Bring 'Em On!

Blogs

Contact Us

Send Comments and Tips to: City Pages Blogs

RSS Feeds

Links

VITAL

FOREIGN PRESS

GOOD BLOGS

REFERENCE

National Features >

Broward-Palm Beach New Times
Sexual Healing
For Florida's sole remaining sex surrogate, love is a many splintered thing.
By Michael J. Mooney
City Pages
Your Friendly Neighborhood War Profiteer
It's not just giant companies cashing in on America's defense industry.
By Jeff Severns Guntzel
The Pitch
Supersizing Sonic
How a throwaway idea at the Barkley ad agency became the "Sonic Guys."
By Justin Kendall
Houston Press
Temples of Tex-Mex
A diner's guide to Texas's oldest Mexican restaurants.
By Robb Walsh

« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »

All the President's Lies, part 2

Bring 'Em On!

The Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies About War and Terrorism
(links-annotated version)

by Steve Perry
City Pages
July 30, 2003

1) The administration was not bent on war with Iraq from 9/11 onward.

Throughout the year leading up to war, the White House publicly maintained that the U.S. took weapons inspections seriously, that diplomacy would get its chance, that Saddam had the opportunity to prevent a US invasion. The most pungent and concise evidence to the contrary comes from the president's own mouth. According to Time's March 31 road-to-war story, Bush popped in on national security adviser Condi Rice one day in March 2002, interrupting a meeting on UN sanctions against Iraq. Getting a whiff of the subject matter, W peremptorily waved his hand and told her, "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out." Clare Short, Tony Blair's former secretary for international development, recently lent further credence to the anecdote. She told the London Guardian that Bush and Blair made a secret pact a few months afterward, in the summer of 2002, to invade Iraq in either February or March of this year.

Last fall CBS News obtained meeting notes taken by a Rumsfeld aide at 2:40 on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes indicate that Rumsfeld wanted the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the Bushmen's leading intellectual light, has long been rabid on the subject of Iraq. He reportedly told Vanity Fair writer Sam Tanenhaus off the record that he believes Saddam was connected not only to bin Laden and 9/11, but the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

The Bush administration's foreign policy plan was not based on September 11, or terrorism; those events only brought to the forefront a radical plan for US control of the post-Cold War world that had been taking shape since the closing days of the first Bush presidency. Back then a small claque of planners, led by Wolfowitz, generated a draft document known as Defense Planning Guidance, which envisioned a US that took advantage of its lone-superpower status to consolidate American control of the world both militarily and economically, to the point where no other nation could ever reasonably hope to challenge the US Toward that end it envisioned what we now call "preemptive" wars waged to reset the geopolitical table.

After a copy of DPG was leaked to the New York Times, subsequent drafts were rendered a little less frank, but the basic idea never changed. In 1997 Wolfowitz and his true believers--Richard Perle, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld--formed an organization called Project for the New American Century to carry their cause forward. And though they all flocked around the Bush administration from the start, W never really embraced their plan until the events of September 11 left him casting around for a foreign policy plan.

Information Clearing House [undated]: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

The Independent 4/23: Hans Blix vs the US: 'I was undermined'

Center for Cooperative Research [undated]: The Decision to 'Get Saddam'

Time Magazine [via Lisa Rein's Radar] 3/30: First Stop, Iraq

Bush Wars 4/7: Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

2) The invasion of Iraq was based on a reasonable belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to the US, a belief supported by available intelligence evidence.

Paul Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that weapons of mass destruction were not really the main reason for invading Iraq: "The decision to highlight weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for going to war in Iraq was taken for bureaucratic reasons.... [T]here were many other important factors as well." Right. But they did not come under the heading of self-defense.

We now know how the Bushmen gathered their prewar intelligence: They set out to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. In the end, this required that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. set aside the findings of analysts from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (the Pentagon's own spy bureau) and stake their claim largely on the basis of isolated, anecdotal testimony from handpicked Iraqi defectors. (See #5, Ahmed Chalabi.) But the administration did not just listen to the defectors; it promoted their claims in the press as a means of enlisting public opinion. The only reason so many Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda in the first place was that the Bushmen trotted out Iraqi defectors making these sorts of claims to every major media outlet that would listen.

