September 11: Prior Knowledge and Deliberate Inaction
I am including this piece by Doug Giebel only for its comments about
the possibility that Bush administration insiders had foreknowledge of
the 9/11 terrorism but deliberately allowed it to happen. It is a very
cogent argument.
Giebel writes:
"Prior to 9/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an
attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The
air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable
sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to
believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There
is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected
an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults
on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the
event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely
sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq."
In short, US authorities did not have to have foreknowledge of the
specifics of the impending attack. Rather, they simply wanted to allow
any type to attack, which could be used to provide a pretext for war
against Iraq. Thus, they deliberately ignored warnings about
terrorism. However, there would be no reason for them to expect the
great devastation that did occur, the probability of which was very
low.
Giebel continues that "the Bush White House did not foresee the
expected ‘event’ (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations,
giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam
Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced (as
bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon burned; they
simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, with no link
between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became necessary to delay
invading Iraq until action against bin Laden and the Taliban had
satisfied the national desire for revenge."
Some individuals with considerable expertise, such as German
intelligence expert Andreas von Bülow, have argued that the US
government (and/or Israel) actually staged the entire attack. But if
this were the case it would seem that the conspirators would have made
it appear that it was committed by Iraqi agents. Since this was not
the case, it would seem that the Al Qaeda terrorists were real. And it
seems that Israel was aware of these terrorists. We know that some
Mossad agents lived on the same street in Florida as Mohammed Atta and
that other Mossad agents filmed the burning Trade Towers from across
the Hudson. These occurrences would definitely seem to be other than
pure coincidence.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/towers_5.htm
It seems reasonable to assume that if the Mossad were keeping
surveillance on the Islamic terrorists, Bush administration insiders
were aware of this. (Naturally, President Bush would be totally
unaware of what was going on.)
Does this theory attribute an impossible evil cynicism to the Bush
administration insiders? Giebel writes: "Is it cynical to imply the
Bush Administration had so little interest in the loss of human life
it would tolerate a modest loss to terrorists in return for the
capture of Iraq? Not according to the evidence. The Bush
Administration has shown little interest in the loss of non-military
lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government avoids ‘body counts’ of
‘collateral damage.’ Similarly, there have been no major reservations
about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan to
permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq will
result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team, such losses
are acceptable."
Given the numerous lies the Bush neocons have put out regarding the
non-existent WMD and the non-existent Saddam-Al Qaeda ties, it is
apparent that they believe that the ends justify the means.
__________________________
http://www.counterpunch.com/giebel03292004.html
March 29, 2004
Candide in the Wilderness
How Bush Administration Policy Was Made
By DOUG GIEBEL
In this best of all possible political worlds, might and money triumph
over adversity. Until the dramatically expected appearance of Richard
Clarke, Lady Luck was blowing almost daily on the dice of George W.
Bush and the Bushvolk. How did they work their magic? Was the table
rigged? Short of climbing into the skulls of Bush Administration
brainiacs, it is possible to speculate as follows.
Not "All" About Oil
It is no secret. Some neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration
pined for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein well before
George W. Bush began his first bid for the White House. The goal: to
appropriate Iraq as a major foothold for U.S. military power and
influence in the heart of the Middle East. In the years following the
first Gulf War, Iraq had succumbed to inspections, sanctions and
military strikes. There was virtually no chance Saddam Hussein would
or could attack the United States. The problem: How to convince U.S.
politicians and the public that an invasion of Iraq was an acceptable
course to follow.
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, there is no evidence the Bush
Administration war-seekers planned the terrorist crimes of 9/11; nor
does it seem likely that those involved in carrying out the attacks
knew (a) of the plans to take out Saddam Hussein's government; (b) how
the administration would react to their September Surprise.
In the weeks before September 11, 2001, the
Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group ignored advice from Clinton
Administration insiders. Instead, as Clarke, O'Neill and the record
show, they had their sights on Saddam's Iraq. Warnings of impending
terrorism in briefings given by members of the Clinton Administration
to the incumbent Republicans were dismissed or ignored because the new
kids on the block had a cocksure sense of their own self worth. They
knew Iraq was where they were going. They weren't quite certain how to
get there.
Prior to 9;/11, it seems plausible the Bush team in fact expected an
attack, either at a U.S. installation overseas or on home ground. The
air inside the Beltway was rife with warnings from many reliable
sources. To believe no such attack could be on the horizon was to
believe in the Tooth Fairy, and these Republicans are realists. There
is no Santa Claus because THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected
an attack, wherever it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults
on the World Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the
event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely
sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq.
Lady Luck arrived unexpectedly for both George W. Bush and Usama bin
Laden. Just as the terrorists could not have foreseen the complete
collapse of the World Trade Center, so the Bush White House did not
foresee the expected "event" (in this case, 9/11) would exceed their
expectations, giving them a sensational and emotional excuse for
taking on Saddam Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush
Administration rejoiced (as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell
and the Pentagon burned; they simply took advantage of the situation.
Unfortunately, with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it
became necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden
and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge.
Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration had so little interest
in the loss of human life it would tolerate a modest loss to
terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq? Not according to the
evidence. The Bush Administration has shown little interest in the
loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our government
avoids "body counts" of "collateral damage." Similarly, there have
been no major reservations about putting U.S. troops in harm's way;
and the current plan to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our
troops in Iraq will result in more losses for years to come. To the
Bush team, such losses are acceptable. On October 17, 2003,Rep. Tom
Delay expressed the administration view, declaring, "We'll pay any
price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty. After
the shock and of awe of major combat the price and burden of human
hope shift from the battlefield to the town hall and the town market.
And that hope Mr. Chairman cannot come in the form of a promissory
note. It's our fight and now it's our job."
Later, when asked if the war was worth the lives of 564 U.S. soldiers
killed, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "Oh, my goodness, yes. There's just
no question ...25 million people in Iraq are free." (March 14, 2004)
My suggested scenario explains why the administration did not seem
especially concerned about an impending event of terrorism and why
alarms sounded by people in the field were ignored or under-valued. It
also renders more clearly the possible reasons why President Bush
would object to setting up the 9/11 Commission and why the commission
has been stonewalled. Successful strategists take advantage when the
unexpected arrives unexpectedly.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Pre-invasion, their statements to the contrary, Bush Administration
leaders knew there were few or no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
In revving up the siren to wail that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD
capable of killing "thousands" and "millions" of human beings,
administration officials knew its fear-inducing claims were patently
untrue.
Whatever their failings, those who led us into war may be risk-takers,
but they are not foolhardy. The everyday behavior of President Bush,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others with membership in The
Project for the New American Century demonstrates their collective
interest in remaining in power through the re-election of George W.
Bush and beyond. In politics, very little happens that is not
calculated with at least one hand on the pulse of public opinion.
Being there: that's what politics is all about.
In this context, the often-cited Wolfowitz statement in Vanity Fair
makes sense. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot
to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue
that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as
the core reason [for invading Iraq]." Still hurting from the criminal
acts of 9/11, Americans would be more easily persuaded of Saddam
Hussein's evil designs if he were portrayed as posing the most
alarming threat possible: his possession of weapons of mass
destruction to be used against U.S. cities and other targets. As we
know, the argument, although quite absurd, carried the day. (Why
"absurd"? Because Saddam's nation had been under sanctions, military
overflights and attacks for a dozen years. Iraq had no air force and
no navy capable of reaching the United States. The best our neo-con
fear-mongers could muster was the specter of unmanned drone aircraft
that were in reality incapable of flying from Iraq to the <U.S.A>.)
How much damage were Bushvolk willing to risk? Facing the potential
use by Hussein's forces of tons of supposedly highly-lethal weapons of
mass destruction would have meant taking extraordinary risks with the
lives of U.S. and "coalition" troops. Invading forces met by such
formidable opposition would likely have resulted in a nightmarish
slaughter of the "liberators" and stain the Bush record for all time.
Would these otherwise-circumspect political creatures really take that
chance? Logically: no, they would not. And they didn't.
No WMD were used against coalition forces during the invasion, and
they have not surfaced to be used against those forces during the
occupation. Why not? Common sense would lead one to believe that if
the weapons really existed and posed a threat so immediate that
invasion was necessary, Saddam Hussein would have used those weapons
in a heartbeat to repel invasion and to wipe out the occupiers.
Another major "clue" to the WMD mystery can be addressed by recalling
the Pentagon's unusual strategy to "embed" reporters with the invading
troops. According to some estimates, approximately 2,700 "embedded"
reporters worked the march to Baghdad and beyond, a staggering number,
especially if there were any real fear of encountering weapons of mass
destruction. Embedded journalists were perhaps even more likely to be
killed or injured than the troops engaged in actual combat. Their
reports of battlefield casualties from WMD related-causes would have
horrified the nation and the world. It seems certain this army of
reporters would never have been invited along for the ride if invasion
had not been viewed by Pentagon brass and others as the relative
"cakewalk" it turned out to be.
Note also that on February 7, Australia's newspaper The Age reported,
"Australian troops fighting in Iraq were told in an official briefing
days before entering the country that Saddam Hussein did not have the
capability to launch weapons of mass destruction against its
neighbours." The news must have relieved anxiety for Aussie troops.
Surely if Australia knew, the U.S. knew. This reinforces retired State
Department weapons expert Greg Thielmann's statement to 60 Minutes
that Saddam posed no real threat, not even to his immediate neighbors.
After considering those years of bombings, sanctions and intelligence
gathering, the Bush Administration was quite certain an invasion of
Iraq would be successful and would immeasurably enhance its prospects
for a second four-year stint in the White House. At home, a "war
budget" would block funding of social programs disfavored by the White
House. The semi-secret plan to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq
would move forward following the selection of a
"democratically-elected" group to govern Iraq according to U.S. needs
and wishes. Today: Iraq. Tomorrow: The Middle East and beyond.
The unaccomplished mission went forward; Iraq was invaded as planned
and desired.
Weapons of mass destruction had everything (and nothing) to do with
it.
