UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !

Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus > UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus
User:	"=?utf-8?B?4pi7SE9PUk9PIOKXmQ==?="
Date:	08 Jul 2007 10:54:18 PM
Object:	UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !

HOOROO !
UNCLE WALLY
----
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3Dva&aid=3D6134
Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a
Justification for Waging War on Iran?
By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, June 24, 2007
"Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a
justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate
against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to
the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest
threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks" (USA
Today, 12 February 2006) The American Homeland is threatened by "
Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.
America is under attack" by an illusive "outside enemy".
Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. "Offense" becomes
a legitimate means of "self-defense". In the words of President Bush:
"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We
must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to
them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1,
2007)
The intent is to seek a pretext to wage a preemptive war.
A "terrorist attack on America" could be used to justify, in the eyes
of an increasingly credulous public opinion, on "humanitarian
grounds", the launching of a major theater war directed against Iran
and Syria.
Allegedly supported by Iran, the terrorists are said to possess
nuclear capabilities. They are supposedly planning to explode
"radiological dispersion devices" (RDD) or "dirty bombs" in densely
populated urban areas in the US. Former Secretary of State Colin
Powell had already forewarned in 2003 that, "It would be easy for
terrorists to cook up radioactive =E2=80=98dirty=E2=80=99 bombs to explode =
inside the
U=2ES. =E2=80=A6 How likely it is, I can't say..." (10 February 2003).
The sheer absurdity that Al Qaeda might have advanced capabilities to
wage a nuclear attack on America is, nonetheless, pervasive in US
media reports. Moreover, numerous drills and exercises, simulating a
terrorist attack using nuclear devices, have been conducted in recent
years, creating the illusion that "the threat is real":
"What we do know is that our enemies want to inflict massive
casualties and that terrorists have the expertise to invent a wide
range of attacks, including those involving the use of chemical,
biological, radiological and even nuclear weapons. ... [E]xploding a
small nuclear weapon in a major city could do incalculable harm to
hundreds of thousands of people, as well as to businesses and the
economy,...(US Congress, House Financial Services Committee, June 21,
2007).
History
Consistently since 911, the Bush administration has reminded Americans
of the danger of a "Second 9/11":
"The near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the 9/11
attacks... And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New
York city would be on any list..." (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge,
December 2003)
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do
that unless it's a serious situation." (Former Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, December 2003)
"=2E.. Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with
its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an
effort to disrupt our democratic process... (Former DHS Secretary Tom
Ridge, 8 July 2004)
"The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is
still lethal and planning to hit us again." (Vice President *****
Cheney, 7 January 2006)
"We are still a nation at risk. Part of our strategy, of course, is to
stay on the offense against terrorists who would do us harm. In other
words, it is important to defeat them overseas so we never have to
face them here. Nevertheless, we recognize that we've got to be fully
prepared here at the homeland." (President George W. Bush February 8,
2006)
"Our main enemy is al Qaeda and its affiliates. Their allies choose
their victims indiscriminately. They murder the innocent to advance a
focused and clear ideology. They seek to establish a radical Islamic
caliphate, so they can impose a brutal new order on unwilling people,
much as Nazis and communists sought to do in the last century. This
enemy will accept no compromise with the civilized world....
(President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)
We're fighting a war on terror because the enemy attacked us first,
and hit us hard. ... Al Qaeda's leadership has said they have the
right to "kill four million Americans,... For nearly six years now,
the United States has been able to defeat their attempts to attack us
here at home. Nobody can guarantee that we won't be hit again. ...
(Vice President ***** Cheney, United States Military Academy
Commencement, West Point, New York, May 26, 2007)
In the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq (April 2003), various
national security procedures were put in place which focused on the
eventuality of a "Second 911". These initiatives in the area of
Homeland Security outlined the precise circumstances under which
martial law could be declared in the case of a second major terrorist
attack on America.
Under martial law, the military would take over several functions of
civilian government including justice and law enforcement.
