“Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny... all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
– Thomas Jefferson
PART 1: WHY DO THEY HATE US?
“As long as you keep Algiers, you will be constantly at war with Africa; sometimes this war will seem to end; but these people will not hate you any the less; it will be a half-extinguished fire that will smolder under the ash and which, at the first opportunity, will burst into a vast conflagration.”
- Baron Lacuee in 1831 at the beginning of the French occupation of Algiers, which came to a brutally violent end in the early 1960’s, having almost destroyed the nation of France.
President Bush wasn't the first President to ask, "Why do they hate us"? President Eisenhower posed the same question to his National Security Council, which outlined the basic reasons: The U.S. supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region. The interest in controlling the resources of the region, which the State Department dubbed the “greatest strategic prize in history,” as explained by then Head of the State Department Policy Planning staff George Kennan, was to have “veto power” over our industrial rivals.
Later, in 1953, the CIA, in what would be one the first of numerous post-WWII acts of foreign subversion for imperial gains, backed the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran, which led to the installation of a ruthless dictator, who catered to U.S. oil companies while brutally repressing the native Iranian population (“a half-extinguished fire” that smoldered “under the ash”) until his overthrow (in a “vast conflagration”) in the 1979 Islamic uprising. Thus began a long and consistent policy of U.S. support of ruthless dictatorships for strategic advantage, which gave birth to the violent by-product known in intelligence circles as “blowback.” The Iranian revolution resulted in the infamous hostage crisis, which was at that time the most famous example of “blowback.” But as we now know, it was merely prologue. Numerous embers were silently simmering “under the ash.”
Part 2: THE FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER
“We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism ... Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children... in short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth ... the American people need to hear.”
- Former Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman in the National Catholic Reporter (October 2, 1998)
The U.S. helped "create" Osama Bin Laden during the latter part of the Carter administration and throughout the Reagan years, when they joined forces in fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The United States provided weapons, training and funds to Bin Laden and his Mujahideen, or “holy warriors.” The fact that Bin Laden was our friend and ally immediately dismantles the ludicrous idea that he is now merely against us because he "hates freedom.” He fought the Soviets because they were occupying and repressing Muslim lands, and the U.S. was more than happy to utilize these “holy warriors” in an effort, according President Carter’s National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, to “give the Soviet Union it’s own Vietnam.”
Bin Laden officially declared the United States an enemy during the first gulf war, when we used the Kuwait invasion as an excuse to place an enormous troop presence in Bin Laden’s homeland of Saudi Arabia, to protect the oil. Bin Laden has been remarkably consistent in his justifications for declaring a Jihad against the United States, all of which center on U.S. Middle Eastern foreign policy. He points to our continued support of the Israeli ethnic cleansing campaign within the occupied territories. This support is one of the greatest beacons of terrorist recruitment, as Bin Laden himself pointed out in his October 7, 2001 videotaped statement: “... I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine...” Interesting that Bin Laden's quote clearly implies the possibility of a United States living in "peace," while placing the blame on U.S. foreign policy. In addition to our support of Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people, he points to the egregious U.S.-imposed sanctions in Iraq... "One million Iraqi children have thus far died although they did not do anything wrong," as well as the stationing of troops and building of military bases in Saudi Arabia, "... and before all the army of infidels depart the land of Muhammad." Notably, he has never once mentioned any objections to our "freedom," "democracy" or "western values." In fact, he very clearly responded to Bush's charges of "hating freedom," in another videotaped speech in 2003: "... unlike what Bush says – that we hate freedom – let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example."
During the early stages of the U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq, Brzezinski echoed the sentiments put forth nearly sixty years earlier by Kennan, arguing America’s control over Middle Eastern oil producers “gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the [Gulf] region.”
Apparently little had changed in the minds of strategic U.S. government planners, regardless of the enormous casualties suffered as a result of “blowback” from similar policies in the past.
Part 3: A CARPET OF BOMBS
“... the United States is not simply concerned with keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf; it also has an interest in preventing any potentially hostile state from gaining control over the region and its resources and using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world.”
– Kenneth Pollack, former CIA analyst and Clinton Administration National Security official.
In the latter half of 1996, the Taliban government in Afghanistan ended negotiations with United States oil and gas companies, who were interested in securing a lucrative contract to build a massive pipeline to connect the gas and oil resources in the Caspian Basin. Instead of choosing an American company for the contract, the Taliban chose the Bridas Corporation of Argentina. Among the severely disappointed negotiators was Halliburton CEO Richard Cheney, and Unocal consultants Hamid Karzai, Richard Armitage, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Later, in 1998, in response to the al Qaeda attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, President Clinton pushed through an executive order banning all trade with the Taliban government, who were seen as al Qaeda sympathizers. Further attempts by Unocal and Halliburton were indefinitely placed on the back burner.
