wmgreene
15th October 2005, 03:57
Lawsuits come and go, but Sherman H. Skolnick is the reporter who has the only existing copy of one of the lawsuits against the Elder Bush et. al. A link to one of the pages he published is entitled Greenspan Reportedly Bribes and Aids Bush in Gold Swindles, Part One (http://www.skolnicksreport.com/greenspan1.html) provides some real insights into our past wars with Iraq and more. One paragraph from that page is also provided herewith for the convenience of readers:
[5]Some of the reportedly huge secret wire transfers were for, or with the Elder Bush jointly with the Queen of England, through her accounts in the British Monarchy's Coutts Bank, London. The secret account numbers are contained in some of the more than 300 apparently authentic Federal Reserve wire transfer records. The British Monarchy has long been accused as being worldwide kingpins in the narcotics traffic, going back 150 years starting with the Opium Wars in China.
[6] Others of the more than 300 documents, relate to a situation started in the 1970s, when the Elder Bush arranged to overthrow the Iraqi government by political assassination. Bush helped install Saddam Hussein. Others of those and other documents relate to the decade, 1980 to 1990, when the Elder Bush was a secret private business partner of Saddam Hussein in extorting billions of dollars per year from the weak sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf---oil industry kick-backs, to supposedly assure security. A little-known Federal lawsuit in Chicago dealt with the secret partner of Saddam Hussein, namely George Herbert Walker Bush. I and my associates were the only journalists attending the federal appeals court hearing. I later did an exclusive group of interviews with the participants, confirming that Bush and Saddam were private business partners in extortion of the sheikdoms. Only one populist paper dared publish the details in 1991 of my interviews on the federal case.
In a typical sort of falling out of business partners, Bush suckered Saddam Hussein into seizing a portion of Kuwait long challenged by Saddam as being a Iraqi province and part of Saddam's oilfields. Bush used a top U.S. official to mislead Saddam into thinking the U.S. would not intervene in this local quarrel with the former British colony. Bush was the one, on behalf of U.S. oil drilling interests, that helped develop the Kuwaiti oilfields, following the 1961 relinquishing of British sovereignty. In its simplest form, the 1990-91, Persian Gulf conflict was a falling out of private business partners.
The result of this treachery? Great loss of life of ordinary soldiers. Upwards of 150 thousand young Iraqis died in the conflict, some buried alive by U.S. war bulldozers. President Bush ordered U.S. warplanes to shoot in the back, the retreating Iraqi soldiers proceeding under a white flag of surrender. It was the most horrendous murder of surrendering troops in world history. The German massacre of some 80 U.S. troops surrendering in World War 2 during the Battle of the Bulge, was a small matter by comparison. [Our public access Cable TV Program in 1991 was about the only TV Show in America that dared discuss this matter.]
Following the Persian Gulf War, some 15,000 U.S. troops died from the mysterious malady, called Gulf War Syndrome, which the Pentagon denies is happening. Ex-GIs continue to die from the strange ailments, and the total deaths and debilitating diseases amount to more than 20 per cent as casualties of all the Americans serving in the military in the Persian Gulf 1990-91, more than 100 thousand American soldiers as casualties.
Now, I realize what I’m about to say is not wholly supported by the limited excerpt above because of limitations of space, but, given that the war in Iraq appears to really be the logical set of circumstances following Papa Bush’s having extorted $5 per barrel of every barrel exported from Iraq from 1980 through 1990 (which according to the lawsuit against Bush, was, of course, deposited into 19 of Papa Bush's private bank accounts), and Saddam’s retaliation by converting to the Frank and then the Eurodollar, (and this conversion to the Eurodollar was to have been followed by Iran and then the OPEC nations), with Baby Bush’s war being the only way to bring the US out of the resulting economic impact, is there any reason to believe the rise in current oil/gas prices are not an attempt by the OPEC nations to recover the losses that they have incurred by their own efforts to convert to the Eurodollar having been blocked?
