Advertisement

The subset of lies that Dubya’s propaganda machines, instead of accepted intelligence agencies, generated as a pretext for the pre-emptive destruction of a defenseless Iraq were exposed in multiple places, including the articles, “The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA--Devising bad intelligence to promote bad policy” and "Tinker, Banker, Neocon, Spy". In the time that Dubya was pushing this farce on the US Congress and the UN a lot of what they used was coming from defectors, and furthermore specifically defectors who came through an organization, namely, the Iraqi National Council, that neither State nor the CIA trusted. Rummy’s OSP was the only intelligence agency which accepted the lies for cash that the Iraqi defectors, led by Dubya’s hand-picked stooge Ahmed Chalibi, spun. At the CIA and at the State Department, Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at lobbying and public relations, but not much else.

"There is tremendous pressure on [the CIA] to come up with information to support policies that have already been adopted," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counter-terrorism expert about the tactics used to lie to the world at that time. What unfolded then was a campaign by well-placed hawks to undermine the CIA's ability to provide objective, unbiased intelligence to the White House.

Also, remember Rumsfeld's Office of Disinformation, which had to be disbanded, as it was too Orwellian for even Dubya‘s boys to bully through. They have exclusively lied to us, with no truth thrown in.

Dubya’s PNAC agenda has been well documented. In his book, “Winning Modern Wars“, General Wesley Clark records a conversation with a "senior military staff officer" he met at the Pentagon in November 2001, at the height of the Afghan campaign. America was headed next for war with Iraq, Gen Clark says the unnamed officer told him. In an article from the HiPakistan/Daily-Telegraph, “ Bush administration plans to attack seven Muslim nations”, quote Clark again, who cites that the PNAC plan, not the “everlasting war against terrorism” was the cause of this latest fiasco as the Bush administration entered office "already determined to attack Iraq".

Dubya liked to say that this war was about WMD, but was it? In the Philadelphia Inquirer Trudy Rubin's June 11th, 2003 article, " At the nucleus of the problem--Incident at Iraqi facility indicts U.S. goals" the author points out the "BIGGEST LIE". She courageously points out that 43 was more interested in protecting oil fields than securing WMD at a nuclear site, Tuwaitha, that the IAEA knew about for years. She writes, "The Tuwaitha story makes a mockery of the administration's vaunted concern with weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. military hastened to secure the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad from looters. But Iraq's main nuclear facility was apparently not important enough to get similar protection".

Trudy Rubin further wrote, " How could an administration that had hyped the danger of Saddam handing off nuclear materials to terrorists let Tuwaitha be looted? Maybe the hype was just hype... or maybe the Pentagon didn't send enough troops to Iraq to do the job right". The Global Free Press section entitled, “ Deception Dollars” including one article, “Warmongering and plots for oil”, among many others, spell out these scams in detail.

What about Wolfie of Arabia, in a Guardian/UK article, of June 4, 2003, titled "Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil". Clearly that hasn't any reference to Hussein's imminent threat scam.

Dubya is it true that even in the Pentagon, advisors are on record as being against the planning for the post-war Iraq occupation? In the article, “White-Rumsfeld Dispute, Round 2”, White spoke about the inadequacy of Rumsfeld's planning for postwar reconstruction. White also sided with Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki, warning that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq after hostilities ended. Before his

A typical estimate that Bush's team was pushing at that time is contained in the of February 9th, 2003, Newsweek's article's title, "Post-War Iraq Hope Would be to Withdraw Troops in 30-90 Days", which just seems clearly silly! For an opposing point of view see, "The war in Iraq is just starting", by Jon Carroll on August 7th, 2003 for the San Francisco Chronicle, which seems closer to the truth. In this matter, as in all others, he tried his earlier con with a pair of twos again, but the world is prepared this time, and he is having many losing hands as a result of his earlier bluffs.

What is this current hypocrisy of placing Rice above Rumsfeld about? Ivo Daalder, who for five years has run a Brookings Institution-University of Maryland study project on the NSC, says that the new emphasis of Rice’s role is her way of trying "to take control of a process that was in some sense running away from her -- which was clear in the Iraqi reconstruction process, but also the foreign policy process writ large." This temporary facade of Rice over Rumsfeld will result in no change of the US PNAC military policy.

What can be made of the charade of 4 speeches by Big Brother 43‘s team about the progress being made in Iraq? Republican Senator Dick Lugar, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee on the October 12th, 2003 Meet the Press said that even these speeches were contradictory. None of them truthfully tried providing the US populace with information as to what Dubya’s goals are in Iraq and what the projected cost, in terms of US troops or financial resources will be.