The “election” of George W. Bush, having placed Dick Cheney in charge of U.S. energy policy, re-opened this avenue of negotiations, effectively undermining President Clinton’s policy of economic sanctions against the Taliban regime. The immediate goal was to have the Taliban cancel the Bridas contract and give a new contract to a conglomerate of American energy companies, all significantly represented by high-level members of Bush’s own cabinet, as well as having participated in Richard Cheney’s “Energy Task Force.”
The Taliban once again resisted the U.S. overtures, and refused to void the Bridas contract.
At the final meeting with the Taliban, on Aug. 2, 2001, State Department negotiator Christine Rocca, clarified the options: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."
When the Taliban government wouldn’t budge, President Bush immediately notified Pakistan and India the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October.
This was five weeks before the events of 9/11.
In the wake of al Qaeda’s attack, the “carpet of bombs” rained down on Afghanistan, making quick work of the Taliban regime. President Bush immediately appointed Unocal consultant Hamid Karzai as head of the temporary government and John J. Maresca, a vice president of Unocal, as the new U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. Among the first orders of business was the cancellation of the Bridas contract. Four months later, a new pipeline deal was negotiated between Interim President Karzai and President Musharraf of Pakistan, which favored U.S. oil and gas companies, with Unocal being the greatest contract recipient.
Meanwhile, the search for 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden proved futile and was soon abandoned in favor of the next phase in the “War on Terror.”
Part 4: THE PRICE WAS WORTH IT
“A reaction might take place as a result of the US government's hitting Muslim civilians and executing more than 600,000 Muslim children in Iraq by preventing food and medicine from reaching them. So, the US is responsible for any reaction, because it extended its war against troops to civilians.”
Osama Bin Laden on CNN, 1997
On May 11, 1996 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl about the reported 500,000+ Iraqi children who died in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanctions. Her reply stunned many, “I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was worth it.”
The history of the sanctions (rarely, if ever discussed in mainstream media) begins with the strategic bombings of critical infrastructure within Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. The U.S. dropped over 90,000 tons of bombs, intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure, including 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and the water-pumping and sanitation systems. The bombings themselves were a direct violation of the Geneva Convention against the specific targeting of infrastructure “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” thus making them a war crime.
Recently released de-classified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that the U.S. knew full well that Iraqi water needed purification with chlorine in order to avoid “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis and typhoid.” Later documents revealed that the U.S.-imposed sanctions SPECIFICALLY embargoed the import of chlorine needed to purify the water systems. Additionally, the U.S. sanctions forbade the import of the parts needed to repair the damaged purification and sanitation systems.
The results of these actions are well documented. Colonel John A. Warner III wrote in Airpower Journal, “...as a result (of the destruction of these facilities), epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths and doubling the infant mortality rate.” Anupama Rao Singh, the United Nations Children’s Fund Representative in Baghdad observed that food shortages were virtually unknown in Iraq prior to what the State department admitted were the “toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history.” Richard Garfield’s universally accepted mortality studies put the number of Iraq children killed because of the sanctions at 350,000. The Lancet study, for the British Medical Society, estimated it at 550,000. Denis Halliday, the U.N. coordinator in Iraq called the sanctions, “a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq,” calling their implementation “genocide.” His resignation in 1998 in protest received little if any coverage by the U.S. corporate media.
Part 5: PNAC AND THE QUIET COUP
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
– Paul Wolfowitz Undersecretary for Defense and I. Scooter Libby Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, internal “Defense Planning Guidance Report,” leaked to the NY Times on March 7th, 1992
In 1997, a group of neo-conservative disciples of Ronald Reagan and economist Milton Friedman founded the Project for a New American Century, committed to the establishment of a United States led “benevolent global hegemony.”
According to the PNAC mission statement, the United States needed to understand and embrace four consequences:
1) We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
2) We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
3) We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
4) We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Members of this exclusive club included what would soon be a who’s who of high level government officials in the Bush II administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard L. Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad and Jeb Bush.
The first “consequence” was easy enough to understand and was implemented to the letter by Donald Rumsfeld upon achievement of the post of Secretary of Defense under Bush II. The remaining “consequences” can only be truly comprehended when one understands how U.S.-imposed neo-liberal economics works. In short, neo-liberal economics consists of the installation (“carry out our global responsibilities”) of governments (usually cruel dictatorships, cynically labeled “democracies”) in foreign lands, which will open the markets (a.k.a. our “interests”) up to investment (a.k.a. our free market “values”) catering specifically to U.S. multinational corporations (a.k.a. our “prosperity”), while controlling and repressing the native populations (a.k.a. “friendly to our security”).