A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of
September 11, would lead ---according to former CENTCOM Commander,
General Tommy Franks-- to the downfall of democracy in America. In an
interview in December 2003, which was barely mentioned in the US
media, General Franks outlined a scenario, which would result in the
suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule
in America:
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur]
somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of
America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of
another mass, casualty-producing event." (General Tommy Franks
Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003)
Franks was obliquely alluding to a "Second 9/11" terrorist attack,
which could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of a
military government and police state.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was presented by
General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting
crisis and social turmoil resulting from the civilian casualties, are
intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and
institutional structures, leading to the suspension of constitutional
government.
It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a
personal opinion on the role of a "massive casuality producing event".
This concept is part of the tools of US intelligence, implemented
through covert operations. Franks' statement very much reflects the
dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland
Security, on the concept and application of a "massive casualty
producing event" as well as onhow events might unfold in the case of a
"Catastrophic Emergency".
The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in
military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other
words, the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational
assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It
identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland
defense.
The "Global War on Terrorism" which constitutes the cornerstone of
Bush=E2=80=99s National Security doctrine, provides the required justificat=
ion
for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving
civil liberties."
US Northern Command
The Administration's "Catastrophic Emergency" procedures are
intimately related to military planning at the level of the Pentagon.
In this regard, the formation of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) in
April 2002 (based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado) constitutes an
important landmark in the evolving relationship between the Military
and Homeland Security.
US Northern Command was created as a new command structure with the
explicit mandate to defend the Homeland against foreign terrorists.
This mandate is defined in the Pentagon's "Joint Doctrine for Homeland
Security (JP-26)". Even in the case where the "outside enemy" is
fabricated (and this is known at the highest levels of the military-
intelligence apparatus), a military coup d'Etat characterized by
detailed command military/ security provisions, would become
operational almost immediately.
NORTHCOM's "Command Mission" encompasses a number of "non-military
functions" including "crisis management" and "domestic civil support".
Under Northcom jurisdiction, the latter imply a process of "military
support to federal, state and local authorities in the event of a
terror attack."
NORTHCOM has a mandate to "defend the homeland" against an illusive
"outside enemy" (Al Qaeda), which is said to be threatening the
security of America. According to Frank Morales, "the scenario of a
military take-over of America is unfolding." And Northern Command is
the core military entity in this takeover and militarization of
civilian institutions.
***** Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
Following the creation of NORTHCOM in 2002, "Defense of the Homeland"
functions -including domestic counter-terrorism and national emergency
procedures-- have become increasingly integrated into the broader
process of military planning by the Pentagon .
This integration should be understood as part of the Pentagon's
preemptive war doctrine, where a presumed or planned attack on the
Homeland by "Islamic terrorists" becomes a justification for waging an
"offensive" (defined as defensive) war in the Middle East.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were used to wage war on
Afghanistan, using the pretext (without a shred of evidence) that the
Afghan Taliban government was a "State sponsor" of the 9/11 attacks.
In August 2005, Vice President ***** Cheney is reported to have
instructed USSTRATCOM, based at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska,
to draw up a "Contingency Plan", "to be employed in response to
another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". (Philip
Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American
Conservative, 2 August 2005)
***** Cheney's "Contingency Plan" was predicated on the preemptive war
doctrine. Implied in the "Contingency Plan" was the presumption that
Iran would be behind the attacks.
The Vice president's instructions were given to USSTRATCOM, which is
in charge of the central planning and coordination of major overseas
theater wars, rather than to NORTHCOM, whose mandate consists in
defending the North American Homeland against terrorist attacks. .
Cheney's "Contingency Plan" under USSTRATCOM jurisdiction, would draw
on the possibility of a "Second 9/11" attack to prepare for a major
military operation directed against Iran, while pressure would also be
exerted in the corridors of the United Nations on Tehran, in relation
to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
What is diabolical in this 2005 decision by the US Vice President is
that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's alleged
involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has
not yet occurred.
The plan to attack Iran is based on the principle of self defense. It
"includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on
Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War, The American Conservative, 2 August
2005)
"Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are
reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing=E2=80=94that
Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack=E2=80=94but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Ibid)
The Pentagon's "Second 9/11"
In early 2006, (former) Secretary Don Rumsfeld approved a far-reaching
military campaign plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a
view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on
America. This Pentagon plan was, in essence, an extension of the
Second 911 "Contingency Plan" agenda announced by ***** Cheney in
2005.
