Saturday, February 05, 2005

Bush Reveal the Truth on Iraq

Bush Reveals the Truth on Iraq

It’s official, according to Bush. As an American, you are responsible for the invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, and the brutal political gulag in Iraq

Bush Finally Tells the Truth: Americans are Responsible for the Devastation of Iraq
Kurt Nimmo
January 16, 2005

It’s official, according to Bush. As an American, you are responsible for the invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, and the brutal political gulag in Iraq because you “re-elected” Bush last November. “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections,” Bush told the Washington Post. “The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.”

Of course, in regard to Iraq, there was virtually no difference between Kerry and Bush, a vote for Kerry would have resulted in a continuation of the occupation and an influx of an additional 40,000 troops, and Kerry’s “assessment” of “what was taking place in Iraq” was nearly indistinguishable from Bush’s. Kerry simply wanted to change management styles.

Of course, Bush is correct—the American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, they are responsible for war crimes perpetuated. If corporate media polls mean anything—and of course the veracity of such polls is questionable—upward to fifty percent of all “voting” Americans support the occupation, the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of “our troops” as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name but a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.

Meanwhile, it is now permissible for “antiwar” voices writing “Op/Ed” pieces for the corporate media to challenge the Bushzarro worldview of events in Iraq. For instance, Georgie Anne Geyer, writing for Yahoo News, reflects the growing consensus among Washington’s non-Strausscon elite that the occupation is a disaster and, as Colin Powell said recently, the United States is losing. Geyer, as a corporate pundit and shill, does not, of course, challenge the premise of the invasion, only the pretext, viz. weapons of mass destruction that simply came out of nowhere. “After the ‘91 Gulf War, it appears that the Machiavellian Iraqi leader deliberately kept the appearance of having WMD in order to deter and strike fear in his neighbors while, on another power level, getting rid of them in order to convince the United Nations weapons inspectors that he had none,” writes Geyer, careful not to let the other shoe drop: these very weapons of mass destruction were sold to Saddam by U.S. and European corporations with a nod and wink from the Reaganites, who had a vested interest in making sure Iranians and Iraqis killed each other in great numbers (in fact, the United States and Israel sold weapons to both sides).

Instead, in typical racist fashion, Geyer blames the “hate-ridden psychologies of that part of the world,” not Israel, of course, an outlaw nation that has hatefully killed large numbers of Palestinians for decades, but simply the Arabs and Persians. No mention of the fact the current political landscape of the Middle East is a result of American and European colonialism and direct and covert intervention in the political affairs of millions of Arabs for more than a hundred years. No mention of the fact that the borders of modern Iraq were not drawn by Iraqis, but an Oxford-educated “Arabist,” Gertrude Bell. No mention of the fact Britain spent forty years killing Iraqis, who resisted occupation from 1920 onward with the same ferocity they are now resisting the Americans. Not a word about Winston Churchill, who did “not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas” against “uncivilized tribes,” in other words Iraqis resisting occupation. No mention of the CIA’s role in the Ba’athist coup of 1961—that would result in Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship—a coup the Ba’ath secretary-general at the time remarked upon as follows: “We came to power on a CIA train.” Certainly no mention of the fact Saddam Hussein “was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim” in 1959, according to United Press International. If there are “hate-ridden psychologies” in the Muslim Middle East, they were sustained and magnified—indeed, imported—by Americans and Europeans.

In the corporate media, such racism, historical omission, and propaganda passes for opinion, while “voters,” many unable to find Iraq on a map, make “assessments” about the “differences” between “candidates,” both hailing from the same ruling class and members of the same Yale secret society, on what the United States should do in Iraq (i.e., should “we” send 10,000 or 40,000 additional bullet-stoppers to contain an uncontainable rebellion against an illegal and immoral occupation).

Now that reality has penetrated the bubble of Bushzarro world—as the British learned so long ago, the Iraqis will resist invasion and occupation and there is no way, short of nuking the place, to defeat this resistance—the plutocrats and their multinational taskmasters will run for cover and search for an “exit strategy,” that is to say “peace with honor,” as Nixon attempted to do in Vietnam (while bombing North Vietnamese civilians as peace negotiations proceed in Paris), and the Strausscons will take the blame although, as usual, the “hate-ridden psychology” of the Likudites, so celebrated in Washington, will remain unscathed, if not even mentioned in the corporate media. As usual, the very root of the problem—the foreign policy of the United States, in its current iteration hijacked by well-heeled Zionists and their fellow travelers—will remain immutable, although the Likudite-Strausscon faction may be jettisoned, or at least minimized.

It is only a matter of time before the so-called Green Zone in Baghdad serves as a helipad for escaping Americans and their loyal Iraqi stooges. For millions of Americans, this departure will be evidence that “we” did have the “will” to “stay the course” in Iraq. For as the Strausscon Lawrence F. Kaplan said in the months and weeks leading up to Bush’s invasion, “The real question is not whether the American military can topple Hussein’s regime, but whether the American public has the stomach for imperial involvement of a kind we have not known since the United States occupied Germany and Japan.” Kaplan, a pro-Likudite Zionist, was not talking about perseverance, but the unwillingness of the American people to donate their kids or themselves to Israel’s “security,” that is to say its Master Plan to destroy Muslim culture and lord over millions of Arabs and Iranians. As this cost is certainly too expensive—especially at the behest of an ingrate, racist, and religiously and nationalistically whacked-out nation such as Israel—most Americans will not have the “stomach” to continue.

