February, 2003

Dear Friend of Radio Liberty:

"Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens you can be sure it was planned that way."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt [1]

". . . as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski: 1997 [2]

"We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. . . . It is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."
PNAC Statement of Principles: June 1997 [3]

"Notable among these new threats is the prospect of an attack on U.S. cities by independent or state-supported terrorists using weapons of mass destruction . . . the future is contingent. Human history does not just happen; it is made."
New World Coming: September 1999 [4]

"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."
Rebuilding America's Defenses: September 2000 [5]

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it."
General William Sherman: 1864 [6]

"War is at best barbarism. . . . Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
General William Sherman: 1879 [7]

"We advise about the importance of drawing the enemy into long, close and exhausting fighting . . . in . . . cities. The enemy fears the most the town fights and street fights. Such fighting would cause the enemy huge losses of souls."
Osama bin Laden: February 11, 2003 [8]

The world has changed; nothing is the same as it was. Most people try to live their lives as they did before the September 11 attack, but are constantly aware of the possibility of another incident. We live in a world of contradictions where our leaders and our enemies seem to be following the same script. The Bush administration claims it's doing everything possible to protect the American people, but that isn't true. Our borders remain open, and Saudi Arabian officials and charities are still funding Islamic terrorism. [9] When families of the 9/11 victims tried to sue the Saudi Arabian princes who funded al Qaeda before the terrorist attack, the Bush administration intervened and blocked their lawsuit. Although fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi citizens, Osama bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia, and Saudi officials financed the Islamic movement, the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan. [10] Now we are going to war with Iraq. When a reporter from The Texas Observer asked Congressman Ron Paul for his opinion of the coming war, the Congressman replied:

"I think this will be a gift for Osama bin Laden. He will be the beneficiary of it. He hates Saddam Hussein. He has a better chance of getting one of his men (in power) after we cause a lot of disruption over there. And besides, his recruiting operation is going to get a real boost. We are going to prove to many Muslims around the world exactly what he has been telling them all along, that we are over there to dominate, to control, and to get the oil. I think we have fallen into that trap." [11]

Millions of Muslims agree with that assessment. On February 27, 2003, The Sydney Morning Herald published an interview with an Aboriginal convert to Islam who stated:

"'Let it be known, there's thousands of Osama bin Ladens here and if they ever find Osama bin Laden, another thousand will pop up,' says Khalid, who is not alone as an Aboriginal convert to Islam who admires the terrorist leader. . . . Khalid, who has lived in Sydney . . . converted to Islam more than a decade ago when he was in jail. . . . 'Wherever you are, Osama bin Laden, I love you, brother and I do it for you and I pray for you because to me you're just a spiritual warrior standing up for Islam and propagating freedom around the world.'" [12]

* * * * * *

February 12, 2003: During the Senate debate on the nomination of Miguel Estrada, Senator Robert Byrd rose and requested permission to address another subject. Although I disagree with Senator Byrd on many issues, I agree with him on the coming war. His thoughts are my thoughts, his concerns are my concerns, his fears are my fears. Senator Byrd stated:

"Madam President, to contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war . . . yet this Chamber is, for the most part, ominously, dreadfully silent. You can hear a pin drop. Listen. You can hear a pin drop. There is no debate. There is no discussion. There is no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. . . . We stand passively mute in the Senate today, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion concerning the prudence or the imprudence of engaging in this particular war. . . . Today we hear nothing, almost nothing, by way of debate. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. It is not going to be a video game. It may last a day or 6 days. . . . It may last 6 weeks. It could last longer. This is no small conflagration that we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No, this coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, at an unfortunate time - the doctrine of preemption, no small matter - the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but which may be threatening in the future. The idea that the United States may attack a sovereign government because of a dislike for a particular regime is a radical, new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our hit list, or some other nation's hit list.

High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack on Iraq. What could be more destabilizing? What could be more world shattering? What could be more future shattering? What could be more unwise than this kind of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of so many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances. One wonders what is going to happen, and about what is happening to the United Nations . . . formed 54 years ago. And we say: If you are not with us, you are against us. That is a pretty hard rule to lay down to the United Nations. . . . If you don't see it our way, take the highway. . . . U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11, 2001.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay . . . or what horrors they may have to face. . . . Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection, while we are being told that a terrorist attack may be imminent. . . . This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders to the north and to the south, and to the east and to the west, where the great oceans form the borders.

