When agenda is more important than the Country

[tw]

The little people who make government work are coming out. There was no doubt that George Jr wanted a war with Iraq even before 11 Sept. American fighters in the no fly zone had already started a program of attacking Iraqi military installations without provocation before 11 Sept to prepare for pre-conceived war. Targets most actively attacked were military fiber optic communication facilities and lines. One reservist pilot was even quoted by news services as saying that combat occurred most every day. Why? The administration was already attacking Saddam from the air. It was widely reported in press reports after 11 Sept that the administration was actively seeking any reason to connect Iraq with the WTC. As a result of reading so many such news reports citing Saddam as the terrorist, the following was posted back on 17 Sept 2001:

Who is on the "Enemies List"
Although not proven, it appears defacto that bin Laden is the primary target of this war. However Bush has also included others, unnamed, on our 'Enemies List'.

In the meantime George Jr wanted nothing to do with bin Laden. As Richard Clarke says in his book (released tomorrow), George Jr administration kept demanding proof that Saddam had attacked the WTC. Administration spokesman denied, on 60 Minutes, that this direct request from George Jr existed, and was left speechless for a second when Leslie Stahl said CBS even had two separate sources (one was a first hand witness) that confirmed the meeting did indeed exist. Those confirmations only demonstrate that this administration was (again) lying when they said no such meeting existed and when it claims it was not demanding 'Saddam involvement' proof.

There is no relationship between the WTC attack and Saddam Hussein - for just too many reasons. And yet a White House campaign to make the connection is why, even today, so many insist that Saddam conspired to attack the WTC. Just last month, another young citizen tried to make that claim to me. A claim so often made because the George Jr administration (and its public 'mouth pieces') repeatedly connected Saddam with the WTC - reality be damned.

Even 2 month after the WTC, this administration was openly talking to the press about Phase 2 - despite any facts.

from The Economist of 22 Nov 2001 "Where should Mr Bush put his chips now?"
American politicians are beginning to argue about what “phase two” of the president's war on terror should be ...

So “phase two” of Mr Bush's war is the Middle-Eastern peace process? Not if the so-called neo-conservatives have anything to do with it. “Phase two,” writes Tom Donnelly, in the Weekly Standard, “is a euphemism for Iraq. As the campaign in Afghanistan has progressed, a consensus has emerged that it is high time to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

That may be a slight exaggeration. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence and the man who in the past has argued most forcibly for Saddam's overthrow, has been cautious, arguing that “Saddam Hussein is one of [a number of leaders supporting terrorism] but not the only one.” ...

The idea that Iraq is the logical phase two is usually associated with the Pentagon ...

3 months after the WTC attack, more analysis of what would happen was widely discussed in the press. These speculations don't just happen in a vacuum.

from The Economist of 6 Dec 2001 "Unfinished business"
Apart from this, the ramifications of a renewed American attack on Iraq could well extend beyond the region. America might be hard put to win the support of many big countries other than Britain, and maybe of any. It is unlikely that NATO would again invoke Article 5, as it has in Afghanistan. An Iraqi war might thus put America back into its unilateralist box, which would not help it in the wider war against terror, and might complicate several of its other foreign-policy objectives

So where is the search for Osama bin Laden all this time? Even when trapped in Tora Bora, the administration kept the 10th Mountain Division (and so many other military units) sitting on their ass while bin Laden escaped. Richard Clarke and others who write books about this and so many other 'ignore Afghanistan' decisions are not alone.

Let's not forget where people such as Condulezza Rice come from. A top Chevron executive. Chevron has all but bet the company on Caspian Sea oil AND desperately needs a pipeline from the Caspian Sea. It was no secret that Chevron (and therefore a pro-oil consumption administration) was openly courting Taliban to get that pipeline through Afghanistan. Virtually every other route was politically impossible. Even a Russian route is unacceptable since this administration still has Cold War biases - as Richard Clarke also notes. Afghanistan, to the energy crazed George Jr administration, was considered an important potential friend - and definitely someone to avoid conflict with. (No wonder that CIA analyst was arrested for discovering Afghanistan truths not in agreement with administraton policy.)

Even THE #1 anti-terrorist expert was all but driven into retirement by this administration - probably for being his blunt honest self and saying this administration was ignoring real terrorists threats (others also had been claiming same during 2001). John O'Neill was the lead investigator in the 1993 WTC attack and of the Cole bombing in Yemen. He retired in verbally expressed fustration only a month before 11 Sept. In numerous articles, friends had said he was forced out because 'government' was not interested in real terrorists. He took a new job knowing full well where future actions might be. He died as chief of security for the WTC.

O'Neill Versus Osama
But if you lean to the left, like the French authors Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, who feature a July interview with O'Neill in their new book, Ben Laden, La Vérité Interdite, you've outed O'Neill as a sort of smoking gun -- a man who they say all but confirmed in his final months that George W. Bush's oil-industry-bred administration was so worried about alienating Saudi Arabia that it decided to negotiate with the Taliban rather than go after it. Before September 11, they argue, the United States' primary goal was to build a pipeline in Central Asia -- tapping oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean.

Whether you believe the reasons provided by Dasquié and Brisard (the oil pipeline) is irrelevant. O'Neill was adament that this administration did not want to investigate Afghanistan terrorism. We now know that O'Neill's assertions are being confirmed by other sources - not the least of which is a carrer security analyst - Richard Clarke.

Back on 17 Sept 2001, I had heard so many times in numerous press reports that this administration wanted to connect Saddam to the WTC. Heard it so many times that the 'attempted connection' became the first paragraph of my first WTC post. Today, only the naive would believe otherwise. Just too many reports (and now insider books) say this administration wanted Saddam above all else - including the truth.