Bush really did deliver his speech to Congress about Iraq and Kuwait, in which he envisions the beginning of a "new world order," on Sept. 11, 1990, so this detail would seem to be referring to that, rather than magically foreshadowing 9/11. By the next Sept. 11th, of course, the war was already over by more than six months.
Is The Dude post-dating by more than a year, perhaps to get away with paying nothing? The confusion about the movie action actually starting four days earlier might be due to continuity error. Seems likely to me the screenwriters would know the famous Bush speech had been on the 11th, and it seems less likely they're setting this on the 7th (with a less known Bush speech incidentally on the radio during the scene) and having The Dude pick a post-date that happens to be the 11th, when the famous speech happens. Then again, why not? It's a movie, right?
I don't remember other details about days and dates, though I love the film, and of course its fans will remember at least some of the action happened on Saturday - Erez Shabbaz! ;)
Some cut pasta:
http://911truth.org/osamas/history.html#1990
SNIP
... So nicely set up, the war still needed its political justifications. Bush martialed a coalition of 28 allies and got the Japanese, Germans, Saudis and Gulf States to pony up many billions for the liberation of Kuwait (The war was the first ever to make a direct profit for the Pentagon). At home, he was confronted with a moderate level of protests and nearly half the Senate against him. With the deployments underway, Bush therefore spoke to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 11, 1990, delivering a speech entitled: "Towards a New World Order."
Here is the passage where he uses the miscreant phrase:
We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.
A new era was indeed a-dawning, above all because the Soviet Union was in a state of advanced collapse. Brzezinski's Afghanistan gambit had succeeded as one of many factors in the Soviet decline. (It had also spread the CIA-trained "Afghan Arab" network around the world.) Bankrupt and plagued by nationalist uprisings, the Soviet empire was opening up to Western capital, as China had done since the late 1970s. The Western power elite understood that great changes were coming in the world order. The old system was entering a new phase, which has been called globalist, and which involves a greater role for openly "internationalist" institutions.
But nobody needed Bush to tell them that!
Many people think Bush's speech was the declaration of a one-world government. They seize on the phrase, "new world order," as though it signifies a specific, organized power, the N.W.O. - something apart from "America," something that may one day subject the U.S. government and its people to the strictures of the United Nations, NATO or some other globalist structure. To me, this idea is hash. Bush was always the player and front-man of the Old World Order, the same American-centered power elite that governed most of the planet long before the Berlin Wall fell...
SNIP
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
