| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:10 am Post subject: PNAC (JINSA) Cabal (PUSHING US to WAR) on ABC "Nightlin |
| PNAC (JINSA) Cabal (PUSHING US to WAR) on ABC's "Nightline" national television program in the USA:
ABC's "Nightline" program (which aired last night) discussed the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) cabal which has basically hijacked the Bush regime and is pushing us to its long desired war on Islam (to begin with the coming invasion of Iraq) which could result in a potential "Clash of Civilizations" as Samuel Huntington has proposed.
PNAC is composed of Zionist extremists and Christian Zionists from JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) and CSP. There was an article about JINSA (and its influence on the current Bush regime) in the February 9th, 2003 issue of the Washington Post which you can read by accessing the following URL:
Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/bush-and-sharon-nearly-identical-on-mideast-policy.php
JINSA Zionist Extremists PUSHING US/UK to War:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
JINSA/PNAC Zionist Extremist Cabal Pushing US to War:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/03/jinsa-pnac-zionist-extremist-cabal-pushing-us-to-war.php
PNAC Group...The List of Players:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/pnac-group-the-list-of-players.php
Likudniks Running American (Asia Times):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/03/06/likudniks-running-america-asia-times.php
Wake Up America: Your Government is Hijacked by Zionism:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/09/29/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism.php
Ted Koppel (in the "Nightline" episode last night) had mentioned that this PNAC agenda has been covered in articles that have appeared in the Sunday Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), the Moscow Times, and in the Morning Star (UK) as Mr. Koppel also mentioned that what the Sunday Herald mentioned is true. I have been in touch with Neil Mackay who has written the articles for the Sunday Herald (as he very kindly sent them to me via email last night as they are included below).
Here is the article by Robert Fisk of the London Independent newspaper which mentions JINSA:
Bush is intent on painting allies and enemies in the Middle East as evil:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=332011
Here is the "Men from JINSA and CSP" article (from "The Nation") which Mr. Fisk mentions in the above article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest&c=1
"Mother Jones" ('The Thirty Year Itch') Magazine Article about US (JINSA/PNAC) Wanting to Establish Empire in Middle East and Beyond:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/ma_273_01.html
You can listen to a recent interview with the writer (of the above referenced "Mother Jones" article) via the following URL:
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20030303.html
Israeli Delegation Seeking US Taxpayer Billions Includes a War Criminal:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/06/israel-delegation-seeking-us-billions-includes-war-criminal.php
There also seems to be a situation where the USA would like to keep the US dollar (vs. the EURO) as the standard for oil transaction dealings as conveyed by the articles and similar which are found at the following URL's:
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geo-strategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by William Clark
http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamclark1.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html!!
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2003/02/25/the-real-reasons-for-the-upcoming-war-with-iraq-page-3.php
Dick Cheney is the connection between this JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremism and oil as he was on the board of advisors for JINSA before he became Vice-President and helped put fellow JINSAN's (who are associated with PNAC as well) into power (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, John Bolton, etc.). Mr. Cheney was also the CEO of the Halliburton energy (oil) corporation which has made millions from the Iraqi oil for food program.
For additional articles, access the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/index.php
Richard Perle (is a JINSAN and is associated with PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute as well): 'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php
Subj: Re: JINSA/PNAC Cabal in Bush Regime is PUSHING US to War
Date: 3/6/03 2:47:28 AM Pacific Standard Time
Hi,
Thanks for your email. I've cut and pasted a number of articles which I have written concerning these issues, which you might find interesting. One of those included was my piece on the PNAC. They are at the end of this email, after my contact details.
I've also enclosed a number of documents which you might find useful as well. They were the basis of two of the stories below.
All the very best,
Neil
Neil Mackay
Home Affairs Editor
Sunday Herald
Reporter of the Year
200 Renfield Street
Cowcaddens
Glasgow
G2 3PR
The Sunday Herald is Newspaper of the Year
Scottish Media Group
Headline Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
Pub Date Sun 15-Sep-2002
Byline Neil Mackay
Supp/Series News
Pub SH
Edition 2
Page 1
Word Count 700
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story:
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ''regime change'' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a ''global Pax Americana'' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: ''The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.''
