The New Yorker puts most (but not all) of its articles on line, and has done this with all of the Hersh articles of the last couple of years. Check http://www.newyorker.com/ tomorrow morning.

Many thanks for setting up the Wilkerson speech.

Mr. Clemons,
Thanks for posting all this. I plan to buy the issue later this week. It should be an interesting week.

Steve -- thanks for posting this a day early...

One thing I sincerely hope is that Democratic elected officials (and potential presidential candidates for 2008) take Scowcroft's advice to heart. It's just as valid for us as it is for them. There's still a majority of the Democratic foreign policy elite which rejects the 'realist' view of the Middle East, and clings to some of the same fantasies that the neocons do, namely that 1) democracy will replace secular authoritarian regimes with secular liberal ones in the near-term, and 2) that solving the "democracy deficit" is the key to U.S. interests in the region, not solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since Arab hatred of the U.S. and Israel is the result of Arab governments trying to turn frustrations with their rule and their failings outward.

There is already the beginning of a debate among Democrats over whether "liberating" Iraq for the sake of spreading democracy in the Arab world was a good idea in principle, just poorly implemented by an inept Republican administration. I don't think the grassroots of the Democratic party supports that view to a significant degree, but it's quite strong among the leading lights inside the beltway.

That is one fascinating article. Thanks for previewing it---I'll buy the magazone tomorrow.

Fifty years of peace in the Middle East? I'm sorry, but are we and Mister Scowcroft living on different planets?

I'm all for saying that the Bush policy is a complete disaster.

But I'd like to get the former National Security Adviser in a room with victims of chemical weapons in Iraq and Iran, victims of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, victims of a decade of sanctions in Iraq, victims of the Lebanese civil war, etc., (not to neglect the victims of the terrorism that has spun out of Saudi Arabia) and then have him tell us that 50 years of autocracy in the Middle East and Persian Gulf have given us 50 years of peace.

It's hard to make this indictment of Bush League foreign policy sound credible to the kind of audience you most need to appeal to when garbage like that comes out of his mouth.

"The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required," Scowcroft said.

Wrong. Democracy is the last thing on the neocon agenda. They would be horrified at the prospect of a living, breathing democracy in Iraq or anywhere else. You don't see the neocons cheering on the grassroots democratic movement in Bolivia or Venezuela.

What they want is compliant goverments in energy-rich third world nations that will do the bidding of corporate America.

Thanks for the infusion of some frigging COMMON SENSE, owl. Why in the world does anybody still take these 'democracy-loving' cranks at their word??

I've noticed that the traditional republicans engage in open dialogue with the neocons; yet Scowcroft reveals how neocons fail to "listen" to critical advise, who prefer instead to confine, defend and justify a foreign policy, based on an idealistic, and therefore, naive construction for world order.

Yet, I believe it's another "sale" onto the American people. Imo, the Bush Cabal's true motives for war lie in the fleecing of America's 200 Billion dollar war, ...to date. It's Bush's pro-war cronies, like Halliburton, who have profited greatly. This underlies the heart of their justifications, which serves to only fill the larger void of their conscience.

An interesting preview; thanks for posting it. I'll need to buy this issue ASAP! An early Fitzmas girft to myself.

All of the talk about whether and how we might have succeeded in transforming Iraq and then the entire Middle East into a Jeffersonian type democracy I believe clearly indicates that those, who engage in such discussions do not really understand why we attacked Iraq and they think that we should be trying to make good on that eleventh hour justification called "Iraqi freedom." It would seem that this is true of Mr. Scowcroft too.

Well, sir, we did not go there for any of the reasons Bush and company have cited. We went there to achieve two primary objectives. The first involved the NEOCON dream of US world Hegemony beginning with the Middle East because of its strategic importance and because of the loss of the counter balance to such dreams, the Soviet union. Make no mistake about it, these people believe that it is time and that we should seek to become the modern day Roman Empire because they thought we have the power to do so and because they believed that the rest of the world would simply stand by and allow us to do so. This part of the equation provided the philosophical or the intellectual rationale for attacking a nation they knew to be no threat to us or to anyone else. The basic thesis is that, if we do not reach for the staff of empire, then someone else will rise up in time and do so and then we will be at their mercy. Their documents starting with those of PNAC make clear their agenda to achieve such world dominance and then to see to it that no nation or group of nations can become strong enough to ever rise up and challenge us. Prior to Bush, Jr., these people were thought to be the "Crazies" and they were not allowed to gain the power that he allowed them to achieve. Such was our luck to have this, as one put it, non-moronic, person as our leader.

The second and even more important and the actual primary reason for our unprovoked attack on Iraq is the near term peaking of the world's oil production. How near term? Well, a few experts say maybe twenty years, others say certainly within ten years and still more of the most knowledgeable say that, if it has not already occurred, it is as near as two years.

Why is this important? When the world's oil production peaks, there will not be enough to meet the demand, which is currently exploding due to the massive growth of China's and India's and other economies and that means that the world economies will have to contract, not grow. This is totally new territory since all of our economies are predicated upon constant growth. To anticipate recession and even depression and severe conflict is not at all unreasonable; it is just plain common sense.

The Bush administration, and in particular, Cheney and his secret energy committee knew very well that we are facing such a dire event and they also knew that the peaking of the oil production will result in fierce competition for an ever diminishing supply of oil. Of course, they realized that it would be impossible to remain the world's sole superpower without adequate supplies of oil.

They knew, from the input of the oil corporation people with whom they were meeting, that every known oil field in the world has already peaked except possibly Saudi Arabia's and they know that there is considerable evidence that the conditions of those fields also indicate actual and very near peaking of their production. On top of that, they know that the oil companies have not been investing capital to look for and develop new fields because they already know that there are none of sufficient size to make it economically worthwhile.

So, faced with the sure prospect of a tremendous shock to the economy of the US, they looked for ways to delay it or to ameliorate it. Unlike China, for instance, which has been trying to lock up the oil they will need to keep their economy humming by contracting for oil or by joint funding of projects to produce more oil, our leaders decided that the best and certainly the easiest and surer way to assure our access to the oil we will need was to simply go take control of the world's greatest known reserves, i.e. Iraq, Iran and indirectly and possibly directly, Saudi Arabia. So, Mr. Clemons, I submit that we are in Iraq and we would have attacked Iran before now, if our performance in Iraq had not been an example of world class incompetence, in order to insure our control and access to the top three of the world's known oil reserves.

It is [possible that Mr. Scowcroft does not know todays Cheney because he does not ubderstand how Cheney was the maestro behind the decision to attack Iraq, for none of the reasons given, but because of the imminence of "Peak Oil." Had he known this, he might not be bewildered by what otherwise appears to him to be a major change in the character and personality of his friend.
Our war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or the establishment of democracy there. It has everything to do with our militaristic imperialism and our need to insure that we control that oil. Because this is the case, we do not intend to leave Iraq or the middle east with our military. Those 14 or so permanent bases we are building are not for the Iraqis. They are for the troops we will leave there to insure the security of the oil fields, which it is intended will be privatized and sold to US corporations.

You might give some thought to the possibility that, with such a scenario, Bush and company do not want to see a stable and solid government in Iraq. They only want to see one that we completely control or one so weak that we can claim that we must remain there indefinitely. The latter seems to be the real objective, given that there are reports that we are promoting sectarian violence between the Shiites and the Sunnis, which, of course will require our continued presence to keep the lid on.

So many of the people, who support Bush and his atrocious policies and actions, believe that everything the US does is done for altruistic reasons because we are always the "Good Guys" of the world. I suspect that those of us, who recognize a fraud when we see one and do not support Bush or his policies and actions, are just a little better educated about the history of our country's actions and motives concerning our involvement's in other parts of the world. Altruism might be a good cover for actions which are anything but in their motivation, but it has had virtually no real application to our actions anywhere and, in particular, in the Middle East.

The article by Ms. Cohn, "Bush's Twin Masters", from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092605A.shtml, is a pretty good overview of the history of our interjecting ourselves into the Middle East national and political scene and, as you can readily see, we have not acted there in any way but what we saw as to our advantage. In the process, we demonstrated no reluctance at all to create conflict and war, not withstanding the hundreds of thousands who would die because of our actions, just so long as we saw it to be to our advantage. You might also note how our interest there has always been because of the fact that most of the world's oil is to be found there in the two countries in which we have exercised influence the most.

Ms. Cohn's assertion that the two driving forces behind our current attack on Iraq derive from the ideology of the NEOCON dream of US world Hegemony, which is clearly defined in the documents that she cites, and from the irrational belief among the far right wing religious supporters of Bush that Armageddon is upon us and the end times war in the Middle East that will usher in the return of Christ must now be played out between the Israelis and the surrounding Muslims is quite correct. However, I believe the influence of the irrational among the Christians only extends to the support they provided to elect and reelect Bush and not to our actual foreign policy. In other words, it is just another case of the Republican politicians using the religious people of this country without ever intending to actually carry out their desired policies; they have been Reaganized again. In this case, I say thank goodness that the decision makers are not true believers in the Armageddon silliness.

Although Ms. Cohn does cite the influence, both historically and currently, of oil as being an important element of our foreign policy, I do not believe she understands just how central that issue really is. If she did, I believe she would have discussed the criticality of the near term peaking of the world's oil supply and why that makes her identification of the "Smoking Gun" from Cheney's energy committee meetings such a killer expose. We have had any number of pieces of evidence to support our contention that the real reason this country attacked Iraq was because of the imminence of "Peak OiI" and the belief on the part of Bush, Cheney and those ruling Oil Barons that we had to gain control of what oil there is in order to insure that no one else does so and to insure that our economy will be protected, at least for some time, from the disastrous effects that insufficient oil will have. The people in those meetings knew only too well that the world's oil production is soon to peak and they knew only too well that they were not expending large amounts of capital to look for and develop new oil fields because they already know that none of any size are to be found.

I have had some people, who believe in the unbelievable and who support Bush as a result, look at the evidence we have to support our claim and reject it because it does not include an actual admission or some other form of "Smoking Gun" to establish that, yes, we attacked Iraq in order to take control of their oil and not because of any of the ever changing reasons Bush and company have put forth. For Ms. Cohn to report the following about what we now have from Cheney's energy group is for her to hand us the "Holy Grail" of "Smoking Guns" that clearly establishes why we went to Iraq. I offer my deepest thanks to her for the following work:

"In July 2003, the public interest group Judicial Watch finally secured some of the documents from Cheney's energy task force meetings. They contain the smoking gun: "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects" and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated March 2001, two years before Bush invaded Iraq."

So, now we have it that we were preparing two years in advance of our unprovoked attack on Iraq to go there and take control of their oil and we also have it that the first and only security we provided during the initial fighting in Iraq was for the oil fields and the Oil
Ministry buildings. Everything else that might have been central to the establishment of a working democracy there was allowed to be destroyed and carted away by looters. There can be no clearer evidence other than actual admissions and, if you don't mind, I will not hold my breath waiting for them, to show that we attacked this country in the role of the world's greatest of "Robber Barons."

You might keep in mind the fact that we are there to control not just Iraq's oil, but Iran's too, if we can, when you hear or engage in all this talk about when the US is going to leave Iraq. If we leave, we do not achieve the goal of the control of the oil. Therefore, do not hold your breath for our actual leaving Iraq. Those permanent bases we are building are not for the Iraqis. They are for the troops we will hold there to insure that we do control the oil and that US corporations that will gain ownership of those oil fields will be protected. That is the way of all imperialism and there is no greater militaristic and imperialistic nation in the world today than America.

For those who would label me just another of the America hating liberals, I say to you wake up, face facts, look yourself in the mirror and see if you like what you see in the light of what is being done in your name around the world. I do not hate my country. I served it for 22 years as a USAF Officer. However, I will not ignore it when the people who are running its affairs exhibit an ideology and impose policies and actions that are the very antithesis of what our country is supposed to be all about.

The days when the rest of the world could look to America as a shining beacon on the hill of what a society and culture that was aimed at doing all that could be done to insure the integrity, the security, the opportunity, happiness and the well being of the individual at the expense of the powerful and the ruling classes have been steadily disappearing for some 35 to 40 years during which a conservative Republican takeover of our nation has been proceeding. No, I don't hate my country. I just oppose those who would ruin it and, for those who are offended by my criticism, I say to you, " Well then, see to it that you and those you support, do not establish policy and take actions that are so deserving of such criticism." If you do, I will be only too happy to applaud rather than to criticize and you would be doing both yourself and your self image and your nation a real favor.

I hate to rain on your parade. but believing much of what Mr Scowcroft has to say will only end in disappointment. He was never very competent at his job. He was General Al Haig's apparatchik for years here in DC, then fancied himself GHWB's 'eminence gris' until he was put out to pasture. In point of fact, his 'best friend' found his marked anti-Israeli views embarrassing, tinged as they were by private anti-Semitism, and, moreover, Scowcroft's early sponsorship of Miss Rice's Washington career (among others) soon turned to envy and spite, as these quotes sadly illustrate. By all means believe that the Iraq war was a mistake if that is your opinion, but seeking validation for it from Scowcroft will ultimately prove embarrassing--as does employing the term 'neo-conservative' at all, since it was coined by Pat Buchanan. In point of fact, Wolfowitz is in no way conservative, as any employee at the World Bank will tell you; not only does he hold 'liberal' social views and read Arabic, he is engaged to a woman who is a former Saudi citizen.

Ahh. Kierkegaard. I knew it wouldn't take very long for the swiftboating of Brent Scowcroft to begin.

As with many others, you're confusing Scowcroft's ability to separate American and Israeli interests in his thinking with "anti-Semitism".

That crap just ain't gonna cut it anymore, after the full story of how we were misled into Iraq comes out.

But nice try!

50 years of peace in the Middle East? As I recall there were spats in 1956, 1967 & 1973 not to mention the contretemps between Iraq & Iran. Things got testy in Yemen and Lebanon now and then...

