Re: ELEMENTARY 9-11 -- insider guilt established by new evidence

From: *** Eastman (silver_at_nwinfo.net)
Date: 06/21/04 

Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:33:13 -0700

The three most important articles I've seen this month (below) put
everything in proper perspective with irresistable intellectual and
political force when combined. Read and you will agree. Be sure to use
them.
 -- *** eastman

MOYERS AND CHOSSUDOVSKY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----
Item #1:
Eastman introduction:
Bill Moyer's makes the case for a populist alternative  (since progressivism
is a zionist psy-op to undermine true Jeffersonian liberalism-populism.
This is an astounding summary of the domestic economic situation, not hidden
in misleading numbers like GDP (which is anything but a measure of "growth"
or "standard of living" or  health of the economy)  or  "the interest rate"
(which is really just the rate the Federal Reserve charges to lend to banks
so they can afford to get closer to their reserve-requirement constrained
lending limits  -- and has nothing to do with the money supply or the
availability of credit outside of the international finance loop etc.)  -- 
but don't let me loose you  --  scroll down from here to Bill Moyer's if are
in a hurry
-----------------------
as phony as the political party difference between Republicans and Democrats
is the ideological difference between conservatism and progressivism
Bill Moyer's -- a miracle of the truth sayer  amidst the PBS prostituted
mouthpieces   -- has made it clear how the real populist issues vital to the
people of this nation go begging  as the world is focused by the Zionist
media monopoly on the sham causes of  the "war on terror,"  and
globalization from progressive John Kerry and conservative George W. Bush.
Take what Bill Moyers has said here and add the hard finding that 9-11 has
been proven to have been a mass-murder cover-up  -- despite the evidence
covering false-investigations of the Commission, and of  Mike Myer's with
his trivia-revealing limited hangout, and and of over three hundred sites
with as many inconclusives-centered and established-trivia centered "worst
evidence" websites and e-lists  all burying the real investigations under a
ton of glitz and spam "false-opposition" whose only purpose is to crowd you
so you never see the best evidence etc.
Anyway, here is Moyer's most important article (WHICH, IF ANY OF YOU WERE
REALLY BOTH RATIONAL AND ACTIVIST AT THE SAME TIME) should cause you too
seek a real populist alternative to  Kerry-Bush-Nader.
*** Eastman
Yakima
{The Chossudovsky article, The Big Lie,  follows below  --  and an article
on the Bush-Greenspan coup d'grace intended to  finish  a middle-class
sustaining economy once and for all follows that.)
--------
Excerpts from Bill Moyers' keynote speech at New York University, "This is
the Fight of Our Lives," delivered on June 3, 2004.
This is the Fight of Our Lives.
     by Bill Moyers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class in Washington today.  Not
the fact that more children are growing up in poverty in America than in any
other industrial nation; not the fact that millions of workers are actually
making less money today in real dollars than they did twenty years ago; not
the fact that working people are putting in longer and longer hours and
still falling behind; not the fact that while we have the most advanced
medical care in the world, nearly 44 million Americans -- eight out of ten
of them in working families -- are uninsured and cannot get the basic care
they need.
Astonishing as it seems, no one in official Washington seems embarrassed by
the fact that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it's been in 50
years -- the worst inequality among all western nations.  Or that we are
experiencing a shift in poverty.  For years it was said those people down
there at the bottom were single, jobless mothers.  For years they were told
work, education, and marriage is how they move up the economic ladder.  But
poverty is showing up where we didn't expect it -- among families that
include two parents, a worker, and a head of the household with more than a
high school education.  These are the newly poor.  Our political, financial
and business class expects them to climb out of poverty . . on an escalator
moving downward.
By the end of the decade most Americans were running harder but slipping
behind, and the gap between them and prosperous America was widening.
What turns their personal tragedy into a political travesty is that the vast
majority of them are very patriotic.  They love this country.  But they no
longer believe they matter to the people who run the country.   Yet, by the
end of the decade most of them were no longer paying attention to politics.
They don't see it connecting to their lives.  They don't think their
concerns will ever be addressed by the political, corporate, and media
elites who make up our dominant class.  They are not cynical, because they
are deeply religious people with no capacity for cynicism, but they know the
system is rigged against them.  They know this, and we know this.  For years
now a small fraction of American households have been garnering an extreme
concentration of wealth and income while large corporations and financial
institutions have obtained unprecedented levels of economic and political
power over daily life.  In 1960, the gap in terms of wealth between the top
20% and the bottom 20% was 30-fold.  Four decades later it is more than
75-fold.
VCRs and television sets are cheap, but higher education, health care,
public transportation, drugs, housing and cars have risen faster in price
than typical family incomes.  And life has grown neither calm nor secure for
most Americans, by any means." You can find many sources to support this
conclusion.  I like the language of a small outfit here in New York called
the Commonwealth Foundation/Center for the Renewal of American Democracy.