These principles weren’t new, as they were the very backbone of U.S. foreign policy for the better part of fifty years. The key difference with the PNAC ideology is they believe the U.S. should utilize this hegemonic policy over the entire world (a.k.a. “extending an international order”) and not merely impose it on the weak nations of the third world. Essentially, the fall of the Soviet Union was the opening by which the United States should enact a never-ending planet-wide empire. The very linchpin of the PNAC plan of world domination was control of Middle Eastern oil (the greatest strategic prize in history), to be used as a “lever” of control over enemies and allies alike, in what would effectively, in other words, amount to “using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world.”
On January 26th, 1998, PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton, demanding he “act decisively” against the WMD “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. They suggested a policy of regime change through military action. President Clinton, having read the numerous intelligence estimates, which clearly showed the current policy of sanctions and containment was working (“the price was worth it”), rejected the ideas suggested within the letter. The “crazies,” as the members of PNAC were called within the beltway community at the time, would have to wait a few more years before getting the chance to enact the “four consequences” upon the world.
On December 12th, 2000, George W. Bush (described by Ronald Reagan in a recently released diary entry from May 17th, 1986 as the Vice President’s “... ne’re-do-well son... the one who hangs around here all
the time looking shiftless... that so-called kid is already almost 40
and has never had a real job") was thrust into office by the Supreme Court in spite of losing the popular vote and immediately began to make control of Middle Eastern oil the spine of his foreign policy. The administration was replete with people with significant ties to the oil industry. Besides Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, eight cabinet secretaries, the national security advisor Condoleeza Rice (who has an oil tanker named after her), as well as 32 additional members of various departments all had direct ties to the oil industry. Within two weeks, the Bush administration revealed the new national security strategy, which essentially gutted the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, while additionally making regime change in Iraq a national priority. At the same time, Dick Cheney created an “Energy Task Force” to hash out a new energy policy. The task force consisted of cabinet members as well as numerous lobbyists and high level management from the oil and natural gas industry. The White House, under the cynical guise of “executive privilege,” has kept an exact list of who attended the meetings secret to this day.
Author Richard Behan describes the early accomplishments of the task force:
“The Energy Task Force wasted no time. Within three weeks of its creation, the group was poring over maps of the Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, tanker terminals, and oil exploration blocks. It studied an inventory of ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts’—dozens of oil companies from 30 different countries, in various stages of negotiations for exploring and developing Iraqi crude. Not a single U.S. oil company was among the “suitors,” and that was intolerable, given a foreign policy bent on global hegemony. The National Energy Policy document, released May 17, 2001 concluded this: ‘By any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.’ That rather innocuous statement can be clarified by a top-secret memo dated February 3, 2001 to the staff of the National Security Council. Cheney’s group, the memo said, was “melding” two apparently unrelated areas of policy: ‘the review of operational policies toward rogue states,’ such as Iraq, and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.’ The memo directed the National Security Council staff to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as the “melding” continued. National security policy and international energy policy would be developed as a coordinated whole. This would prove convenient on September 11, 2001, still seven months in the future.”
Still, in the early stages of the Bush administration, the overriding problem faced by the now-powerful members of PNAC, was the lack of public support for warfare against a nation that seemed to be sufficiently contained. Members of PNAC lamented in a September 2000 article titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” that acceptance of military action in Iraq by the American public would be difficult in the absence of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.” The dubious article has since been removed from the official PNAC web site.
On September 11th, 2001, the “new Pearl Harbor” was immediately seen as an opportunity to wage a war of choice against a sufficiently weakened and contained nation that posed no threat to the United States or its allies. The site of the fallen twin towers was still smoking when the Bush Administration began pushing all resources in the direction of war with Iraq. Richard Clarke, the highly respected counter-terrorism czar within the White House under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II recounted in his book, “Against All Enemies,” the beginning of the charade on the morning of September 12th, 2001, mere hours after the devastating attacks in New York and Washington D.C.:
“I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon were telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.”
Later that evening, Clarke met the President in the situation room:
‘He (President Bush) grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. “Look,” he told us, “I know you have a lot to do and all... but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way...” I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. “But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.”
“I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred....”
Thus began the drive toward building a case for war with Iraq in response to an attack in which they played no part. Numerous records now exist pointing to a deliberate and consistent misinformation campaign emanating from the executive branch, spear-headed by former Halliburton executive and current Vice President Richard Cheney. The defenses put forth by members of the White House to these charges have been easily rebuffed and usually fell to blaming “faulty intelligence.” Perhaps the most damning evidence contradicting the “defense” of this conspiracy was revealed in the May 1st, 2005 issue of the Sunday Times in the U.K. It was on this day that the Times released a newly leaked top-secret internal British government memo, soon to be dubbed the “Downing Street Memo.” The memo, dated July 23, 2002 and clearly labeled as “...extremely sensitive.... secret and strictly personal,” was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aid, to the British Ambassador to the U.S., David Manning, as well as cc’d to Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, as well as several other top level cabinet members. It stated in part:
‘C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action...
... No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his wmd capability was less than that of libya, north korea or iran.’