The Bush cartel has been a criminal institution since day 1. They are in Iraq for the reasons cited above, q.v., to secure and procure the oil fields there; and to assist their coporate friends with lucrative profits from an extended War. The War in Iraq is illegal; the American people were lied to about the resasons to go to War, and the Bush administration and their entire cabal should be held responsible for the War crimes committed there. The damage they have done to the reputation of the United States will take decades to undo - if at all.

Until those who lied this country into War are held accountable, these neo-facists in Washington will continue to subvert American democracy, encourage facism in a corporate run America, and probably take this country into a major War before it is over with.

With the upcoming indictments of Rove et al. for lying about Iraq we can only hope that Fitzgerald has Cheney in his sites. For us simple minded Americans we see Rice, Cheney and the like as the most criminal adminstrative personnel to walk the stage of American history. They are all lying scum, and should be impeached and frog-marched before an international tribunal for "Crimes against Humanity". The GOP has trashed the American dream; and until the people of this great country wake up to reality they will continue to do so.

I have one comment about Mr. Baumgartner's interesting comments: we need to believe the evidence of our eyes and our reason and accept that the Bush administration does not WANT iraq to become stable and peaceful. When you see that all of the actions taken in Iraq are logical if you assume that civil war or continued unrest are the goal, and illogical otherwise, its time to face facts. These guys don't want peace.

There is one reason and the only one reason why Bush II invaded Iraq: Israel.

Sure, I will be called anti-semi and names like that but the hidden and silent reason as to why we decided to invade Iraq is there for all to see if you are willing to see through the smokes and fires and the burning bodies of our brave soldiers.

There is no democracy in Mid-East and the bush people know it but it is great marketing tool to get Americans to buy into the fradulent war.

You have to give Rove credit for hiring great PR firms to come up with mesmorizing imagineries, eloquent speeches, memorable quotes like "we fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight terrarists here". Just great.

I think General Scowcroft knew it but he could not talk about it except saying that Bush II was basically a sharon's little dog. No, Scowcroft did not exactly said that, my translation anyway.

Here is what Scowcroft said about Bush II :

"Brent Scowcroft, a mentor to the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, also said in an interview published in England that Bush is inordinately influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."

I think my translation is pretty close. Bush II is basically Sharon's little dog.

Thank you Steve for bringing this to your readers. It is interesting to see the difference between a thinking man of age and experience and the maybe not so thinking people with not so much experience and no respect for it of the Bush 43 administration.
I believe Thomas H. Baumgartner is adding an exellent aspect to this discussion.
ulla

"As I recall there were spats in 1956, 1967 & 1973"

Yes, but IIRC, the only Americans killed were the 34 sailors who died at the hands of the Israelis in '67.
For the U.S. it was relatively peaceful.

For the U.S. it was relatively peaceful.

Thanks to wars by proxy, such as the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

I think history will be kind to Scowcroft. Did not go to Baghdad. Didn't do anything stupid at the end of the Cold War (though there was that "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" speech by Nixon).

"Kierkegaard", perhaps you misunderstood "Repetition, An Essay in Experimental Psychology". It does not suggest repeating phrases like "In point of fact" several times to make it sound like you know what you are talking about.

"...Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."..."

"...Fifty years of peace in the Middle East? I'm sorry, but are we and Mister Scowcroft living on different planets?..."

Mr Rosten, great point and yes, we are on a different planet than Mr. Scowcroft. The "we" who have enjoyed 50 years of peace are the upper crust citizens of the good old USA, while those who have suffered and died in the Middle East, whether in Kuwait, Iraq, Palestine, Iarael or Khobar Towers are meaningless in their schemes, and therefore worthless.

Culture of life? You betcha, but whose life??

Gramma

Steve, you should check in with your Iranian friends and see what is on Iranian radio these days. I think you will find some very interesting things. I don't have anything too specific in mind, but I have an Iranian friend who updates me on his favorite shows, and it sounds fascinating. Lots of discussion of Iraq, of course, and he heard a show about Ledeen recently. But what really shocked me is that he said there are 2 or 3 shows on radio or TV which are produced in Iran which are virulently anti-Islam. They don't have any other religious viewpoint, but apparently they are long rants about how Islam is bullshit and has led the Iranian people astray. Sounds worth checking out.

Scowcroft speaks: "I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?"

Well,duh, you privatise it, turn it over to Haliburton et al.

Much truth to the motto: Dulce et decorum est pro Halliburton mori.

Not that it matters, because the overall tenor of the post is so lame and transparent, but "Kierkegaard"s assertion that Pat Buchanan, of all people, coined the term Neo-Conservative is flat-out false. It's hard to imagine how he could be more wrong, since "neo-conservative" was first brought into the political lexicon by the leftwing author and critic, Michael Harrington back in the '70s.

I remember with great patriotic pride, during the build-up to free Iraq, the President, and his men and women, telling the American People how Our Nation's destiny was to spread Democracy to the world starting with the overthrow of the evil dictator Saddam. And the People rallied around this noblest cause of giving the gift of Freedom and Democracy beginning with Iraq. God Bless America, and We Shall Prevail.

How could anyone think our government has War Criminals in its midst during this glorious struggle for worldwide democracy, and act as if they were deceived into an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war started under false pretenses. Democracy and Freedom are NOT false pretenses, they are true blue American ideals. Real Americans have no problem with sharing Democracy and Freedom with others. God Bless America!

And remember, Freedom is God's gift to humankind, and it is for US to be God's archangel upon this earth.

You can't argue against Freedom and Democracy for others NOW without being in the thrall of weak kneed appeasement. Everything changed after 9/11 and you are either with the People, who gave their blessing, during the run-up to the Iraq Liberation, to this new world crusade, or you are against Our People's fervent desire, and your Nation's calling. God Bless America!

Pray for Our Leaders in this tumultuos time.

That Bushian Warfare Cult that rules over Washington has criminally overextended the professional military to the breaking point and has gratuitously damaged our reputation overseas for at least a generation. If that is not treasonous behavior, I don't know what is.

HOW DID WE GET IN THIS MESS - U-ALL - ?

from the

( Re-Written) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE

by RogerART.com

First Published in Feb, 2001

.

To PROVE that MILLIONAIRES, in disproportionate numbers to the US Population,

have Monopolized and bought the Government…

Compare the numbers below.

Approximately 286 million people make up the American Population.

280 MILLION PEOPLE have LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

6 MILLION PEOPLE have MORE THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Yet in the bush family government most are MULTIMILLIONAIRES.

Comparing these numbers is proof and confirms that

Millionaires Overwhelm, WE the PEOPLE, in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of Government

And this is criminal.

BUSH is a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE and part of a MULTI-MILLION Dollar Family Political Business

CHENEY is a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE and OIL WAR PROFITEER with serious energy conflict of interests

MOST ALL of the bush CABINET and APPOINTEES are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES

6 of the 9 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are MILLIONAIRES

MORE THAN 100 people in the HOUSE and SENATE are MILLIONAIRES

The Numbers above Confirm that there is a Conspiracy in America Today.

Treason has Occurred

and

the FIX is in…

.

Continued at

http://www.RogerART.com

Thank U, RogerART.com

.
WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS
.

IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States

TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government

as it exists in the year…

2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06

.

Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution

and the Declaration of Independence.
.

And Now the People Step Forward

and Charge High Treason,

and Show that Democracy in its roots today,
.

Is Corrupt.
.

And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed

in Favor of…

A Small Group of Millionaires,
.

Over Another..
.

the Governed,
.

the People of the United States.
.

And that the Election Process is UN-fair

and has been Overwhelmed

and Monopolized

by Millionaires

and their millions of dollars

.

BU$H = TREASON … Continued at…

http://www.RogerART.com

SEE on left… LINK ( 2 ) to

( Re-Written ) Declaration of Independence

.
ALSO... SEE ALL ( these words in )

15 + PAINTINGS at…

http://www.rogerart.com/20_PATRIOT%20DEMOCRACY.htm .
.
.
Thank U, RogerART.com
.

Mr. Baumgartner's analysis is interesting and I happen to agree with a lot of what he says above.

There are few points I would like to add to his analysis (and other's) analysis along the oil control theory.

How is it that controlling these resources improve the security of the US if we do not make efforts to improve the efficient use of this resource? Basically, if it is true that we are seeking to control significant portions of the world's oil resources, while at the same time *not* working hard on increasing efficiency, isn't the US then defacto ceding the lead in the efficient use of oil energy to other nations, nations who have a huge economic incentive to improve oil efficiency or oil independent energy technologies?

Note that I do believe that some folks in the administration and certainly a not insignificant portion of the American people somehow continue to believe that what is going on in Iraq will somehow benefit the Iraqi people and make some positive impact on the Middle East. Some of them even believe that we are somehow fighting terrorists there and an even smaller percentage even think that this may actually come about or succeed. Sadly, they are sending their sons and daughters to die for a policy that they do not fully grasp, nor do they fully appreciate the consequences of, giving the incompetence and greed behind what is obviously a grab for Iraq's oil fields.

Sadly, angrily, I believe that our country is completely on the wrong track in its official economic and foreign policy. The debate in both those policy arenas has been tainted by the Bush cronyists. They have corrupted any clear, rational policy in both areas for personal gain via one-upsmanshipping macho yahooism. I'm sick of it and I hope they end up in front of war crimes tribunals...or, short of that, that they end up in the US Federal prison system, where a small microcosm of the injustices that they have visited on the rest of the world may be visited upon them. That having been said, I will still continue to support improving conditions in the US Federal Prison System.

--Parrot

Baumgartner's got it spot on. Thanks for the nice read. Dumbya and the neo con artists aren't the least bit concerned with promoting democracy. Give me a break, they do everything possible to avoid counting votes here, for God's sake. Dumbya is threatening his first veto over the Geneva conventions, you think he cares about human rights? If you think this guy is interested in democracy, I've got some property in New Orleans for you.

"Democracy" is simply an after-thought winner of the "Justify the War Contest," after the failure to find WMDs, and the failure to link Bin Laden.

Conquest of the oil reserves is consistent with historical fighting over limited resources, nobody should be surprised about that. What's surprising is the level of in-your-face hypocracy of these chickenhawks. The ineptitude is no surprise, but I expected them to be a little more discrete about stealing. They have no shame.

I guess some people like to be lied to, as long is it isn't about sex.

Scowcroft's 50 year's of peace in the middle east obviously referred to America's peace - a time without warfare and loss of American soldiers in battle.

Blasingame: Great parody! I mean, damn, that's almost how those patriotnuts think.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of oppenents to bringing Democracy to Iraq are in fact just finding an alternative route to express their inherent anti-Semitism through criticism of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which yes, Israel, and it’s proud supporters in America, do enthusiastically support. One can see a similar pogrom starting with the Bush Administrations brave attempts to affect regime change in Syria, where a neo-nazi government is continuing to threaten the Jewish homeland. Others bash the Jooos by calling for the West Bank and the Golan Heights to be “returned” to the Arabs. It amazes me that in the year 2005 that so much anti-Semitism can still be spouted in public without the slightest condemnation.

witz, in your mind -

Criticism of Israel = nazism
Criticism of Bush = anti-Americanism
Critisism of Blair = Anglophobia

You types are all the same. You can't think and you can't rationalize a coherent argument. You should keep quiet unless you want to encourage more anti-semitism.

For your information, the neocons are first and formost Trotskyists, Jewish or otherwise.

I am sorry but Scowcroft is a known Jew-hater. It would be the same thing if Fox News got David Duke to discuss Black behavior after Hurricaine Katrina as it is to get Adolf Scowcroft to discuss the Middle East. Teh Bush Administration is the first in US history to finally rid itself of anti-Semitism (too bad it is unable to rid the rest of the country of it) and place Israeli interests where they belong - first.

Saddam attacked Israel in 1991 with Scuds. He deserved to be overthrown. Syria is supporting Hezbollah, now America should further atone for its anti-Semitism and overthrow the evil Assad.

Given that at least some of the rationale for the Iraq War was the looming shortage of oil, what alternatives would anyone propose? What should America be doing about the decreasing oil supply in the world?

This article is crap. Scowcroft is just another one of these guys who sits around and intellectualizes the life and death of others. So what if he broke ranks with the Bush crime family. All this gibberish. Bush and Cheney are war criminals.

How about not being their friends or breaking ranks because they are responsible for thousands of deaths. They sent our soldiers to a war on lies and distortions. Unless this is a dictatorship these guys have got to go now.

I am sick of hearing old white men talk about how they want to run the world their way. It's all a pack of lies so they can control everything.

Well I for one would like to salute President Bush
Mr. President, I salute you sir,
http://www.voy.com/96883/748.html

It is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of oppenents to bringing Democracy to Iraq

That was a bait-and-switch move by the Administration to mask over the lack of WMD and lack of collaboration with Al-Queda.

Remember:

"But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

-Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Unfortunately (for me/us) the New Yorker article is *not* available online. However, there's another great/depressing Bush QandA

It amazes me that a man as brilliant as Scowcroft could still be so naive. " He {Saddam} wasn't really a threat. His army was weak and the country hadn't recovered from sanctions", so we didn't need to attack Iraq. iraq's weakness was one of the reasons it was such an appealing target to the neocons and our war-time president wannabe. Noam Chomsky, a more clear-headed, honest analyst outlined three criteria for US use of force under this administration.
1. the country we invade should have a valuable exploitable resource.
2. the existing government/leader should be easy to demonize.
3. THE COUNTRY SHOULD POSE NO REAL THREAT
Additionally, consider the difference in policy with regard to Iraq ,suspectd to possess WMD, so we invade, and North Korea, known to be developing nukes, and to possess a formidable ground force, with whom we choose to "engage".

MICHAEL ROSTON--Scowcroft is taking a narrow view of peace. For 50 years the US was not so directly, bloodily enaged in the Middle East as we are now in Iraq. I agree his narrow view is reprehensible. It reflects a US-centrism not wholly different from the neocons.

texy

witz

You want a wider war in the middle east - then go and fight it yourself.

