As is the case with all successful frauds, the Iraqi exiles got what they wanted and their targets got stuck with the bill.
MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS. Two new items about the Bush administration's conduct before the war emerged today.
First, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report claiming that the Bush administration knew that their justifications for the Iraq invasion were false at the time.
Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller, D-W. Va., said the administration's actions went far beyond simply being misled by bad intelligence.
"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," Rockefeller said in a statement. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
The argument of the Intelligence Committee was that Bush knew that his claims about Saddam Hussein in relation to 9-11, al-Qaeda, mobile bio-terror labs, and nuclear weapons were either rejected by American intelligence or not confirmed by American intelligence. For Jay Rockefeller, that means that the Bush administration was acting deceptively.
But that doesn't get at the depth of Bush's deception.
To ferret out exactly what the Bush administration was doing, the Intelligence Committee needed to ask itself where the Bush administration was getting their false or unverifiable information from. Were they making it up? Engaging in right-wing fantasizing (and there was plenty of that going on after 9-11)? Or was the Bush administration getting their information from specific sources like Iraqi exiles?
THREE MIGHT HAVES. I know this is speculative, but I'm going to try it anyway. The Bush administration might actually have given greater weight to the unverifiable claims of interested parties than it gave to American intelligence. Given that outside claims concerning the Iraqi government supported the Bush administration's objective of justifying an invasion, Bush might have favored those claims even though they knew that the claims were either unverifiable or false. In other words, the Bush administration might have been willing to be scammed itself in the service of deceiving the American public.
This is where the second item comes in. McClatchey News, which has done great reporting on Iraq since well before the invasion, has a story about how the Iranian government might have been involved in a scam to provide the Bush administration with false information.
Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that Iranian exiles who provided dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran to a small group of Pentagon officials might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service ... to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday. . . .It appears that Iranian exile and notorious fabrication artist and arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar was attempting to "penetrate" to the highest levels of American government to provide hostile (intelligence) claims about Iraq and promote a ridiculous scheme to overthrow the Iranian government. The McClatchey writer John Wolcott thinks that Ghorbanifar was actually a double agent working on behalf of the Iranian government trying to get the Bush administration to remove one of Iran's enemies by invading Iraq.
The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.
The upshot of Wolcott's article is that multiple parties in Iraq and Iran were targeting the Bush administration's prospective invasion of Iraq as the fulfillment of their own dreams and feeding the Bush people phony "raw intelligence" to bolster their case.
So where does that leave the Bush people. Bush, Cheney, and other top administration officials are well known to be arrogant and incompetent. They're liars and they're also war criminals.
Now it turns out that they were chumps as well.
Posts
1 comment:
American plans to loot Iraqi oil and other Bush war crimes
Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
June 1, 2008
Though Bush has given every other lie and cover story to justify the US war of aggression against Iraq, the real reasons for the 'war' are now openly admitted. An article in American Daily proposes that the oil fields of Iraq be seized and plundered to pay off America's national debt of some 9.3 trillion dollars. I am shocked by the implication that they haven't been so plundered already! I am outraged that the author expects the victims of US aggression pick up the tab for Bush's capital crime! The article proposes that the US commit yet another war crime.
As immoral as anything put forward by Bush/Cheney, this plan differs only in the distribution of booty. Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force would conspire to further enrich the robber barons of big oil, themselves now war criminals under international conventions to which the US is legally bound whether Bush likes it or not! The alternative plan is a 'neat' rationalization and equally reprehensible.
We should create a taxpayer-owned oil company (Perhaps, call it US Oil?). It would require a long-term (maybe a 99 year) lease on a portion of Iraq’s oil fields. The price of such a lease?...The spilled blood of American servicemen!
Since the oil fields are up and running, that oil should be sold on the open market for $20 a barrel. The revenues from the oil sales would go directly and solely to pay off our debt. In addition, with a large volume of the world’s oil being sold at $20 a barrel, the price would plummet worldwide, translating into affordable fuel prices once again.
The taxpayers would be repaid for the treasure we have lost in Iraq, and a long-term solution to our growing need for oil would be accomplished without any further drilling in this country. It would also provide time to increase long-overdue and meaningful fuel efficiency standards in our automobiles, as well as making alternative energy solutions practical to most Americans.
