts of private rights and wealth to development projects in the middle east. At a cost of less than 4,000 lives and minimal expense of materiel, the Commander-in-Chief was able to stage, in a single day, an event that produced legislation empowering his executive department to search and seize greater amounts of life, liberty, and property with fewer restraints than ever before in the history of the Constitution. This is masterful war-making.
But nothing new.
When President George W. Bush became America's superior general, the future course of the United States had been already determined by his father. It helps to recall that in January 1989, the elder Bush began his superior generalate with an inaugural address prayer: "Heavenly Father...Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: ‘Use power to help people.' For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen."
Bush then flew to the Vatican City for an audience with Pope John Paul II on the following May 27th. Since the Papacy rules ex cathedra, "from the chair," the reigning Pope may be the undesignated de facto Chairman of the United States corporation. (I for one have arrived at that understanding upon realizing that the interface between the American Presidency, the Roman Papacy, registered voters, and the world at large mimics that between a corporation's president, board chairman, stockholders, and consumers.)
At the audience, His Holiness cited the President’s inaugural prayer. “Mr. President,” he said, “you made reference to power as existing to help people, to serve people. This is true at different levels, including power at the political and economic level. We see this, too, at the level of each community, with its power of fraternal love and concern."
The Chairman, one of whose titles is Patriarch of the West, then gently gave orders to the President: "In all these areas, an immense challenge opens up before the United States in this third century of her nationhood. Her mission as a people engaged in good works and committed to serving others has horizons the length of your nation and far beyond – as far as humanity extends. Today the interdependence of humanity is being reaffirmed and recognized through world events. The moral and social attitudes that must constitute a response to this interdependence is found in worldwide solidarity. In treating this question in a recent encyclical, I have stated that solidarity is... a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. Truly, the hour of international interdependence has struck. What is at stake is the common good of humanity."
Who can deny that on May 27, 1989 the Chairman was instructing the President to use the corporation's power to create world events in order to advance international interdependence, or solidarity?
Solidarity is what the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought to Japan: a new culture structured on the 12th-century Roman church-militant's invention of debt instruments circulating and enforced internationally as money. It's what the Coinage Act immediately following the sacrificial assassination of President John F. Kennedy brought to the United States: debt money, made viable by compulsory acceptance. Debt money, as opposed to gold and silver coin, transfers the responsibility for charity from individual conscience to the corporation, which creates wealth and distributes it liberally to its most faithful consumers. It places economic opportunity in every hand, whether productive or non-productive, resulting in a confusion of moral and social attitudes which are regulated for profit by the Chairman and his international hierarchy of rulers of evil.
Have we forgotten what happened in the wake of Bush's audience with the Pope in May 1989? The day after the Pope declared the striking of the "hour of interdependence," Saddam Hussein, Iraqi premier, stood before the brotherhood of Muslim nations known as the League of Arab States and leveled charges that Kuwait had launched an unprovoked economic aggression against Iraq. (Kuwait had been an independent nation for 25 years when in 1986 the oil-rich al-Sabah family disbanded the token National Assembly and delivered all power to the ruling Emir, who brutally suppressed free speech and established a labor force of immigrants willing to work under conditions of near-slavery.)
Saddam complained to the League that Kuwait's policy of overproducing oil and driving oil prices downward would ultimately cost Iraq some $14 billion in lost revenues. He hinted at military action if the situation was not corrected.
America's allies then began cancelling "hundreds of major scientific, engineering, and food supply contracts with Iraq," in the words of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan. Strange treatment for a Premier who, from 1980 to 1988, had been a prized American ally himself. As Ted Koppel would later observe, the elder Bush operated "largely behind the scenes through the 1980s, [to] initiate and support much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq..." (Nightline, June 1992)
The Emir of Kuwait ignored Saddam's complaint because he was assured by Bush administrators that his advantages over Iraq would be protected by American armed forces. He continued aggravating, even to the point of using slant drilling technology to steal oil from Iraq’s Rumaylah oil field. Stealing from a Muslim brother and waging economic war against him are both counted sins in Islamic law, yet no Islamic court ever acquired jurisdiction.
