January, 2003

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty

"Hawks argue that Saddam must be eliminated because he may decide to use WMD (weapons of mass destruction - ed) in the future . . . even if the United States threatens him with devastating retaliation. . . . If that is true, it certainly follows that he will lash out with anything he has if Washington goes for his jugular and puts his back against the wall. Yet Washington now seems determined to push him to that wall."
Richard Betts: Foreign Affairs magazine, January/February 2003 [1]

"The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice."
Victor Marshall, Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2003 [2]

"Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high . . . the administration is engaging in "hysterics" in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. . . . The threat of terrorism may also be helping the White House manage the sagging economy."
Jon Dougherty, WorldNetDaily, January 4, 2003 [3]

"Looking squarely at his advisers, the President said plainly, "We have to have a war." His words hung in the air as heavily as any he had ever spoken."
Bob Woodward: Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate. [4]

"To help protect against the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush administration on Wednesday will start deploying a national system of environmental monitors that is intended to tell within 24 hours whether anthrax, smallpox and other deadly germs have been released into the air. . . . One senior official said the new environmental surveillance system was not being deployed specifically because of Iraq, but 'to prepare the country for whatever the weapon and whomever the culprit might be.'"
Judith Miller, The New York Times, January 22, 2003 [5]

Why are we going to war with Iraq? Does Saddam Hussein have chemical and biological weapons? Will he use them against the United States at some time in the future? Will he use them against us now if we attack him? If Saddam has WMD, where did he get them? Have we been told the truth about the coming war in the Middle East?

Richard Harwood wrote about the men and women who control our reality and direct our nation. The Washington Post published his article on October 30, 1993; he noted:

". . . the Council on Foreign Relations . . . members are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." [6]

That statement is true. Members of the CFR control both political parties, direct American foreign policy, own most major media outlets, and publish Foreign Affairs magazine. [7] Richard K. Betts wrote about the threat of biological warfare in the January/February 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine; he is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, and a member of the CFR. [8] He noted:

"Many Americans still take for granted that a war to topple Saddam Hussein can be fought as it was in 1991: on American terms. Even when they recognize that the blood price may prove greater than the optimists hope, most still assume it will be paid by the U.S. military or by people in the region. Until very late in the game, few Americans focused on the chance that the battlefield could extend back to their own homeland. Yet if a U.S. invasion succeeds, Saddam will have no reason to with- hold his best parting shot - which could be the use of weapons of mass destruction . . . inside the United States. . . . Washington has done little to prepare the country for this possibility and seems to have forgotten Bismarck's characterization of preventive war as 'suicide from fear of death.' . . . is an Iraqi counterattack on U.S. soil really plausible? Hawks argue that Saddam must be eliminated because he may decide to use WMD in the future . . . even if the United States threatens him with devastating retaliation. . . . If that is true, it certainly follows that he will lash out with anything he has if Washington goes for his jugular and puts his back against the wall. Yet Washington . . . seems determined to push him to that wall. . . . If war on Iraq is deemed necessary despite the risk of mass destruction, Washington is dangerously far behind in preparing the home front." [9]

Preparations have been made to protect the "ruling elite" from WMD, but nothing is being done to protect the American people. Washington, D.C. officials won't comment on the underground explosions that have shaken the neighborhood where Dick Cheney lives. Local residents believe they're building an underground bunker for the Vice President, but they aren't certain because officials have "classified" information about the explosions. [10]

Victor Marshall's article, The Lies We Are Told About Iraq, appeared in the Los Angeles Times on January 5, 2003. He wrote:

"The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice.

The first Bush administration which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era." [11]

Does Saddam Hussein have chemical and biological weapons? Yes! He acquired them in the mid-1980s. [12] Where did they come from? Michael Dobbs addressed that question in his recent article in The Washington Post:

"A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare." [13]

Why did Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? April Glaspie was U.S. ambassador to Iraq at that time. She visited Saddam shortly after he amassed his army on the Kuwaiti border and told him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations" with Iraq. April Glaspie assured the dictator that President Bush "is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq."

"The U.S. policy of cultivating Hussein . . . continued right up until he invaded Kuwait in August 1990. . . . When the then-U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, met with Hussein on July 25, 1990, a week before the Iraqi attack on Kuwait, she assured him that Bush 'wanted better and deeper relations. . . .' 'President Bush is an intelligent man,' the ambassador told Hussein. . . . 'He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.'" [14]

President George Herbert Walker Bush wanted a war in the Middle East because he needed an excuse to station American forces in that region. Shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Secretary of State James Baker told President Bush he wanted to go to Baghdad and convince Saddam Hussein he must withdraw from Kuwait. Bob Woodward described that incident in his book, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.

"Baker had pressed Bush to allow him to go to Baghdad to meet Saddam himself, but the president . . . refused to authorize the mission. . . . Baker said he was determined to negotiate.

Next Bush and Scowcroft, almost together, jumped on Powell and Baker.

