CLINTON BUSH KERRY EDWARDS GORE LIBERMAN = NEOCONS = BILDERBERG CANDIDATES = STARTED IRAQ WAR FOR OIL

 1st

do a simple search on wiki for bilderberg

 2nd

then do a simple search online for bush clinton in bed together and see how bush invited the clintons to his ranch in 2005

SOMEONE WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA BEING A NEOCON

read the truth below  

NewsMax Magazine Hillary’s Antics Help the GOP As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton barnstorms across the nation in her quest for the White House, is she doing the Democratic Party more harm than good, and in fact, really helping the GOP? NewsMax Magazine’s special report “She Can Save the GOP” reveals why Clinton could be the ideal Democratic candidate — IF Republicans hope to retain control of the White House. The report also reveals why some top Democrats desperately want to dump her from the ’08 ticket. Dick Morris has some astonishing insights gleaned from knowing Hillary for almost 30 years — many of which he served as her chief adviser and confidante. Morris explains Hillary’s “fatal flaw” — one Republicans must exploit to defeat her. This edition of NewsMax Magazine is selling out at newsstands across the country, including many Barnes & Noble, Hastings, Follett, Borders, B. Dalton, Books-a-Million, Joseph-Beth and other major bookstores. (We’re even in many Publix supermarkets in the Southeast and Meijer supermarkets in the Midwest!) Link http ://w3.newsmax. com/a/jan07a/?s=al&promo_c ode=37D6-1

 LOOKING AT THE ABOVE ARTICLE I THINK YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS

Barack is the one who works across party lines but he does it openly.

Clinton is the neocon in disguise

IRAQ WAR Background who is fighting + why = how Barack
Can bring Peace

   

Brief:

1st you get who is attacking us.

2nd you get proof to who is attacking us.

3rd you get the reason why we have them attacking us.

4th you will see who started this whole chain that
lead them to want to attack us.

5th you get to know that only a man like Barack Obama
can be the one to stop them from attacking us.


6th you get Baracks understand of the world and the
past 100 years.

LONG POST
Brief:
This war was planned many many years ago. Why do you
think the saudi's are so many of the insurgents! Read
this and understand the bilderberg world domination
factor.


1st:
Here you can see how most are saudis attacking us in
iraq:

2nd:
However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured
while trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of
more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in
suicide attacks show that most were heeding the calls
from clerics and activists to drive infidels out of
Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator
Nawaf Obaid, a US-trained analyst who was commissioned
by the Saudi government and given access to Saudi
officials and intelligence =

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq

"50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as
suicide bombers"
metafilter.com Found 11 hours ago
The "same people who attacked us on 9/11"? It may be
the very latest talking point from the Administration
, but it's actually true--altho it's not Al Qaeda in
Iraq, but Saudis. Although Bush administration
officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and
Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias
here, the largest number of foreign fighters and
suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor,
Saudi Arabia .

http://tailrank.com/2280283/Saudis-role-in-Iraq-insurgency-outlined




3rd:
make sure you read the whole article from someone
living there and who knows the truth and the feelings
of the people of saudi arabia




Full spectrum dominance.(America's Oil Wars)( Century
of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World
Order)(Book Review)
From: Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) | Date: 6/22/2005 |
Author: Bevan, Brock L.

Stephen C. Pelletiere. America's Oil Wars.

William Engdahl. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil
Politics and the New World Order, (Ann Arbor: Pluto
Press, [1992] 2004). 312 pp.

IRAQ, ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY (March 2005) of the
United States led invasion and subsequent occupation,
endures perpetual violence and a lack of normalization
of life. Though the United States argued that Iraq had
possessed so-called "weapons of mass-destruction" and
had colluded with "terrorists" in the run-up to the
invasion (that was neither declared a war by the
United States Congress nor sanctioned by the United
Nations Security Council), both allegations have
proven to be false. (1) Pretenses for the invasion
have shifted in the wake of the original casus belli
deteriorating: the real reason for the invasion -ex
posto facto- was to bring enlightenment in the form of
"democracy" to the Iraqi people (and the Arab world)
through preemptive war. (2)

Stephen C. Pelletiere, former senior political analyst
at the CIA on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and
professor of National Security Affairs at the United
States Army War College from 1998 to 2000, argues that
the ultimate occupation of Iraq from 2003 up to the
present was a result of Saddam Hussein's attempt in
the late 1980s and early 1990s to solidify the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
For Pelletiere "... the individual who was able to
marshal the resources of so great (and powerful) an
institution, and keep its members in line, would have
been someone with whom to reckon." (3)