Of course, this does not absolve the American people of responsibility for the murder of 100,000 innocent people, or the destruction of their country. But then as Vietnam demonstrated, the American people, forever chumps for imperial power and its requisite wars and mass murder (since most Americans are amply brainwashed from grade school onward), they will not blame anybody in particular for the “failure” of Iraq—not like the vicious Strausscons will—but will, as usual, slip into comfortable (for now) ambivalence, distracted by corporatized consumerist culture and its lies and omissions, and not face the fact they are responsible for crimes bordering on genocide. Of course, this consumerist culture and the decadent refuge it provides from reality will soon crumble, as the ruling elite destroys the dollar and jacks up the deficit, but then that’s another story and the topic of another blog entry down the road.

From Afghanistan to Iraq: Transplanting CIA Engineered Terrorism
January 14, 2005

Like a lab technician experimenting on rodents and then writing a report about the result of the experimentation, the CIA’s National Intelligence Council (NIC) has released a 119-page report about the terrorism it spent billions creating and unleashing on the world. Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” David B. Low, national intelligence officer for transnational threats, tells Dana Priest of the Washington Post. “Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of ‘professionalized’ terrorists,” Priest summarizes.

Notice the omission—or maybe it is a case of amnesia, although unlikely—of how the CIA is responsible for the “professionalized” terrorists operating in Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq. Both Robert Gates, former CIA director, and Zbigniew Brezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, admit this. Brezinski even bragged about it to a French newspaper, Nouvel Observateur, a few years back. The Afghan Mujaheddin—and Osama bin Laden’s so-called al-Qaeda—were created by the CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, and Britain’s MI6. As Brzezinski told CNN in 1997, the U.S. collaborated “with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin,” ostensibly to get rid of the Soviets in Afghanistan (note that the U.S. began training and funding the Mujaheddin and what the Washington Post and other corporate newspapers would ultimately call “al-Qaeda” before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan). “The full story of the productive (sic) U.S.-China cooperation directed against the Soviet Union (especially in regard to Afghanistan), initiated by the Carter Administration and continued under Reagan, still remains to be told,” Brzezinski wrote in his book, The Geostrategic Triad. Rest assured, it will not be told by the likes of the Washington Post.

Priest and Low do not mention this “cooperation,” nor do they mention the fact that the Mujahideen cum al-Qaeda were put to use elsewhere after the Soviets fled Afghanistan. “Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO,” Isabel Vincent wrote for the National Post, a fact apparently confirmed by an FBI document. “The arrival in the Balkans of the so-called Afghan Arabs, who are from various Middle Eastern states and linked to al-Qaeda, began in 1992 soon after the war in Bosnia.”

In the years immediately before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the al-Qaeda militants moved into Kosovo, the southern province of Serbia, to help ethnic Albanian extremists of the KLA mount their terrorist campaign against Serb targets in the region … The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia [in March, 1999] to unseat [Slobodan] Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA [Kosovo Liberation Army], which had already received “substantial” military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say.

In other words, the United States was supporting al-Qaeda after the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in August, 1998, events attributed to al-Qaeda and thus, we are told, prompting Clinton to bomb “training camps” (constructed earlier by the CIA) in Afghanistan on August 20 of that same year. Remarkably, in a story published by Jerry Seper in the Washington Times, the bedfellow relationship between Clinton, Osama bin Laden, and the KLA was spelled out:

Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden, who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including twelve Americans … The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO’s bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan… and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports. … The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists, members of the Mujahideen, as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight. … The reports said bin Laden’s organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA.

Clinton and the Mad Bomber of Yugoslavia, General Wesley Clark—who the “liberal” Michael Moore wanted to be president—worked hand-in-glove with the KLA, and thus al-Qaeda. “The Washington Post published a long article about bin Laden’s worldwide activities, noting his presence in places like NATO- and U.N.-occupied Bosnia and Kosovo, but failed to point out that this has occurred under the watchful eye of the Clinton administration,” write Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid for Accuracy in Media. “The Post would rather not bring up that subject.” Of course not—and they also “failed” to mention the well-documented connection between “Islamic terrorism” and United States foreign policy in the latest article citing the CIA lab report portraying Iraq as a terrorist incubator.

If Iraq is a “magnet for international terrorist activity,” as NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings told the Post, it is not far off the mark to conclude it is a magnet useful for Strausscon foreign policy objectives, i.e., Bush’s overblown “war on terrorism” that will last for generations, as promised by Dick Cheney and others. In fact, considering past behavior, detailed above, it is not far off the mark to conclude that what is going on in Iraq—an influx of “professionalized” terrorists, trained and sustained by the CIA in Afghanistan and Bosnia—is precisely what the “intelligence community,” now firmly under control of the Bushcons with Porter Goss knocking heads together, want and have long strived for. After all, terrorism defines the CIA, Bush, and the entire foreign policy establishment. It is their raison detre, their reason for existence.