They conclude that working families and the poor "are losing ground under
economic pressures that deeply affect household stability, family dynamics,
social mobility, political participation, and civic life."
We could prevent the polarization between the very rich and the very poor
that poisoned other societies.  We could provide that each and every citizen
would enjoy the basic necessities of life, a voice in the system of
self-government, and a better chance for their children.  We could preclude
the vast divides that produced the turmoil and tyranny of the very countries
from which so many of our families had fled.
Historically, through a system of checks and balances we Americans were
going to maintain a safe, if shifting, equilibrium between wealth and
commonwealth.  We believed equitable access to public resources is the
lifeblood of any democracy.  So early on, primary schooling was made free to
all.  States changed laws to protect debtors, often the relatively poor,
against their rich creditors.  Charters to establish corporations were open
to most, if not all, white comers, rather than held for the elite.  The
government encouraged Americans to own their own piece of land, and even
supported squatters' rights.  The court challenged monopoly -- all in the
name of we the people.
But then class war was declared, a generation ago, in a powerful polemic by
William Simon, who was soon to be Secretary of the Treasury.  He called on
the financial and business class, in effect, to take back the power and
privileges they had lost in the depression and new deal.  They got the
message, and soon they began a stealthy class war against the rest of
society and the principles of our democracy.  They set out to trash the
social contract, to cut their workforces and wages, to scour the globe in
search of cheap labor, and to shred the social safety net that was supposed
to protect people from hardships beyond their control.  Business Week put it
bluntly at the time: "Some people will obviously have to do with less....it
will be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow the idea of doing with
less so that big business can have more."
The middle class and working poor are told that what's happening to them is
the consequence of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand."  This is a lie.  What's
happening to them is the direct consequence of corporate activism,
intellectual propaganda, the rise of a religious orthodoxy that in its
hunger for government subsidies has made an idol of power, and a string of
political decisions favoring the powerful and the privileged who bought the
political system right out from under us.
Thomas Edsall of The Washington Post wrote: "During the 1970s, business
refined its ability to act as a class, submerging competitive instincts in
favor of joint, cooperate action in the legislative area." Big business
political action committees flooded the political arena with a deluge of
dollars.  And they built alliances with the religious right -- Jerry
Falwell's Moral Majority and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition -- who
mounted a cultural war providing a smokescreen for the class war, hiding the
economic plunder of the very people who were enlisted as foot soldiers in
the cause of privilege.
Look at the spoils of victory:
Over the past three years, they've pushed through $2 trillion dollars in tax
cuts -- almost all tilted towards the wealthiest people in the country.
Cuts in taxes on the largest incomes.
Cuts in taxes on investment income.
And cuts in taxes on huge inheritances.
More than half of the benefits are going to the wealthiest one percent.  You
could call it trickle-down economics, except that the only thing that
trickled down was a sea of red ink in our state and local governments,
forcing them to cut services for and raise taxes on middle class working
America.
Now the Congressional Budget Office forecasts deficits totaling $2.75
trillion over the next ten years.
These deficits have been part of their strategy.  Some of you will remember
that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan tried to warn us 20 years ago, when he
predicted that President Ronald Reagan's real strategy was to force the
government to cut domestic social programs by fostering federal deficits of
historic dimensions.  Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, admitted
as such.  Now the leading rightwing political strategist, Grover Norquist,
says the goal is to "starve the beast" -- with trillions of dollars in
deficits resulting from trillions of dollars in tax cuts, until the United
States Government is so anemic and anorexic it can be drowned in the
bathtub.
There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies
in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of
American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its
architects, and its beneficiaries.  In creating the greatest economic
inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states,
and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until
our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are
systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding
the rich and waging war.
And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society.
If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I
couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying.  The
president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional
jobs overseas is good for the economy.  The president's Council of Economic
Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be
considered manufacturing workers.  The president's Federal Reserve Chairman
says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we
should make the tax cuts permanent anyway.  The president's Labor Secretary
says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market
is the ultimate arbiter."
You just can't make this stuff up.  You have to hear it to believe it.  This
may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.
What we have here is a nationwide scheme to rip off the government and the
poor.
Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax
breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country
into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to
balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of
workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs -- if this isn't
class war, what is?
It's un-American.  It's unpatriotic.  And it's wrong.
What we need is a mass movement of people like you.  Get mad, yes -- there's
plenty to be mad about.  Then get organized and get busy.  This is the fight
of our lives.