NY Times Columnist Frank Rich has compiled additional evidence of manipulation of intelligence by members of the Bush Administration, most egregiously by Dick Cheney, notably:
September 21st, 2001 – In the President’s Daily Brief (PDF), the President and his staff, including the Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high level officials were told that there was no proof of Iraqi participation in 9/11 and “scant credible evidence” of any “significant collaborative ties” between Iraq and al Qaeda. They were further informed that Saddam Hussein viewed al Qaeda and other “radical Islamic Organizations” as a threat to him and his regime.
Tim Russert: “Iraq is harboring terrorists?”
Vice President Cheney: “Correct.”
- December 9th, 2001 on Meet the Press
November 20th, 2001 – “U.S. Embassy Niamey disseminated a cable on a recent meeting between the ambassador and the Director General of Niger’s French-led consortium. The Director General said ‘there was no possibility’ that the government of Niger had diverted any of the 3,000 tons of yellowcake produced in its two uranium mines.”
December 17th, 2001 – The results of a CIA-administered polygraph determine that Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a civil engineer who claimed to have helped Saddam’s men secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, was lying. Days later, Ahmed Chalabi arranges for Judith Miller of the NY Times to interview al-Haideri, who later reports the already debunked story on the front page of the “paper of record,” with no mention of the lie-detector results or intelligence assessments.
February 2002 – Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador to Niger, travels to Niamey and determines the alleged sale of yellowcake to Iraq to be unfounded. Later, the Defense Intelligence Agency issues a classified report that identifies Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a top member of al Qaeda in U.S. custody, as a likely fabricator. Among his fabrications were claims that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and had provided biological and chemical weapons training to al Qaeda operatives. The report concludes that the suspect was in all likelihood “describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.”
March 4th, 2002 – A high-level intelligence assessment concludes that the sale of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq was “unlikely.”
“... (Saddam) is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
- Dick Cheney on CNN’s Late Edition, March 24th, 2002
May 2002 – A fabricator warning is posted in U.S. intelligence databases in reference to a former major in the Iraqi intelligence service, the most important of three CIA sources who claimed to collaborate claims by the Iraqi defector known as “Curveball.” The CIA and DIA concluded that he was a liar. Two of the three sources had ties to Bush ally Ahmad Chalabi; all were deemed frauds.
“...we know that (Saddam is) working on nuclear.”
– Dick Cheney on Meet the Press, May 19th, 2002
August 2002 – White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card forms the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which begins to meet weekly in the Situation Room. Regular participants include; Karl Rove, communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matelin and James Wilkinson, legislative liaison Nicholas Calio and policy advisors Condoleeza Rice and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff. Later, on September 7th, 2002, Card explains the White House’s public relations strategy on preemptive war with Iraq: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.” Soon after, the PR onslaught for war with Iraq began in earnest.
“... what we know now, from various sources, is that (Saddam) has continued to improve the, if you can put it into those terms, the capabilities of his nuclear... and he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon.”
- Dick Cheney in a speech to the California Commonwealth Club, August 7th, 2002
“... but we know now that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons”
– Dick Cheney in a speech to the VFW 103rd National Convention, August 26th, 2002
On September 8th, 2002, a story is planted by unnamed “Bush administration officials” and reported on the front page of the NY Times by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon, claiming Saddam Hussein is intensifying his quest for A-bomb parts. The story introduces the claim that Iraq has “sought to acquire aluminum tubes believed to be intended... to enrich uranium for bomb material.” Later that very morning, numerous “Bush administration officials,” including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld appear on various morning talk shows, touting the report as proof of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. None of the talk show hosts think to ask their guests if they had, in fact, leaked the story to Miller and Gordon themselves earlier that week, in what would be a case of planting evidence, then pointing to that planted evidence as proof of a position. It was later revealed that the initial source of the story was none other than Ahmad Chalabi, once again acting in the role of official White House press liaison, disseminating information known to be false.
Dick Cheney: “... to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium to make the bombs.”
Tim Russert: “Aluminum Tubes.”
Dick Cheney: “Specifically aluminum tubes. There’s a story in the NY Times this morning...”
– on Meet the Press
“... with respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue... a nuclear weapon... and we saw in reporting just this morning... specialized aluminum tubes...”
– Colin Powell on Fox News Sunday
“... we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
– Condoleeza Rice on CNN’s Late Edition
Dick Cheney also took the opportunity to re-hash the long-ago debunked connections between al Qaeda and Iraq:
Dick Cheney: “... there is a pattern of relationships going back many years.”
Tim Russert: “What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?”
Dick Cheney: “It’s credible.”
– on Meet the Press
September 12th, 2002 – The White House web site posts a document ironically entitled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance,” which includes a reference to the Iraqi defector al-Haideri’s (previously discredited) claims of buried Iraqi WMD’s as well as Judith Miller’s article reporting those dubious claims. There was no mention of the lie detector results or intelligence assessments condemning al-Haideri as a fabricator. Two days later, President Bush spoke in his weekly radio address:
“... (Saddam) has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.”
