In 1953, Eisenhower authorized the CIA to conduct a coup d’ tat in Iran, overthrowing its elected leader and installing a brutal dictator. That was the end result. But the decision actually authorized the CIA to kill innocent people.

And it did. Is that terrorism?

I won’t bore you with other such murders carried out by our homegrown terrorist organization. Some are provided for you in my book. You decide for yourself if you agree with me — that the U.S. perpetrated acts of terrorism in the Middle East even before such charges were levied at so-called Muslim “extremists” by American leaders.

Today, we look at the remarks made by former president Bill Clinton in a Fox News interview aired Sunday, Sept. 24.

Clinton claims that he authorized the CIA to murder Osama bin Laden and that he had “contracted with people to kill him.” Given the fact that the American public became familiar with Osama in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, well after Clinton was gone from office, it seems prudent to ask questions regarding the reasons why the leader of the world’s most powerful nation would see fit to put out a contract killing on one man.

Americans do not know who Osama bin Laden is, nor why he is revered in the Muslim world. Most Americans believe Osama is a “terrorist” (whatever that means) and they associate him with the attacks of 9/11 … because our government told us he was responsible. Now we hear from a former president that Osama was being sought after with a death warrant long before 9/11.

The necessary question isn’t whether or not Osama was deserving of such a decree, but rather how did the American people get to a point where we elect men to sit in the Oval Office who make secret contract killings with taxpayer dollars regarding issues we know nothing about and target people we’ve never heard of?

No matter how closely I examine the constitution, I cannot find the authorization for such dictatorial decisions.

And given the nature of the beast — meaning the untrustworthiness of Washington D.C. — it seems rather odd that the American public would trust our government to make decisions that are based upon any semblance of morality or, as in this case, immorality. Certainly, we have been shown, time and again, that our government leaders are not to be trusted.

So, why did the interviewers at Fox News completely ignore the admission by a former president that he had issued an edict to snuff out the life of a man for whom there was no credible evidence of participation in attacking this nation? And even if there were evidence of any sort, from where does the president derive the power to secretly place a contract on a man’s head and send the CIA overseas to find and kill him?

And what authorizes a president to direct the CIA to operate secret prisons, kidnappings, torture of “detainees” and a host of horrific problems that heretofore the Christian church in America has largely ignored or supported, despite the fact that a great majority of Americans profess to be Christian and such activities by our government fly in the face of Christian morals and values?

Indeed, Clinton has opened a Pandora’s Box of questions that can never again be closed. We know that previous presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush all have authorized covert CIA operations that gave this secret organization the directive to murder along a pathway toward achieving a political goal.

And now we learn that secret decisions to authorize murder were made by a president who has been out of office for more than 6 years. It took that long for the information to surface, and quite by accident through an ambush interview by Fox News that put Clinton on the defense of his actions and off the script of what he had intended to say.

What wasn’t asked was how many other contract killings had he authorized and why. How many presidents before him had authorized contractual killings by the CIA? What legal authorization does any president have for making such decisions? How can the American people know what decisions our presidents are making regarding life and death of individuals when our representatives in congress are clueless to the inner sanctum of the White House, where apparent decisions of life and death are routine?

Last week, world leaders stood up and railed against president George W. Bush because of the manner in which he has spoken to the leaders of nations around the globe. The U.S. is viewed as a bully. Not the variety seen on a playground at most any elementary school, but rather a notorious brutal murderous dictatorship that believes it has a right to rule the entire world.

Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has continually called for a debate with president Bush. His nation has been a target of U.S. aggression since the first CIA operation targeting the overthrow of a foreign government was authorized 53 years ago. His calls have gone unanswered. His letter, written back on May of this year, has also gone unanswered … and unread by most Americans.

But the Washington Post finally took the lead and sat down with the Iranian leader and conducted a Q & A. This interview opens the door to understanding why president Bush refuses to respond to the call for an open, uncensored public debate. It is clear that our president would lose … and lose badly.

Posted on September 25th, 2006 by admin
Filed under: America in the MidEast

Bookmark - del.icio.us | Digg it | Furl | reddit | Spurl | StumbleUpon |