>From the Wall Street Journal:
"Campaign cash has flooded over the gunwales of the ship of state and
threatens to sink the entire vessel.  Political donations determine the
course and speed of many government actions that deeply affect our daily
lives." Politics is suffocating from the stranglehold of money.  During his
brief campaign in 2000, before he was ambushed by the dirty tricks of the
religious right in South Carolina and big money from George W. Bush's
wealthy elites, John McCain said elections today are nothing less than an
"influence peddling scheme in which both parties compete to stay in office
by selling the country to the highest bidder."
"When powerful interests shower Washington with millions in campaign
contributions, they often get what they want.  But it's ordinary citizens
and firms that pay the price and most of them never see it coming.  This is
what happens if you don't contribute to their campaigns or spend generously
on lobbying.  You pick up a disproportionate share of America's tax bill.
You pay higher prices for a broad range of products from peanuts to
prescriptions.  You pay taxes that others in a similar situation have been
excused from paying.  You're compelled to abide by laws while others are
granted immunity from them.  You must pay debts that you incur while others
do not.  You're barred from writing off on your tax returns some of the
money spent on necessities while others deduct the cost of their
entertainment.  You must run your business by one set of rules, while the
government creates another set for your competitors.  In contrast, the
fortunate few who contribute to the right politicians and hire the right
lobbyists enjoy all the benefits of their special status.  Make a bad
business deal; the government bails them out.  If they want to hire workers
at below market wages, the government provides the means to do so.  If they
want more time to pay their debts, the government gives them an extension.
If they want immunity from certain laws, the government gives it.  If they
want to ignore rules their competition must comply with, the government
gives its approval.  If they want to kill legislation that is intended for
the public, it gets killed."
I'm not quoting from Karl Marx's Das Kapital or Mao's Little Red Book.  I'm
quoting Time magazine.  Time's premier investigative journalists -- Donald
Bartlett and James Steele -- concluded in a series last year that America
now has "government for the few at the expense of the many." Economic
inequality begets political inequality, and vice versa.
That's why many Americans are turned off by politics.  It's why we're losing
the balance between wealth and the commonwealth.  It's why we can't put
things right.  And it is the single most destructive force tearing at the
soul of democracy.
==============
Michael Moore is coverup  -- not only does he deliberately eliminate the
best evidence of frame-up, i.e., the Pentagon crash photo evidence of
too-small plane, too-small hole etc. --  he actually backs the official
Pentagon story .  Moreover the whole direction of his story is that we
should have gone after Saudi Arabia  --  Moore is false opposition  --  I
know by the way the man refused even to look at my data or respond to my
letters.  Even if his rejection had been sincere, he would have stated his
reasons for discarding evidence that Prof. A. K. Dewdney and all of France
also subscribe to.  He has nothing about the thousands who say no Boeing
crashed at the Pentagon.  --*** Eastman
An anonymous email on Michael Moore reached 9/11 truth alliance member and
essayist Kurt Nimmo
"...I ..work in the entertainment industry and thus had the opportunity to
see Fahrenheit 9/11 at its US premiere, at the Academy theater in Beverly
Hills on June 8th.
...Moore plays directly into the neo-cons' hands because Saudi Arabia is
the jewel in the neo-con crown -- it sets Americans up for the war that he
implies SHOULD have been fought -- against SAUDI ARABIA. As far as I
could tell (and I did take two potty breaks) no mention was made of PNAC,
neoconservatives or the pro-Israel lobbies' driving of the invasion of
Iraq..."
Read the rest of it at: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm
----------
Item #2:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/14
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
GLOBAL RESEARCH (CANADA) FEATURE ARTICLE
September 11: The Big Lie
by Michel Chossudovsky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 "Revealing the Lies" on 9/11 Perpetuates the "Big Lie"
Text of Michel Chossudovsky's keynote presentation at the opening plenary
session (27 May 2004) to The International Citizens Inquiry Into 9/11,
Toronto, 25-30 May 2004.
www.globalresearch.ca 27 May 2004
This is an abridged email version, which includes the first part of a
lengthy review article. To read the complete text go to:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405E.html
The Bush administration  had numerous intelligence warnings. "Revealing the
lies"  of Bush officials regarding these "intelligence warnings" has served
to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an "outside enemy", which
threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of
the US intelligence apparatus.
America's leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the
righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to
"safeguarding democratic values".
9/11 is the justification.
According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival or
exceed the 9/11 attacks".
An actual "terrorist attack" on American soil would lead to the suspension
of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red [code alert]... it
basically shuts down the country,"
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that
unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately
occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the
criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, The Truth behind
September 11 at http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
*      *      *
Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.
In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission  which has a mandate to
investigate the September 11 attacks has proved exactly the opposite.
We know that the Bush administration had numerous "intelligence warnings".
We know they had "intelligence" which confirmed that terrorists had the
capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.
Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by
the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made
public. (See Eric Smith at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )
The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing
into the Pentagon. (See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )
We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and
Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated
that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.
But we also know, from carefully documented research that:
There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.
see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html , Szamuely at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA112A.html )
There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble
was confiscated. (See Bill Manning at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html
The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared. (See Thierry Meyssan,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html)
Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading
leading up to 9/11 (See Michael Ruppert,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html.)
There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar
insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the twin
towers (See Michel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html
Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was "pulled" down in
the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously (For details see  WTC-7: (Scott Loughrey
at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html).
The White House is being accused by the critics of  "criminal negligence",
for having casually disregarded the intelligence presented to president Bush
and his national security team, and for not having acted to prevent the 9/11
terrorist attack.
The unfolding consensus is: "They knew but failed to act".
This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and  "Bush bashers"
because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.
Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and
expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.
"Revealing the lies" serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an
"outside enemy", which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al
Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.
The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating
from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased
representation of the terrorist threat.
Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the
background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan
war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer
mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al
Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of
the entire National Security doctrine.
This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11
serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets,
the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges,
the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged "enemy combatants", etc.
The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine
Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
"defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda
constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda
campaign.
No Al Qaeda,
No war on terrorism
No rogue States which sponsor Al Qaeda
No pretext for waging war.
No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq
No justification for sending in US special forces into numerous countries
around the World.
No justification for developing tactical nuclear weapons to be used in
conventional war theaters against Islamic terrorists, who according to
official statements constitute a nuclear threat. (See
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html ).
The Administration's post 9/11 nuclear doctrine, points to Al Qaeda as some
kind of nuclear power.
"The Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now,
when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret
weapon development programs." (quoted in William Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines
the Unthinkable, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)
Central Role of al Qaeda in US Military Doctrine
The very existence of Al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a
pre-emptive war against rogue states and terrorist organizations. It is part
of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also
being used to justify the so-called "abuse" of POWs.
The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an
act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and
"Islamic terrorists":
"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of
uncertain duration. .America will act against such emerging threats before
they are fully formed.
.Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional
means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of
terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (.)
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian
population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of
warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass
civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses
would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons
of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the
case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (.). To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if
necessary, act preemptively." (National Security Strategy, White House,
2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)
To justify pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear
weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003),
the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist
threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist
threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."
But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events"
allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are also part of the propaganda
ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside enemy.
9/11 and War Propaganda
In other words, the forewarnings sustain the Al Qaeda legend, which
constitutes the cornerstone of the "war on terrorism". And the latter serves
as a justification for America's "pre-emptive wars"  with a view to
"protecting the homeland".
One year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called
for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which
would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )
The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use
of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."
The PNAC's declared objective is "Defend the Homeland'' and  "Fight and
decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars", perform global
constabulary funcitons including punitive military actions around the World,
and the so-called "revolution in military affairs", essentially meaning the
development of a new range of sophisticated weaponry including the
militarisation of outer space,the development of a new generation of nuclear
weapons, etc. (on nuclear weapons see
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html ,, on the PNAC,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html)
The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a
similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business
Council in 1994:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right
major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand
Chessboard:.
 ".it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on
foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and
widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy
Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the
CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989). (See Brzezinski
at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html )
The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral
part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the
military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of
a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of
military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US
Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).
Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
established:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in
the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes
our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)
This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and
intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the
"militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is
part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush
administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say,
it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General
Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social
turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and
institutional structures.
General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to
how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a
justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to
"preserving civil liberties."
Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will
be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The
PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for
declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.
In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US
is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.
Actual Terrorist Attacks
To be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on
unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real"
terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the
Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the
implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military
actions". They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion
of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See
Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook,
published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).
In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled
"Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to
justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could
develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other
Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers
would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military
Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in
recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001),
Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).
According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or
cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a
certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a
covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct
contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the
role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are
they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?
For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military
intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian
intelligence.
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of
which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by
Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).
What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the
ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar,
Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while
also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )
A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the
creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group'  (P2OG),
to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among
terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for
instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to
'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War,
The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing
apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported
terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This  "prodding of terrorist cells"
under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and
training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.
In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus
has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a
complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. (See below in
relation to the Balkans)
Foreknowledge is a Red Herring
Foreknowledge implies and requires the existence of this "outside enemy",
who is attacking America. Amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al
Qaeda including the madrassas and the CIA sponsored training camps in
Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were "graduates" of the
madrassas, which formed a Us sponsored government in 1996.
During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA using Pakistan's
Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between played a key role in
training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was
integrated with the teachings of Islam.
Every single US administration since Jimmy Carter has consistently supported
the so-called "Militant Islamic Base", including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda,
as part of their foreign policy agenda.
