President Bush and the "New World Order"

[JGrubbs]

Below is a quote from President George W. Bush. Is President George W. Bush's continuing his father's vision of a "New World Order"?

"And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned. And my job as the President is to lead this nation into making the world a better place."
--President George W. Bush, April 14, 2004

Here are some quotes from President George H.W. Bush in about the "New World Order":

"Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order.
Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
--President George H.W. Bush, Texas A&M University 1989

"The Persian Gulf crisis is a rare opportunity to forge new bonds with old enemies (the Soviet Union)...Out of these troubled times a New World Order can emerge under a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders."
--President George Bush, September 11, 1990

"We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
--President George H.W. Bush 1991

"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long."
-- President George H.W. Bush, January 1991

"For two centuries we've done the hard work of freedom. And tonight we lead the world in facing down a threat to decency and humanity. What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future."
--President George H.W. Bush State of the Union Address 1991

"We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order - where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance."
--President George H.W. Bush State of the Union Address 1991

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."
--President George H.W. Bush addressing the General Assembly of the U.N., February 1, 1992

Other New World Order Quotes: http://www.amerikanexpose.com/quotes1.html

 

[Pastor Larry]

Help us understand your point here ...

 

[JGrubbs]

My point is that President George W. Bush just like his father is a globalists working to establish a "New World Order".

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735/

 

[JGrubbs]

Chronological History of the New World Order

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

GW Bush is an "internationalist", there is no doubt. We could argue over his motives or reasons, but that is the effect of his policy. It's all about money and power, and has little to do with governing America as a free, sovereign Republic under God.

He is highly in support of the FTAA agreement, which replaces the sovereignty of our nation with an unelected, non-American entity. It's a far worse version of NAFTA.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What is the FTAA??

Hasn't regime change been the policy of the US administrations for the last 12 years? I don't think that was anything new, was it?

If Bush is so determined to replace the sovereignty of our nation with an unelected, non-American entity, why did he reject the UN approach to security?

Lastly, is anyone surprised by this? Bill Clinton was the same way, only with a higher regard for the unelected, non-American entity known as the UN.

All thing being told, I think the spread of democracy is the best thing for the security of our country and the world. The fewer dictators like Saddam Hussein, the less terrorism there will be because they won't find many places to hide. I certainly don't think we should give up our soveriegnty to anyone and I don't think we should be running all over hte world to play "freedom Santa" to people. But neither should we sit by while there are threats to free people.

 

[The Galatian]

All thing being told, I think the spread of democracy is the best thing for the security of our country and the world. The fewer dictators like Saddam Hussein, the less terrorism there will be because they won't find many places to hide.

The irony is, by removing Saddam, we gave the terrorists one more place in which they could operate safely. Saddam suppressed the Islamist terrorists. We freed them.

I certainly don't think we should give up our soveriegnty to anyone and I don't think we should be running all over hte world to play "freedom Santa" to people.

So why vote for someone who is working for these things?

But neither should we sit by while there are threats to free people.

As the 9/11 commission is now discovering, Bush did just that. He focused on Saddam and ignored (what he called a "historical" document) a warning about the real terroists.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

"FTAA" stands for "Free Trade Area of the Americas".

"...Proponents argue that the FTAA would increase prosperity by eliminating trade and investment barriers between the nations of the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA would expand NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, to include all of the Latin American countries with the exception of Cuba. NAFTA currently applies only to the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Privately, proponents are also saying that the FTAA would deepen NAFTA by claiming jurisdiction over an ever-increasing number of functions that have previously been under the control of national, state, and local governments...Proponents also conceal the effect of the FTAA on U.S. borders, realizing that the American public would not support their revolutionary goals. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has clearly and correctly warned:

"There are people in the [Bush] administration, and in Mexico, and in Congress, who believe that we should do away with borders entirely. Their ultimate goal is to create this hemispheric ‘free trade’ area consolidating all of North and South America into some kind of ‘United States of the Americas.’"

Mexico’s Vicente Fox, in a 2002 address to European elites, was unexpectedly candid about these aims:

"Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services, and persons." [Emphasis ours]..."


SOURCE

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The irony is, by removing Saddam, we gave the terrorists one more place in which they could operate safely. Saddam suppressed the Islamist terrorists. We freed them.

Perhaps, but only temporarily. Saddam was not repressing Islamist terrorist. He was paying them for their suicides apparently. Now, they have some more freedom, but with the estlablishment of free Iraq, they will have less. In the long run, if the US continues the course, things will be much better. We cannot be so pragmatic as to pretend that millions of people living under the brutal dictatorship of a mad man is better than the temporary inconvenience of a scant few terrorists trying to prevent the freedom of Iraqi people.

So why vote for someone who is working for these things?

