Can Bilderberg's Lust For War Be Stopped?, June 24 2011

James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
Barack Obama says the U.S. role in invading Libya is not a “war” because it is limited to air strikes. If so, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 was not “war,” because Japan had no boots on the ground.

Patriots now know that President Franklin D. Roosevelt baited the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor as a means of getting the U.S. into what became World War II. By going to war, the Great Depression could be ended as 12 million men got jobs carrying guns and millions more would be employed making tanks, jeeps, planes, bombs, bullets, bayonets and other war materiel. This also benefits Bilderberg and similar groups, which are heavily invested in manufacturing goods to kill people.

“Americans buy war like children gobble candy,” laughed Henry Kissinger, longtime Bilderberg luminary. “Of course, Baracky [President Obama] has to be publicly reluctant to go to war, but we can depend on him.”
(Bilderberg words come from an inside source whose information has been accurate time after time.)

But Bilderbergers are frankly worried that their campaign to expand the Libyan invasion into a big bloodletting in the Middle East faces difficult obstacles. Obama’s claim that the invasion of Libya is not “war” is an effort to avoid complying with the War Powers Act that requires Congress to approve military action 60 days after the guns fire. But bipartisan opposition is emerging in Congress.

House Speaker John Boehner threatened to withhold funds for the war, suggesting Congress could take action at any moment: “We have got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day. We’re part of an effort to drop bombs on Qadaffi’s compound. It doesn’t pass the straight-face test.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) a decorated combat veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, scoffed at the “not at war” claim. “Spending a billion dollars and dropping bombs on people sounds like hostilities to me,” he told Associated Press. “That this is ‘not a war’ insults our intelligence,” said Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.). “I won’t stand for it, and neither will my constituents.” Finally, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) called the no-war claims “really, totally bizarre.”