And in this regard, the Democrats and the Republicans have worked hand in
glove. In fact, it is the US military and intelligence establishment which
has provided continuity in US foreign policy.
Media Reports on Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in
official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This in
itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda
is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it
considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to
Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by
official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this
information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist
attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist
organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.
In other words, the focus on foreknowledge has served to usefully distract
attention from the US government's longstanding relationship to the terror
network since the Soviet-Afghan war, which inevitably raises the broader
issue of treason and war crimes.
The foreknowledge issue in a sense erases the historical record because it
denies a relationship between Al Qaeda and successive US administrations.
The administration is accused of not acting upon these terrorist warnings.
In the words of Richard Clarke:
"we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues that is
simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful... We all want to defeat
the jihadists. [this is the consensus] To do that, we need to encourage an
active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best
be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we
must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11."(New York
Times, 25 April 2004)
Bush and the White House intelligence team are said to have ignored these
warnings. Richard Clarke who was in charge of counter terrorism on the
National Security Council until February 2003 has "apologized" to the
American people and the families of the victims. Had they acted in a
responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously,
3000 lives would have been saved on September 11, 2001. But bear in mind
that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which was at the time
providing support to Al Qaeda in the Balkans. (See below)
This new anti-Bush consensus concerning the 9/11 attacks has engulfed part
of the 9/11 truth movement. The outright lies in sworn testimony to the 9/11
Commission have been denounced in chorus; the families of the victims have
expressed their indignation.
The debate centers on whether the administration is responsible for an
"intelligence failure" or whether it was the result of "incompetence."
In both cases, the al Qaeda legend remains unchallenged. The fact that Al
Qaeda hijackers were responsible for 9/11 remains unchallenged.
Source of Terrorist Warnings
Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these
warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have
supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.
In  other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a
"true" representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the
process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an
"Enemy of the Homeland".
Meanwhile, the issues of "cover-up and complicity" at the highest levels of
the Bush administration, which were raised in the immediate wake of the 9/11
attacks have been shoved out.
The role of Bush officials, their documented links to the terror network,
the business ties between the Bushes and bin Laden families, the role of
Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) which supported and abetted Al Qaeda
while working hand in glove with their US counterparts (CIA and the Defense
Intelligence Agency), the fact that several Bush officials were the
architects of Al Qaeda during the Reagan administration, as revealed by the
Iran Contra investigation. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )
"The Saudis Did It"
All of this, which is carefully documented, is no longer relevant. It is no
longer an issue for debate and investigation. What the media, as well as
some of the key 9/11 investigators are pushing is that "The Saudis did it".
The outside enemy Al Qaeda is said to be supported by the Saudis.
This line of analysis, which characterizes the 1 trillion dollar law suit by
the families of the victims led by Lawyer Ted Motley, is evidently flawed.
While it highlights the business ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladens,
in does not challenge the legend of the outside enemy.
"The Saudis did it" is also part of the US foreign policy agenda, to be
eventually used to discredit the Saudi monarchy and destabilize the Saudi
financiers, who oversee 25 percent of the World's oil reserves, ten times
those of the US. in fact, this process has already begun with the Saudi
privatization program, which seeks to transfer Saudi wealth and assets into
foreign (Anglo-American) hands.
The Saudi financiers were never prime movers. They were proxies. They played
a subordinate role. They worked closely with US intelligence and their
American financial counterparts. They were involved in the laundering of
drug money working closely with the CIA. Thew Wahabbi sects from Saudi
Arabia were sent to Afghanistan to set up the madrassas. The Saudis
channeled covert financing to the various Islamic insurgencies on behalf of
the CIA.
In other words, the "Saudis did It" consensus essentially contributes to
whitewashing the Bush administration, while also providing pretext to
destabilize Saudi Arabia.
"The Bush Lied" Consensus upholds "The Big Lie"
This emerging 9/11 consensus ("Outside enemy", intelligence failures,
criminal negligence, "the Saudis did it", etc.) which is making its way into
American history books, is  "they knew, but failed to act".
It was incompetence or criminal negligence but it was not treason. The wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were "just wars", they were undertaken in accordance
with the National Security doctrine, which views Al Qaeda as the outside
enemy. It is worth noting that at the outset of the war on Afghanistan, a
number of prominent Western intellectuals, trade union and civil society
leaders supported the "Just War" concept.
While the Bush administration takes the blame, the "war on terrorism"  and
its humanitarian mandate remain functionally intact.
Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials
lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings.
Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question:
What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence
apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda
is an "intelligence asset".
In other words, the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time it
controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks.
In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission
lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something
which is an even bigger lie?