US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie declared publicly to Saddam, "I have a direct instruction from President [Bush] to seek better relations with Iraq." Encouraged by this instruction, Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2 with a sufficient number of troops to hold Kuwait City. Photos from Soviet commercial satellites show that no more than a few thousand Iraqis were deployed.
Next day, in accord with Islamic law, the Arab League's council of ministers of resolved to (a) condemn the invasion, (b) convoke an extraordinary summit to find a Muslim solution to the crisis, and (c) reject foreign intervention, whether direct or indirect, in Muslim affairs.
Saddam Hussein made it clear that he was willing to withdraw from Kuwait if his claims could be satisfied. There was no reason why Muslim brethren, acting in good faith, could not settle the matter. In fact, on August 4th Saddam was so confident of a peaceful resolution that Baghdad radio announced that Iraq was ready to pull out of Kuwait the next day.
But peaceful resolution between Muslim states would not serve the Chairman’s Roman agenda for “worldwide solidarity.” For this, political Islam must be divided and conquered.
Which was easily accomplished when two crucial members of the summit, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, turned against Iraq. They did so, according to a study by Hugh Roberts of the London School of Economics & Political Science, under pressure from Dick Cheney, Bush's Secretary of Defense.
“What then happened,” wrote Roberts, “was a massive escalation of the crisis engineered wholly and entirely by the United States, which split the Arab world down the middle, destroyed the credibility and influence of the Arab League and scotched all chance of a peaceful settlement.”
Nine days after Saddam's march on Kuwait City, the Kuwaiti government contracted the New York public relations firm of Hill & Knowlton to represent its American presence, an entity named "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" (CFK). The CFK account at Hill & Knowlton was managed by Craig Fuller, Bush's chief of staff during his vice-presidency. The Emir spent about $14 million with Hill & Knowlton on such devices as video news releases that American viewers presumed came from independent journalistic sources. These devices were mainly ruses designed to recruit American taxpayers to support military action against Saddam Hussein. They worked.
Meanwhile, President Bush despatched aircraft and 4,000 American combat troops to Saudi Arabia. He made it clear that this was not an invasion of Iraq. The troops were “strictly defensive,” sent to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion. However, King Hussein of Jordan would inform the New York Times that American troops were being deployed to Saudi Arabia long before Saddam moved on Kuwait. [Times, Oct. 16, 1990]
Furthermore, King Hussein would say in the same report that he was told by Saudi King Fahd that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border; and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia. Fahd’s remark is corroborated by Soviet satellite photographs taken on August 8 which show light sand drifts over patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border – and no evidence of an Iraqi buildup.
Seeing that the United States was interceding to prevent a Muslim solution, Saddam declared the annexation of Kuwait on August 8. This did not mean that Iraq was no longer willing to consider a withdrawal. On the contrary, writes Hugh Roberts, it was Saddam’s way of preserving the issue until the summit could entertain fresh proposals during its August 9-10 meeting in Cairo.
But when the summit convened, delegates sat down to find the issue already decided by a “draft resolution” presented by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, written in English and translated into Arabic, and pre-supported by 10 other states, constituting a majority. Iraq was not present. The resolution condemned the Iraqi decision to annex Kuwait, called for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, affirmed Kuwaiti sovereignty, and agreed to respond positively to the requests of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to send Muslim forces to Kuwait’s defense. It was made clear, at the insistence of the Bush administration, that “international law” was going to be enforced on Iraq, despite the fact that international law had not punished many previous acts of aggression by other Muslim states.
The draft resolution, obviously prepared by Bush administrators, shattered a once unified Arab world. Hugh Roberts wrote: “The possibility of a peaceful, negotiated, [Muslim] solution to the Gulf crisis was dead, killed by US pressure.”
Saddam Hussein’s reaction was to submit proposals on August 12th (and again in December, as reported by Knute Royce in Newsday) for a comprehensive settlement of all outstanding Islamic territorial conflicts according to international law. He proposed that the Muslim states be judged equitably. He was willing to let Iraq’s transgressions be judged by international law if the Muslim leaders who claimed to be upholding it would let their national transgressions be judged by the same standard.