The PNAC document supports a ''blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests''.
This ''American grand strategy'' must be advanced ''as far into the future as possible'', the report says. It also calls for the US to ''fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars'' as a ''core mission''.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as ''the cavalry on the new American frontier''. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must ''discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role''.
The PNAC report also:
l refers to key allies such as the UK as ''the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership'';
l describes peace-keeping missions as ''demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations'';
l reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
l says ''even should Saddam pass from the scene'' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently - despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops - as ''Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has'';
l spotlights China for ''regime change'' saying ''it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia''. This, it says, may lead to ''American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China'';
l calls for the creation of ''US Space Forces'', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent ''enemies'' using the internet against the US;
l hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons - which the nation has banned - in decades to come. It says: ''New methods of attack - electronic, 'non-lethal', biological - will be more widely available combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool'';
l and pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a ''world-wide command-and-control system''.
Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, father of the House of Commons and one of the leading rebel voices against war with Iraq, said: ''This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks - men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers during the Vietnam war.
''This is a blueprint for US world domination - a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headline How did Iraq get its weapons? We sold them
Pub Date Sun 08-Sep-2002
Byline By Neil Mackay
and Felicity Arbuthnot
Supp/Series News
Pub SH
Edition 3
Page 1
Word Count 959
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story:
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs - which oversees American exports policy - reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defence Dep-artment documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's reports on ''US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq'', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis - the micro-organism that causes anthrax - were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: ''The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.''
This assistance, according to the report, included ''chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment''.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: ''UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licences issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programmes.''
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the ''executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licences for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record''.
It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the ''evidence of proof'' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.
However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.
According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during ''the ravages of the Gulf War''.
Ritter has described himself as a ''card-carrying Republican'' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a ''liar'' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.
Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. ''We have seen none of this,'' he insists. ''If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.''
He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.
The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons programme.
Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were ''comprehensively trashed'' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.
''We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,'' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. ''They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headline Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
Pub Date Sun 06-Oct-2002
Byline Exclusive By Neil Mackay
Supp/Series News
Graphic Photograph
Caption President Bush speaking in New Hampshire yesterday, when he said war may be 'unavoidable' Photograph: Kevin Lamarque
Pub SH
Edition 3
Page 1
Word Count 513
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story:
President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that ''Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East'' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ''military intervention'' is necessary.
Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on ''energy security'' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: ''The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
''The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.''
Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.
The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.
President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once owned the oil company Spectrum 7.
The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which now leave the US facing ''unprecedented energy price volatility'' and has led to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California.
The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a ''new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and to [the] nation's security and foreign policy''.
Iraq, the report says, ''turns its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so'', adding that there is a ''possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time'' in order to damage prices.
The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to stop ''manipulations of markets by any state'', and suggests that Cheney's Energy Policy Group includes ''representation from the Department of Defence''.
''Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,'' the report says, ''US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.''
www.rice.edu/projects/baker/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headline The west's battle for oil
Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the hawks
Pub Date Sun 06-Oct-2002
Byline Neil Mackay
Supp/Series News
Graphic Photograph
Pub SH
Edition 3
Page 12
Word Count 1136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story:
IT is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.
Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of ''military intervention'' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.
The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 - a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.
One of the most telling passages in the document reads: ''Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.
''This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.
''The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.''
At the moment, UN sanctions allow Iraq to export some oil. Indeed, the US imports almost a million barrels of Iraqi oil a day, even though American firms are forbidden from direct involvement with the regime's oil industry. In 1999, Iraq was exporting around 2.5 million barrels a day across the world.
The US document recommends using UN weapons inspectors as a means of controlling Iraqi oil. On one hand, ''military intervention'' is supported; but the report also backs ''de-fanging'' Saddam through weapons inspectors and then moving in to take control of Iraqi oil.
''Once an arms-control program is in place, the US could consider reducing restrictions [sanctions] on oil investment inside Iraq,'' it reads. The reason for this is that ''Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade''.
This, however, may not be as effective as simply taking out Saddam. The report admits that an arms-control policy will be ''quite costly'' as it will ''encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his 'victory' against the United States, fuel his ambition and potentially strengthen his regime''. It adds: ''Once so encouraged, and if his access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to US allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened.''