Mid-September 2002 – CIA director George Tenet informs President Bush that both the State and Energy departments have doubts about Saddam’s aluminum tubes and that some in the CIA aren’t certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons. Additionally, Tenet reports that a member of Saddam’s inner circle, his foreign minister Naji Sabri, had made a deal to reveal Iraq’s military secrets to the CIA and reported there was “no active weapons of mass destruction program.”
“We now have irrefutable evidence that (Saddam) has once again set up and reconstituted his program to enrich uranium... there’s no doubt about what he’s attempting. And there’s no doubt about the fact that the level of effort has escalated in recent months.”
– Dick Cheney, at a GOP fund-raiser in Casper Wyoming, September 20th, 2002
In retrospect, many in the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, often remarked that members of Congress and the White House “saw the same intelligence” in regards to Iraq’s WMD program. But CIA Chief George Tenet’s blatant lie to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’s nuclear program fiercely contradicts that assertion:
“The C.I.A. recently received intelligence showing that between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger, one of the world’s largest producers.”
– Tenet to the SFRC on September 24th, 2002
The fact that the yellowcake story had been officially debunked by numerous intelligence sources months ago was obviously known to the head of the CIA, yet he clearly sold the erroneous story to the only members of Congress authorized to hear the report. Meanwhile, the massive propaganda campaign was making an impact on the U.S. population, with a majority (51%) now believing for the first time that Saddam was “personally involved in 9/11.” Additionally, according to the CBS News poll, over 70% of Americans believed that al Qaeda members were currently in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld joined Tenet and Cheney in publicly advocating (long-disputed) evidence of an al Qaeda/Iraq link:
“We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq. We have... credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contracts in Iraq who could help them acquire... weapons of mass destruction capabilities. We do have... one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.”
- September 26th, 2002, at a Defense Department press briefing.
Two days later, Bush himself joined the fray:
“... (Saddam) has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq.”
– September 28th, 2002, on his weekly radio address.
October 1st, 2002 – The National Intelligence Communities (NIC) publish a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.” On the matter of aluminum tubes, the NIE states:
“... INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use in centrifuge reactors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.”
The scientific wing of the CIA had reported the only way to use the aluminum tubes for nuclear enrichment was to cut each tube in thirds, reduce the circumference of each piece, remove the inner coating and reduce the thickness of each piece significantly. One agent compared the exercise to “attempting to turn a Yugo into a Cadillac.” This unambiguous assessment apparently made no impact on President Bush, who spoke in a televised address a week later:
“Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
- Televised Presidential address from Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7th, 2002
Additionally, the President continued to insist on a significant Iraqi link to al Qaeda, without providing a shred of evidence in support of such claims:
“We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”
October 9th, 2002 – an Italian reporter provides the U.S. Embassy in Rome with copies of documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transactions. Upon first inspection, INR analysts question their authenticity.
October 21st, 2002 – The NY Times reports that Czech President Vaclav Havel had called the White House in early 2002 to directly tell all senior administration officials that there was no evidence that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. This alleged meeting was the backbone of every assertion made by White House officials that Iraq and al Qaeda had “high-level meetings.” The U.S. intelligence community had already long doubted the meetings took place. Later, a Czech official said that Havel didn’t make the calls, but insisted that there was no evidence that any such meetings between Atta and Iraqi officials had ever happened.
“His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists.”
– Dick Cheney, in a speech to the Air National Guard, December 2nd, 2002.
December 19th, 2002 – the United States officially responds to Iraq’s declaration of disarmament by publicly noting that Iraq had not accounted for African uranium from Niger, even though the theory that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger had long ago been debunked by U.S. intelligence. Later, on December 24th, 2002, Niger’s prime minister declares publicly that Iraq has neither purchased nor inquired about purchasing uranium from Niger since he took office in 2000.
January 2003 – In an informal National Intelligence Estimate submitted to the White House, intelligence agencies unanimously conclude that Saddam Hussein was unlikely to attack the U.S. unless attacked first. Later, the Pentagon requested an authoritative judgment on whether Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger. The National Intelligence Council drafted a memo stating unequivocally that the claim was baseless. The memo was also delivered to the White House.
January 10th, 2003 – a highly classified intelligence estimate distributed to high level members of the Bush administration, entitled “Questions on Why Iraq is Procuring Aluminum Tubes and What the IAEA Has Found to Date,” states that INR, the Energy Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency all believed that Iraq was using aluminum tubes for conventional weapons programs.
January 13th, 2003 – A State Department nuclear analyst sends and email to several intelligence analysts outlining his reasoning why “the uranium purchase agreement” acquired from the Italian reporter a few months earlier, was probably “a hoax,” citing the fact that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so “ridiculous” that it was “clearly a forgery.”
