StockSelect - Investments

Zurück - Das Finanzportal > Zeitgeschehen
Aktuelle Uhrzeit 12:56

Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag
Alt 30.03.2003, 09:57   #1
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107
Standard GWB vs. Rockefeller

Weil's so lang ist und weil's um sowas geht gleich ein eigener Thread, so als Grundlage zur Diskussion. AP, UPI und APF sind übrigens "seriöse" Nachrichtenquellen....

The Real Stakes Behind the War

- With the UN Neutralized There Are No More Rules
- The U.S. Economy on the Brink
- Global Oil Shortages and Massive Price Hikes Imminent
- Paralysis Looming in U.S. Government
- The WTO and Rockefellers Turning on Bush
- A World War that Will Pit the U.S. Against Europe and Russia in a Struggle for Survival with the Winners Facing China


by Michael C. Ruppert

- And most of the American people, with their bankrupt and corrupt economy, will welcome cheap oil, while it lasts, and they will engage in a multitude of psychological and sickening rationales that will, in the end, amount to nothing more than saying, "I don’t care how many women and children you kill. Just let me keep my standard of living." -- From The Wilderness, August 27, 2002.

- What does big oil want in Iraq? To regain influence over the great Middle East oilfields... and the race seems likely to be won by American and British firms: ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell and BP – Newsweek, March 24, 2003 issue

- The most common cause of recessions, a surge in oil prices, is again afflicting the global economy – The New York Times, March 2, 2003

- French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored," Kurdish Prime Minister Barhim Salih said in Washington Friday. – Newsmax Wires March 14, 2003

March 19, 2003 1700 PST, (FTW) – Diplomacy ended on Monday and the reality and risks of a global war are now placed in the immediate and unavoidable focus of a world which has for the most part chosen not to understand what is at stake. This war will not be fought solely with bullets and bombs. The chain of events which is about to be set in motion dictates that the United States, assuming its Iraqi conquest is successful, continue upon a series of global military occupations to control the last remaining significant oil reserves on the planet. With the shedding of the first blood, the dropping of the first bomb, the killing of the first Iraqi child, and the death of the first American serviceman, a one-way border will have been crossed. And with that crossing economic and political forces that might combine to form the Perfect Storm aimed at America have made themselves visible.

George W. Bush’s United States will punish its recent adversaries at the UN. They will be cut out of the Iraqi spoils. But Germany, France, Russia and China have a much more realistic view of Iraqi oil than the U.S. does. Bush and his corporate allies have marketed to the markets that sometime in the next month or two we’re going to see a real bonanza as oil prices fall back to $15-20 dollar per barrel and stay there. It is not going to happen.

On March 7, FTW Contributing Editor for Energy, Dale Allen Pfeiffer broke down the reality of Iraqi oil. It’s not what’s in the ground that counts now, it’s what can be gotten to market. The Bush gamble is a big long shot and getting longer by the minute. Iraqi oil infrastructure is crumbling after twelve years of sanctions and there won’t be any increase in Iraqi production without major investment and rebuilding. That takes time. The Guardian disclosed on January 26 that the U.S. is currently buying more than a million barrels per day (Mbpd) from Iraq out of the ten million that it imports from around the world. What might happen if just that million barrels went away?

For a detailed look at the current state of Iraq’s oil industry please visit:

What we know from previous stories in FTW is that the world has no spare production capacity to make up for any significant loss of supply in Iraq. Sure OPEC has stated that they will increase production by three to five Mbpd. Venezuela has staged a remarkable recovery after the recently failed "strike" to reach 3 Mbpd of its pre-strike level of 4 Mbpd. But Venezuelan fields are old, tired, depleting fast and the oil is heavy and expensive to refine. Venezuela offers no cushion. The promises of Saudi Arabia and the other mid east OPEC nations, on their face, sound comforting but they mean nothing because the planet is consuming a billion barrels (Gb) of oil every 12 days and that rate of consumption is increasing. Recent stories by the Agence France Presse (March 12) and the BBC (March 10) tell us that auto sales jumped 48% last year in Thailand and 50% in China respectively. This is the double edged sword behind Peak Oil. Without increased sales of consumer goods and autos, the Western economies collapse anyway and the emerging economies of the Far East are steadily increasing both consumption and demand.

So if Iraqi production drops as a result of war, where will the U.S. make up the difference and how much will it cost? Bush has indirectly threatened to punish France, Germany and Russia by locking them out of the promised booty. All of them, especially France and Russia have major investments there. But those countries still have something the U.S. does not, access to a ready supply of oil in the short term from Russia which no doubt has guaranteed its allies supply to make up for any losses from Iraq. If he really wanted to play hardball Russian President Vladimir Putin could bifurcate his pricing structure to favor the Moscow-Berlin-Paris alliance. He would find ready sympathy from Russian oil companies now eliminated from collecting on approximately $40 billion worth of new oil construction contracts and an $8 billion Iraqi debt. Russia has not forgotten how it was shamelessly looted out of an estimated $500 billion by Goldman Sachs, The Harvard Endowment and the U.S. Treasury during the 1990s. That shameless episode, which rendered Russia incapable of resisting U.S. military moves post-9/11, resulted in what a committee chaired by Congressman Christopher Cox, R-CA described as three times worse than the Great Depression.

The whole issue of Peak Oil has been moved ahead of schedule by Europe. Within a few short years the entire planet will begin to suffer societal collapse as a result of diminishing non-renewable resources. Russia has long passed its production peak and cannot continue pumping at wildly expanded rates for very long. It might take two to five years before production costs for the dregs inevitably shrink exports. But Moscow, Paris and Berlin don’t need three years. The complete devastation of the U.S. economy might be a sure thing in three to six months. That’s how fragile it is.

And what has Putin got to lose? He knows that the American agenda is to secure those reserves that have not yet peaked (i.e. The Persian Gulf sans Iran), drive the price of oil down to $13-20 per barrel, break OPEC’s back and simultaneously destroy the economic recovery that $40 oil is bringing to Russia which spends much more to produce its oil than OPEC does.

France, Germany and Russia have not opposed the American Empire lightly, nor will their resistance end now. In fact, it must intensify. The fact that these nations have not introduced a Security Council resolution condemning the invasion might signal that they are hedging their bets and it might also signal that they are just awaiting the first U.S. misstep which is sure to come. But a clue is that, of the three, Russia has bluntly labeled the U.S. invasion illegal. These countries know that the Bush administration has placed the United States in a violent, all-or-nothing position and that it has less than a 50-50 chance of winning.

While the blood is being shed the real battle will be economic and political; the dollar vs. the Euro, images of bombs and tanks vs. images of reason, caution and diplomacy. In the meantime the U.S. economy has placed all its hopes and stability on a bonanza of cheap oil which careful analysis shows is more fantasy than probable outcome. Even the Council on Foreign Relations agrees on this point.

In a brilliant Feb. 11th analysis of the current oil situation, Marshall Auerback, writing for The Prudent Bear web site quoted from a recent CFR report co-sponsored by Bush crony, oil man and former Secretary of State James Baker:

"Notwithstanding the value of Iraq’s vast oil reserves, there are severe limits on them both as a source of funding for post-conflict reconstruction efforts and as the key driver of future economic development. Put simply, we do not expect a bonanza."

Worse, according to a March 17 story in the Miami Herald revenues from Iraqi oil would not cover the costs of rebuilding the bridges, dams, power generating stations and roads that are sure to be destroyed in the coming weeks. The U.S., of necessity, will turn all cash flow toward rebuilding the oil fields while it must leave the devastated Iraqi populace to live in pestilence among the rubble. In light of America’s unilateral bullishness the EU announced last week that there might be limits to how much assistance it could render to the Iraqi people, especially if their countries were prevented from performing on their legal contracts.

Multiple recent reports from the oil industry state clearly that recent price hikes are the result of over-stretched production capacity and historically low reserve levels. Currently U.S. oil reserves are at a 28-year low and the White House has acknowledged plans to tap the 700 million barrel Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the start of the conflict. That’s enough to protect the U.S. economy from further price shocks for about 70 days. Then what? Under the best of circumstances it takes mid-east oil about six weeks to get from the oil fields into your gas tank.

Further confirmation of Peak Oil’s arrival is found in recent stories from AP and The Guardian stating that Norway, once a major exporter, is expecting a decline in production and drilling due to dwindling reserves and that Shell has just eliminated one fifth of its North Sea jobs. And on March 18 Hong Kong announced that it will allow eight airlines to levy an emergency fuel surcharge of between $8.50 and $13 per passenger.

At home soaring gasoline prices are just the ticket the Bush administration wants to curb demand and exploit a subliminal unspoken deal with consumers that will sanction the slaughter and keep the poll numbers manageable for a while. But economic demons are bashing down the door. Americans vote with their wallets says the cliché. On March 16, angry black residents staged a protest in Los Angeles claiming that they could not afford to drive to work while paying two dollars a gallon. On the one hand they don’t have a clue about what the global oil reality is and on the other they will achieve nothing by demanding lowered prices and more supply without realizing that there is no more cheap oil to supply them – or anybody else for that matter. At least there is certainly not enough to make a difference for more than a few months or a year. But with less discretionary income to absorb the price shocks, the inner city poor are the prototypes for what the rest of us will be doing soon enough.

The poor always die first. And this is just one of the many signs that the Empire is starting to crumble from within.


- The Bush Administration refuses to put a price tag on the war as budget deficits approach all-time record levels and the tax base is shrinking. Both the U.S. government and its people are awash in debt. Unemployment is skyrocketing as consumer confidence crashes. State and local governments are screaming for money and facing their worst budget shortfalls in sixty years.

- Writing at The Ether Zone,, Ed Henry notes that with the national debt at over $6 trillion the U.S. government is bouncing along the debt ceiling which means that it legally cannot borrow any more money. Its options are to sell more bonds (not likely with an anemic dollar, bad management, and an expanding trade deficit) or liquidate assets. One of the few assets available to Treasury Secretary John Snow is the stock portfolio of the Federal Employees Thrift Savings Plan which has about $44 billion in stock investments. What do you think would happen on Wall Street if Uncle Sam dumped $40 billion in stock?

- Backbones of the housing mortgage market Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which, according to the New York Posts’ brilliant reporter John Crudele, own or guarantee $3.1 trillion or 45 per cent of outstanding residential debt, are in serious trouble. They don’t have enough cash to handle what might be a serious economic shock as the housing bubble collapses. Their collapse could imperil the entire economy and Crudele observed that the Federal Reserve was taking serious note of the way these "mortgage cowboys" had managed their business in inflating share prices which are now in steep decline.

- Market Oracles Warren Buffet and George Soros are issuing dire predictions about the U.S. and world economies. Soros is blasting at George W. Bush’s management style and Buffet is warning of derivatives time-bombs in what Britain’s Telegraph calls an "apocalyptic warning."