Because the onl legitimate alternative has even worse ideas.

As the 9/11 commission is now discovering, Bush did just that. He focused on Saddam and ignored (what he called a "historical" document) a warning about the real terroists.

As I already pointed out several times, the congressional 9/11 committee said this as a historical document. There is no specific actionable information in there. There is no evidence that anything prior to 9/11 could have been done to prevent the attacks. Even your hero Richard Clarke said that if all of his suggestions had been followed, the attack would not have been prevented. The only thing that would have stopped it is probably draconian measures far exceeding the much hated Patriot Act. The American people would not have stood for it. It would have required a preemptive strike, something that you detest.

So we cannot legitimately continue with the line that Bush did nothing but stand by. That is clearly false. Richard Clarke refuted that. Every single witness before this committee has testified that the government was indeed doing something. The recently declassified PDB refuted that. There were in fact things going on prior to 9/11. But the government and the agencies were poorly equipped to be dealing with it.

The blame game is scapegoating. It is useless. Let's quit placing blame and start finding solutions. An article on MSNBC details that there were steps being taken, but all agreed that the major threats were out of this country. According to Tenet, we are 5 years away from being ready. We need to make progress on that area.

So long as we live in a free country, we will never be completely safe. That is the price of freedom, but with common sense and diligence, we can minimize the danger. Hopefully, we will do that.

 

[The Galatian]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
The irony is, by removing Saddam, we gave the terrorists one more place in which they could operate safely. Saddam suppressed the Islamist terrorists. We freed them.

Perhaps, but only temporarily.

Why do it at all? And when will we put an end to it? If you haven't been reading the papers, it's been getting worse, not better.

Saddam was not repressing Islamist terrorist.

Specifically, he was killing and torturing Islamist militants. By the time we invaded, there was effectively no Iraqi Islamist movement.

He was paying them for their suicides apparently.

Gee, I hope they got paid in advance...

Now, they have some more freedom,

Larry, they are roaming the cities. They are being imported from other terrorist centers. They are building organizations.

but with the estlablishment of free Iraq, they will have less.

What makes you think Iraq is ever going to be "free" as we think of it?

In the long run, if the US continues the course, things will be much better. We cannot be so pragmatic as to pretend that millions of people living under the brutal dictatorship of a mad man is better than the temporary inconvenience

We are talking Al Quaeda and Iranian militants. They've been more than a "temporary inconvenience" to us.

I certainly don't think we should give up our soveriegnty to anyone and I don't think we should be running all over hte world to play "freedom Santa" to people.

So why vote for someone who is working for these things?

Because the onl legitimate alternative has even worse ideas.

Retaining American soveriegnty and taking care of the US first don't seem like bad ideas to me.

Barbarian observes:
As the 9/11 commission is now discovering, Bush did just that. He focused on Saddam and ignored (what he called a "historical" document) a warning about the real terroists.

As I already pointed out several times, the congressional 9/11 committee said this as a historical document. There is no specific actionable information in there.

Let's see... it names names, it gives locations, and it says that hijacking is one objective. Granted, Bush had business and social ties to the Bin Ladens. But this clearly shows Osama was a problem and that he was aiming at specific actions inside the US.

At very least, Bush should have put off his vendetta against Saddam and focused on the actual dangers we faced.

There is no evidence that anything prior to 9/11 could have been done to prevent the attacks. Even your hero Richard Clarke said that if all of his suggestions had been followed, the attack would not have been prevented.

We won't ever know for sure, because Bush chose to ignore the warning.

It would have required a preemptive strike, something that you detest.

Nope. First, if Bush had simply and aggressively followed up on the FBI information about radicals taking flight training, that would have derailed the 9/11 attack. Second, preemtive strikes, where they are necessary, are necessary. The point is that there was nothing to pre-empt in Iraq. Saddam was clearly terrified of a US attack, had dumped his weapons programs, and was doing everything he could to avoid giving us a pretext to attack him.

So we cannot legitimately continue with the line that Bush did nothing but stand by.

He got a clear warning, with some details about the attack. He continued his vacation, and ignored it.

The blame game is scapegoating.

Scapegoating is when the guy at the top tries to find someone else to blame. Bush is a master at that. But this time, people aren't buying his excuses.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Once again, just a multitude of incredible statements from Galatian.

Retaining American soveriegnty and taking care of the US first don't seem like bad ideas to me.

Then you should be supporting Bush because that is exactly what he is doing. He refused to cede our sovereignty to the UNSC and determined to protect Americans by going after threats. He did what 9/11 commissioner Bob Kerrey said he should do two years ago: Go after Iraq. Your two criteria are met by the current president. Yet you hate him ... Seems to show your inconsistency.