The peculiar instability that was prevalent in the
Persian Gulf region prior to 1988-1989 allowed the
United States to execute its version of a global
racket. It involved allowing instability to flourish
in order to create a reason for the autocrats in the
Persian Gulf to exchange their "petro-dollars" for
United States-made armaments. That these armaments
were often of no use to the states buying them made no
difference. Pelletiere contends that the "historic
juncture" that occurred in the late 1980s "imperiled
America's position in the Gulf." The concurrence of
events that was the disintegration of the Soviet
Union, the Iraqi defeat of Iran in their near
decade-long war, and the consolidation of OPEC with
high-absorber states in control of policy posed a
challenge to the hegemony of the United States in the
region and (as a result of the geopolitical
significance of petroleum) in the world.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, challenged the hegemony
that the United States exercised in the region by
invading Kuwait in 1990. The problem for the United
States was manifold, starting with the threat that a
strong Iraq would pose to the Washington's allies in
the region; continuing onto the elevated position of
power Baghdad would sustain with Kuwait integrated
into the state; and ending with the additional
prestige Iraq would have over petroleum resources on a
global level. Iraq, once cornered by the shenanigans
of the George H. W. Bush administration, attempted to
accommodate Washington's dictates while saving face,
but to no avail. (4) Iraq's mistake turned out to be
the perfect opportunity to enact a modified version of
plans developed under former Secretary of State Henry
A. Kissinger in the 1970s to seize oilfields in the
Persian Gulf from weak sheikdoms such as Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. (5)

As a result of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the
United States justified a military ground presence in
Saudi Arabia. According to the story pushed by
Washington, iraq posed a threat to the integrity of
the Saudi Arabian kingdom, or at least the continued
dynastic power of the al-Saud family. Thus, the
al-Saud family gained "protection" from the United
States but paid for it in terms of the cost of the war
against Iraq in 1990-1991 as well as in terms of lost
legitimacy. As Pelletiere says "... the decision to
stay on [after the conclusion of the conflict in 1991]
infuriated some elements of Saudi society, and
instances of sabotage against the Americans began to
proliferate." (6)

Whereas Pelletiere roots his analysis on the
specificity of Iraq and its particular history in
terms of leadership under Saddam Hussein, William
Engdahl emphasizes the global dimension to the
conflict. Engdahl is trained as an economist and
writes for various financial publications on issues of
energy, politics, and economics. In his A Century of
War: Anglo-American Politics and the New Worm Order,
the reader is exposed to the long history of petroleum
and how the change from coal as the major fuel altered
the world. (7) Engdahl states "War in Iraq was about
the very basis of America's 'national security,' of
future American power. America's role as the sole
hegemon was the unspoken reason for the war ..." (8)
In making that statement Engdahl highlights the
international monetary system that has been in place
since the end of Second World War.

Unlike other countries that are constricted by issues
such as balance of payments and debt, the United
States developed a system whereby it issues a fiat
currency that the rest of the world must use. At the
end of the Second World War, America's unique position
made sense in that it held the majority of global gold
reserves and had an economy not shattered by war like
in the United Kingdom, France, or Germany. Moreover,
the United States dollar, at the time, was still
exchangeable for gold. All this would change on 15
August 1971 when the United States "... announced
formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold,
effectively putting the world fully onto a dollar
standard with no gold backing, thereby ripping apart
the central provision of the 1944 Bretton Woods
system." (9)

Engdahl notes that "The American Century, stripped of
the rhetoric of freedom, peace, and democracy, was
based on clear US hegemony among nations." (10) He
continues:


It rested on two pillars. The one pillar was the
uncontested role of US military power, a dominance
which
no combination of powers had been able to challenge
since the
end of the Second World War in 1945. The Soviet Union
ultimately collapsed amid ruin in the effort to
challenge that
hegemony ... The second pillar of American power was
the
uncontested role of the dollar as world reserve
currency. (11)

After gold no longer backed the dollar as a result of
Nixon's action in 1971, another marker was to take its
place: black gold. Thereafter, the denomination of
petroleum sales in the international market place was
to be exclusively in the dollar. The fact that the
United States had a never-ending supply of greenbacks
whereas every other country had to obtain dollars in
order to purchase the petroleum required for economic
growth put Washington in an extremely powerful
position. (12) Engdahl refers to this series of events
as the replacement of the gold standard with the
"petrodollar standard."

Both Pelletiere and Engdahl see different cliques
operating behind the scenes of nominal political
channels in order to ensure their particular goals.
Engdahl cites New York and London financial circles as
well as the Seven Sisters (the major international
petroleum companies) as designing American policy.
Pelletiere often mentions the "complex," meaning the
military-industrial complex that former President
Dwight Eisenhower so famously warned about while
allowing it to grow. The difference in the two lies in
the breadth of analysis. Engdahl paints a larger, more
in-depth, picture of United States action globally.