--Dave Gibson, Analysis with Political and Social Commentary
American Daily has proposed the immoral theft of resources that do not belong to the United States. Bluntly, Mr. Gibson, what you have proposed is a war crime.
b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
--Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, World Tribunal on Iraq - Istanbul, June 23 - 27, 2005
Secondly, Dick Cheney's cronies --consisting of Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil, BP America Inc, having lied, schemed and waged bloody war --would never agree! Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did not invade Iraq in order to pay off the national debt; nor did Dick Cheney and George W. Bush conspire with the elite base in order to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. Moreover, the transcript of US Ambassador April Glaspie's 'interview' with Saddam Hussein proves that the US 'lured' Saddam into attacking Kuwait because Saddam had wanted to lower the price of oil. Hussein's attack of Kuwait was the pretext needed by Bush.
Bush was determined to wage war on Iraq. Nothing could have been done to prevent it. The UK Daily Mail reported that Hussein had agreed to exile for a paltry $1 billion but Bush, hellbent on war, refused. It was, in fact, the inevitable result of war fever and greed. Investors, smelling 'oil profits' and 'defense contracts', bid up the prices of Boeing and Raytheon stocks. It was a heady time for war profiteers and robber barons.
That the author of the 'American Daily' article believes that his proposed 'oil lease' is already paid for with the 'blood of American soldiers misses the point that aggressive war is aggressive war, that the theft of a nation's resources is a war crime whether it is perpetrated by Dick Cheney's consortium or by a collective of 'the people'! Theft is theft and, in this case, it is also a war crime. That the US finds itself in a position in which it must scheme to plunder is proof that the US is poised for collapse as was Rome when its mercenaries sought out the foreign booty to be looted in Briton, Dacia, and other resource rich targets of conquest.
As Gore Vidal pointed out in his book --The Decline and Fall of the American Empire --the founders sought to create an oligarchical state in which two wings of a single party would preside over the distribution of 'bread an circuses'. That's certainly what we got. The only issue of concern to a ruling class, Vidal writes, is whether 'to coerce or to bribe' a powerless majority. Vidal is correct. The fall of American empire will resemble that of Rome in every major trend.
* Like Rome, American society is increasingly characterized by absurd inequalities of wealth and income
* Like Rome, modern America is beset by weird and kooky cults
* Like Rome, America's biggest export is conquest and death
* Like Rome, America distracts its teeming citizenry with 'bread and circuses'
* Like Rome, America's currency, by the time of its ultimate fall, will be utterly worthless
Warnings go unheeded. The American robber baron class is assured the greater part of the spoils of aggressive war and, for quite a long time, the middle class indulged the belief that, one day, they too would achieve great riches, wealth would trickle down, and a hollow, corporate culture of SUVs and suburbs would rule forever. It was all smoke and mirrors. Since Ronald Reagan offered up a vision of a right wing 'promised land', wealth has failed to 'trickle down'. They have not fallen off the ladder, the ladder itself simply slips into an economic black hole that swallows it from the bottom up. So called 'middle class tax cuts' are, therefore, meaningless.
The middle class is disappearing. Already, the upper one percent of the population is worth more than everyone else combined. They are America's imperialist establishment which now openly proposes that the oil resources of Iraq be plundered for their benefit. Thus --America became a banana republic though our industry is not bananas but death. We are ruled by ruthless oligarchs --an imperial establishment like that of Rome --whose living is made by state-sponsored, industrialized murder. The apparatus of state has been bought and paid for. 'Democracy' is but the illusion that pacifies us. It will take a real revolution to change things.
In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn together until he was assassinated in April that year.
--From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism’s Last Fling
That 'threat' of real change is as close as this nation had come to real revolution. I am asked if 'ailing' empires ever recover. The fate of western empires indicates --no! The 'nation' might 'recover' ---but not the empire. Rome, for example, is often said to have 'survived' but in the form of the Catholic Church. America will not be that lucky. There is no 'American' church to survive its fall. There is no analogous American institution that might survive a total economic melt-down. When a future 'Gibbon' writes a multi-volume, analytical history of America's short-lived empire and precipitous fall, the 'religious establishment' will share the blame but will not survive as an institution.
The fall of American empire shares many characteristics with that of Rome. Like Rome, 'America' has become an enterprise for which death is a 'product'. Our Praetorian Guard is called 'Blackwater'. It is in the Military/Industrial complex that one finds the larger analogy to Rome.