Saddam’s proposals were rejected out of hand by the United States. “From that moment on,” according to Hugh Roberts, “the Anglo-American and UN position lacked all legal and moral authority in the eyes of the vast majority of the Arab and Muslim world.”
But moral authority in the Arab and Muslim world is not the Bible. A world whose moral authority comes from the Koran (or any other source, for that matter) cannot understand that the Chairman and his American beast, in building "worldwide solidarity" for the better management of evildoing, can lawfully grant special immunities from the rigors of international law to favored subjects, such as other transgressing Muslim leaders who cooperate in the solidarity process. The world is ruled by the Bible, a single infallible standard which provides that evildoers – persons who deny the deity and unique saving power of Christ – are subject to rule by evildoers created and appointed by God. It has been so, I maintain in Rulers of Evil, since Cain. This is the fundamental fact of human life, clearly stated in the Bible: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
The American beast and its Vatican mistress are evils created by God out of unregenerate humanity for the purpose of ruling souls that have chosen to be cursed by Him rather than blessed. “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19) Since only Jesus Christ claims to be "the Life" (John 14:6), one's choosing any other means of delivery from death invites death itself, a process regulated by the rulers of evil.
A ruler of evil cannot choose the Life and continue the ruses, deceptions, violence, and betrayal necessary to remain in power. Under the scriptural standard, the "Christians" in world rulership must be followers of what the apostle Paul termed "another Jesus, another gospel," living out their death, doling out benefits and punishments to underlings living out their death. The Life is not prohibited to either, but choosing it requires coming out of Babylon, the angel's metaphor for dying in Christ and enjoying resurrection as a new eternal creature in but not of the world.
On August 12, all shipments of Iraqi oil were stopped by a naval blockade. Three days later, John Paul II commanded that the entire Catholic university system should aim for "a more just sharing in the world's resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level." (Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities, August 15, 1990)
Bush administrator Craig Fuller produced a ruse with Hill & Knowlton that motivated Congress to declare war against Iraq. This was the famous "Nayirah" interview. Appearing before the unofficial (but official-sounding) "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" on October 19, the 15-year-old Nayirah al-Sabah testified that while volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait City she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tearing Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators and throwing them "on the cold floor to die."
Frieda Construe-Nag and Myra Ancog Cooke, two maternity nurses in that ward later said that they had never seen Nayirah there and that the baby-dumping had never happened. It was later revealed that "Nayirah" was actually the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the US, and that the whole story was invented by a Vassar Phi Beta Kappa member of the Council on Foreign Relations and writer at Hill & Knowlton named Lauri Fitz-Pegado. But President Bush pumped the story six times over the ensuing five weeks, which gave Congress a credible pretext for supporting military actions against Iraq.
When the President explained to a joint session of Congress that he only acted to check Saddam's aggression after “120,000 [Iraqi] troops with 850 [Iraqi] tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia,” Soviet satellite photos showed no sign of any massing along the Kuwait-Saudi border whatsoever. The Pentagon was claiming some 250,000 Iraqi troops were occupying Kuwait, yet refused to show evidence that might contradict these satellite photos.
The Soviet photos showed American forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging areas and tire-tracks across the desert. Analysts could find nothing like this to indicate an Iraqi presence anywhere in Kuwait. Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded: "We don’t see any tent cities, we don’t see congregations of tanks, we can’t see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It’s five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn’t flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of [soldiers]. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. But where is it?"
One week later, the Pentagon was issuing reports that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks – yet the satellite photos of southern Kuwait show no evidence of such.
Iraqi troops did eventually appear at the Saudi Arabian border, but “they were sent there as a response to a U.S. buildup and were not a provocation for Bush's military action,” reported Brian Becker, an investigator with the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.
On December 17, the U.N. set a January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. President Bush promised to send Secretary of State James Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the deadline, but reneged.
Saddam rejected January 15 and offered to withdraw by February 15. President Bush ordered American planes to incinerate hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter, and two days later rejected Saddam’s offer of a February withdrawal.
On the 16th of January 1991, the President launched what has been called “the Gulf Massacre,” in which between 85,000 and 100,000 Iraqis were killed because the United States (a) refused to countenance either a diplomatic or a legal solution to the Gulf crisis, and (b) acted between August 2 and August 10, 1990 to make both solutions impossible.
