November, 2005

DEJA` VU IN IRAQ

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty,

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. . . . Our military is suffering. . . . The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. . . . Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. . . . Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."
Congressman John Murtha, November 17, 2005 [1]

"A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, Nov. 19, 2005 [2]

"'We have to stay until it's finished. We can't just leave the job undone. . . . I'm appalled at his (Congressman Murtha-ed) attitude. I think he should be ousted from his position. He's gone a little crazy. He has no credibility now.'"
San Jose Mercury News, November 20, 2005 [3]

"We were supposed to be hunting terrorists. We dropped that to get into this war. . . . They should have kept going after bin Laden. What the heck are we doing in Iraq?"
San Jose Mercury News, November 20, 2005 [4]

Congressman John Murtha fought in Vietnam, and was awarded the Bronze Star, 2 Purple Hearts, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. When he retired from the Marine Corps Reserves in 1990, with the rank of Colonel, he was awarded the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Shortly after John Murtha returned from Vietnam, he ran for Congress, won the election, and has represented the Johnstown-Windber region of Pennsylvania since 1974. [5]

Congressman Murtha is a pro-life Democrat, and has always done what he believes is right. He supported the U.S. attack on Afghanistan because President Bush claimed the U.S. was fighting terrorism, and the President promised he would capture Osama bin Laden "dead or alive."

Congressman Murtha supported President Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq because the President claimed Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the war would end quickly.

As time went by, John Murtha became increasingly concerned about the rising level of violence in Iraq, but continued to support the war until he read the Defense Department's recent assessment of the military situation in the Middle East. John Murtha knew he would be demonized if he opposed the war, but he was a Marine, and had to do what he believed was right.

On November 17, 2005, Congressman Murtha walked to the podium in the House of Representatives, and with tears welling in his eyes, stated:

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, 'the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.' General Abizaid said on the same date, 'Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.' For 2 1/2 years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait - the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraquis with Weapons of Mass destruction - but the U.S. forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear. We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused. I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support. The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.' We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being 'terrified' about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden. Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism. I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won 'militarily.' I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid-December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a 'free' Iraq. My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq. This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME." [6]
Dick Cheney, and the other members of the ruling Hierarchy, were afraid to attack John Murtha themselves because he is widely respected, so they contacted a freshman Congresswoman from Ohio, and asked her to discredit him. When Congressman Murtha completed his address, the Presiding Officer recognized Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, who walked to the podium, and said:

"Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed . . . what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it.

A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bupb, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through." [7]

When Jean Schmidt concluded her remarks, shouts of outrage and "boos" filled the Chamber. Dozens of Democrats rose, pointed at Jean Schmidt, and shouted "take her words down." The Presiding Officer tried to gavel the session to order, but most Democrats ignored him. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., yelled across the room: "You guys are pathetic."

Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., charged across the aisle and jabbed his finger at a group of Republican Congressmen. Representative David Obey of Wisconsin grasped Rep. Ford's arm and led him back to his seat. [8] When the pent-up fury of the Democrats was vented, the Presiding Officer restored order, and Jean Schmidt returned to the podium:

"Mr. Speaker, my remarks were not directed at any member of the House, and I did not intend to suggest that they applied to any member. Most especially the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania." [9]

Jean Schmidt requested her remarks be stricken from the Congressional Record, and the following day the leaders of the Republican Party introduced a Resolution that called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, knowing their Resolution would be defeated because it would lead to chaos. Congressman Murtha's Resolution called for withdrawal of U.S. troops "at the earliest practicable date," and a back-up force stationed close by to restore order if needed. The leaders of the Democrat Party didn't try to amend the Republican Resolution. They told their followers to vote against the Republican Resolution, and it failed by a vote of 403 to 3. [10] As a result, Congressman Murtha's Resolution wasn't considered, the bloody conflict will continue, and tens of thousands more young Americans will die if the war expands.

When a reporter contacted Colonel Danny Bubp, he said he didn't mention Congressman Murtha's name when he talked to Congresswoman Schmidt. [11] The confrontation will probably destroy Congresswoman Schmidt's political career, and I suspect that is what the leaders of the Republican Party intended, because Jean Schmidt is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Ten Commandments, pro-family values, and pro-private property. [12]

When a reporter went to Pennsylvania to interview Congressman Murtha's constituents, David Gall, a retired contract officer from Windber, stated:

"We have to stay until it's finished. We can't just leave the job undone. . . . I'm appalled at his (Congressman Murtha-ed) attitude. I think he should be ousted from his position. He's gone a little crazy. He has no credibility now." [13]

When the reporter interviewed a group of men in Johnstown, Barry Sirko stated:

"'We're proud of him. We don't like it when people attack him. . . . We've lost more than 2,000 troops so far. . . .' Asked whether Murtha was surrendering to terrorists, several patrons jumped in at once to say the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which they considered more important. 'We were supposed to be hunting terrorists. We dropped that to get into this war. . . . They should have kept going after bin Laden. What the heck are we doing in Iraq?'" [14]

Millions of Americans believe the U.S. military should remain in Iraq because there will be chaos if the U.S. withdraws. I believe they are correct.