There are serious signs of a major political revolt brewing in the United States – one that could end the Bush Presidency – George W. Bush still has his finger on the trigger and he knows that his only hope for survival is to pull it. U.S. and British intelligence agencies are leaking documents left and right disputing White House "evidence" against Iraq that has repeatedly been shown to be falsified, plagiarized and forged. Quiet meetings are being held in Washington between members of Congress and attorneys like Ramsey Clark discussing Bush’s impeachment. Leaders of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as reported in a March 15 story in the International Herald Tribune have said, "All international institutions would suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be choosing which rules to obey and which to ignore." And a Rockefeller has called for an investigation of a Bush. On March 14 The Associated Press reported that W. Va. Senator Jay Rockefeller has asked the FBI to investigate forged documents which were presented first by Britain and then the United States showing that Iraq had been trying to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger for its weapons program. Of all the glaring falsehoods told by the administration the fact that these forgeries were noted by a Rockefeller may make them the second-rate Watergate burglary of the 21st century. (See Part II)

There are few things more closely connected to or identified with Bush family power than globalization and the Rockefellers. He has most likely failed both of them and both have the power to remove him.

Too much, too little, too late; at least as far as preventing a war and massive carnage is concerned. But these developments suggest that the real powers that be might be getting ready to have Bush impeached just as soon as he has humiliated the United States, started a World War leading to the deaths of perhaps millions of people, destroyed the efficacy of the United Nations and secured the Iraqi oil fields. This is a playing field which the biggest money might desire and for which it might be willing to offer a sacrifice if it becomes necessary. If the war turns out to be a dismal failure then the scapegoat has volunteered for his own hanging and there are signs that it is being prepared.

One thing is certain. If George W. Bush is removed from within, it will signal nothing other than a new "kinder, gentler" set of managers pursuing the exact same agenda as before. The dirtiest work will have been done.



"Shock and Awe" Is "Mocked and Flawed" -- War Plan Stumbles as Bush Tells CNN, "It’s Gonna Take a While to Achieve Our Objective... This Is Just the Beginning of a Tough Fight." -- U.S. Soldiers Captured, Iraqi Resistance Significant and Toughening
U.S. Press/Political Hostility to Bush Administration Intensifies – Major Papers Discussing Criminal Behavior, Impeachment as Focus Intensifies on Forged Niger Uranium Docs – Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld Implicated
Oil Bonanza Fading as Economic Indicators Weaken in an Unstable Environment – Iraqi Oil Deliveries Interrupted – Reality Tramples Market Exuberance
Turk-Kurdish Chaos More Likely
Has the U.S. Been Set Up by Europe, Russia and China?

by Michael C. Ruppert

March 24, 2003, 2100 EDT (FTW) – Atlanta, Military, economic, oil, and political storms continue to gather and converge in what may become a Perfect Storm for the Bush Administration and the United States economy.

On the fifth day of a U.S. military campaign rejected by the U.N. Security Council, at least 12 U.S. soldiers have been captured by Iraqi forces near al Nasiriyah even as various foreign news sources are reporting that as many as four to ten of the vaunted M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks have been destroyed in combat. A helicopter aircrew has been captured further north. ABC has reported that coalition casualties are approaching 200. Promises that Iraqi civilians expecting liberation would greet coalition troops with open arms have been unfulfilled as Iraqi resistance stiffens on a daily basis. In a tragic event, an African-American Sergeant of the 101st Air Assault Division staged a grenade attack on tents occupied by his comrades-in-arms, killing one and wounding fourteen. The fallout from this tragedy will have lasting repercussions on the psyches of both U.S. military and civilian populations. Images of an American Black man face down and handcuffed - no matter how serious the offense - will not fade quickly and will further erode an extremely fragile and increasingly volatile domestic landscape. The suspect is Muslim.

Saddam Hussein and his forces are now gaining strength, political cachet, and popular support with each new engagement while coalition forces lose it with every casualty and delay. One of the first questions asked at a somber, live press conference at Central Command headquarters in Qatar on Sunday was, "Has America gotten itself into another Vietnam?" This question came after only three days of ground combat. Around the Arab and Muslim world, Saddam Hussein’s picture is becoming an icon of anti-colonial resistance. Over a thousand years of European and American history, the Arab world has never given in easily to occupying forces; they always prefer one of their own – no matter how distasteful – to an outsider. The Crusades were the earliest lesson for Europe and the Suez crisis of 1956 the most recent.

Consistent with predictions made in FTW, the Turkish government, poised to send several brigades into northern Iraq, is threatening to turn Northern Iraq into absolute chaos. The Kurds who live in the region ethnically blur the borders of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran and their support is critical to U.S. military plans. Having sought an independent homeland for decades, they have been consistently used by the U.S. and western powers for covert operations and destabilization programs and they have always been betrayed later. At the moment FTW gives a 50-50 likelihood that the U.S. will ultimately – and after much protestation for effect – allow the Turkish incursion. That will instantly create a highly unstable and balkanized region. The U.S. has historically both created and preferred "balkanization" to secure commercial control of natural resources and civilian populations with devastating results for anyone living in the region. This could ultimately – if the U.S. invasion is successful - result in Iraq being divided into three or more separately governed regions.

The instability created by such a development would likely spread throughout the Middle East quickly. None of the region’s borders has existed for more than eighty years and all of them were drawn by departing colonial powers. Perceptions in Saudi Arabia of this kind of trend might automatically require U.S. forces to engage in a two-front war if the already unstable Saudi regime begins to fracture and weaken.

To date, this writer has seen no reportage of how the Saudi populace is reacting to a war plan that is stumbling. For approximately six months, FTW has been reporting that Saudi Arabia would likely become unstable with the invasion and that American war planners might be planning for a nearly simultaneous operation to control Saudi oil fields, which contain 25% of all the oil on the planet. But as the efficacy of U.S. military might comes into question, the brass ring of oil becomes ever more elusive and a Saudi occupation becomes a military goal out of reach.

In the meantime, there are increasing signs that the U.S. political and economic elites are laying the groundwork to make the Bush administration, specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz, sacrificial scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate post 9-11 gains, regroup and move forward. These indications include: written press attacks on the Bush administration by select journalists long known for their loyalty and obedience to financial interests and the CIA; a growing revolt from within the intelligence communities of the U.S. and the U.K. including damaging leaks undermining the credibility of the administration; serious economic consequences closing in on the financial markets; growing signs of pending oil shortages; and indications that the use of forged documents by the Bush and Blair regimes may become the Watergate burglary of the 21st century.


While most of the American people rely on television coverage for their worldview, those within the government, politics and the financial markets look to a select group of entrenched print journalists to sniff the winds of political change. Those winds started blowing against George W. Bush and his administration before the war began. In what appears to be intensifying anti-Bush rhetoric, an unprecedented media effort is beginning to cut the legs from under the administration even as it gambles everything on an increasingly elusive military victory.

March 12 – Beginning with a relatively unknown press organization, it was reported at that 35 members of the U.S. Congress, overwhelmingly Democrat, had flatly rejected the U.S. war effort and were calling for a repeal of the February resolution authorizing the president to use force against Iraq.

March 12 – On the same day, journalistic heavyweight Howard Fineman of NEWSWEEK reported that the "blame game" had already begun for a war that had not. He wrote "But few think it’s going to be easy. And my guess is that team discipline inside the Bush administration is about to be fractured by the collateral damage that already is being caused by a war we have yet to fight. We are embarrassingly alone diplomatically, and State Department underlings (privately) blame Rumsfeld & Co. Inside the Pentagon - but outside of Rumsfeld’s office – I’m told that E-Ring brass have adopted what one source calls a ‘Vietnam mentality,’ a sense of resignation about a policy...they seriously doubt will work...

"This time around is a different story. The closer we get to the event, the less Bush is in control of events..."

March 14 – The Los Angeles Times’ Greg Miller reported that a State Department document was contradicting the Bush administration’s claim that the Iraqi invasion would encourage the spread of democracy.

"A classified State Department report expresses doubt that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

"The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq."

The story specifically singled out Pentagon hawks Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as objects of criticism by the U.S. intelligence community.

March 15 – The International Herald Tribune reported that top officials of the World Trade Organization had also started turning on Bush by reporting, "...officials said they feared that American moves within the organization and toward a war in Iraq would weaken respect for international rules and lead to serious practical consequences for the world economy and business.

"In the past months the United States has compiled one of the worst records for violating trade rules...

"They said they were worried that all international institutions would suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be choosing which rules to obey and which rules to ignore."

The WTO, globalization, is the heart of the economic power bloc that brought Bush into power.

March 16 – The big guns at The Washington Post begin to open fire. In a lengthy story on the controversial Carlyle Group, a major private investment bank with which both the President and his father have deep financial connections, Greg Schneider made some absolutely stunning statements:

"David M. Rubenstein is exasperated, and he blurts something that a quick look around the room proves is outrageous: "We’re not," he nearly shouts, "that well connected!

"Behind him is a picture of Rubenstein on a plane with then-Gov. George W. Bush. Across the room, a photo of Rubenstein with the President’s father and mother. Next to that, Rubenstein and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elsewhere: Rubenstein and Jimmy Carter. On a bookshelf: Rubenstein and the pope...

"Rubenstein, after all, is founder of the Carlyle Group...

"But the connections have cost Carlyle, in ways that are hard to measure. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world – omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister...

"Last year then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle’s and Bush’s ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. While her comments were widely dismissed as irresponsible, the publicity highlighted Carlyle’s increasingly notorious reputation. Internet sites with headlines such as "The Axis of Corporate Evil" purport to link Carlyle to everything from Enron to Al Qaeda.

"’We’ve actually replaced the Trilateral Commission’ as the darling of conspiracy theorists, says Rubenstein – who, truth be told, happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission.

"It didn’t help that as the World trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former President Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day...

"The company has rewarded its faithful with a 36 percent average annual rate of return...

"Times are changing, though. It’s no longer valid to assume that Carlyle’s golden roll of all-stars automatically opens doors in certain parts of the world, says Youssef M. Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. ‘George Bush junior is kind of screwing his father up, slowly but surely, in terms of securing relationships in the region,’ Ibrahim says of the Mideast. The current administration’s support for Israel, its hostility toward Iraq and its rocky dealings with the Saudi royal family have soured business and political relationships alike, he says."

[To view previous FTW stories on the Carlyle group please visit]

March 16 – On the same day as the Carlyle story, one of The Washington Post’s biggest pundits for several decades, Walter Pincus, fired a serious shot into the administration’s belly. To veterans of the 1996-98 popular nationwide campaign to expose CIA connections to cocaine trafficking, Pincus’ name will be remembered as one of the chief defenders of the CIA. In fact, Pincus has been one of the Post’s primary CIA conduits for more than thirty years. In 1967, he wrote a short feature for the Post titled, "How I Traveled the World on a CIA Stipend."

In a story titled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms", Pincus described how U.S. "Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from the White House, Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence that would make the administration’s case ‘and what they say is a lack of hard facts,’ one official said.

"The assertions, coming on the eve of a possible decision by President Bush to go to war against Iraq, have raised concerns among some members of the intelligence community about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public..."

Pincus went on to detail how key U.S. Senators like Carl Levin and John Warner were questioning data that had apparently been misrepresented and/or hidden from the U.N.

An ominous note at the end of the story, reminding anyone who read it of Watergate and the demise of the Nixon presidency, added "Staff Writer Bob Woodward contributed to this report."

March 18 – Pincus returned again, in the company of Post Staff Writer Dana Milbank, to place more bricks in the wall that might seal the administration’s fate. The story titled, "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq" opened with the lead, "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that have been challenged – and in some cases disproved – by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports."

