k -- well a little bit more -- really interested in what others have to think (I could just be going mad ) -- basically got a "group" email from Paul Thompson which read:(& this is a forum response to somebody suggesting that the Saudi's would now become immune from investigation)
I question the previous post that this will point away from the Saudis. There's a chance that the appointment of Kissinger means the Saudis will become the sacrificial lambs of 9/11.
Keep in mind that Kissinger is a member of Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board, a gathering of the key "warhawks" that seem to be driving the foreign policy of the Bush cabal.
For instance, Kissinger attended the now infamous Defense Policy Board power point presentation of July 10, 2002 entitled, "Taking Saudi Out of Arabia." The last slide in the presentation reads:
Grand strategy for the Middle East
• Iraq is the tactical pivot
• Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot
• Egypt the prize
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069119
Note that the Egypt conclusion was too upsetting for the better known Washington Post version of the story to even mention:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node;=&contentId;=A47913-2002Aug5¬Found=true
It's increasingly obvious that Iraq is just the first phase of grabbing all of the Middle East's oil - the question is how are they going to do it? I think Saudi Arabia goes down either by letting al-Qaeda-esque Muslim radicals stage a revolution, and then have the US swoop in and "save the day" (and the oil), or demonize the House of Saud as supporters of terrorism, give them an ultimatum, and then sweep in and grab the oil (as the power point recommends). So Kissinger can help realize the latter option. Most likely, it will probably be a combination of the two: have the failed revolution, but already demonize the House of Saud enough so the US can say we can't go back to the House of Saud, those guys were hopeless, that's why we will divide the country into three (as the power point suggests), and of course remain directly in charge of the oil producing region.
These guys are so obvious about their plans - it takes heavy helpings of willful blindness to not see what they're doing.
On another note, I welcome the appointment of Kissinger as the head of the commission. It was already obvious after the Democratic cave-in on the setup of the commission that the commission would be a joke. This will help people see from the very beginning that it is a joke. So we can cut to the chase and look for the truth elsewhere, instead of putting our false hopes in this absurd "independent" commission. Had they put in someone just as intent on covering up but with a clean record (just as they do with Supreme Court nominees - get the wackos with clean records), the victims' relatives and others would have been strung along for a year or more.
--
to which I've replied:
I'm not sure Paul ... I have a theory about this
& it may be somewhat fantastical ...
but Kissinger was one of the few people to protest against the anti-Saudi presentation (from recall he railed against Perle for inviting Murawiec) & spoke out openly against Bush Jr's plans to go to Iraq in the way that he was. My reading of the many articles written by people like Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker, Eagleburger, etc during the summer which were critical of the Neo-con policy towards Iraq, is that this was a Poppy Bush directive. & I think this boils down to a pro- vs anti-Saudi stance.
to this:
"It's increasingly obvious that Iraq is just the first phase of grabbing all of the Middle East's oil - the question is how are they going to do it? I think Saudi Arabia goes down either by letting al-Qaeda-esque Muslim radicals stage a revolution, and then have the US swoop in and "save the day" (and the oil), or demonize the House of Saud as supporters of terrorism, give them an ultimatum, and then sweep in and grab the oil (as the power point recommends)."
I think you're 100% correct, but the call is coming from the "PNAC gang" & aided by Perle & Wolfawitz. The 'old boys' on the right are at great odds with them over this. Not least because such a tactic will literally lead to WW3 (there is no way that Saudi Arabia will stand for anything more pro-American than Prince Abdullah.)
Kissinger also has a LOT of business associates in the region to keep happy. Given that BCCI/BNL/Iraqgate was never solved & the refusal of Kissinger Associates (now Kissinger McLarty Associates) to release even a client list I don't think that Kissinger would want to -- or could afford -- a 'proper' investigation pointing to the Saudi's.
The pressure coming from the neo-cons will be to do so though .. & also to find the CIA/FBI unable to "cope in this new 21st century terrorism" to entrench the new intelligence agency that the neo-cons are dying to have (look at all the current battles between the CIA & the Whitehouse -- firstly over Iraq & now over Guantanemo) -- & such an intelligence agency, will completely neuter the CIA & FBI -- especially if it is given the role of acquiring overseas "Human Intelligence" -- which would destroy some of the important channels that (Poppy Bush's) the CIA have established.
Whilst I am with you totally in that the appointment of Kissinger is just a bad joke - I think it *could* be another sign in what I keep perceiving as a massive schism within the upper eschelon's of the "elite".
Another point worth remembering is that Kissinger's business partner - Thomas "Mack" McLarty - is a lifetime friend of & Preidential counsel too Clinton, & currently serves on the board of the New Democratic Network.
As to who Kissinger will lay the blame on -- well I don't think it will be the Saudi's (for the reasons above, but also because it will be interesting to see what happens regarding the possible privatisation of Saudi ARAMCO (of which BP is a major player -- noting here that BP executives have recently spoken out against a possible invasion of Iraq)) & I don't think it will be the ISI (with whom Kissinger has old ties from the Nixon administration plus his & Brzezinski's involvement in the mujihadeen & more recently his interests in the Caspian region in general -- both personal (via the US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce) & commercial through Kissinger Associates) ... so I can see it being simply a "it was the terrorists" excuse, potentially playing up inadequacies in European intelligence agencies such as the German BND.
But I could just be clutching at straws & reading too much into things. Regardless of anything else, this sucks.
"The increase in armaments, the endless arms race - this in itself is a potential cause of war. Influential military men want to demonstrate that their profession has some use. Many people who are disturbed by the terrible growth of armaments become accustomed and resigned to the belief that war is inevitable. They say, 'Better a terrible end than an endless terror.' That is the greatest cause of war." - Ludwig Quidde, 1927