Topic: Gulf War II|
Topic page views:
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 04-28-2003 05:42 PM
BUCKMINSTER FULLER ON WAR.........
"Society neither hears nor sees the great changes going on. Either man is obsolete or war is. War is the ultimate tool of politics. Political leaders look out only for their own side. Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers."
" If you have enough to go around war becomes murder."
Since it is now physically and metaphysically demonstrable
that the chemical elements resources of Earth already mined
or in recirculation, plus the knowledge we now have, are
adequate to the support of all humanity and can be feasibly
redesign-employed by 1985 to support all humanity at a
higher standard of living than ever before enjoyed by any
human, war is now and henceforth murder. All weapons are
invalid. Lying is intolerable. All politics are not only obsolete but lethal."
"War represents the uniformed hospital and operating room phase of an overall remedial pathology in treatment of man's affairs. In this inherited scheme of life, science and technology are invoked directly by society only at the eleventh hour to arrest the malady fostered by laissez faire, ignorance, opinion, shortsightedness, prejudice and egocentricity. Formally declared war is the final spectacular and open chapter following the prolonged and far more sanguinary private and non-spectacular chapters of strife under the guise of 'Peace'."
" Livingry implements life; weaponry Implements death."
" Success for all is the only way of overcoming the need to kill, either in the swift death of official war or in the slow slum death of unofficial war, mistakenly labeled Peace--when the lack of knowledge of how to provide for all includes lethal competition as vast numbers are shunted into poverty and a far more protractedly painful and humiliating slow death. Then you will learn in due course that their idealistic compassion and hope to eliminate lethal warfaring cannot be gratified by political action means, for the last resort of politics is always inherently to physical force, be it actively waged with guns or passively provoked by sitdown blockades."
" He (all humanity) was given enough cushion of resources, and so by trial and error he could gradually discover that his mind was much more important than his muscle; and that his probable functioning was metaphysical and not physical. We are all of us at that extraordinary moment where the totality of humanity is beginning, to realize these things."
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 04-28-2003 05:54 PM
No WMD? No Problem!
by Lee McCracken
April 28, 2003
Before the war with Iraq, rationales for invading seemed to shift from week to week. I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise that they continue to do so even after the war is over.
The ostensible justification for war in Iraq, as far as I could tell, was that Saddam's regime posed a threat to the U.S. because of his alleged possession and continued development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and ties to Islamist terrorist groups. The evidence for these allegations seemed scanty at times, but one could, with some effort, make a reasonable case that this constituted a threat.
But now the war is over, the U.S. is occupying an increasingly hostile Iraq, and the dreaded WMD have yet to materialize. If the nasty things continue to elude our intrepid forces, does this mean the war was a colossal mistake?
Fear not, because our hawks are already hard at work backpedaling in order to secure the U.S. a place in the annals of righteousness. Taking a cue from Groucho Marx, if you don't like one rationalization for the war, they've got others! The latest installment in this whitewash is a recent column by Jeff Jacoby entitled "Where's the smoking gun?"
Jacoby is honest enough to admit that we may, in fact, never find Saddam's alleged arsenal of terror. But, you see it doesn't even really matter if we do. "Now it is conceivable," he concedes, "if just barely, that when all is said and done, the search for Iraq's WMD – 'weapons of mass destruction' – will turn up nothing…. [b]ut in a larger sense, all of this is beside the point."
Beside the point? Really! The entire justification offered to the American people for a war and full-scale invasion of another nation could fall like a house of cards, and this would be beside the point?
See, the "real" weapons of mass destruction are not biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, but Saddam himself! "Whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear evidence the United States and its allies may find, they have already eliminated the real weapons of mass destruction: Saddam Hussein and his evil government."
Well, that makes me feel much better. Never mind the fact that Saddam, without WMD and living several thousand miles away, wouldn't exactly seem to constitute an immediate threat to America.
But, it turns out that the real justification for this war needn't have anything to do with WMD, or any threat to the United States, because "the best reason for destroying this dictator was that decent nations do not look the other way when human beings by the hundreds of thousands are being butchered and terrorized. Genocide and mass murder demand a response, and better a belated response than none at all."
Now, only the most stonehearted cynic or ideological fanatic could fail to be moved by the sight of Iraqis flooding the streets of Baghdad, celebrating, and tearing down the symbols of the hated Baathist regime (even if they needed a little help from U.S. soldiers). The jubilation on the faces of those finally freed from Saddam's tyranny was truly thrilling to watch. And no one can deny that this regime richly deserved to be sent to the ash heap of history and that virtually anything that replaces it will be an improvement. Plus, the civilian death toll, while not inconsequential, has fallen far short of the "hundreds of thousands" predicted by some.
But the fact remains that war with Iraq was sold to the American people, not primarily as a war of liberation for Iraqis, but as a war for American security. According to war proponents, this was not a threat that could be deterred or contained, but one that required preemptive military action. This represented a fairly radical break with traditional notions of just war, which allow military action only in response to aggression or imminent attack.
If it turns out that this threat was virtually nonexistent (as many suspected), then what are we supposed to conclude? Post facto rationalizations for the war won't change the fact that it was entered into under false pretenses. Either the administration was lying or it was simply mistaken. Neither possibility exactly fills me with confidence. Arguably, the most fundamental duty of any government is to protect its citizens from foreign attack. How can it perform this task if it either can't or won't distinguish between genuine and spurious threats?
If the U.S. is going to become the self-appointed policeman of the world and overthrower of evil dictators, it would be nice if our government didn't try and clothe this in the language of self-defense. Of course, the administration hawks might worry that an idealistic global crusade to stamp out tyranny and evil couldn't be sold, in all its candor, to the American public. And I suspect they'd be right. Going "abroad in search of monsters to destroy" is nothing but a recipe for perpetual war.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 04-28-2003 05:57 PM
by Bill Chickering
I wonder when America will say it's had enough of the lies, the god-posturing, the policy of naked aggression cloaked with moral assurance and certainty, and the destruction of our freedoms.
I wonder whether or not people will get tired of the day to day struggle of feeding a family, paying the mortgage or rent and watching their leaders strip away the threadbare benefits they now receive from their employers.
I wonder when we will grow tired of the thought of perpetual war for the aggrandizement of the few. And when will we grow weary of our sons and daughters sacrificing their lives on the altar of one man's ego and sense of divine calling.
I wonder how many more will lose their jobs, their homes and their futures and understand that those at the top of the heap give not a whit for their well being.
I wonder if the day will come when we turn on the news, hear what's being described, then take a look around our town or our neighborhood and begin to realize that the two realities don't match.
I wonder if those of us who choose the path of protest will grow weary from the browbeating, the accusations and the threats and decide it's not worth the effort.
I wonder how much further we can sink into an economic pit before we realize that our leaders are interested in lining no one's pockets but their own.
I wonder how much longer thinking Christians will allow the name of their God to be butchered by a man who understands nothing of the faith he proclaims and for whom that faith is a vehicle of destruction rather than a path to healing and understanding.
I wonder how much longer we will choose to believe that those in power who claim God as their authority are not led by God at all but by their own ambition for power and wealth.
I wonder how many more precious Constitutional rights we will allow to be stripped from us before we see what's slipping away and rise up in anger.
White Bear Lake, MN
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
posted 04-28-2003 06:29 PM
Everything the Left Said About the War Is Wrong
(Including the Claim that It Was Right)
Monday, April 28, 2003
By David Horowitz
CHANGING THE SCRIPT: In the aftermath of a successful war it opposed as a certain disaster, the left is attempting to rewrite the script, counting on others to forget what it said and did. No one has attempted this with more brazen aplomb than Arianna Huffington, a recent convert to the cause. In a column titled, "Why the Anti-War Movement Was Right," she has joined the self-satisfied ranks of smart people who seem determined to demonstrate that they don't know what they're talking about.
In the lead up to the military campaign known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," antiwar activists signed petitions, mounted lecterns, and marched in the streets in a desperate attempt to head off a conflict they claimed would mean hundreds of thousands of casualties, a bloody quagmire of urban combats, chemical and environmental disasters, terrorist retributions at home and abroad, and a region-wide eruption of the Arab street. Instead what we witnessed was the swiftest and most bloodless conquest of an armed nation in the history of warfare. The immediate result of the victory has been exactly what the Administration promised: a swift liberation of a largely grateful Iraqi people, no terrorist outbreak, and no explosion of Arab rage.
INDICTING AMERICA: But there is apparently nothing America can do that will satisfy Arianna Huffington. In her column, she turns all these welcome achievements into a postwar bill of indictment -- not of those who opposed the liberation, but of those who carried it out: "The speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right. The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine….Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western civilization, Saddam and his 21st Century Gestapo couldn't even muster a half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' 'cakewalk' disproves their own dire warnings."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the three-week war was actually a "cakewalk," as Huffington asserts. Did leftists argue that this would be the case? That the war would be a trivial matter? Did hundreds of thousands of anti-war activists march to prevent a "cakewalk" that would liberate 18 million Iraqis from the clutches of "Saddam and his 21st Century Gestapo?" Shame on them if they did.