The story went on to document misrepresentations by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell that made it clear that if George W. Bush was going down his whole administration was going with him. It was now a part of the official Washington record that all three had been guilty of misrepresentations to the press and the American people.

March 20 – Columnist Craig Roberts, writing in the traditionally pro-Republican, conservative Washington Times delivered perhaps the most shocking signal that the power establishment, which should have stopped the war before it started, was moving to set the administration up for a fall.

In a column titled "A Reckless Path", Roberts’ lead paragraph read:

"Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America’s allies."

It got worse from there.

"...On the eve of Mr. Bush’s ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the forged documents that the Bush administration has used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Amazingly, Roberts then went on to make a comparison with Adolf Hitler’s faked attacks by SS soldiers dressed as Polish troops in 1939 to justify the invasion of Poland, which started the Second World War.

Roberts closed his column with a dire warning. "Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative."

March 22 – One of The New York Times’ chief experts on intelligence, with close contacts at the CIA, is James Risen. Whenever reading a Risen story it’s a safe bet to assume that it was fed to him directly by CIA headquarters. In a story headlined, "CIA Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports" Risen wrote:

"The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled, several intelligence officials said.

"Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies.

"For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda.

"As the White House contended that links between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy makers within the Bush administration.

"’A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled,’ said one intelligence official familiar with the debate."


It has been happening for two months now. Leaks, protests, even overt criticisms from those like former senior CIA analyst Stephen Pelletier, who has revealed that it was Iran rather than Iraq which had killed thousands of Kurds in massive poison gas attacks in the 1980s. More recently we have seen British intelligence personnel leak information to the press showing that Britain’s infamous intelligence dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been plagiarized from outdated information in graduate student papers and that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has engaged in illegal wiretapping of U.N. officials in attempts to secure enough votes for a resolution in support of the invasion. One or perhaps two of these events could be explained as the actions of individuals. But the frequency and number of these attacks is suggesting that the intelligence services, which view themselves as permanent and enduring institutions as compared to passing administrations, are slowly pulling structural supports from underneath the Bush and Blair administrations’ platform.

On February 8, Counterpunch published a statement by a group calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) which gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a C- grade for providing "context and perspective" on Iraqi weapons and intent. The statement specifically and correctly chided the Bush administration for making the violation of a U.N. resolution a pretext for war pointing out that Israel’s refusal to comply from a U.N. resolution calling for its withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967 has never been addressed.

[NOTE: Israel is currently in violation of 64 U.N. resolutions as opposed to Iraq’s 17]

The VIPS statement also vigorously disputed any notion that Iraq posed any immediate threat to the U.S. and quoted CIA reports supporting that position. It also disputed Bush/Powell contentions that Iraq had any previous involvement with terrorist activities. Revealing what may actually be an intention of the Bush administration, VIPS stated, "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future."

And, striking a chord that is sure to resonate in millions of U.S. military veterans, VIPS observed, "Reminder: The last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them, one out of three came back ill – many with unexplained disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat."

Stories from early March in Britain’s The Observer actually produced a copy of a Top Secret NSA memorandum calling on allied intelligence agencies to increase their wiretapping and monitoring of U.N. diplomats who might swing a Security Council vote in favor of the U.S. While reportage on this major breach of international trust and protocol has gone away, the rage felt by many diplomats has not. It was later disclosed that an employee of British intelligence who was outraged by its contents had leaked the memo. However, reading between the lines, this writer suspects that the leak took place with a wink and a nod from higher ups.

By March 14, the activities of VIPS were getting favorable coverage by the Associated Press, a sign that powers controlling both the media and the intelligence services were pushing the agenda. Although varying editions of the story appeared in print, on the AP web site and in different parts of the country, the basic story retained a key lead sentence. "A small group comprised mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq."

Such a statement from intelligence veterans has serious repercussions in a discipline that is noted for never leaking information. That is, unless there is an agenda that intelligence agencies themselves are pursuing. In those cases the CIA plays the media, as one CIA executive once described, "like a Mighty Wurlitzer."

As resignations of outraged civil servants are stacking up on both sides of the Atlantic like freshly cut firewood, the Bush administration was also seriously hurt by the resignation of the top Bush National Security Council official in charge of terrorism, Rand Beers. A March 19 UPI story, while repeating the Bush administration position that Beers’ resignation was not because of administration deceit and vanishing credibility, left no doubt that Beers, widely respected in Washington, was just plain fed up and possibly sensing a sinking ship.


The utterly ridiculous and unjustified drop in oil prices and upsurge in the Dow last week is belied by real data on oil supplies as the Iraqi invasion stumbles. As the war intensifies some real garbage and some occasional gems of truth are coming from the major media.

First, it is a given that while the war is in progress, Iraqi oil exports are virtually non-existent. The port region around Basra – which accounts for well more than half of Iraqi exports -- is virtually shut down. One pipeline running from northern Iraq to the Turkish port of Ceyhan is reported to be intact but there are no reports as to whether oil is actually flowing. It’s not likely. What this means is that it is a safe bet that two million plus barrels per day (Mbpd) have been taken out of world supplies.

In the face of this, BusinessWeek, in the February 24 issue, has engaged in the outrageously dishonest reporting that the Caspian basin may hold 200 billion barrels (Gb) of reserves and that there are some three trillion barrels of proven conventional oil remaining on the planet. Extensive research conducted by FTW has shown that Caspian reserves have been verified by drilling results over the last three years to be only around 40 Gb and are a major disappointment. FTW data was derived through extensive research in oil and gas journals, official government reports and by direct interviews with oil executives who have been in the region.

Planetary reserves of conventional oil are only about one trillion barrels or enough to keep the world supplied for approximately 30 years in an ever tightening and ever more expensive marketplace that threatens economies all over the globe. Motives for the BusinessWeek deception would include providing propaganda cover for the fact that the invasion of Iraq is totally about oil and also give false confidence to investors as financial and equity markets teeter on the brink of collapse.

The Wall Street Journal, however, on March 18, recently engaged in some serious truth telling. In a page-one story titled "Why the U.S. IS Still Hooked On Oil Imports", the Journal reported:

"President Bush says hydrogen power will lead to energy independence... Mr. Bush is almost certain to be proved wrong, at least in the next couple of decades."

After acknowledging that oil price spikes have always led to recessions, the Journal relied on an extensive body of research of the statements of OPEC founder, Saudi Sheikh Zaki Yamani to hit at one of the core motivators for the Iraqi invasion – oil production costs. Not every country or region spends the same amount of money to produce a barrel of oil. And nowhere is oil cheaper to produce than in the Persian Gulf. The Journal quoted Yamani as stating at a 1980s OPEC meeting, "Let’s see how the North Sea can produce oil when prices are at $5 a barrel."

The Journal continued: "At low prices, the Persian Gulf countries have an unbeatable edge. In the mid 1980s it cost them a couple of dollars a barrel to produce oil. It cost about $15 a barrel off the coast of Britain and Norway or in the U.S." That was in the 1980s. Credible estimates of North Sea production costs in dying fields now place the cost per barrel at over $20.

Russia has current estimated production costs of between $19 and $27 a barrel which reveal the key to everything that’s going on now. The world is running out of oil. In order to save a teetering U.S. economy the Bush administration is betting on the rapidly diminishing hope that it can get Iraqi oil back on the markets and available to the U.S. at a price of between $15 and $20 per barrel. If the prices drop to the levels Bush needs, OPEC loses its profits and Russian oil becomes uncompetitive in the market place.

Bush is not going to get his way.

In a major development, it was reported on Saturday that growing unrest in Nigeria, an OPEC member and the world’s sixth largest exporter, had shut down the Chevron Texaco pumping facilities. A story in today’s Economist confirmed earlier reports that both Chevron and French giant TotalFinaElf had not only shut down production but ordered evacuations of all their personnel. These moves take an immediate 330,000 barrels a day out of world supplies and they also hearken back to recent lessons learned in Venezuela after a massive strike shut down Venezuelan production. Refineries and wells don’t operate at the flip of a switch. They require a constant flow of chemicals and products to keep their systems primed. When recovering from a shut down, it often takes a considerable period to reach previous production levels.

While OPEC has announced that it will increase production to offset shortages, its ability to do so is limited to perhaps a 3-5 Mbpd increase. That’s a drop in the bucket in current tight markets and in a world that consumes a billion barrels every twelve days. Iraqi oil fields will require billions of dollars of investment and years to increase Iraqi production to five or eight Mbpd. And that clock will only start ticking once the country is secure and safe, an outcome that is not at all guaranteed at the moment.

In the meantime, according to The Financial Times today, the Mexican government has announced its intent to start selling U.S. dollars on world currency markets. This move could further weaken an already shaky U.S. dollar, especially if other nations, angered at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, follow suit. Since oil is currently purchased in dollars, inevitable future oil price spikes could become doubly painful for the U.S. economy as the dollar loses value.


"At the Security Council, some are questioning the veracity of any U.S. claim regarding Iraq." – The Boston Globe, March 16, 2003

The first official report that documents prepared on stationery of the governments of Niger and Iraq detailing a planned sale of uranium to Iraq were forged came on March 7. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council that the documents, "were not authentic." The first paper to break the news was London’s Financial Times. The documents, not very clever or convincing, failed to convince the U.N. but were, however, included in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s now legendary flawed intelligence dossier, which had been presented to Parliament on Sept. 24, 2002.

The Washington Post picked up on the story on March 8 where it reported that, "The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away – including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said."

The Post reported administration officials as giving the somewhat lame excuse, "We fell for it." No one even tried to suggest a motive for someone other than the Bush or Blair regimes to commit the crime.

Not everyone fell for it. As reported in what are now at least a half dozen stories, the CIA was suspicious of the documents and purposely left them out of their own report on Iraqi weapons. That did not, however, prevent George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney from touting them as authentic. The State Department even authoritatively referred to the documents in a December 19, 2002 Fact Sheet titled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council".

By March 13, The Post was back with a story indicating that the FBI was looking into the source of the documents and "the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq."

Huh? Is there some country out there we haven’t heard of that really hates Iraq other than the U.S., Britain or Israel?

The Post story closed by saying, "The CIA, which also had obtained the documents, had questions about ‘whether they were accurate,’ said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq’s program to procure weapons of mass destruction."

This begs the question as to whether CIA Director George Tenet told Bush or Cheney or Powell that the documents were forged. That’s his job above all else: to give the President reliable and trustworthy intelligence.

>>>>>On March 14, Ken Guggenheim of The Associated Press reported that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had called the FBI and asked for an investigation of the documents. Rockefeller’s full name is John D. Rockefeller, IV and he is a direct descendant of the same family that essentially brought the Bush family into power. What is amazing here is not only that someone has requested an investigation of just one of the hundreds of Bush administration inconsistencies and proven lies since 9-11, but that it was a Rockefeller who requested it. That reality has thundered throughout Washington’s power corridors like an earthquake.

FTW placed calls to both FBI headquarters and Rockefeller’s Washington offices asking for comment or further information. An FBI spokesperson told FTW that the Bureau had nothing to say. After hearing what the topic was, a Rockefeller spokesperson promised to call back but did not.

Colin Powell immediately started denying that the State Department had anything to do with creating the forgeries. No one had accused him! And the story picked up "legs" in print media around the world.