The document also points out that ''the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma'', and that one of the ''consequences'' of this is a ''need for military intervention''.
At the heart of the decision to target Iraq over oil lies dire mismanagement of the US energy policy over decades by consecutive administrations. The report refers to the huge power cuts that have affected California in recent years and warns of ''more Californias'' ahead.
It says the ''central dilemma'' for the US administration is that ''the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience''. With the ''energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US and would affect US national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways.''
The main cause of a crisis, according to the document's authors, is ''Middle East tension'', which means the ''chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption''. The report says the US will never be ''energy independent'' and is becoming too reliant on foreign powers supplying it with oil and gas. The response is to put oil at the heart of the administration - ''a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy''.
The US energy crisis is exacerbated by growing anti-American feeling in the oil-rich Gulf states. ''Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with US strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare,'' says the report. ''They have become less inclined to lower oil prices A trend towards anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders' ability to co-operate with the US in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have increased US vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue political influence over the price of oil.''
Iraq is described as the world's ''key swing producer turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest''. The report also says there is a ''possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time'', creating a volatile market.
While the report alone seems to build a compelling case that oil is one of the central issues fuelling the war against Iraq, there are also other, circumstantial pieces of the jigsaw that show disturbing connections between ''black gold'' and the Bush administration's desire to wage war on Saddam. In 1998 the oil equipment company Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was chief executive, sold parts to Iraq so Saddam could repair an infrastructure that had been terribly damaged during the 1991 Gulf war. Cheney's firm did (pounds) 15 million of business with Saddam - a man Cheney now calls a ''murderous dictator''. Halliburton is one of the firms thought by analysts to be in line to make a killing in any clean-up operation after another US-led war on Iraq.
All five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the UK, France, China, Russia and the US - have international oil companies that would benefit from huge windfalls in the event of regime change in Baghdad. The best chance for US firms to make billions would come if Bush installed a pro-US Iraqi opposition member as the head of a new government.
Representatives of foreign oil firms have already met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Ahmed Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said: ''American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Feb 2003
Headline Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons
Pub Date Sun 23-Feb-2003
Byline Investigation By Neil Mackay
Home Affairs Editor
Supp/Series News
Pub SH
Edition 3
Page 1
Word Count 908
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story:
SEVENTEEN British companies that supplied Iraq with nuclear, biological, chemical, rocket and conventional weapons technology are to be investigated and could face prosecution following a Sunday Herald investigation.
One of the companies is International Military Services, part of the Ministry of Defence, which sold rocket technology to Iraq. The companies were named by Iraq in a 12,000 page dossier submitted to the UN in December. The Security Council agreed to US requests to censor 8000 pages - including sections naming western businesses which aided Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme.
The five permanent members of the security council - Britain, France, Russia, America and China - are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.
The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some ''50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US''.
It claims the US ministries of defence, energy, trade and agriculture, and the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, supplied Iraq with WMD technology.
Germany, currently opposed to war, is shown to be Iraq's biggest arms-trading partner with 80 companies selling weapons technology, including Siemens. It sold medical machines with dual-purpose parts used to detonate nuclear bombs. The German government reportedly ''actively encouraged'' weapons co-operation and assistance was allegedly given to Iraq in developing poison gas used against Kurds.
In China three companies traded weapons technology; in France eight and in Russia six. Other countries included Japan with five companies; Holland with three; Belgium with seven; Spain with three and Sweden with two, including Saab.
The UN claims publicly naming the companies would be counter-productive. Although most of the trade ended in 1991 on the outbreak of the Gulf War, at least two of the five permanent security council members - Russia and China - traded arms with Iraq in breach of UN resolutions after 1991. All trade in WMD technology has been outlawed for decades.
UNSCOM found documents showing preparations by the Russian firms Livinvest, Mars Rotor and Niikhism to supply parts for military helicopters in 1995. In April 1995, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts used in long-range missiles to a Palestinian, who transported them to Baghdad. In 2001 and 2002, the Chinese firm Huawei Technologies sent supplies to Iraqi air defence.