*     *     *
This is an abridged email version, which includes the first part of a
lengthy review article. To read the complete text go to:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405E.html
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research (Canada) articles
in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as
long as the text & title of the article are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca .  For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL
hyperlink address of the original CRG article. The author's copyright note
must be displayed.
© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 2004. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
www.globalresearch.ca
To subscribe send a message to editor@globalresrearch with unsubscribe in
the subject line.
-------------
Item #3:
The financial elite at the apex of the ruling class are going to get us with
hyperinflation just as the victors of World War One had the  head of the
German Central Bank  use the printing press as an engine for hyperinflation,
so the Federal Reserve is putting trillions in the hands of foreigners so
that when the US economy crashes and the dollar heads towards worthlessness,
all of the foreign dollar holders (and foreigners hold many times the number
of dollars that American citizens hold!!!)  will flood the US domestic
market as they try to buy things here (land, houses, companies, and and even
the publically owned assets (government land etc. that will be sold in
liquidation of the United States. as a corporation under Admiralty
aw.)  --*** Eastman
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=49&contentid=1331
Federal Reserve: Prepared for Bush-Cheney Terror?
 by CONSPIRACY PLANET
Will the Bush-Cheney Regime stage a pre-election terrorist incident  that
could cascade into a global economic debacle?
The unexplained and unprecendented expansion of the M3 money supply has
resulted in speculation regarding the intent of the Federal Reserve.
 Is the doubling of the money supply necessary to preserve liquidity inthe
capital markets if another terrorist incident is staged before the November
election?
Political-economic analyst Al Martin reports that "there are more U.S.
10-year notes now sold short than there are 10-year notes in the float to
cover those positions, and that is an enormous negative implication because
the only time that the 'smart money' sells U.S. Treasury paper short in such
size is when they expect an economic
debacle.
 "To have a record short position in the Treasury bonds," Martin
continues,"means that a) you expect another market debacle; b), that debacle
is going to be either something to do with inflation (an inflationary
debacle), a sudden surge of inflation, or a sudden fall in the U.S. dollar.
"This is the kind of short position that, combined with the very same people
massively liquidating U.S. stocks, and massively purchasing gold (Greenspan
has on several occasions noted the mass accumulation of gold by
'smart money ' in the United States) -- these are things that the people who
are
doing it must be under the impression that there is going to be, not just a
meltdown, but an economic collapse."
"It's interesting how these pro-Bush pundits try to fudge and maneuver
around the truth. But we are now seeing market positions never before seen,
a record short position in long-dated U.S. Treasury paper,which
means somebody expects an inflationary surge and a debacle.
 "There is also a record amount of insider selling, (selling ofpreviously
restricted stock now free to sell by corporate officers, principals, and
directors) which is a proxy for 'smart money' selling.
 Insider selling is now running at 53-to- 1 on a dollar-volume basis.
These are incredible amounts ofmoney. The insider selling alone is now
accounting for about $50 billion a month coming out of U.S. equities. The
only reason equities haven't felt it is because of, a) derivative long
positions, and,
 b), because of the increase that we've seen in the last 2 months in public
buying from mutual funds and the so-called small retail 'sucker buying.'
 'Sucker buying' is keeping it all afloat.
Martin's conclusion? "If you are a flag-waver and a NFWC (member of  the
Naïve Flag Waving Crowd), then you can count on being the ultimate  bag
holder."
================
Sealed off by incendiary devices, the new Pentagon wedge became a killing
field -- the 6 ft' diameter hole in "c" ring wall either an assault entry
point or the site of an attempted escape by the conspiracy's targets.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/78
Correcting the distortion that 911 witnesses accounts of the Pentagon attack
support the official version of what happened.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/71
Pentagon crash research archive shows history of Boeing vs. Small-plane
Controversy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/messages/1
---------------------
Dear halcon7roho,
I've been investigating 9-11 as long as any of you and I have seen
enough of the evidence and complied enough of it -- to know that
Michael Moore has systematically avoided the "best" evidence.
Many times I have written to him with links to the critical photo
evidence establishing that there was a smaller plane and a missile
involved in the Pentagon attack  -- a view also held by Professor A,K.
Dewdney, an editor of Scientific American  and the distinguished
researchers at Physics911.
Read what I paste below, for more insight into what Michael Moore
really is and what his documentary  (put out by Disney and opposed for
promotional reasons) that is getting so much --ahem! -- sort of
negative publicity, but really is being puffed up.
Sincerely,
*** Eastman
Yakima, Washington
-----------------------
Michael Moore is coverup  -- not only does he deliberately eliminate
the best evidence of frame-up, i.e., the Pentagon crash photo evidence
of too-small plane, too-small hole etc. --  he actually backs the
official Pentagon story .  Moreover the whole direction of his story
is that we should have gone after Saudi Arabia  --  Moore is false
opposition  --  I know by the way the man refused even to look at my
data or respond to my letters.  Even if his rejection had been
sincere, he would have stated his reasons for discarding evidence that
Prof. A. K. Dewdney and all of France also subscribe to.  He has
nothing about the thousands who say no Boeing crashed at the Pentagon.
