Friday, May 06, 2005



Bruce Faber -- who will also caution you that the US real estate market is in sad shape, by the way, those of you about to re-refinance your homes -- forwarded this article to me. It confirms that George W. Bush intended to invade Iraq no matter what, and that the facts were whipped up to (as Jean-Luc Picard would have said) "make it so."

The author, Ray McGovern served 27 years as a CIA analyst and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour.

Here is the opening from the website TomPaine.commonsense:

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

My objection to the invasion of Iraq is longstanding. Most cynically I had viewed it as Bush's attempt to keep us from noticing that he was losing the War on Terror. But to come to grips with the likelihood that he had a secret agenda is amazing.

Faber, in his comments in the forwarded email, asks, "It was treason. It should be dealt with as such. Can somebody please explain to me why we have to keep pretending that this did not happen?"

Unfortunately, we all know the answer. Major corporations own all of the news media, and they're all pumping money into the GOP (when they're not distracting us with smoke and mirrors and runaway brides and Michael Jackson's trial).

And, despite my view, I have to be fair and mention this: Prior to World War II, Franklin Roosevelt was of the belief that the US desperately needed to be involved, but most Americans wanted nothing to do with another foreign war. Roosevelt was even forced to promise "again and again and again" that he would not send American soldiers to fight in Europe.

So... if Roosevelt was right, is it possible that Bush is?

And if so... what about the upcoming North Korean nuclear test? I have to ask, living downwind and all...


Jim Chadwick said...

In wondering just why the Bushies had this long-standing hard on for Iraq that pre-dated even 911, not many people have come up with (to me) credible explanations for "why" this was so. A lot of people like to say is was George Jr. getting payback for Sadaam's threats against daddy. But I think there's a far more sinister explanation why the formerly isolationist G.W. was covinced to invade by his neo-con puppet masters. It's old fashioned, American imperialist empire building. They wanted to set up a solidly crony capitalist state in the mid-east and Sadaam's previous offenses and the state of panic post-911 gave them the cover to do so. Not many people have mentioned the irony of the fact that while we are supposedly championing the cause of Iraqi democracy today, the Iraqis themselves chose democracy in the 50s. But when they wanted to own their own oil, we installed the Shah, whose brutal dictatorship helped created the soil in which the eqally brutal Islamist extremism that we all fear today grew.

Mike said...

I think you're mistyping Iraq when you mean Iran... it was Iran that had the Shah, installed by the US early in the Cold War. Iraq was mostly screwed up by the British -- here's a good account by the BBC. All of this is the result of European powers attempting to imperialize the world.

In 1958, there was a coup in Iraq, but it put anti-western Islamic extremists in power. What fascinates me is that Saddam Hussein led probably the most western of all Islamic nations, and had he just kept his mitts off of Kuwait he'd probably still be in power. Heck, he might have avoided conflict had he waited until Clinton was president.