Foreign companies supplied Iraq's nuclear weapons programme with detonators, fissionable material and parts for a uranium enrichment plant. Foreign companies also provided Iraq's chemical and biological programmes with basic materials; helped with building labs; assisted the extension of missile ranges; provided technology to fit missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical warheads; and supplied Scud mobile launch-pads. Nearly all the weapons that were supplied have been destroyed, accounted for or immobilised, according to former weapons inspectors.
The Foreign Office said: ''The UK will investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute any UK company found to have been in breach of export control legislation.'' The Department of Trade and Industry said details on export licences, including information on weapons sold to Iraq, was unavailable.
A spokesman for one of the British companies named, Endshire Export Marketing, said it had sold a consignment of magnets to a German middle-man who sold them to Iraq. Responding to claims that magnets could be used in a nuclear programme, the spokesman said: ''I've no idea if this is the case. I couldn't tell one end of a nuclear bomb from the other.'' The company was included on a US boycott list in 1991.
He said the company considered the deal ''genuine business'' at the time but that, with the ''benefit of hindsight'', the firm would not have taken part in the deal. A spokesman for the MoD's International Military Services said he could not comment as no staff from 1991 were on the payroll and no documents from then existed.
Mick Napier of the Stop The War Coalition said: ''How can we support a government which says it's against mass murder when its record is one of supporting and supplying Iraq? This government depends on public mass amnesia.''
Tommy Sheridan, leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, said: ''The evidence of British armament companies, with central government support, arming the Butcher of Baghdad lays to rest the moral garbage spewed from the British government. It exposes the fact that Britain, along with America, France and Russia, armed Saddam to the teeth while he was butchering his own people.''
Labour MP Tam Dalyell said: ''What the Sunday Herald has printed is of huge significance. It exposes the hypocrisy of Blair and Bush. The chickenhawks who want war were up to their necks in arms deals. This drives a coach and horses through the moral case for war.''
UK Firms that sold arms to Iraq
Key: A - nuclear, B - biological, C - chemical,
R - rocket, K - conventional
l Euromac Ltd-UK (A)
l C Plath-Nuclear (A)
l Endshire Export Marketing (A)
l International Computer Systems (A, R, K)
l MEED International (A, C)
l Walter Somers Ltd. (R)
l International Computer Limited (A, K)
l Matrix Churchill Corp. (A)
l Ali Ashour Daghir (A)
l International Military Services (R)
l Sheffield Forgemasters (R)
l Technology Development Group (R)
l International Signal and Control (R)
l Inwako (A)
l TMG Engineering (K)
l XYY Options, Inc (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:58 am Post subject: Blood Money |
| http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_022803A.shtml
Blood Money
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective Thursday 27 February 2003
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
- President Dwight Eisenhower, January 1961.
George W. Bush gave a speech Wednesday night before the Godfather of conservative Washington think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute. In his speech, Bush quantified his coming war with Iraq as part of a larger struggle to bring pro-western governments into power in the Middle East. Couched in hopeful language describing peace and freedom for all, the speech was in fact the closest articulation of the actual plan for Iraq that has yet been heard from the administration.
In a previous truthout article from February 21, the ideological connections between an extremist right-wing Washington think tank and the foreign policy aspirations of the Bush administration were detailed.
The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.
PNAC has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to a Hussein opposition group called the Iraqi National Congress, and to Iraq's heir-apparent, Ahmed Chalabi, despite the fact that Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison on 31 counts of bank fraud. Chalabi and the INC have, over the years, gathered support for their cause by promising oil contracts to anyone that would help to put them in power in Iraq.
Most recently, PNAC created a new group called The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Staffed entirely by PNAC members, The Committee has set out to "educate" Americans via cable news connections about the need for war in Iraq. This group met recently with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice regarding the ways and means of this education.