Pelletiere uses smaller brush-strokes and localizes
the conflict to the Persian Gulf. They both agree on
the nature of the United States occupation of Iraq as
being imperialist. Again, the notion of American
occupation of the Persian Gulf in order to exercise
direct control over petroleum resources and indirect
influence over the region was aired in 1970s. Engdahl
notes that "In 1975, [James] Akins related, plans to
find a pretext to send U.S. troops to occupy vital
Mideastern oilfields had been encouraged by Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger." (13)

The George W. Bush administration exploited the
attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the
Pentagon in 2001 in order to further United States
interests that predated the end of the Cold War. As
Engdahl states, "[t]error was to replace communism as
the new global image of 'the enemy.' (14) The new
terrorists could be anywhere and everywhere. Above
all, as the was defined in Washington, they were
mostly to be found in the Islamic regions which also
happened to control most of the world's oil reserves."
(15) Pelletiere focuses on the fact that the United
States needed to relocate from its Saudi bases and:


Rather than seeking to resolve this situation
peacefully, the
[George W.] Bush administration (egged on by the
neo-cons)
tried to force the issue by exploiting the horrific
attacks on
[the] Twin Towers and the Pentagon. (16)

Pelletiere continues by stating that any United States
base(s) in Iraq that persist will be under "continual
seige." But, he thinks that this state of continual
siege will be a benefit to the military-industrial
complex as it will allow for justification for
"continued subsidization at higher and higher levels"
and "will practically ensure underfunding of social
programs in the United States."

Engdahl suggests a greater plot. Stating that the era
of "cheap oil" was coming to an end, Engdahl argues
that:


... the looming depletion of a major share of world
oil and gas,
due to take effect around the end of the first decade
of the
century, sometime around 2010 or 2015, perhaps even
sooner,
would explain the drive to unilateral military action
in Iraq by
the Bush administration, despite the enormous risks.
(17)

By controlling Iraq, the United States would have a
firm grip on the heart of the remaining "cheap oil"
sources. Iraq--having been kept in a state of siege
for the last 25 years--was ripe for development into
the next Saudi Arabia. In a sense, Washington's
support for the Iraq-Iran war, its active
participation in the First Gulf War, and its active
participation in the siege of Iraq from 1991 to 2003
were all indicative of the will to keep Iraq as
primarily an exporter of petroleum and not a user of
it. (18) With Iraq as a base of future operations,
America projected its military might and showed its
ability to control the financial resources of the
world by using its fiat currency to sustain
astronomical debts incurred from its massive spending
on armaments. Engdahl states the United States "now
commanded a near monopoly of future energy resources.
The Pentagon had a term for it [control of the world
reserve currency, military hegemony, and direct
control of resources]--'full spectrum dominance.' It
meant that the United States should control military,
economic and political developments, everywhere."(19)

Pelletiere and Engdahl, challengers of the White House
espoused reasons for war in Iraq, offer their readers
insights into the operation of American imperial
designs. Pelletiere concentrates his analysis on Iraq
and its history. Engdahl provides a global approach to
the vagaries of United States intervention in the
Persian Gulf. They both agree that the invasion and
occupation of Iraq was engineered and without any
legitimate casus belli. Engdahl's detailed exposition
on how the control of Iraqi oil--and derivative
influence over the Persian Gulf region--produces
United States power over economic competitors that are
energy-dependent (e.g., China, Japan, Germany, and
France) and reinforces the role of the dollar present
a solid explanation of Washington's action. (20)

ENDNOTES

(1.) David Kay, transcript of Newshour with Jim
Lehrer, 29 January 2004, . Kay states that his team
launched to find Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass
destruction" by the Bush administration found "program
activities" related to missile development and atomic
weaponization yet "the large stockpile of actual
weapons, chemical and biological weapons simply have
not yet been found." Regarding a "terrorist"
connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, no link has ever
been proven. Pelletiere suggests that the attacks on
the Twin Towers in 2001 were a result of the presence
of United States troops in Saudi Arabia. He notes that
"[t]o this day, Americans do not know what went on
with those attacks [on the Twin Towers and the
Pentagon], and there is every reason to believe that
this is the case with their leaders as well." P. 135.

(2.) The term "preemptive" has seen much usage in
order to describe the United States invasion of Iraq.
However, Iraq posed little threat to its neighbors let
alone the United States as it had neither the weapons
to inflict damage on the United States nor the
capacity to deliver the weapons. Thus, preemptive
should be read as unilateral and without provocation
from Baghdad.