--*** Eastman
An anonymous email on Michael Moore reached 9/11 truth alliance member
and essayist Kurt Nimmo
"...I ..work in the entertainment industry and thus had the
opportunity to see Fahrenheit 9/11 at its US premiere, at the Academy
theater in Beverly Hills on June 8th....Moore plays directly into the
neo-cons'
hands because Saudi Arabia is the jewel in the neo-con crown -- it sets
Americans up for the war that he implies SHOULD have been fought -- against
SAUDI ARABIA. As far as I could tell (and I did take two potty breaks) no
mention was made of PNAC, neoconservatives or the pro-Israel lobbies'
driving of the invasion of Iraq..."
---------------
***,
Gen. Shelton was no where to be found. Gen. Myers was engaged in a chat
about terrorism in MCellans office and:-
http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65&mode=&order=0&thold=0
According to the personal written statement of Navy Captain Charles J.
Leidig, Jr., entered into the record during today's hearings before the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Leidig
revealed that on September 10 he was asked by Brigadier General Montague
Winfield to stand a portion of his duty as Deputy Director for Operations
for the National Military Command Center (NMCC), which would require
supervision and operation of all necessary communications as watch
commander.
================
Ronin writes:
***,
Is the 9/11 commission going to publish their report?
The reason I ask is that the commission seem to be releasing some of their
findings to the media already.
Under the title "Panic and delay wrecked 9/11 response" we are told that
Bush continued with the goat story (anyone see the significance here - Arab
goat herders?)  because his instinct was to project calm. If it wasn't so
serious it would be laughable. How could he have the instinct of being calm
himself when he didn't know the scope of the attacks. He said "We're at war
.... Somebody's going to pay." What he should have said is I assume the FAA,
Norad, the National Guard and the airforce are doing what they are being
paid to do and have everything under control and I want to hear what is
being done right this minute. I want to be brought up to the minute news -
get on to it Andrew.
Have fighters been scrambled?
But he wanted observers to be calm despite the public in panic in front of
their TV screens watching CNN and the media showing, in real time - at least
from the time flight 175 was speeding towards the south tower, America under
attack.
The article speaks of panic but the only panic I have seen is on the faces
of the people escaping from the WTC scene. It occurs to me that there was
very little panic at the Pentagon. No pictures of people escaping from the
Pentagon, as the world saw escaping from the towers. Oh yes we saw people
being treated outside on the Pentagon lawn and staff members standing around
on the lawn watching the Pentagon burn  but there was were no action shots.
It could have been all part of a reconstruction that one sees on the TV for
all we could tell. All part of an exercise.
But then no one seems to have thought that the Pentagon might be a target.
The atc at Dulles, for some reason warned the secret service that the target
was the capital building or the White House but it didn't seem to occur that
flight 77 was heading also toward the Pentagon. According to a Los Angeles
Times editorial the Pentagon's air defences were almost non-existent on
September 11- according to the staff and any number of planes might have
reached their targets.
It is reported that despite his instinct for calm the president authorised
hijacked planes shot down - you know and I know that passenger planes cannot
be shot down over cities but they can be tracked and potential target
buildings can be evacuated. But the order was never passed on to pilots
because senior commanders were "unsure how the pilots would, or should
proceed with this guidance." For Christ sake viewers of the series "24" know
that a helicopter can't be shot down over a city let alone a passenger
plane. But potential target buildings can be evacuated. Hey, those in the
plane are already "dead" but those in potential target buildings are able to
be saved. Christ sakes why wasn't the Pentagon given a bloody
warning??????????
Flight 77 are these bastards Achilles Heel and for 13 minutes a software
anomaly meant that radar information did not reach air traffic control.
Military commanders were unaware that flight 77 was missing because flight
77 had been confused with flight 11 which had already crashed. But who was
on flight 11? Betty Ong and Ms Sweeney was on flight 11 and gave out
information to American Airlines of the circumstances on board flight 11. So
how could flight 77 be confused with flight 11?
According to my research flight 77 might have been confused with flight 175
not flight 11 because American Airlines had received reports that the SECOND
plane could have been their flight 77. Perhaps other researchers might
confirm this.
But I've seen this word "anomaly" before:-
"Two days later, Marilyn and Gary Pontell still hoped their youngest boy had
been spared.  Gathered at Darin and Devora's apartment in Gaithersburg on
Thursday afternoon, they could barely process the idea that he was dead . .
.