January 23rd, 2003 – Condoleeza Rice publishes an op-ed piece in the NY Times, cynically entitled “Why We Know Iraq is Lying,” which continues the Niger charade:
“... (Iraq’s) declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq’s efforts to get uranium from abroad.”
Colin Powell later plays his part in an interview with the European press, January 26th, 2003:
Reporter - “You referred in your speech to links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Now, even some of our secret service chiefs say publicly that there is no evidence of that.”
Colin Powell - “We do have evidence of it...of connections over the years between Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
And the President continues the lie:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
– George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address
The infamous sixteen words put forth by Bush stood in stark contrast to the unvarnished intelligence estimates available at the time both in Britain and the United States intelligence communities, which had been provided to the President in numerous forms, most of which was classified and kept from most, and quite often all members of congress as well as hidden entirely from the public at large.
February 5th, 2003 – In his now-infamous speech at the United Nations, Colin Powell proceeded to recap the litany of falsehoods in regards to Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to al Qaeda. His presentation included a thorough rehashing of the “evidence,” which had previously been exhaustively discredited by the U.S. intelligence community. Tellingly, he failed to mention the alleged attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger, even though it had been one of the central themes driving the “need” for war. One can speculate that the Niger falsehood was easy enough to sell to the U.S. public, but a much tougher sell to the international community at large.
In any case, the speech proved to be the culmination of years of manipulation, geared toward drumming up support for the “unavoidable” war with Iraq. Clearly, while the intelligence was not perfect, the idea that the Bush Administration was “fooled” by “faulty intelligence” is just one more lie in a series of lies put forth in an abhorrent violation of the public trust.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie ... The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state."
-Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945
By February 21st, 2003, 57% of U.S. citizens believed that Saddam helped the 9/11 terrorists, in spite of the fact that there exists not a shred of evidence in support of such a claim. The relentless propaganda campaign had achieved its task.
Yet even after the massive propaganda campaign attempting to link Saddam Hussein with an advanced nuclear weapons program, the majority of American citizens still wanted to give nuclear regulatory inspectors more time to determine the true nature of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, if any. More importantly, a plurality believed an attack should only happen if approved by the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council recognized rhetoric over substance and refused to approve the invasion. On March 7th, 2003, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix cites more cooperation from Iraq and demands more time to continue inspections, which to date had revealed “no evidence” of Iraqi WMD programs.
On March 20th, 2003, the overwhelmingly American “coalition force” invaded Iraq in violation of the Geneva Convention and United Nations Charter against aggressive warfare. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. 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. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
– Theodore Roosevelt, in the Kansas City Star, May 7th, 1918
Part 6: OPERATION IRAQI LIBERATION (O.I.L)
“Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
– Abraham Lincoln
On March 26th, 2003, Lieutenant General Jay Garner, head of the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) sent a report to all senior U.S. Commanders a list of sixteen institutions that “merit securing as soon as possible to prevent further damage, destruction, and/or pilferage of records and assets.”
The top two places on Garner’s list to be protected were the Central Bank of Iraq and the National Museum in Baghdad. Within days of U.S. ground forces entering Iraq, CentCom gave its orders and the Oil Ministry building was fortified while the Central Bank and Museum were ignored and relentlessly looted. The Oil Ministry was LAST on Garner’s list. Clearly, Donald Rumsfeld (“stuff happens”) had different priorities. In addition to ignoring Garner’s list, Rumsfeld immediately dispatched thousands of American troops to secure each of Iraq’s numerous oil fields. Rumsfeld’s successful rush to protect the oil fields saved Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, which had secretly secured an enormous no-bid contract to safeguard the oil rigs nearly a year before the invasion, from having to earn the millions of taxpayer dollars they were being paid to put out any fires at the oil rigs.
The devastation of the Iraqi Museum, according to Paul Zimansky, a Boston University archaeologist, was “the greatest cultural disaster in the last 500 years.” Others compared the level of looting to the Mongol invasion of Baghdad in 1258. The destruction of important historical sites continues unabated, as evidenced by the desecration of the enormous stone temple in the ancient city of Ur by U.S. Marines, who spray-painted their motto, “Semper Fi” on its walls.
Five years have passed and the United States now has a larger presence than at any time since the invasion began. We need at this point in time to stop calling it the Iraq war; it's no longer a war, it's an occupation.
There is no "winning" or "losing" an occupation. History has taught us that you merely endure an occupation as long as you can, counting the bodies along the way.
Let's recap with a few facts:
Invasion was a violation of the U.N. Charter and Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime worthy of a trial in the World Court
Reasons for invasion were proven to be completely false
Illegal invasion has led to over one million innocent Iraqi deaths
Illegal invasion has led to over four million innocent Iraqi refugees
Illegal invasion has led to thousands of American deaths and tens of thousands of serious American injuries (when one adds the suicide rate of military personnel above the average rate for the nation, the death toll among U.S. soldiers reaches into the tens of thousands)
U.S. Intelligence and Military Analysts agree that the overwhelming majority of attacks on U.S. soldiers are being carried out by “liberated” Iraqi citizens
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens want the U.S to leave their country (91%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens approve of attacks on American troops (61%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens agree that a timetable for withdrawal would strengthen the Iraqi government (53%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens believe the American presence "provokes more conflicts than it prevents" (78%)
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens look upon Al Qaeda (94%) and Bin Laden (93%) somewhat or very unfavorably
Polling of Iraqi citizens reveals that Iraqi citizens believe we invaded for control of oil (77%)
The Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law recently proposed essentially confirms the Iraqi fears, as it will give 81% of oil control to U.S. and British oil companies
Illegal invasion has reportedly cost U.S. taxpayers over 1.3 trillion dollars that could have been used for much needed social programs like health care and education.
According to the Department of Defense, “coalition forces are still the primary target of attacks” in Iraq
Based on the facts listed above, how can we justify remaining in Iraq for one minute longer? We have no right to tell the Iraqi citizens, in THEIR country, that we know better than them and we will decide when to leave THEIR COUNTRY, in utter contempt of their opinions on the subject.
Quite often we hear the argument put forth, "We broke it, so we own it.”
How can we make such a claim when Iraqis don't agree with it? If Iraqi citizens made that statement, then it would have legs. Otherwise, it's an excuse to continue an illegal and immoral occupation against the will of the native population.
WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE THERE. PERIOD.
Let's not forget that we were talked into staying in Vietnam for additional YEARS based on the idea that, "if we leave, there will be a civilian bloodbath." There wasn't.
James Baker, a pro-imperialist hawk (also a high-level oil company consultant) and co-author of the Baker Commission Report, admitted to Anderson Cooper that there is "validity" to the idea that "getting the U.S. troops out will actually lessen the violence, that it will at least take away the motivation of nationalist insurgents."
The entire debate is "elitist". Superior Americans deciding how to "help" the savage and backward brown people (as we steal their resources and murder the population).
But what about our noble goal of giving the “gift” of Democracy to the people of Iraq?
In November of 2007, a majority of the elected Iraqi parliament voted to cancel the U.N. mandate allowing the U.S. led forces to remain in the country. In usual anti-democratic fashion, the policy has been ignored by the U.S. government, which went so far as to let the rest of the security council know that removal of the U.S. force is not an option, regardless of what measures the democratically elected representatives of the Iraqi people put forth. This isn’t the first time the U.S. government, in spite of all of it’s happy pronouncements of a democratic Iraq, has disregarded the will of its elected representatives. Early in 2006, more than half the parliament voted for a timeline for U.S. withdrawal, again summarily ignored. These blatant examples of contempt for democracy were met with little if any comment by the western media.
The reality is a true Democracy in Iraq is the very LAST thing the neo-cons in Washington would ever want.
Noam Chomsky explains:
“A sovereign Iraq, even partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US planners. With a Shiite majority, it is likely to continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shiite population right across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there for human rights and a degree of autonomy -- and that happens to be where most of Saudi oil is. Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's hydrocarbon resources and independent of the US, undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the world-dominant power after World War II. Worse yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown -- the primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, along with the Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shiite dominated bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners, and its Western allies.”
What U.S. planners really want is another puppet government, which will cater to U.S. corporate interests at the expense of the native population. Some previous examples of U.S. “democracy promotion”:
1947 – CIA-backed electoral subversion in France.
1947 – CIA-backed electoral subversion in Italy.
1947 – US Military intervention against populist movement in Greece.
1948 – Military coup by CIA-trained Manuel Odria in Peru.
1948 – CIA subversion of elections in Columbia.
1948 – CIA-backed military coup in Venezuela.
1953 – U.S. & U.K. overthrow elected government of Guyana.
1953 – CIA-backed coup removes democratically elected Iranian parliament, which resulted in the installation of a brutal dictator (and CIA puppet) who repressed the Iranian population while catering to the United States multi-national corporations for the better part of 25 years.
1954 – CIA-backed coup overthrows elected government in Paraguay.
1954: The CIA overthrows Guatemala's government, ousting the elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, and installing the military dictatorship of Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas.
1960 – CIA-backed overthrow of government in Congo.
1962 – CIA-backed military coup in Laos.
1963 – CIA-backed military coup in Ecuador.
1964 - Military coup by CIA-trained René Barrientos Ortuño in Bolivia.
1965 – CIA-backed army coup in Indonesia.
1966 – CIA-backed military coup in Ghana.
1966 – CIA-backed coup to remove democratically elected government in Dominican Republic, preferring yet another ruthless dictator who would serve the U.S. while repressing the native population.
