War Without End

Alpha

but the Zionist controlled press/media in the US didn't tell us because it acts in Israel's interest first:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/01/22/every-morning-every-american-should-read-this-twice.php

Alpha

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/09/25/what-congressman-paul-findley-said-on-aipac-zionist-lobby.php

Alpha

Alpha · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 7:56 am Post subject: Israeli Connection Cover-up

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/01/israeli-connection-coverup.php

bagman

For further info on IMF abuses plus some interesting alternatives try
George Monbiots book Manifesto for a New World Order (http://www.monbiot.com). If nothing else it will pick up your mood to see some real academic solutions to the current criminals of the world.
Roll on mass defaults by 3rd world nations!

bagman · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: Further

Apologies if my previous post is off topic a little, I saw the references to IMF involvement in Asian economic collapse is all.
Still, if monbiots ideas came to fruition, theres no way the US would get away with bankrolling Israels military anymore, plus it would provide a body that could eventually pass resolutions against Israels atroctities without fear of a US veto so I guess that could bring it back on topic here.

Alpha · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: Further

Alpha · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 6:42 pm Post subject: Re: Further

Alpha

Ahmed Chalabi's Ties To Mossad and the Neocons:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/04/01/ahmed-chalabi-s-ties-to-mossad-and-the-neocons.php

Alpha · Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:03 am Post subject: Bush-Blair Secret War Pact

Subj: Bush-Blair Secret War Pact
Date: 4/4/04 12:21:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: hectorpv@comcast.net
To: hectorpv@comcast.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Friends,

Bush-Blair Secret War Pact

From Britain comes further information that the US planned to attack Iraq right after September 11. "President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001." This first hand information was provided by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after September 11.

This information will confirm what Clarke and others have stated about the early targeting of Iraq by the Bush administration. But it will be even more devastating for Blair who publicly claimed otherwise. "But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought."

A detailed account of this conversation will be published this week an article in the May issue of the magazine _Vanity Fair_. "The Vanity Fair article will provide further ammunition in the shape of extracts from the private, contemporaneous diary kept by the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, throughout the months leading up to the war. This reveals how, during the summer of 2002, when Blair and his closest advisers were mounting an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade Bush to agree to seek United Nations support over Iraq, and promising British support for military action in return, Blair apparently concealed his actions from his Cabinet."

In essence, for Blair the purpose of seeking UN support was only to provide political cover for a war decision that had already been made.

Let’s note a few crucial facts here, which most people have forgotten. Both Blair and Bush were pledging their countries to go to war without any consent of their people. Popular approval was only achieved after the fact (and then only partially in the case of the US)—when the propaganda lies had prepared their people for war. So much for democracy! So much for the US Constitution! [Of course, the war violated the US Constitution since there was not declaration of war, but even the Congressional assent for the use of force was based on the Bush administration’s WMD lies.]

The Founders of the United States believed that war was the greatest threat to liberty and therefore could only be determined by the representatives of the people. In contrast to the then existing English monarchical system, the Framers did not want the wealth and blood of the Nation committed by the decision of a single individual

As James Madison, the father of the US Constitution, stated: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

Madison further said: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."

Americans used to believe in the great importance of open diplomacy and detested the secret dealings of the European powers. Woodrow Wilson believed that this openness could be extended to the whole world. The First of Woodrow Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points stated: "Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view." Sometimes the neoconservatives are referred to as "Wilsonians" because of their professed democratic idealism. How wrong! Wilson was an idealist, the neocons are Machiavellian [and I might be insulting poor Niccolo here]. Wilson may have been somewhat naïve in his views, but the neocons simply use "democratic" verbiage to advance power goals.

To repeat, in regard to the war on Iraq, the US government simply prepared the American people by propaganda lies for a war that had already been decided upon. Tony Blair simply did the same. Both the American and British governments talk about spreading "democracy" but act in a manner in which the people have no input on policy but are simply manipulated by propaganda lies. Nobody seems much concerned. Once one lie is disproven, another lie is thrown out after the fact to justify the Iraq war. Some self-government! [And, of course, the attack on Iraq, which was not for self-defense, also violated a cardinal tenet of international law.]

Instead of being in line with democracy, the deception of the Bush-Blair War Pact tends to parallel the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact of August 1939.

____________________________________________

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1185439,00.html

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

· Decision came nine days after 9/11

· Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

David Rose

Sunday April 4, 2004

The Observer

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

The Vanity Fair article will provide further ammunition in the shape of extracts from the private, contemporaneous diary kept by the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, throughout the months leading up to the war. This reveals how, during the summer of 2002, when Blair and his closest advisers were mounting an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade Bush to agree to seek United Nations support over Iraq, and promising British support for military action in return, Blair apparently concealed his actions from his Cabinet.

For example, on 26 July Short wrote that she had raised her 'simmering worry about Iraq' in a meeting with Blair, asking him for a debate on Iraq in the next Cabinet meeting - the last before the summer recess. However, the diary went on, Blair replied that this was unnecessary because 'it would get hyped ... He said nothing [was] decided, and wouldn't be over summer.'

In fact, that week Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, was in Washington, meeting both Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in order to press Blair's terms for military support, and Blair himself had written a personal memorandum to the President in which he set them out. Vanity Fair quotes a senior American official from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office who says he read the transcript of a telephone call between Blair and Bush a few days later.

'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'

Before the call, this official says, he had the impression that the probability of invasion was high, but still below 100 per cent. Afterwards, he says, 'it was a done deal'.

As late as 9 September, Short's diary records, when Blair went to a summit with Bush and Cheney at Camp David in order to discuss final details, 'T[ony] B[lair] gave me assurances when I asked for Iraq to be discussed at Cabinet that no decision [had been] made and [was] not imminent.' Later that day she learnt from the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, that Blair had asked to make 20,000 British troops available in the Gulf. She still believed her Prime Minister's assurances, but wrote that, if had she not done so, she would 'almost certainly' have resigned from the Government. At that juncture her resignation would have dealt Blair a very damaging blow.

But if Blair was misleading his own Government and party, he appears to have done the same thing to Bush and Cheney. At the Camp David meeting, Cheney was still resisting taking the case against Saddam and his alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

According to both Meyer and the senior Cheney official, Blair helped win his argument by saying that he could be toppled from power at the Labour Party conference later that month if Bush did not take his advice. The party constitution makes clear that this would have been impossible and senior party figures agree that, at that juncture, it was not a politically realistic statement.

Short's diary shows in the final run-up to war Blair persuaded her not to resign and repeatedly stated that Bush had promised it would be the UN, not the American-led occupying coalition, which would supervise the reconstruction of Iraq. This, she writes, was the clinching factor in her decision to stay in the Government - with devastating consequences for her own political reputation.

Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead.

But Bush had already promised Blair he would seek a second resolution and Blair feared he might lose Parliament's support without it. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office legal department was telling him that without a second resolution war would be illegal, a view that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, seemed to share at that stage. When the White House sought Blair's opinion on the French overture, he balked.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: 'Iraq had been a foreign policy priority for a long time and was discussed at most meetings between the two leaders. Our position was always clear: that we would try to work through the UN, and a decision on military action was not taken until other options were exhausted in March last year.'

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Chalmers Johnson on Empire, Blowback and a daffy President+ - page 2