"Navy officials gave garbled reports: One person said someone who looked
like Darin walked from the scene.  Somebody else claimed he was working far
away, in the A-Ring.  An officials said they couldn't find his Acura Integra
in the Pentagon lot . . .
"The Nokia sang again, then silence.  Too late.  when she finally got to the
phone, Marilyn scrolled through the menu.  One missed call: 1:57 p.m.  No
message.  But the incoming number was clearly identified.  It was Darin's.
"My God, maybe he was alive.
"For five more days, they waited.  On Sept. 18, the Navy informed the
Pontells that Darin's body had been positively identified.  His cell phone
was never returned to the family.  They presume it was never found.  Perhaps
the flip-phone had somehow dialed Marilyn's number when the rubble shifted.
But didn't all cell phones have to be turned off upon entry into the CNO-IP
[Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot]?
"The FBI offered a one-word explanation for that call: 'anomaly.'"
Yes, Darin Pontell lost his life in the Pentagon but his Nokia rang. But all
it was was a bloody "anomaly."
Can you imagine his family waiting a week to find out about their son? No
you can't because it may never have happened to you.
We all know about software. Software that is used in a busy air traffic
control area (how many aircraft are flying on internal and international
flights across America every day?) should not be anomalous. Private planes,
evidently that have acted mysteriously have attracted attention and have
been escorted by fighter planes. But the planes involved in 9/11 were
passenger planes and yet the software had an "anomaly". No, the only way
there was an "anomaly" in the software is if some folk was familiar with the
software that knew there was a "back door" a weakness in the software that
could be used and circumvented. But specifically it was radar information
that did not reach atc.
So what did reach Dulles atc that caused the lady to give warnings to the
capital on the basis of a blip on her screen and not give warnings to the
Pentagon? The lady at Dulles did get radar readings that she thought, along
with her colleagues, was a fighter and not a passenger plane.
I urge all 9/11 researchers to analysize what the 9/11 commission have
released concerning flight 77 and the Pentagon attack because it is "their"
Achilles Heel" and you will, at the same time be true to the name of Darin
Pontell and the family he left behind not knowing his accomplishment on that
terrible day.
"When the government fears the
people, there is liberty. When the
people fear the government there
is tyranny."  -Thomas Jefferson -
------------
Mr. Eastman,
With all that oil in Iraq can it have no connection at all with the bombings
and killings of Iraqi officials? Are the killings all associated with those
fighting against the occupation? Can they all be groups with links to
al-Qaida, links with Iran or links with any state? The killings have been
professional jobs, may be inside jobs, may be the only way to avoid
nationalists getting into the preliminary government. One thing that must be
avoided are officials, even temporary one's having the ability to influance
a following and turn the people to nationalism. There is nothing like the
common cause of an opposition to an occupation rallying the people into
feelings of nationalism. Take 9/11 for instance.
So what about this oil?
In 1994 the leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party, Masud Barzani had a nice
business going on in smuggled Iraqi oil. Oil going over land by road tankers
into Turkey. Some estimates by 1995 put the quantity as high as 100,000
barrels a day. The convoys had to cross territory controlled by Barzani and
naturally he took his cut. Barzani, Saddam and the Turks and Iran were all
happy.
Jalal Talabani was a likable rogue and the leader of the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan. A Iraqi nationalist who seemed to genuinely want Saddam gone. Had
Clinton supported Talabani back in March 1995 Saddam would probably have
been toppled then.
They were fighting each other in a civil war and it had become a war of
attrition.
Fast forward to June 2004 and Ghazi Talabani, the security chief in the
state run Northern Oil Company, who was also the cousin of Jalal Talabani,
was driven into a crowded market in the city of Kirkuk and was fired upon
and killed when his bodyguard briefly left the vehicle. His bodyguard was
wounded. Talabani was the third senior government official to be murdered in
the past four days. And possibly the third to have died because of poor
security.
What is most important to the west. Democracy and the recognition of human
rights in Iraq or the oil in Iraq? If Iraq was famous for its gold or
diamond mines, given the present occupation would the debate be centered on
the democratization and the forthcoming creation of sovereignity on 30/6?
The west are sitting on a "gold mine" in Iraq and surely it cannot be ruled
out that any conflict has, at its heart, Iraqi oil having no lesser value
than other treasures that man so covet.
It seems that the media do not want to report on the situation in Iraq
regarding the oil industry. There is in fact the Southern Oil Company and
the Northern Oil Company and who is in charge of these companies may tell us
a whole lot more about what is happening in Iraq than anything else. Perhaps
more than what can be revealed by those who are not targetted/killed who may
have far better security than others or those who do not have much need for
security.
Lets hear more about the Oil War (and the Drug War) and less about the war
on terror. Lets put things into perspective.