Who is PNAC? Its members include:
* Vice President Dick Cheney, one of the PNAC founders, who served as Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.;
* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top national security assistant;
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, also a founding member, along with four of his chief aides including;
* Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, arguably the ideological father of the group;
* Eliot Abrams, prominent member of Bush's National Security Council, who was pardoned by Bush Sr. in the Iran/Contra scandal;
* John Bolton, who serves as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration;
* Richard Perle, former Reagan administration official and present chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board;
* Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, who was Trent Lott's national security aide and who served as an advisor to Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2001;
* Bruce Jackson, Chairman of PNAC, a position he took after serving for years as vice president of weapons manufacturer Lockheed-Martin, and who also headed the Republican Party Platform subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy during the 2000 campaign. His section of the 2000 GOP Platform explicitly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein;
* William Kristol, noted conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, a magazine owned along with the Fox News Network by conservative media mogul Ruppert Murdoch.
The Project for the New American Century seeks to establish what they call 'Pax Americana' across the globe. Essentially, their goal is to transform America, the sole remaining superpower, into a planetary empire by force of arms. A report released by PNAC in September of 2000 entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' codifies this plan, which requires a massive increase in defense spending and the fighting of several major theater wars in order to establish American dominance. The first has been achieved in Bush's new budget plan, which calls for the exact dollar amount to be spent on defense that was requested by PNAC in 2000. Arrangements are underway for the fighting of the wars.
The men from PNAC are in a perfect position to see their foreign policy schemes, hatched in 1997, brought into reality. They control the White House, the Pentagon and Defense Department, by way of this the armed forces and intelligence communities, and have at their feet a Republican-dominated Congress that will rubber-stamp virtually everything on their wish list.
The first step towards the establishment of this Pax Americana is, and has always been, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of an American protectorate in Iraq. The purpose of this is threefold: 1) To acquire control of the oilheads so as to fund the entire enterprise; 2) To fire a warning shot across the bows of every leader in the Middle East; 3) To establish in Iraq a military staging area for the eventual invasion and overthrow of several Middle Eastern regimes, including some that are allies of the United States.
Another PNAC signatory, author Norman Podhoretz, quantified this aspect of the grand plan in the September 2002 issue of his journal, 'Commentary'. In it, Podhoretz notes that the regimes, "that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced, are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as 'friends' of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen." At bottom, for Podhoretz, this action is about "the long-overdue internal reform and modernization of Islam."
This casts Bush's speech to AEI on Wednesday in a completely different light.
Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line.
At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.
Thus, the payout.
It is well known by now that Dick Cheney, before becoming Vice President, served as chairman and chief executive of the Dallas-based petroleum corporation Halliburton. During his tenure, according to oil industry executives and United Nations records, Halliburton did a brisk $73 million in business with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. While working face-to-face with Hussein, Cheney and Halliburton were also moving into position to capitalize upon Hussein's removal from power. In October of 1995, the same month Cheney was made CEO of Halliburton, that company announced a deal that would put it first in line should war break out in Iraq. Their job: To take control of burning oil wells, put out the fires, and prepare them for service.
Another corporation that stands to do well by a war in Iraq is Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Ostensibly, Brown & Root is in the construction business, and thus has won a share of the $900 million government contract for the rebuilding of post-war Iraqi bridges, roads and other basic infrastructure. This is but the tip of the financial iceberg, as the oil wells will also have to be repaired after parent-company Halliburton puts out the fires.
More ominously is Brown & Root's stock in trade: the building of permanent American military bases. There are twelve permanent U.S. bases in Kosovo today, all built and maintained by Brown & Root for a multi-billion dollar profit. If anyone should wonder why the administration has not offered an exit strategy to the Iraq war plans, the presence of Brown & Root should answer them succinctly. We do not plan on exiting. In all likelihood, Brown & Root is in Iraq to build permanent bases there, from which attacks upon other Middle Eastern nations can be staged and managed.
Again, this casts Bush's speech on Wednesday in a new light.
Being at the center of the action is nothing new for Halliburton and Brown & Root. The two companies have worked closely with governments in Algeria, Angola, Bosnia, Burma, Croatia, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Somalia during the worst chapters in those nation's histories. Many environmental and human rights groups claim that Cheney, Halliburton and Brown & Root were, in fact, centrally involved in these fiascos. More recently, Brown & Root was contracted by the Defense Department to build cells for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The bill for that one project came to $300 million.