The Pentagon's anti-terrorist plan was outlined in three secret
documents, of which excerpts were leaked to the Washington Post.
These three documents consist of an overall "campaign plan" plus two
"subordinate plans". The second "subordinate plan" explicitly focuses
on the possibility of "Second 9/11" and how a second major attack on
American soil might provide "an opportunity" to extend the US led war
in the Middle East into new frontiers:
"[It] sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to
another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes
lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to
retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or
state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack.
Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity
that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets,
according to current and former defense officials familiar with the
plan. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006, emphasis added)
The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack
"which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification
and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets [Iran and
Syria]".
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,
NSPD-51/ HSPD 20
In May 2007, a major presidential National Security Directive is
issued, (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20),
NSPD 51 / HSPD 20 is a combined National Security Directive emanating
from the White House and Homeland Security. It is tailor-made to fit
the premises of both the Pentagon's 2006 "Anti-terrorist Plan" as well
Vice President Cheney's 2005 "Contingency Plan".
The directive establishes procedures for "Continuity of
Government" (COG) in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". The
latter is defined in NSPD 51/HSPD 20 (henceforth referred to as NSPD
51), as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in
extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption
severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment,
economy, or government functions."
"Continuity of Government," or "COG," is defined in NSPD 51 as "a
coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to
ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed
during a Catastrophic Emergency."
NSPD 51 has barely been reported by the mainstream media. There was no
press briefing by the White House or by DHS Secretary Michael
Chertoff, which would be the normal practice, given the significance
and implications of NSPD 51. The text of NSPD /51 HSPD 20, announced
by the White House is not even mentioned on the DHS's website.
This Combined Directive NSPD /51 HSPD 20 grants unprecedented powers
to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding
the foundations of Constitutional government. NSPD 51 allows the
sitting president to declare a =E2=80=9Cnational emergency=E2=80=9D without
Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de
facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of
justice and law enforcement:
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the
President in that function, the Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security and Counter terrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated
as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity
Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive
authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of
continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The
Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior
Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the
National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum
for such policy coordination. (National Security and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20, emphasis added)
NSPD 51 grants extraordinary Police State powers to the White House
and Homeland Security (DHS), in the event of a "Catastrophic
Emergency". The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counter terrorism (APHS/CT), who is slated to play a key role in the
eventuality of Martial law, is a key White House adviser, Frances
Fragos Townsend.
Foreign Policy Implications of NSPD 51: The Role of the Vice
President
While NSPD 51 has the appearances of a domestic national security
decision, it is, nonetheless, an integral part of US foreign policy.
It belongs to a longstanding military national security agenda. Were
NSPD 51 to be invoked, Vice President ***** Cheney, who constitutes the
real power behind the Executive, would essentially assume de facto
dictatorial powers, circumventing both the US Congress and the
Judiciary, while continuing to use President George W. Bush as a proxy
figurehead.
NSPD 51, while bypassing the Constitution, nonetheless, envisages very
precise procedures which guarantee the powers of Vice President *****
Cheney in relation to "Continuity of Goverment" functions under
Martial Law:
"This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent
with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the
Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise
of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C.
19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate,
others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall
ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and
others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement
those provisions." (NSPD 51, op cit.)
In the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency", NSPD 51 could potentially
be used to justify the implementation of retaliatory military action
against Iran in accordance with ***** Cheney's 2005 "Contingency Plan".
If the "Catastrophic Emergency" were to be triggered by a terrorist
attack, NSPD-51 could be invoked as "the justification and ...
opportunity ... to retaliate against some known targets" as outlined
by the Pentagon in its 2006 anti-terrorist plan.
The broader question is whether the occurrence of this "Catastrophic
Emergency " is actually being planned by the Pentagon, with a view to
justifying an attack on Iran.