'Don't you realize that if he pulls out, it will be impossible for us to stay,' Scowcroft asked. Bush nodded in agreement as Scowcroft spoke. The massive U.S. force, based mostly in Saudi Arabia, could not remain in the region indefinitely. . . . A diplomatic victory could wind up a huge strategic loss. . . . They needed the chance to destroy Saddam's army or at least to devastate it. . . . Looking squarely at his advisers, the president said plainly, 'We have to have a war.' His words hung in the air as heavily as any he had ever spoken. . . . Bush couldn't afford to wait because the coming summer heat in the desert would make ground operations untenable. So it was now or never." [15]

Almost a hundred thousand Iraqis died during the Gulf War. When the American army was 60 miles from Baghdad, President Bush ordered General Schwartzkopf to stop, withdraw from Iraq, leave Saddam Hussein in power, and station U.S. forces in the Middle East. After the war the United States imposed a strict embargo on Iraq that killed over 500,000 children. Anthony Arnove's book, Iraq Under Siege, claims: "If you include adults, it's well over 1 million Iraqi people." [16]

In September 2000, The Project for the New American Century published "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The report advocated U.S. control of the Middle East and the world:

". . . 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. In East Asia, the pattern of U.S. military operations is shifting to the south: in recent years, significant naval forces have been sent to the region around Taiwan in response to Chinese provocation, and now a contingent of U.S. troops is supporting the Australian-led mission to East Timor. . . ."

"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States . . . would be at odds with larger American policy goals. . . . Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor." [17]

A "catastrophic and catalyzing event" took place on September 11, 2001. The younger Bush promptly declared war on "terrorism," sent additional troops to Central Asia, and made plans to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Glenn Kessler discussed President Bush's "TOP SECRET" agenda:

"On Sept. 17, 2001, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 21/2-page document marked 'TOP SECRET' that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.

Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq. . . ." [18]

Why are we going to war with Iraq? Jon Dougherty writes for WorldNetDaily. He claims:

"Intelligence pros say the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and to keep President Bush's approval ratings high . . . the administration is engaging in 'hysterics' in issuing numerous terror alerts that have little to no basis in fact. . . . FBI and CIA sources said a recent White House memo listing the war on terrorism as a definitive political advantage and fund-raising tool is just one of many documents discussing how to best utilize the terrorist threat. . . .

The threat of terrorism may also be helping the White House manage the sagging economy. Officials at home finance giant Freddie Mac said yesterday that the threat of terrorism may have played a role in bringing 30-year mortgage rates down to 5.85 percent, their lowest since an average 5.83 percent in 1965." [19]

Jon Dougherty's analysis is correct, but there are other important reasons for going to war. The conflict will allow the Bush administration to:

1. Blame Saddam for the coming biological attack.
2. Blame Saddam for the coming economic collapse.
3. Convince the American people they must surrender their freedom to facilitate the "war on terrorism."
4. Impose a "Pax Americana" throughout the world.
5. Promote world government and world religion.

Will there be a biological attack on America? Yes! We were attacked in September 2001. Five anthrax- contaminated letters were mailed to people on the East Coast. Hundreds of people were contaminated, eighteen people contracted cutaneous or pulmonary anthrax, and five people died. [20] Who sent the letters? The FBI won't discuss the case, so I'll list what is known:

1. On August 26, 2002, The Washington Times published an advertisement on "The Anthrax Attack" which stated: "Science Applications International Corp, 'SAIC,' . . . prepares in-depth reports for the Defense Department" They studied "the very best way a terrorist group could mail anthrax. This study reported the exact amount that should be used in an envelope for optimal results. This was the exact, precise amount in each of the actual letters. This study reported the exact micron size of the anthrax spores needed for optimal results. This was the exact, precise size of the spores sent, which REQUIRED supermilitarization." THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT WHOEVER SENT THE ANTHRAX WAS EITHER AFFILIATED WITH SAIC, OR WITH WHOEVER RECEIVED (OR STOLE) THE REPORT. [21]
2. The perpetrators used the Ames strain developed by the U.S. military.
3. The perpetrators knew how to weaponize spores, so they must have worked for the military, or the CIA. The CIA has a supply of anthrax. [22]
4. Anthrax vaccination requires 6 shots over 18 months. The perpetrators must have been vaccinated so they wouldn't contract pulmonary anthrax. [23]
5. Dick Cheney, and members of his staff, started a 6-week course of Cipro on the day of the 9/11 attack; Cipro is used to prevent pulmonary anthrax. If government officials suspected an anthrax attack was imminent, why didn't they warn the postal service and other government agencies? [24]
6. The Bush administration used the anthrax attack to enact the U.S.A. Patriot Act. [25]

The president of Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman, asked the White House to explain why Vice President Cheney, and members of his staff, began a 6-week course of Cipro on September 11, 2001:

". . . the Bush administration has failed to provide a complete and accurate response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning the decision to place White House staff on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic, Cipro, the same day as the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. By contrast, U.S. Postal Service workers from Washington, DC's Brentwood Postal Facility . . . were denied antibiotic treatment, even after it became apparent that the Brentwood facility had been contaminated. . . . So far, 8 (actually 5 - ed) postal workers have died and hundreds remain harmed by the lethal exposure. Despite multiple press reports confirming that White House staff began use of Cipro on September 11, 2001, the incomplete and evasive FOIA response from the White House consisted of . . . four e-mail messages and an 'administrative alert' dated . . . October 23 and October 24, 2001." [26]

Will Saddam Hussein, or someone else, unleash smallpox or anthrax on the world? The Bush administration is preparing to monitor the coming biological attack. Judith Miller writes:

"To help protect against the threat of bioterrorism, the Bush administration on Wednesday will start deploying a national system of environmental monitors that is intended to tell within 24 hours whether anthrax, smallpox and other deadly germs have been released into the air. . . . One senior official said the new environmental surveillance system was not being deployed specifically because of Iraq, but 'to prepare the country for whatever the weapon and whomever the culprit might be.'" [27]

Dr. Russell Blaylock's new book, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, discusses the threat of biological warfare. He recommends acquiring a supply of vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, selenium, magnesium, garlic, and other nutritional supplements that increase your immune response. Radio Liberty offers four interviews with Dr. Blaylock. [28]

I want to share an e-mail from a listener in Melbourne, Australia:

"Thank you for your ongoing teaching and education, which have really been eye-opening for me, particularly your discussion on Aleister Crowley. . . . I previously had a strong interest and understanding of A.C. and quickly came to realise you and your guest knew what you were talking about which alone attracted my attention; however you managed to bring something else to the conversation, and I can proudly say that the conversation triggered an interest in Christianity in me so strong and powerful I was overcome. From then on I saw occultism in a different light, and it's magnetism dwindled slowly as I became open to a higher power. Thanks again, and God Bless." L.D.

It's gratifying to know that Radio Liberty is changing lives. Most listeners learn about our programs from other listeners; please continue telling your friends and neighbors, and encourage them to visit our Web site, www.radioliberty.com.

How can we triumph when the wealth and power of the Prince of this World are aligned against us? We must pray, and acknowledge that everything that happens is determined by God, but continue to work as if the fate of the world depends on what we do.

As Paul exhorted the Ephesians, "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise. Redeeming the time because the days are evil." [29]

And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us;
The Prince of Darkness grim -
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him. [30]

Thank you for your faithful support, and your prayers.

Yours in Christ

Stanley Monteith



REFERENCES

1. Richard K. Betts, "Suicide From Fear of Death?" Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2003, p. 37.
2. Victor Marshall, "The Lies We Are Told About Iraq," Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2003: www.latimes.com/la-op-marshall5jan05,0,290533.story
3. Jon Dougherty, "Terror Alerts Manufactured?" WorldNetDaily, January 4, 2003.
4. Bob Woodward, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate, Simon and Schuster, 1999, p. 185.
5. Judith Miller, "U.S. Is Deploying a Monitor System for Germ Attacks," The New York Times, January 22, 2003.
6. Richard Harwood, "Ruling Class Journalists," The Washington Post, October 30, 1993, p. A 21.
7. Ibid.
8. Richard K. Betts, op cit., pp. 34-37.
9. Ibid., pp. 37-38.
10. Personal communication with Bob Chapman.
11. Victor Marshall, op cit.
12. Michael Dobbs, "When an Ally Becomes the Enemy," The Washington Post,National Weekly Edition, January 6-12, 2003, p. 10.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Bob Woodward, op cit.
16. Anthony Arnove, Iraq Under Siege, South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000, p. 67.
17. Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, September 2000.
18. Glenn Kessler, "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past," The Washington Post, January 12, 2002, p. A01.
19. Jon Dougherty, op cit.
20. Personal communication with the CDC.
21. Paul Velis, "The Anthrax Attack," The Washington Times, two-page advertisement, August 26, 2002, pp. A10-11.
22. William J. Broad and Judith Miller, "U.S. Recently Produced Anthrax in a Highly Lethal Powder Form," The New York Times, Dec 13, 2001. See Also: David Ensor, "CIA Uses Anthrax, but no link to letters," December 16, 2001, www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/16/cia.anthrax/index: See Also: "Army Confirms Experiments with Anthrax," The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2001, p. A4.
23. Personal communication with Dr. Meryl Nass.
24. Sandra Sobieraj, "White House Mail Machine Has Anthrax," Associated Press, October 23, 2001.
25. R.W. Apple, Jr., "Anxiety Grips D.C. Bigwigs," The Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 18, 2001, p. A1.
26. Larry Klayman, "White House Dodges Anthrax Questions," Judicial Watch, January 10, 2003 fax.
27. Judith Miller, "U.S. is Deploying a Monitor System for Germ Attacks," The New York Times, January 22, 2003.
28. Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save your Life (book), and Life-Saving Health Secrets (tape set) are available through 800-544-8927.
29. Holy Bible, King James version, Ephesians 5: 15-16.
30. Martin Luther, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, 3rd stanza.
29. Holy Bible, King James version, Ephesians 5: 15-16.


Return to Radio Liberty home page