Here is the verdict of Gregory Thielman, the recently retired head of the State Department's intelligence office: "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq. This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude--we know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers." Elsewhere he has been quoted as saying, "The principal reasons that Americans did not understand the nature of the Iraqi threat in my view was the failure of senior administration officials to speak honestly about what the intelligence showed."

Bush Wars 4/16: Good King George

Michael Leon, CounterPunch, 6/13: Missing Weapons, Shrinking Bush and the Media

Sydney Morning Herald 6/16: A mission in Iraq built on a lie

KCom Journal 6/14: A distinct lack of intelligence

Bush Wars 5/12: Hersh: Rummy's Hijacked the US Intelligence Apparatus

Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder, 6/6: Data didn't back Bush claims on Iraqi weapons, officials say

Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder, 10/08/02: Some in Bush administration have misgivings about Iraq policy

James Risen, New York Times, 6/18: Word That US Doubted Iraq Would Use Deadly Gas

Associated Press 6/11: Senate panel to investigate pre-war intelligence on Iraq

Mark Riley, Sydney Morning Herald, 6/16: Howard's Iraq evidence on parade in UK

Allister Sparks, The Star, 7/16: Bush and Blair are starting to hurt

Veterans for Peace 2/27: Career Diplomat Resigns over US Policy on Iraq

Simon Hoggart, Gulf News, 4/6: Blair's credibility crisis means a lonely US

Truth Out 2/27: John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation

CBS News 7/9: War Of Words Over WMD Heats Up

3) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Lies and distortions tend to beget more lies and distortions, and here is W's most notorious case in point: Once the administration decided to issue a damage-controlling (they hoped) mea culpa in the matter of African uranium, they were obliged to couch it in another, more perilous lie: that the administration, and quite likely Bush himself, thought the uranium claim was true when he made it. But former acting ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6 that exploded the claim. Wilson, who traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims at the behest of the CIA and Dick Cheney's office and found them to be groundless, describes what followed this way: "Although I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in US government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."

Richard Evans, The Inquisitor, 6/10: Blair's WMD Claims Look Increasingly Shaky

Andrew Buncombe and Raymond Whitaker, The Independent, 6/29: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat

David Sanger, New York Times, 7/8: Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says

Toronto Star 7/8: Iraq evidence wrong, White House admits

John Troyer, CounterPunch, 7/15: The Uranium Meltdown

Doug Thompson, Capitol Hill Blue, 7/9: Conned big time

Allister Sparks, The Star, 7/16: Bush and Blair are starting to hurt

Bill Press, Nashville City Paper, 7/16: White House confesses fabricating case for war

4) The aluminum tubes were proof of a nuclear program.

The very next sentence of Bush's State of the Union address was just as egregious a lie as the uranium claim, though a bit cagier in its formulation. "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." This is altogether false in its implication (that this is the likeliest use for these materials) and may be untrue in its literal sense as well. As the London Independent summed it up recently, "The US persistently alleged that Baghdad tried to buy high-strength aluminum tubes whose only use could be in gas centrifuges, needed to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Equally persistently, the International Atomic Energy Agency said the tubes were being used for artillery rockets. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, told the UN Security Council in January that the tubes were not even suitable for centrifuges." [emphasis added]

Warren P. Strobel et al, Knight Ridder, 10/08/02: Some in Bush administration have misgivings about Iraq policy

Rep. Henry Waxman's House homepage, last updated 7/29: Nuclear Evidence on Iraq

Marc Pritzke, CounterPunch, 6/23: An Interview with Ray McGovern

5) Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria for hiding.

Or Iran, or.... "They shipped them out!" was a rallying cry for the administration in the first few nervous weeks of finding no WMDs, but not a bit of supporting evidence has emerged.

No links.

6) The CIA was primarily responsible for any prewar intelligence errors or distortions regarding Iraq.

Don't be misled by the news that CIA director George Tenet has taken the fall for Bush's falsehoods in the State of the Uranium address. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote shortly before the war, "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the US national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

In short, Tenet fell on his sword when he vetted Bush's State of the Union yarns. And now he has had to get up and fall on it again.

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, 6/23: Did the CIA Shut Out Congress on WMD?