The rest of the world would be 100% happy to sit back and watch Israel annihilate itself in a blaze of paranoia of it's own creation.

Spying on, manipulating and assasinating members of foreign governments that oppose Israeli expansion is hardly a way to improve their publi image with the rest of the world (not that they really care about that ofcourse).

Getting rid of Assad will only make matters worse for Israel. You will get a muslim brotherhood run regime and permanent war in the region - which is exactly what Cheney and company want.

Anti-semitism is, in this case as it always is, a red herring for the credulous masses to waste their time in useless name calling while the real criminals get away with sack fulls of money.

If you think the Bush regime is not anti-semitic, you clearly don't know much about the right-wing christian fundamentalist movement and it's lunatic vision for armageddon and rapture. This is presaged on the necessary destruction of Israel and the conversion of all jews to Christianty.

Hats off to Thomas Baumgartner and his opinions on why we are in the Middle East (see his post near the top.) Without a doubt, he has hit the nail squarely on the head and has expressed himself very well.

Anyone who has studied the actions of this administration from the beginning, full well knows that the Bush administration promotes decisions that benefit the wealthy elite. To hell with the common citizen! Bush sends your sons and daughters to die in Iraq, not the wealthy elite. Bush and Cheney have big stakes in the wealthy defense industry, so when your sons and daughters are dying in Bush's war, he and Cheney are making a hat full. He lowers the wealthy elite's taxes. He does nothing to stop health insurers from gouging the middle class and eliminating the poor. Wealthy big oil is having a field day with gasoline prices at the average American's expense. Energy costs are about to follow the same course. Bush has gutted American labor unions who were once able to fight plotting administrations. Bush is borrowing $$$ from other countries to keep HIS war in motion and the out of control banks and credit card industry will own us and our souls before its all over.

Read Baumgartners post again and mix it with the knowledge that Americans are just now awakening to Bush's inept managment of this country and the picture becomes very apathetic. The country may never recover from the assults manufactured by this marauding administration. And to think that he has 3 years left to do more damage is frustrating because we know not what to expect next.

Who will be next in line for the presidency, a presidency that will have to concentrate all of its energies in just trying to undo the damage? Most republican voters wear blinders when it comes to Bush and some democrats lean toward staying the course in Iraq. The saddest part of the whole picture are the American voters. Many haven't a clue. Then we have the diehard republicans who vote Party rather than qualified candidate. We have witnessed the result of voting Party when that ideology gave us an unqualified GW Bush. It is the Americans who have to wake up before they enter the voting booths next time. This is your country. It does not belong to the Bushes, Cheneys, Roves, Wolfowitzes and the likes.

You have to admit that, right now, this country no longer resembles the USA in which you were raised and only YOU have the power to change that!

the fact that the neocons who aided saddams evil regime are in charge of the white house and not sitting next to saddam on trial is a slap in the face to republicans who clamor to "rule of law"...al franken is right they have committed treason against this nation and should be dealt with accordingly....

witz: Good parody! I mean, shazham, that's almost how those Likudniks think.

It amazes me how people continue to question the motive behind the Iraq war two years after the fact. It should be obvious by now to the most dense and myopic person that it's not about democracy or about oil. Need I remind people the last war with Iraq in the early 90's we reinstalled the Emir and all the talk of democracy then has been proven to be just that, all talk. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest it's about oil if anyone knows anything about simple cost benefit analysis. Why in heaven's sake would anyone throw 300 billion dollars ( and rising and the loss of life) on a war for oil when that amount alone could buy us all the oil we can hope to pump out of Iraq for the next 30 years and more. The only reason we are in Iraq today is because of Israel--undoubtedly, unquestionably and unequivocaly--this is self-evident. The "A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" written bu Richard Perle and other neocons to then Prime Minister Netanyahu spells out in detail the removal of Saddam as a prequisite for this "clean break". It's no secret this cabal has been advocating for regime change for over a decade. The "mainstream media", which is pro-Israel, went along with the deception. I suppose they take the view what's good for Israel is good for America as well. The politicans, most are in the pocket of AIPAC and many more fearfull to cross them, also allowed the war train to move without much as a whimper. Those who dared to tell the truth on the war, like Congressman Moran or Senator Hollings, were immediately met with a smear campaign that labeled them as "anti-semites".

The question of how is slowly coming to light as investigations are breaking out and indictments are coming fast and furious. We had AIPAC executives indicted, a Pentagon analyst spy for Israel indicted and pleaded guilty and soon, God willing, indictments against Bush officials like Irvin Libby and Karl Rove are forthcoming. And lastly, Judith Miller affair gives us insight on the role of the media during the run-up to war.

It's not a pretty picture and a purge is needed and let's hope the checks and balances put in place work as intended. So far, I have to say they are working, albeit slowly, the prosectution of individuals, like those in AIPAC, that Israeli spy in the Pentagon, Miller was actually in jail( granted not long enough) and Fitzgeral investigation gives us hope those war criminals in Washington will be rounded up.

Peak Oil is a hoax created by the oil industry to justify their stratospheric profits and mask the deliberate disinvestment in refining capacity and resultant price gauging. But, the credulous masses suck it up as always.

What we are in fact witnessing is the disintegration of the post 1971 floating exchange rate monetary system in a hyperinflationary explosion of derivatives speculation.

The US government knows this and are engaging in a geopolitical race to replace their paper empire and subject nation state system with a physiocratic Anglo-American empire.

The mistake people make is that this is NOT and never was a war with any particular strategic purpose, or defined mission for victory, other than the destruction of the potential for peace that such a crisis presents to the people of the world.

As such, it is a permanent, imperial mode of warfare that will plunge this planet into hell if not stopped, and that soon.

owl said (above):

" 'The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required," Scowcroft said. '

Wrong. Democracy is the last thing on the neocon agenda. They would be horrified at the prospect of a living, breathing democracy in Iraq or anywhere else. You don't see the neocons cheering on the grassroots democratic movement in Bolivia or Venezuela.

What they want is compliant goverments in energy-rich third world nations that will do the bidding of corporate America."

'nuff said.

Mr. Baumgartner,

"In July 2003, the public interest group Judicial Watch finally secured some of the documents from Cheney's energy task force meetings. They contain the smoking gun: "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects" and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated March 2001, two years before Bush invaded Iraq."

It's been so long since I read that information I thought perhaps I had imagined it. Thanks for posting it for others to see now.

As for the Scowcroft piece, although not one of my favorite people, I am glad he spoke out. The reaction of the entire "43" cabal illustrates why books such as Bernard Lewis's Multiple Identities of the Middle East should be required reading for ALL government officials. These people have had no idea what they've been playing at for the last five years, and we will be generations repairing the damage.

Statements from administration officials lead me to believe that there were multiple reasons for invading Iraq. Some of these reasons weighed more heavily with some in the administration than others. Oil, GWOT, WMD, Democracy in the ME, Israel were all reasons some people had for supporting Bush going in. Coupled with the intense hatred that Mr Bush has for Saddam, the case for war in Iraq was a "slam dunk". Given the intense hatred that Bush (a man who acts on emotions and gut feelings) had for Saddam, a complicated conspiracy theory is not necessary. Those interested in war in Iraq for their own reasons eagerly jumped on the Bush bandwagon.

The hasty way we went to war and the lack of planning for post-war Iraq leads me to conclude that at the highest levels, the administration was driven by a zeal to topple Saddam. Everything else has been an afterthought. "Mission accomplished" was toppling Saddam. Leaving a "stable" Iraq is unforseen consequences.

The main reason we went to war in Iraq was that Bush wanted to topple Saddam. The reason why we are still in Iraq is failure to plan or foresee the post-war.

Way to go Brent!

Blaumgartner was spot on. I'd only add that it doesn't matter about how the Iraqi oil reserves will be squandered away anyhow, as the main objective is that the people most important to Bush and Cheney, the big oil guys, will be raking in the liquid gold.

Someone else asked, if it's Peak Oil time, what alternatives are there besides seizing oil assets? There are plenty of alternatives, including developing other sources of fuel, cutting down consumption, etc. which will delay the coming of the Peak. The Peak is a function of Supply and Demand, when Supply tapers but Demand tapers at a faster rate, the Peak is put off.

However, Bush will NEVER consider options to diminish Demand, even if it were in the nation's interest, because it is NOT in HIS FAMILY's interest, or the big oil guys' interest. The point is to keep oil prices high, and then to sell as much as you can of seized oil assets at these prices, because one day, when alternative fuel becomes the dominant energy supply and a new non-oil infrastructure is in place, as inevitable as fibre optic replacing old copper wires, oil will be worthless.

If you were the owner of the world's major copper mines, wouldn't you put off the age of fibre optic for as long as you can, while you create crises which drive up the price of copper and enable you to seize more copper supplies?

1. Leave Iraq NOW.
2. Do not leave 14 major bases, a Hadian's Wall to be manned forever.
3. Jail Bush and his idiots asap - not just impeach, jail for treason, felonies and high crimes. Burn his father's library. Scorched earth, leave no trace, sow salt and plow.
4. Know that the Repubs have put us so deep in debt and out of touch with diplomacy, it will take 20 years to recover, if ever, let alone fund anything we need - or allies we might have.
5. Cut the Defense budget in half and call it the War Budget for the War Department.
6. Stop the dumb tax cuts and do a "clawback" on the rich and corporate bastards.
7. Go to universal, singlepayer healthcare, including eye, dental, etc., NOW.
8. Go to national corporate chartering and put in a sunset clause of 5 years, after which the corporations are judged by a jury of 12 citizens chosen at large from the country.

Those steps might get us back to 1975 in about 10 years. Everyone is so focused on Bush, they dont realize the damage he has done. It will take another 10 years to root out the vile bastards he seeded the government with.

Clearly, the Bush administration had other reasons for invading Iraq than weapons of mass destruction, nuclear bombs, or bringing democracy to the Middle East. Many posters here posit very credible and, I think, quite correct motives. However, I do agree also with Frank Rich's recent NYT column that reaches a much more mundane, and sadly, depressing reason for the "why" of the Iraq war.

Simply put, Rich says the "why" of the Iraq war was merely political, to win the next election, and the next one, and the next one, and on and on. Remember, Rove's dream is to install a permanent Republican majority at all levels of government. That's the legacy he craves.

I find a wonderful irony here. Rove's miscalculation on the Plame/Wilson smear campaign could result in the destruction of the Republican party's rule for years or even decades. Yes, indictments would be sweet, but everything Karl Rove has worked for his entire career going down the drain, now that's what I call a victory.

Who cares what Scowcroft has to say. How will anything he says change anything. People who like Bush can't be changed and the people who hate his stupid ass won't change either. If your tired of Bush and his millionaire idiot pals you only have Americans to blame. America voted for the jerk because the majority of americans are morons. I don't blame Bush, I blame America.

Fascinating! I look forward to reading the entire article.

The Missing P Project--steal the P, declare the Resident

www.geocities.com/themissingPproject

I'm hoping a 30-km asteroid will collide with the Earth and put all this squabbling in its proper perspective.

ANY thoughts of instilling a Democracy in a country that does Not want a Democracy were absolutely absurd. The final draft of the Constitution was anything but a Democracy. When will the US realize other countries find their own Republics more paletable to their ideals than ours. Of course , as someone pointed out, the idea of establishing a Democacry was a last ditch effort after being caught as liars on WMDs, 9/11 link, AlQaeda link, etc. Bush is Still trying to conect 9/11 and Iraq Invasion! As Rice put it the other day, "or we could look at the bigger picture of terrorism and go to Iraq also". THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS in Iraq !

ryan's 8:37 post references the Right wing Christian fundamentalist move. I read an article a few weeks ago, which said that Israel is trying to get the US Christian Taliban to move a branch there, into Israel !

Unfortunetly other than an embarassment to this administration, this revelation by Scowcroft will have no effect. When can we get someone from the inner circle of the WH to step forward and tell the truth?

Reading commentary on blogs is always a fascinating journey into trying to differentiate fact from fiction. Then I saw this beaut from Ryan: "Peak Oil is a hoax created by the oil industry to justify their stratospheric profits and mask the deliberate disinvestment in refining capacity and resultant price gauging. But, the credulous masses suck it up as always."

Yes, how stupid of us all to doubt that oil will just keep spewing from the ground forever and ever! I mean, if we just keep coming up with more money, God will just keep putting more oil in the ground, right? Clearly anyone who promotes such nonsense as "peak oil production" must be in league with the oil industry, as you can tell from any liberal rag in the country.

Now, about those "global warming" fanatics...

Anybody care to rebut this comment by Joe Marsh?

"It's beyond ridiculous to suggest it's about oil if anyone knows anything about simple cost benefit analysis. Why in heaven's sake would anyone throw 300 billion dollars ( and rising and the loss of life) on a war for oil when that amount alone could buy us all the oil we can hope to pump out of Iraq for the next 30 years and more."

"50 years of peace?" America as a shining city on a hill, the beacon of hope to the world? Our "reputation"? PUH-leez!

Tell it to the Indians.

Onawld-
Certainly. You have to look carefully at where those 300 billion dollars *go*. If you simply pay for the oil without invading, it goes into the hands of the companies/government that currently owns the oil. If you do what 43 did, 300 billion goes not to the inhabitants of Iraq, but to American companies such as Halliburton, for the conduct of the war and any 'reconstruction' thereafter. It could be viewed as a strict piggy bank raid on the backs of American servicemen and women.

I'm not saying I believe that, really, because I'm not sure he's that venal (I still lean towards stupidity over venality) but who knows.

While making no claim to be any kind of authority on Scowcroft's thoughts or conclusions, six year's research into another matter, the Lockerbie bombing and Libya's alleged role in it, confirm much of what he and Thomas Baumgartner say regarding American foreign policy and actions in the Middle East. Among the events we unearthed in our research are the following.