LEFTWING HYPOCRISY: In fact, Huffington and her friends argued the exact opposite. They argued that the death toll would be prodigious; that Iraq might even be another Vietnam; that costs were so high not even the freedom of 18 million Iraqis was worth it. The military operation would be so difficult and consuming, they warned, that pursuing it would cripple the "other war" on terrorism. This, of course, was disingenuous since they had not notably supported the war on terrorism (with some exceptions). There had been 150 "peace" demonstrations in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. These demonstrations were organized to protest in advance any armed American response to the attacks. But in the prologue to the Iraq war, the same "anti-war" forces pretended that they had not opposed the retributive (and preventive) war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban and argued instead that a war on Iraq would hinder the efforts to complete that task.
They said America could not fight international terrorism and Saddam at the same time -- as though the two could be separated. In fact, the Bush Administration showed it could do both very well at the same time. It arrested al-Qaeda leaders and broke al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan even as it pursued the war in Iraq. Furthermore, the destruction of at least two major terrorist training camps in Iraq and the capture of the terrorist leader Abu Abbas in Baghdad have already proven the left was wrong about the Iraq-terror connection (even in advance of what captured Iraqi files and intelligence officials may eventually tell us).
THE THREAT FROM SADDAM: But who in the Bush Administration ever suggested, as Huffington claims, that Saddam's war machine was a match for American military power? The answer is no one. This was never the threat. Huffington's claim is so far-fetched, in fact, that other leftists have preferred the opposite tack, claiming the war was not a cakewalk and that that proves its supporters were wrong. For leftists, apparently any argument is appropriate if it makes their case. For the record, before the fighting started, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers accurately predicted the length of the war would be about three weeks.
What Huffington's comments show is that she has not the foggiest idea of what Saddam's threat was and why we went to war. (This actually makes sense, when you think about it, since if she understood the reasons for the war she wouldn't be against it.) Saddam's challenge to the West was never the capability of his armed forces in a contest with the West. It was his status and capabilities as an international outlaw that made him an imminent threat.
The nature of this threat was threefold: 1) his proven determination to build weapons of mass destruction; 2) his proven readiness to use terror against civilian populations (and therefore the possibility that he would use terror against us and others); and 3) his willingness to commit aggression against his Arab neighbors (as already demonstrated in Iran and Kuwait).
It was these factors that made the Bush Administration believe that he posed an imminent danger, which could only be deterred if Saddam was removed from power, and only if his removal preceded the completion of his WMD programs. Should he have nuclear weapons at his disposal, the removal of Saddam would pose monstrous risks. Saddam's willingness to use weapons of mass destruction or deliver them to terrorist agents put him in a position to dominate his neighbors and disrupt the flow of Middle Eastern oil - a flow on which the world economy depends. Without the presence of massive U.S. forces - which could be sustained throughout a Middle Eastern summer, this was an imminent threat. In addition, Saddam had taken spiritual and organizational steps to become part of an international fraternity of terrorists (al-Qaeda in particular) who were determined to attack American civilians at home and abroad. Osama bin Laden's call for jihad in defense of Iraq, during the war, shows just how tight the fraternity had become. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 had already taken $600 billion out of the U.S. economy, nearly destroyed whole industries, and prevented a market recovery. To sit around and wait for another terror attack, with greater economic consequences and a potential for worldwide political destabilization was unacceptable.
It was these considerations that White House planners decided they could not afford to ignore. Nothing the war has so far revealed would indicate that these threats were less than had been feared; much has served to confirm them. For one, the al-Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq and the active collusion between the terrorist regime in Baghdad and its fascist partner in Damascus - a sponsor of Hizbollah and Hamas -- are evidence that the Axis of Evil is real and Saddam was one of its poles.
THE TRIGGER OF THE WAR: Like other leftwing critics, Huffington is not only unable to understand the general threat posed by terrorist states like Iraq, but also the specific trigger of the conflict. Describing the war (somewhat hysterically) as the product of "the Bush Administration's pathological and frantic obsession with an immediate damn-the-consequences invasion," Huffington still clings to the illusion that the UN was an honest broker and controlled by the French and Russian allies of Saddam: "The threat was [allegedly] so clear and present that we couldn't even give inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction - hey, remember those? - another 30 days, as France had wanted."
This touching confidence in inspections misreads both the role of the French and the nature of resolution 1441, which provided the legal basis for the war. This was not a resolution to allow inspections, which in any case Saddam had thwarted for 12 years. It was an ultimatum to Saddam to disarm and to do so by November 7. The operative term is disarm because Saddam had already shown that he was perfectly capable of first allowing inspections and then waiting for the opportunity to throw the inspectors out, to have sanctions imposed and then to get them lifted (with the help of Russia and France), and in general to play cat and mouse until his weapons program was completed.
But the impotence of the UN to disarm Saddam even under threat of war was made clear, in the week before the conflict when France declared that under no circumstances would it sanction the use of force. Nor would Russia, whom we now know was spying on the British for Saddam. Without a credible threat of force, Saddam was never going to comply with demands made by the UN or anyone else. But there was no such credible threat of force. The war was necessary to restore the credibility that 12 years and 17 resolutions had undermined.
These are the factors - plus the imminence of the desert summer - that precipitated the decision to launch the war on March 19. Four months - the period between the ultimatum deadline and the actual war -- seems a reasonable and adequate time to decide whether the Iraqi regime was going to comply voluntarily, particularly since the four months were piled on top of twelve years of dissembling, evasion and resistance. Four months was a reasonable time for the White House to conclude in a disciplined non-frantic way that only force would achieve the desired result.
AMERICAN "UNILATERALISM": Breathtaking geopolitical ignorance abounds in all of the left's critiques of the war, but especially in Huffington's. "Unilateralism" (ill-defined) is invariably bad, for example, no matter what circumstances recommend it. Huffington deplores it not only in so far as the Russians and French are concerned, but the Arabs as well. "Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our Desert Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's 'coalition of the willing' had zero." Well, not quite zero. Huffington seems not to have noticed that the command headquarters for the war (CENTCOM) was based in Qatar, an Arab state, and the ground war was launched from Kuwait. Worse, she ignores the enormous benefit resulting from the fact that Arab states like Saudia Arabia were not part of the American coalition.
THE DANGERS OF MULTILATERALISM: In 1991, it was the wishes of Saudia Arabia, as a coalition partner, that kept us from toppling Saddam, thus making the Second Gulf War inevitable. It was Saudi Arabia and (another coalition partner) Turkey who kept us from aiding the Shiites and the Kurds at the end of the war when they rose against Saddam. Denied our help, they were slaughtered in the tens of thousands by Saddam's henchmen. In some circumstances, less multilateralism, can be a positive good.
MUSLIM EXTREMISTS HATE US FOR NO REASON: But among critics of the war, the need for approbation from foreign elites is apparently unlimited. It is the flip side of their post-9/11 assumption that if America is attacked, it must be America's fault. In describing the alleged impact of the war, Huffington doesn't actually employ the term "root cause" but she manages a near equivalent: "In fact, almost everything about the invasion - from the go-it-alone build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed - has played right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war they're preparing to wage against us."
In fact, radical Muslims hardly need facts to stoke their hatreds, let alone distorted perceptions of American policy like this. Muslim hatred of America is as rational as Muslim hatred of Jews. In the last twenty-five years, no one has killed more Muslims than Saddam Hussein. Yet, only two of 57 Muslim states lined up against him. In the same interval, no nation in the world has saved more Muslim lives than the United States (Afghanistan, Somalia, Kosovo and Kurdish Iraq); yet only 2 of 57 Muslim states recognized the debt enough to support America's war effort. The Arab world in particular is a collection of medieval theocracies and fascist regimes, who supported first Hitler and then the Communist empire. Its culture is xenophobic and its media is effectively controlled by the state. How could America conduct itself in liberating any Arab country or neutralizing any Arab threat without provoking a negative reaction?
OILMEN AND JEWS: America's domestic critics have not even begun to confront the problems this reality creates. On the contrary, they have compounded them. The following comment by Huffington could have been written for Al Quds: ""[The war] in no way proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi oil - now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton - onto the flames of anti-American hatred was a good idea… The idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White House was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the Wolfowitzes and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading Syria or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've tasted blood."
In other words, the culprits are two bloodthirsty Jews and an oilman. Huffington may not have fully intended this conclusion, but as written here this is sick stuff. It is also common parlance on the left. In fact, given the result of the war, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle - to single out the Jews - are more properly seen as moral heroes than as military predators. They have spent twenty-years toiling in the Defense and Foreign Policy communities to effect the liberation of millions of Shi'ites, who were systematically murdered and oppressed by Saddam's regime, knowing full well that these very Shi'ites hate them as Jews and would persecute and oppress them if they could. Yet Wolfowitz and Perle persisted in their efforts because they thought it was the right thing to do for America, and the right thing to do for the Iraqis as well.
In this context, to demonize Wolfowitz, Perle and Cheney as blood-thirsty imperialists ready to shed blood for oil is beneath contempt, and an exercise in poisonous myth-making. Huffington's construction is a paranoid fantasy that will feed the hatreds not only of Islamic extremists abroad, but anti-American extremists at home. Encouraging these extremists will, in turn, greatly compound the difficulties America faces in conducting its war against international terror.