In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, yesterday we heard from him again, marshaling his forces and urging them to kill, kill, kill. This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling for all time international order, crippling entities such as the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as being a well-intentioned peacemaking, peace loving, peacekeeping nation. . . .

This administration has turned . . . the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders and which will have consequences for years to come, calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil - as though we are not evil, as though there is no country that is not evil - denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant. These types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might . . . (but) we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and the friendship of our time-honored allies, as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages this economy.

Our military manpower is already stretched thin, and they are taking them from our States every day . . . on whom will we depend when these men and women are gone to foreign lands to fight a war if a war faces us here at home, a different kind of war. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy . . . our military forces are already being stretched thin, and we will need the augmenting support of those nations that can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far. . . . But there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan, as well, is at risk of destabilizing forces. This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism, and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war, one must also secure the peace?

Yet we hear little, precious little, about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? There are some who think so.

To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own very potent nuclear arsenal? What are we about to unleash here? The genie is getting out of the bottle. Can it ever be put back? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard for the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of 2 short years, this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated polices which may reap disastrous consequences for years. . . .

One can understand the anger and the shock of any president after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.

Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent - silent . . . on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq. Think about that.

Oh, I know Saddam Hussein is the person who is primarily responsible. But how about us? How about ourselves? Yes, there are going to be old men dying. There will be women dying. There will be children, little boys and girls dying if this war goes forward in Iraq. And American men and women will die, too. . . .

Over 50 percent of the population in Iraq is under age 15. What is said about that? . . . When it is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare, this Chamber is silent. The rafters should ring. The press galleries should be filled. Senators should be at their seats listening to questions being asked about this war, questions to which the American people out there have a right to expect answers. The American people are longing for information and they are not getting it. This Chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual here in the Senate. . . .

We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. . . .

I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.

Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is now to find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps - just perhaps - there is still a way, if we allow more time." [13]

* * * * * *

The decision to go to war with Iraq is a political decision, not a military decision. Remember President Roosevelt's admonition:

"Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens you can be sure it was planned that way." [14]

There is convincing evidence that a group of wicked men planned the coming war. Most of them are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. When Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR) was President Carter's National Security Advisor, the United States deposed the President of Nicaragua, and brought the Sandinistas to power, [15] deposed the Shah and brought a radical Islamic regime to power in Iran, and precipitated the Afghan war which created the Islamic movement. [16] Zbigniew Brzezinski discussed the importance of maintaining American supremacy in the Middle East in his book, The Grand Chessboard; he wrote:

". . . as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [17]

The September 11 tragedy provided the "massive and widely perceived direct external threat" needed to "fashion" a new "consensus." Most Americans rejected the thought of going to war in the Middle East before the attack. After the attack, the public wanted to punish those responsible for the tragedy. Despite the fact that none of the hijackers were Afghans, and there was no evidence that the Taliban financed the attack, or knew about it beforehand, we attacked Afghanistan. Who financed the Taliban before the Afghan war? Saudi Arabia and the United States. [18]

Why are the leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations promoting a series of senseless wars? They want a world government; they want an Anglo-American Empire; they want to rule the world. [19] Can that be proven?

June 3, 1997: Twenty-five members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signed their Statement of Principles; it was a plan for "an international order" that will promote our security and ensure our prosperity. The document states:

"we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles . . . it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. " [20]

PNAC's Statement of Principles calls for an American empire. The full text is available at:

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Many of the men who signed the Statement of Principles are members of the Bush War Cabinet or former high-ranking officials. They include: Vice President Dick Cheney, the Vice President's Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams, Senior Defense Department Official Peter W. Rodman, U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, the governor of Florida Jeb Bush, former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, former Republican Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, and former Director of Domestic and Political Affairs Gary Bauer. [21]

Twelve of the people who signed the PNAC Statement of Principles are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, America's secret government. [22]

September 1999: The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century released their New World Coming report; thirteen of the fourteen members of the National Comission belong to the CFR. Their report discussed coming terrorist attacks on America:

"Notable among these new threats is the prospect of an attack on U.S. cities by independent or state-supported terrorists using weapons of mass destruction . . . the future is contingent. Human history does not just happen; it is made." [23]

September 2000: Project for a New American Century released its Rebuilding America's Defenses report. The document recommends strengthening our military capability, stationing American troops in the Middle East and throughout the world, and noted that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" will hasten the "transformation" of our military forces.