By the 15th, CNN had picked up the story on its web site and had added damning observations about the childish, crude and "obvious" nature of the forgeries that "should never have gotten past the CIA." But the CIA had already established a record saying that it never trusted the documents. Asked about the documents on Meet the Press the previous Sunday, Powell simply stated, "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."<<<<<<<<

Not so fine.

Where did the documents come from? Already inconsistent finger pointing, eerily reminiscent of the loose threads pulled on by Woodward and Bernstein in 1972 and 1973 are starting to surface. Powell says he doesn’t know where the documents came from. Britain is remaining silent and the government of Niger has issued a blunt statement indicating that the documents were forged in London and Washington.

My guess is that they were forged inside the National Security Council rather than at the CIA. The CIA would have done a better job. Can you say, "Iran-Contra"?

The most scathing blow to date – and there are sure to be more – came from Congressman Henry Waxman (D, Ca.) who, in a six-page March 17 letter to George Bush, created a locked-down record of Bush’s, Cheney’s, Rumsfeld’s and Powell’s use of the documents, even pointing out that the President had made reference to the documents in his State-of-the-Union address in January by saying, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Waxman noted next that, "a day later, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq "recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Waxman closed his letter with three chilling questions that may now distance George Tenet from George W. Bush and his cabinet, who will all go down together if it becomes necessary. Waxman asked the President to directly address:

Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration officials, including officials at the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and the White House;
Whether the CIA had any input into the "Fact Sheet" distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002; and
Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the Union address regarding Iraq’s attempts to obtain uranium from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the statement.
I can hear the distant echoes of Senator Howard Baker in the Senate Watergate hearings asking, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"


It’s all coming together on the radar screen and the chances are that these storms are going to merge. In this all out economic war of survival, as Peak Oil forces its way into the public consciousness, Russia will likely continue to provide Saddam with arms and technical assistance. France may well share intelligence. China, with the slightest nod, can contribute tactical advice and many mines for the Mediterranean. All of them can indirectly, and through plausibly deniable methods, foster and supply revolts in oil producing regions around the globe. And they can all laugh and deny as the U.S. tries to point a finger at them. This has all been done before.

In the meantime Vladimir Putin can cushion his allies with cheap oil as the U.S. starts to die of thirst.

Before Americans become outraged that such a scenario might be unfolding, I would remind them that every one of these tactics has been employed by the United States in spades against each of these countries for more than fifty years. It was the U.S. that chose this course to begin with. The tragedy, of course, is that the American people will suffer greatly as the storms converge. The truth is that the American people have never been any more of a concern to the powers that be than the people in the rest of the world have, except that giving them a higher standard of living made them compliant and dumb. It appears as if even that is no longer necessary. The destruction of American credibility and the transfer of its wealth are necessary steps in the creation of the New World Order.

Everything might just come crashing down all at once and if that happens the powers that rule will sacrifice their little Caesar and cut a deal with the other nations quickly. Just as in Shakespeare’s play, there will be many wounds in Caesar’s body, inflicted by many different people. But most certainly one of the daggers will be found in the hand of George Tenet and the CIA. He knows where the real power resides.

Thanx @ pecami, saubere Arbeit.....

syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 30.03.2003, 18:29   #2
Großmeister und Erzmagier
Benutzerbild von schloss
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.715

Das macht äusserst viel Sinn!
Danke syr!
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 12.04.2003, 19:14   #3
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Just 1 day after FTW published Part II of The Perfect Storm, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh - fresh on the heels of his coup in forcing the resignation of Richard Perle from the Defense Policy Board - : confirms that powerful forces and mysterious events are auguring the fall of the Bush regime. -- MCR

Issue of 2003-03-31



Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?

Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’s weapons capability. It was an important presentation for the Bush Administration. Some Democrats were publicly questioning the President’s claim that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the United States. Just the day before, former Vice-President Al Gore had sharply criticized the Administration’s advocacy of preëmptive war, calling it a doctrine that would replace “a world in which states consider themselves subject to law” with “the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.” A few Democrats were also considering putting an alternative resolution before Congress.

According to two of those present at the briefing, which was highly classified and took place in the committee’s secure hearing room, Tenet declared, as he had done before, that a shipment of high-strength aluminum tubes that was intercepted on its way to Iraq had been meant for the construction of centrifuges that could be used to produce enriched uranium. The suitability of the tubes for that purpose had been disputed, but this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had 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. The uranium, known as “yellow cake,” can be used to make fuel for nuclear reactors; if processed differently, it can also be enriched to make weapons. Five tons can produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a bomb. (When the C.I.A. spokesman William Harlow was asked for comment, he denied that Tenet had briefed the senators on Niger.)

On the same day, in London, Tony Blair’s government made public a dossier containing much of the information that the Senate committee was being given in secret—that Iraq had sought to buy “significant quantities of uranium” from an unnamed African country, “despite having no active civil nuclear power programme that could require it.” The allegation attracted immediate attention; a headline in the London Guardian declared, “african gangs offer route to uranium.”

Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq.

On December 19th, Washington, for the first time, publicly identified Niger as the alleged seller of the nuclear materials, in a State Department position paper that rhetorically asked, “Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?” (The charge was denied by both Iraq and Niger.) A former high-level intelligence official told me that the information on Niger was judged serious enough to include in the President’s Daily Brief, known as the P.D.B., one of the most sensitive intelligence documents in the American system. Its information is supposed to be carefully analyzed, or “scrubbed.” Distribution of the two- or three-page early-morning report, which is prepared by the C.I.A., is limited to the President and a few other senior officials. The P.D.B. is not made available, for example, to any members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees. “I don’t think anybody here sees that thing,” a State Department analyst told me. “You only know what’s in the P.D.B. because it echoes—people talk about it.”

President Bush cited the uranium deal, along with the aluminum tubes, in his State of the Union Message, on January 28th, while crediting Britain as the source of the information: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” He commented, “Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”

Then the story fell apart. On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. “The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei said.

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, “These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.”

The I.A.E.A. had first sought the documents last fall, shortly after the British government released its dossier. After months of pleading by the I.A.E.A., the United States turned them over to Jacques Baute, who is the director of the agency’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office.

It took Baute’s team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring. One letter, dated October 10, 2000, was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a Niger Minister of Foreign Affairs and Coöperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter, allegedly from Tandja Mamadou, the President of Niger, had a signature that had obviously been faked and a text with inaccuracies so egregious, the senior I.A.E.A. official said, that “they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet.”

The large quantity of uranium involved should have been another warning sign. Niger’s “yellow cake” comes from two uranium mines controlled by a French company, with its entire output presold to nuclear power companies in France, Japan, and Spain. “Five hundred tons can’t be siphoned off without anyone noticing,” another I.A.E.A. official told me.

This official told me that the I.A.E.A. has not been able to determine who actually prepared the documents. “It could be someone who intercepted faxes in Israel, or someone at the headquarters of the Niger Foreign Ministry, in Niamey. We just don’t know,” the official said. “Somebody got old letterheads and signatures, and cut and pasted.” Some I.A.E.A. investigators suspected that the inspiration for the documents was a trip that the Iraqi Ambassador to Italy took to several African countries, including Niger, in February, 1999. They also speculated that MI6—the branch of British intelligence responsible for foreign operations—had become involved, perhaps through contacts in Italy, after the Ambassador’s return to Rome.

Baute, according to the I.A.E.A. official, “confronted the United States with the forgery: ‘What do you have to say?’ They had nothing to say.”

ElBaradei’s disclosure has not been disputed by any government or intelligence official in Washington or London. Colin Powell, asked about the forgery during a television interview two days after ElBaradei’s report, dismissed the subject by saying, “If that issue is resolved, that issue is resolved.” A few days later, at a House hearing, he denied that anyone in the United States government had anything to do with the forgery. “It came from other sources,” Powell testified. “It was provided in good faith to the inspectors.”

The forgery became the object of widespread, and bitter, questions in Europe about the credibility of the United States. But it initially provoked only a few news stories in America, and little sustained questioning about how the White House could endorse such an obvious fake. On March 8th, an American official who had reviewed the documents was quoted in the Washington Post as explaining, simply, “We fell for it.”

The Bush Administration’s reliance on the Niger documents may, however, have stemmed from more than bureaucratic carelessness or political overreaching. Forged documents and false accusations have been an element in U.S. and British policy toward Iraq at least since the fall of 1997, after an impasse over U.N. inspections. Then as now, the Security Council was divided, with the French, the Russians, and the Chinese telling the United States and the United Kingdom that they were being too tough on the Iraqis. President Bill Clinton, weakened by the impeachment proceedings, hinted of renewed bombing, but, then as now, the British and the Americans were losing the battle for international public opinion. A former Clinton Administration official told me that London had resorted to, among other things, spreading false information about Iraq. The British propaganda program—part of its Information Operations, or I/Ops—was known to a few senior officials in Washington. “I knew that was going on,” the former Clinton Administration official said of the British efforts. “We were getting ready for action in Iraq, and we wanted the Brits to prepare.”

Over the next year, a former American intelligence officer told me, at least one member of the U.N. inspection team who supported the American and British position arranged for dozens of unverified and unverifiable intelligence reports and tips—data known as inactionable intelligence—to be funnelled to MI6 operatives and quietly passed along to newspapers in London and elsewhere. “It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn’t move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories in England and around the world,” the former officer said. There was a series of clandestine meetings with MI6, at which documents were provided, as well as quiet meetings, usually at safe houses in the Washington area. The British propaganda scheme eventually became known to some members of the U.N. inspection team. “I knew a bit,” one official still on duty at U.N. headquarters acknowledged last week, “but I was never officially told about it.”

None of the past and present officials I spoke with were able to categorically state that the fake Niger documents were created or instigated by the same propaganda office in MI6 that had been part of the anti-Iraq propaganda wars in the late nineteen-nineties. (An MI6 intelligence source declined to comment.) Press reports in the United States and elsewhere have suggested other possible sources: the Iraqi exile community, the Italians, the French. What is generally agreed upon, a congressional intelligence-committee staff member told me, is that the Niger documents were initially circulated by the British—President Bush said as much in his State of the Union speech—and that “the Brits placed more stock in them than we did.” It is also clear, as the former high-level intelligence official told me, that “something as bizarre as Niger raises suspicions everywhere.”

What went wrong? Did a poorly conceived propaganda effort by British intelligence, whose practices had been known for years to senior American officials, manage to move, without significant challenge, through the top layers of the American intelligence community and into the most sacrosanct of Presidential briefings? Who permitted it to go into the President’s State of the Union speech? Was the message—the threat posed by Iraq—more important than the integrity of the intelligence-vetting process? Was the Administration lying to itself? Or did it deliberately give Congress and the public what it knew to be bad information?

Asked to respond, Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, said that the agency had not obtained the actual documents until early this year, after the President’s State of the Union speech and after the congressional briefings, and therefore had been unable to evaluate them in a timely manner. Harlow refused to respond to questions about the role of Britain’s MI6. Harlow’s statement does not, of course, explain why the agency left the job of exposing the embarrassing forgery to the I.A.E.A. It puts the C.I.A. in an unfortunate position: it is, essentially, copping a plea of incompetence.