The Role of the US Military in the Case of a "Catastrophic Emergency"
NSPD 51 would instate martial law under the authority of the White
House and the DHS. It would suspend constitutional government under
the provisions of Continuity in Government (COG).
The provisions of NSPD 51 are consistent with an existing body of
legislation and regulations pertaining to alleged terrorist attacks on
the Homeland and the declaration of martial law.
Since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, Homeland Security (DHS)
has contemplated time and again the possibility of a so-called code
red alert "scenario" --using a potential or possible Al Qaeda
terrorist attack on America soil as a pretext for implementing martial
law. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on
Terrorism", Global Research, 2005)
Since 2003, the DHS has conducted several "anti-terrorist exercises"
under the TOPOFF (top officials) program. The latter consisted in
organizing anti-terror preparedness in a military style exercise with
the participation of federal, State and local level governments.
Various attack "scenarios" by foreign terrorists using weapons of mass
destruction had been envisaged.
Code Red Alert was initially established under the provisions of
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-3 (March 2002). Under the
existing legislation, a code red alert would trigger conditions for
the "temporary" suspension of the normal functions of civilian
government. Several functions of civilian administration would be
closed down, others could be transferred to the jurisdiction of the
military. More generally, the procedure would disrupt government
offices, businesses, schools, public services, transportation, etc.
According to (former) Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (22 Dec.
2003):
"If we go to [code] Red ... it basically shuts down the country."
In which case, a national emergency is declared, Northern Command
deploys its forces on air, land and sea. Several functions of civilian
government are transferred to NORTHCOM headquarters, which already has
the structures which enable it to oversee and supervise civilian
institutions.
Code red alert would suspend civil liberties, including public
gathering and/ or citizens' protests against the Administration's
decision to declare martial law.
The emergency authorities would also have the authority to exert tight
censorship over the media and would no doubt paralyze the alternative
news media on the internet.
In turn, code red alert would trigger the "civilian" Homeland
Emergency response system, including the DHS' Ready.Gov instructions,
the Big Brother Citizen Corps, not to mention the USAonWatch and
Neighborhood Watch Program which have a mandate to "identify and
report suspicious activity in neighborhoods" across America.
The Militarization of Civilian Institutions
NSPD 51 is, in principle, a civilian directive emanating from the
Presidency and the DHS.
What would be the involvement of the Military in a martial law
situation, following the activation of NSPD 51?
In theory, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 adopted in the wake of the
US civil war, prevents the military from intervening in civilian
police and judicial functions. This law has been central to the
functioning of constitutional government.
Although the Posse Comitatus Act is still on the books, in practice
the legislation is no longer effective in preventing the
militarization of civilian institutions. (See Frank Morales, Global
Research, September 2003)
Legislation inherited from the Clinton administration, not to mention
the post 9/11 Patriot Acts I and II, "blurs the line between military
and civilian roles", it allows the military to intervene in judicial
and law enforcement activities even in the absence of an emergency
situation.
In 1996, legislation was passed which allowed the military to
intervene in the case of a national emergency (e.g.. a terrorist
attack). In 1999, Clinton's Defense Authorization Act (DAA) extended
those powers (under the 1996 legislation) by creating an "exception"
to the Posse Comitatus Act, which would allow the military to be
involved in civilian affairs "regardless of whether there is an
emergency". (See ACLU)
Under this 1999 provision, "the mere threat of an act of terrorism
would justify calling in military units. That represents a loophole
large enough to drive a battalion of army tanks through." (Ibid)
In other words, the Clinton era legislation had already laid the legal
and ideological foundations of the "global war on terrorism".
While NSPD 51 is a significant and timely landmark, it is broadly
consistent with the pre-existing legislation, with one important
exception. NSPD 51 confirms that "Continuity in Government" (COG),
while suspending the Constitution, would be carried out under the
control of the Presidency.
This distinction is important, in view of mounting opposition within
the Armed Forces to the possible use of a "false flag" terrorist
attack as a justification for the launching of a broader Middle East
war, in which nuclear weapons could be used against Iran.