The left's assaults on White House efforts to use the victory in Iraq to induce a new attitude in the regimes that support international terrorism - Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba - reveals how unserious and ultimately disloyal are their "critiques" of America's war on terror. Huffington, for example, has mounted a formidable media attack against Americans who merely purchase SUVs, calling them aiders and abetters of international terror. She is also a vocal proponent of diplomatic as opposed to military measures in dealing with terrorist regimes. Yet she is on the frontline of those attempting to obstruct the Bush Administration's diplomatic efforts to back down terrorist regimes like Syria before a war is necessary, and in situation where the stakes are not extra barrels of oil to fuel SUVs, but providing protection and support for the world most formidable terrorist armies, Hizbollah and Hamas, hiding weapons of mass destruction, and providing refuge for Iraqi leaders. Of course, to accuse Huffington and the left of aiding and abetting the terrorist enemy would immediately invite cries of "witchhunt" and "McCarthyism."
BLESSINGS OF VICTORY: One visible impact of the Iraq episode (which Huffington naturally ignores) in fact is its positive effect on the attitudes of Syria and North Korea. In the wake of Saddam's gotterdamerung, Damascus has become newly cooperative in surrendering the Iraqi criminals whom it had previously harbored. Meanwhile, the nuclear dictator in Pyongyang has shown a new readiness to negotiate. If the lightning bolt in Iraq had not occurred to impress these rogue states with their own vulnerability, can anyone think they would have had such a quick change of heart?
The Iraq war is history. It is no longer the real target of the American opposition. The target now is the postwar future, not only in Iraq but throughout the empire of Third World terror. Just as the opposition to the Bush foreign policy encouraged Saddam to believe he could defy the ultimatums and ignore the resolutions, and cosntinue his terrorist ways, so it will now encourage the anti-American, anti-democratic and terrorist forces throughout the Muslim world, most immediately in Iraq. Here is Huffington's up to the minute critique of the reconstruction effort: "It doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner, the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, as 'viceroy.' It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him 'Head Bwana?' Or 'Garner of Arabia?' I didn't realize the Supreme Court had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount."
THE LEFT AND THE FUTURE: If the domestic political opposition is going to talk like this over the next few months, the likelihood of high terror alerts will increase along with the difficulty of the tasks ahead. One reason the United States was unable to step into the vacuum created by the repulsion of the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan, thus allowing al-Qaeda and the Taliban to grow, was the political climate in America known as the "post-Vietnam syndrome." This was the name given to the atmosphere created by the corrosive critiques of the left, which had fostered a cynicism about American power that tainted every American overseas effort as a crass imperialism. It was this set of attitudes that paralyzed America's ability to respond to terrorist attacks from Lebanon to the USS Cole, and that made it impossible, until the Iraq War, for the United States to put an army in the field in excess of four days. This has now changed, and that it is an immense plus for the prospects of peace.
But the left has now launched a new "antiwar" crusade against America's reconstruction regime, raising the question of whether we are headed forward or back. One of the first manifestations of the freedom America brought to Iraq was the gathering of a million Shi'ites on a religious pilgrimage to Karbala previously banned by the Saddam regime. Among the non-religious chants of the Shi'ite crowds was "Death to America" (and of course "Death to Israel"). The Shi'ites - whose mecca is Iran -- want the Americans out of their country because the only freedom they want is for themselves. They want to impose a Shi'ite theocracy on everyone else. The war for the Muslim future has just begun. These Shi'ite extremists are only one of the opponent groups that America must face in its effort to bring the values of tolerance, inclusion, moderation and democracy to the Middle East. In this struggle between good and evil, which side are American leftists like Arianna Huffington going to be on?
[Edited 2 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-28-2003]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 04-28-2003 06:39 PM
'U.S. Iraq policy for dummies'
Posted on Monday, April 28 @ 09:53:05 EDT By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
What with Shia and Sunni and Ba'ath and imams and Syria and Abu Mazer and WMDs, it's no wonder many are confused in this post-Iraq-war period. Time once again to turn to that franchised series of books for easy-to-comprehend answers to difficult questions.
Q. What happened? First the U.S. was bogged down in Iraq and it looked like deja Vietnam quagmire all over again, and then suddenly, without much of a fight, the U.S. sweeps into Baghdad and it's all over but the cheering.
A. The U.S. military wasn't quite ready, but the Hothead Hardliners in the Bush Administration didn't want to wait one more second -- they were terrified of getting bogged down in diplomacy and thus being prevented from launching their war. So, even though they had no Turkish base from where they could insert their infantry into Northern Iraq, they hastily entered from the South, which meant a long, hard slog up to Baghdad.
They were unprepared for the welcoming fire they got in the South, and, at first, didn't have enough troops to battle all the forces that were attacking them and that were holed up in the cities along the route to Baghdad.
But U.S. superiority in terms of computers, airbombing, artillery and tanks finally kicked in, and the troops began a fast track to Baghdad, outracing their supply lines. Reportedly, some deals were struck with various Iraqi military generals in Baghdad -- offering them everything from money and post-war positions and even U.S. citizenship -- and Saddam's Republican Guard divisions melted away. Note: It's conceivable they could be reconstituted, if things play out their way.
Q. And how are things playing out? True, no WMDs ever were discovered, but from what I can see, the U.S. achieved a smashing victory and got what it wanted. It's in total military command of the country, and has set about repairing the electrical grid, the waterworks, etc. It even got the oil flowing again. Why would the Saddam forces even think about regrouping and taking on the U.S.?
A. As was the case in Vietnam, and then again in Afghanistan, Pentagon strategists never fully appreciated the strength of nationalistic pride, or the repetitive historic cycle of wars against invaders. There are huge sectors of the Iraqi population grateful to the U.S. for getting rid of their brutal dictator for them -- both Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims -- but now they want the U.S. military to leave and let them sort out the future of their country by themselves.
(Note: The U.S. now needs the former government's officials and technicians to help get the country back up and running. Translated, that means some elements of the old Ba'athist structure will be back in positions of power; for those Saddam forces in exile or who melted into the civilian population, that will be the key to reconstituting their forces -- that and the genuine anti-U.S. feelings among many, stirred up by religious clerics anxious to assert their power now that the secular regime has fallen.)
Many Iraqis don't trust the Bush Administration's motives in the slightest. They think the U.S. is there to set up stealth colonial-type institutions, tie corrupt entrepreneurs into shady deals that will benefit mainly outside corporations (and not just regarding oil), establish a secular government beholden to the U.S., use Iraqi bases for asserting its military power against other Muslim governments in the region, etc. By and large, they are spot-on.
Q. But I thought the U.S. went in there to liberate the Iraqi people. Bush says we won't stay there one more day than is necessary. You don't believe him?
A. He's telling the truth. But the key question is "necessary for whom?" Once he's got a friendly interim government installed, once the U.S. corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel set up "reconstruction" shop, once the use of the military bases is worked out with the new government, once the oil is flowing fully again (with that U.S.-friendly government in charge, and outside oil companies handling part of the business), then the bulk of the U.S. military will be out of there.
But there's a possible catch. The Pentagon strategists, you see, never really thought through the post-Iraq phase of the war. For one thing, they just assumed they'd find the dread WMDs, thus legitimizing their invasion; egg on the face time. They're also now forced to recognize that they might have won the battle -- and broke the spine of Saddam's cruel regime -- but they may well lose the war, both inside Iraq and in the Arab region in general.
Q. How can they lose the war? There is no military rival that can stand up to them, either inside Iraq or outside.
A. What U.S. officials are learning, to their surprise and horror, is that you can have the strongest military in the world and still not be able to control the population, especially when that population thinks you're on their sacred homeland for nefarious purposes.
And the U.S., clueless as usual, continues to permit things that are anathema to the population. Such as: permitting missionaries into the country to attempt to Christianize the Muslim citizenry; Bush has approved Franklin Graham (Billy's son) and his missionaries being let loose in Iraq. Graham on several occasions has denounced Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion," making Muslims just a tad suspicious of the man.
Because the Saddam regime collapsed so quickly -- the U.S. experienced a "catastrophic success," said Rumsfeld -- and the U.S. had no ready-to-go post-war plan worked out for Iraq, Islamic clerics stepped into the breech and began exercising their influence, with the more fundamentalist among them drawing huge crowds for once-banned religious ceremonies and anti-U.S. rallies. The U.S.-sponsored exiled opposition leaders, like Ahmad Chalabi and others, are regarded as corrupt lackeys of the U.S. and are not likely to generate popular support -- and, if the Pentagon Hardliners manage to install him into power anyway, you can expect both a civil war and near-total opposition to the U.S. forces on the ground.
The U.S. is now having to face the possibility that, unless they can engineer a popular secular interim government soon that will assume control, the democratic tiger they are riding into Iraq may yield a radical Islamist regime, despite Rumsfeld's warning that the U.S. won't let that happen. Nobody is quite sure what the long-range implications of an Islamist regime would mean, except that it most probably wouldn't mean anything good for the Americans: All their blood and treasure will have been spent for nothing, and bye bye, Bush, in the 2004 election.
So, you see, the Hardliners in the Bush Administration are almost forced into staying the course in Iraq, trying to pull the democratic rabbit out of the Islamic hat, thus risking geopolitical disaster if it goes wrong.
Q. You keep talking about "Hardliners" in the Bush Administration. Who are they? How much influence do they have, and what are their motives?
A. By and large, we're referring to the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) ideologues who, after a decade on the outside looking in, are now the prime movers in developing the strategic foreign policy of the United States. They include such powerful Administration figures as Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Advisory Board members Richard Perle and James Woolsey (a former CIA director), National Security Council's Mideast honcho Elliot Abrams, and a host of other highly-placed officials.