The chance for American intelligence to challenge the documents came as the Administration debated whether to pass them on to ElBaradei. The former high-level intelligence official told me that some senior C.I.A. officials were aware that the documents weren’t trustworthy. “It’s not a question as to whether they were marginal. They can’t be ‘sort of’ bad, or ‘sort of’ ambiguous. They knew it was a fraud—it was useless. Everybody bit their tongue and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great if the Secretary of State said this?’ The Secretary of State never saw the documents.” He added, “He’s absolutely apoplectic about it.” (A State Department spokesman was unable to comment.) A former intelligence officer told me that some questions about the authenticity of the Niger documents were raised inside the government by analysts at the Department of Energy and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. However, these warnings were not heeded.

“Somebody deliberately let something false get in there,” the former high-level intelligence official added. “It could not have gotten into the system without the agency being involved. Therefore it was an internal intention. Someone set someone up.” (The White House declined to comment.)

Washington’s case that the Iraqi regime had failed to meet its obligation to give up weapons of mass destruction was, of course, based on much more than a few documents of questionable provenance from a small African nation. But George W. Bush’s war against Iraq has created enormous anxiety throughout the world—in part because one side is a superpower and the other is not. It can’t help the President’s case, or his international standing, when his advisers brief him with falsehoods, whether by design or by mistake.

On March 14th, Senator Jay Rockefeller, of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, formally asked Robert Mueller, the F.B.I. director, to investigate the forged documents. Rockefeller had voted for the resolution authorizing force last fall. Now he wrote to Mueller, “There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq.” He urged the F.B.I. to ascertain the source of the documents, the skill-level of the forgery, the motives of those responsible, and “why the intelligence community did not recognize the documents were fabricated.” A Rockefeller aide told me that the F.B.I. had promised to look into it.

syr :

Geändert von syracus (12.04.2003 um 19:20 Uhr).
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 14.04.2003, 15:22   #4
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Nun hat es auch die "Trivialpresse" :........

Montag, 14. April 2003

Schwere Vorwürfe gegen USA: Beweise waren gefälscht

Mehrere von der US-Regierung vorgelegte angebliche Beweise für irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen haben sich offenbar als Fälschung herausgestellt. Das sagten zwei ehemalige UN-Waffeninspekteure dem ARD-Magazin "Report".

Eine Vielzahl der US-Informationen über angebliche irakische B- und C-Waffen und deren Verstecke seien Fehlinformationen gewesen, sagten ein deutscher und ein norwegischer Inspekteur. So habe US-Außenminister Colin Powell vor dem UN-Sicherheitsrat am 5. Februar Satellitenfotos irakischer Dekontaminationsfahrzeuge präsentiert, die sich vor Ort als Feuerwehrfahrzeuge entpuppt hätten. Auch Ventilationssysteme auf Fabrikdächern, die laut US-Regierung Rückschlüsse auf die Produktion von Chemiewaffen zulassen, hätten sich als harmlos herausgestellt, sagte der norwegische Inspekteur Jörn Siljeholm dem Magazin zufolge. Eine Produktion von verbotenen Waffen habe in den betroffenen Gebäuden nicht stattgefunden. Der ebenfalls interviewte deutsche Ex-Inspekteur wollte seine Identität nicht preisgeben.

Bereits Anfang März hatten die UN-Chefinspekteure Hans Blix und Mohamed ElBaradei öffentlich erklärt, dass einige der von den USA vorgelegten Beweise über das irakische Massenvernichtungsprogramm auf Fälschungen beruhten.


Waterloo 2004........

syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 20.05.2003, 16:21   #5
Großmeister und Erzmagier
Benutzerbild von schloss
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.715

Eine weitere Ratte seilt sich ab...

Ari Fleischer gab gestern seinen Rücktritt bekannt.

Bald steht Georgieboy als der Oberdepp am Pranger und keiner war dabei. Nur seine "Gesetze" und geopolitischen Veränderungen bleiben der Welt erhalten...
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 29.05.2003, 22:10   #6
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Middle East May 29, 2003

WMD: Will the real culprit stand up

By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - The failure of the US military to find any strong evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), let alone links between former president Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, is creating growing unease within both Congress and the administration of President George W Bush.

The administration sold the war it launched in March with it allies the United Kingdom and Australia based on its contention that Baghdad had massive quantities of WMD, some of which could have been transferred to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda or similar groups to carry out an attack against the United States or its allies.

But after seven weeks of uncontested control of Iraq's territory, it has yet to find even one gram of biological, chemical or nuclear material designed for weapons use, despite an intensive search by specially trained teams that have investigated all of the sites identified by the intelligence community before the war as most likely to hold WMD.

"The Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing," said Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving lawmaker in Congress, who has emerged as its most scathing critic of the war.

"It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraq civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?" he asked in a blistering address on the Senate floor last week.

It is not only Democrats who are raising such questions. "Obviously it concerns us that we have what I think are credible reports that weapons exist that cannot be accounted for," said the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Representative Porter Goss of Florida. Goss and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts, are already planning hearings to assess information acquired by the intelligence community and used by the administration to rally public opinion behind the war.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has also launched a review, reportedly at the behest of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, whose own pressure on the intelligence community to unearth evidence of WMD and links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda ironically has been blamed by retired intelligence officers for distorting the process that led to the US-led attack.

Rumsfeld last year created an Office of Special Plans (OSP) under the direction of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary William Luti precisely because they were unhappy that the evidence compiled by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, particularly about alleged ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda, was extremely weak.

As explained by W Patrick Lang, former director of Middle East analysis at the Defense Intelligence Agency, to the New York Times, the OSP "started picking out things that supported their thesis and stringing them into arguments that they could use with the president ... It's not intel," he said, using an insider's word for intelligence, "it's political propaganda."

The Pentagon naturally strongly denies this, and even the CIA, some of whose analysts were reportedly furious about what they saw as manipulation of intelligence by the Pentagon, insists that, while the al-Qaeda evidence was always considered shaky, its own evidence that Baghdad did retain significant quantities of WMD in violation of United Nations resolutions was strong.

Both agencies have offered explanations for why no WMD have been uncovered. Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith recently told Congress that only about 20 percent of roughly 600 suspected sites have been investigated, although he conceded that most of those considered most likely to hold WMD have been examined.

"I am confident that we will eventually be able to piece together a fairly complete account of Iraq's WMD programs, but the process will take months and perhaps years," he testified this month. "We're learning about new sites every day."

Other Pentagon officials have suggested that perhaps Saddam did destroy all his WMD just before the war, or that he had a "just in time" weapons system that kept key chemicals separated in civilian neighborhoods or other unlikely areas until the moment they would be combined and used, or that the weapons remain hidden in remote mountain areas deep in the ground where they are unlikely ever to be discovered, or that all the suspect sites were looted before US troops could secure them, as happened with a major nuclear site.

Some have even suggested that Baghdad may have destroyed all the weapons in the early 1990s, but then acted as if it still had them in order to deter an attack. Kenneth Adelman, a member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board and a major war booster, said he thought that Saddam might have launched a "massive disinformation campaign" to that end.

The strongest evidence collected to date, aside from special chemical-warfare gear that could have been left over from the Iran-Iraq war, is the discovery two weeks ago of two trailers of the kind that Secretary of State Colin Powell described to the UN Security Council before the war as mobile units used to create biological weapons on site.

While Pentagon officials have insisted that no other purpose for the vans could be explained, they have still failed to find any specific biological or chemical evidence, such as residues in the equipment, that proves they were used for that purpose. The trailers remain under investigation.

Even before their discovery, however, the chief task force created by the Pentagon to find the weapons - consisting of biologists, chemists, arms-treaty experts, nuclear operators, translators and computer experts - was told to wind down its operations and prepare to return home.

Meanwhile, the administration, in addition to reducing expectations over WMD, has tried to focus public attention instead on the discovery and exhumation of mass graves of alleged victims of Saddam's rule, in part to provide an alternative justification for going to war.

Some analysts have argued that the administration relied far too heavily on defectors, particularly those supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) led by Ahmed Chalabi who has made little secret of his ambitions since 1992 - when he created the group - to replace Saddam in Baghdad.

Indeed, the highest-ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Iraq and Saddam's own son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, told US, British and UN interrogators in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed all its WMD after the first Gulf War in 1991, and also warned them against Kidhir Hamza, a nuclear scientist who defected in 1994, as "a professional liar".

Like other defectors used by the INC, Hamza played a key role in convincing Washington that Saddam was revving up his nuclear program, for which no evidence has been found. Hamza is now in Baghdad working with the US occupation.

"This could conceivably be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time," noted Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee last week. "I doubt it, but we have to ask."

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 29.05.2003, 22:22   #7
kadeem starter
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2003
Beiträge: 78

Der britische Ex-Minister Robin Cook forderte angesichts ausbleibender Beweise für Massenvernichtungswaffen eine parlamentarische Untersuchung. «Wenn Rumsfeld nun zugibt, dass die Waffen nicht dort sind, ist die Wahrheit, dass sie wahrscheinlich schon seit langem nicht mehr dort gewesen sind», sagte Cook. (sda)


kadeem ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser kadeem die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 30.05.2003, 15:57   #8
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Da kann man gleich Trine's Kommentar übernehmen "Das hätte ich nicht gedacht....(dass sie es zugeben)"......

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 30. Mai 2003, 15:22

Massenvernichtungs- waffen nur Kriegsvorwand

Von Severin Weiland

Acht Wochen dauert die Suche nach Saddams totbringenden Waffen - ohne Erfolg. Erstmals räumt nun der US-Vizeverteidigungsministers Paul Wolfowitz ein, dass das Waffenargument vor allem aus bürokratischen Gründen benutzt wurde, um genügend Unterstützung zu rekrutieren. Rumsfelds Dementi kann die Empörung nicht stoppen. Auch SPD-Vizefraktonsvize Erler sieht USA in der Bringschuld.

London - Ein Interview des stellvertretenden US-Verteidigungsministers Paul Wolfowitz nährt die Befürchtungen der Kriegsgegner, die USA hätten nur nach einem Vorwand für den Einmarsch im Irak gesucht. Gegenüber dem britischen Hochglanzmagazin "Vanity Fair" sagte Wolfowitz: "Aus bürokratischen Gründen haben wir uns auf eine Sache konzentriert, die Massenvernichtungswaffen."

Als wesentlichen Kriegsgrund, der so gut wie nie publik gemacht worden sei, nennt Wolfowitz den Umstand, dass die USA nach der Entmachtung von Saddam Hussein nun ihre Truppen aus Saudi-Arabien abziehen könnten. Damit verringere sich für die USA das Risiko von Terroranschlägen.

Rumsfelds schwaches Dementi

Die Reaktion auf die amerikanische Erklärung gleicht einem Donnerschlag. Der britische "Independent" titelt: "Massenvernichtungswaffen nur bequeme Entschuldigung für den Krieg, gibt Wolfowitz zu". "Lügen, Lügen, Lügen", schimpft der "Daily Mirror", und vom rechten "Daily Telegraph" bis zum linken "Guardian" sah die Presse eine "Glaubwürdigkeitskrise" des Premierministers Tony Blair.

Der beeilte sich im Chor mit US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld, den Vorwandsverdacht auszuräumen. Rumsfeld beteuerte in einem Radiointerview, den Krieg nicht unter falschem Vorwand betrieben zu haben. Unbeirrt ob des Fehlens jeglicher Beweise behauptet er weiter, dass Saddam chemische und biologische Kampfstoffe besessen habe. Möglicherweise habe der Diktator diesen aber vor dem Krieg vernichten lassen.