Extracts from the book "Our Dangerous Friend" by Peter Biddulph and Dr Jim Swire. This material is copyright and may be used only with the permission of the authors. (www.lockerbietruth.com)

OIL IS FINITE, AND SOON. On August 18th 2004, John Wood, Garry Long and David Morehouse published a report said by some to be fairly conservative.(Long term World Oil Supplies, www.EIA.doe.gov). They calculated a best-case scenario of oil peaking in 2067, tailing off rapidly by 2090 to a level equal to that produced in 1955. Their worst-case picture shows a peaking-out in 2026, and down to 1955 levels by the year 2040. A previously produced report by King and Hubbert of the US Government Survey, in July 2000 presented a slightly more favourable picture, but not significantly so.

THE 1971 WAR OF YOM KIPPUR, begun by a treacherous invasion of Israel by certain Arab nations, was ended relatively quickly, but its effects continued to reverberate for several years. Immediately following a successful Israeli campaign and victory, the Arab world, angry at support given by the Americans to Israel during the war, decided to continue its campaign in the form of a rapid rise in the price of crude oil. At that time, the Alaskan and (British) North Sea fields were still in the early stages of exploitation. The five Middle Eastern members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had managed to corner approximately thirty six percent of the total world market, and felt able to exert what they considered a long overdue resistance to American imperial arrogance. A selective embargo against the friends of Israel was therefore imposed. That list, in Arab eyes, included a partially guilty United Kingdom. Against the Americans, however, the Arabs were imposing a total embargo.

In a conversation between Lord Cromer, British Ambassador in Washington, and US Defence Secretary James Schlesinger, Schlesinger had let slip the thought that the use of force to resolve the "blackmail" by the Arab nations was an option. The Americans believed that Arabs should be compelled under some mythical eternal law to supply oil to America. America, on the other hand, believed not only that it could trade with whomsoever it liked, it had a divine right to impose sanctions, even blockades upon other nations, if it believed them necessary to achieve American policy.

British Foreign Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home asked the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) to undertake an investigation of American intentions. The findings proved terrifying. At that time, only seventeen percent of United States oil imports came from those Arab nations who were imposing the embargo. The cessation of such supplies would not be catastrophic to the U.S. economy, since oil was available from other sources, albeit at a higher price. Pentagon and State Department planners had, however, an agenda far more long term and comprehensive than the rest of the world might at that time understand. Strategic analysts indicated to the U.S. State Department a necessity to preserve America's energy supplies for several decades ahead, while, in the short term, avoiding a global recession that might adversely affect America's interests. We may here observe what would become a recurring theme of U.S. policy in the Middle East and Caspian Sea zones, namely the protection of America's long term energy supplies. Thus, whatever the campaign, the word "oil" inevitably emerges.

The US plan in 1973 was to execute an airborne assault on strategic targets, including the tiny defenceless principality of Kuwait, the Saudi oilfields in Dhahran and the oil-rich emirate of Abu Dhabi. All three assaults would be simultaneous to prevent damage to oil fields and discourage a counter-offensive, not least from Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq from 1963. A key element was the replacement of the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi with "amenable men", and the employment of Iran, at that time still under the control of the "amenable" Shah, in staging an invasion of the zone by proxy. Meanwhile the Pentagon would ask Britain to stage its own mini-invasion using military liaison teams in Saudi Arabia to sabotage any counter-offensive, and send troops to seize airstrips and oil fields in Abu Dhabi and, just possibly, Qatar and Bahrain. The British government, even at that stage, gave no sign of awareness of the role that the White House had already determined for its closest ally.

With uncanny prescience the JIC noted in 1973 what would prove in coming decades to be familiar themes in U.S. State Department thinking: "This might be executed without any prior consultation of allies. The objects would presumably be to teach the Arabs a lesson, to assure by physical control an adequate supplementary supply of oil for US domestic needs, with good quantity [left] over for the needs of selected friends... The rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi [would be replaced] with more amenable men, and... military support [would be provided] so that they could defend themselves from attack by more extreme Arab States." Note the unconscious use by the Joint Intelligence Committee of the word "extreme". For any nation to oppose American interests is "extreme". In contrast, an illegal invasion by America of other nations, some defenceless, is described in U.S. and western press releases as "moderate". (United Kingdom National Archive release of Secret Cabinet Papers. January 1st 2004. The 1973 Oil Embargo by certain Arab nations.)

President George Bush Sr. would, seventeen years later, confirm the hypocrisy of his nation in his National Security Directive of January 15th 1991, in which he instructed his forces to mount a military campaign to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, following the 1990 invasion. In his first sweeping line, the President displayed America's reason for operation Desert Storm: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and security of friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security." Consistent with previous directives, and as a matter of long standing policy, the United States remained committed to defending its vital interests in the region, "if necessary through the use of military force, against any power with interests inimical to our own."

KISSINGER AND SADDAM THE PLAYER. On 28th April 1975, a meeting of some 23 US Secretaries and advisers was held under the chairmanship of Henry Kissinger. He, throughout his Vietnam campaign, had regarded millions of South Vietnamese peasants as mere insects on his own special map. He had frequently agreed with his President that a few hundred thousand deaths in any particular war were but inevitable steps on the world's journey to a flowering of Freedom and Democracy. After making a highly amusing joke about the dying citizens of Tansonnhut, a town in Vietnam, Kissinger moved the agenda to the Middle East and the role that Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran were playing in relation to the Kurds. (Secret meeting, Monday 28th April 1975, Chairman Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State. Verbatim transcript)

Roy Atherton, Kissinger's adviser on the Middle East, suggested that what Iraq had been up to lately was "rather phenomenal." The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, was due in Tehran the following day for a meeting with a man installed with the assistance of the CIA some years before, the Shah of Iran. Not only was Saddam attempting to repair bridges with the Shah, he had also been patching things up with another country in which American interests ran deep, Saudi Arabia. There had been an offer to Kuwait, a positive approach to the Egyptians and the Jordanians, and suddenly, Iraq was projecting the image of a country that wanted to play "... a very dynamic and accurate role in the Arab World."

One thing worried Atherton: Saddam remained dedicated to the overthrow of his Syrian rival President Asad. There was some risk that Saddam had bitten off more than he could chew, but nevertheless, he would be a useful ally in America's wish to see a more radical state established in Syria, one that would be dangerous to its neighbours. Israel could then justify to the world an increase in its own "defensive" posture, and surrounding Arab states might thus be more willing to co-operate with American intentions.

"ATHERTON: Now, whether some of these other relationships will tend to inhibit efforts against Asad - that's the one hopeful aspect of it - but I think it also does have risks from the point of view of Syria.
SECRETARY KISSINGER: When is he going to be in Tehran [to meet the Shah]?
ATHERTON: He's going tomorrow. The Shah is going to Saudi Arabia today. He's been busy. Daoud from Afghanistan was in Tehran over the weekend. [Saddam] Hussein goes to Tehran tomorrow.
KISSINGER: For a day or what?
ATHERTON: I think it's two days. [Saddam] Hussein is a rather remarkable person. We have to look more closely into his background. He's thirty eight years old and he holds no government position. He's the Vice President of the Command Council, but he is running the show; and he's a very ruthless and - very recently, obviously - pragmatic, intelligent power. I think we're going to see Iraq playing more of a role in the area than it has for years.
KISSINGER: That was to be expected anyway when they cleared --
ATHERTON: Yes. Once the agreement was made on the --
KISSINGER: Kurdish thing.
ATHERTON: -- Kurdish thing. And of course, they've gotten organized --
KISSINGER: As long as they're playing, Syria may be cautious with Israel.
ATHERTON: I think that's possible. The Iraqi bloc has got a lot of sympathizers in Syria who are waiting to get a chance to get at Asad.
KISSINGER: That's clear... After Asad gets overthrown and the more radical regime comes in at Damascus, that will produce reverberations in Jerusalem. Then I think they'll co-operate."

Between 1960 and 1975, the Iraqi government had carried out an extended campaign of "Arabisation" of the Kurdish areas, which included armed warfare, destruction of villages and deportation of Kurds, moving of Arabs into Kurdish areas, and other methods designed to weaken and demoralize the Kurds. In 1974 the Kurdish resistance asked for and received arms and other help from Iran. The resistance escalated, but was crushed in April 1975, when the Shah abruptly withdrew his support of the Kurds in return for a favorable redrawing of the southern border between Iran and Iraq along the waterway to the Persian Gulf. Such was the truth of the "Kurdish thing" so easily dismissed by Kissinger and his twenty three officials.

The reference to the Shah was highly significant. Just days prior to the Kissinger-chaired meeting, the "amenable" Shah and the ruthless, pragmatic and intelligent Saddam Hussein had been in Tehran together, negotiating the fate of the Kurdish insurrection. The two were trading bodies for borders. As Hussein grew from being a useful child to one of being the challenging adult, America and Britain would frequently seek support from a sceptical public and media with lurid descriptions of what the evil dictator had done, and was still doing, to the refugee nation of Kurds. The truth was that the Kurds, all along, had been but one of many pawns in America's game. To a succession of American Secretaries of State, things were OK with Saddam, just so long as Iraq was "still playing".

LIBYA AND ITS OIL. As U.S. foreign policy crystallised across the middle east, a convenient bogey man showed his claws. Tyrants existed around the world, yet Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his tiny nation of Libya, a ragged nation half a planet away, was a deadly threat that must be attacked, and the tyrannical regime replaced by a more amenable leader.

With the benefit of information that emerged from U.S. Geological surveys reported and confirmed in 1994, and from those White House emails that still survive, it is now clear what American concern for Liberty and Democracy in Libya was all about; that is, access to oil extraction, and processing. A secret email circulating in 1986 within the Pentagon's Libyan planning group revealed that whatever might happen, American oil companies had to emerge from the long-planned 1986 operation "Prairie Fire" attack on Gaddafi's bunker with the capacity to resume production:

" [13th Jan 1986] 19:42:19. To: DONALD FORTIER. NOTE FROM: BOB PEARSON
SUBJECT: DISPOSAL OF ASSETS OF US OIL FIRMS IN LIBYA. The horse seems out of the barn already. Rod McDaniel found out from treasury that they have already told at least two of the four major oil companies in Libya that our preferred way for them to dispose of their assets their would be for them to turn them over to their european subsidiaries. If the goal of our sanctions was to cause dislocation in the Libyan oil economy, this certainly won't do the trick.
Is it morally and politically defensible to advise the companies instead to disable their assets in some key ways so that the Libyans can't just come in and use them effectively? Melodramatic military analogy would be a scorched earth policy. In this high tech instance, maybe the companies could through [throw] a few spanners in the works, write off the assets as a response to force majeur conditions caused [by] the E.O., and then fix things up again if and when they return to a post-Qadhafi Libya."

Iran is a very big country. Former member of the American National Security Council, Howard Teicher, was in 1993 interviewed for a documentary film The Maltese Double Cross. The film was banned in the United States, and some one hundred and fifty copies of the video, posted to bereaved American relatives of the Lockerbie bombing, were intercepted by the FBI and never allowed to reach their destination. In spite of a vicious campaign of character assassination against the producers of the film by the British authorities, the film achieved a restricted showing in the United Kingdom.

Teicher admitted, "Vince [Cannistraro - CIA] was quite aware of what was going on in Syria, was quite aware of the Iranian dimension and the Iraqi dimension, and their role in state sponsored terrorism. What emerged in US policy was the tendency to be able to most directly deal with Libya. Because of Libya's geographic proximity to Europe and the United States, as opposed to Iraq, Iran or Syria were much more difficult to deal with (than) the other countries." In a separate section of his interview, Teicher added: "The Iraqis had been taken off the list of states which sponsor terrorism, at the direction of CIA director Casey, in early 1982, in order to facilitate the US tilt towards Iran. The Iranians, because of their geographical proximity, while thoroughly an acknowledged sponsor of terrorism, were also hard for the United States to reach."

Pierre Salinger, former press secretary to President John Kennedy and in 1992 Chief Foreign Correspondent of ABC, had also talked of America's foreign policy and the Iran factor: "I think that what they wanted to do after the Gulf War was to renew and make better partnership with allies in the Gulf War, particularly Iran and Syria. They had very basic information about their participation in Pan Am 103, they decided to move it away from them, and put it on the back of Colonel Gaddafi."

IRAN AS THE BUFFER AGAINST SOVIET INTENTIONS. On June 17th 1985, United States National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane prepared a top secret analysis of U.S. policy towards Iran. (U.S. Policy Toward Iran, memorandum prepared by Robert McFarlane for Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of State for Defense, Casper Weinberger, June 17th 1985, partially declassified 22nd June 1987.) His memorandum was to serve as a statement of policy options towards Iran over the coming decade.

McFarlane noted that the Director of the CIA had just distributed a top secret document Iran: Prospects for Near-Term Instability. That document made clear that, by the middle of 1985, "instability in Iran is accelerating, with potentially momentous consequences for U.S. strategic interests. It seems sensible to ask whether our current policy towards Iran is adequate to achieve our interests." McFarlane tried to estimate the effect of the likely death of the Ayatollah Khomeini some time within the next few years, and the opportunity it would offer to the Soviet Union to increase its influence within Iran. "While we pursue a number of broad, long-term goals, our primary short-term challenge must be to block Moscow's efforts to increase Soviet influence now and after the death of Khomeini." America must, he added, improve her ability to protect American interests during the struggle for succession.
America would try to achieve this through several options: firstly, to "prevent the disintegration of Iran and use it as an independent strategic buffer which separates the Soviet Union from the Persian Gulf."; second, "to limit the scope and opportunity for Soviet actions in Iran, while positioning ourselves to cope with the changing Iranian internal situation."; third, by "maintaining access to Persian Gulf oil and ensuring unimpeded transit of the Strait of Hormuz."

We may interpret from these that America's key interests were, and still are, simply defined. The first of those interests was the preservation of Caspian sea oil supplies, to be transported across Iran, through Iraq, and on to Al Aqaba, a Jordanian oil terminal on the shores of the Red Sea. That oil transportation had already been facilitated following a 1984 meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld had been carefully briefed by Secretary of State Shultz to advise Iraq on the best way to obtain financial backing for the Al-Aqaba pipeline from the U.S export-import bank EXIM. The funding and construction, would take place between 1985 and 1990. During all those years, Saddam Hussein would slaughter thousands of his own people and - with the help of CIA supplied NASA target co-ordinates - up to a million Iranians. He would use, among other things, chemical weapons created from pre-cursors and insecticides supplied by American companies, all with the full knowledge and encouragement of President Ronald Reagan and his various secretaries of state.

