Fighting fire with Arson: the same globalists who gave Saddam Hussein the matches and gasoline are now demanding that the U.S. lead another international UN fire brigade into Iraq. (Foreign Quarrels).

In June, the tinder-dry forests of Arizona and Colorado exploded into blazing infernos. In both states federal "public servants" have been arrested and charged with starting the conflagrations. A part-time federal firefighter has been charged with deliberately setting the Arizona fire that became the largest in that state's history. His motive? Allegedly, he set it to make money fighting it. Similarly, in Colorado, a federal Forest Service employee is charged with starting the devastating Hayman blaze. Her motive? Reportedly, she told a friend that she hoped to become an arson investigator.

These cases are not unique. Although the vast majority of firefighters nobly risk their lives to save lives and property, the past few years have yielded a significant number who have chosen the criminal route of firefighter/arsonist. They have done this primarily for financial and professional gain. But what if some of these individuals had entertained grander, more strategic, visions for setting fires -- such as justification for greatly expanding their firefighting units and department budgets, hiring more personnel, enlarging the arson investigation squads, and acquiring vast inspection and arrest powers? And what if some of these individuals colluded together and actually hired and equipped arsonist teams to carry out these diabolical plans?

Anyone attempting such a depraved scheme has obviously qualified himself for a long prison term, the sensible citizenry will universally agree. Unfortunately, by the same criminal scheming he has also proven himself qualified as a prime candidate for recruitment into that prestigious firefighter/arsonist cabal dominating America's foreign policy for the past several decades -- the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Yes, the same folks at the CFR running U.S. policy through the past several Republican and Democrat administrations are presently fanning the fires set by their arsonists to justify a huge, global fire brigade, and a campaign against arson.

Necessary Enemy

Back in September 1996, Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of the CFR's flagship journal Foreign Affairs, penned a very revealing essay for Newsweek concerning arsonist Saddam Hussein. Zakaria vigorously took issue with critics who considered Hussein's continued reign in Baghdad a "failure of diplomacy in the Middle East." According to CFR fire marshal Zakaria, "Nothing could be further from the truth. If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast."

Saddam the linchpin of American policy? A linchpin is a critical element that holds everything in a complex ensemble together. Zakaria warned that "the end of Saddam Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy." This was back in 1996, remember, when the Clinton administration was threatening attacks on Saddam and the Butcher of Baghdad was again being held up as the singular personification of pure evil in the world. But note that, according to Zakaria, Saddam is a necessary enemy; if Hussein were toppled, the alliance would dissolve. So we see that the alliance was not a means to an end (to remove Saddam or force his compliance with weapons inspections, as the American people were told), but an end in itself. Which goes a long way toward explaining why George Bush (the elder) and his CFR coterie running Operation Desert Storm purposely left Saddam in power when he was within arm's reach of our victorious forces.

Especially revealing is Zakaria's contention that, "If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him." Who is this "we" who would "have to" invent Saddam? The inference is that "we," the American people, need Saddam. That's ludicrous, of course. No, when Zakaria and his ilk use "we" in this context, they are referring to themselves and their fellow one-world architects who populate the CFR and other Establishment powerhouses.

These "global citizens" see the world of sovereign, independent nation states as archaic, chaotic, and a definite roadblock to their dreams of a world government run by "enlightened" oligarchs -- themselves. As my colleague William Norman Grigg has commented: "Rational statesmen sometimes create alliances to deal with enemies; the CFR-dominated foreign policy trust creates enemies to justify alliances" -- alliances that entangle us in foreign quarrels, that undermine our nation's sovereignty, and that are intended to coalesce in world government under the United Nations. The evidence presented in the previous article (page 17) plainly demonstrates that Zakaria's CFR associates indeed invented Saddam the "global threat."

George Bush (the elder), Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Lawrence Eagleburger -- all luminaries in the CFR Establishment -- are some of the key actors in this ongoing play. They plied Saddam with billions of dollars in credits, grain, and weaponry, claiming this was necessary for a "balance of power" in the Persian Gulf region.

The CFR's "balance of power" calculus has provided the cover logic for bankrolling Communist dictatorships throughout most of the past century, the outstanding example being the Soviet Union. Professor Antony Sutton's monumental three-volume opus, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, documents in excruciating detail that between 1917 and 1965 the CFR-laden administrations of one U.S. president after another built the Soviet Union into a world-threatening power. This threat was then cited to justify forming anti-Communist alliances with socialist regimes and strengthening the UN. Whenever the Communist threat seemed on the verge of collapsing, the CFR brain trust would come up with a new strategy of "engagement," which, we were told, was aimed at moderating the Communists. Every "engagement" -- detente, glasnost, perestroika -- ended with the Communist regimes gobbling up more Free World real estate, and the spawning of more Soviet subcontractor regimes that Moscow could have do its dirty work, while denying any knowledge or complicity. Saddam's Iraq has been one of Moscow's most fruitful deniable assets.

From Cold War to War on Terror 

Saddam has solved the dilemma posed by CFR double-dome Lincoln P. Bloomfleld in his shocking study for the Kennedy administration more than 40 years ago. His study -- a prescription really -- was entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.

"The notion of a 'UN-controlled world' is today a fantastic one," Professor Bloomfield wrote in the plan commissioned by the State Department and paid for with taxpayers' funds. "Political scientists have generally come to despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific, and industrial life have sometimes found the logic of world government -- and it is world government we are discussing here -- inescapable."

Bloomfield, an MIT professor and an adviser to various administrations, rightly noted that for real world government under the United Nations to work, the U.S. and other nations would have to disarm and transfer their military assets to the UN. The dilemma he and fellow one-world schemers faced was this: If the Communists remained too militant and threatening, "the subordination of states to a true world government appears impossible; but if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might well lose whatever incentive it has for world government." (Emphasis added.)

How to solve this dilemma? How to sell the American people on U.S.-Russian cooperation and world government as the only alternative to nuclear annihilation? Obviously it would be necessary to greatly moderate the Soviet image -- and to create a new, threatening global enemy. The Soviets began earnestly manufacturing and refining that threat in the early 1960s, financing and training terrorist groups and surrogate state sponsors on an enormous scale. And the CFR cabal in successive administrations pretended not to see Moscow's hands inside the terrorist puppets. In 1989, during the first Bush presidency, former CIA Director William Colby (CFR) led a U.S.-Soviet Task Force to Prevent Terrorism, which brought the KGB terror directors together with American intelligence analysts in a phony effort to determine terrorism's causes and find ways to collaborate in stopping it.

In March 2001, several months before the 9-11 attacks, the Trilateral Commission meeting in London heard a presentation on Chechen terror from Sergei Yastrzhembsky, special adviser to Russia's dictator Vladimir Putin. The Russian explained that Putin (a chief of the KGB-GRU arson cabal) was, like his Western counterparts, struggling against terrorists.

Apparently the Trilateralist elites accepted this monstrous lie. No one rebutted by staring that Putin has been carrying out a war of terror and slaughter against Chechnya's civilians, or the evidence that the so-called Chechen "terrorist attacks" have been staged by Putin's own KGB veterans. No, the Trilats accepted Putin's emissary, just as the Bush administration has embraced Putin himself, as a partner in the global crusade against terror.

Dr. Bloomfield opined that in the drive for world government, "the [new world] order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks." In other words, get into the arson business and set some nasty fires. That they most certainly have been doing.