SPD-Fraktionsvize Erler: Bringschuld der Amerikaner

Das Auswärtige Amt in Berlin äußerte sich am Freitag nicht direkt zu den Presseberichten und Äußerungen von Rumsfeld und Wolfowitz. Eine Sprecherin verwies jedoch auf die jüngst verabschiedete Uno-Resolution 1483. Darin sei festgehalten worden, dass die "Frage der Zertifizierung" von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak weiterhin im Sicherheitsrat auf der Tagesordnung bleibe.

Deutliches Unbehagen drückte hingegen der SPD-Fraktionsvize Gernot Erler gegenüber SPIEGEL ONLINE aus. Er sehe eine "eindeutige Bringschuld der Amerikaner und Briten, was die Informationen über angebliche Massenvernichtungswaffen angeht". Schließlich habe der Verweis auf das Vorhandensein dieser Waffen als Legitimation des Krieges gedient, so der Außenpolitiker weiter.

Nach Einschätzung Erlers könnten die Äußerungen von Rumsfeld und Wolfowitz auch "Testballons sein, um Reaktionen der internationalen Gemeinschaft hervorzurufen". Beide Staaten befänden sich weiterhin in der "unangenehmen Lage", dass die Beweggründe für den Anlass des Krieges nicht gefunden worden seien. Es sei jedoch nicht so einfach möglich, die "Legitimation für den Krieg nachträglich beliebig durch neue Begründungen zu ersetzen", so Erler in Anspielung auf Wolfowitz Äußerung, den USA sei es eigentlich um eine Verlegung ihrer Truppen von Saudi-Arabien in den Irak gegangen.

Kritik äußerte der SPD-Politiker auch an der Geheimdienst-Politik beider Staaten. Entweder hätten beide Regierungen "falsche Geheimdienstinformationen erhalten oder diese wurden falsch interpretiert". Erler betonte, er gehe nach wie vor davon aus, dass die US-Regierung die Völkergemeinschaft "nicht willentlich hinters Licht geführt hat".

Dennoch müssten beide Länder hier für Aufklärung sorgen. Mittlerweile gehe es auch um die "internationale Glaubwürdigkeit" beider Staaten, so Erler. In beiden Ländern werde schließlich mit Verweis auf Geheimdienstinformationen nach wie vor Politik gemacht, so jüngst gegenüber Syrien, Iran, aber auch gegenüber Frankreich. Kürzlich hatten US-Medien behauptet, Paris habe mit falschen Papieren führenden Anhängern des Regimes von Saddam Hussein zur Flucht verholfen.

CDU-Außenpolitiker Pflüger wiegelt ab

Als "ziemlich abenteuerlich" bezeichnete hingegen der außenpolitische Sprecher der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion, Friedbert Pflüger, die jetzt entstandene Debatte. Er habe "nicht den Hauch eines Zweifels", dass Saddam Hussein zu Beginn des Krieges Massenvernichtungswaffen besessen habe. "Wenn man sie nicht findet, heißt es doch noch lange nicht, dass es sie nicht gibt - sondern dass er sie gut versteckt hat", so der CDU-Politiker gegenüber SPIEGEL ONLINE. Es sei bislang ja auch nicht Saddam Hussein gefunden worden. "Und es zweifelt wohl doch niemand, dass es ihn nicht gegeben hat", so der Christdemokrat.

"Das amerikanische Eingeständnis", titelt die französische Tageszeitung "le Monde" und schreibt: "Die Wahrheit, die die Amerikaner kannten, wird heute offensichtlich: Der Krieg wurde nicht geführt, um diese Waffen zu zerstören, sondern um das Regime in Bagdad auszuwechseln und den Nahen Osten neu zu ordnen. Die Waffen haben nur als Vorwand gedient.

Blair gerät wieder unter Druck

Auch Tony Blair sieht sich durch Wolfowitz' Enthüllung empfindlich in die Ecke gedrängt. Statt bei seiner Visite im Irak als Sieger aufzutreten, muss er wieder einmal seine Rolle als Kriegsherr verteidigen - auch in der eigenen Partei. "Der ganze Krieg war auf Unwahrheit gebaut, die britische Demokratie wird langfristig Schaden nehmen", sagte der Labour-Veteran Tony Benn. Linke Parteirebellen forderten, Blair müsse sich vor dem Parlament verantworten.

Hinzu kommen Berichte, wonach ein vor dem Krieg veröffentlichtes Dossier über die Gefährlichkeit Saddam Husseins von der Downing Street absichtlich dramatisiert worden ist. Gegen den Willen der Geheimdienste, auf deren Informationen der Bericht beruhte, habe Blair im Vorwort geschrieben, einige der irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen könnten innerhalb von nur 45 Minuten einsatzbereit sein. US-Soldaten suchen nunmehr seit acht Wochen so hartnäckig wie erfolglos nach einem Corpus Delicti.

Ein oppositioneller britischer Staatssekretär sagte dem "Independent", falls tatsächlich keine Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden werden sollten, wäre dies "das größte Versagen der britischen Geheimdienste überhaupt".

Blair bestritt am Freitag in Polen alle Vorwürfe als "völlig absurd". Er habe "keinen Zweifel" am Wahrheitsgehalt der von den Geheimdiensten vorgelegten Beweise. Vor Soldaten in Basra jedoch räumte der Premier "Unstimmigkeiten" über die Gründe für den Krieg ein.


Fortsetzung in diesem Politkrimi folgt. Die Welt wurde verarscht.....

syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 02.06.2003, 14:23   #9
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Die Tonlage wird zunehmend schärfer ....

02. Juni 2003, 12:20

Streit um Irak-Kriegsgrund

"Die Basis des Irak-Kriegs ist Betrug"

Von Marc Pitzke, New York

Ehemalige US-Geheimdienstprofis zweifeln öffentlich an der Behauptung des Weißen Hauses, das Irak-Regime von Saddam Hussein habe Massenvernichtungswaffen besessen. Doch während George W. Bush beim G-8-Gipfel in Evian in Erklärungsnot kommt, lässt die Waffendebatte die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit weitgehend kalt.

New York - Ray McGovern weiß, wovon er spricht. Fast drei Jahrzehnte lang hat er für den US-Geheimdienst CIA gearbeitet, danach, bis 1985, vier Jahre lang im Weißen Haus. Täglich leitete er dort die Briefings für George Bush senior, damals Vizepräsident unter Ronald Reagans. McGovern hat das geheimste Innenleben so mancher Krise miterlebt: Vietnamkrieg, Kennedy-Mord, Watergate, Kalter Krieg, Mauerfall.

So was aber ist dem CIA-Veteran noch nicht untergekommen. Von "manipulierte Meldungen" ist die Rede, "nach politischem Rezept zusammen gekochte Informationen", "systematische Verdrehung von Tatsachen, um unsere Abgeordneten in einen Krieg hineinzusteuern". Kurz: "ein politisches und geheimdienstliches Fiasko von monumentalem Ausmaß".

Die Aufgeregtheit bezieht sich auf die - vor allem in Europa angezweifelte - Behauptung der USA, das Regime Saddam Husseins habe Massenvernichtungswaffen besessen. Dies, sagt McGovern, sei bestenfalls eine "Auffrisierung der Wahrheit", produziert auf Anweisung des Weißen Hauses von der CIA. Längst stünden diese drei Buchstaben nicht mehr für Central Intelligence Agency. Sondern für "Culinary Institute of America" - Lügenküche der Nation.

Ex-Geheimdienstler für Vernunft

McGovern, heute Direktor einer christlichen Schule in Washington, und eine Handvoll weiterer CIA-Pensionäre haben sich unter dem Titel "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" (Ehemalige Geheimdienst-Profis für Vernunft) zusammengetan. Seit Wochen schon bombardieren sie den Präsidenten mit Memos und Appellen. Doch abgesehen von ein paar linken Websites und demokratischen Kongressmitgliedern nimmt das in den USA bislang kaum jemand zur Kenntnis.

Dies überrascht nicht. Während Europa das Thema heiß diskutiert, lässt es die Amerikaner kalt. Die große Mehrheit hält den Irak-Krieg auch ohne Waffenfunde noch für gerechtfertigt - die Umfragewerte schwanken, je nach Fragestellung, zwischen 79 Prozent bei Gallup/CNN und 60 Prozent bei CBS. Ende der Diskussion.

Jonathan Tucker, ein Waffenexperte am U.S. Institute for Peace, erklärt die Diskrepanz zwischen dem Aufruhr im Ausland und der Nonchalance der Amerikaner mit deren kurzer Aufmerksamkeitsspanne: "Für die Öffentlichkeit hier ist das kein Thema mehr. Die Staaten dagegen, die dem Krieg skeptisch gegenüber standen, werden auch weiter darauf beharren."

US-Außenminister Powell: die Welt mit windigen Beweisen getäuscht

Dabei mehren sich auch in den USA Zweifel an den Erklärungen Bushs und seines Geheimdienstapparats. Diese Kritik kommt aber ausschließlich aus Insider-Kreisen - und bleibt auch dort. Informationen seien offenbar "von oben" manipuliert worden, sagt Greg Thielmann, vormals Waffenexperte des State Departments. Ein Geheimteam habe die Irak-Meldungen "wie Kirschen aussortiert", um Bagdad als unmittelbare Bedrohung darzustellen, sekundiert Patrick Lang, ein Ex-Experte der Pentagon-Geheimbehörde Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Lang wundert es folglich nicht, dass das einzige, was die US-Spähtrupps im Irak bisher entdeckt haben, zwei fahrbare Bio-Labors sind, auf deren Zweck sich selbst die CIA nicht hundertprozentig festlegen will. Doch die Regierung kümmert das wenig. Im Gegenteil: "Wir haben die Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden", posaunte Bush am Wochenende im polnischen Fernsehen, die Fragezeichen seines Geheimdienstes dreist zum politischen Ausrufzeichen in eigener Sache umschreibend.

Keine politische Gefahr für Bush

Der Präsident weiß, dass er sich eine solch freizügige Interpretation der Fakten innenpolitisch durchaus leisten kann. "Für Bush", schreibt die "Washington Post", "scheint das Scheitern der Suche nach chemischen, biologischen und nuklearen Waffen im Irak keine politische Gefahr darzustellen."

Denn auch im Kongress stellen bisher nur wenige unangenehme Fragen, und sie sind allesamt in der demokratischen Minderheit. Der Abgeordnete Dennis Kucinich etwa: "Die Basis des Irak-Kriegs ist Betrug." Oder dessen Kollegin Jane Harman: "Dies könnte gut der größte Geheimdienst-Schwindel aller Zeiten sein."

Dagegen rudern selbst Vorkriegs-Kritiker wie die Demokratin Nancy Pelosi sogar schon wieder zurück: Zwar sei es "schwierig zu verstehen", warum immer noch keine Waffen aufgetaucht seien. Doch sehe sie das inzwischen gelassen und "agnostisch".