(3.) Stephen C. Pelletiere, America's Oil Wars'.
(Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), p. ix. The Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was created
during a conference in Baghdad that took place from
10-14 September 1960. The original members of the
cartel included Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and
Venezuela.

(4.) Ibid., p. 105. "Once the United States had
determined to oppose the invasion [of Kuwait], it
seems to have resolved on making war, with the result
that all of the Iraqis' maneuvers to initiate
negotiations went unheeded."

(5.) Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields in
'73: British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to
Mideast," The Washington Post, 1 January 2004, page
A01.

(6.) Pelletiere, p. 150. The unrest caused by the
United States basing troops in Saudi Arabia was a
two-way street. It disturbed the sensibilities of
Saudis keen on protecting Mecca and Medina from
infidels and this anger was channeled against the
monarchy as well as against Americans.

(7.) William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American
Oil Politics and the New World Order (Ann Arbor: Pluto
Press, 2004).

(8.) Ibid., p. ix.

(9.) Ibid., p. 128. The United States was forced to
decouple the dollar from the gold standard due to the
low value set on the price of gold, $35 per fine
ounce. For more on the Bretton Woods system, see
Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism : The Origin and
Fundamentals of U.S. Worm Dominance (Sterling, VA:
Pluto Press, 2003).

(10.) Ibid., p. x.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid., p. 154. Engdahl calls OPEC's decision in
1975 to accept only dollars for petroleum "curious"
since the agreement remained in force "despite
enormous losses to OPEC as the dollar gyrated up and
down through the next decade and more."

(13.) Ibid., p. 218-219. James Akins was a former
ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

(14). Ironically, the United States funded jihadi
groups in the successful effort to keep the Soviet
Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

(15.) Ibid., p. 252.

(16.) Pelletiere, p. 150.

(17.) Engdahl, p. 262.

(18.) Ibid., pp. 268-269. Engdahl argues that the oil
shock in 1973 was rigged at Saltsjobaden, Sweden
during at meeting of the Bilderberg group. The jump in
oil prices had the result of creating a huge pool of
so-called 'petrodollars' that could not be invested in
the countries that accrued them. Thus, they were
invested in Europe and the United States instead of
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Besides strengthening the
dollar in the wake of the decoupling from the gold
standard, the price shock had the effect of placing
developing countries in a perpetual debt cycle since
their raw materials did not rise in price as the cost
of dollar-denominated petroleum did. See pp. 130-141.

(19.) Ibid., p. 269.

(20.) At the end of 2000, Iraq began to price its
petroleum in Euros. See Charles Recknagel, "Iraq:
Baghdad Moves to the Euro," Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty, 1 November 2000, < Link. Although not
devastating to Washington at the time, was a highly
symbolic move on Iraq's part. Switching to dominated
petroleum sales in Euros was an attack on the United
States dollar as world reserve currency and as the
United States as hegemon.

Brock L. Bevan holds a master's degree in Middle
Eastern studies from the American University of
Beirut. Formerly, he was grants administrator at the
Washington, DC-based Jerusalem Fund.


4th:
You can see how the group BILDERBERG has run all the
american elections ever since.

(see ENDNOTE 18 where it references Bilderberg)

MY BLOG: = "Its long but true"

"When we change presidents, it is understood to mean
that the voters are ordering a change in national
policy. Since 1945, three different Republicans have
occupied the White House for 16 years, and four
democrats have held this most powerful post for 17
years. With the exception of the first seven years of
the Eisenhower administration, there has been no
appreciable change in foreign or domestic policy.
There has been a great turnover in personnel, but no
change in policy. Example: during the Nixon years,
Henry Kissinger, a council member and Nelson
Rockefeller protégé, was in charge of foreign policy.
When Jimmy Carter was elected, Kissinger was replaced
by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a council member and David
Rockefeller protégé.

BILDERBERG CANIDATES

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/Crpz

5th:
I know It is a little long but it gives you the full
insight to why we went to war and how Barack has this
knowledge and will use it to broker that peace with a
group of people who have been used and abused by many
around the world. Only Barack Obama has the ability to
broker that peace. They would never trust the good old
white boy network that has run roughshod over them for
the last hundred years.

6th
Baracks understanding of the big picture

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/22/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_17.php




VOTE AT WWW.CAPITALNEWS.ORG EVERYDAY

http://www.capitalnews.org

JOIN http://www.barackobama.com and change the world

Life here on earth is but a dream of the true
spiritual world from
whence we came and to where we will return

For as you have cared for others so have you cared for
me. Love Jesus