1967 - CIA-backed coup that brought Suharto to power in Indonesia and took perhaps as many as a million lives.
1967 – CIA-backed military coup by the Colonels in Greece.
1969 – CIA-backed military coup in Cambodia.
1973 - After Chileans elected Salvador Allende president in 1970, Henry Kissinger declared, “I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.” Three years later, General Pinochet, supported by the CIA, engineered a coup and, for two decades, led one of the bloodiest regimes in the history of South America.
1973 – CIA-backed military coup in Uraguay.
1976 - Military coup by CIA-trained Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina.
1980 – CIA- subversion of elections in Jamaica.
1983 – U.S. invasion of Grenada
1980's - Contras’ US-backed terror campaign that took the lives of over 30,000 civilians
1980’s – After a universally acclaimed free election in El Salvador, the U.S. began CIA operations meant to destabilize the elected government. This resulted in yet another ruthless dictator, the destruction of a democratically elected government, the repression of millions and the death and imprisonment of tens of thousands more.
1984: Panamanian Presidential election of May 6 is a fraud arranged by Reagan Administration operatives and Noriega. Nicolás Ardito Barletta, former official of the World Bank, wins. Secretary of State George Shultz attends inauguration of his protégé (Ardito Barletta had been an assistant to Shultz when Shultz was a University of Chicago professor) to praise the rigged election as democracy in action.
1987 - Military coup by CIA-funded Sitiveni Rabuka in Fiji.
1993 - US-backed military coup by Sani Abacha in Nigeria.
2002 – CIA-backed military coup that temporarily overthrew the extremely popular democratically elected President of Venezuela.
2003 – illegal invasion of Iraq has resulted in the violent deaths of a reported 1.2 million civilians and the homelessness of several million more.
This is but a sample of our illegal interference in the political processes around the globe. One could delve into our governments support of the likes of Marcos in the Philippines, Chiang Kai-shek in China, Syngman Rhee in Korea, Diem, Ky, and Thieu in Vietnam, Batista in Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Kasavubu and Mobutu in Zaire, and so on. The M.O. remains the same.
This GUARANTEES terrorist-causing anti-American resentment that will be taken out on U.S. soldiers and civilians, which is merely a nuisance to those, like Dick Cheney and friends, who stand to make many more millions of dollars in "defense" and oil profits. After all, it's not their kids who are on the front lines.
Just look at the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law, one of President Bush’s notorious “benchmarks,” which privatizes 81% of Iraq's currently nationalized petroleum resources (the “greatest strategic prize in history”), opening them to "investment" by Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, and two British oil companies, BP/Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell. These companies expect to sign the rarely used and notoriously profitable contracts called "production sharing agreements" which guarantee them extraordinarily high profit margins: they might capture more than half of the oil revenues for the first 15-30 years of the contracts' lifespan, and deny Iraq any income at all until their infrastructure "investments" have been recovered. So the Iraqi people will share among themselves all the revenue from 1/5th of their country's oil reserves. But they will get only a fraction from the remaining 4/5ths, where the American and British oil companies expect to generate immense profits. The law itself was drawn up within Dick Cheney’s office as a part of his “Energy Task Force” work, which began prior to the 9/11 attacks, in what can only be seen as an imperial oil-grab of the largest magnitude. When one realizes the facts “on the ground” in this regard, it’s hard not to imagine changing the name of the conflict from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (O.I.F.) back to the more appropriate “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (O.I.L.) (the original name suggested for the invasion by the Pentagon before someone pointed out the obvious problem, I kid you not) in honor of the true nature of the conflict.
“In support of the people of Iraq, we the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, state our opposition to the Iraq Oil Law. We also oppose the decision of the United States government to require that the Iraq government pass the Oil Law as a condition of continued reconstruction aid in legislation passed on May 24th, 2007. A law with the potential to so radically transform the basic economic security of the people of Iraq should not be forced on Iraq while it is under occupation and in such a weak negotiating position vis-à-vis both the U.S. government and foreign oil corporations. The Iraqi Oil Law could benefit foreign oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people, deny the Iraqi people economic security, create greater instability, and mover the country further away from peace. The U.S. government should leave the matter of how Iraq will address the future of its oil system to the Iraqi people to be dealt with at a time when they are free from occupation and more able to engage in truly democratic decision-making. It is immoral and illegal to use war and invasion as mechanisms for robbing a people of their vital natural resources.”
– Nobel Women’s Initiative members, Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Jody Williams, Shirin Ebadi and Wangari Maathai
For a good example of what happens to a third world oil producing country in the hands of U.S. and British multi-national companies, one merely can look at Nigeria, where in 2004 80% of the nation’s revenue from the oil industry went to only 1% of the population, and only 2% of Shell Oil’s employees were from the local population.
NEXT INSTALLMENT CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
FINAL INSTALLMENT CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...