NSPD 51 largely confirms the "legitimacy" of preexisting procedures
and legislation, while also stipulating a central and critical role
for the presidency in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency". In fact,
NSPD 51 thwarts the possibility of discretionary actions taken
unilaterally by the Military in the case of a national emergency.
Broadly speaking, NSPD 51 reinforces the control exerted by the White
House, its civilian apparatus as well as its corporate lobby groups.
While COG would result in the militarization of civilian institutions,
this process would be under the control of civilian policy-makers,
acting on behalf of their corporate sponsors. This civilian policy
apparatus, made up of senior NeoCon advisers, with links to the
Washington think tanks, Wall Street and the oil giants, is slated to
play a key role in the case of martial law.
Whereas the militarization of justice and law enforcement would
proceed, the Military would, nonetheless, remain subordinate to a
"civilian dictatorship".
War Games and the Militarization of National Emergency Preparedness
Another relevant dimension of the militarization of civilian
institutions pertains to interagency collaboration between the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Pentagon in the conduct of
military style "catastrophic emergency response" exercises .
This "interagency collaboration" was endorsed in 2006 by the US
Congress. FEMA (under the jurisdiction of the Department Homeland
Security) was given exceptional powers. A significant budget was also
provided to finance an ongoing partnership between FEMA and the US
Military.
Northern Command was responsible for establishing links with civilian
agencies involved in emergency preparedness (operating under the
Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA)).
What has unfolded is an integrated military/civilian outlook on
emergency preparedness. A number of civilian agencies now actively
participate in the conduct of Pentagon war games. In 2006, FEMA's
"catastrophic disaster response" exercise was integrated into the
conduct of US Northern Command's "Operation Vigilant Shield 07":
"[In a] joint exercise activity, FEMA and USNORTHCOM exercised
catastrophic disaster response during Vigilant Shield 07, an exercise
focusing on a nuclear weapons accident and a terrorist event. (David
Paulison, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management, Agency
(FEMA), statement to the Committee on House Transportation and
Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings
and Emergency Management, US Congress, 19 May 2007)
Vigilant Shield 07 was a far-reaching "New Cold War" type war games
exercise, directed against Irmingham (Iran) and its Cold war era
enemies: Ruebek (Russia), Churya (China), and Nemazee (North Korea).
(for further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Theater Iran Near Term,
Global Research, February 21, 2007)
In April-May 2007, FEMA together with a number of civilian agencies
including the FBI, local and State and private organizations
participated in the Pentagon's Ardent Sentry-Northern Edge 07 war
games (AS-NE 07), under the helm of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. U.S.
Part of the AS NE 07 war games were directed against Russia. They were
held in the vicinity of the Bearing Straits on the immediate borders
with Russia's Far East, These associated exercises in Alaska entitled
"Alaska Shield" also included the participation of Canadian forces.
(For further details, see NorthCom.mil Fact Sheet)
Continued Emergency Preparedness
In the months prior as well as following the release of NSPD-51 by the
White House on 9 May 2007, emergency exercises have been held, with
the support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
several US cities. How to respond in the case of a "Catastrophic
Event". Brainstorming sessions involving officials from local, state
and federal agencies have met to examine what to do in the case of a
"Catastrophic Event" or terrorist attack.
On June 2nd, the US was "dominated by screaming headlines and
sensationalist broadcast coverage of an alleged plot in New York to
blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport" (See Bill van Auken,
June 7, 2007). In the meantime, the US public has become increasingly
skeptical of repeated fake terror alerts:
There is every reason to believe that the succession of =E2=80=9Cterror=E2=
=80=9D
cases, each one weaker than the last and virtually all of them driven
by =E2=80=9Cinformants=E2=80=9D who seem to play more the role of agents pr=
ovocateur,
are aimed at achieving precisely this effect. They serve as a means of
intimidating public opinion with fear, justifying attacks on
democratic rights and diverting attention from the ongoing debacle in
Iraq.
The problem faced by the government is that the public is growing
increasingly skeptical about these cases, with a sizeable portion of
the population having concluded that they are trumped up for political
purposes. (Ibid)
New Military Appointments; The Firing of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff
Several key military appointments were made in recent months. Of
significance, Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of
U=2ES. Central Command (CENTCOM) in March by Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates.