Their goals, as stated in their position papers and speeches, can be summarized thusly: Since the U.S. is the only superpower in the world, it should assert its power aggressively, in order to ensure that no other state or foreign organization (such as the U.N. or the E.U.) can ever rise to parity with the United States and challenge its pre-eminence. This aggressive posture includes the use of "pre-emptive" war -- i.e., if the U.S. thinks a country or force may want, at some future point, to take on America, the U.S. goes in guns-ablazing and convinces them otherwise. The PNAC doctrines are now official U.S. policy, as laid out in the National Security Strategy promulgated last year by the Bush Administration.
Iraq, with a universally despised ruler, was selected as the demonstration model. The reasoning is similar to what Truman used in dropping atomic bombs on Japan, as a warning to the rest of the world to not even think about challenging America. As a result of what the U.S. did to and in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East has been informed in stark terms not to get too uppity or it could happen to you. Already, Syria has started backing away from its challenge to U.S. hegemony in the region.
The long-term result of achieving dominance in a region -- not necessarily by having to put troops on the ground -- is: 1) you now have effective control of the natural resources in that area; 2) you are able to reshape governments more to your liking, in this case more "democratic" governments in the autocratically-ruled Arab Middle East.
Q. But doesn't the U.S. risk that true democracic elections might bring into power fundamentalist Islamic rule antagonistic to U.S goals?
A. Yes, of course. Especially because the U.S. doesn't really understand Islam, Islamic nationalism, or proud Islamic history of battling "infidels." Case in point: Bush early on used the term "crusade" to describe what the U.S. was about in the Middle East, and was clueless as to why Muslims worldwide reacted in anger and horror. Sending in Christian missionaries to Iraq just fuels this fire of resentment.
Rumsfeld says the U.S. won't let Islamists take control. But once you let the democracy genie out of the bottle, it's often impossible to deal with the implications on the ground.
The PNAC boys tend to see only how strong the U.S. is militarily, and believe that force always is capable of bending the will of citizens and nations. The PNACs are weaker in understanding the force of people power, of religious fervor, of nationalistic pride -- all of which may well came back to bite them where it really hurts.
Q. But wouldn't democracy be good for all the downtrodden Arabs in the Middle East, who have been chafing for decades under authoritarian rule?
A. Yes, of course -- unless they elect religious parties that will be just as strict and totalitarian as what they replace, maybe even worse. Then the citizens of those countries will have gained very little, except to have the freedom to choose their own repressors, who are not easy to turn out at the polls once they get their Big Brother organizations running. Iran is a good example.
Q. So what can the U.S. do to try to prevent this scary state of affairs from ever happening?
A. The one thing that will defuse the growing power of the fundamentalist Islamic movement is to quickly engineer a just resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. If Palestine can obtain its own geographically and politically viable state -- and the only way to do that is for the U.S. to lean hard on the Israeli government to end the Occupation and withdraw from all settlements on Palestinian land -- the pus-filled boil would be lanced in the Arab body politic. Two independent states would live side by side, with security guaranteed, no terrorist attacks by Palestinians inside Israel, no incursions by Israel into Palestine.
That's the one thing that the U.S. immediately could do, and needs to do, to change the explosive chemistry of the Middle East. Will it do it? History seems to point to a negative answer. The U.S., time after time, seems willing to back off and give in to Israel's extremist desires, which translate into further humilitation and frustration for the Palestinians. This time, the U.S. probably would have to threaten to withdraw all U.S. economic and miltiary aid to Israel in order to force it to end the Occupation and totally withdraw from all its settlements in Palestinian land -- but the Bush Administration has given no indication that it has that kind of foresight or courage.
The result, if no just and comprehensive settlement takes place, is that Palestinian extremists will continue their terror campaign inside Israel, Israel will continue visiting its brutality upon the Palestinians, the Arab world will unite in its condemnation of the U.S. for not really wanting a just peace in the Middle East, and Islamic fundamentalists will assume more and more power in the area. We won't even mention the terrorism that would make its way to U.S. shores.
Q. I'm gathering then that the U.S. will not make a military move on Syria or Iran, at least until after the Israel/Palestine "roadmap" is laid out and negotiations there begin. Am I right?
A. Yes. As a result of the way the U.S. entered and destroyed Iraq -- with an illegal, immoral war, not caring what anybody else thought of its actions -- the unanimity against the U.S. in the Arab world, and the anti-U.S. economic boycotts being organized in Europe and elsewhere, are making even the PNAC boys have second thoughts about moving right now. First comes defusing the situation a bit, then later it'll be time to light the fuse of war-threats again. And then there's the upcoming 2004 campaign; none of the HardRighters want to do anything that would endanger Bush's chances.
Q. Do you see any chance that Bush could lose in 2004?
A. Let's just say that it's still the economy, stupid, and Bush&Co. -- who took the largest surpluses in history and brought the country into huge deficits -- continue to shoot their own feet, pressing for even more enormous tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy and giant corporations) that will only do further damage to our tattered economy. Plus, so great is the resentment against Bush among Democrats and many moderates that they may just unite in force behind a viable Democrat candidate this time. And, no, don't ask me who; we'll get to all that in another Dummies-type article.
In the meantime, put pressure on your local elected officials to have voting machines that guarantee ways of checking that the balloting is on the up-and-up, and that exit polls are back in operation. If the computer voting machines' software has been tampered with and there's no paper trail, or exit-polling, to measure votes cast against votes counted, all the good Democrat campaigning in the world will never gain a victory. You've been forewarned.
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D, also has authored "The War on Terrorism for Dummies," "The Middle East for Dummies," "The intifadeh & Israel for Dummies," and "The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies." He co-edits the progressive website The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
posted 05-01-2003 12:16 AM
A Thank You From the Thankful
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
By Neil Cavuto
I get critiques all the time, of course, but a missive from Harold E., prompts some elaborating. He e-mails the following:
"Cavuto, for a guy who never served his country or knew combat and likely hasn't know a day of physical hardship in his life, you have a royal nerve pulling off this Yankee Doodle Dandy crap. Give it a rest."
Well, first off, Harold, you don't have to serve in battle to know what battling difficulties is all about. I'll just leave that at that. And second, you don't have to serve in battle to appreciate those who do.
You go on to say my rah-rah patriotism wears on you. May I suggest you simply switch the channel. But before you do, hear this: I don't think it's a big deal to say a big thank you to those who protect me and you.
I don't think you have to wear a uniform to appreciate the uniform. I don't think it's a big deal to be grateful, or proud. I don't think it's a big deal to say I'm partial to a country I love, over a career I like.
You talk about my wearing patriotism on my sleeve. Try grasping it in your heart.
You say I'm hopelessly biased. You're exactly right.
I favor a country that fights evil over others that ignore it. I favor sticking up for soldiers all too many ignore. And I'm a shill for values I hold dear, than the rambling diatribes of dictators I do not.
You call me a moneyman with no heart. I call you an empty man with no soul.
Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.
588 posts, Nov 2002
posted 05-01-2003 01:02 AM
>Many Iraqis don't trust the Bush Administration's motives in the slightest.<
Many Americans (eg: those who've actually read our Constitution)
don't trust the Bush Administration's motives in the slightest.
Would you bushistas cheer so lustily if it were Clinton invading a sovereign nation?
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
posted 05-01-2003 02:05 AM
the troops and their commander in chief must be supported regardless of opinion during a time of war...
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-01-2003 01:53 PM
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-- Theodore Roosevelt
BLOOD FOR OIL....
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says
By James Kirkup
London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.
Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.
``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.
Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.
Blair has said he wants Iraqi oil revenues to be held in a United Nations-run trust fund and spent on rebuilding Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday the U.S. may encourage Iraq to set up an oil revenue-sharing system that would distribute some proceeds from what he called the ``marvelous treasure'' to Iraqi citizens.
Oil production in Iraq was halted before the U.S.-led attack that toppled President Saddam Hussein. According to UN data, the nation is losing about $55 million a day in oil revenue as the U.S., the European Union and the Iraqi people debate postwar reconstruction plans.
Porritt's commission was set up in 2000 to advise the U.K. government on making economic and business activity compatible with environmental-protection policies. The body reports directly to Blair.
This isn't the first time Porritt has criticized the U.K. government. In October 2000, he said Blair and his ministers had failed to fulfill election promises on ecological issues.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-01-2003]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-01-2003 02:21 PM
Why I won't be at the victory parade: And why Bush should be charged with treason
by Helen & Harry Highwater April 30, 2003
To get to the truth, it is first necessary to swat the lies out of the way.
America's latest war against Iraq wasn't about "weapons of mass destruction." Most of the pre-war suggestions that Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons or projects have been debunked as fabrications. UN inspectors couldn't find these weapons before America attacked, and in the weeks since Iraq's military melted away no such weapons have been found. If Iraq had such weapons, surely they would have been used during the so-called war. Such weapons are not easy to hide; the longer it takes to find them, the less credible any such ‘finding' will be.
