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.
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. …