"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." [24]

Most Americans have forgotten the horror of war. General William Tecumseh Sherman commanded the Union Army during the closing months of the Civil War. In a letter to James M. Calhoun, the mayor of Atlanta, General Sherman lamented:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it." [25]

Fifteen years later, during an address at the Michigan Military Academy, General Sherman warned:

"War is at best barbarism. . . . Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell." [26]

Osama bin Laden fought in Afghanistan; he understands the significance of the coming war. In a taped speech broadcast on Arabic radio on February 11, 2003, he noted:

" We advise about the importance of drawing the enemy into long, close and exhausting fighting, (in) . . . cities. The enemy fears the most the town fights and street fights. Such fighting would cause the enemy huge losses of souls." [27]

We are entering one of the most dangerous periods in our nation's history. Pray for the Americans who will soon be going into battle. Pray the war will be short, and pray for the civilians in Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

* * * * * *

Radio Liberty is available from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Pacific time, (6:00 - 8:00 p.m. EST) on Genesis satellites. Please contact the manager of your local radio station and ask him to broadcast our programs. If he is interested, call me at 800-544-8927. Our evening program will soon be available.

The Radio Liberty audience is increasing; a growing number of people are learning the truth. Several people wrote about my statement that 500,000 Iraqi children died because of the sanctions the U.S. imposed on Iraq. The information came from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, a letter from Congressman Ron Paul, and several books. One of my listeners wrote and mentioned an essay in Into The Buzzsaw. The author saw no evidence of starvation in Iraq before the UN sanctions were lifted. I asked a UN weapons inspector who was in Iraq in 1997; he saw no evidence of starvation, so the allegation that 500,000 Iraqi children died during the sanctions is probably false.

How can we understand what is happening? Wickedness abounds, the Church is no longer salt and light, and God has been banished from our schools and our government. I believe we are seeing the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Remember Paul's warning to the Ephesians:

12: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
      against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
      spiritual wickedness in high places.
13: Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able
      to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [28]

Our hope rests on the promise Jesus gave his disciples:

"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." [29]

Thank you for your faithful support and your prayers.

Yours in Christ,

Stanley Monteith



REFERENCES

1. Baker, Political Quotations: A Collection of Notable Sayings on Politics from Antiquity Through 1989, Gale Research, Inc., p.166, 800-877-4253
2. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, 1997, p. 211.
3. www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
4. New World Coming: American Security in the 21st Century, Phase I Report, September, 1999, pp. 1-3.
5. Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for A New Century, p. 51. See web site.
6. John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1980, p. 578.
7. Ibid., p. 579.
8. www.theolympian.com/home/specialsections/Transcripts/Nation/20030211/577.shtml
9. Dore Gold, Hatred's Kingdom, Regnery, Washington D.C., 2003, pp. 126-131, 224.
10. Ibid.
11. www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1246
12. www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/26/1046064104803.html
13. wheelchairjunkie.com.ubb/Forum3/HTML/005727.html
14. Baker, op. cit.
15. Anastasio Somoza, Nicaragua Betrayed, Western Islands, Boston, 1980, Introduction.
16. John Cooley, Unholy Wars, Pluto Press, London, Virginia, 1999, p. 19.
17. Brzezinski, op. cit.
18. Dore, op. cit., See Also: Richard Labeviere, Dollars for Terror, Algora Publishing, New York, pp 14-15.
19. Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, William Morrow, New York, 1979, pp. 278-9.
20. Project for a New American Century web site, op. cit.
21. Ibid., Statement of Principles.
22. Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr. Who's Who of the Elite, RIE, Spicewood Texas,
23. New World Coming, op. cit.
24. Rebuilding America's Defenses, op. cit.
25. John Bartlett, op. cit.
26. Ibid. p. 579.
27. "The Olympian" web site, op. cit.
28. The Holy Bible, King James Version, Ephesians 6: 12 - 13.
29: The Holy Bible, King James Version, Matthew 28:20


Return to Radio Liberty home page