Certainly, if Iran and the OPEC nations had converted to the Eurodollar this would have led to an overall bankruptcy of the US, and if Baby Bush had allowed this conversion of monetary systems to continue the World Bank/International Monetary Fund would have the legal rights to foreclose on everything the US Corporation has collateralized to finance the Federal Reserve. So stopping that process with Iraq seems the only logical outcome under such a paradigm. But has anyone considered how the OPEC nations would react to this loss of potential income?
Also, in order to cope with the economic blow posed by the drop in oil prices below the price range set by OPEC, OPEC nations, in the past, have held summits to seek new agreements on cutting production (e.g., by around a million barrels a day) to stimulate a rise in oil prices to what they consider to be an ideal price range. But, if the above hypothesis on the Bush family’s influence on the monetary systems of the world is correct, wouldn’t there be some evidence of the same within the OPEC nations’ summit proceedings? That is, is there any evidence to conform the hypothesis that the rise in current oil/gas prices are not an attempt by the OPEC nations to recover the losses that they have incurred by their own efforts to convert to the Eurodollar having been blocked by the Bush family, Baby Bush in particular?
I mean, especially now that we are facing the biggest oil-supply shock since the 1970s question should be asked. For example, although everybody seems bent on focusing on the loss of critical gasoline flows from the U.S. Gulf Coast, OPEC, at its recent meeting in Beirut, seemed to abdicate responsibility for record-high oil prices, with 10 voting members of cartel driving up prices over last 18 months. OPEC is doing this by pumping less oil, while claiming that it has little power to curtail violence and political instability, and seems rather indifferent to the notion of keeping prices from spiraling upward on bad news, and that could mean continued high prices. Crude reached a record intraday high of $70.85 a barrel Aug. 30, and although prices are more than 50 percent higher than a year ago the OPEC approach to economic growth includes even more cuts in production and suggests there would be a need to reach $90 to surpass the inflation-adjusted high set in 1980.
If those in the Constitution Party don’t address the questions with respect to OPEC’s possible motives and actions I have offered herein, of course, that is more than understandable given that my questions are more of a Hypothesis than fact anyway. But even so, it seems to me that the leaders in the Constitution Party might have something to say about the subjects of Oil and Monetary Systems from within the perspectives already presented by Sherman H. Skolnick.
Blessings,
Bill
[5]Some of the reportedly huge secret wire transfers were for, or with the Elder Bush jointly with the Queen of England, through her accounts in the British Monarchy's Coutts Bank, London. The secret account numbers are contained in some of the more than 300 apparently authentic Federal Reserve wire transfer records. The British Monarchy has long been accused as being worldwide kingpins in the narcotics traffic, going back 150 years starting with the Opium Wars in China.
[6] Others of the more than 300 documents, relate to a situation started in the 1970s, when the Elder Bush arranged to overthrow the Iraqi government by political assassination. Bush helped install Saddam Hussein. Others of those and other documents relate to the decade, 1980 to 1990, when the Elder Bush was a secret private business partner of Saddam Hussein in extorting billions of dollars per year from the weak sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf---oil industry kick-backs, to supposedly assure security. A little-known Federal lawsuit in Chicago dealt with the secret partner of Saddam Hussein, namely George Herbert Walker Bush. I and my associates were the only journalists attending the federal appeals court hearing. I later did an exclusive group of interviews with the participants, confirming that Bush and Saddam were private business partners in extortion of the sheikdoms. Only one populist paper dared publish the details in 1991 of my interviews on the federal case.
In a typical sort of falling out of business partners, Bush suckered Saddam Hussein into seizing a portion of Kuwait long challenged by Saddam as being a Iraqi province and part of Saddam's oilfields. Bush used a top U.S. official to mislead Saddam into thinking the U.S. would not intervene in this local quarrel with the former British colony. Bush was the one, on behalf of U.S. oil drilling interests, that helped develop the Kuwaiti oilfields, following the 1961 relinquishing of British sovereignty. In its simplest form, the 1990-91, Persian Gulf conflict was a falling out of private business partners.