"America has liberated Iraq." A tyrant has been overthrown, certainly — a tyrant who owes his long reign to extensive underwriting from the same US government which has now toppled him. Whether Iraqis will now be ‘free' in any honest sense of the word remains to be seen. Is Afghanistan free? Like that nation, Iraq will have a native-born leader ... a leader chosen by America, backed by America, and either tolerated or despised by the people he allegedly "leads." Iraq will have whatever freedoms and government America decides it will have, which doesn't sound like 'liberation' to me. As in Afghanistan, Iraq's people will wait, simmering, sometimes seething, until the Americans are gone and they are free to rule themselves. As in Afghanistan, this means at least years, probably decades or generations of turmoil, warfare, chaos and violence.
"We can all be proud of America's victory." Proud? No other outcome was remotely possible. Iraq's military budget was $1.3 billion annually, according to the CIA Factbook, less than one twohundredth of America's annual military budget, $276.7-billion. I'm unable to find a reliable estimate of Iraq's actual military strength, but the same source tells us Iraq had 3,430,819 males age 15-49 ("fit for military service") in 2002, while America had more than twenty times as many, 73,597,731. It's like a fistfight between Mike Tyson and Bob Hope: I'm sure Tyson could kick the stuffing out of Old Ski Nose, but it wouldn't be fun to watch, and I wouldn't whoop and holler and celebrate "victory" afterwards.
I won't be at America's victory parade. I won't be waving a little American flag to celebrate the beating administered on Iraq.
So much for the loud lies. Now, let's look at the quiet lie some people have told themselves as they mouthed the above arguments, knowing full well they were bogus. That lie, of course, is that the ends justify the means.
The means were lies, so let's look at the ends: What will be the result of kicking Iraq's national hiney?
Obviously, American military spending will increase, as many weapons will need to be replaced, or updated. Many American soldiers will come home with Gulf War Syndrome and other injuries, and suffer with these for the rest of their lives. Of course, many Iraqis will also have lingering and permanent injuries. And the economic rape and pillage — destroying a nation's infrastructure, rebuilding it, and sending the victims the bill — will make a killing for a few well-connected American corporations. Iraqi construction firms have not been allowed to even submit bids.
An important but often overlooked result of this war is that, in the future, no nation will have any reason to cooperate with the United Nations. Hussein swallowed the pride of a dictator, allowed UN inspectors unfettered access anywhere in his country. But when UN inspectors found nothing, America attacked anyway. So what's the point of cooperation? Why should the world's next despot (Korea's Kim Jong Il, for example) cooperate with any diplomatic effort at resolving any crisis? In the plainest words possible, this war has made future wars far more likely.
American officials refuse to make any public estimates, but at a minimum thousands of Iraqis are dead, thousands more injured or maimed. It stretches credulity to imagine that conquering an Arab nation might reduce terrorism against Americans; more realistically, people get angry when someone kills their friends. All across the Middle East, enormous numbers of people who didn't hate America a few months ago sure do now, while many who already hated America now hate America more. Some of these angry people will see only one way to take revenge: terrorism.
One of the most ominous and obvious end results is the predictable groundswell of support any American President receives after a victorious war. It will probably be brief, as such surges in the polls usually are, but this window of popularity may allow Bush to enact more of the draconian laws that are already eclipsing freedom in America — laws allowing US citizens to be secretly arrested, jailed, held without charges, and denied attorneys, trials, or appeals.
The men and women of America's military have volunteered, worked hard, and put their lives on the line for America, to defend our freedoms. This is one of the grandest forms of patriotism, and with tears in my eyes I salute the American servicemen and women who defend America and American freedom. It is infuriating to see these men and women used as pawns, sacrificed for lies.
In fact, it's more than infuriating. When American soldiers' lives are taken for nothing, there's another word for it.
It's a word the liars love to throw about lightly, a word you'll hear any time anyone questions the lies behind the attack on Iraq, 2003. It's a word I rarely use, and never lightly. The word is treason.
Treason, according to dictionary.com, means: "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies."
American troops have been ordered into a war where American freedom and security were not at stake. As of this morning, 128 Americans have lost their lives in this messy affair, and it goes on.
Each of these men and women left grieving friends and family, and each gave their lives for their country — in a war based entirely on lies.
We get a flood of hate mail every time we suggest that this war was anything but wise, so I'm sure I'll be called a traitor, or worse, for writing these words. It's quite a conundrum, being called a traitor by people who endorse and actually cheer the squandering of American soldiers' lives, in a war based on lies.
So, to clarify this for the dense and the liars: I'm not accusing America's troops of treason. Quite the contrary, I 'accuse' them of following orders, and of courage and valor on the field of battle.
When it comes to their Commander-in-Chief, however, the facts are clear: America has "won" this war, but the price of victory will almost certainly be a future with:
• increased terrorism against Americans,
• more wars than would otherwise have occurred, and
• reduced freedoms in America.
George W. Bush has parlayed world events into an unnecessary, unjustified war that will imperil America for many years to come.
When a moviemaker rants after winning an Oscar or a Dixie Chick mouths off to a reporter, some people may be offended but nobody dies. When it's real, literal treason, lives hang in the balance.
One-hundred and twenty-eight Americans are dead, so far. Each of them died because of lies mouthed by American officials at the highest level.
If this is not treason, what is?
© 2003, by the author.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-01-2003 02:51 PM
''Weapons of mass deception''
Tuesday, April 29, 2003 @ 00:16:31 CST
By Matthew Riemer
Perhaps no other catchphrase bandied about by Washington powerbrokers and their well-connected network of supporters is as abused, misunderstood, and just plain lied about as the infamous verbal sleight of hand "weapons of mass destruction."
Ostensibly, the term refers to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but symbolically, as framed by White House and Pentagon rhetoric, it has come to represent something far more sinister and apocalyptic. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke dramatically of "mushroom clouds" over major U.S. cities when addressing the need to police the ownership of such weapons. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned of terrorists snatching up Saddam Hussein's WMD and then secreting them into the United States. The barbarity of chemical attacks and the horrors of biological ones are a constant media theme, the latter inspiring mythical notions of plagues loosed upon mankind.
Thus, the concept of WMD -- weapons, apparently, which are infinitely destructive and evil -- has come to serve many purposes and was one of the Bush administration's key marketing successes during their war drive. It was one reason from among an arsenal of other justifications for a preemptive invasion of Iraq -- invoked ad naseum by everyone from George Bush and his Cabinet to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other less well-known European leaders from countries whom Washington could generally care less about, like Bulgaria. Many Americans also feel that the war was fought so that "Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction couldn't harm us in the future."
This sensationalization of Iraq's WMD was a key element in the creation of what came to be an impossibly evil and omnipotently powerful Saddam Hussein who threatened the globe with imminent attacks using the world's most destructive weapons -- essentially, Iraq was painted as a global hegemon.
Inherent in such a portrayal by the Bush administration and the corporate media is the complete lack of perspective regarding WMD: that the U.S. possesses enough nuclear warheads to destroy civilization several times over as well as a collection of "conventional" weapons capable of killing millions with ease is not worth anyone's time and is essentially a moot point.
In fact, the appellation is really a misnomer. "Weapons of mass destruction" refers to those weapons that have been deemed inappropriate or unethical by the world's nations, insofar that the phrase refers to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons whose use is governable by an international body. This says nothing of their inherent destructive power, however, though the name explicitly seems to say otherwise. The fact that one needs large quantities of WMD to actually achieve "mass destruction" is a point rarely, if ever, articulated in the mainstream. Contingencies, such as the delivery systems for nuclear weapons, the brief shelflife of many chemicals weapons, and the extreme difficulty of effectively "weaponizing" biological agents, are typically not given due consideration by those responsible for presenting information to the public.
The result is a misleading term that has served to exaggerate and demonize certain kinds of weapons while others, the so-called "conventional" ones, are further legitimized even when those of, say, the United States, are capable of far more "mass destruction" than most other countries' WMD. So in the end, a small quantity of mustard gas capable of only killing a dozen people is classified as a WMD, but an air force capable of launching thousands of cluster bombs in minutes is not, simply because it is considered "conventional." (Though this is clearly just one of the reasons.)
Iraq's history of WMD is also consistently lied about by various members of the pro-war camp. Repeated incessantly, probably tens of thousands of times, is the idea that Iraq was noncompliant with weapons inspections throughout the '90s. The picture of an Iraq that evaded, misled, and duped inspectors while retaining its destructive potential is the standard one painted. One often hears, "Iraq's had 12 years to disarm, and they haven't yet complied." Or perhaps, "Iraq has consistently evaded inspections, and we're sick of playing this game." Yet Iraq was extremely compliant on many occasions and was, overall, far from uncooperative. This is usually pointed out by former U.N. officials who worked directly with Iraq, like Scott Ritter, Dennis Halliday, and Hans von Sponeck. But the American media has been largely uninterested in what these experts have to say.
Occasionally, this most crucial point is offered up by the mainstream media. On March 16, 2003, the Washington Post reported: "Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden. ... Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration's case."
The article continues: "Administration officials, in making the case against Iraq, repeatedly have failed to mention the considerable amount of documented weapons destruction that took place in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. … In that period, under U.N. supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. U.N. inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons."
The amounts described here and corroborated by the United Nations would seem to constitute a large percentage of Iraq's WMD or, at least, significant disarmament. Yet over the past year, Iraq's noncompliance was one of the Bush administration's key arguments in support of its invasion plans. In fact, President Bush has referred to WMD at least 200 times in public appearances in the last 16 months alone, invariably mentioning Iraq's reticence to cooperate with the United Nations and the United States. On March 17th, addressing the nation, Bush said, "Since then [the Gulf War] … We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. ... Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men." But such powerful words seem to contradict the fact that Iraq has significantly disarmed since the Gulf War, even if it wasn't "completely" in Washington's eyes.