Cheney became involved with PNAC officially in 1997, while still profiting from deals between Halliburton and Hussein. One year later, Cheney and PNAC began actively and publicly agitating for war on Iraq. They have not stopped to this very day.
Another company with a vested interest in both war on Iraq and massively increased defense spending is the Carlyle Group. Carlyle, a private global investment firm with more than $12.5 billion in capital under management, was formed in 1987. Its interests are spread across 164 companies, including telecommunications firms and defense contractors. It is staffed at the highest levels by former members of the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. Former President George H. W. Bush is himself employed by Carlyle as a senior advisor, as is long-time Bush family advisor and former Secretary of State James Baker III.
One company acquired by Carlyle is United Defense, a weapons manufacturer based in Arlington, VA. United Defense provides the Defense Department with combat vehicle systems, fire support, combat support vehicle systems, weapons delivery systems, amphibious assault vehicles, combat support services and naval armaments. Specifically, United Defense manufactures the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M113 armored personnel carrier, the M88A2 Recovery Vehicle, the Grizzly, the M9 ACE, the Composite Armored Vehicle, the M6 Linebacker, the M7 BFIST, the Armored Gun System, the M4 Command and Control Vehicle, the Battle Command Vehicle, the Paladin, the Crusader, and Electric Gun/Pulse Power weapons technology.
In other words, everything a growing Defense Department, a war in Iraq, and a burgeoning American military empire needs.
Ironically, one group that won't profit from Carlyle's involvement in American military buildup is the family of Osama bin Laden. The bin Laden family fortune was amassed by Mohammed bin Laden, father of Osama, who built a multi-billion dollar construction empire through contracts with the Saudi government. The Saudi BinLaden Group, as this company is called, was heavily invested in Carlyle for years. Specifically, they were invested in Carlyle's Partners II Fund, which includes in that portfolio United Defense and other weapons manufacturers.
This relationship was described in a September 27, 2001 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled 'Bin Laden Family Could Profit From Jump in Defense Spending Due to Ties to US Bank.' The 'bank' in question was the Carlyle Group. A follow-up article published by the Journal on September 28 entitled ' Bin Laden Family Has Intricate Ties With Washington - Saudi Clan Has Had Access To Influential Republicans ' further describes the relationship. In October of 2001, Saudi BinLaden and Carlyle severed their relationship by mutual agreement. The timing is auspicious.
There are a number of depths to be plumbed in all of this. The Bush administration has claimed all along that this war with Iraq is about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, though through it all they have roundly failed to establish any basis for either accusation. On Wednesday, Bush went further to claim that the war is about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing democracy to the Middle East. This ignores cultural realities on the ground in Iraq and throughout the region that, salted with decades of deep mistrust for American motives, make such a democracy movement brought at the point of the sword utterly impossible to achieve.
This movement, cloaked in democracy, is in fact a PNAC-inspired push for an American global empire. It behooves Americans to understand that there is a great difference between being the citizen of a constitutional democracy and being a citizen of an empire. The establishment of an empire requires some significant sacrifices.
Essential social, medical, educational and retirement services will have to be gutted so that those funds can be directed towards a necessary military buildup. Actions taken abroad to establish the preeminence of American power, most specifically in the Middle East, will bring a torrent of terrorist attacks to the home front. Such attacks will bring about the final suspension of constitutional rights and the rule of habeas corpus, as we will find ourselves under martial law. In the end, however, this may be inevitable. An empire cannot function with the slow, cumbersome machine of a constitutional democracy on its back. Empires must be ruled with speed and ruthlessness, in a manner utterly antithetical to the way in which America has been governed for 227 years.
And yes, of course, a great many people will die.
It would be one thing if all of this was based purely on the ideology of our leaders. It is another thing altogether to consider the incredible profit motive behind it all. The President, his father, the Vice President, a whole host of powerful government officials, along with stockholders and executives from Halliburton and Carlyle, stand to make a mint off this war. Long-time corporate sponsors from the defense, construction and petroleum industries will likewise profit enormously.