Millions of Americans believe the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq because 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave, 45% of the Iraqi people believe the insurgent attacks are justified, and the provisional government has asked us to leave. I believe they are correct. How can both sides be correct? It's very simple. The American people are debating the wrong questions. What are the correct questions?

(1) Why aren't we trying to capture Osama bin Laden?
(2) Why is the terrorist movement growing?
(3) Where do the insurgents get their funding?
(4) Who trains them?

You can't understand the tragic events that are taking place in the Middle East today unless you understand the tragic events that took place 30-40 years ago during the Vietnam War. Have you ever wondered why the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, couldn't defeat a tiny nation the size of the state of Mississippi? Have you ever wondered where the North Vietnamese got their fighter planes, their radar installations, their weapons, and sophisticated anti-aircraft batteries? Have you ever wondered why the U.S. didn't bomb the dikes, flood North Vietnam, and end the war? Have you ever wondered why U.S. planes weren't allowed to bomb the power plants in North Vietnam, and destroy their economy? Have you ever wondered why U.S. planes weren't allowed to bomb the Haiphong Harbor, or the rail lines that carried the military equipment that was used to kill our men? Why didn't the U.S. invade North Vietnam and end the war?

I interviewed William H. Sullivan, and Marine General Lewis Walt in 1980; William H. Sullivan was U.S. Ambassador to Laos from 1964-1969, and helped Henry Kissinger negotiate the treaty that ended the war. General Walt commanded the Marine Division in South Vietnam in 1966 and 1967. Both men told me the U.S. military could have won the Vietnam War in two months if they had been allowed to. Why didn't the U.S. try to win the war? It was a diversion to distract the attention of the American people from what was taking place in the United States at that time. McGeorge Bundy explained the Occult Hierarchy's plan in the January 1967 issue of Foreign Affairs. He was a member of Skull and Bones, the CFR, President of the Ford Foundation, Lyndon Johnson's National Security Advisor, and instrumental in plunging the U.S. into the no-win war in Vietnam. He wrote:

"We are embattled in Viet Nam; we are in the middle of a true social revolution at home. . . . Americans who believe in the further development of the great new departures in education and health . . . and most of all in the cause of really equal opportunity . . . should not strengthen the hands of their opponents by accepting the notion that we must choose between persistence in Viet Nam and full budgetary support for a strong domestic program of action. . . . Retreat in Viet Nam is not the road forward at home. The real consequence of a pullout in Southeast Asia, for our domestic affairs, would almost surely be heavy reaction." [15]

Who financed the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War? Who supplied the military equipment that killed our men? Most of the weapons came from the Soviet Union. Who financed the Soviet Union during the Vietnam War? U.S. banks, U.S. corporations, U.S. government agencies, and our European allies. If you doubt that statement, I suggest you obtain copies of Professor Antony Sutton's books, National Suicide, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, the three volumes of Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, and my video interview with Professor Sutton, "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy." [16] Another excellent source of information is the "Aid & Trade Documents" that Congressman Larry McDonald compiled before he was killed (or captured) during the "anti-communist" reign of the Reagan administration. [17]

What is the connection between the tragic events that took place during the Vietnam era and the tragic events that are taking place in the Middle East today? It's the same scenario. During the Vietnam era the U.S. financed the Soviets who financed the North Vietnamese war effort. The U.S. is financing and supporting countries that are financing and training terrorists today. It's like deja` vu all over again.

At this point I will address the questions I raised earlier.

(1) Why aren't we trying to capture Osama bin Laden?

The U.S. isn't trying to capture Osama bin Laden because he is the spiritual leader of the radical Islamic movement, and if bin Laden dies, the movement dies. I covered the resurgence and financing of radical Islam in my January, February, and March 2002 Radio Liberty letters; they can be accessed on the Internet at www.radioliberty.com, or read in Part I and Part II of my Foreknowledge 911 pamphlets. [18]

Richard Miniter's book, Losing Bin Laden, reveals that the U.S. had 11 opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 attack, but didn't try to apprehend him. Why? [19]

When Time reporter Tim Burger interviewed the new CIA Director in June 2005, the reporter asked Porter Goss when Osama bin Laden would be captured; Porter Goss replied:

"'That is a question that goes far deeper than you know. . . . In the chain that you need to successfully wrap up the war on terror, we have some weak links. And I find that until we strengthen all the links, we're probably not going to be able to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice.