Now, as the memory of the U.S.' invasion of Iraq is fading and the supposed process of rebuilding has begun, many in the media -- including National Public Radio -- are asking whether or not it's important if the U.S. (or someone) finds WMD in Iraq. It seems the obvious, almost reflexive, response to this is: "Wasn't this one of the major pretexts for the fighting of this war, if not the most significant one. How, under any circumstances, could this issue become unimportant?" It's like asking the relevance of whether or not someone has actually committed the crime for which they have been found guilty as they are being incarcerated. Yet the conclusion the pundits seem to be reaching is that WMD are now indeed irrelevant. In fact, the NPR news show "Here and Now" was so excited about it that they emphasized the fact by stating that this is how Thomas Friedman feels.
Washington's expert use of the term "weapons of mass destruction," then, has, through exaggeration and manipulation, created a distorted picture of Iraq's military capability, which then created a much-needed pretext for war -- a preemptive war at that -- and has now proven to be disposable as, suddenly, the phrase that used to be on everyone's lips has become the hottest non-topic.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-03-2003 05:27 PM
...AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE...
Slain Iraqi cleric said to be CIA ALLY
$50, $100 bills fluttered out of robes as he died
Shiite leader murdered at mosque in Najaf
May 2, 2003
WASHINGTON—The United States suffered a major blow in its campaign to recruit friendly Shiite clerics inside Iraq last month when it lost an influential religious ally to an angry mob — and as much as $13 million the CIA had given him to cultivate supporters.
While he was widely perceived to be pro-American, Iraqis were unaware that the cleric, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, had agreed to use the CIA cash in a covert program to enlist support within the splintered Shiite community, according to knowledgeable U.S. sources.
Al-Khoei and another cleric, Haider al-Kadar, a widely hated loyalist of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, were stabbed to death on April 10 in front of a mosque in Najaf by an angry mob reportedly backing competing Shiite clergy.
Witnesses to the slaying said that as al-Khoei was being stabbed, a number of U.S. $100 and $50 bills spilled out of his clerical robes.
Al-Khoei's pro-American sympathies were no secret, and he had returned to Iraq from exile in London several days earlier with the assistance of U.S. troops, who provided a constant escort as he travelled through Najaf.
He had urged the Shiite community to support the U.S. war to topple Hussein and on the day he was killed was preaching reconciliation with former Hussein backers.
The U.S. government clearly saw in al-Khoei a valuable asset in enlisting support among Shiites, who, though splintered, have become increasingly vocal in their demands for the U.S. military to leave Iraq.
The covert operation underscores the high stakes involved in America's efforts to establish a post-war government coalition of competing factions that is democratic and sympathetic to Western values. Some of the country's 16 million Shiites, who constitute 60 per cent of the population, want an Islamic state.
"We allocated $13 million to the al-Khoei operation," said a well-placed intelligence source. "It was part of a covert action program to strengthen Shiites who are pro-Western" and to recruit new allies.
"I don't know where the $13 million is," he said. "A good chunk of it is missing.''
An administration official familiar with the CIA's operation declined to discuss how much money may have been lost or retrieved. Asked whether the cash may have been a motive behind the killing, he said, "I guess you can't rule it out, but I doubt it.''
Witnesses to the slaying said many members of the mob, armed with guns, knives and swords, were members of a faction backed by the son of an ayatollah assassinated by the Baghdad regime in 1999. Others said some of the assailants were members of Saddam's Baath party.
Al-Khoei's return had been seen as a positive sign by exiled Iraqis that Washington would not rely entirely on local leaders to assume authority. He had accompanied al-Kadar to the meeting in a gesture of reconciliation.
But things went horribly wrong.
"People attacked and killed both of them inside the mosque," Ali Assayid Haider, a mullah who travelled from the southern city of Basra for the meeting, said at the time.
One witness said a third person was killed and an unknown number of people were wounded in the melee, which reports said erupted when al-Khoei pulled a gun and fired several shots in an apparent attempt to protect al-Kadar. The victims were hacked to death with knives and swords.
The administration official described the loss of al-Khoei as a "significant" setback to U.S. efforts to counter Iranian influence within the Shiite clergy and to cultivate a moderate, if not necessarily pro-American, bloc within the community.
ONE MORE TIME....
"--$13 million the CIA had given him to cultivate supporters.--"
FASTER THAN YOU CAN SAY FAILED...U.S./ISRAELI PUPPET REGIME.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-07-2003 05:05 PM
IRAQ DESCENDING INTO CHAOS. COLLERA AND TYPHOID BEGINNING TO BECOME AN EPIDEMIC.
A lawless Post-Saddam Iraq
Iraqi middle class family returns to war-battered Baghdad to find it in anarchy, abandoned to looters.
By Cecile Feuillatre - BAGHDAD
The collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime has left the Al-Luaibis and middle class families like them struggling to survive in a country they barely recognise.
"When the Americans said they were going to liberate Iraq we thought, 'why not'?" says Kabila, surrounded by her son and four daughters, aged 23 to 31, as well as her husband, a former journalist with the state-run Iraqi News Agency.
"But now, we no longer know what to think," she confesses.
The family of Shiites, originally from the southern capital Basra, live in the Al-Dinuk district in the east of the capital where many employees of the Information Ministry have homes.
During the war, mother and daughters went to a village near Tikrit, 180 kilometres (110 miles) north of the capital, for safety.
When Baghdad fell to the Americans they returned to find a city in anarchy and abandoned to looters.
"Normal life has gone," says Kabila.
Fearing for their lives, the women no longer go out, despite boredom and a desperate wish to return to their work or studies and to meet friends again.
"We heard that women were being kidnapped off the streets by former members of the fedayeen (militia) of Saddam," says Hala, a language student.
"We hear shooting, my university has burnt down. How can I go into the centre of Baghdad?" she sighs.
Her mother goes out to the market just once a week, to supplement large amounts of food stocked before war broke out on March 20.
"It was just as well because prices have doubled, if not tripled?" Kabila says. "And we have no gas to cook with. I can't think of anything else."
To kill time the daughters do housework, cooking and gardening or study for the classes they last attended two months ago.
"Before I was always busy, at work in the morning, university in the afternoon," says Abir.
"I never noticed the days go by, and came home at eight pm," says the computer programmer who runs to her computer or the television when the electricity comes back on.
But only one TV channel is available and that is Iran's Al-Alam and the family finds its news "biased".
"From now on it's chaos," says Adnan, the father, who does dare to venture into town with his son Mohammed, a dentist.
"We are waiting for a new government to be set up but the situation is so unstable. Do you think the United States intends to rebuild Iraq?," he asks.
"There are so many contradictions. Everything that has happened was so unexpected. We are waiting to see what happens next," says Mohammed.
"More than anything what we need is order to be restored," he stresses.
All were badly shaken by the scenes of looting that followed the arrival of US marines in Baghdad on April 9.
"Why do they do it? Why are there so many thieves?" bemoans Ibtissam, a former typist at the ministry.
"We do not support Saddam, life under his regime was difficult, but at least we had security. The United States has disappointed us," she adds.
"We need a man to run the country," echoes Kabila.
A long silence follows when asked if the family misses Saddam.
"I don't know," hesitates Kabila. "We spent so many years with him."
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
posted 05-07-2003 09:07 PM
whoopse ! better read this mechy poo !!
U.S. Uncovering Evidence of Iraq's WMD Program
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
WASHINGTON — American forces have collected "plenty of documentary evidence" suggesting Saddam Hussein had an active program for weapons of mass destruction (search), the commander of U.S. Army troops in Iraq said Wednesday.
Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the Army's Fifth Corps (search), told a press conference the reason Saddam didn't use unconventional weapons against invading forces may be that these weapons were buried too well to retrieve before the fast coalition dash to Baghdad.
"We've collected evidence, much of it documentary, that suggests there was an active program" for unconventional weapons, Wallace said.
"A lot of the information that we're getting is coming from lower-tier Iraqis who had some knowledge of the program but not full knowledge of the program," he told Pentagon (search) reporters in a video conference from the Iraqi capital. "And it's just taking us a while to sort through all of that."
He did not elaborate.
The Bush administration said destroying Iraq's suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs was the main reason for the war. Despite weeks of searches of suspected sites, none has been reported found so far.
Pentagon officials suggested before the war that some Iraqi units were armed with chemical weapons, but none were found when those units were overrun.
On several occasions, troops have found substances they said tested positive as nerve agents or other chemical weapons materials, only to learn from more sophisticated testing that they were crop pesticides, explosives and so on.
The defense official said that he and others "feel good" about the prospect this time that they have found good evidence of an unconventional weapons program.
But they are being careful to cover all bases. He noted that many questions will be asked if it is announced as the evidence — including "chain of custody" information on who has handled the truck and whether it might have been tampered with.
Acknowledging that it was only one of his theories, Wallace said the reason such unconventional weapons never were used was that the Iraqis had to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors up until the last days before the war.
"Inspectors only left Baghdad a few days before the start of the campaign," Wallace said. "Because they were so clever in disguising them and burying them so deep, they themselves had a problem getting to it."