Concludes Hugh Roberts, “The true number of Iraqis who have been slaughtered in the greatest act of western folly and murderous arrogance in living memory may well be very much higher than this, of course.” On February 27th, coalition forces entered Kuwait City, and President Bush declared Kuwait liberated.
Less than a week later in Rome, some 15 Catholic leaders from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and America held a “postwar Gulf summit meeting.” Pope John Paul II addressed the opening of the summit lamenting that the war had only sharpened tensions in the region and “awakened distrust and rancor inherited from the past.” His Holiness denied that any religious war had taken place, yet rebuked Muslim countries that “do not allow Christian [Roman Catholic] communities to take root, celebrate their faith and live it according to the demands of their confession.” Likewise, the summit’s final communique rejected all efforts to cast the war as “a conflict between Islam and Christianity.”
Indeed, the war was not a conflict. To the minds of Presidency and Papacy, it was precisely what Bush had prayed for and John Paul II had ordered the year before: the use of power to help people (at the price of much blood) in creating a world event that would reaffirm and recognize the interdependence of humanity. Thanks to the Gulf War, as the summit's final report stated, Catholic believers, for the first time ever, had an agenda to work for secure boundaries for Israel, independence and unity for Lebanon, a homeland and self-determination for the Palestinians, multilateral demilitarization and economic development of the region, and the establishment of Jerusalem as the international “holy city” of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. David Scott opined in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that the postwar Gulf summit “may one day be recalled as an historic turning point in the Catholic Church’s involvement in the Middle East.”
But the turning point was not the summit, but rather the Gulf War itself, an event created by Presidential deception. Had there been no Gulf War, there would have been no postwar Gulf summit. Significantly, it was on this Vatican summit’s final day, March 6th, that the President delivered a speech before Congress which sounded more like reassuring the Chairman than reporting to the corporate stockholders: “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order."
In the decade between the Gulf War and 9/11 the United States covertly nurtured a Muslim reaction to America's blasphemous intrusions -- the Koran, after all, permits retaliation: "whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you." (2.194, Shakir translation) This nurturing produced the world's perception of "terrorism" as a product of Islamic fanaticism rather than of American foreign policy.
Textbooks in the schools of Afghanistan provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had since the early 1980s been "filled with talk of jihad and featuring drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines." (Washington Post, March 23, 2002) Written at the University of Nebraska, these textbooks reared Afghanistani kids in the retaliatory culture that encouraged (and made plausible the emergence of) personalities like the Afghanistan-trained Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, convicted for the 1993 parking basement bombing at the World Trade Center, and Osama bin Laden -- the man who would destroy America.
To anyone who has seriously studied how vigorously the Commander-in-Chief and his Vice-President have avoided apprehending bin Laden, and have obstructed, if not overcome, all attempts to conduct routine forensic examinations of "ground zero," the Pentagon strike zone, and the Pennsylvania debris field, all of which would almost certainly prove false the official version of that morning's events, 9/11 could only have been a ruse created by the American Presidency to furnish a pretext for restricting the rights and property of Americans in order to redistribute American funds and forces to the middle east and soon elsewhere, pursuant to the Papacy's design for "international interdependence."
I place no blame here on anyone. The Papacy and the American Presidency are appointed by God to regulate evildoers by all necessary means. This they're doing well -- "using power to help people" -- and are enjoying rich worldly rewards for their deceptive and often brutal services. But their eternal future is in dire jeopardy, a fact dimmed by the ecstasy of power.
When a self-aware evildoer is led to stop evildoing, he is being drawn inexorably by God out of the jurisdiction of the rulers of evil. This is "coming out of Babylon," and it's not easy. It's as hard on the body as stopping smoking, drugs, or toxic diets. How to leave the addiction of Babylon is not taught in any religious institution that I know of, Christian or otherwise. One learns only from humbly reading the Bible, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and others who have come out. Persons who help others wanting to come out of Babylon are called "ministers of reconciliation." Reconciliators don't condemn evildoers or their rulers. They don't evangelize for a particular church or sect. They only facilitate citizenship in the safest, best-protected government on earth, Jesus Christ.