Meanwhile, another major military appointment was implemented, which
has a direct bearing on war preparations in relation to Iran. Admiral
Timothy J. Keating Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed on March 26,
to head US Pacific Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th
fleets. The 7th Fleet Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant
command. Keating, who takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an
unbending supporter of the "war on terrorism". Pacific Command would
be playing a key role in the context of a military operation directed
against Iran.(http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml)
Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack
on Iraq as commander of US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth
Fleet.
Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration's war
plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was
pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with
Rumsfeld's successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid
recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in
Iraq, Admiral Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President *****
Cheney. He is also firmly committed to the "Global War on
Terrorism" (GWOT). CENTCOM would coordinate an attack on Iran from the
Middle East war theater.
Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in
emphasis of CENTCOM's functions in the war theater. The "near term"
emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval
and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.
The instatement of NSPD 51 in May 2007 was followed barely a few weeks
later by the announcement of the "non-renewal of the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Peter Pace, who in recent months,
has indicated his disagreement with the Administration regarding
Iran.
General Pace stated (February 2007) that he saw no firm evidence of
Tehran supplying weapons to Shiite militias inside Iraq, which was
being heralded by the Bush administration as a justification for
waging war on Iran:
"[M]aybe that's why he's the outgoing chairman. Maybe that's why
they're not renewing him. Because ...He has seen no evidence that Iran
is fomenting unrest in Iraq that's causing Americans lives... " (Fox
News' Alan Colmes, ox News, June, 13, 2007),
General Peter Pace ends his term as Chairman of the JCS in September
2007. Defense Secretary Gates has already announced that Admiral
Michael Mullen, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, has been nominated to
replace General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff.
Admiral Mullen's discourse is in marked contrast to that of General
Peter Pace. Mullen, who was in charge of coordinating naval war games
off the Iranian coastline, has expressed an unbending commitment to
"waging" and "winning asymmetric wars", while also "protecting the
United States":
"we must ensure we have the Battle Force, the people, and the combat
readiness we need to win our nation's wars...
Our Navy is fighting the Global War on Terror while at the same time
providing a Strategic Reserve worldwide for the President and our
Unified and Combatant Commanders.... Simply reacting to change is no
longer an acceptable course of action if our Navy is to successfully
wage asymmetric warfare and simultaneously deter regional and
transnational threats (Statement, Senate Armed Services Committee, 7
May 2007)
Admiral Mullen's stance is in line with that of the Bush
Administration's key Neo-conservative ideologues. With regard to Iran,
echoing almost verbatim the stance of the White House, Admiral Mullen
considers that it is "unacceptable that Iran is providing U.S. enemies
in Iraq and Afghanistan with capabilities that are hurting and killing
U=2ES. troops." (Inside the Pentagon, June 21, 2007). But on the issue
of Iran, the Democrats are on board. There is a bipartisan consensus,
expressed by Senator Jo Lieberman:
"I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion
of Iran,... [but a] strike over the border into Iran, where we have
good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these
people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers" (AP, June 11,
2007)
US Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East War Theater
The use of conventional and nuclear weapons are now part of the same
integrated command structure.
The Bush administration has confirmed that it contemplates the
possible use tactical bunker buster nuclear bombs to "take out" Iran's
non-existent nuclear weapons' facilities. An operational plan to wage
aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June
2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been
deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War
against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Vice President ***** Cheney' "Contingency Plan" "includes a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War ,
The American Conservative, 2 August 2005). USSTRATCOM would have the
responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military
deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details,
Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
The Bush administration has the full support of its NATO allies and
Israel.
US made B61 tactical nuclear weapons have also been deployed in five
European non-nuclear states, members of NATO, including Belgium, the
Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. The B61 tactical nuclear
warheads under the jurisdiction of these five non-nuclear states, plus
Britain are pointed at Iran.
While Iran, which possesses a bona fide nuclear energy program, is the
object of potential military retaliation, these five European non-
nuclear countries (not to mention Israel), are not considered by the
"international community" as a threat to global security, in a clear
expression of double standards.