Critics of the Bush administration like to bandy about the word "fascist" when speaking of George. The image that word conjures is of Nazi stormtroopers marching in unison towards Hitler's Final Solution. This does not at all fit. It is better, in this matter, to view the Bush administration through the eyes of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini, dubbed 'the father of Fascism,' defined the word in a far more pertinent fashion. "Fascism," said Mussolini, "should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Boycott the French, the Germans, and the other 114 nations who stand against this Iraq war all you wish. France and Germany do not oppose Bush because they are cowards, or because they enjoy the existence of Saddam Hussein. France and Germany stand against the Bush administration because they intend to stop this Pax Americana in its tracks if they can. They have seen militant fascism up close and personal before, and wish never to see it again.
Would that we Americans could be so wise.
-------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
JINSA Zionist Extremists (associated with PNAC) have Basically Hijacked the Bush Regime and are PUSHING US to its Long Desired War on Islam (to Begin with the Invasion of Iraq):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2003/03/01/jinsa-zionist-extremists-push-us-to-perpetual-war.php
JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist Extremists (have hijacked the current Bush regime and are PUSHING US TO PERPETUAL WAR) are associated with the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) which is mentioned in the Guardian newspaper article below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,903073,00.html
Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus. So says the latest hot polemic exciting transatlantic policy types: Robert Kagan's Paradise and Power, a meditation on how Europeans have grown soft and idealistic (and feminine) while the Yanks remain tough, booted and aware (like real men) of how brutal a place the world can be. According to Kagan, our outlooks have grown so far apart that it's time we stopped pretending we even "occupy the same world". We are from different planets. Maybe that explains why so many Europeans are not just on the opposite side from the US in the debate over the coming war on Iraq, but why we are not even having the same conversation. While we still agonise over whether or not to go to war - forcing our prime minister to make and remake his case, even if that means taking an hour of questions on MTV, as he will next Friday - the American conversation moved on long ago. With barely a peep of congressional opposition to a military attack against Saddam, and most Democrats reduced to silent compliance, the Washington village has taken it as read, both that war will happen, and that it is justified. Their debate is focusing instead on a different question: what next? It might be a simple function of power. We sit back making abstract, moral judgments while they, as the nation poised to do the business, concern themselves with practicalities. We are not quite spectators - 40,000 Brits will be involved, after all - but nor do we have the prime spot in the dugout, making the key decisions. Those will be made in Washington. Whatever the explanation, the gulf between us is real. The op-ed pages of the American papers have the odd thumb-suck on the rights and wrongs of prising Saddam out by force, but their more pressing interest (besides pouring bile on the surrender monkeys of France and Germany) is in the task that will face the great US Army of Liberation once its initial work is done. There is, for example, an argument about personnel. Should the American governor-general ruling newly free Iraq be a civilian - perhaps the former nuclear weapons inspector, David Kay, or Bush-friendly lawyer Michael Mobbs - or a soldier? Surely a man in a suit would smack less of military occupation, and therefore be the more tactful choice? On the other hand, a uniformed viceroy might repeat the magic worked when Douglas MacArthur oversaw Japan. If that's the precedent, then retired lieutenant general and veteran of the first Gulf war, Jay Garner, would be a frontrunner. Or would it be smarter-to- name, Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American General John Abizaid, amusingly known as "Mad Arab" to his colleagues? Such are the dilemmas preoccupying pre-occupier America. There are mechanical questions to ponder, too. Which system would work best? If not a formal military occupation, perhaps a Kosovo-style civilian administration? Or an interim government made up, à la Afghanistan, of multiple opposition groups, returned to Iraq after decades of exile? Or would it be more convenient simply to replace Saddam with a new strongman: whether a former Ba'athist suitably made over and rebranded as "pro-western" or an outsider, like Jordan's Prince Hassan, a cousin of Iraq's last king who was assassinated in 1958? Decisions, decisions. And the US will, barring the most dramatic change of heart by either Saddam Hussein or George Bush, be making them soon. What they will turn on will be more than operational matters of efficiency. They will go instead to the heart of why America is fighting this war. For if this conflict's chief aim is what the new, second UN resolution claims it to be - the simple disarmament of Iraq - then any postwar settlement would be devised around that objective: perhaps a new, compliant dictator would do that job best. If the goal is the one touted by Tony Blair in recent days as the moral case - namely, liberation from tyranny - then only a fresh, democratic start will do. If, however, the American victors