Democratic Senator Joe Biden said that Dubya has to take charge of the atrocious situation, not push it off on Rice. Biden’s remark is the ultimate usage of irony for the “Top Gun” , “bring em-on”, we’ll take him “dead or alive”, straight shooter. If Dubya had taken the lead in this mess then his strong willed advisors would respect their leader’s opinion. Lugar agreed with Biden, as now even more and more Republicans are coming out against Dubya’s fiasco for oil. How can this correspond to his Commander-in-Chief, “Mission Accomplished“, facade? It makes my head hurt trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

As far as things improving in Iraq, it is hard to believe that. The Sunni Arabs in Iraq have been “shortchanged” by the Americans, especially with regard to the US-installed interim governing council, Sheikh Ahmed Al Kubaisi, head of the Iraqi Muslim Ulema Front told Gulf News. “Because most of the armed resistance takes place in Sunni areas, the Americans deprive the Sunnis of their legitimate right to have an equal say in their country’s affairs,” said the Sheikh. Sheikh Al Kubaisi is disgusted with the occupation, as this quote, “He complained the US forces were abusing the basic human rights of the Iraqis. “We are being humiliated in our homeland,” he added, “I urge the American to change their behaviour immediately.” clearly states. Otherwise, he declared, he and others will call for “an armed resistance” to drive the Americans out. So far, he has refrained from supporting the sporadic armed attacks against the US forces, but said his position may change soon. “When I first returned to Baghdad, I said the Americans had one year to fix things and leave; however, I don’t see any practical steps in this direction,” he said. “Time is running out.” When asked if he was to declare “war” again the Americans next April, when the one-year ultimatum ends, he said: “Of course, what else can we do to end an occupation that seems to want to last 60 years?”

The current situation is Iraq is atrocious, but Dubya and his crew is trying to spin it. On October 12tth there was a blast at the Baghdad Hotel killing 7 and wounding 40. Dubya’s team was on the Sunday talk shows stating that tragedy showed how swell the US occupation is progressing, because if it was not providing such great security more people would have died. How stupid does he think our red state voters are to peddle this transparent pile of lies.

Dubya, you like to tell us your advisors are strong and are in unison with your policies. Tell us what we should think about these former GOP luminaries, Thomas White and Rand Beers, who in the short span of your illegal occupation of the office of the US president, have left you in disgust.

In the article, “White-Rumsfeld Dispute, Round 2”, White spoke about the inadequacy of Rumsfeld's planning for postwar reconstruction. White also sided with Army Chief of Staff Eric K. Shinseki, warning that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq after hostilities ended.

You’ve said you would make us more secure from terrorist threats, but Rand Beers disagrees. “The administration wasn’t matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism,” Rand Beers, a former special assistant to the president, told the Washington Post in an interview published June 16th 2003.

It is not just about warmongering that Dubya is sorely deficient in performing his duties. I can hear GOP sympathizers saying that Dubya was just a smalltime Governor and his strength is not foreign policy, but domestic. That is also, just a house of cards. Dubya has done similar feints, as he is presently doing with Rice, only for show. He fired Harvey Pitts as SEC chairman, and Paul O'Neill as Secretary of the Treasury. Harvey had to recuse himself from an inordinate percentage of the investigations and even though Dubya said the SEC was doing a great job, the biggest crook of all, “Kenny Boy” is unscathed. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, since fired, advocated the abolition of Social Security and Medicare in a May 20, 2001 interview with the Financial Times. "Able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement, and, for that matter, health and medical needs," O'Neill said, adding, "The president is also intrigued about the possibility of fixing this mess." Nothing changed when Pitts or O'Neill were canned. Dubya did it to show he was in charge and working for the US. Yeah, right!

Another former high-level official in the Bush administration, who had to leave in revulsion, was John DiJulio. DiJulio told all about the inner workings of the current administration in the article "Why Are These Men Laughing," which appeared in the January 2003 issue of Esquire. He said, “There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. …. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking—discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera.”

Dubya likes to mug with our military boys and girls for votes-- remember the “Mission Accomplished“ photo-op, but he doesn‘t even care about their dear young lives. We’ve read that his cronies have gouged the US taxpayers for reconstruction work in Iraq. What is worse, credible sources state the services provided for our boys and girls are sub-standard. Please, we want to think the best of you, but that is horrible. Tell us something that can cast this in a better light!

In sum, they lie, when the policy is exposed they switch roles and structures, and then they go back to the initial policy, which can be summarized as pillaging the world for the top 1%.

<  Ex-Intel Greg Thielmann is back: Powell misled U.S. Nation | FBI: Moussaoui not involved in 9/11  >