I was reading "The Omega Agency" article (I am reading all the articles I can) and I found something that I think should be rephrased.

The CIA and George Bush

The OA has not taken control yet because there are forces within the existing governments of the world that are aware of their plans and oppose them. In the US, these forces are largely centered in the CIA and NSA. The CIA wants world control, but on its terms. The CIA wants to see a more communistic-type government set up on a world-wide basis. While the OA professes to believe in the maintaining of personal freedoms so long as one is a contributing member of society and not infringing on the lives of others, the CIA would rather see a world where all people are controlled in all ways, from what type of job one does to how one worships. It is the CIA/NSA/Air Force that is maintaining secrecy where the ET presence is concerned, not the OA. The Omega Agency, once it comes into power, plans to reveal everything to the people of the world. From the running of drugs to finance the Vietnam War to the presence of ET's on this world for the last 50 years or more. George Bush himself is said to have made the statement that he will personally tell of his involvement in the running of drugs to finance the Vietnam war while he was CIA director. To the OA way of thinking, the ends really do justify the means, and in the case of the Vietnam war, the running of drugs was necessary to finance the operation in that country. Therefore, it was a justified endeavor. Not one to be proud of, but justified nonetheless.

I know that for the average US citizen, a "communistic-type government" may be a synonym to a "full control government", but seeing that communism is a ideology that has nothing to do with this type of government, should that phrase remain as it is or should it be changed to something else?

That is or was the proper term at the time, and was understood for the use. To change such would take away from the context, it wouldn't make any difference I say. Leave it as is, the changing of things is how we got into these messes to begin with.

It is repreenttive of it's time, we can relate to it even though the details are not exact, they are close enough are they not. Perhaps instead of trying to change what was, we ought to be makeing changes on what is.

[edit-spelling]

[edit on 23-8-2006 by ADVISOR]

OK, I just wanted to be sure it was OK as it is.

Meanwhile, I found that one of the links on the "Related Articles" section, the "DarkGovernment Data Page", has an almost exact copy of this text, one of the differences being that the dates.

The "DarkGovernment Data Page" has:

The OA originally planned to establish their world-wide control in 1995. But it was deemed that the time was not right, so they set a new target date for sometime in the year 2000. They are, above all else, a patient lot. Their plans to bring the world under one governing body, namely themselves, have been long in the making and thoroughly thought out. They plan to establish their NWO, for lack of a better term, in a time span of no less than 5 days. And they intend to do it without open war. How exactly this will be accomplished, I don't know yet.

The "tinWiki" page has:

They plan to establish their NWO, for lack of a better term, in a time span of no less than 5 days. And they intend to do it without open war.

All the rest of the text looks like received a similar treatment, so this page looks more like a "corrected" copy of the "DarkGovernment Data Page".

Is this correct?

I'm not exactly sure, could you provide source links for both sites?
If I am not mistaken it does seem as though you may be correct.