McFarlane continued to explain that the second U.S. interest was continued assured access through the Straits of Hormuz, for oil tankers travelling to and from Southern Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia's main oil outlet of Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. He then moved to broader objectives. The first of these was to assist Iran towards her "resumption of a moderate and constructive role as a member respectively of the non-communist political community of its region, and of the world petroleum economy." The second, in order of priority, was to ensure "continued Iranian resistance to the expansion of Soviet power in general, and to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in particular." Also listed was that other recurring theme of American foreign policy, oil supply, via "Iranian moderation on OPEC pricing policy."

The CIA meanwhile, were preparing their own report, to be published in the autumn of 1989, which included a national intelligence estimate that, despite their military withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Soviets would be expected to continue providing "massive aid" to their client regime, Afghanistan. The Afghan government would therefore be able to strongly resist the Mujahedin, and thus would remain a threat to Iran and American interests in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Events were expected to continue on their confusing and dangerous path for several years, perhaps as far ahead as 1995.

While all this was going on, Charles Wilson, Democratic Congressional representative for Texas, was a man devoted to the cause of destroying Russian ambitions in Afghanistan. To eject Russian troops from the prospectively oil-rich regions of Afghanistan and Uzbekistan was a major component of the energy-future strategy of recurring presidents. Thus, money was needed, and Charles Wilson and Vincent Cannistraro - at that time working alongside Howard Teicher for the NSC - would find a way. The result of their activities and contributions was to be an unsuccessful attempt to develop a tank destroyer called The Buffalo Gun.

In a secret email, declassified in 1995, Cannistraro explained: "I went to see Charlie Wilson at his request. He [Charlie] wanted to discuss his efforts to insert money into the defense budget for weapons development, specifically for use of freedoms fighters such as the Mujahedin. Wilson had just been briefed by the CIA which ....[three lines deleted for security reasons]. Wilson asked me to tell you that the program would need $300 million again in September as a Department of Defense re-programming."

A later example of American attitudes to Libya occurred on 13th March 2003, when the United States Oil and Gas Journal published an article stating that, "U.S. companies see new opportunities in Libya pending the imminent settlement." Two days previously, reporters from Reuters had observed, "U.S. oil companies could be one step closer to restarting their long moth-balled operations in Libya after the energy-rich nation reportedly reached an agreement with Washington and London on Tuesday to accept responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103".

The reader will here recall the start point of that exercise of moth-balling, contained in an already quoted secret email from Robert Pearson to Donald Fortier, in the lead up to the 1986 Gulf of Sidra attacks on Libya. Had Libya, all along, been just one piece on that chess board of the Middle East so beloved of Henry Kissinger?

LIBYA COMES IN FROM THE COLD. For several months during the spring of 2003, rumours abounded of a choreographed return by Libya to international respectability. It had become apparent even within the cloistered atmosphere of Colonel Gaddafi's bunker that without an admission of guilt composed in words that the United Nations, Britain and America wished to hear, sanctions would continue indefinitely. The cost to Libya over the years had amounted to many billions of dollars, with rumours of insurrection and internal resistance to Gaddafi's continued rule. A dramatic change of policy was required.
The Libyan economy, even though serving a population of little over five million, remained complex. Oil exploration in Libya began in 1955 with the first oil fields discovered in 1959 at Amal and Zelten. By 2003, oil production was estimated at almost one point five million barrels per day. Almost all of Libya's exported oil was sold to European countries such as Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece. In 2003, also, recent oil export revenues had increased due to rises of oil prices world-wide. Libya found itself suddenly in surplus.

Nevertheless, the economy was running on a knife-edge. In spite of those huge exports per head of population, there remained widespread poverty. Unemployment was high and growing, the population increasing rapidly, and few jobs were being created by Libyan home industries. In addition, Libya's relatively poor infrastructure (i.e. roads and logistics), unclear legal structure, often arbitrary government decision making process, a bloated public sector (as much as sixty percent of government spending goes towards paying public sector employee's salaries), huge public works programmes (i.e. the 'Great Man Made River' project), and various structural rigidities [had] imposed impediments to foreign investment and to economic growth.

In 2003, a sudden change of direction occurred. For some years previously, Shukri Muhammad Ghanem had been the minister for Trade and Economy. It seems likely that Ghanem, a promoter of privatisation, had finally persuaded Colonel Gaddafi that unless Libya changed her policies, those sectors of the oil and non-oil economy that relied on U.S. designed and supplied plant replacement would seriously decline. Those plant components were of a type obtainable only from U.S. sources or constructed from U.S. patents.
Gaddafi consequently announced a variety of economic reforms, coupled with a reduction of direct state involvement in the economy. He perceived that his public sector was failing, and that privatisation of the Libyan oil industry should be implemented as soon as practicable. Ghanem was promoted to the rank of Prime Minister. His first task was to unify Libya's three separate exchange rate systems (official, commercial, black market) into a single economy. The currency was thus effectively devalued, and inward investment encouraged.

That process was accompanied by a change of stance towards America and Britain. Thus, on Saturday 16th August 2003, the Lockerbie dam finally broke, with a letter from Libya's United Nations Envoy, addressed to the U.N. Security Council: "I am pleased to inform you that the remaining issues relating to the fulfilment of all Security Council resolutions resulting from the Lockerbie incident have been resolved... In this context, and out of respect for international law and pursuant to the Security Council resolutions, Libya as a sovereign state, has facilitated the bringing to justice of the two suspects charged with the bombing of Pan Am 103, and accepts responsibility for the actions of its officials." Immediately, British ambassador to the United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry indicated that Britain would, within three days, circulate a draft resolution for the lifting of U.N. sanctions against Libya.

In October 2003, happy at the success of his first policy change, Ghanem announced a list of three hundred and sixty one Libyan firms in the steel, petrochemicals, cement and agricultural sectors, all to be privatised from 2004 onwards. His aim was to reduce Libya's dependency on oil as the country's sole source of income, and to increase investment in agriculture, tourism, fisheries, mining and natural gas. Agriculture would be the top priority, with water piped to the Mediterranean coastal cities and farms from huge underground aquifers lying beneath the Sahara Desert. The project would be known as The Great Man Made River. Libya would also try to re-position itself as an economic intermediary between Europe and Africa.

Meanwhile, a suspicious American administration charged that Libya must go much further in a public admission of guilt. Not until full access was granted to U.N. weapons inspectors, and all terrorism and programmes of "weapons of mass destruction" renounced, would American consider any major changes in its own programme of sanctions against Libya. Washington claimed to still have serious concern over the behaviour of the Libyan regime, Libya's "poor human rights record", and its continued pursuit of "weapons of mass destruction". Some within the White House claimed that Gaddafi's change of heart had only occurred following the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Gaddafi, claimed various sources, feared for his own position. The timing of the apparent change of heart supported that suspicion, but it soon became clear that other forces were at work.
Rumours would later hint at a wish by Gaddafi to ensure a safe transfer of power to his sons, thus preserving the family dynasty. Other considerations were said to be dissent in parts of Libya. Nevertheless, the sole removal of United Nations sanctions would mean that America would remain as the only nation excluded through its own imposition of sanctions. A kind of revenge would thus be enacted for America's past hostility to Gaddafi and his nation.

A further factor was that, by the creation of a stable zone in that part of the Middle East, Israel would thus be able to concentrate even more on the subjugation of the troublesome Gaza Strip and the Palestinian West Bank. In other words, a form of protectorate would be established. Such support might even involve Israeli behind-the-scenes approval and intelligence operations. Who could know for sure? Had the Libyan declaration of guilt been genuine, or just a way of escape from sanctions?
The enigma was strengthened in February 2004 by an interview given to BBC television by Prime Minister Ghanem in which he claimed that the August 2003 declaration of guilt was not real. Instead, it had all been a ruse to help improve relations with Western countries and secure the lifting of sanctions. "After the sanctions and after the problems we have [been] facing because of the sanctions, the loss of money, we thought that it was easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed a compensation." Was Libya in effect now denying any guilt for the bombing of Pan Am 103? Ghanem was clear: "I agree with that and this is why I say, we bought peace."

Meanwhile, United States sanctions were still in place. The main components of these were founded upon the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, which covered foreign companies intending to make new investments of $20 million or more over a twelve month period into Libya's oil or natural gas sectors. In 2001, the U.S. Congress had voted to extend such sanctions for a further five years.

The 2003 announcement by Libya professing responsibility for the actions of its officials had proved sufficient for the United Nations, and for Britain. The 2004 Ghanem reversal, and apparent denial, caused consternation in the United States, but merely raised eyebrows across Europe. But President George Bush remained generally unsympathetic. In January 2004 he insisted that U.S. sanctions remain in place for the time being. He failed to understand that, in spite of the difficulties created by the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, European countries were literally queuing up to rejoin with Libyan industries and other institutions.

Then, at last understanding the realities, the Bush administration went into reverse. On 26th February 2004 a long-standing ban against U.S. citizens travelling to Libya was lifted. The administration also formally encouraged Libya to establish an official presence in Washington in the form of an "Interests Section" (a diplomatic office just below the formal level of an embassy). In exchange, the U.S. would "expand" its diplomatic presence in Libya.

Why the change? In the words of the White House, allowing U.S. travel to Libya would give American corporations an opportunity to do lucrative business legally in Libya's rich oil fields. Those U.S. firms which had holdings in Libya before sanctions were imposed were authorised to renew operations with only limited restrictions.

Yet still unable to understand the full spectrum of events, and even though the ban against citizens travelling with other carriers had been lifted, President Bush insisted on a continuation of a ban on U.S. carrier flights to Libya. The easing of that particular restriction was described by the White House: "What this means in practical terms is that American citizens, for the first time in twenty three years, will be able to travel to Libya, including for tourism, academic research, and family visits. The Administration is committed to increasing contacts between Libyan and American societies and exploring cooperation in humanitarian projects." The announcement did not mention the demonisation and impoverishment over those same twenty three years of an entire nation, the hundreds of unnecessary dead, nor the word oil.

We might therefore, when considering the realities behind current American foreign policy towards oil-bearing nations of the Middle East, ask ourselves whether the historical records are an indictment, not only of the present regime, but of those as far back as Nixon and Bush Senior.

Andrew, that was NASTY!!!!

I found Mr. Baumgartner's analysis interesting, as it mirrored my own speculation in response to first reading about Peak Oil. It does provide a strategic rationale that fits many of the facts. Yet, like others, I'm troubled by the lack of complementary strategic initiatives that would hasten and ease America's reliance on oil. Naturally, it does make sense that those in the oil business would profit from both securing supplies and maintaining conditions that keep oil's price high. It's a win-win of self-interest, in that case. moreso than a truly "national interest" strategy. The economy keeps rolling, avoiding a sudden supply shock, yet is not moved toward an alternative source, which could hasten the lowering of oil's value. Perhaps the administration insiders simply feel the market will respond with alternatives when they become price competitive, and feel no compulsion to short-sell their own interests.

Given the global competition with China to secure access to oil, and the aforementioned insider knowledge about world reserves and capacity, it makes sense that Bush's desire to the topple the man who tried to kill his dad (while also trumping his father in actually removing Saddam) could have been rationalized to him as converging neatly with Israel's interests regarding Iraq, and toward the institution of a "permanent state of war" conducive to re-election, as well as a general state of paranoia and fear that facilitates the dismantling of liberal democracy, subordinating its "wilfull naivete" to the imperatives of national security. Moreover, I think there is something to the "Armeggedon inevitability" pre-occupation of Evangelicals that Bush might be expected to share, to some extent, at least insofar as he seems to imagine himself as being called by God to lead some sort of Army of Light against the Forces of Darkness. In short, there seems to have been something for everyone in the decision to invade Iraq. I would imagine that, in the end, virtually all wars of choice fit this bill.

Because so many of our current woes in terms of foreign policy in the Middle East, including this Plame outing outrage and the BLOODY WAR IN IRAQ, stem from dual citizens' (Perle, Miller, Schulzberger, Ledeen, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Rhode, Wurmser, Abrams, etc., etc., etc.) attachment to a country we have no formal defense treaty with (that would be Israel) someone needs to tell me:

-- FIRST -- What did Palestinians or Arabs for that matter, have to do with the Jewish Holocaust? Were they the capos at the gas chambers? Did they drive the trains to Auschwitz? Was EVEN ONE Palestinian or Arab implicated in the Final Solution?

They didn't, so why have Palestinians/ Arabs been demonized by the media, the pundits, the government and the entertainment industry? Think for a second.

I am of a very specific small ethnicity who lived through our own Holocaust just after WW II. We were also promised a homeland by the British after WW II -- though it was in the country of our BIRTH as opposed to European Jews who had no genetic ties to Palestine but who got Palestine.

Did my group get our homeland?

NO

Many of us emigrated to the US -- are we now threatening and bribing politicians because they do not support our country of birth?

NO

Do we plant spies and dual citizens in the Pentagon and the upper reaches of the government, entertainment industry, and media for the benefit of our country of birth (or in the aforementioned case, the country of our religious affiliation)?

NO

Where does our loyalty lie?

TO AMERICA, which took us in, gave us a home and allowed us to prosper. We are now statistically the most prosperous and educated ethnic group in the US.

BTW: we're not allowed to hold dual citizenship -- we had to give up our birth citizenship to become Americans, and we take our American citizenship very seriously. This is my country now, and I will defend it.

If the Jews (especially the Ashkenazim) want a homeland, put it in Germany and let them do to Germany what they did to us and by us I mean the US, draw Germany into endless war in the Middle East, and possibly WW III.