The result of this treachery? Great loss of life of ordinary soldiers. Upwards of 150 thousand young Iraqis died in the conflict, some buried alive by U.S. war bulldozers. President Bush ordered U.S. warplanes to shoot in the back, the retreating Iraqi soldiers proceeding under a white flag of surrender. It was the most horrendous murder of surrendering troops in world history. The German massacre of some 80 U.S. troops surrendering in World War 2 during the Battle of the Bulge, was a small matter by comparison. [Our public access Cable TV Program in 1991 was about the only TV Show in America that dared discuss this matter.]
Following the Persian Gulf War, some 15,000 U.S. troops died from the mysterious malady, called Gulf War Syndrome, which the Pentagon denies is happening. Ex-GIs continue to die from the strange ailments, and the total deaths and debilitating diseases amount to more than 20 per cent as casualties of all the Americans serving in the military in the Persian Gulf 1990-91, more than 100 thousand American soldiers as casualties.
Now, I realize what I’m about to say is not wholly supported by the limited excerpt above because of limitations of space, but, given that the war in Iraq appears to really be the logical set of circumstances following Papa Bush’s having extorted $5 per barrel of every barrel exported from Iraq from 1980 through 1990 (which according to the lawsuit against Bush, was, of course, deposited into 19 of Papa Bush's private bank accounts), and Saddam’s retaliation by converting to the Frank and then the Eurodollar, (and this conversion to the Eurodollar was to have been followed by Iran and then the OPEC nations), with Baby Bush’s war being the only way to bring the US out of the resulting economic impact, is there any reason to believe the rise in current oil/gas prices are not an attempt by the OPEC nations to recover the losses that they have incurred by their own efforts to convert to the Eurodollar having been blocked?
Certainly, if Iran and the OPEC nations had converted to the Eurodollar this would have led to an overall bankruptcy of the US, and if Baby Bush had allowed this conversion of monetary systems to continue the World Bank/International Monetary Fund would have the legal rights to foreclose on everything the US Corporation has collateralized to finance the Federal Reserve. So stopping that process with Iraq seems the only logical outcome under such a paradigm. But has anyone considered how the OPEC nations would react to this loss of potential income?
Also, in order to cope with the economic blow posed by the drop in oil prices below the price range set by OPEC, OPEC nations, in the past, have held summits to seek new agreements on cutting production (e.g., by around a million barrels a day) to stimulate a rise in oil prices to what they consider to be an ideal price range. But, if the above hypothesis on the Bush family’s influence on the monetary systems of the world is correct, wouldn’t there be some evidence of the same within the OPEC nations’ summit proceedings? That is, is there any evidence to conform the hypothesis that the rise in current oil/gas prices are not an attempt by the OPEC nations to recover the losses that they have incurred by their own efforts to convert to the Eurodollar having been blocked by the Bush family, Baby Bush in particular?
I mean, especially now that we are facing the biggest oil-supply shock since the 1970s question should be asked. For example, although everybody seems bent on focusing on the loss of critical gasoline flows from the U.S. Gulf Coast, OPEC, at its recent meeting in Beirut, seemed to abdicate responsibility for record-high oil prices, with 10 voting members of cartel driving up prices over last 18 months. OPEC is doing this by pumping less oil, while claiming that it has little power to curtail violence and political instability, and seems rather indifferent to the notion of keeping prices from spiraling upward on bad news, and that could mean continued high prices. Crude reached a record intraday high of $70.85 a barrel Aug. 30, and although prices are more than 50 percent higher than a year ago the OPEC approach to economic growth includes even more cuts in production and suggests there would be a need to reach $90 to surpass the inflation-adjusted high set in 1980.
If those in the Constitution Party don’t address the questions with respect to OPEC’s possible motives and actions I have offered herein, of course, that is more than understandable given that my questions are more of a Hypothesis than fact anyway. But even so, it seems to me that the leaders in the Constitution Party might have something to say about the subjects of Oil and Monetary Systems from within the perspectives already presented by Sherman H. Skolnick.
Blessings,
Bill