General Peter Pace is known to be opposed to the use of nuclear
weapons against Iran:
"The Bush regime=E2=80=99s plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts
General Pace=E2=80=99s departure in a different light. How can President Bu=
sh
succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America=E2=80=99s
highest ranking military officer says that such an order is =E2=80=9Cillegal
and immoral=E2=80=9D and that everyone in the military has an =E2=80=9Cabso=
lute
responsibility=E2=80=9D to disobey it?" (Paul Craig Roberts, Global Researc=
h,
June 2007)
It would be difficult to wage war on Iran without the firm endorsement
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to Paul Craig
Roberts, "[General] Pace had to go so that malleable toadies [Admiral
Mullen] can be installed in his place [as Chairman of the JCS]"
Pace=E2=80=99s departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Ir=
an,
thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran
with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable
=E2=80=9CNational Security and Homeland Security Presidential
Directive=E2=80=9D (NSPD-51 and HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May 9. ...
The use of nuclear weapons arouses the ultimate fear. A US nuclear
attack would send Russian and Chinese ICBMs into high alert. False
flag operations could be staged in the US. The propagandistic US media
would hype such developments to the hilt, portraying danger
everywhere. Fear of the [Bush] regime=E2=80=99s new detention centers would
silence most voices of protest as the regime declares its =E2=80=9Cnational
emergency.=E2=80=9D (Ibid)
Concluding Remarks
9/11 and the threat of a second major attack on America are ostensibly
part of the building block of the US National Security doctrine.
While, the threat of an impending 9/11 type attack by "Islamic
terrorists" is a fabrication, extensive media propaganda, supported by
covert intelligence operations, has ensured that the "Global War on
Terrorism" or GWOT is widely accepted both by the supporters and
opponents of the Bush administration.
Visibly based on an outright lie, GWOT has nonetheless gained in
legitimacy among America's European partners and allies, which have
adopted their own ("copy and paste") anti-terrorist emergency
procedures.
Despite mountains of evidence, the 9/11 attacks continue to be upheld
by the US and its NATO allies as a bona fide act of war by a foreign
power. Since 911, the GWOT is supported by the governments of more
than 90 countries. (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition
Conference, May 1, 2007)
Ironically, the Global War on Terrorism is also endorsed by several
prominent and authoritative "progressive" intellectuals, who condemn
US foreign policy and the Middle East war, while upholding the
legitimacy of America's campaign against "Islamic terrorism."
An important segment of the US antiwar movement has a similar stance.
While calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, it denies the
existence of a national resistance movement to the US led occupation:
"We are against the US led war in Iraq, but we support the war on
terrorism." Not surprisingly, Bush's "Catastrophic Emergency"
Directive (NSPD 51) does not seem to have raised much concern within
the US Antiwar movement.
Since 9/11, numerous lead stories and Op Eds outlining the nature of
the "Global War on Terrorism" have been fed profusely into the news
chain. A worldwide Al Qaeda legend has emerged.
Repeated ad nauseam on a daily basis, the GWOT has also become part of
a shaky bipartisan political consensus. Despite the blatant
contradictions and the political lies, in particular in relation to
9/11 and the possibility of a second large scale terrorist attack, the
GWOT is nonetheless accepted by an increasingly skeptical US public.
Behind this diabolical "catastrophic emergency" scenario, which
ultimately hinges on the powers of media disinformation and deceit, is
a profit driven war.
The spiraling multibillion dollar "defense" budget, which according to
independent estimates has reached the trillion dollar mark (more than
double the official figures), is barely acknowledged, nor is the
privatization of war itself.
The US military industrial complex which produces the numerous
"humanitarian weapons" including the mini-nukes and bunker buster
bombs used to go after the terrorists, would be the direct beneficiary
of a war on Iran, together with Wall Street and the Anglo-American oil
giants, which vie to appropriate and privatize the region's extensive
oil and gas reserves.
This war is not led by the military but by the civilian corporate
interests which lie behind the Bush administration. The military takes
orders from civilians acting on behalf of those dominant economic
interests.