This war was only partially about oil, it was more about securing a permanent military presence in the US to protect Israel and getting that old Aqaba pipeline open, the one that runs from Iraq to Israel through Syria. Hence the heat on Syria.

Every traitor to this country should be kicked out to go back to their homeland, whether it's the country of their birth or not.

My final questions:

Why do many, though not all by any means, American Jews seem to have first loyalty to Israel, yet don't emigrate to Israel?

Why do Israel-firsters feel that our troops should be their cannon-fodder?

And rather than being indicted, why aren't these traitors just put in front of a firing squad before more of our children, and other innocents in the Middle East, are killed?

With the exposure that the Bushies are getting, what with their racist response to Katrina, the corruption indictments, etc., I hope folks will not forget that it was Congress who unconstitutionally voted to give the administration the power to run amok in the Middle East. Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright killed more innocent Iraqis with sanctions than Bush has so far. John Kerry's presidential campaign was decidedly pro-war. Hillary Clinton wants to send more troops. They have not spoken out on the Katrina mess at all. Bush/Cheney Impeachment might set a good example for future presidential aspirants, but unless we build an alternative to the two corporate parties, we will all be at their mercy (got your Tamiflu everyone???).

Yeah, somethings wrong with the figure. Oil reseves in Iraq are estimated at 115 billion barrels. At $60 a barrel, do the math, that's $6.9 trillion.

Is Fitzgerald's new boss Lord Hutton??? Billmon has a somewhat scary premonition about the new boss of of Fitzgerald:

http://billmon.org/

Newly appointed McNulty might be the pawn that paralyses any check-mate moves by Fitzgerald.

Bush? Stupid? I think not. Just look at the windfall for him and his cronies.

He got elected TWICE.
He's got Iraq's oil.
He's got oil prices way up.
Same with Haliburton's stocks.
His lesser minions are rewarded with the couple or so missing billions for Iraqi reconstruction.
He's got the Republicans firmly in control in all 3 branches of government.
He's nominating 2 new SC Justices, a new Federal Reserve Chair, he's got all his bases covered.
He's got Bolten in to sabotage the UN.
He's instituted the most secretive government legal apparatus, and the most intrusive security laws.

Maybe he'll get the Nobel Peace Prize, who knows.

Liar! Bastard liar! I got mine anyway so, who cares. Scowcroft is a wussy-boy and is way past his prime. The New Yorker is just another conduit for Washington to use and amuse ourselves with. Doesn't matter what happens now, I've amassed a fortune that will tide me over for the next three lifetimes.

While I appreciate Scowcroft's candor, I wonder how his friends in the Carlyle Group will feel about it?

"The Carlyle Group is a supremely successful merchant bank, which also has James Baker (Bush I consiglieri) and Brent Scowcroft (Bush I National Security Adviser) as partners. This particular investment group has enjoyed access to investment funds from the Saudi royal family. Undoubtedly, the triumvirate of former officials, none of them previously renowned for investment prowess, has handsomely prospered from the arrangement."

So who's involved in the Carlyle Group? Among many others: former President George H.W. Bush (CG's adviser from 1993 to October 2003, and current investor); Bush I Secretary of State James Baker (CG's $180 million partner); General Colin Powell before he was Bush II's SOS; Reagan Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (CG's chairman); Bush I National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; former conservative British Prime Minister John Major (head of CG's European operations); and the former right-wing presidents of the Philippines and South Korea.

and this:

"Carlyle and its network of investors are well positioned to cash in on Bush Jr.'s expansion of the defense and Homeland Security department budgets. Two Carlyle companies, Federal Data Systems and US Investigations Services, hold multi-billion dollar contracts to provide background checks for commercial airlines, the Pentagon, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. USIS was once a federal agency called the Office Federal Investigations, but it was privatized in 1996 at the urging of Baker and others and was soon gobbled up by Carlyle. The company is now housed in "high-security, state-of-the-art, underground complex" in Annandale, Pennsylvania. USIS now does 2.4 million background checks a year, largely for the federal government.

Another Carlyle subsidiary, Vought Aircraft, holds more than a billion dollars in federal contracts to provide components for the C-117 transport plane, the B-2 bomber and the Apache attack helicopter. Prior to 2001, Vought had fallen on hard times. Just before the 9/11 attacks, Vought announced that it was laying off more than 1,200 employees, more than 20 percent of its workforce. But business picked up briskly following the airstrikes on Afghanistan and the war on Iraq.

In 2002, Carlyle sold off its biggest holding, United Defense. The sale may have been prompted by insider information leaked to Carlucci by his pal Rumsfeld. In early 2001, Carlyle was furiously lobbying the Pentagon to approve contracts for the production of United Defense's Crusader artillery system, an unwieldy and outrageously expensive super-cannon. Rumsfeld disliked the Crusader and had it high on his hit list of weapon systems to be killed off in order to save money for other big ticket schemes, particularly the Strategic Defense Initiative.

But, as detailed in William Hartung's excellent new book, How Much Are You Making in the War, Daddy?, Rumsfeld didn't terminate the Crusader immediately. Instead, he held off on a public announcement of his decision for more than a year. By that time, Carlucci and Baker devised a plan to take United Defense public. The sale to unsuspecting investors netted Carlyle more than $237 million. Six months later, Rumsfeld closed the book on the Crusader. By then the gang at Carlyle had slipped out the back door, their pockets stuffed with cash. United Defense was able to petition the Pentagon to compensate them to the tune of several million for cancellation of the contract. Even when you lose, you win.

So the men behind the Carlyle Group drift through Washington like familiar ghosts, profiteering off the carnage of Bush's disastrous crusades, untroubled by any thought of congressional investigation or criminal prosecution, firm in the knowledge that the worse things get for the people of the world, the less secure and more gripped by fear the citizens their own country become, the more millions they will reap for themselves. Perpetual war means perpetual profits.

Let's leave the last word to Dan Broidy, author of The Iron Triangle, an illuminating history of the Carlyle Group: "It's not an exaggeration to say that September 11 is going to make the Carlyle investors very, very rich men."

http://counterpunch.org/stclair05222004.html

Regardless of what they say, our country's leaders are addicted to war. After all, it is very profitable

It's sad, but typical that Scowcroft and others criticize Bush now that it almost too late to undo the damage that this administration has wreaked on the world.

I don't know why people keep insisting that oil was behind US Iraq policy, when the views of the neo-cons have been made blatantly clear since the beginning of the Bush administration. And clearly, Saddam Hussein was more likely to keep the oil flowing than any fundamentalist regime would be.

For a good, non conspiracy-nut view on how oil prices have been artificially rigged, see the MP3 interview files, oil industry memos and links at http://www.mrkabc.com/

Onwald,

There is a simple answer to that. The 300 billion thrown at Iraq was the American people's money. Haliburton (and the like) didn't have to pay a dime. They need only collect the profits as a result.

Bush can be given a virtual blank check to open up opportunities to his friends through only one path-- war. That's the only instance in which a sitting president is given such power. So, invent a war. Move friends in. See big smiles on friends faces.

Of course it doesn't add up in a simple cost-benefit analysis, if you are assuming that the stakeholders standing to benefit are the same as the stakeholders stuck with the bill. That would be an unfortunate assumption.

Whether some of you like it (agree with it)or not, many people DO equate neocon with Jew. And yes, Pat Buchanan has made that quite clear. Personally, I don't agree with the neocon philosophy..it is a dream, not part of the real world. Over the last century pretty much everyone has been screwed over in the middle east, Arab and Jew. Most of you on this thread believe the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the crux of all the conflict. Why is it that the former get such sympathy while the latter is always "the problem"?? Think about it, anal orifices, if the world had shown ANY humanity in the 1930s-1940s, perhaps there would have been no need for a Jewish state. But, I guess we all can't be Danes, eh?? Who gave (or gives) a shit about what happens to Jews?? And yes, Bush 41 and his administration were part of that kind of thinking. That's the way they were brought up.

Wow, after reading all these posts, i have a lot of questions...
Does this mean that Fox News is not fair and balanced and our President is not compassionate?

Our government is actually not truthful and is only looking out for the wealthy and powerful?

Everyone LIES all the time?

The real world has always been corrupt and unfair?

History always repeats itself?

Religion is just a cover for politics and war?

Tell me it isn't so.

I get a kick out people like Joe Marsh who say, in effect, Why would Bush spend all this money to secure Middle East oil when they can just buy it on the open market?

The Bush thugs don't want to BUY Middle East oil, they want to SELL it, and at higher and higher prices.

Furthermore, in their naive 'idealism', they had no idea it would be so hard and expensive to steal the Iraqi's oil. But the extra expense is really not a problem either, as others have pointed out, because it's just a transfer of the people's treasure into their own pockets and those of their greedy pals.

So life is good for these criminals. At least it used to be, before their evil plans started becoming a little too obvious.

Greetings all,

The New Yorker Scowcroft interview regarding the Iraq lobster trap brings to mind the words of Vice President Dick Cheney as quoted by the New York Times on 13 April 1991, when he was secretary of defense:

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists. How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens to it once we leave?"

I wonder what happened to Cheney since. Perhaps he suffered a serious head injury.

I think it's time for a Real Old Jew (I'm two years short of 90) who opposes Israel's policy toward Palestine and Palestinians, to tell you all what I remember and why I stand where I do.
In 1956 I was teaching a weekly Current Events course at the New York Guild for the Jewish Blind. Before getting onto the subway to get there one evening, I turned on the radio for news. It was that the United Kingdom, France, and Israel had invaded Egypt to recapture the Suez Canal, which had just recently been ceded to Egypt.
As I rode down, I reflected on what I had learned about my audience. Like all Jews old enough to remember the Holocaust, which ended only eleven years earlier, "Never Again!" was uppermost in their minds and in mine. Like all Jews, period, I had lost relatives to the gas chambers. My grandmother, an immigrant from the Ukraine before World War One, would write every relative she knew of once a year and every friend and acquaintance from her home town, Buchach. After World War II, there were some fifty from whom she got no responses and about whom no one could provide information except for a few who were known to have died at the hands of the Nazis.
However, my listeners' feelings were further complicated by the relative isolation of the blind half a century ago.
I told the audience that, unless we were racists, we could not believe that 2,000,000 Jews (the number in Israel by that date) could forever hold off the 50,000,000 Arabs then populating all the surrounding countries. The Arabs would some day acquire education, industry, and arms.
I was asked what to do. I replied that the only thing was for the invaders to turn around and get out. To my amazement, President Eisenhower phoned British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and told him (we now know, in choice barracks language) to do just that. Soviet Premier Khrushchev announced that if the invaders did not leave immediately, rockets would fly. They got out.
To this date, Israeli governments behave as though they are part of the "West," the very countries that had either killed six million of us or had not made a move until the Nazi guns were turned farther westward. In the case of the United States, Roosevelt had permitted Pearl Harbor, of which he knew thanks to the breaking of the Japanese code. He believed it was essential for the U.S. that Germany and Japan be defeated, and knew the American people would not support a war unless we had been attacked.
I keep on my study wall a 3'x5' blow-up, made for her memorial, of my late wife's last public action, a letter to the editor published in the Oakland (CA) Tribune:
"I am an 84-year-old Jewish women sitting here crying because I am not physically capable of going to the Women in Black vigil in San Francisco against Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians.
"I urge any open-minded and fair-minded person to look at the map and see that supposedly Palestinian Gaza and the West Bank are criss-crossed with Jewish settlements and roads
connecting them. I am filled with shame for Israel for allowing Jews from all over the world to come live there and become citizens, while not allowing Palestinians to return to their native land. I urge everyone, particularly Jews, to write to the President and to Congress, asking them:
"1) to participate in enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 242 requiring Israel to withdraw from Arab territories occupied since the 1967 war. This means abandonment of the settlements.
"to grant Palestinians the right to return to their homes in the West Bank and Israel."
"Tanya Mandel"

Reply to Ruthlessinor

For your edification, the master plan for the creation of an exclusivist Jewish State in Palestine was conceived in 1896, during the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland. This was decades before the rise of Nazism in Germany and the resulting Holocaust.

In subsequent pronouncements Herzl and leading Zionists made it very clear that their intention was to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous Palestinian/Canaanite inhabitants and seize neighboring Arab lands. These objectives were further stated by David Ben-Gurion (David Gruen), Israel's first prime minister, as well as other Polish and Russian Jewish immigrants to Palestine. Even a cursory examination of the documented historical record will confirm what I write.

That anyone would consider it unpatriotic to question an Administration that prides itself on secrecy and how many perks can be awarded to its sycophants just indicates how far down the slippery slope toward a Fascist Dictatorship we have slid. We no longer are citizens of a Democratic Republic. Read the Patriot Act, talk to a Librarian or a bookseller, try to move from one state to another without a passport, birth certificate and/or a marriage license in case you happen to be a female. This may still be the "home of the brave", but it is no longer the "land of the free". Freedom went out the door when our congressperson allowed himself/herself to be bullied into signing onto the Act that abrogated our guaranteed freedoms.

Republicans & Bush supporters are increasing questioning what kind of man they elected as President! His popularity & administration is sinking into the swamp of cronyism, incompetence, and an increasing stink of corruption!

His insistence on appointing unqualified political cronies to high positions is a cause for alarm to most Americans of both parties. From Brownie to his recent nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court and the withdraw of Timothy Flanigan nomination after facing weeks of questions over his ties to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff & Karl Rove. His main political brain and probable brain, Karl Rove likely indictment over the leaks of CIA operator’s names, increasing speaks of not only cronyism, but of corruption in high places!

Far from the smaller, honest, effective government that most thought they were voting for his administration has used tax dollars like know other government in history to reward supporters and buy votes. His policy of using Federal money for pork barrel laden bills & tax cuts without any attempt to control the growth of big government & spending, and with a large & ever growing out-of-control deficits has many realizing the man they thought they elected is not the man they got!

His rewarding of the Medal of Freedom to George Tenet for one of the greatest intelligence failures in American history leaves a bad taste in the mouth of most Americans. This has also left many wondering if it was a reward for supporting his determination to go to war in Iraq with or without WMD or ties to terrorist!