Diese phlegmatische Haltung hat auch historische Gründe. Lügen und Fälschungen gehören seit ehedem ins außenpolitische Repertoire der USA. Im Vietnamkrieg wimmelte es von getürkten "Informationen", die die militärischen Mittel heiligen sollten. Richard Nixon belog das Volk über Kambodscha. Reagans CIA-Chef William Casey fabrizierte "Beweise", um die gewaltsame Lateinamerika-Politik der USA zu rechtfertigen. Als Ouvertüre zum ersten Golfkrieg rührte die Aussage einer 15-jährigen Kuweiterin den Kongress zu Tränen; später stellte sich heraus, dass sie von einer PR-Agentur engagiert worden war. :wie 1939...

Alles also nichts Neues. Und so steht nach dem Irak nun der Iran auf der Liste. Schon wärmt Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld die Gerüchteküche neu an - mit der bewährten Rezept-Mischung.

"Natürlich befinden sich im Iran hohe al-Qaida-Mitglieder", verbürgte sich Rumsfeld vorige Woche. "Das ist eine Tatsache." Und dann, ohne zu zögern: "Der Iran ist einer der Staaten, der aus unserer Sicht nukleare Fähigkeiten entwickelt." Déja-vu.

Der konservative Kommentator Bill Kristol blies im TV-Sender Fox News ins gleiche Horn: "Bin Ladens Sohn ist wahrscheinlich im Iran ... Sind wir willens, mit Iran Ernst zu machen?"


syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 02.06.2003, 21:57   #10
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Deshalb müssen wohl erneut "Spezialisten" in den Irak & der Blättersturm hat einen Namen .


Rockefeller says Iraq's weapons should have been found by now

(05-29) 14:46 PDT WASHINGTON (AP)

If Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed enough of a threat to
justify war, they should have been found by now, the top Democrat on the
Senate Intelligence Committee said Thursday.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia challenged comments by Bush
administration officials that the weapons were well-hidden and may not
be located soon.

"You can't quite say that it's going to take a lot more time if the
intelligence community seemed to be in general agreement that WMD was
out there," Rockefeller said in an interview.

Rockefeller said that if the weapons were so well concealed, the United
States should have considered giving U.N. inspectors more time to find

The Bush administration's main argument for the war was that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was possibly developing
nuclear weapons. Those weapons threatened the region and, if given to
terrorists, could be used against the United States, it said.

In recent weeks the administration has tried to diminish expectations
that weapons will be found soon. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith
told a House committee May 15 that it "will take months, and perhaps
years," for a complete account of Iraq's weapon programs to emerge.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday, as he has before,
that U.S. teams are unlikely to find any weapons of mass destruction
unless Iraqis involved in the programs tell the officials where to look.

"It's not because they're not there. We do believe they are there,"
Rumsfeld said in an interview on the Infinity Broadcasting radio
network. "We never believed that we or the inspectors would just trip
over them."

In a speech Tuesday, Rumsfeld joined others who have been saying for a
month that Iraq may have destroyed chemical and biological weapons
before the war. On Thursday, Rumsfeld said there was "speculation and
chatter" among intelligence agencies that such weapons may have been
moved to other countries or buried.

Iraq also may have developed the capability to quickly make biological
or chemical weapons, eliminating the need for storing large amounts of
dangerous material, Rumsfeld said. Proof of that, he said, includes the
two trailers found in northern Iraq which American intelligence
officials say were mobile biological weapons production facilities.

Rockefeller said that, based on the intelligence he saw before the war,
he was persuaded that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological
weapons. He said it is still possible "something may very well turn up."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer Thursday called the two trailers
" proof positive" that Iraq lied about not having mobile labs.

But Rockefeller said it's not enough to prove the weapons existed.

"In the business of WMD, and proving to the American people your case,
you've got to come up with WMD. It's not happened," he said.

In a related matter, Rockefeller criticized the FBI response to his
request for an investigation into forged documents used by the Bush
administration as evidence against Saddam before the war. The documents
indicated that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the West African nation of

He said the FBI sent a "bland" letter saying the forgery was not an
administration attempt to manipulate public opinion, but offered no
specifics. He said an aide told the FBI this was unacceptable and asked
for more details.

FBI spokesman Bill Carter said the bureau was continuing to look at
issues raised by Rockefeller and his staff. "We have not closed the book
on this," he said.

Rockefeller and Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan.,
this week also requested that the State Department and CIA inspectors
general investigate the forgery.

Rockefeller said either intelligence agencies hadn't detected the
forgery, or they suspected the documents were forged, but may have faced
political pressures to rethink that view.

"In either case, it's not a very happy outcome," he said.

San Francisco Gate


Geändert von syracus (02.06.2003 um 21:59 Uhr).
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 02.06.2003, 22:54   #11
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Das wir ja immer wilder, jetzt bekommt Tony von der Insel gewaltig Probleme.....


Short: Blair lied to cabinet and made secret war pact with US

Tory threat to break ranks on Iraq

Nicholas Watt and Michael White in Evian
Monday June 2, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair is facing mounting pressure from across the House of Commons to hold an independent inquiry into the Iraq war after Clare Short levelled the incendiary allegation at the prime minister that he had lied to the cabinet.

As an increasingly exasperated prime minister once again swept aside calls for a public inquiry into the failure to uncover banned Iraqi weapons, the former international development secretary accused Mr Blair of bypassing the cabinet to agree a "secret" pact with George Bush to go to war.

To compound the prime minister's difficulties - as MPs prepare to return to Westminster tomorrow after the Whitsun recess - Robin Cook demanded an independent inquiry into the "monumental blunder" by the government.

His criticisms were echoed last night by the Tories who said they were giving "very serious consideration" to calls for an inquiry.

Michael Howard, the shadow chancellor, indicated to the BBC last night that the Tories were considering abandoning their bipartisan approach to Iraq because of fears that Downing Street might have "doctored" last year's dossier on Iraq's banned weapons to strengthen the case for war.

The interventions by such senior figures from across the house gave heart to Labour MPs who are planning to ambush the prime minister on Wednesday at his weekly Commons appearance and during a subsequent statement on the G8 summit.

They are demanding an emergency Commons statement after an unnamed intelligence source told the BBC last week that Downing Street had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq's banned weapons.

Tam Dalyell, the father of the house who has a question to the prime minister on Wednesday's Commons order paper, is expected to step up the pressure by asking about Ms Short's accusation that he was deceitful to the cabinet on three occasions.

In her BBC interview yesterday, she accused Mr Blair of:

· Agreeing in "secret" with Mr Bush at Camp David last September to go to war - and then telling the cabinet that he would try to act as a constraint on the US.

· Misleading the cabinet over Iraq's weapons capability - by "spinning" the claim that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes. "Where the spin came was the suggestion that it was all weaponised, ready to go, immediately dangerous, likely to get into the hands of al-Qaida, and therefore things were very very urgent."

· Falsely telling the cabinet and the world that Jacques Chirac, the French president, would veto a second UN security council resolution authorising war. The transcript of Mr Chirac's interview, which she subsequently read, showed the prime minister's claim to be wrong.

Ms Short, who was widely criticised after she failed to carry out a threat to resign on the eve of war, accused the prime minister of riding roughshod over the conventions of cabinet. "It was all done in Tony Blair's study ... The normal Whitehall systems to make big decisions like this broke down and were very personalised in No 10."

Warning that civil servants and troops were ready to disobey an order to go to war, Ms Short said that the prime minister swung round the Whitehall machinery at the last moment when the attorney general declared that military action would be legal. But she added: "I think, given the attorney's advice, it was legal. But I think the route we got there didn't honour the legality questions."

Some of her criticisms were echoed by the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who demanded an independent inquiry into the failure to uncover any weapons of mass destruction, despite the dire warnings from Downing Street.

"It is beginning to look as if the government's committed a monumental blunder," he told The World This Weekend on Radio 4.

"The government should admit it was wrong and they need to set up then a thorough independent inquiry into how they got it wrong so that it never happens again and we never again send British troops into action on the basis of a mistake."

As a growing number of Labour MPs joined the clamour for an emergency statement and a full investigation by the parliamentary intelligence committee, an angry prime minister hit back at his critics.

Speaking en route to Evian, Mr Blair predicted that the next US-UK intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal would make sceptical voters "very well satisfied" that he was right.

Expressing frustration about what he sees as his critics' attempt to refight the war by other means, Mr Blair insisted for the third time in as many days that intelligence reports had not been doctored under political pressure and would be vindicated.

Appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."

The new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams which are now fanning out over Iraq while colleagues work on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

Und damit ist so in etwa jeder Beteiligte angeschossen, mal sehen wie's weitergeht.....

syr :
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.06.2003, 13:29   #12
Großmeister und Erzmagier
Benutzerbild von schloss
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.715

Rockefeller jr. beantragt Kriegslügenausschuss... Wann wird Bush abgesägt??
Republikaner lehnen Ausschuss wegen Irak-Krieg ab
Bagdad/Kuwait-Stadt - Die Republikanische Partei von US-Präsident George W. Bush hat die Forderung der oppositionellen Demokraten nach einer parlamentarischen Untersuchung in der so genannten Kriegslügendebatte abgelehnt. Es gebe keinen Hinweis auf grundlegende Verfehlungen im Verhalten der Regierung, sagte am Donnerstag der Vorsitzende des Geheimdienste-Ausschusses im Senat, Pat Roberts.

Die Demokraten machen jedoch geltend, dass die Glaubwürdigkeit der Geheimdienste auf dem Spiel stehe, da in Irak keine Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden worden seien. Der demokratische Senator Jay Rockefeller warf den Republikanern vor, "wie Schlafwandler durch die Geschichte zu gehen". Er werde sich im Geheimdienste-Ausschuss weiter für eine formelle Untersuchung stark machen.

Bei einer groß angelegten Militäraktion in Irak haben die US-Streitkräfte unterdessen rund 400 Verdächtige festgenommen. Mehrere tausend Soldaten setzten am Donnerstag die am Dienstag begonnene Großfahndung nördlich von Bagdad fort, die den Urhebern von Anschlägen auf die Streitkräfte gilt. Die US-Truppen wurden von Kampfjets, Hubschraubern und unbemannten Aufklärungsflugzeugen unterstützt. DW

Artikel erschienen am 13. Jun 2003
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.06.2003, 16:55   #13
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Noch ein sehr prominenter Name ...

Hillary Clinton calls for inquiry over Iraq

Friday 13th June 2003

Hillary Clinton has called for independent inquiries to review the credibility of the intelligence used to justify war in Iraq.

The New York senator joined the mounting pressure in both Britain and the US to investigate allegations that details of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were exaggerated.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would not appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to give evidence on alleged misuse of reports in the so-called 'dodgy dossier'.

But Senator Clinton said that although the jury was still out on whether weapons would ever be found, it was essential to discover what happened with the intelligence in both nations.

In an interview with Sir Trevor McDonald in Washington, she said: "I hope that in both our countries we have independent inquiries that get to the facts about the intelligence."

Asked if she thought there was a problem, she said: "I think there could be.

"What is important is that we really do find out what the truth was because this is not just about the past, whether or not the intelligence was either wrong or skewed for whatever purpose, but going forward."

Mrs Clinton said she did not know if people were misled but said: "That is why this cannot be left unanswered.

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution, and I did it in large measure based on the intelligence that I was privy to."

Mrs Clinton was interviewed for ITV1's Tonight with Trevor McDonald programme.