Let's see... it names names, it gives locations, and it says that hijacking is one objective. Granted, Bush had business and social ties to the Bin Ladens. But this clearly shows Osama was a problem and that he was aiming at specific actions inside the US.

It gave no information that was not already known, and provided no location (contrary to your assertion). If you think it provided locations, then please cite the evidence. "Federal buildings in New York" is not specific enough to be actionable. And as we well know, "federal buildings in New York" were not the target, as I already pointed out. Osama was a problem and it was no secret that he was trying to attack in teh US. That is old news Galatian. That is why it is called "historical in nature," both by the current adminstration and both those on the congressional 9/11 panel.

Nope. First, if Bush had simply and aggressively followed up on the FBI information about radicals taking flight training, that would have derailed the 9/11 attack.

That was done, and there was no cause to do anything further. We are now finding out that much of hte info sharing was rendered impossible by law, and a memo apparently attributed to a 9/11 commission member.

We are now finding out that apparently the FBI was prevented from searhing Mossaui's (However you spell it) computer for evidence that might have led to prevention by the rules of the FBI from the 90s.

The more evidence that comes out, the more we realize that this was the result of a total breakdown all across the board.

The point is that there was nothing to pre-empt in Iraq. Saddam was clearly terrified of a US attack, had dumped his weapons programs, and was doing everything he could to avoid giving us a pretext to attack him.

He was clearly terrified??? But apparently not clearly terrified enough to back down from his claims about WMDs. All he had to do was backdown and the issue would have been over. He refused.

We do not know that he had dumped his weapons programs. The intelligence gathering nations, the UNSC, and the weapon's inspectors (including the current one) all believed that he had them and had not dumped them. Had Bush said "Saddam does not have WMDs, he would have been alone."

We do know that he maintained the ability to make them, and that he had not accounted for the destruction of WMDs.

It is clearly false to say he was doing everything he could to avoid a pretext to attack him. He could have stopped it long ago, but refused. He is the one to blame.

Every civilized intelligence gathering nation in the world agreed with BUsh on this, as I keep pointing out and you keep claiming to know better. That is clearly evident from their statements, from their votes in the UNSC, and from the statements of the weapon's inspectors.

We still don't know what happened to the WMDs because Saddam and other leaders either loyal to him or scared of his remaining free henchmen won't talk. We know that he had them . This is simply revisionist history to pretend otherwise.

If you watched the press conference last night, you know very well that Bush is not playing the blame game. He said OBL is to blame. He was specifically asked about Clarke's statement and he let Clarke off the hook. He could have said "Clarke should apologize because he had that post for 10 years and did not do enough to stop it." But he didn't ... he said there is one person to blame ... Osama Bin Laden. Why isn't that good enough for you? Clarke is not to blame; Rice is not to blame; the FBI and CIA are not to blame; Clinton is not to blame; Freeh, Mueller, Tenet, Reno, and Ashcroft are not to blame. OBL is to blame.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

George W. Bush on the United Nations:

"Let me say something about the UN," stated the president during the March 16th pre-war summit in the Azores. "It’s a very important organization. That’s why I went there on September the 12th, 2002, to give the speech, the speech that called the UN into account, that said if you’re going to pass resolutions, let’s make sure your words mean something … I understand the wars of the 21st century are going to require incredible international cooperation.... And the UN must mean something. Remember Rwanda, or Kosovo [where the UN didn’t act forcefully]. And we hope tomorrow the UN will do its job. If not, all of us need to step back and try to figure out how to make the UN work better as we head into the 21st century."

SOURCE

 

[JGrubbs]

In his speach the president repeatedly talked about "changing the world,"what's "good for the world," and "freedom for the world." Since when is it the responsibility of an American president or the American nation to "change the world"? Is G.W. Bush the President of the United States or is he the ruler of the world?

The tone of the president's press conference left little doubt that George W. Bush is a globalist of the highest order. We knew his
father was. Now, it is more than obvious that GWB is, as well.

 

[The Galatian]

Bush once again put the US under UNESCO. Even Clinton wouldn't do that.

Bush is an internationalist; he has more in commmon with folks like himself, regardless of their nationality, than he does with most Americans.

This is why, right after 9/11, he helped the Bin Laden family quickly leave the United States. His business and social ties with these people came first.

Of course Bush doesn't want to talk about who was responsible for security against terrorists. He was.

And for all the talk about WMD, it turns out that we can't find any trace of them. Bush knew this before the war, because his intelligence told him that.

He just didn't tell us.

 

[Alcott]

I think God already has the New World on order. No matter how slow the delivery is, it's guaranteed for a lifetime.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Good posts, Galatian and NP. The evidence is overwhelming and easily accepted by anyone with a heart for the truth.