The failure in Iraq of any planning of how to control or administrate the country after the war, in spite of warning from both within and outside of his administration, strikes many as gross incompetence on the part of him and his advisors!

To add insult to injure, the asinine remarks of Romsfeld that you go to war with what you got, coupled with the lackadaisical approach to getting Armor for our troops, which has accounted for most of the casualties in Iraq, seems to many a total lack of concern for the ones paying the price and fighting an increasing unpopular war!

The war in Iraq has the opposite of the desired affect, instead of protecting us from terrorist it has reenergizes terrorist world wide and made it a recruiting ground for terrorist and terrorist training. We are now bogged down in an unpopular costly war without a viable exit plan.

The dismal failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina after billions of dollars & years of planning increasing demonstrates incompetence and wasting of billions in tax dollars by his administration!

Vice Presidents Chancy transformation from wise experienced advisor to the prototypical corrupt CEO that ripped employees & share holders off for billions is now complete! Due to the rewarding of no bid contacts in Iraq to his ex-company and other big company contributors to Bush’s reelection & the resulting inexplicable loss of billions of dollars. In a brazen display of unequaled arrogance they did the same thing again in rewarding no bid contacts for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina to the same companies!

Bush’s planned policy on giving millions of Illegal Aliens green cards as a reward for breaking our laws, is a blatant display of ignoring the wishes of 85% of the American public. His determination & desire to reward contributors with cheap labor at the expense of American jobs and billions in tax dollars to subsidize their many benefits, proves that the welfare of the country and American citizens is subordinate to his desire in rewarding the Rich and Powerful for their support!

His failure to control our open borders and continue to allow Mexico & Latin American to export their poverty to the USA by the millions 4 years after 9/11 seems too many, to bring in question, his concern with terrorist and fighting terrorism! Indeed, many question if another terrorist attack is not desired by this administration to allow him to parade with a bull horn & make asinine remarks like bring them on! To again demonstrate to the country and world that he is the bravest Chicken Hawk in the USA & stem the free fall of his sinking popularly & policies!

What many took for a brave resolute leader now appears to be something far different! A complete arrogances & inability to recognize or admit mistakes, the comprehension of an chicken, and if intelligence was measured by height, many now realize ,he would undoubtedly be a dwarf!

… a totally disgusted Ex-Bush supporter!

The President is displaying his usual arrogance and contempt for what other smarter, brighter, more reflective, and knowledgeable people think. I think his personality consists of his feeling of God given right, by the silver spoon he inherited and never earned, coupled with a low intelligences and lack of critical thinking skills. His appointment of Harriet Miers is an insult to all American Citizens and the Supreme Court. Her primary qualifications are thinking Bush is God. Anyone that thinks he is brilliant says a lot about his or her intellect & ability. If she is confirmed than it shows, we have elected a bunch of idiots to the Senate, which I think is highly likely.

But in spite of the lack of any qualifications for the Supreme court she is probably a decent person and has many more qualifications for that job then George Bush has for President! From just viewing his policies without any knowledge of the one responsible, I think most would decide we had a Left Wing Liberal Democrat in office! His out of control spending & deficits, pork barrel lading bills, cronyism and the sheer stupidity & incompetence of lack of any foresight in managing Iraq after the conquest was total complete incompetence by him and his advisors.

His discovery after 5 years in office and 4 years after 9/11 that we have a serious Illegal Alien Invasion with millions of poorly educate people pouring across our open borders is beyond belief. His brilliant solutions to the problem is just make them legal! Than we won’t have an Illegal Alien problem. It shows he has no concept of what problems will be caused by having millions more poorly educated , prolific breeders with a 50% high school drop out rate, the billions in cost for their benefit’s, the crime, the lowing of our standard of living & erosion of the Middle class ,will have on this country! It also shows disrespect for Laws & the Rule of Law, as he proved again with the Meirs nomination to the Supreme Court! While I feel sorry for Miers that was threw into a situation and position she is clearly not qualified by a Stupid President with a King George Complex, this feeling does not extend to King George! I am one of his many Ex-supporters that feel betrayed by this President! I think if the Republican does not disavow his policies that it will set the Republican Party back years. They will have a hard time taken seriously again, that they are capable of an honest, effective, corrupt free, smaller government!

OF CURSE IT ISN'T SO, clec. Why are you such a cynic? I READ EVERY WORD OF THIS THREAD AND I AM GOING TO STEAL MOST OF IT FOR MY NEXT BOOK AND MAKE A MILLION FRIENDS AND EVEN MORE DOLLARS AND THEN I AM GOING TO DISAPPEAR.
Diggerodell

The President is displaying his usual arrogance and contempt for what other smarter, brighter, more reflective, and knowledgeable people think. I think his personality consists of his feeling of God given right, by the silver spoon he inherited and never earned, coupled with a low intelligences and lack of critical thinking skills. His appointment of Harriet Miers is an insult to all American Citizens and the Supreme Court. Her primary qualifications are thinking Bush is God. Anyone that thinks he is brilliant says a lot about his or her intellect & ability. If she is confirmed than it shows, we have elected a bunch of idiots to the Senate, which I think is highly likely.

But in spite of the lack of any qualifications for the Supreme court she is probably a decent person and has many more qualifications for that job then George Bush has for President! From just viewing his policies without any knowledge of the one responsible, I think most would decide we had a Left Wing Liberal Democrat in office! His out of control spending & deficits, pork barrel lading bills, cronyism and the sheer stupidity & incompetence of lack of any foresight in managing Iraq after the conquest was total complete incompetence by him and his advisors.

His discovery after 5 years in office and 4 years after 9/11 that we have a serious Illegal Alien Invasion with millions of poorly educate people pouring across our open borders is beyond belief. His brilliant solutions to the problem is just make them legal! Than we won’t have an Illegal Alien problem. It shows he has no concept of what problems will be caused by having millions more poorly educated , prolific breeders with a 50% high school drop out rate, the billions in cost for their benefit’s, the crime, the lowing of our standard of living & erosion of the Middle class ,will have on this country! It also shows disrespect for Laws & the Rule of Law, as he proved again with the Meirs nomination to the Supreme Court! While I feel sorry for Miers that was threw into a situation and position she is clearly not qualified by a Stupid President with a King George Complex, this feeling does not extend to King George! I am one of his many Ex-supporters that feel betrayed by this President! I think if the Republican does not disavow his policies that it will set the Republican Party back years. They will have a hard time taken seriously again, that they are capable of an honest, effective, corrupt free, smaller government!

To Gary Keenan;

Yes I'm aware that such Zionist plans existed...so what?? Every country or dedicated groups of people have plans...does that mean that they would be implemented? What allowed the state of Israel to form was collective guilt over the holocaust. And how far back in history do you want to go with regard to who owns what land?? Why aren't you equally upset with the fact that all these Arab states collaborated with the Nazis? Why don't you care that Jews have been mistreated, killed or expelled from said countries?? Why are Jews supposed to be so much better than anyone else?

Mr Mandel, I am sick to death of the poor, poor Palestinians. There are people in the world who have been mistreated in ways that make their plight seem insignificant by comparison. Yes they were sinned against, but why is their plight such a cause celebre compared to Ruanda, or the treatment of women throughout the Arab world? Whenever someone starts spouting about how Roosevelt knew this or that about Japan's attack, I turn my mind elsewhere. Conspiracies are everywhere and there are "facts" that support both sides.

With regard to the "Neocons" I believe that some are silly utopians, like Wolfowitz. I despise him, but I don't think he's in it for the oil. Others, like Cheney and Rumsfeld are in it for the power and the glory..they think they can do anything and get away with it. They like the money too. Still others are so-called Christians who pretend to care about Jews, but are actually waiting for them to all go up in flames in the appocalypse. Sounds about right for Bush 43. As for Bush 41, he agrees with James Baker..."fuck the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway" At least they're honest about it.

Interesting to note than no one has yet brought up the issue of Saddam selling his oil for euros and that Iran is doing likewise. I suspect this was also an issue for the US administration. Think what it would do to the perto dollar if anyone else had gone down this road.

Someone mentioned that the motives for this administration are driven by money, but it works the other way around as well.

The people with money have found a set of nutcases that happen to want to do things that make them MORE money. So their money went behind Bush, and they get all freindly and chummy together.

The worst problem with this administration is not only are they in bed with so many people in businesses that are critically related to the decisions they are making, they don't even comprehend that this there is something morally wrong with this. They think that is just the way you do things.

From my viewpoint, I can visualize that Bush and his cohorts view these businesses as their allies in their efforts to fix what is wrong with the world. They see it as their duty, in an ideologically driven fantasies and they unfortunately have the power to put these views into action. As they talk with their various cronies, they sort of encourage themselves and "create their own reality" as they see fit.

The rub comes when the Real Reality conflicts with the fictional reality that they have built up between themselves and business buddies, and the various sycophants Bush surrounds himself with.

Iraq didn't welcome us with roses. And now Scowcroft, who has been somewhat of a war-monger himself in the past, cannot even stomach what Bush Jr. is doing.

Don't tell me that Bush is playing with a full deck. Here are some observations I've made about his character:
He comes from the wealthy elite, so he looks out for the wealthy elite. He looks at death in odd ways... holds the record for executions of any Governor... does not want anyone to view flag-draped coffins of our military returning to the US... does not attend any military funerals of those who died in Iraq... had a passive attitude toward the deaths in hurricane Katrina. Bush masquerades as a Christian, but seldom attends Sunday services. In fact, he admitted that he dislikes organized religion. He touts the 10 commandments, but follows few of them... how 'bout Thou shalt not kill, for one. That makes him a hypocrite, doesn't it?
Could Bush be bipolar? Go to a medical site and check the symptoms. The symptoms are classic Bush... and didn't he fry his brain on cocaine and alcohol?
He also dresses up as military... loves to wear bomber jackets, parachute outfits... anything to make us believe he actually did something in the Vietnamese war while he was flying an outdated aircraft along the TX border. When I see this, I see a man who knows he is a zero but wants everyone else to think he's a hero. He loves to threaten others here and abroad with tough talk... bring 'em on... Mission accomplished... we will not back out of Iraq, etc.
And talk about adorable... who in the heck is he waving at all the time when we see him strut across the White House lawn? Oh yes, I forgot... he is waving at the cameras. What a camera hog!
Then he chokes on pretzels, falls off his bike on a regular basis, blaming it on muddy trails when there has been no rain for weeks prior. And he thinks no one notices his two left feet. Does he think we are stupid?
He didn't win the 2000 election... he was appointed by Scalia and other cronies on the Supreme Court. Because of the improprieties across the nation in the '04 election, I don't think he won that one either thanks to electronic, easily manipulated, voting equipment sold by pro-republican corporations.
Just making some observations out loud folks.

Where was Brent Scowcroft when the White House and the Neo-cons in the Administration were lying through their teeth to sell the Iraq war to the American people?

More accurately (and fairly), where was the MSM? The fourth estate was part and parcel of the Bush conspiracy about Iraq. The spineless press -- the WP and the NYT -- never even bothered to report on the damning Downing Street memos.

It looks to me like the rats are deserting the sinking ship.

Hi ruthlessinor

You miss my point. I was merely pointing out that although the Holocaust contributed to the Truman adminstration's ill-conceived and illegal recognition of Israel on 15 May 1948 - contrary to the advice of George Marshal and other experts in the State Dept. and despite the fact that at the time the UNGA, at Truman's behest, was in the process of shelving the non-binding recommendatory 1947 Partition Plan for being unworkable - the Zionists, who made up only 30% of the population (of which 90 % were immigrants) and owned a mere 6 % of the land were intent on creating an exclusivist Jewish State in Palestine well before that terrible event. Their subsequent dispossession of 1,250,000 Palestinians through terror and massacres during brief periods from 1948-67 and invasions of neighboring countries were pre-meditated. (There is no analogy between the expulsion of the Palestinians and the gradual immigration of 600,000 Arab Jews to Israel during the same period.)

Zionists had hoped to achieve a Jewish State through the British Mandate, but Whitehall's abandonment of Peel's absurd partition Plan in its 1939 White Paper caused them to adopt a policy during the 1946 New York Biltmore Conference that led to great influence in the US over both the Democrats and Republicans as well as Dispensationalist "Christians." - influence that endures to this day at America's expense, both financially and otherwise. Israel is currently costing US taxpayers at least $16 million each and every day and as the Senate 911 Commission along with the Pentagon have declared, Washington's unquestioning and total support of Israel was the primary cause of 9/11 and the root of the Muslim/Arab world's animosity towards the US. (The Iraq debacle is currently costing US taxpayers $185 million per day - $2,000 per second - and contributing at an accelerating rate to Arab/Muslim and indeed, worldwide hatred of the U.S.)

Also, merely for the record, as anthropologists will attest, Palestininas are descendants of the Canaanites, and hence have lived in what became known as Palestine for about 10,000 years - millenia before Abraham was born; if, bearing in mind the lack of archaeological evidence, he ever (along with Solomon, David, et al.) ever existed.

Hi again ruthlessinor

I just realized I neglected to answer your unsubstantiated allegation that Arabs collaborated with the Nazis during World War II

You may be referring to Haj Muhammed Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, who after being hounded throughout the Middle East by Britain for leading the Palestinian Great Rebellion of 1936-39, found sanctuary in Hitler's Berlin. Whatever he may have done for Germany during the war (including, possibly, encouraging Bosnian Muslims to join the German army) in exchange for refuge was considered to be so insignificant that he was never even considered for indictment at Nuremburg. The Mufti lived to be an old man in Beirut.

Incidentally, I assume you know of the traitorous deal that would have lead to a betrayal of the Allies in Palestine that a representative of the Sternists (believed to be Yitzhak Shamir) tried to make with the Nazis during a meeting in Istanbul with Hitler's envoy, Baron Von-Hentig. Thankfully, for the Allies, the offer was rejected by the Nazis.