Protecting Iraq
On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune ran a short article by foreign
correspondent Christine Spolar in which she revealed the U.S. military
is building "an enhanced system" of fourteen (14) "enduring bases"
that are "designed to last for years.
Experts were correct to believe the U.S. should have employed a much
larger military force when invading Iraq, especially for maintaining
civil order once the occupation began. On the other hand, chaos has
the advantage of demonstrating to occupation critics the need for a
permanent U.S. military presence. It remains to be seen whether, under
U.S. control, an effective Iraqi army and police force can ever be
established. Although Iraq poses no real danger to the United States
as a nation, a simmering Iraq gives the Bush Pentagon an excuse for
maintaining a significant number of U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil.
Better safe, they might argue, than sorry.
Two redundant questions regarding a "rebuilt" Iraqi military:
1. Will an Iraqi air force be re-established capable of repelling
threats from outside the country?
2. Will the Iraqi military be independent and provided with military
hardware (tanks, missiles, etc.) capable not only of repelling attacks
from foreign entities and also capable of launching an invasion of
neighboring nations?
Consider. In May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld said, "We'll have as many
forces in the country as is necessary to see that there is a secure
environment.'' Nearly one year later Rumsfeld ruminated, "[M]y
personal view is that the Iraqis are going to be better able to
provide for their own security, more likely to make progress with
respect to their economic and--and--and essential service side of the
equation if, in fact, there's an Iraqi face on the government and that
they have a voice and some important role in governing their country."
The Iraqi military will not be revived to the extent it could pose a
"danger" or an "imminent threat" to anyone outside its borders. In all
matters foreign and domestic, there will be an "Iraqi face" and they
will have "some important role" in the nation's affairs.
Interviewed on ABC's This Week program, Secretary of State Powell
said, "We will continue to have 100,000 troops there, helping them
with their security as their own security forces show greater ability
to protect the population. We'll also have a very large embassy."
(March 14, 2004)
In February 2004, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, seconded Rumsfeld, stating it is unlikely an Iraqi
government will ask the U.S. to leave Iraq. Then Myers added, "And our
help's going to be needed for some time. If nothing else, think about
the external threats to Iraq. Certainly, the new Iraqi army's not
going to be up to that in terms of size, or their training."
These revealing statements set forth Iraq's future, the performance of
which will be stage managed by the United States, not for a year but,
in Gen. Jay Garner's words, "the next few decades. (Congress Daily,
February 6, 2004)
If Iraq is threatened from outside, the U.S. will come to the rescue
with our military might including continued use of National Guard and
Reserves. Should those forces dwindle, re-introduction of the military
draft will follow. By means of this political strategy, employment
figures at home will be boosted, giving President Bush a means of
claiming an improved economy as new workers are hired to fill the
shoes of those sent east in combat boots.
Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure will drag on for years. The contracts
granted to U.S. corporations will continue as long as our
semi-privatized military and our palatial embassy remain in Iraq.
Delaying and prolonging reconstruction has advantages. Men sitting
endlessly in line to fill their cars' gas tanks will not be making
mischief somewhere else. Families who must wait hours for electricity
to come on are tied to their homes by necessity. Water is necessary
for life. Its absence weakens the healthy and debilitates those who
are ill. Unpurified water may cause sickness among those who are not
immune to impurities. Negatively rationing water leads to restricted
activity and cloudy mental processes. Our model here: the old
Hollywood westerns: He who controls the energy and water supplies
controls the territory.
The cowboys are in charge. To borrow from President Bush, we will be
in Iraq "As long as it takes." Whether a compliant press will ever ask
President Bush and John Kerry for their views on this issue seems
doubtful. The cost of building and maintaining at least 100,000 troops
on ground in Iraq is unknown, as are estimates of the number of lives
that may (surely will) be lost over a period of (say) fifty years.
Will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be wounded or murdered
in Baghdad? Perhaps these matters are not to be discussed in polite
patriotic society. Is "Bring the Troops Home" already a lost cause?
How does the Bush Administration respond to the question of lives lost
as a result of our good-will efforts to remake Iraq in our own image?
Neo-con Bush booster William Kristol, Chairman of the Project for the
New American Century, gave what might be the answer when he told the
Diane Rehm Show, "I am very comfortable defending the morality of the
current situation." Kristol's comfortable position is cold comfort to
those who must serve in harms way and those who suffer loss as the war
of occupation drags on for decades, draining money and blood from
Americans.
The Bush Administration was quite aware no weapons of mass destruction
posed a threat to our invading and occupying forces. The Big Lie was
bigger than most folks realized. Contrary to critics who believe the
administration has no "plan" for post-invasion Iraq, the plan is
obvious to any willing to examine what has happened, what is happening
and what is being said. The years those neo-conservatives spent
dreaming of their golden opportunity to appropriate Iraq were not
spent in idleness. The puzzle fits.
Oh, and one more thing . . .
Oil.
Doug Giebel is a writer and analyst who lives in Big Sandy, Montana.
His essay "When Professors Cheat" is soon to be published by Mellen
Press. He welcomes comments at dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net.
.
|