Wallace said among work his men are doing now is joint police patrols and helping train Iraqis in police procedures.
He said there is still small-arms fire in Baghdad and occasional criminal acts that he attributed partly to prisoners Saddam released before the war in an unusual pardon.
Looting also has been a problem in the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam's regime.
"I'm not particularly concerned about security in Baghdad at all," other than that, he said, adding that there are no areas in the entire country that he is "overly concerned about."
Troops are making progress in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, and are expanding operates all the way to the Syrian border in the west of Iraq, he said.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-07-2003 09:19 PM
Must be some neo-con's opinion.
Probably disproved later...just like all of the WMD claims have thus far.
One moon circles
Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000
posted 05-07-2003 10:32 PM
your goose is cooked on the wmd deal mech....I can feel it !
your link to the truth !
832 posts, Mar 2003
posted 05-09-2003 01:27 AM
That's funny...I always thought Mech would be the Joker in the deck of weasles! (Jimmy Carter will work, though)
588 posts, Nov 2002
posted 05-09-2003 11:17 PM
I realize the goal is to post so much RW PRopaganda that
those who believe in the truth will be overwhelmed.
Zieg (RW fags will provide the heiling)
You forget those of us like me that will post the truth until we die.
Kill me off and silence me to make my every word a dying declaration..
You lose RW fascists who hate America.
The RW's Web of Deceit
is well funded and the only refuge of scoundrels who have neither principles nor morals.
May they reap what they sow.
My honor is loyalty to the US Constitution.
RW's fanatics hate the Constitution and hate America.
We who love America and love
the US Constitution
above life itself will fight unto the death against the fascists who hate America and use our sacred US Constitution as toilet paper.
Death to the fascists.
Life eternal to freedom and liberty
[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 05-09-2003]
832 posts, Mar 2003
posted 05-10-2003 03:49 AM
LOL....Shitoga is starting to sound like a KGB propagandist....No substance, all spin, lies and innuendo. At least, he (like Swamp gas) is honest about his political viewpoints….(maybe a little confused)….unlike Mech who preaches leftist propaganda, and all the political platforms of Democrats, yet still claims to have no political affiliation or bias….I guess I find the latter more repulsive.
But what you've got to understand is that right wing is actually mainstream. It's about truth. Therein lies the reason for the downfall of leftist extremists. The veil of deception is lifting and without that deception, the majority of Americans are seeing what the left is really all about and they realize they want little part. Look at the red states, most of America is conservative, except for some of the major cities on the left coast, NYC....the inner city government dependents. The lies are failing to work, and without lies...the left has nothing that any reasonable human being wants. When the mask of deception is lifted, and people no longer buy the Deception that those like Mech and Shitoga are trying to sell, we find nothing but a whole lot O ugly....
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-11-2003 04:22 PM
Fastwalker sez: --"LOL....Shatoga is starting to sound like a KGB propagandist....No substance, all spin, lies and innuendo. --"
It's the BU$H ADMINISTRATION that is HIRING the Commie KGB agents to SPY ON AMERICANS.
Just in case you forgot..........
Most certainly they are the biggest spin miesters around.
How 'bout those WMD's? Looks like BushLaden productions couldn't deliver the goods. Must be building a WMD factory from scratch or something.Mabye Rumsfeld knows were they are? After all he helped sell them to Saddam
If anyone here is masquerading as a conservative it's you Fastwalker.
You are the one of the most biggest government pimps I have ever seen. A true neo-con.
Personally..I am..and always will be a 100% CONSTITUTIONALIST.
[Edited 4 times, lastly by Mech on 05-11-2003]
205 posts, Jan 2003
posted 05-11-2003 07:51 PM
"Bernard Weiner, Ph.D"
Reminds me of Mr Weiner who likes to dress up in Barbie clothes
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-11-2003 09:02 PM
It figures you would.
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-11-2003 09:12 PM
NO WMD in IRAQ...
US rivals turn on each other as weapons search draws a blank
One key argument for war was the peril from weapons of mass destruction. Now top officials are worried by repeated failures to find the proof - and US intelligence agencies are engaged in a struggle to avoid the blame
Paul Harris and Martin Bright in London, Taji and Ed Helmore in New York
Sunday May 11, 2003
The Iraqi military base at Taji does not look like a place of global importance. It is a desolate expanse of bunkers and hangars surrounded by barbed wire and battered look-out posts. It is deserted apart from American sentries at the gate.
Yet Taji, north of Baghdad, is the key to a furious debate. Where are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Was the war fought on a platform of lies? Taji was the only specific location singled out by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his address to the UN when he argued that evidence compiled by US intelligence proved the existence of an illegal weapons programme. 'This is one of 65 such facilities in Iraq,' Powell said. 'We know this one has housed chemical weapons.'
But The Observer has learnt that Taji has drawn a blank. US sources say no such weapons were found when a search party scoured the base in late April. By then it had already been looted by local villagers. If Taji ever had any secrets, they are long gone. That is bad news for Britain and the United States. The pressure is building to find Saddam's hidden arsenal and time is running out.
Last week the US flew 2,000 more experts into Iraq. The Iraq Survey Team will join 600 experts already there. Organisations in Iraq hunting for weapons now include teams from the US and British armies, the CIA, the FBI and the Defence Threat Reduction Agency. Yet at more than 110 sites checked so far they have found nothing conclusive. It has been an exercise in false alarms. Suspect white powder at Latifiyah was only explosives. Barrels of what was thought to be sarin and tabun nerve agents were pesticides. When a dozen US soldiers checked a suspect site and fell ill, it was because they had inhaled fertiliser fumes. Each setback ratchets up the political pressure. Infighting between government departments and intelligence agencies is becoming vicious on both sides of the Atlantic. Having fought a war to disarm Iraq of its terrible weapons, neither the US nor Britain can admit that Iraq never had them in the first place. The search for weapons of mass destruction cannot be allowed to fail.
The search is especially vital for The Cabal. In the brave new world of post-11 September America, this tight group of analysts deep in the heart of the Pentagon has been the driving force behind the war in Iraq. Numbering no more than a dozen, The Cabal is part of the Office of Special Plans, a new intelligence agency which has taken on the CIA and won. Where the CIA dithered over Iraq, the OSP pressed on. Where the CIA doubted, the OSP was firm. It fought a battle royal over Iraq and George Bush came down on its side.
The OSP is the brainchild of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who set it up after the 2001 terrorist attacks. It was tasked with going over old ground on Iraq and showing that the CIA had overlooked the threat posed. But its rise has caused massive ructions in the normally secretive world of intelligence gathering.
The OSP reports directly to Paul Wolfowitz, a leading hawk in the administration. They bypassed the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defence Intelligence Agency when it came to whispering in the President's ear. They argued a forceful case for war against Saddam before his weapons programmes came to fruition. More moderate voices in the CIA and DIA were drowned out. The result has been a flurry of leaks to the US press. One CIA official described The Cabal's members as 'crazed', on a 'mission from God'.
But for the moment The Cabal and Rumsfeld's Pentagon have won and Powell's doveish State Department has lost. Tensions between the two are now in the open.
'Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency because he didn't like the intelligence he was getting,' said Larry Korb, director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'He doesn't like Powell's approach, a typical diplomat, too cautious.'
Former CIA officials are caustic about the OSP. Unreliable and politically motivated, they say it has undermined decades of work by the CIA's trained spies and ignored the truth when it has contradicted its world view.
'Their methods are vicious,' said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counter-terrorism. 'The politicisation of intelligence is pandemic, and deliberate disinformation is being promoted. They choose the worst-case scenario on everything and so much of the information is fallacious.' But Cannistraro is retired. His attacks will not bother The Cabal, firmly 'in the loop' of Washington's movers and shakers. Yet, even among them, continued failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a growing fear. The fallout from the war could bring them down.
The warning was there in black and white. Citing 'intelligence' sources, Tony Blair produced an official dossier that concluded Iraq could fire its chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so.
It was a terrifying prospect and ramped up the pro-war argument when the dossier was produced last September. But cold analysis after the war tells a different story.
Iraq was abandoned by the UN weapons inspectors, then bombed, invaded and finally brought under US and British military control. During that entire time the 'button' was never pressed on its weapons of mass destruction. Now both the pro-war party and the anti-war lobby want to know why. Can this mysterious lapse be explained or did the weapons never exist?
They could have been hidden. Iraq is the size of California with mountains and deserts in abundance. Ibrahim al-Marashi, an Iraqi expert whose work was heavily plagiarised in a now infamous Downing Street dossier published on the eve of war, has detailed a sophisticated concealment network set up in the 1990s and headed by Saddam's son Qusay. At the heart of the operation was Saddam's son-in-law and cousin, Hussein Kamil, who defected in 1995 to Jordan, where he revealed the concealment techniques to Western intelligence agencies.
But, according to al-Marashit, the main cache of weapons of mass destruction should have been found in Saddam's home city of Tikrit. But Tikrit has fallen and as yet nothing has been found, leaving US officials clutching at straws. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the weapons were hidden so well that the Iraqis themselves were unable to use them.
A more worrying possibility is that they were looted. Across Iraq - not just in Baghdad and Basra - practically every government and military facility was looted long before US or British troops were able to control them. It might be that the weapons are now on the black market. 'It means the weapons would now be proliferating, which is exactly what the war was meant to stop,' said Garth Whitty, a former weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s.