insist on a much more robust level of US control - restructuring Iraq entirely, studding it with countless military bases - then we could start drawing rather different conclusions as to the true motive of this campaign. We might agree with those who detect in the Iraq adventure the opening move of a much grander American design: the establishing of US hegemony for the next 100 years. This is not just twitchy, anti-war conspiracy talk. An outfit exists on 17th Street in Washington, DC, called the Project for the New American Century, explicitly committed to US mastery of the globe for the coming age. Its acolytes speak of "full spectrum dominance", meaning American invincibility in every field of warfare - land, sea, air and space - and a world in which no two nations' relationship with each other will be more important than their relationship with the US. There will be no place on earth, or the heavens for that matter, where Washington's writ does not run supreme. To that end, a ring of US military bases should surround China, with liberation of the People's Republic considered the ultimate prize. As one enthusiast puts it concisely: "After Baghdad, Beijing." If this sounds like the harmless delusions of an eccentric fringe, think again. The founder members of the project, launched in 1997 as a Republican assault on the Clinton presidency, form a rollcall of today's Bush inner circle. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle - they're all there. So too is Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House's "special envoy and ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis". It will not be the war itself which will reveal these ultras' true intent. That would be fought the same way whatever the underlying motive: overwhelming force aimed at a swift decapitation of the Iraqi regime. But the postwar occupation will reveal plenty. Then we will know if the hawkish dreamers of the project have indeed taken over US foreign policy. How they remake free Iraq will tell us whether they plan to remake the world. In other words, this is one debate we cannot afford to sit out. As US commentator Sandra Mackay wrote this month: "Washington's hawks understand that the real risks ... are not in war, but in the peace that follows." It's after victory that the most enduring impact will be felt, whether it be a hated US-led occupation, sparking a fresh round of global terrorism, or the sudden release of Iraq's lethal, internal tensions which Saddam has kept pent-up for 35 years. Kurds could fight Turks for their own state in the north; Shias might team up with Iran for control of the south; everyone may turn on the hated Saddamite Ba'athists in a frenzy of revenge. Iraq will not be like 1940s Japan or Germany, the occupations fondly remembered by the US commentariat. Those were coherent nations; Iraq is an artificial fusion of antagonistic tribes. Victory may be rapid and easy - but that's when the real trouble could start. j.freedland@guardian.co.uk
PNAC Group....The List of Players:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/31/pnac-group-the-list-of-players.php
JINSA (Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs) Zionist Extremist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 9:57 am Post subject: Norman Podhoretz of the Zionist New York Post |
| The transcript here reveals that Zionist Norman Podhoretz's daughter is married to Zionist extremist (racist) Elliott Abrams of PNAC:
http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/show_716.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2003 7:13 pm Post subject: Liberating America From Israel |
| We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war - John Bolton
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/17/we-ll-deal-with-syria-iran-after-iraq-war-john-bolton.php
New York Times Forum: Distrust of Feith and Perle:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/new-york-times-forum-distrust-of-feith-and-perle.php
What does the Bush Imperial Maffia Really Want?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/18/what-does-the-bush-imperial-maffia-really-want.php
Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
Israeli sources say war imminent; Iran and Syria next:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/15/israeli-sources-say-war-imminent-iran-and-syria-next.php
The Threat of "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) in Israel and Palestine:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/15/the-threat-of-transfer-in-israel-and-palestine.php
TOO MANY SMOKING GUNS TO IGNORE: ISRAEL, US JEWS, IRAQ:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/28/too-many-smoking-guns-to-ignore-israel-us-jews-iraq.php
John Pilger: The Urgency of Saving Lives:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/john-pilger-urgency-of-saving-the-lives.php
Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious conviction, they are determined to prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S. lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill, criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces, using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded 9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S. Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality.
Nothing can justify 9/11. Those guilty deserve maximum punishment, but it makes sense for America to examine motivations promptly and as carefully as possible. Terrorism almost always arises from deeply-felt grievances. If they can be eradicated or eased, terrorist passions are certain to subside.
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
_________________ | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