Hillary for President, 2008 .....

syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 13.06.2003, 17:07   #14
Großmeister und Erzmagier
Benutzerbild von schloss
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Ort: Planet Erde
Beiträge: 18.715


Interessant ist aber, dass die gute Hillary früher mit Bush senior ganz gute Geschäftskontakte hatte... wenn die sich nun zu weit herauslehnt, entweder wird sie tatsächlich Präsidentin, oder Mordopfer
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.

schloss ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser schloss die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Alt 16.06.2003, 18:41   #15
Benutzerbild von syracus
Registrierungsdatum: Jan 2002
Beiträge: 31.107

Aus den Problemen kommen sie nicht mehr raus, Tony von der Insel am weni^gsten, Augen auf. Vorallem wenn es sich um "mobile Labors" dreht. Wenn's das erwähnte ist, hat GB nach Jane's 72 Stück davon ....

As the WMD scandal grows, the end could be nearing for Bush and Blair

By Bev Conover
Online Journal Editor & Publisher

June 13, 2003—It appears that the only weapons of mass destruction are George W. Bush and Tony Blair who destroyed Iraq based on a pack of lies that are now blowing up (pun intended) in their faces.

Last week, sitting before television cameras in Europe, Bush, citing what he described as two mobile biological or chemical weapons labs, declared the WMD had been found. Bush completely dismissed the skepticism of his own experts.

Late Friday, a knowledgeable source, who was a certified nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC) officer in the US military and is familiar with the oil business, suggested to Online Journal that the vans might actually be "mobile oil analysis labs, which are customarily deployed at the corps level within the Iraqi, former Soviet and US armies." The source said that "oil analysis is completed on a periodic basis, especially on aircraft, including helicopters, and on heavy equipment, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, etc. This is preventive maintenance and was completed in Iraq as well as throughout all armies and air forces of the world."

The source said the idea of mobile biological or chemical labs "is extremely bold and dangerous. Chemical agent productions are very unstable activities subject to low tolerances even on humidity within the air. The manufacture of biologicals is even less stable. Moving into the unstable environment of a mobile lab is ludicrous and the stuff from comic books, not science, nor weapons production."

But "the stuff from comic books" is one of the many lies Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, among others in the administration, and Blair and his cabinet allies told in order to justify an unprecedented and illegal attack on Iraq.

Sunday, the UK's Observer reported it "has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987."

No traces of chemicals or pathogens have been found in the units—one of which was found in April and the other in May. Experts contend that it is impossible to do such a thorough cleaning. Moreover, they point out that canvass-sided trailers are hardly the things one would use to work on such volatile and dangerous substances.

According to the Observer the CIA stated, "Senior Iraqi officials of the al-Kindi Research, Testing, Development, and Engineering facility in Mosul were shown pictures of the mobile production trailers, and they claimed that the trailers were used to chemically produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons."

Artillery weather balloons are used to determine wind speed and direction "allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile," the Observer noted.

The paper said it "discovered that not only did the Iraq military have such a system at one time, but that it was actually sold to them by the British. In 1987 Marconi, now known as AMS, sold the Iraqi army an Artillery Meteorological System or Amets for short."

But mobile biological and chemical weapons labs are just one set of lies told by Bush & Co. and Blair & Co. There is the plagiarized dossier supplied by Blair and used by Powell before the UN as absolute proof that Saddam Hussein had WMD. There is the forged letter claiming Saddam tried to buy uranium for his alleged nuclear weapons program from Niger. There are the lies that, within 45 minutes, Saddam was capable of loosing his WMD on the UK; that he intended to use WMD on US, British and Australian troops. All the above and more were given as reasons as to why Bush and Blair had to immediately strike Iraq.

While Powell and Rice made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows trying to spin away the truth—Rice even accusing those who charge the administration cooked the intelligence to make their case for invasion of "revisionist history"—members of the British Parliament are demanding that Downing Street explain why it suppressed a "six-page report, from the Joint Intelligence Committee staff" that "said there was no evidence Saddam posed a significantly greater threat than in 1991," according to Monday's Independent.

The false reasons given for invading Iraq have become a scandal of epic proportion in the UK. The prime minister now faces a possible judicial review, called for by the co-founder of his wife's law firm, Rabinder Singh QC, who is considered a leading international and human rights barrister at Matrix chambers, on the ground that no WMD have been found, according to Sunday's Observer.

In his summary, the Observer reported, Singh wrote, "The allegations made by former members of the Cabinet in the recent past, that the evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction was exaggerated by the UK and the US prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, call into question the factual foundation for the Attorney-General's view that the invasion was lawful in international law. In our view there is therefore a strong case for establishing a judicial inquiry to examine that legal question."

If the action is successful, according to the Observer, "it could lead to the Prime Minister being prosecuted for war crimes in an action led by his wife's chambers."

With not a single WMD yet found in Iraq, there is speculation here that the Bush administration may, in an act of desperation, plant them in order to stave off impeachment as the scandal grows at home and in case the downgrading of the certainty of what Saddam had to "capabilities" and "programs" don't wash. "Capabilities" and "programs" don't add up to imminent threats to Saddam's neighbors, the US, the UK or the world.

The Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committee has ordered an investigation into the administration's alleged abuse of intelligence information. A 2002 Pentagon intelligence report concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons and that there was no reliable evidence that it was stockpiling chemical weapons.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh), who is seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for president, last week led 30 House members in introducing a Resolution of Inquiry to force the Bush administration to prove its claims that Iraq has WMD. Kucinich used a similar privileged resolution last March to force the administration to release the 12,000-page weapons report Iraq submitted to the UN.

"This administration owes an explanation to this Congress and to the American people," Kucinich said. "Now is the time for truth telling."

On June 5, which marked the second anniversary of his departure from the Republican Party, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont made the following remarks before the National Press Club in Washington:

In place of thoughtful policy we now have superficial and cynical sound-bites. Instead of confronting pressing national problems, our President lands airplanes while Rome burns.

While our troops search for W-M-D's in Iraq—we have found our own W-M-D's right here in Washington—at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They are President Bush's weapons of mass distortion, or better distraction. The Bush Administration says one thing and does another to take the focus off the present realities.

Does he think we don't notice?

In Iraq, we have seen the inexcusable results of what happens when the Bush Administration says one thing and does another. Last fall, the President said UN weapons inspectors would be allowed to do their job, but in reality, he didn't give them the time they needed. I am pleased to see calls for Congressional investigations to determine whether the President manipulated intelligence information to build support for the war. Why the hurry to invade a country and use military force in such an unprecedented manner? Where was the imminent threat to the United States? And where are the weapons of mass destruction?

As he prepared to invade Iraq and win the support of other nations, the President promised the world that the US had a plan in place to rebuild that nation. But it quickly became apparent that there was no plan. While our military guarded the oilfields, we showed no compassion for the Iraqi people as we allowed their national treasures to be looted. All we see now is growing unrest with the US presence in Iraq. Every day we see more lawlessness, more upheaval and more US soldiers being killed. Is it any surprise that a recent Pell Research Center survey of 16,000 people from 20 nations shows a dramatic rise in distrust and skepticism toward the United States?

Does he think we don't notice?

But people are noticing—even the corporate media are noticing. John Dean, who as counsel to the president told Richard Nixon "there is a cancer on the presidency," also is noticing.

In an article, Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?, Dean wrote "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.'"

Former UN senior weapons inspector Scott Ritter, speaking to the Swiss daily Le Temps last Friday, called upon Bush and Blair to "admit their lies" about WMD. Ritter, a former US Marine intelligence officer who headed up the UN inspections team in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, contended Hussein could not have destroyed the weapons, as Rumsfeld recently suggested, "without leaving traces . . . Donald Rumsfeld has furnished no proof of their supposed destruction, just as he has never furnished the slightest proof of their existence."

Even neoconservative William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and editor of the Weekly Standard, is noticing. PNAC is the architect of much of Bush's foreign policy, especially the unleashing of military might on any nation the US declares an enemy.

Kristol, one of the prime movers and shakers behind the invasion of Iraq, told NewsMax, "I don't think we need to be apologetic about the war." NewsMax added, "But he said the U.S.'s inability to uncover significant quantities of Iraqi WMDs means that the war may not have been as necessary and urgent as previously believed."

"People like me, who were hawks, said the war was both just, prudent and urgent," Kristol said. "I think just and prudent—fine. But it is fair to say that if we don't find serious weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the case for urgency, which Bush and Blair certainly articulated, is going to be undercut to some degree."

Some might call that an understatement, because Bush also has to wrestle with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's admission, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on" and that Iraq "swims on a sea of oil."

Was it all about oil? Not quite, as Paul Bremer, the viceroy of Occupied Iraq, is proving as he dismantles what is left of Iraqi civilization to pave the way for turning the country into Corporate Iraq, and Washington debates which of Iraq's utilities to privatize. Rumsfeld, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "has already said he wants to see some of Iraq's state-run businesses sold off, although he did not specifically mention the utilities."

The promised representative government of, by and for Iraqis is not about to be allowed any time soon, either—at least not until June 2004, according to Rumsfeld. Nor is it in the cards for the Iraqis to choose what form that government will take, especially if they want a form of Islamic rule.

At a press briefing last Thursday, Rumsfeld was asked, "Are you concerned at all about the pace of establishing an Iraqi government, the Iraqis establishing an Iraqi government?"

The defense secretary replied, "I'm really not, it seems to me that it's a hard thing to do, to go from a dictatorship to a—on a path towards some sort of representative government and it has to be an Iraqi model that evolves that they have ownership in. If you think about it, Adolf Hitler was elected, so elections are not the certain judge. You don't want to have an election one time and then a dictator and then go right back to some dictator model. And you don't want to have a model that is, in Iraq, that is different from the one that has been generally set forth, namely a single country, a country that doesn't threaten its neighbors, a country that is respectful of the religious and ethnic composition of the country and that they have voice in their government. Now, does that happen in five minutes? No it doesn't. Think of how long it took us in the United States—eleven years from the Articles of Confederation to a Constitution. It takes time for Eastern Europe to do it. It's taking time for Afghanistan to do it. They're not going to have their elections for a permanent government I don't believe until June of next year. So I think its important that there constantly be progress going forward, I think it's important that Iraqis be engaged in all of those activities that will get them there—that is to say a constitutional convention of some sort, a process that will move it forward to an interim authority of some kind, and then some participation and then ultimately a permanent government. What that pace ought to be I don't know and I know that Ambassador Bremer is doing a darn good job working on it.

Rumsfeld got it wrong when he said Hitler was elected. Hitler was no more elected than was George W. Bush. As historian Alan Bullock put it, "Hitler came to office in 1933 as the result, not of any irresistible revolutionary or national movement sweeping him into power, nor even of a popular victory at the polls, but as part of a shoddy political deal with the 'Old Gang' whom he had been attacking for months . . . Hitler did not seize power; he was jobbed into office by a backstairs intrigue." Yet, the defense secretary has used this falsehood to deny the Iraqis the liberty and self-determination that the Bush administration repeatedly promised them.

Watergate 2004 .......


Geändert von syracus (16.06.2003 um 18:44 Uhr).
syracus ist offline   Mit Zitat antworten
Für Inhalt und Rechtmäßigkeit dieses Beitrags trägt der Verfasser syracus die alleinige Verantwortung. (s. Haftungshinweis)
Antwort Gehe zum letzten Beitrag


Gehe zu

Aktuelle Uhrzeit 12:56
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©