We are making very good progress on it. But when you go to the very difficult question of dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play. . . .'

Asked whether that meant he knew where bin Laden is, Goss responded: 'I have an excellent idea where he is. What's the next question?'" [20]

Porter Goss knew where bin Laden was hiding, and wasn't going to try to capture or kill him.

(2) Why is the terrorist movement growing?

The U.S. is doing everything possible to inflame the anger and hatred of Moslems throughout the world. The U.S. attacked Iraq without provocation, occupied the country, released pictures of tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib Prison, released pictures of chained prisoners at Guantanamo, and admitted that U.S. soldiers had defaced the Koran. Why? The U.S. cannot fight a "war on terrorism" unless there are terrorists, so the Occult Hierarchy is doing everything possible to foment hatred of our country and help Osama bin Laden obtain recruits. [21]

(3) Where do the insurgents get their funding?

The March 1, 2005, edition of the Congressional Research Report reveals Saudi Arabia has funded the Islamic terrorist movement since its inception, and Saudis are the primary source of funding for the insurgents today. [22]

Congressman Ron Paul's November 7 Texas Straight Talk letter reveals Congress appropriated $110 million for The Middle East Partnership Initiative; part of the money will go to Saudi Arabia. [23]

(4) Who trains them?

The U.S. funds the military regime that controls Pakistan. There are dozens of terrorist training camps in Pakistan today. [24]

The U.S. supports and finances Saudi Arabia. The Saudis finance the insurgents. The U.S. finances Pakistan, which contains dozens of terrorist training camps.



I will attempt to complete my discussion of the origin and course of the Iraq War next month.

We're beginning to get a response from our new network, and have started broadcasting Radio Liberty programs on a KU satellite. If you would like to listen to Radio Liberty, The Power Hour, Viewpoint, or Call to Decision 24 hours a day on satellite, contact us, and we will help you get an inexpensive dish and receiver.

We offer a new pamphlet set: The Occult Hierarchy Part I, Part II and Part III, and a new 4-tape set, The Oil Deception. Please check www.radioliberty.com for other new products.

The Iraq war is a distraction. The Occult Hierarchy is consolidating its control of the people of the world. How can we oppose them? We cannot by ourselves. We must rely on our Lord.

8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. [25]

This Saviour, Jesus Christ, is our hope and the source of our strength.

We are involved in a spiritual battle for the souls of men, and the survival of Western civilization. Our job is to disseminate truth. The ultimate victory is the Lord's.

Barbara and I wish you a joyous Christmas season. We appreciate your loyal support, and your faithful prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith



REFERENCES

1. www.house.gov/murtha/index.shtml
2. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.news-media/browse_thread/thread/b34fc4998d3519f4...
3. Steven Thomma, "Lawmaker condemned, praised for war stand," San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 20, 2005, p. A1.
4. Ibid.
5. www.house.gov/murtha/bio.shtml
6. www.house.gov/murtha/index.shtml
7. http://groups.google.com..... op. cit.
8. Charles Babington, "Tumult in House on Iraq pullout," San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 19, 2005, p. A1.
9. www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/003927.html
10. Steven Thomma, op. cit.
11. www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/11/22/schmidt.html
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Schmidt
13. Steven Thomma, op. cit.
14. Ibid.
15. McGeorge Bundy, "The End of Either/Or," Foreign Affairs, January 1967, Vol. 45, No.2, pp. 189 and 201.
16. Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, and the video interview with Prof. Sutton, "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy," can be purchased at 800-544-8927.
17. Larry McDonald, AID AND TRADE DOCUMENTS, The Larry McDonald Crusade to Stop Financing Communism, San Marino, California, July 1987. (out of print)
18. Foreknowledge 911, Part I, Part II and Part III (conclusion) are available at 800-544-8927.
19. Richard Miniter, Losing Bin Laden, Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington D.C., 2003.
20. www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/goss.bin.laden/
21. www.rense.com/general68/alq.htm See Also: www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr100705.htm
22. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, March 1, 2005. See Also: www.cnn/2004/US/10/26/saudi.money.iraq/
23. www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst110705.htm
24. www.atimes.com/atimes/printN.html. Additional references available from Radio Liberty.
25. Holy Bible, King James Version, Luke 2, Verses 8-11.


Return to Radio Liberty home page