Perhaps you are also not aware that 12,000-15,000 native Palestinian Christians and Muslims volunteered for the British forces and fought valiantly against the Nazis. Indeed, one of my now departed friends, Issa Fahel, born in Jaffa, Palestine, was a second lieutenant in the Royal East Kent Regiment, known as "the Buffs." At the age of 19, he served with great distinction as a commander of an all Palestinian platoon under Montgomery during the battle against Rommel at Al Alamein. He and his platoon also went on to help rout the Italians from what is now Ethiopia and the French Vichy from Lebanon.

I strongly recomnmend Naomi Klein's Harper's piece, entitled "Bagdad Year Zero". Her insight, written early on in the Iraq debacle, mirrors many of Baumgartner's observations, analysis, and theories.

Personally, I believe the scale and scope of the incompetence of this administration virtually guaranteed a world class clusterfuck from the moment we dropped the first munition.

I think that the administration completely lost control of the situation when Sistani, (no idiot), saw that Bremer was attempting to install provisions in the interim constitution that were binding and irreversable, allowing the sell-off of the Iraqi assets to foreign investers, (privatization). It is my theory that Sistani went to Bremer and said something resembling; "Listen, you slimey thieving son of a bitch, you want a blood bath here??? Well, you keep screwing around with the pot, and I'll issue a Fatwah that'll turn the sands of Iraq red with the blood of your soldiers." So, in effect, the Shiites started calling the shots from that moment on. And Bremer, he was called home in disgrace, and given a trophy if he promised to keep his yap shut about what a huge clusterfuck this whole mess is.

Meanwhile, Iraq is turning into a shiite theocracy, in effect, doubling the size of Iran.

Now, whats Bush to do??? Exclaim "Oops, sorry folks, I just spent 200 billion, and 17,000 dead or wounded Americans to put the WRONG people in power, so now we are gonna see if we can spend another 200 billion or so to see if we can undo my mistake".

Hardly.

Then, of course, you have Israel. Think Israel is gonna stand idly by and watch as a Shiite theocracy blossums right next door??? Hell no, of course not. Civil war, chaos and mayhem assures a continued presence of American troops, money, and blood. A few well placed bombs, blamed on the Sunnis, a few more blamed on the Shiites, a couple thrown in on the Kurd's behalf, and VOILA, instant NEED for the continued presence of American troops.

This thing is dangerous, out of control, in the hands of idiots and fanatics, and is going to get a hell of a sight worse before it gets better.

This clusterfuck will be remembered as the WORST foreign policy mistake that was EVER suffered by the American people, to say nothing of the poor Iraqi folk. And if these God damned idiots in the White House are not careful, this thing could IGNITE the middle east, and the rest of the world community.

A war on terrorism???? Hell, Bush and his handlers pose a graver threat to the security of the United States than Osama's wildest dreams ever did.

Get out the popcorn, because this Dog and Pony Show ain't over yet. Not by a long shot.

The Bush/Republicans war on Iraq had three primary motives. Control of Iraqs oil. Establish large military bases in the Mid-East. Establish a puppet government in Iraq. Everyone in the Bush/Republican regime was aware of and concurred with those goals. All of those goals have been accomplished. The Bush/Republicans will not "pay" anything for the successful completion of their plot.

Mr Mandel, thank you! That was a very moving account. You remind me of the late elderly Jewish benefactor of a friend who opened the doors of his home free to students in Boston who needed a place to stay.

There has been a lot of criticism of Israel in this whole ignoble mess, much of it justified, but I must remind everyone that Israel too, is under the influence of a powerful neocon cabal which has been in ascendance together with the fortunes of the Washington one, as well as the neocons in London and Tokyo.

There is a larger global network and picture here of neo-conservatives who have been co-ordinating their policies. London has been vexing the EU project, Tokyo, which has a self-proclaimed neo-conservative movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(Japan), has been transformed into a project against China, while Tel Aviv is abetting the US in the ME. Read the manifestoes put out by the PNAC again, and compare those with what's been in the news. There're neocon fingerprints all over recent global tensions heralding a new cold war.

Speaking as one from a half-German family, I have always felt that the nation of Israel should have been carved out of German territory as reparation for the Holocaust. The Jewish victims were European, and would have been better adapted to the European social and political context.

Now that Israel has been firmly established in the ME, it is imperative to pursue a long-term solution for peaceful Arab-Israeli co-existence, and I felt that Rabin would have been the historic honest broker.

Yes, fingers are rightly pointed at Israel's entanglement with the Washington cabal today, but it mustn't be forgotten that the Israeli neocons, who are fully in power, do not fully represent but distort the larger Israeli picture. Likewise, the complex tensions between London (Blair) and the rest of Europe and Tokyo (Koizumi) and its E. Asian neighbours, especially China, the neocon's dream target, should be more closely scrutinised.

I'm simply surprised that for all the talk about the Washington cabal, this global neocon movement angle has never been explored, despite the PNAC's own declarations about its global hegemonic policies and ambitions.

I suspect that only when the neocons in Israel, Europe, Japan are exposed, their policies and actions analysed and held up to light, that we will be somewhat innoculated against their intent.

Of course even among the Neoconservatives, you have different degrees of neofascist ambition and idealism. Wolfowitz is a true liberal utopian hawk, and thus I'm glad he's safely out of the way of scandal. He deserves this, despite being one of the architects of the Iraq war. The others, like Perle, Kaplan, etc. are pure fascists.

So, please, this isn't a Jewish conspiracy. It's a Neoconservative Conspiracy.

And in the end Iraqis will decide and determine their own future, free of Israeli Amerikan interference. The occupier will be more corrupted after his bout of wanton carnage and the evil that has been unleashed on Iraq will come home to roost statesside as it always does when defeated armies march or hobble homeward.

I've noticed that some of you appear to be credulous of the "War on Terror". How can people who have all the other pieces of the puzzle pretty well placed believe that the "War on Terror" is not 100% phony?

The level of Orwellian criminality of the Bush people goes FAR beyond even the horrible things mentioned here. I am still amazed that even smart Americans can be so sharp in one paragraph, then leave their thinking caps behind in the next. There is NO MAJOR TERRORISM AND NEVER HAS BEEN in the US, and everybody, I mean ALMOST EVERYBODY, seems to have been utterly propagandized into parroting the idea that there was, or is!

It's simply not true to any extent that comes close to justifying the repressive actions that have been effected in its name. The crucial difference between 9/11 and the Reichstag fire is that 9/11 was done when the country was flush with success and surplus. Think about what that means regarding the resurgence of fascism. It means it's getting easier to be a fascist without social consequences to oneself and everyone is shutting up and playing along.

Look: 9/11 needs to be properly understood in terms of the nature of its "terrorism". There are TWO THINGS which argue almost unchallengeably that WE set up and carried out 9/11 in a sophisticated plan employing easily manipulated patsies (pretty much as the "Operation Northwoods" document, if real, laid it out back in 1962):

1: The North American air defense system has been in place since at least the late 1960's and was specifically designed to be able to locate and quickly identify fast-moving airborne threats anywhere in or near American airspace, with TOTAL system redundancy and TOTAL territorial coverage. The system really works. It was specifically designed to eliminate human failure as a cause of system failure.

People who think it is even possible in any way to fly a huge, slow-moving commercial airliner into the Pentagon, possibly the most secure airspace on this planet, with 30 or more minutes of advanced warning, are simply incompetent to evaluate the situation.

It is simply not possible unless the system is actively circumvented. The list of persons with sufficient clout to circumvent the North American air defense system is VERY short. Trying to understand the level of criminality we are being subjected to is impossible if one does not understand the fundamental impossibilities of the "official" story.

2: World Trade Center Building #7's collapse due to "fires". Watch the 3 or 4 videos of this event available all over the net (Google "WTC Bldg. 7 demolition" to find and view them). A number of you sound like unusually perspicacious observers. It is simply not possible for a reinforced steel and concrete building to fail in that manner...SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE IN ANY WAY. There is in fact ONLY ONE way for a building to collapse like that. In general, NOBODY will deal with this - the most audaciously obvious piece of evidence in the whole Buscist sequence of events.

The only publicized person who correctly dealt with it was that demolition engineer from that mining college out in, as I recall, New Mexico. He correctly assessed the cause of the WTC building failures right off the bat, then was quickly forced to recant. He nailed it immediately and without a second thought - he thought he was being helpful...'till the next day when he found himself figuratively beneath a descending 2000 lbs. of bricks.

Even in his 'retraction' he merely said that he "shouldn't have said that", or words to that effect, but did NOT retract his crucial statement (that the WTC buildings were obviously brought down using synchronized high explosives in a typical controlled demolition which was his long-time field of expertise) itself.

Anyone who views those three WTC #7 videos and concludes that that kind of collapse could be a result of 'fires', once again, is incompetent to form a relevant or valid opinion. It is so obviously a controlled demolition that NOBODY will go there because the minute you go there, any assumptions that one can trust anything the government says are properly and forever annihilated. I have watched smart friend after smart friend avoid discussion of those videos - they just shut off and change the subject, They have to: their entire Weltanschau is at stake and faltering at that point.

But if you took physics and engineering in college and think anything but choreographed high explosives could cause that; sorry, you didn't study hard enough and you'll never understand the times we're living through.

ij

Ivan:

Many who read your post will be quick to catagorize you as a conspiracy nut, but I believe that you are picking up on many unanswered questions that deserve legitimate answers. Sorry to say, the answers will never be forthcoming.

I find it interesting that the same company who carted away the Oklahoma federal building refuse then blew it up was the same company that got rid of the World Trade Center refuse. I've also read that no one was permitted to inspect or photograph the WT refuse. What would have been so secret about the refuse or photos of refuse? With the exception of mangled steel girders, why was the concrete in the WT buildings pulverized into a rolling dust that people ran to escape? I've never seen a controlled demolition pulverize a building into mere dust. Why did uninvolved buildings catch fire and collapse? Why are families of the NY tradgedy suing GW Bush for 6 billion dollars? So many questions... so many people avoiding answers to the questions.

If the posters on this site are a cross section of our citizenry, I feel hope for our nation. Articulate, involved and knowledgeable, if you are also pro-active, Bush and his Cabal had better be packing their bags. The "greybar hotel" doesn't require reservations.

Many strange events surrounded 9/11. Major news outlets reported that there was gold stored by the government mint in the basement of one of the WT buildings. Evidently, there was a lot of it. The gold has never been mentioned again (unless I missed something.) If it was there, where did it go? Why has there been no further mention of it?

I'll just come out and ask -- have Americans and the world been the recipients of the greatest caper ever pulled off in history?

I agree with Ivan and believe that Americans traded their rights for security, a type of security they never needed in the first place. That happened as a result of manufactured fear by the administration -- be afraid, be very afraid was the message. I noticed, over time, that anytime anyone pointed out legitimate questions about the administration -- we had a terror alert. Its called diversionary tactics. Most recently, the Plame case, Bush's tumbling poll numbers and DeLays indictment were getting the ear of the media and (bam!) NY subways were shut down on a terror tip. Raising the terror color has always been preceded by someone getting too close to troubling truth or Bush's declining poll numbers.

The Bush game plan is to keep Americans afraid and plant the suggestion that he is the only available crusader against evil. He suggests that he is making us safe, while in reality, he is actually sucking the money and spirit out of America.

Yes, the Bush administration has "demoralized" America. Thanks for speaking the "truth!"

Hi Gary,

I am not well versed in ME politics so I can't respond intellegently to many of the "facts" you present. I don't know whether or not they were gathered by someone so prejudiced toward one side that they present a distorted view. However, approx. 15,000 fighting with the Allies is , what, a drop in the ocean?? I see, Palestinians were "dispossessed by terror.....", but Jews "immigated"??? (don't you mean emigrated?). Did they emigrate like they did in WW 2?? You know, they just chose to leave?? Gary, Gary....

Very good analysis by Mr. Baumgardner.

would add a clarification. The interests being served are not this country's vis-a-vis the worldn's diminishing oil supply..,

The Iraq war is so that a very small group of corporations and neocons can gain control.

The rest of world's populations, irregardless of the nationality, will be at their mercy.

Want proof?

Has the imbecilic puppet of the neocons even TRIED to curtail the power of OPEC (which would constitute an illegal monopoly in this country) or extract concessions from it, which would in consideration for the lives and blood we are expending over there?

We are sacrificing blood and treasure IN ORDER to "achievea a future we're will will be helpless slaves to the neocons.

I find it intresting that the New Yorker failed to note that Scowcroft is one of the top lobbyists for Turkey and that he is the head of the American Turkish Council.

so is it a suprise that he was one fo the chief architechts of the betrayal of the Kurds in Gulf One or so strongly advocated keeping Saddam in power?

I was opposed to this war, but Scowcroft is engaging in a craven and bogus

Mr. Clemons gushing compliments of Golberg are suprising. Golberg is leaving out all the salient facts about Scowcroft's background and self interest.

Yassir, the conservative rats are beginning to abandon ship and "Ratboy" Paul Wolfowitz (and the MOSSAD mole and AIPAC traitor rat Douglas Feith is gone too), Wolfowitz, the architect of the infamous Iraqi quagmire should be locked up at Quantico awaiting trial. It's pitifull that he is now making his "personalized" messes at the World Bank).

TheAZCowBoy
Tombstone, AZ.

I think its clear were all in big trouble here, both inside and outside America. Electronic voting machines are very likely to keep us that way even if we did get smart.
The war in Iraq really is a success for the goals they really had, only the lies given for reasons failed. 14 permanent bases in the oil rich ME, what more could they ask for.
Syria is next, they can do it, Israel can occupy it. Iran is just to much of a go at this time, with the house of cards slipping at home and Iran makeing smart moves.
The real danger in all this, is that Russia and China need to choose, either stand up and fight even to get beat, or just take orders from Washington. its easy to believe they will do the smart thing and take their orders, however sometimes its better to fight and loose, thats the decision a person like me makes, and Russia really does make good weapons that work. Even the sunburn is now their old stock, they can fight, they could win.