Rupert Cornwell, The Independent [via Common Dreams], 6/18: CIA Deliberately Misled UN Arms Inspectors, Says Senator

Michael Isikoff and Tamara Lipper, Newsweek, 7/21: A Spy Takes the Bullet

7) An International Atomic Energy Agency report indicated that Iraq could be as little as six months from making nuclear weapons.

Alas: The claim had to be retracted when the IAEA pointed out that no such report existed.

Andrew Buncombe and Raymond Whitaker, The Independent, 6/29: Ministers knew war papers were forged, says diplomat

8) Saddam was involved with bin Laden and al Qaeda in the plotting of 9/11.

One of the most audacious and well-traveled of the Bushmen's fibs, this one hangs by two of the slenderest evidentiary threads imaginable: first, anecdotal testimony by isolated, handpicked Iraqi defectors that there was an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq, a claim CIA analysts did not corroborate and that postwar US military inspectors conceded did not exist; and second, old intelligence accounts of a 1991 meeting in Baghdad between a bin Laden emissary and officers from Saddam's intelligence service, which did not lead to any subsequent contact that US or UK spies have ever managed to turn up. According to former State Department intelligence chief Gregory Thielman, the consensus of US intelligence agencies well in advance of the war was that "there was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation."

Bush Wars 4/28: Still no WMDs? No problem. Let's resurrect al Qaeda.

Walter Pincus, The Washington Post [via Charleston Post and Courier], 6/22: Iraq, al-Qaida link unclear, report says

Nicolaas Van Rijn, Toronto Star, 7/13: Al Qaeda claims exaggerated: analysts

9) The US wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.

Democracy is the last thing the US can afford in Iraq, as anyone who has paid attention to the state of Arab popular sentiment already realizes. Representative government in Iraq would mean the rapid expulsion of US interests. Rather, the US wants westernized, secular leadership regimes that will stay in pocket and work to neutralize the politically ambitious anti-Western religious sects popping up everywhere. If a little brutality and graft are required to do the job, it has never troubled the US in the past. Ironically, these standards describe someone more or less like Saddam Hussein. Judging from the state of civil affairs in Iraq now, the Bush administration will no doubt be looking for a strongman again, if and when they are finally compelled to install anyone at all.

William Booth and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, 6/28: Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq

10) Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress are a homegrown Iraqi political force, not a U.S.-sponsored front.

Chalabi is a more important bit player in the Iraq war than most people realize, and not because he was the U.S.'s failed choice to lead a post-Saddam government. It was Chalabi and his INC that funneled compliant defectors to the Bush administration, where they attested to everything the Bushmen wanted to believe about Saddam and Iraq (meaning, mainly, al Qaeda connections and WMD programs). The administration proceeded to take their dubious word over that of the combined intelligence of the CIA and DIA, which indicated that Saddam was not in the business of sponsoring foreign terrorism and posed no imminent threat to anyone.

Naturally Chalabi is despised nowadays round the halls of Langley, but it wasn't always so. The CIA built the Iraqi National Congress and installed Chalabi at the helm back in the days following Gulf War I, when the thought was to topple Saddam by whipping up and sponsoring an internal opposition. It didn't work; from the start Iraqis have disliked and distrusted Chalabi. Moreover, his erratic and duplicitous ways have alienated practically everyone in the US foreign policy establishment as well--except for Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, and therefore the White House.

No links.

11) The United States is waging a war on terror.

Practically any school child could recite the terms of the Bush Doctrine, and may have to before the Ashcroft Justice Department is finished: The global war on terror is about confronting terrorist groups and the nations that harbor them. The United States does not make deals with terrorists or with nations where they find secure lodging.

Leave aside the blind eye that the US has always cast toward Israel's actions in the territories. How are the Bushmen doing elsewhere vis-à-vis their announced principles? We can start with their fabrications and manipulations of Iraqi WMD evidence--which, in the eyes of weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council, American intelligence analysts, and the world at large, did not pose any imminent threat.

The events of recent months have underscored more gaping violations of W's cardinal anti-terror rules. In April the Pentagon made a cooperation pact with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), an anti-Iranian terrorist group based in Iraq. Prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution, American intelligence blamed it for the death of several US nationals in Iran.

Most glaring of all is the Bush administration's remarkable treatment of Saudi Arabia. Consider: Eleven of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were Saudis. The ruling House of Saud has longstanding and well-known ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits, which it funds (read protection money) to keep them from making mischief at home. The May issue of Atlantic Monthly had a nice piece on the House of Saud that recounts these connections.

Yet the Bush government has never said boo regarding the Saudis and international terrorism. In fact, when terror bombers struck Riyadh in May, hitting compounds that housed American workers as well, Colin Powell went out of his way to avoid tarring the House of Saud: "Terrorism strikes everywhere and everyone. It is a threat to the civilized world. We will commit ourselves again to redouble our efforts to work closely with our Saudi friends and friends all around the world to go after al Qaeda." Later it was alleged that the Riyadh bombers purchased some of their ordnance from the Saudi National Guard, but neither Powell nor anyone else saw fit to revise their statements about "our Saudi friends."

Why do the Bushmen give a pass to the Saudi terror hotbed? Because the House of Saud controls a lot of oil, and they are still (however tenuously) on our side. And that, not terrorism, is what matters most in Bush's foreign policy calculus.

While the bomb craters in Riyadh were still smoking, W held a meeting with Philippine president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Speaking publicly afterward, he outlined a deal for US military aid to the Philippines in exchange for greater "cooperation" in getting American hands round the throats of Filipino terrorists. He mentioned in particular the US's longtime nemesis Abu Sayyaf--and he also singled out the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a small faction based on Mindanao, the southernmost big island in the Philippine chain.

Of course it's by purest coincidence that Mindanao is the location of Asia's richest oil reserves.

Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star [via Truth Out], 5/4: Real American Agenda Now Becoming Clear

Alejandro Lichauco, ABS-CBN, 4/30: Mindanao is next target of US oil imperialism?

Bush Wars 5/15: Bunker-Buster Nukes

Bush Wars [undated]: Overview...oil

12) The US has made progress against world terrorist elements, in particular by crippling al Qaeda.

A resurgent al Qaeda has been making international news since around the time of the Saudi Arabia bombings in May. The best coverage by far is that of Asia Times correspondent Syed Saleem Shahzad. According to Shahzad's detailed accounts, al Qaeda has reorganized itself along leaner, more diffuse lines, effectively dissolving itself into a coalition of localized units that mean to strike frequently, on a small scale, and in multiple locales around the world. Since claiming responsibility for the May Riyadh bombings, alleged al Qaeda communiqués have also claimed credit for some of the strikes at US troops in Iraq.

Michael Tomasky, American Prospect, 6/18: Guess who's appeasing the Taliban now?

Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, 6/28: US shooting in the dark in Afghanistan

Bush Wars 5/19: Play It Again O-Sam-a

Bush Wars 5/20: New al-Qaeda Blueprint: Smaller is Better

Bush Wars 5/28: What if There's No Such Thing as "al-Qaeda"?

13) The Bush administration has made Americans safer from terror on US soil.

Like the Pentagon "plan" for occupying postwar Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security is mainly a Bush administration PR dirigible untethered to anything of substance. It's a scandal waiting to happen, and the only good news for W is that it's near the back of a fairly long line of scandals waiting to happen.

On May 26 the trade magazine Federal Computer Week published a report on DHS's first 100 days. At that point the nerve center of Bush's domestic war on terror had only recently gotten e-mail service. As for the larger matter of creating a functioning organizational grid and, more important, a software architecture plan for integrating the enormous mass of data that DHS is supposed to process--nada. In the nearly two years since the administration announced its intention to create a cabinet-level homeland security office, nothing meaningful has been accomplished. And there are no funds to implement a network plan if they had one. According to the magazine, "Robert David Steele, an author and former intelligence officer, points out that there are at least 30 separate intelligence systems [theoretically feeding into DHS] and no money to connect them to one another or make them interoperable. 'There is nothing in the president's homeland security program that makes America safer,' he said."

Dan Higgins, Ithaca Journal, 6/20: FBI on the lookout for David Nelson, any David Nelson

Chris Harris, Hartford Advocate, 6/26: You can't talk back to the Office of Homeland Security

Frank James, Seattle Times, 6/30: Homeland security underfunded, unprepared

Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service News Agency [undated]: Post-9/11 Immigrant Roundup Backfired

14) The Bush administration has nothing to hide concerning the events of September 11, 2001, or the intelligence evidence collected prior to that day.

First Dick Cheney personally intervened to scuttle a broad congressional investigation of the day's events and their origins. And for the past several months the administration has fought a quiet rear-guard action culminating in last week's delayed release of Congress's more modest 9/11 report. The White House even went so far as to classify after the fact materials that had already been presented in public hearing.

What were they trying to keep under wraps? The Saudi connection, mostly, and though 27 pages of the details have been excised from the public report, there is still plenty of evidence lurking in its extensively massaged text. (When you see the phrase "foreign nation" substituted in brackets, it's nearly always Saudi Arabia.) The report documents repeated signs that there was a major attack in the works with extensive help from Saudi nationals and apparently also at least one member of the government. It also suggests that is one reason intel operatives didn't chase the story harder: Saudi Arabia was by policy fiat a "friendly" nation and therefore no threat. The report does not explore the administration's response to the intelligence briefings it got; its purview is strictly the performance of intelligence agencies. All other questions now fall to the independent 9/11 commission, whose work is presently being slowed by the White House's foot-dragging in turning over evidence.

Bush Wars 5/9: Has Graham Got 9/11 Goods on Bush?

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, 4/30: The Secrets of September 11

Bush Wars 5/12: The Bush 9/11 Timeline

Paul Thompson, Center for Cooperative Research [undated]: September 11: Minute by Minute

Michael Isikoff and Tamara Lipper, Newsweek [via Truth Out], 10/21/02: Cheney: 'Investigators, Keep Out'

Fox News Sunday transcript 5/4: Senator Bob Graham interview

Carl Limbacher, NewsMax.com, 5/7: Prez Wannabe Graham Eyeing Evidence That Bush Blew 9/11

Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, 7/28: The 9-11 Report: Slamming the FBI

15) US air defenses functioned according to protocols on September 11, 2001.

Old questions abound here. The central mystery--how US air defenses could have responded so poorly on that day--is fairly easy to grasp. A cursory look at that morning's timeline of events is enough.

8:13 Flight 11 disobeys air traffic instructions and turns off its transponder.
8:40 NORAD command center claims first notification of likely Flight 11 hijacking.
8:42 Flight 175 veers off course and shuts down its transponder.
8:43 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 175 hijacking.
8:46 Flight 11 hits the World Trade Center north tower.
8:46 Flight 77 goes off course.
9:03 Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower.
9:16 Flight 93 goes off course.
9:16 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 93 hijacking.
9:24 NORAD claims first notification of likely Flight 77 hijacking.
9:37 Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
10:06 Flight 93 crashes in a Pennsylvania field.

The open secret underlying 9/11 is that stateside US air defenses had been reduced to paltry levels since the end of the Cold War. According to a report by Paul Thompson published at the endlessly informative Center for Cooperative Research website (www.cooperativeresearch.org), "[O]nly two air force bases in the Northeast region... were formally part of NORAD's defensive system. One was Otis Air National Guard Base, on Massachusetts's Cape Cod peninsula and about 188 miles east of New York City. The other was Langley Air Force Base near Norfolk, Virginia, and about 129 miles south of Washington. During the Cold War, the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert. But as the Cold War wound down, this number was reduced until it reached only 14 fighters in the continental US by 9/11."

But even an underpowered air defense system on slow-response status (15 minutes, officially, on 9/11) does not explain the magnitude of NORAD's apparent failures that day. Start with the discrepancy in the times at which NORAD commanders claim to have learned of the various hijackings. By 8:43 a.m., NORAD had been notified of two probable hijackings in the previous five minutes. If there was such a thing as a system-wide air defense crisis plan, it should have kicked in at that moment. Three minutes later, at 8:46, Flight 11 crashed into the first WTC tower. By then alerts should have been going out to all regional air traffic centers of apparent coordinated hijackings in progress. Yet when Flight 77, which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, was hijacked three minutes later, at 8:46, NORAD claims not to have learned of it until 9:24, 38 minutes after the fact and just 13 minutes before it crashed into the Pentagon.

The professed lag in reacting to the hijacking of Flight 93 is just as striking. NORAD acknowledged learning of the hijacking at 9:16, yet the Pentagon's position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane when it crashed in a Pennsylvania field just minutes away from Washington, D.C. at 10:06, a full 50 minutes later.

In fact, there are a couple of other circumstantial details of the crash, discussed mostly in Pennsylvania newspapers and barely noted in national wire stories, that suggest Flight 93 may have been shot down after all. First, officials never disputed reports that there was a secondary debris field six miles from the main crash site, and a few press accounts said that it included one of the plane's engines. A secondary debris field points to an explosion on board, from one of two probable causes--a terrorist bomb carried on board or an Air Force missile. And no investigation has ever intimated that any of the four terror crews were toting explosives. They kept to simple tools like the box cutters, for ease in passing security. Second, a handful of eyewitnesses in the rural area around the crash site did report seeing low-flying US military jets around the time of the crash.

Which only raises another question. Shooting down Flight 93 would have been incontestably the right thing to do under the circumstances. More than that, it would have constituted the only evidence of anything NORAD and the Pentagon had done right that whole morning. So why deny it? Conversely, if fighter jets really were not on the scene when 93 crashed, why weren't they? How could that possibly be?

Richard Wallace, UK Mirror [undated]: What Did Happen to Flight 93?

Jeff Pillets, The Record, 9/14/01: In rural hamlet, the mystery mounts; 5 report second plane at Pa. crash site; the investigation

William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, 9/16:02: Three-minute discrepancy in tape

Tom Gribb et al, Post-Gazette, 9/13/01: Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash

Richard Gazarik and Robin Acton, Tribune-Review [via Flight93crash.com], 9/14/01: Authorities deny Flight 93 was shot down by F-16

Albert McKeon, Nashua-Telegraph, 9/13/01: FAA worker says hijacked jetliners almost collided before striking World Trade Center

16) The Bush administration had a plan for restoring essential services and rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure after the shooting war ended.

The question of what the US would do to rebuild Iraq was raised before the shooting started. I remember reading a press briefing in which a Pentagon official boasted that at the time, the American reconstruction team had already spent three weeks planning the postwar world! The Pentagon's first word was that the essentials of rebuilding the country would take about $10 billion and three months; this stood in fairly stark contrast to UN estimates that an aggressive rebuilding program could cost up to $100 billion a year for a minimum of three years.

After the shooting stopped it was evident the US had no plan for keeping order in the streets, much less commencing to rebuild. (They are upgrading certain oil facilities, but that's another matter.) There are two ways to read this. The popular version is that it proves what bumblers Bush and his crew really are. And it's certainly true that where the details of their grand designs are concerned, the administration tends to have postures rather than plans. But this ignores the strategic advantages the US stands to reap by leaving Iraqi domestic affairs in a chronic state of (managed, they hope) chaos. Most important, it provides an excuse for the continued presence of a large US force, which ensures that America will call the shots in putting Iraqi oil back on the world market and seeing to it that the Iraqis don't fall in with the wrong sort of oil company partners. A long military occupation is also a practical means of accomplishing something the US cannot do officially, which is to maintain air bases in Iraq indefinitely. (This became necessary after the US agreed to vacate its bases in Saudi Arabia earlier this year to try to defuse anti-U.S. political tensions there.)

Meanwhile, the US plans to pay for whatever rebuilding it gets around to doing with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales, an enormous cash box the US will oversee for the good of the Iraqi people.

In other words, "no plan" may have been the plan the Bushmen were intent on pursuing all along.

Susan B. Glasser and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, 4/2: Reconstruction Planners Worry, Wait and Reevaluate

Bush Wars 4/2: Reconstruction Blues

Bush Wars 5/16: Chaos in Iraq

Bush Wars 5/21: Chaos in Iraq: Just What the US Wanted?

PBS Newshour transcript, 3/25: The Cost of War

Bill Walsh, Anniston Star [via Google cache], 3/23: Rebuilding Iraq: Bush's plan to rebuild postwar Iraq draws fire from Congress

Abid Ali, CNN, 3/31: Allies row over rebuilding Iraq

Ehsan Ahrari, Asia Times [via Google cache], 3/26: The lucrative business of rebuilding Iraq

Mike Allen, Washington Post [via The Iraq Foundation], 2/26: US Increases Estimated Cost Of War in Iraq

17) The US has made a good-faith effort at peacekeeping in Iraq during the postwar period.

"Some [looters] shot big grins at American soldiers and Marines or put down their prizes to offer a thumbs-up or a quick finger across the throat and a whispered word--Saddam--before grabbing their loot and vanishing."

--Robert Fisk, London Independent, 4/11/03

Despite the many clashes between US troops and Iraqis in the three months since the heavy artillery fell silent, the postwar performance of US forces has been more remarkable for the things they have not done--their failure to intervene in civil chaos or to begin reestablishing basic civil procedures. It isn't the soldiers' fault. Traditionally an occupation force is headed up by military police units schooled to interact with the natives and oversee the restoration of goods and services. But Rumsfeld has repeatedly declined advice to rotate out the combat troops sooner rather than later and replace some of them with an MP force. Lately this has been a source of escalating criticism within military ranks.

Bush Wars 4/16: "I Saw Marines Kill Civilians"

Bush Wars 4/11: Baghdad is Chaos

Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, Knight Ridder, 7/1: Bremer requests more troops as violence, tension escalate

Anthony Shadid, Washington Post, 7/1: Mistrust Mixes With Misery In Heat of Baghdad Police Post

Robert Schlesinger, Boston Globe, 7/10: Rumsfeld is pressed on troops' return

18) Despite vocal international opposition, the US was backed by most of the world, as evidenced by the 40-plus-member Coalition of the Willing.

When the whole world opposed the US invasion of Iraq, the outcry was so loud that it briefly pierced the slumber of the American public, which poured out its angst in poll numbers that bespoke little taste for a war without the UN's blessing. So it became necessary to assure the folks at home that the whole world was in fact for the invasion. Thus was born the Coalition of the Willing, consisting of the US and UK, with Australia caddying--and 40-some additional co-champions of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East, whose ranks included such titans of diplomacy and pillars of representative government as Angola, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, and Micronesia. If the American public noticed the ruse, all was nonetheless forgotten when Baghdad fell. Everybody loves a winner.

LiveJournal 3/31: Who is in the Coalition of the Willing?

19) This war was notable for its protection of civilians.

This from the Herald of Scotland, May 23: "American guns, bombs, and missiles killed more civilians in the recent war in Iraq than in any conflict since Vietnam, according to preliminary assessments carried out by the UN, international aid agencies, and independent study groups. Despite US boasts this was the fastest, most clinical campaign in military history, a first snapshot of 'collateral damage' indicates that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi non-combatants died in the course of the hi-tech blitzkrieg."

The Herald (Scotland) [via Refuse and Resist] 5/23: Civilian Deaths in Iraq could be as high as 10,000

Associated Press [via The Globe and Mail] 4/1: 'Precise' bombs going astray

20) The looting of archaeological and historic sites in Baghdad was unanticipated.

General Jay Garner himself, then the head man for postwar Iraq, told the Washington Times that he had put the Iraqi National Museum second on a list of sites requiring protection after the fall of the Saddam government, and he had no idea why the recommendation was ignored. It's also a matter of record that the administration had met in January with a group of US scholars concerned with the preservation of Iraq's fabulous Sumerian antiquities. So the war planners were aware of the riches at stake. According to Scotland's Sunday Herald, the Pentagon took at least one other meeting as well: "[A] coalition of antiquities collectors and arts lawyers, calling itself the American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP), met with US Defense and State department officials prior to the start of military action to offer its assistance.... The group is known to consist of a number of influential dealers who favor a relaxation of Iraq's tight restrictions on the ownership and export of antiquities.... [Archaeological Institute of America] president Patty Gerstenblith said: 'The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeologically rich nations and eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export.'"

Liam McDougall, Sunday Herald, 4/6: US accused of plans to loot Iraqi antiques

Bush Wars 4/23: General Jay and the Museum

Bryan Pfaffenberger, Pfaffen Blog, 4/15: US failure to prevent looting...

21) Saddam was planning to provide WMD to terrorist groups.

This is very concisely debunked in Walter Pincus's July 21 Washington Post story, so I'll quote him: "'Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists,' President Bush said in Cincinnati on October 7.... But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the US intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating October 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States."

Walter Pincus, Washington Post [via SFGate], 7/21: Iraq link to terror judged not likely before Bush speech

22) Saddam was capable of launching a chemical or biological attack in 45 minutes.

Again the WashPost wraps it up nicely: "The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public 'dossier' on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair--and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable."

Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 7/20: White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes

John Dean, FindLaw, 7/18: Why A Special Prosecutor's Investigation Is Needed To Sort Out the Niger Uranium And Related WMDs Mess

23) The Bush administration is seeking to create a viable Palestinian state.

The interests of the US toward the Palestinians have not changed--not yet, at least. Israel's "security needs" are still the US's sturdiest pretext for its military role in policing the Middle East and arming its Israeli proxies. But the US's immediate needs have tilted since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now the Bushmen need a fig leaf--to confuse, if not exactly cover, their designs, and to give shaky pro-U.S. governments in the region some scrap to hold out to their own restive peoples. Bush's roadmap has scared the hell out of the Israeli right, but they have little reason to worry. Press reports in the US and Israel have repeatedly telegraphed the assurance that Bush won't try to push Ariel Sharon any further than he's comfortable going.

Bush Wars 4/14: Sharon: New Melody, Same Lyrics

Bush Wars 4/4: Ha'aretz: The "Israelization" of America

Bush Wars 4/11: Ha'aretz: What Road Map?

Bush Wars 5/2: There Are No Bridges on Bush's Road Map

Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch [via Working for Change], 5/28: The road map hoax

24) People detained by the US after 9/11 were legitimate terror suspects.

Quite the contrary, as disclosed officially in last month's critical report on US detainees from the Justice Department's own Office of Inspector General. A summary analysis of post-9/11 detentions posted at the UC-Davis website states, "None of the 1,200 foreigners arrested and detained in secret after September 11 was charged with an act of terrorism. Instead, after periods of detention that ranged from weeks to months, most were deported for violating immigration laws. The government said that 752 of 1,200 foreigners arrested after September 11 were in custody in May 2002, but only 81 were still in custody in September 2002."

Bush Wars 4/24: Guantanamo: A Great Place for Kids, Too

Dale Russakoff, Washington Post, N.J. Judge Unseals Transcript in Controversial Terror Case

25) The US is obeying the Geneva conventions in its treatment of terror-related suspects, prisoners, and detainees.

The entire mumbo-jumbo about "unlawful combatants" was conceived to skirt the Geneva conventions on treatment of prisoners by making them out to be something other than POWs. Here is the actual wording of Donald Rumsfeld's pledge, freighted with enough qualifiers to make it absolutely meaningless: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate." Meanwhile the administration has treated its prisoners--many of whom, as we are now seeing confirmed in legal hearings, have no plausible connection to terrorist enterprises--in a manner that blatantly violates several key Geneva provisions regarding humane treatment and housing.

No links.

26) Shots rang out from the Palestine hotel, directed at US soldiers, just before a US tank fired on the hotel, killing two journalists.

Eyewitnesses to the April 8 attack uniformly denied any gunfire from the hotel. And just two hours prior to firing on the hotel, US forces had bombed the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera, killing a Jordanian reporter. Taken together, and considering the timing, they were deemed a warning to unembedded journalists covering the fall of Baghdad around them. The day's events seem to have been an extreme instance of a more surreptitious pattern of hostility demonstrated by US and UK forces toward foreign journalists and those non-attached Western reporters who moved around the country at will. (One of them, Terry Lloyd of Britain's ITN, was shot to death by UK troops at a checkpoint in late March under circumstances the British government has refused to disclose.)

Some days after firing on the Palestine Hotel, the US sent in a commando unit to raid select floors of the hotel that were known to be occupied by journalists, and the news gatherers were held on the floor at gunpoint while their rooms were searched. A Centcom spokesman later explained cryptically that intelligence reports suggested there were people "not friendly to the US" staying at the hotel. Allied forces also bombed the headquarters of Abu Dhabi TV, injuring several.

Robert Fisk, CounterPunch, 4/29: Did the US Murder Journalists?

Joel Campagna and Rhonda Roumani, C

Posted by Steve Perry at July 30, 2003 10:03 AM

« News and links | Main | All the President's Lies, Part II »