The Wall Street financial establishment, the military-industrial
complex, led by Lockheed Martin, the big five weapons and aerospace
defense contractors, the Texas oil giants and energy conglomerates,
the construction and engineering and public utility companies not to
mention the biotechnology conglomerates, are indelibly behind this
militarization of America.
In turn, the Worldwide demonization of Islam is part of this profit
driven war. Three quarters of the World's oil reserves lie in Muslim
lands. (World Oil 2004, see also Michel Chossudovsky, The Demonization
of Muslims and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, January 2007 ).
Vilification of the enemies of America, portrayed as fanatic "Islamic
terrorists", is part of the Battle for Oil. If the oil were in
countries occupied predominantly by Buddhists or Hindus, one would
expect that Bush's entire National Security agenda, including the
recent "Catastrophic Emergency" Directive NSP 51 would be directed
against Buddhists and Hindus.
How to reverse the tide?
The threat of a Second Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used
profusely by the Bush administration to galvanize public opinion in
support of a global military agenda.
Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of
the US intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The
911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated.
The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity
at the highest levels of government.
Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy
of the "global war on terrorism" which constitutes the main
justification for waging war in the Middle East.
Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to
stand on. Their entire National Security construct collapses like a
deck of cards.
Related Article: The Use of the Armed Forces in America Under a
National Emergency, by Michel Chossudovsky
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America=E2=80=
=99s
"War on Terrorism" Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is
Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the
Center for Research on Globalization.
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !	08 Jul 2007 11:08:03 PM

=E2=98=BBHOOROO =E2=97=99 <stargatedecember2...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America:
Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

User: "Lou Ciffer"
Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !	09 Jul 2007 11:00:08 PM

"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183954083.174295.183070@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
☻HOOROO ◙ <stargatedecember2...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America:
Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

What are you, soft?
Bush had the proof that Iran was trying to buy uranium from
Nigeria. What does he do? He orders up some forged
documents that say Iraq was trying to buy it.
Bush said we had to go to war against Iraq because they
tried tried to buy some tubes that might've been used to
enrich uranium. It was a lie. And not only was it a lie, but
Iran WAS shopping for the parts to build a nuclear
centrifuge -- used to enrich uranium -- and DID buy the
blueprints to build a centrifuge... as well as an entire
working centrifuge...
Bush pretended that Iraq (Saddam) supported Al Qaeda.
Even the 9/11 commission positively identified Iran as
having provided some training for Al Qaeda. Not Iraq, Iran.
And the GOP's love affair didn't start with Dubya...
Remember the "Iran-Contra" scandal? That was when the
GOP was arming Iran during their war against Iraq. How
about:
"Where was George?"
Any of this ring a bell?
From breakfast on through all the day
At home among my friends I stay,
But every night I go abroad
Afar into the land of Nod.
All by myself I have to go,
With none to tell me what to do--
All alone beside the streams
And up the mountain-sides of dreams.
The strangest things are there for me,
Both things to eat and things to see,
And many frightening sights abroad
Till morning in the land of Nod.
Try as I like to find the way,
I never can get back by day,
Nor can remember plain and clear
The curious music that I hear.
Robert Louis Stevenson
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !	10 Jul 2007 12:28:22 AM

"Lou Ciffer" <dantesbarbe...@lakeoffire.net> wrote:
[---monkey feces---]
That's it, monkey, dance... dance for me... never
forget that you are a dancing monkey... that you
will never be anything but a dancing monkey...
.

User: "Lou Ciffer"
Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !	10 Jul 2007 02:21:30 AM

"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184045302.189511.326200@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

"Lou Ciffer" <dantesbarbe...@lakeoffire.net> wrote:
[---monkey feces---]

That's it, monkey, dance... dance for me... never
forget that you are a dancing monkey... that you
will never be anything but a dancing monkey...

.....wave your magic wand, lil' fairy...grant me one wish...
http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/20391.jpg

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: UNCLE WALLY 'S WORLD WAR III NEWZ FILEZ....9/7/7....HOOROO !	10 Jul 2007 03:18:49 AM