But there are problems with that argument. Barrels of nerve agent are not easy to sell. The war's critics point to a more obvious conclusion - in the run-up to the war the Iraqis were simply telling the truth. They had no weapons of mass destruction.
A massive picture of intelligence misuse has emerged. Aside from Downing Street's plagiarised dossier, there are allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. The documents that the accusation were based on were shown to be false by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but that had not stopped Britain and America warning of Saddam's nuclear threat. In fact, the forgeries were obvious. One Niger Minister, whose signature was on a document, had been out of office for a decade when the forgeries were produced. A US envoy sent to investigate the claims reported to the CIA in February 2002 that they were fakes. But the OSP and the White House ignored him.
Other selective use of intelligence occurred. Much was made of the OSP's body of Iraqi defectors, but they chose which defectors they wanted to listen to. Kamil's terrifying description of Iraq's capabilities in the early 1990s and its efforts to conceal its arsenal was touted as killer proof. The fact that Kamil also told his interrogators the weapons had later been ordered destroyed was suppressed.
Other defectors may have had their own agendas. Kamil described one, Dr Khidhir Hamza, as a 'professional liar' - but told US intelligence what it wanted to hear and said Iraq was close to building a nuclear bomb. No one now believes that. But Hamza has now returned to Iraq as part of a Pentagon team to rebuild the country, in charge of atomic energy. Kamil also returned to Iraq - but when Saddam was in power. He was executed.
Perhaps the most damning evidence is the lack of intelligence emerging from captured Iraqi officials. The list is impressive: Huda Ammash, known as 'Mrs Anthrax'; General Hossam Amin, responsi ble for talks with weapons inspectors; General Amir Saadi, Saddam's science adviser; General. Rashid al-Ubaidi, an arms adviser; and Abdul Hwaish, believed responsible for all Iraq's military capabilities. If anyone knows about the weapons, it is these people. They have powerful motivation to 'cut a deal' and tell what they know.'Why is no one coughing?' said Whitty.
In a quiet corner of Baghdad International Airport sits a truck and trailer painted military green. Its canvas sides have been rolled up to reveal the pipes and vats of some form of biological fermentation machine. It was stolen in Mosul two weeks ago then handed over to Kurdish militia when the thieves realised it was no ordinary truck. The Kurds passed it on to the Americans.
It is the only concrete sign that any weapons of mass destruction may have existed. The firm which made it has said six others were similarly kitted out. It has a strong resemblance to the 'mobile bio-weapons labs' described by Powell to the UN, but is it the smoking gun? Not even the most desperate Pentagon official goes that far. No trace of biological weapons residue has been found inside. The truck was apparently thoroughly cleaned out with bleach before it was stolen.
Yet many experts believe something will be found. Before the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq did have a massive chemical and biological weapons programme. Some is probably still lying around. If sufficient quantities can be uncovered, perhaps it will be enough for a public eager to feel the war was worth it. Finding nothing is unthinkable.
BLOOD FOR OIL.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-11-2003]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-11-2003 09:20 PM
Where are they, Mr. President?
Posted: May 7, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
After each war, historians sift through the record to discern its real causes. Invariably, they divide into two camps: the court historians who defend the war leaders and the revisionists who prosecute them before the bar of history.
After World War II, the evidence that FDR had steered us into war, while asserting he was doing his best to avert war, was so massive even his court historians admit he lied. Wrote Thomas A. Bailey in FDR's defense, "He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for his own good."
Roosevelt had cut off Japan's oil, sent the Flying Tigers to China and sought to tempt Japan into attacking a line of picket ships. He had lied about German subs torpedoing U.S. destroyers and Nazi plans to conquer South America and replace the Christian cross with the swastika. This mattered in 1950. For, with Stalin triumphant in Europe and China, it appeared – in Churchill's phrase – that we "had killed the wrong pig."
But today, with the immense focus on the Holocaust, the question is no longer, "Did FDR lie?" But, "Why did we not declare war sooner?"
Vietnam was, in Reagan's phrase, "a noble cause." But because it was a lost cause, it is now said and believed we only went to war because LBJ had misled us about the Tonkin Gulf incident.
The war in Iraq is being portrayed by the president's men as a just and necessary war that removed a mortal peril. But if our victory turns to ashes in our mouths, and we discover that we have inherited our own West Bank in Mesopotamia, the White House will have to explain again why we went there.
In his speech from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, President Bush told the nation, "With those attacks (of 9-11), the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got" – i.e., the invasion of Iraq was payback for the killers of Sept. 11.
But is this the truth? For this war on Iraq was not sold to the nation as retribution for 9-11. Indeed, the ties between Iraqi intelligence and the al-Qaida killers turned out to be bogus War Party propaganda.
We were told, rather, that Saddam had gas and germ weapons and was working on nuclear weapons. And once he had them, he would use them on us, or give them to Osama. "Do you want to wait for a nuclear 9-11?" Americans were asked.
Trusting the president, believing that he had information we did not, a majority of Americans approved of pre-emptive war. But where, now, are the thousands of artillery warheads and terror weapons the president and secretary of state told us Saddam had?
We have scoured Iraq for a month. No Scuds have been found. No chemical or biological weapons. No laboratories or production lines. No evidence that Iraq was building nukes or seeking fissile material.
"Every statement I make today is backed up by ... solid sources," Colin Powell told the United Nations. But since then, his case has crumbled. Were he a district attorney, Colin Powell would be under investigation today for prosecutorial incompetence or possible fraud. One British document he relied on turned out to be a 10-year-old term paper by a graduate student. The documents from Niger proving Iraq was seeking "yellowcake" for nuclear bombs turned out to be forgeries – and crude ones at that.
Who forged them? Why have we not been told? Does the secretary who put his integrity on the line not want to know?
If our occupation of Iraq turns sour and U.S. troops are being shot in the back, a year from now, Americans are going to demand to know. And President Bush could face the charge thrown up in the face of FDR by Clare Boothe Luce, that he "lied us into war."
Both the president and Powell are honorable men. If they misled us, surely it is because they themselves were misled. It is impossible to believe either man would deliberately state as fact what he knew to be false. But the president must find these weapons – or find the men who told him, with such certitude, that Iraq had them.
For there is something strange here. If Saddam had these weapons, why did he not surrender them to save himself? If he did not give them up because he intended to use them on us, why did he not use them on us? And if they were destroyed before the war, why did he not simply show us where, and thereby save himself, his family and his regime?
Last fall, Congress abdicated, surrendered its war-making power to a president who demanded that Congress yield it up. If Congress wishes to redeem itself, it should unearth the truth about why we went to war. Was the official explanation the truth, or was it political cover for an American imperial war?
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 05-11-2003]
Resisting the NWO
3907 posts, Sep 2002
posted 05-11-2003 09:46 PM
Weapon hunters come up empty-handed
May 12 2003
By Barton Gellman
The group directing all known US search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms.
The 75th Exploitation Taskforce, as the group is formally known, has been described from the start as the principal arm of the US plan to discover and display forbidden Iraqi weapons.
The group's departure, expected next month, is a milestone in frustration for a major declared objective of the war.
Leaders of Taskforce 75's diverse staff - biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators, computer and document experts, and special forces troops - arrived with high hopes of early success.
They said they expected to find what Secretary of State Colin Powell described at the United Nations Security Council on February 5 - hundreds of tonnes of biological and chemical agents, missiles and rockets to fire them, and evidence of a program to build a nuclear bomb.
Scores of fruitless missions broke that confidence, many taskforce members said in interviews.
Army Colonel Richard McPhee, who will close down the taskforce next month, said he took seriously US intelligence warnings on the eve of war that Saddam had given "release authority" to subordinates in command of chemical weapons. "We didn't have all these people in (protective) suits" for nothing, he said. But if Iraq thought of using such weapons, "there had to have been something to use. And we haven't found it. Books will be written on that in the intelligence community for a long time."
Army Colonel Robert Smith, who leads the site assessment teams from the Defence Threat Reduction Agency, said taskforce leaders no longer "think we're going to find chemical rounds sitting next to a gun". He added, "That's what we came here for, but we're past that."
Motivated and accomplished in their fields, taskforce members found themselves missing vital tools. They consistently found targets identified in Washington to be off the mark, looted and burned, or both.
Leaders of the taskforce's eight teams said the weapons hunters were going through the motions now to "check the blocks" on a prewar list.
US Central Command began the war with a list of 19 top weapons sites. Only two remain to be searched. Another list enumerated 68 top "non-WMD sites", without known links to special weapons but judged to have the potential to offer clues. The tally at midweek showed 45 surveyed without success.
Taskforce 75's experience, after seven weeks in action, squares poorly with assertions in Washington that the search has barely begun.
The hunt will continue under a new Iraq Survey Group, which the Bush Administration has said is a larger team.
Even the sharpest sceptics do not rule out that the hunt may eventually find evidence of banned weapons.
•Teams of weapons experts have concluded that a trailer found near Mosul in northern Iraq two weeks ago is a mobile biological weapons laboratory. They acknowledged that some experts were uncertain whether the trailer was intended to produce biological agents. But they said they were convinced it was a lab for biological production.
Translation: Nobody bought that stupid trailer with the moonshine still in the back.