It had been able to dominate the Italian peninsula. But Rome as the ruler of the entire civilized world was a political impossibility and could not endure. Her young men were killed in her endless wars. Her farmers were ruined by long military service and by taxation. They either became professional beggars or hired themselves out to rich landowners who gave them board and lodging in exchange for their services and made them "serfs," those unfortunate human beings who are neither slaves nor freemen, but who have become part of the soil upon which they work, like so many cows, and the trees.
--Hendrik van Loon, The Story of Mankind
Of America's fall, Gore Vidal implies that the manner of our fall is implicit in our beginning.
Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. But Henry Adams [Brooks' older brother] figured all that out back in the 1890s. 'We have a single system,' he wrote, and 'in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.'"
--Gore Vidal, The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
Rome as a military power house was finished by the time the last emperor was driven off the 'throne' in the year 475. Rome was in serious decline by the time the Battle of Adrianople was fought almost one hundred yeas earlier in 378. The Emperor Valens could not even raise an army of Romans; the battle consisted of pro-Roman barbarians under Valens command vs anti-Roman barbarians arrayed against him. Adrianople was Rome's worst defeat since Hermann's German victory of AD 9 in the Teutoburger forest. For many it seemed as if the world had ended. St. Ambrose it "the end of all humanity, the end of the world."
Though the battle is often said to have been the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire, there is solid evidence that Rome's decline had begun much earlier. In Nero's day, the slums of Rome were a picture of a top heavy society in decline, dependent upon conquest to sustain a spoiled 'nobility'. By the time the Praetorian Guard (Blackwater of its day) auctioned off the empire to a 'nobleman', one Didius Julianus, the sale was completed in Greek Drachmas --not worthless Roman sestercius.
These several 'themes' are found today in Bush's America. It was said of Nero that he 'fiddled' while Rome burned. In fact, there were no 'fiddles' at that time; Nero played a lyre and often boasted that, if forced to, he could make a living at it. While New Orleans drowned, Bush cannot be said to have 'played' a guitar. He punished it.
Long before starting this blog, I wrote elsewhere that 'terrorism' was a tactic --not an enemy that could be defeated militarily. 'Terrorism' is not a nation against whom war can be waged and won. 'Terrorism' is not an ideology against which propaganda may or may not be effective. 'Terrorism' is the means by which those who have been marginalized, robbed, made helpless or shut out fight back! Events have borne this out. Bush's ham-fisted Bush approach, like that of every other GOP regime, has made terrorism worse and I have the cold hard verifiable stats to prove it. [See: Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes] But those facts mean nothing to the Straussians and neocons and other cults embraced by the GOP. The Bush administration is, rather, a 'hologram' controlled by a 'man behind a curtain'. The goal was the theft of oil and the 'plan' is now openly discussed in the wake of Bush's trillion dollar blunder in Iraq.
Like that of Rome, America's imperialist establishment is dependent upon conquest. The US, a nation once rich in resources, no longer leads the rest of the world in the production of steel, cars, electronics or even service 'industries' like computer programming. In most areas, we now pull up the rear. How then are the lifestyles of the rich and famous to be paid for? The old fashioned, Roman way. Conquest and plunder.
Stealing Iraqi Oil is a War Crime
Addendum:
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".
Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."
Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".
--Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9/11
The L-Curve graph represents income, not wealth. The distribution of wealth is even more skewed. Quoting from a recently-published book by political philosopher David Schweickart, "If we divided the income of the US into thirds, we find that the top ten percent of the population gets a third, the next thirty percent gets another third, and the bottom sixty percent get the last third. If we divide the wealth of the US into thirds, we find that the top one percent own a third, the next nine percent own another third, and the bottom ninety percent claim the rest. (Actually, these percentages, true a decade ago, are now out of date. The top one percent are now estimated to own between forty and fifty percent of the nation's wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95%.)
See: US Income Distribution, 'The L-Curve'.
* Leading Americans Ask U.S. Military to Refuse Orders to Attack Iran
* Iraqis Call for an 'Uprising' Against Proposed Oil Law
* US National Debt Clock FAQ
* SELLING WAR – "What WE Say Goes."
* Iraq’s Occupation: A Form Of Terrorism
* THE NATIONAL DEBT, THE FEDERAL DEFICIT, AND THE FISCAL DRAG
Post a Comment