Official history, as amplified by Priest and the Post, would have us believe Saddam was in cahoots with Osama, although even the Washington Post now adds a modifier to this outrageous and nonsensical claim—a claim believed, contrary to reality, by millions, perhaps most Americans. “Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members,” writes Priest. “Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.” Note here that it was Osama bin Laden’s religious intransigence that prevented the “alliance,” not the fact that Osama and Saddam had nothing in common—least of all attacking the United States—even though both worked at various times for the CIA. In the lead-up to Bush’s illegal and immoral invasion, however, we were told Osama and Saddam were best of buddies, sharing Cuban cigars and plotting to kill American school children.

Bush and the CIA want to make darn sure Iraq becomes and remains the locus of terrorism for the foreseeable future. It has conveniently replaced Afghanistan as the epicenter of Islamic Evil, thus ensuring a long and profitable (for the death merchants, i.e., Lockheed Martin and Crew) “struggle” against the “dark vision” of terrorists, a generational conflict, as promised by our illustrious and criminal leaders. Like cockroaches, according to the NIC report, Islamic terrorists will spread ominously from Iraq to other destinations in the Middle East—the same destinations chalked up for destruction by the real terrorist “alliance,” the Strausscons in Washington and their Likudite taskmasters in Israel—and thus perpetuate car bombings, beheadings, and other forms of chaos and mass murder, ad infinitum. Iraq, like Afghanistan before it, will serve as the breeding ground—never mind the soil of that breeding ground was fertilized and watered plentifully in Afghanistan by the United States. Pointing out such realities, at the Washington Post and elsewhere in the corporate media, is heretical and therefore must be omitted.

Most Americans are oblivious to this scam, although more and more of them are beginning to wise up to what the Strausscons and neolibs have in mind. Increasingly, Americans are beginning to demand an “exit strategy” in Iraq as the partially hidden pile of dead U.S. soldiers begins to pile up and the murderous outrageousness of the Iraqi resistance grows. In response, understanding the tolerance of the American public is wearing thin, the Strausscons are in the process of accelerating their agenda, calling for attacks against Syria, where we are told Ba’athist dead-enders hang out and plot doom and destruction with the solicitous consent of the Syrian government, and also against Iran, a nation we are consistently told harbors the desire to construct nukes and use them against us, or Israel anyway (for the Strausscons, there is little difference between America and Israel). For the Strausscons, time is of the essence, and thus this preposterous NIC report portraying Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorist cockroaches. It is but another piece of kindling thrown on the spreading fire the Strausscons and their Likduite masters plan to fan in the demented hope that it will ignite “World War IV,” as they fondly call it.


In a related article on the NIC, buried in irrelevancies about the future of India’s Bollywood movie industry and Korean pop stars, we learn the following: “[Robert Hutchings, NIC chairman] said this new [globalist or neolib] order will raise the stakes for Arab countries, which may join in globalization trends or experience further alienation and humiliation.” In other words, get with the program, Arabs (and Iranians), or suffer “alienation and humiliation,” shorthand for more invasions, bombings, killing of doctors, starvation, and likewise engineered chaos.

“While radical extremism will continue to grow, the report [the NIC’s Project 2020] says Al Qaeda is expected to be superseded by similarly inspired, decentralized groups.” More confirmation of what I said the other day—al-Qaeda is now irrelevant, as Osama became irrelevant soon after 9/11, as Bush said repeatedly. Islamic “radical extremism” is now transnational, making it a rather vexatious nut to crack and thus a generational problem. It was designed to be this way.

It is re-run time, as the report states: “Our greatest concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents or, less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause mass causalities.” In short, booga-booga, be afraid, be very afraid, even though there is absolutely no evidence terrorists have devised biological weapons, that is unless they are mixing up cocktails from common household chemicals under their kitchen sinks.

Now that Porter Goss, Bush’s Boy Friday, is in control of the CIA, we can expect more such “reports” and reading of tea leaves. Increasingly, the non-threat of terrorism against average Americans—in other words, resistance to neocon-neolib globalism—will float to the surface of the corporate news cesspool, replete with vague warnings of gloom and doom that will never come to pass because the “terrorists” will not attack the United States, at least not attack the Land of the Formerly Free and Brave directly. It should be obvious to anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together what is going on: the Bushcons, the fanatics over at the Pentagon, and their slavish pundits in the corporate media are mythologizing the “threat” of “radical extremism,” in other words resistance to globalization and, more pertinently in the Middle East, the on-track plan for Greater Israel.

Expect more propaganda. Maybe even expect another “terrorist event” in America to drive the point home and get the American people back to where they were after September 11, 2001. Remember, the Strausscons need your undivided attention—not to mention your money and the lives of your sons and daughters.


No comments: