Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


What Is Chuck Schumer Up To?
New York State Bans Fracking






Truthdig Bazaar
Black Tuesday

Black Tuesday

by Nomi Prins

more items

 
Report

Investigate This

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 9, 2008
DoD / R.D. Ward

President Bush at the Pentagon in 2003 with then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (left). They were three of the chief architects and salesmen of the war.

By Scott Ritter

(Page 4)

Bloom was able to provide the specifications of his idea to his NBC bosses, and in just 40 days engineers from Maritime Telecommunications Network and NBC were able to modify a Ford F-450 to not only withstand the rigors of the Iraqi desert, but also to accommodate the electronics and satellite dish. Four weeks before the start of the war, the vehicle was tested, only to have the signal drop every time the vehicle turned. The engineers worked frantically to fix the problem, and the modified F-450, nicknamed the “Bloommobile,” was airlifted to Kuwait, arriving just days before the start of the invasion.

The cost of the Bloommobile has not been formally revealed, but is thought to run into seven figures. This vehicle would never have been made without the support of GE, which underwrote the cost of its construction. GE also fronted for NBC in negotiating special clearances with the Pentagon and State Department on exceptions to policy and import-export control. The Pentagon’s official policy while the Bloommobile was being built was for embeds to ride in vehicles provided by their respective unit, and that the media were not to provide their own transportation. Clearly, the Bloommobile represented a stark exception to that rule.

Keep in mind that the entire time GE/NBC was investing millions of dollars into building the Bloommobile so the TV network could get crystal-clear live video transmitted from the “tip of the spear,” the Bush administration was playing coy on the subject of war with Iraq. With GE/NBC News so heavily invested in exploiting a war, was there any pressure placed on NBC reporters/correspondents concerning how they dealt with the Bush administration’s case for war? It is a fair question, and one that could best be dealt with through an examination of the internal GE/NBC documents concerning the Bloommobile. Who in GE/NBC served as the project manager for the Bloommobile? Certainly Bloom, the brain trust, was away in Kuwait. Who oversaw the project back in the United States? What did the Bloommobile cost? What was the internal debate within GE/NBC concerning the merits/faults of the Bloommobile? An organization like GE/NBC does not allocate millions of dollars on a whim. There had to be some sort of oversight that was documented. Who in GE/NBC fronted for the Bloommobile with the U.S. government? What is the record of communication between GE/NBC and the U.S. government concerning the vehicle?  Did GE/NBC have to provide the U.S. government with any guarantees concerning the use of the Bloommobile?

In investing in the vehicle, GE/NBC News was investing in the war. There are quid pro quo arrangements made every day, and the link between the U.S. government granting NBC News so many exceptions in the creation and fielding of the Bloommobile, and the crackdown within the GE-controlled NBC/MSNBC family on anti-war and anti-administration sentiment, cannot be dismissed as simply circumstantial. But a review of the available documents would clarify this issue.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
David Gregory has vociferously defended the role he and NBC News played in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Scott McClellan’s new book, combined with testimony from other sources, including those from within the NBC News family, has called into question the integrity of the operation Gregory serves. An allegation from a credible source has been made, and any denial must therefore be backed with verifiable, documented information. To paraphrase former Secretary of State Colin Powell when talking about Iraq before the invasion, the burden is on NBC to prove that it wasn’t complicit with the Bush administration concerning its reporting on Iraq and administration policies, and not on NBC’s critics to prove that it was.

The old proverb notes that “a fish stinks from its head,” something that aptly describes the GE/NBC News team regarding the issue of Iraq. I challenge David Gregory to demonstrate otherwise.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment

Thank you Scott for highlighting how many “lies of omission” have been perpetrated on the American public.  Had these lies and perpeTRAITORS been known or exposed at the time many lives would have been saved.  Often as we deal with the fallout of this barbarian mentality whose only mission is maniacal, some seeds of truth are planted.  For that I thank you and the many people who endeavor the same.  Remember, “mighty oaks from little acorns grow”.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 14, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

Clinton called so many things to light, so why is it only his great knowledge of international law that Bush decided to use while destroying all the other such as environmental and others? Only because it dovetailed with Bush and his planned agenda.

International Criminals,  abound and we even support half of them, we even install some of them.

Opportunism is nothing but.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 14, 2008 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

Now is it not nice to cherry pick your reasons to go to war.  To say Bush went to war because Clintion believed their were weapons of mass deception in Iraq, is nothing more than a cover for decisions of conning into a direction already decided on.

Clinton from what I understand had told Bush of his concerns about Al Quarda only to be ignored.

Bush the worst president in United States History, remains to be seen, as the Vietnam evader his blunder into war will become a long standing achievement of Commander in Chief mission accomplished. 

35 articles of impeachment attached to his great legacy.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2008 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

Deceptive Theft

Bush has done a one sided push for all of his promoted plans of opportunism.  Now he wants to fast track the Oil in Alaska, because the high prices are a result of his miss managed war?  Recompensed for Bush’s War in Iraq, taking the negative to open up the off shore drilling and Wyoming, major national parks for random drilling supporting the cronies and the good old boys.  Pushing after their own setup and failures,  is becoming sicking to anyone with the ability to reason.

Ignoring the real from the bogus, using smoke and mirrors has become the norm, Of course it is all Clinton’s fault.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2008 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

You know the fact that Bush has proven to be the worst president in our history, I suspect if McCain becomes president we may have a fight for the number one slot.

After the McCellin book has come out we have seen and heard all the back peddlers try to place the blame on past presidents and make excuses for the lack of accountability.  Only the past presidents did not start a war of massive economic and human sacrifice, from what I understand we spend more than 45 of the rest of worlds other nations on military support. May have that out of context

Bush his Commander Cod Piece, the Vietnam evader going to war is usually how it works, warmongers seem to be the ones who never go to war, but the cherry on top is Bush sending our National Guard, seeing the history of his evasion of service.

Remember the buck stops anyplace away from the White House.

Report this

By JMCSwan, June 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena,

Re: the Genocide convention: in my opinion, any nation that has a population policy that is not a low or negative birth rate population policy is in and of itself committing a form of genocide on it’s own people. That the Genocide convention doesn’t mention that fact, cause it’s considered by the Third World to be ‘racist’ and ‘imperialist’ to tell them to have less children, so that those children can be loved and not live in abject poverty etc. and so on, doesn’t change that reality…

As for the systemic analysis of the letter of the law…. You know if Irish are impervious to psychoanalysis, then Lawyers are absolute fanatically impervious to psychoanalsysis. When last did you hear about a lawyer willing to do self-analysis about their conduct, and it’s consequences? Only time I heard about it was in the movie REGARDING HENRY. I have often been quite willing to say ‘if I am wrong, no problem—I shall unequivocally apologise’.... but didn’t you know: MOST LAWYERS ARE NEVER EVER WRONG, NEVER EVER!!! “I’m sorry” just simply does not exist in these people’s vocabularies, and yet they have the gumption to stand in their courtroom and demand it from others. Of course there are exceptions, but unfortunately they are few and far between.

Actually I once heard about a Judge who did say sorry: he was a southerner: Judge Gwynn, i think his name was. Now that was courageous.

Re: children breaking the law. The law is not black and white. If it was there would be no need for defence attorneys, or valid defences, whether self defence, necessity, negligence or whatever. In what context did the child allegedly ‘break the law’, etc?

The problem is that for most lawyers it is not about applying the law in order to get to the truth, and for true justice to be served, it is about them winning their cases, irrespective of whether the poor accused is guilty or innocent. And in doing so they make a mockery of justice, because in not applying justice for the sake of truth, and justice, those who are innocent, and the people who observe this farcical justice system dining on the foodchain (guilty or innocent, who cares?), it simply creates within the people an observation that the law really doesn’t mean anything, what it does mean is: DON’T GET CAUGHT, AND IF YOU DO, LIE!

In that context, for the elite’s the law is texas justice (i.e. do what you like, take what you want without compensation, just dont’ get caught), and for the proles’ the law is the elite and lawyers guns for hire, to make sure they keep their desks stacked with cases, and never run out of work!

Merchants of Death Law, they may be called?

Remember that quote by Justice Brandeis, quoted by McVeigh?

PS: consider what PM Gordon Brown’s reference about David Davis resignation for the by-erection, as ‘stunt that’s become a farce’, in terms of SIR, NO SIR’S, AWOL souldier’s ‘farce’, and Gov. Gray Davis’ “Hello?”, in Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (after he was screwed by Enron in the California Blackouts, and forced into recall); takes on an entirely different ‘human foodchain dinner’ meaning…..

Regards

Report this

By cyrena, June 13, 2008 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

JBlack: Per your demand for me to put up or shut up. You’re very crude, but I’ve decided to provide the information that you demanded.

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
Link to it here JBlack. There’s even a video for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
•  Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
•  The Guardian,
•  Thursday September 16 2004
•  Article history

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: “Yes, if you wish.”
Link to it here JBlack:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

I’m going to recommend some books to you as well. One is the latest from my own mentor, academic/scholarly advisor/whatever you want to call it. I’m extremely fortunate to have been able to study International Law under his guidance.

Richard A. Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton and Visiting Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

His most recent work is “The Costs of War: International Law, The UN, and World Order After Iraq.” Rutledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008 ISBN 13:978-0-415-95509-6
Another very excellent book that is very easy reading is:

“War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict”
Michael Byers, Grove Press, 2005

Again JBlack. Please stop attacking me. I’m going to ask you that for this last time. These lectures and name calling from you are over the top, and you would have been banned from any other site for the frequency in which you’ve engaged in them, targeting me specifically, for whatever your reasons might be.

When I read and post to this site, it is to gain and SHARE information. If I don’t know something, I’ll ask to see if someone else does. Sometimes, I’ll share what I’ve already researched, IF ONLY because I’ve ALREADY researched it, because again…IT’S WHAT I DO! Many other people reading and posting here, don’t necessarily have the same amount of time or resources that I do. Since this is what I do ANYHOW, I’m generally willing and able to share it. And, I make very CLEAR distinctions between what is my OPINION, and what is FACT!

Last but not least…I’m not in any ‘competition’ with you or anyone else here, nor am I collecting a salary from you, or anyone else here. I will continue to call out propaganda when I see it as propaganda. Just so you know.

Report this

By cyrena, June 13, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

JBlack,

I’m sort of tired of the same old stuff from you. I’ve actually tried to be civil, and there’s really no way to do that with you, because you keep talking like these are ‘opinions’ and ‘views’, without understanding the difference between that and facts.

JBlack. I’m an academic/scholar. OK? No brag, or bloat, or bigotry there at all. It’s just my field. It’s what I DO…JBlack. It’s not a crime. Different people do different things as careers. This is actually my second career, since I returned to academia after 27 years in the commercial airline industry. It’s what I DO! Just like any other banker, grocer, hairdresser, or sanitation engineer, I just happen to be a scholar and a teacher.

Since my field is Law and Society, with the focus on Constitutional and International Law. I’m very familiar with the UN Charter. I could recite the UN charter for you JBlack, because…IT”S WHAT I DO! Everybody does something, right JBlack?

I’ve mentioned before if not to you, then one of the other ideologues that posts here, that I don’t read or post to these blogs to engage in sophomoric pissing contests about who’s right and who isn’t. There is a difference between FACT, and OPINION. That is not to say that people cannot have differing opinions on how to interpret various facts..specifically in the law. That’s why I’ve made a point, on countless occasions, to remind about how important the LANGUAGE is. There is even a protocol on legal interpretations.

Now I have done exercises with students on this subject of the use of force in the decision to invade Iraq. We’ve discussed this over and over again, and everyone has needed to argue the point from DIFFERENT VIEWS. HOWEVER, they’ve had to use the law and the Charter as it is written, to make the argument. You can’t just pull stuff out of thin air JBlack, or assume that someone else’s argument is correct, just because they happen to be an ex-president. And I said before, that it doesn’t mean that he knows the international law very well, because if he did, he could not claim that the use of force without an authorization in the form of a resolution from the UNSC, could be legal.

Now he MIGHT have argued the point from the Bush Doctrine, which is a doctrine of pre-emptive anticipatory use of force. Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions DOES allow for the use of force ONLY in self-defense. The Bush Doctrine takes the self-defense clause, and argues that self-defense is being used in an anticipatory manner. IOW, attack from somewhere else is imminent, and there is no time to obtain a resolution from the UN. But in this case, bush didn’t even use that argument. He actually TRIED to get approval from the UNSC, but they weren’t buying it, so he attacked without it. His father DID get a resolution from the UNSC when he attacked Iraq, but jr did not, because he could not make a case.

GWBush attacked Iraq and subsequently occupied that sovereign nation state, and it was done in violation of the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the use of force against ANY OTHER sovereign nation state, EXCEPT in the case of self-defense, OR with the approval of the UNSC. We can discuss this for another 10 years, just as I have been discussing it and publishing journal articles about it for the past 4 years, and nothing will change. The law hasn’t changed, and the action hasn’t changed.

I will find the quote from Kofi Annan for you, since it should be easy enough…I just saw it yesterday or the day before when I was doing some other work on the Genocide Convention.

Stay tuned, and kindly drop the attacks. This isn’t about ME, and it’s not about YOU, and it’s not about whose ‘opinion’ is more or less valid. It’s just the systematic analysis of the letter of the law. And it’s DEFINITELY not about whether one “likes” one politician or doesn’t like them! If your child or my child breaks a law, they STILL broke the law! The law doesn’t change just because it’s your child who broke it.

Report this

By JMCSwan, June 13, 2008 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

JBlack:

I appreciate you for writing:

“All of them, and all of us, are saying the same things over and over again; what started as a conversation has become a shouting match.  And when everyone is on “transmit” - but never on “receive” - we cannot hear and so we cannot learn.  And if we cannot learn, we’ve stopped thinking.”

You know sometimes I think that even what we are saying isn’t even clear, and it’s almost like we’re just sending cluster bomb messages to each other, and no wonder we are confused about each other’s messages…. Even when we do attempt to listen, how do you listen to a message that isn’t clear?

I have this friend - we practice listening. LIstening is a big issue for me. Sometimes when we chat, I’ll tell her a story, and before I have reached the end of the first sentence, she will say ‘what did you mean by that word’ and then I’ll explain that word, in the context of my story, and so it goes. Sometimes our conversation takes an hour to get through a few sentences! What I’m trying to say, in my agreement and appreciation for your statement, is that listening takes effort, sincerity, to care about what the other person actually thinks, and be willing to set aside your own opinions to hear their side and perspective, and most of us—me included—are so attached to being right about our own opinions and drumming them down others throats, and living in the ratrace don’t have the energy, sincerity or concern to really listen, that basically we are just tossing each other verbal cluster bombs…. And I imagine I am preaching to the choir… However, at least I found a choir partner, what do you like singing?

These days one of my favourite songs of futility of humanity is:

—-
It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
You taught me all I know and I’ll never look back
It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

You took a colored ribbon from out of the sky
And taught me how to use it as the years went by
To tie up all your problems and make them look neat
And then to sell them to the people in the street

It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
You taught me all I know and I’ll never look back
It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

I saw right through the way you started teachin’ me now
So some day soon you could get to use me somehow
I thank you very much and though you’ve been very kind
But I’d better move along before you change my mind

It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
You know how I feel as if I’ll never come back
It’s a very strange world and I thank you, Master Jack

You taught me all the things the way you’d like them to be
But I’d like to see if other people agree
It’s all very int’resting the way you disguise
But I’d like to see the world through my own eyes

It’s a strange, strange world we live in, Master Jack
No hard feelin’s if I never come back
You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack

You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack
You’re a very strange man and I thank you, Master Jack
—-

at least that’s my perspective, but now and then you find a jewel whose worth listening to and where the dialogue again becomes a conversation, and that is simply a very precious experience.

Thank you.

Report this

By JMCSwan, June 13, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

Yours Truly,

Your 3:24 pm post made me smile. Particularly the last four points. Thanks, for cheering me up by confirming for me the seeming futility of it all. Not cause it’s cheerful, just cause the affirmation helps me to realise someone else kinda confirms my reality. Frankly in my opinion, perhaps incorrect, I don’t see how things can really get any better, if our communication about ‘humanitys’ problems does not involve us being as honest as we are able about the causes of our problems. As for wars, besides the fact that the fundamental basis for planet earth’s economy is based on conquest, dollar worship, and war; and that war is for politicians a means by which to motivate the citizenry through fear to support their agendas’ not least of which that one of those agenda’s is the eugenic culling of their cannon fodder children, equivalent to a Mayan dinner war party feast, and due to humanity’s organized religion refusal to honestly address sexuality issues, to convert humanity to low humane birth rate population policies (which capitalism ain’t supporting, cause more people mean more unemployed competing for jobs, therefore jobs can be manipulated at lower rates), ‘humanity’ is pretty much up the creek without a paddle…

Thank goodness I don’t have any children, cause their future ain’t exactly great, in this direction.

Anyway, thanks for enabling a smile out of me!

Report this

By cyrena, June 13, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment

Well Outraged, guess it’s your turn to attract the O’Reilly’s of the thread, or just the die-hard repug propagandists/apologists for everything that is Dick Bush. As you most diplomatically noted here:

•  “…As I read back through your comments in your first post on this thread, it is obvious that you have a very odd perspective of events when contrasted against others knowledgeable of the situation…”

I’d say it’s far beyond being a ‘very odd perspective’, and more like deluded insanity. In so far as the mentality goes, JBlack’s ‘perspective’ is right up there in with the rest of the Cabal that hijacked us in the first place. Must have been first in line for the kool-aid.

And, he proves it in all of his posts, including this one #162751. First he accuses YOU of not being able to ‘follow a thread’, (which is incredibly ironic in this context) and of lying behind anonymity, and then proceeds to come up with this bizarre and irrelevant disconnect to the entire subject..

•  “…You have not read Dr. Blix’s book. If you had you would not have wasted your time with this irrelevancy. Did you not understand that I brought Blix into what I was saying because he is in fact a Bush critic? You’re wasting your time trying to show me how Blix is no fan of Bush and what the doctor has had to say AFTER he RETURNED to Iraq in 2002. As opposed to what he WROTE in his BOOK about what he had fully EXPECTED to find BEFORE his RETURN…”

Obviously, Mr. Black sees NO RELEVANCE to the fact that Hans Blix was the lead investigator who’s only job in Iraq in September of 2002 was carry out a full inspection of the ‘premises’ of Iraq, in an effort to confirm the existence or non-existence of any WMD that Saddam Hussein might be in possession of.  That was his job, and as a scientist entrusted with the job, that’s what he did. And after 6 months of such activity, HE DIDN’T FIND ANY!

Meantime, when did you waste time trying to explain that Blix was no fan of the GW shrub? I read down through the comments, and I couldn’t find anything. Maybe because it HAS NO RELEVANCE to anything whether Blix was or wasn’t a ‘fan of the Shrub?” Seems like JBlack is the only one who thinks so, and that’s typical of a blindly partisan ideologue who is totally divorced from the FACTS of ANYTHING!

This became overwhelmingly obvious in the “case of Mr. Black”, from his very first post. And yes, he is full of shit, in addition to being petty and kindergartenish in his attempts at reasonable discourse. Some are simply not capable of such.

So, I’ll return my heartfelt empathy that you’ve been stalked by the trolls as well. For the most part, they’re truly a waste of energy. On the other hand, it’s always a good idea to address the most grotesque of the propaganda, and call it what it is. Additionally, in the interest of truth and full disclosure, it’s always necessary to point out when the trolls are full of shit, so that THEY know, that WE know, they are full of shit, even though at least SOME of the time, they don’t know it themselves.

That seems to be the case with Mr JBlack here. He obviously believes the lies himself. That’s what happens in the worst stages of the denial. There’s no hope for them, but that doesn’t mean they should just be able to lie all over the place without being challenged, or otherwise having their lies exposed for what they are.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 13, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Rus7355

Sure Saddam Hussein   was a bad guy, maybe at the top of the ass hole list, but we put him in as our guy and he decided not to be our puppet.  Connecting the dots to 911 had Saddam’s name on it, I would say take him out. But instead we blew what we were doing in Afghanistan and many lives spent for a bogus threat.  He was a pain to his neighbors, the UN did not back the Bush war, as usual Bush seems to know better. 

Oil, opportunism, ego’s and all bad decisions are the only reason we went into Iraq, of course none of those were told to us.

Al Qaeda was not liked by Saddam, so   was not even present, going to war was only a pipe dream for the neo cons and their plan of imperialism. 
All predictions of why we went in Iraq turned out wrong, results of what would happen after we went into Iraq were wrong. Going into Iraq was wrong.  Ill conceived and waste of lives and money.
Every petty dictator or ruler of countries that are abusive to their people should be taken care of like Saddam Hussein according to the warmonger mentality, at least the ones we do not agree with and hold hands with.

Comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler and Japan in the 30’s is a joke, Bush fits the picture much better if you look at history and the way it is going.

Report this

By cyrena, June 13, 2008 at 6:25 am Link to this comment

•  “..Cyrena, are you aware that President Clinton, ex- U.S. President and constitutional scholar, during an appearance on the Larry King program in 2004 stated unequivocally that President Bush needed no more resolutions from the United nations or the U.S. Congress to use military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power? I have a copy of the entire transcript if you wish me to send it for your scrutniy…”

This is hilarious JBlack! Seriously. You’re talking about an interview that Clinton had with Larry King in 2004, (so obviously long after the invasion had been launched, and the occupation already in full swing) to tell me that a Constitutional scholar said that GW *needed no more resolutions* from the UN or the US Congress for the use of force against Iraq?

You’re confused. First, I don’t know that Slick Willie was ever a ‘Constitutional Scholar’. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and I always believed him to be very intelligent, so I’m sure he knew something about Constitutional Law, and would know the responsibility of the US Congress in declaring war, or giving permission to use military force against another sovereign nation state. It does NOT necessarily follow that Slick Willie was ALSO an INTERNATIONAL Law scholar, and if he actually claimed (as you say here) that GW did NOT need a resolution from the UN to use military force against Iraq, then he apparently DOESN’T know anything about International law!! That doesn’t particularly surprise me, because Slick Willy himself, ALSO violated the SAME provisions of the UN Charter when he used military force against the former Yugoslavia in the Serbian/Bosnian conflict.

So, I guess it doesn’t really MATTER about your ‘clear point’ on what Pres Clinton disagrees with ME on, because it disagrees with the provisions of the UN Charter/Geneva Conventions, and specifically article 51. (you can look it up).
The very clear law is that a UN Resolution is ALWAYS required to use force against another sovereign nation state, and without such a resolution, the action is ILLEGAL under International law. Period. Dot. End of THAT point of the discussion.

And, GW did ATTEMPT to get that resolution from the UN Security Council before launching his war. He sent Colin Powell on the mission to do exactly that, and when it became clearly evident that the UNSC was NOT going to provide that resolution, (they needed 9 votes, and only 4 were going to be forthcoming) they very quietly withdrew the request, and blasted away anyhow.

Since then, the international community, (as spoken by the then UN General Secretary Kofi Annan) has also ‘unequivocally’ stated that as far as the UN Charter is concerned, the action was ILLEGAL.
If you examine the most recent articles of impeachment against GW, as presented by Dennis Kucinich, the use of force against Iraq –without a resolution from the UNSC- is one of the charges on the list of 35.

The PRE-EMPTIVE use of force is part of the Bush Doctrine, and the Bush Doctrine is a violation of International Law as embodied in the Geneva Conventions. And get this JBlack, it would be a violation regardless of WHOSE name is on the “Doctrine”.

The only thing debatable in this discussion is how much of it GW *himself* actually came up with, because as we all know, he is NOT an intelligent man, and knows ZERO about the law, Constitutional or International. This Doctrine of Pre-emption was actually conceived by the original Cabal of neo-cons, which became the PNAC. The article here at truthdig by Elliot Cohen, ”McCain’s Chilling…” explains this in detail. You should read it, and maybe then you’ll understand that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned long ago (by the PNAC Cabal) and the creation of the WMD story, as well as the false flag attack on the US on 9/11, was used as the excuse to sell it to the American public.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 12, 2008 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

Re: JBlack

Your quote: “Blix then goes on to explain why he felt “Saddam could not be trusted” and felt him to be “dangerous”.....”

>That IS what I said by making this assertion, ” He BELIEVED the likelihood exists that ANYONE could attain these materials and the fact that Saddam COULD have them made the issue only more dire, but not more likely.”

Also JBlack, For you to attempt to use a quote regarding a situation almost 10 years prior and not claim it as such is using a quote out of context. As I read back through your comments in your first post on this thread, it is obvious that you have a very odd perspective of events when contrasted against others knowledgeable of the situation.
 
Your quote: “By the same token, the rise of governments that are sympathetic to the U.S. in France, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe is never associated with a shared and growing worry over Islamic radicalism — or a grudging, often private acknowledgment of the U.S. role abroad in beating back jihadism. How surreal to see a constitutional government in Iraq, with broad popular support, fighting and defeating terrorists and insurgents of both the Wahhabi and Iranian brand — at a time when the consensus is that Iraq only made terrorism much worse. As we’ve seen from recent events, there are many governments abroad that deserve criticism, whether in China, the Sudan, or Burma, but Iraq is not one of them.”

> The U.S. invasion has not “beat back” jihadism but increased it in the world.  Most accounts other than propaganda accounts put forth by the likes of Kristol and company show very little evidence of Iranian involvement with “insurgents”.  Propagandists use the description “insurgents” and then attempt to paint the picture that ANY who resist American forces in Iraq are related to Iranians somehow.  Iraq DID NOT before the invasion “make terrorism much worse” as you claim.  Saddam was an enemy to Al Qaeda and Iran and did not engage in activities with them. 

Patrick Cockburn’s book Muqtada explains that shortly after the Iran-Iraq War, (pg. 132).

  “Other opponents of Saddam began to return to Iraq. Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) arrived in Iraq…..
.....But al-Hakim had a powerful asset in the shape of the Badr Corps….
....Baqir al-Hakim’s men had fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war and were believed by many Iraqis to have savagely tortured Iraqi prisoners….
.....“Hakim does not represent Iraq,” said Mohammed al-Fortousi, Muqtada’s representative in Sadr City, soon after Hakim’s return.  “He represents outside forces and works with Iran, the U.S., and Israel.  We need someone from inside who suffered with Iraqis and represents the people’s voice.  We don’t want an Iranian state.”
    It was bizarre that President George W. Bush was to claim repeatedly over the next four years that Muqtada and the Mehdi Army were Iranian pawns when SCIRI and Badr, by now allied with the United States, were demonstrably Iranian creations.”

>Muqtada and the Mehdi Army have a large following and are gaining more political control. They have fought American soldiers and are popular with the lower classes of Iraq, but not the middle classes. The Sunnis and the Shia have battled during this war with each other. Specific sects of the Shia also have fought against each other.  Many of these battles have also been labeled “insurgent” although many times their fighting had little to do with America.

There isn’t a “constitutional government” in Iraq.  There’s a superfulous “in words only” constitution.  If there is one thing ALL Iraqis want it is America OUT.  If the government was truly “constitutional” America would have been kicked out long ago.  The Iraqi will have their issues amongst themselves but if there’s one thing they all want it is America OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY AND OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 12, 2008 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

Re: JBlack

It is obvious you are taking Hans Blix’s quote out of context.  Hans Blix makes the case that ANYONE could attain the materials which could be used to create the various WMD’s.  He takes that fact very seriously.  However, to claim that he BELIEVED that Saddam had them is erroneous.  He BELIEVED the likelihood exists that ANYONE could attain these materials and the fact that Saddam COULD have them made the issue only more dire, but not more likely.  You are quoting out of context or are having trouble understanding the main theme of Blix’s book.

This video which at several points features Hans Blix shows your assertion false.  It also highlights the danger and world view concerning nuclear weapons.

Although the video itself is 58 minutes long, if you take the initiative to watch the first 3 1/2 min it shows unmistakeably that Hans Blix PREDICTED that no WMD’s would be found in Iraq in 2002.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3149979950735473461&q=globalvision

Report this

By MattKline, June 12, 2008 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Congress was derelict of duty, but consider:

1—the resolution authorized force, but didn’t specify whether this is merely targeting strikes or a full scale invasion. 

2—the resolution specified UN involvement which Bush ignored by not seeking a UN resolution;

3—the vote on the resolution was scheduled just a couple weeks before mid-term elections.  Spineless democrats didn’t want to appear..well spineless when it comes to defense so they voted for it.

So a congressperson could have voted for the resolution thinking it would put more pressure on Sadam to comply, while not supporting the full scale invasion Bush started.  It’s wrong to assume just because congress approved the resolution that they all supported this invasion.

MK
http://www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com

Report this

By elwood p.dowd, June 12, 2008 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus7355,
You must watch an awful lot of Fox News.
Putin and Russia never accepted that Iraq had WMD’s- which is why they never joined Bush’s “coalition of the willing”
Nor did Germany.
Nor did France- forgot about “freedom fries already?”
And as far as Britain-they wre bribed into going, but Blair never believed it any more than Bush ever really did- never heard of the Downing Street memo?
Many of your other facts are also total BS.
As far as the 107 Congress.  You’re going to go by what they say?  Most of them are as corrupted as Bush.
There were however 96 members of Congress who did vote no ( so it wasn’t the “entire” 107th Congress,now was it?  And incidentally where did those 96 members get their information from? It turns out that they, and most of the world was right- Iraq never was a threat.

Report this

By don knutsen, June 12, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All this discussion about how many people said what prior to Bu$h’s war of choice ignores the fact that after the inspectors had been in Iraq searching for evidence of an active WMD program they reported that they hadn’t found any. Shouldn’t that have been the bottom line before deciding to go ahead and attack ? The only pathetic attempt at so-called discovery was Bush’s ridiculous statement that those few trailers found were mobile weapons labortories of some sort. Only to be immediately discounted as something to do with weather balloons. This administration was determined to attack Iraq from the onset of taking office. Just how many former members of that time from R. Clarke, the former Tres. Sec., asst. Sec. of State Larry Wilkerson,etc…have to come forward before that fact sinks in ? They were determined to invade Iraq to install a permanent american presence in the middle of the middle east from which to gain control of their oil. These plans were formulated behind Cheney’s closed doors with the major oil companies at the very beginning of this administration. I can’t for the life of me understand the rational of people continuing, after all the information that has come out since, of still coming up with excuses for this criminal action by the Bu$h / Cheney White House.
  But I do believe that its that same mindset that has kept them safe from any form of accountabilty from a collowed congress and a portion of the public that still somehow excuses what all the world knows as a blatant act of aggression that has further destabilized the middle east,made us far less secure, and enables them to continue their aggressive rhetoric towards Iran. A country D. Cheney was doing buisness with while CEO of Halliburton. All under the bullshit guise of bringing freedom and democracy to that region? Does anyone really believe that killing well over 100k of their citizens and displacing millions more is winning very many hearts and minds over to our side ? We had many enemies in that region from our prior escapades, usually at the behest of the same oil companies who favored this criminal act. Now we have many times more enemies thruout the world, have lost whatever moral authority we might’ve once had with our war mongering, torture, kidnapping of thousands of suspects, suspending of any of what used to be considered the god-given rights of all human beings to have the right to a defense, on and on the dismantling of all the virtues that america was once known for in the world.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 12, 2008 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

Rus7355.

We should be blaming Clinton, because we know Bush made his decisions to go to war from what the Clinton’s said, nice to know they have some much in common.

Of course the buck stops somewhere else, accountability can be so evasive.  Going to war on a pipe dream, means if Obama wins we should be going to war with Iran according to your logic, because Bush says Iran has WMD’s or plan on it. 

Since McCllen has surfaced you seem to be trying to rectify going to war anyway you can.  Sure we can go to war for any number of reasons, if you have a inclination to be a warmonger.

Idea of Peace and making our home a better place for the people to live is to hard for some to contemplate. War is so easy and of course lots of money to be had.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 12, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: By JBlack, June 11 at 6:33 pm:

JblackIf you were referring to what Blix thought before he returned to Iraq - that is, before he conducted the relevant inspections during the leadup to the war, perhaps I missed that because it didn’t occur to me that you would try to refute what I said with a proposition that is irrelevant.

Sorry. I didn’t realize you were writing completely without respecting my argument. I guess I had higher expectations of you, and I will now adjust them properly downward.

My argument was that BEFORE THE WAR STARTED (but OBVIOUSLY NOT BEFORE BLIX DID HIS INSPECTIONS!), no one believed there was a NUCLEAR PROGRAM in Iraq. Blix goes one better than that: he confirms this even with respect to ALL WMD (which goes beyond what I was talking about, since I was only talking about nukes - I know I’m repeating myself, but I have to, because apparently you’re a bit hard of thinking).

In the interview with Goodman he confirms that before the Iraq war started, he and El Baradei had found nothing, and that the only reason that it was still “possible” that there may have been something is that most rarefied philosophical phantom of possibility: “... because to prove that there is really nothing is impossible”.

Report this

By elwood p.dowd, June 12, 2008 at 4:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The article states that ” of course, objectivity is journalism in its purest form.”  I beg to differ. H.L. Mencken said it the best-  ” a reporters job is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.”  There is nothing wrong with a journalist being passionate and having an agenda- as long as its the right agenda.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, June 11, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Looks like the right wing trolls are out in full force spreading their disinformation.  Trying to justify that which cannot be justified this illegal war based on lies.  They attempt to use MORE propaganda to qualify their blatant inadequacies.  Scott Ritter is absolutely correct in his article.

JBlack: I’ve read Hans Blix’s book, and you are full of shit.  Hans Blix NEVER claims he knew Iraq had WMDs.  Strange how you don’t cite the page or quote the paragraph in which Hans Blix allegedly makes this assertion.

Saddam Hussein was never a threat to America.  NEVER.  Aside from that, it was our NUTTY SHADOW CIA that put Saddam in power.  Then, with false pretenses, they instituted his demise and NOW they want to qualify their stupidity in the only way they can, WITH MORE LIES.

In all this, between the harshest sanctions ever instituted and the illegal invasion, these right wingers and their delusions of granduer have killed more Iraqis than Saddam had.  Everyone KNOWS Saddam was a cruel and vicious dictator, so what does that make those whose lies and greed resulted in even MORE IRAQI DEATHS.  Yet that wasn’t enough either, in their vicious blind ambition they have killed over 4,000 of their own and injured and crippled another 20,000 or more.

Report this

By don knutsen, June 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

re: from Russ7355 Somebody here tried to argue that Hanz Blix himself didn’t make the same claims about WMD in Iraq before March 2003. Well, that person is not correct. I’ve read Dr. Blix’s book. He did in fact write that he too believed Iraq had ongoing banned weapons programs prior to going in himself. And if one reads the Lord Butler and Duelfer reports one finds that Saddam Hussein himself likely believed he had more than was found. Still we’re told repeatedly that it was only Bush that lied about WMD in Iraq.

I think alittle clarification on the timing of these events is in order. Though it may be true that alot of intellegence agencies thought Hussein had an ongoing program incl. Blix before going into Iraq….dosen’t anyone remember the chain of events. Hussein was pressured under threat of attack if he didn’t relent and let the inspectors back in. He did so, they were all over the country in the months leading up to our invasion of them. They reported, after those exhaustive searches, that they weren’t finding anything left and that it appeared as though most if not all stockpiles had either degraded or been destroyed. They wanted to continue searching and were chased out because our fearless leader(s) were intent on invading Iraq for reasons much different then WMDs. Wolfowitz himself said as much saying they had settled on WMDs as a justification that was more palatable to most americans. BUt, bu$h, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice had plenty of notice that Blix hadn’t found anything and we know that many of the lies told about the aluminum tubes, the yellow cake from Niger, etc..had already been discounted not only by our own CIA but also the British intellegence agency. The so-called bad intell this white house used, was manufactured intell coming from Doug Feiths office of special projects - giving Dick Cheney exactly what he wanted because the reality of it, as told by our own intellegence agency wasn’t what he / they wanted to hear. 
  Its like the whole of america has a memory about 3 months long. Don’t you remember how this admin. telegraphed the whole run up to war, using phrases like “suitable for ” or ” might be ” inplace of direct knowledge. Since when do we go to war on those kind of caveats ? When our nation is led by a group of criminals who have no regard for the truth, thats when.

Report this

By yours truly, June 11, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Plus Investigating This Build-Up To An Iran War

“Why now and not after the war’s been going on for five or so years as in Iraq.”

“Worse yet, the nearly a century between the boiler room explosion that sunk the Maine and MSM reporting that ‘Well wadayaknow, it wasn’t the Spaniards after all.”

“Then there’s the Gulf of Tonkin lie that cost us tens of thousands of our best and brightest along with two million of Vietnam’s very own.”

“Not to mention that a half-century post-Korean War we still don’t know what caused that one.”

“What does this track record of our having been lied into all these wars teach us?”

“That until proven otherwise, when our president tells us that such and such a country is a threat to our security, we assume we’re being lied to.”

“And after that?”

“We find out what’s really going on.”

“And then what sort of world?”

“It’ll be up to us.”

Report this

By Allen Wood, June 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Impeach Bush…...What a Joke!
All of this ranting about the next U.S. President…..What A Joke!
All of you idiots crying about something that you cannot possibly change…..What a waste of energy!
Face it, and start stockpiling the necessaries of life. You have lost. George and cronies have won. Please stop crying and prepare yourselves for the upcoming illuminati controlled tsunami. You better start preparing right NOW for the hell that will be unleashed.

Report this

By Marnie, June 11, 2008 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One of the most, and possibly the most important reasons for the 1st Amendment, is to protect the press when it presents the truth, presents facts, that would be likely to upset people in power.

Why should anyone who brainlessly parrots either the truths or the lies of those in power need Constitutional protection?

Hey, Gregory, you are a prime example of why so many Americans don’t go to MSM for their news anymore.

Report this

By cyrena, June 11, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

JBlack,

Despite the fact that this is obviously very, very, far off the topic of the particular thread of conversation here, I’m curious as to how you arrived at your conclusions in this statement:

•  “The bottom line is that Obama is not electable (not due to his skin color). And as a black man I can tell you now that most in my community, and the nauseating “progressives” in this country, will blame “whitey”…

In other words, how do you reconcile these sentiments with certain logical and demographics FACTS:

For instance, Barack Obama has won the Democratic Party nomination for the candidate that will run against the repuglican, John McCain in the fall. What portion of the population to you suppose selected Barack Obama to be that nominee?

I’ll give you some basic stats to work with.

The African American population of the US is currently calculated at 13%. (per the latest census report). That is up from 12% in the last one.

The estimated percentage of that population, who ACTUALLY VOTE, is LESS THAN 6%. So, can you tell us how the black folks in your community, or anywhere else in the US, could possibly be the reason why Barack Obama has won this nomination?

Based on that, is it not possible that the SAME overwhelmingly WHITE voter population who selected Barack Obama to be the nominee, would not ALSO select him to be the president? And keeping that same thought in mind, even if John McCain DID ‘take’ the election, why would anyone ‘blame whitey’ considering the fact that ‘whitey’ (very derogatory term by the way, so I’m sorry you’ve chosen to use it, especially as a black man) would be the reason why Obama has progressed this far to begin with?

In other words JBlack, I don’t really know if you live in a predominantly black community or not. But the REAL ‘bottom line’ is that when Barack Obama is elected president, it will be because the majority of the US voting population voted for him. And the majority of the US voting population is OVERWHELMINGLY WHITE!

So, if for some reason Obama is not elected, it would be pretty stupid to ‘blame whitey’, don’t you think? I mean, that is unless you single out a small group of white folks (or black ones who suffer from a form of internal racism) and blame them. But to suggest that white people *in general* will be blamed for any failure to elect Obama is ludicrous.

What I sense here, is that you’re convinced, (like many other Obama haters) that the very small population of African-Americans who do support Obama ONLY support him because he’s black. That is really an insult to the intelligence of black voters everywhere, who have already voted for him in these primary elections, and those who support him because he has the best qualities for the job, among those who are running for the office. In other words, these conscientious black voters are supporting his candidacy for THE SAME REASONS that the OVERWHELMINGLY large majority of the white population is supporting him.

Is that not the case in your community? Do you live in a community that doesn’t know how to make such decisions for themselves? If so, I’m sorry.

I’m more fortunate. As a woman of color, I live in a relatively diverse community, but it is (like most of the rest of the country) predominately white. (that’s just the way the numbers go JBlack. There’s only so much we can do with 13% of a population of 300 plus million people) And well, MY community overwhelmingly supports Barack Obama.

So, I’m still curious about why you believe that he cannot be elected, and why anyone would ‘blame whitey?”

Very odd.

Report this

By troublesum, June 11, 2008 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

Russ 7355
I don’t dispute the facts that you have stated here.
I think that the idea that our problems in the ME began with Bush are absurd.  Both parties have long wanted to extend the empire into the ME and leaders in both parties are guilty of presenting false charges about WMD’s in Iraq.  Facts mean nothing to either party.  Bush’s worst mistake was in attacking Iraq instead of concentrating on the search for bin Laden and Islamic Jihadists in Afghanistan.  The never ending catastrophe in Iraq is all his doing.

Report this

By cyrena, June 11, 2008 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Just to add to the extensive amount of documented proof that Ed Harges has already provided is response to JBlacks’ claim that ‘everybody in the world knew that Saddam Hussein had WMD”, this is an except that explaining that the UN Security Council would NOT provide the required resolution for the use of force against Iraq that was being requested by the US.

Prior to 2002, the UN Security Council had passed sixteen resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on Iraq unanimously.[1] In 2003, the US, UK, and Spanish governments proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the “eighteenth resolution” and others called the “second resolution”. This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast ‘no’ votes on any new resolution, thereby seeing it ‘vetoed’.[2] Had that occurred, it would have become incredibly difficult to have argued that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

In short, the US COULD NOT gain a resolution from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq, because there were only 4 members of the voting council who would have approved it. Why is this you say?

Well, presumably the rest of them were not convinced that Saddam Hussein HAD WMD.
And why is that you say. Well, they HAD approved resolutions forcing Saddam to accept the weapons inspectors, and Saddam HAD done exactly that. The weapons inspectors could NOT find any WMD, or any signs or indications that Saddam had indulged in such activity for over a decade.

You’ll note from Ed’s posts, that Elbaradi, Chief guy at the IAEA, made the same observations, and pleaded with the US NOT to attack Iraq, because there were NO WMD.

Hans Blix has already spoken for himself on this (as the head of the inspections team) and affirmed the same.

Based on all of this information, the UN Security Council was unwilling to approve the use of force against Iraq, and so the US withdrew its request for the resolution, and proceeded to invade Iraq WITHOUT it.

Based on THAT, the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US and the UK is considered, in terms of the UN Charter, an illegal use of force, in violation of the provisions of that Charter.

Report this

By MattKline, June 11, 2008 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

Yes, it depends on how you define “threat.”  Sadam was beligerant and an irritant, but was he planning to invade the U.S.?  Or bomb us?  Or conduct terrorists acts against us?  Answer on all counts is no.  He had been nuetralized for over a decade…harmful only to his own citizens.  Invasion was not necessary, but this administration wanted to get him - their reasons/motivations are a ripe topic. 

So they cherry picked intel, and gave it a weight and gravity it did not merit.  Remember the reclassification of that pilot shot down in the Gulf War from KIA to MIA…as though we needed to invade to see if this guy was still alive!  People fell for stuff like this.

MK
http://www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, June 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

I am sorry for Purplegirl or other posters who actually think that Barack Obama will do a blessed thing to the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate. Nor should you expect much reporting about the General Electric Microsoft National Broadcast Company’s collusion in the invasion of Iraq. David Gregory is simply shocked, shocked! that you would even entertain such a notion.
So it all goes on and on, will it ever end? If someone expresses humanitarian outrage at this savagery, they are informed they are not being pragmatic enough. In that sense, Representative Dennis Kucinich must be “permanently maladjusted”.

Report this

By cyrena, June 11, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

MattKline writes #162405

•  “..I don’t think anyone is denying that Iraq posed a threat.  The difference is in how that threat is dealt with….”

I would disagree. Many people, (me included, though mine is not a ‘countable’ opinion) *would deny* that Iraq posed a threat, though it depends on what you consider a ‘threat’.

In reality, numerous people were aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein was NOT in possession of any WMD, and hadn’t made any attempts at restructuring any such program in at least a decade. In reality, (and common lay person sense would dictate this) the state of Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was powerless and militarily weak at the time of the US invasion and occupation in 2003. They’d undergone 8 years of war with Iran. They’d been assailed by the US military over 10 years before, and had been debilitated by onerous sanctions ever since. Besides that, the UN inspectors, (remember Hans Blix?) had been all over Iraq in the 6 months leading up to the already planned invasion, and had been unable to verify even a molecule’s worth of a WMD particle. That team, (headed by Hans Blix) was in the midst of preparing such a declarative statement when the Cheney team told them all to get out of Iraq, because it was ‘too dangerous’.

*(I’m noticing belatedly now, that Ed Harges has provided a link to this. The Hans Blix team found ZERO evidence of WMD in Iraq.)

So no; there was never a threat of WMD from Saddam’s Iraq, and the Dick Bush regime knew that as well as anybody else. That’s why they *created* all of the fake propaganda to *CREATE* a threat in the minds of the American people. And yes, the State Sponsored Media helped. They helped spread the yellow cake story, and when it was proven to be a hoax, (forged documents) they cut off the head of the messenger of that truth. (remember Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, and the Scooter Libby conviction that Bush pardoned?) Yes, the media was right there, front and center, just like any other Fascist State Controlled Propaganda Ministry. Hitler had his Propaganda Ministry as well. MSM here provided the same service to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

IF Saddam Hussein was EVER a *threat* it was that he had ‘threatened’ to start selling Iraq’s OIL to anyone who wanted to purchase it, and he was restricting all transactions to EUROS, and rejecting the US dollar as any form of payment. So if Saddam was a *threat*, that was it.

Still, the invasion and occupation (or neo-colonization) of Iraq was planned long ago, and had nothing to do with Saddam being any threat. (though there was a concern about him having control over that oil). That was planned as part of the strategy adopted by the PNAC to literally control the entire Middle East region, and all of its resources. Iraq was to be the first hit, and then Iran and Syria were to be next on the agenda.

And no…the MSM never published any of this, or otherwise brought it to the attention of the American public, even though they could have. Wonder why?

Report this

By Bushfatigue, June 11, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

Rus7355 is also somewhat selective in his facts.  For example, both Gore and Kennedy spoke extensively against invasion, both predicting with suprising accuracy the terrible problems we now face. 

Its also relevant to this discussion that neither speech garnered significant coverage—Kennnedy’s getting some 25 to 35 words in one of our MSM, either the NYT or WaPo.

And Graham, while acknowldging the challenge, opposed the invasion as well.

Even Powell, in early 2001, said Iraq was well-contained by sanctions. 

Then, of course, we could quote Cheney’s explanation after the first gulf war why overthrow was a bad idea—he too was remarkably prescient.

I do agree, however, that the pre-invasion statements of politicians, of both parties, underscores the enormous power of the neo-cons and their outriders to control the message on the Middle East, just as they are doing in another hysterical campaign to ignite war with Iran—and once again, our media is doing a poor job, starting with the fact that Iran has never threatened to “wipe out” Israel. 

While many, here and abroad, recognized Iraq as a challenge (of greater or lesser significance), the act of invading was a stupid idea. With the exception of Great Britain, most countries opposed the invasion.  Perhaps we could also note here that shortly after he left office, Tenant, in a speech at Georgetown, said he never told Bush that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Lastly, politicians react to public pressure, and as the recent Senate report confirms, some of the most frightening claims made by the Administration were NOT supported by the intelligence, which was not shared with the public at all, and restricted in its dessimination to the Congress.  And those statements did frighten America.

Lastly, its just overwhelmingly clear that the media cheer-lead the invasion with few exceptions, and its treatment of Ritter deplorable.  My local paper published the investigations of the Knight Ridder group, which gave an entirely different spin of the supposed threat posed by Iraq—anyone for pilotless drones that could hit us with WMD??

Its preposterous to claim all foreign intelligence agencies, and everyone else agreed that Iraq threatened anyone.  I love Bush’s repeated claims that Iraq threatened “the world” and “its neighbors”—if so, why did every “neighbor” (with the exception, critically, of Israel) oppose the invasion?  Why did Mubarak of Egypt warn that the invasion would spawn “100 Osamas,” and King Hussein of Jordan urge us not to invade—did any of you even learn of these warning before the invasion?  I think not.

Our media is largely controlled by interests that, for a variety of reasons, wanted war with Iraq, and they were powerful enough to give the Bush lies the force needed to pull it off.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 11, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

Rus7355

You’re seem to be the one doing the omitting and cherry picking.  We have 35 articles of impeachment which seem much more discerning than your established business as usual blind acceptance of not the truth.  One main point you conveniently seem to ignore is Al Quada was not in Iraq under the old Iraq authority, plus Iraq was keeping Iran on the griddle.

4000 dead troops, 27,000 wounded and how many Iraq citizens dead, the fact that we are not better off this warmonger drum beat needs to be stopped.  Peace would be a nice goal.

Fact is opportunists seem to be able to butter their own bread, making money is all that matters. We can spend billions on a war of imbicle proportions and not a drop on medical care for our own people. Which one is really socilism?

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 11, 2008 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

WP had an article regarding Jones who is on Obama’s VP vetting committee. Dean claims it was a plant by Mac et al.The ‘Reporter’ claims that No RNC or Republican planted that story. What an Idiot he thinks we still don’t listen to what is NOT said..So No RNC, But how abouta Corp sponsor of Mac’s Campaign?
Hint Media we are Listening More to what You Fail to Say then anything tht comes out of your mouth. ‘Thous Protest too much’ is a clear indication your hands are dirty.
Plus NOW the washington Post is going to investigate to get the the bottom of this BS ‘issue’. Hey why not do a real Public service and spend some time investigating the Blatant Crimes committed by this administration and their Corp Co conspirators…Oh that’s right it could lead right to your door Too!

Report this

By Deacon, June 11, 2008 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

===

Oil is payoff for the West’s efforts
at providing PROXY COMBATANTS
for Israel—for protecting Israel
from expanding, encircling Islamic
Arabism; a Jewish nation-state
having supporters throughout the
West willing to destroy the entirety
of Western civilization for Israel’s
sake.

That’s the gut-wrenching truth of why
Western democracies are sacrificing
blood and treasure in the Middle East;
especially the U.S., which has enough
off-shore and on-land oil reserves to
last 300 years at her present rate of
consumption, and which reserves were
PURPOSELY capped and/or not drilled
because Israel’s supporters poured
millions of dollars into ENVIRONMENTAL
MOVEMENT groups’ coffers, to work at
keeping America from oil/energy
independence and tied to Israel’s
interests in the Middle East. 

That’s the truth you’ll NEVER see nor
hear reported in Western mainstream
news media, because Israel’s supporters
control what’s fit to be said or printed
about why the West wars with
Islamic Arabism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&hl=en

http://planneddestructionofamerica.blogspot.com/


#######
#######

Report this

By Mike Strong, June 11, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What Walter Lippmann called “objective journalism” was exactly what Scott Ritter says journalism should be about, the evidence, and where it takes you, including the right to be passionate or outraged (assuming the evidence supports it) with a definite view - reference the “Radium Girls.”

Ritter doesn’t use the “objective” adjective. He just describes it in terms Lippmann would have recognized. When others call for objective journalism they are really protesting that someone didn’t advocate for their own cause.

As it has developed, the current practice of so-called objective journalism means taking down dictation, including lies, without countering those same lies in the piece, instead waiting until someone else does the counter protest and then dutifully recording that reaction. As a result, feckless journalism = danger to us all.

Report this

By MattKline, June 11, 2008 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

I don’t think anyone is denying that Iraq posed a threat.  The difference is in how that threat is dealt with.  Saddam had been successfully contained for over a decade.  Where others would have held his feet to the fire, pressed for more inspections, tightened the no-fly zones, and bombed targeted installation…Bush pressed for full scale invasion.  The result is a situation even worse than that posed by a caged Saddam.

MK
http://www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com

Report this

By GB, June 11, 2008 at 7:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s obvious the corporate media and most Congress are in bed with Bush’s lies and the profit grabbing from the killing of innocent life in the middle east but one man stood up June 9, 2008 on the House of Representatives floor for 5 hours to list at least 35 articles of crimes by the Bush/Cheney crime syndicate and even TRUTHDIG didn’t see the significance. It’s time to change the name of your blog.

Report this

By MackTN, June 11, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

NBC was cited as one of the worst news organizations when it came to covering Iraq and the administration.  This was the outlet that CNN reporter charged with demanding positive, supportive stories.  The anchors spent most of the time scrapbooking the wall of heroes.

What happened to the spirit of Woodward Bernstein?

Report this

By MattKline, June 11, 2008 at 6:49 am Link to this comment

So David Gregory doesn’t think it’s the media roll to call officials on their rather obvious spin campaigns?  Of course it is.  It’s a sign that the press corps has been thoroughly trained by various administration handlers going back to the Reagan era (they were great at feeding the press the stories they wanted told.)

MK
http://www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 11, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The date of El Baradei’s public debunking of Bush’s evidence for an Iraqi nuclear threat was March 7, 2003, about 2 weeks before the war began.

That is the very latest date by which anyone who is not utterly stupid can honestly claim to have still believed Bush’s claim that Iraq had either nuclear weapons or an active nuclear weapons development program.

El Baradei begged Bush for months to please, please provide the evidence that Iraq, in Cheney’s phrase, had “reconstituted” nuclear weapons. Finally Bush handed over the best evidence he had. It was the Niger garbage, and the aluminum tubes garbage. and El Baradei publicly proved this evidence to be the garbage that it was on March 7, 2003.

NO ONE WHO IS NOT A MORON COULD HAVE BELIEVED THIS AFTER MARCH 7, 2003, JBlack.

Report this

By Ed, June 11, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I forgot to provide the link for Amy Goodman’s interview with Blix cited in my post below. Here is the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/21/former_chief_un_weapons_inspector_hans

Report this

By Ampers Taylor, June 11, 2008 at 3:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When you read a newspaper, between that which a journalists has written, and the story you subsequently read, is a big hairy monster, in league with the devil, who alters the essence of what has been written.

Terminology:
Hairy Monster—- Editor
Devil—————- Newspaper owner

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

on Truthdig. 

I cannot believe there is not ONE article about the Kucinich Impeachment articles!!

But you made sure we knew about the Brokeback Mountain Opera. You are plummeting toward Fox News status.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_presents_Bush_impeachment_articles_0609.html

Oh, and Scott…develop the balls and start talking about 9/11 Truth. We need all the voices we can get.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 10, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

JBlack claims that on the eve of the Iraq war, Hans Blix believed that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. This is laughably easy to disprove. For example, these two reports say otherwise:

(1) Report #1: Blix says NO EVIDENCE OF ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM

“Blix did not rule out that even if inspections had been allowed to continue, military intervention in Iraq might still have been necessary. “I am not a pacifist,” he said. But he is a lawyer and a diplomat, and he believes that it was the responsibility of the Security Council to uphold its own resolutions regarding Iraq, not the responsibility of one or two council members acting alone. Had Iraq resisted further inspections, or had they turned up evidence of another nuclear weapons program - the area Blix said that sanctions and inspections had been most effective in squelching - Security Council members Russia and China would most likely have voted for military action, giving it international legitimacy.”

Now, do you understand what this means? “Had they turned up evidence of a nuclear weapons program, Russia and China would have consented” means that they DIDN’T find such evidence, and that’s why Russia and China didn’t consent.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml


(2) Report #2: Blix says that BEFORE WAR, HE AND BARADEI FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY WMD AT ALL: SAYS IT WAS STILL POSSIBLE THERE WERE SOME WMD [I]ONLY[/I] BECAUSE “TO PROVE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IS REALLY IMPOSSIBLE”:

AMY GOODMAN: What did you understand at the time? What were you saying at the time?
HANS BLIX: Well, at the time, we were saying that we had carried out a great many inspections and that we did not find any weapons of mass destruction, and we also voiced some criticism of the some cases that the US Secretary of State Colin Powell had demonstrated in the Security Council. My colleague, Mr. ElBaradei, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had revealed that the alleged contract between Iraq and the state of Niger in Africa for the import of uranium oxide was a forgery and that the—also the tubes of aluminum, which had been alleged to be for making of centrifuges to enrich uranium, they most likely were not for that purpose.
So while the evidence that had been advanced from the US side and the UK side had been very weakened, we had carried out some 700 inspections without finding any evidence at all, and we had actually been to something like three dozen sites, which were given to us by intelligence, and had been able to tell them that, no, there was nothing in them, so that all allegations had been weakened very much, but not to the point of saying that there is nothing, because to prove that there is nothing is really impossible.

JBlack, please stop making stuff up. It wastes everyone’s time.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: By JBlack, June 10 at 2:00 pm:

There is a definite date, BEFORE the Iraq war began, by which point EVERY reasonable observer should have had grave doubts as to whether there was ANY nuclear weapons program, much less a nuclear capability, in Iraq.

For months, Baradei was begging the Bush administartion to please, please let the IAEA see the evidence of Cheney’s claimed “reconstitution” of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Finally, Bush handed over what was supposed to be his best evidence. It was two pieces of rubbish: the aluminum tubes rubbish, and the Niger uranium rubbish. In a report a few weeks before the war started, Baradei, completely debunked this garbage, Bush’s only evidence for the only “WMD threat” that mattered, the scary “nukes”.

Anyone who claims to have retained faith in Bush’s charges of an Iraqi nuke threat after that point is either lying or extremely stupid.

Report this

By Louise, June 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

Legislation containing 35 articles for the Impeachment of president Bush are being read on the floor of the House for the second time.

The House may vote on this as early as Wednesday. [tomorrow]

E-mails to the House Judiciary Committee, and e-mails and phone calls to your representative need to get off as soon as possible.

Our representative government needs to be heard on this. We need to see where they stand. And we need to let them know where WE stand.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

FYI: 35 impeachable offenses from Kucinich,  against Bush and cronies, Jblack you ignore everyone of them or want them swept under the table. TD may list them someday, but they are now available in the Daily Kos at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/10/65218/2813/707/533212

They are a great way to review all the crap we have endured from the present administration.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 10, 2008 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Jblack

Since Obama is half white I will not hold that against him, Jblack if you are really a man of color, we know there are bigots of all colors and creeds.

Yes your lopsided point of electable is John McBush?

You talk like a repug and sound like one, why did you feel it was necessary to tell us you are black? Does that make your worthy of increased credibility or something, why is that important and if you were not black so what?

Like the Hillary crowd you ignore and avoid issues and substance, I find most of what Obama says and support his issues but not everything.  He does seem to pander more than I like.

We heard your same negative crap through out the Hillary Campaign, let’s wait and see if you do not have you head were the sun doesn’t shine after November.

Report this

By WriterOnTheStorm, June 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment

So let me get this straight:

The government blames the media.

The media blames the people.

The people blame the government.

Ashes, ashes, we all fall down…

Report this

By troublesum, June 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

http://www.prorev.com/2008/06/bush-has-seized-more-power-than-any.html

Now how can anyone say he is stupid when he got away with this?  Should democrats in congress be recalled for not impeaching him?  These are high crimes.

Report this

By P. T., June 10, 2008 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Sanctions on Iran could produce the result they did with Pakistan.  Iran could sell its nuclear know-how (as did Pakistan) to other countries.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 10, 2008 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From JBlack, June 10 at 6:22 am:

“Every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq held banned weapons. The United Nations reported the same. Hanz Blix, no shill for Bush.Cheney, reported that he too believed it. In fact the best information we have suggests Husseim himself believed it.”

JBlack, you know good and well that it was specifically the supposed nuclear threat (not just any banned weapons of some kind or other)  that got the public to support the war.

Nobody with any credibility - certainly not Blix, and not the IAEA - thought or said that Saddam had nuclear weapons or even an active nuclear weapons program.  But Cheney swore up and down that Saddam had “reconstituted nuclear weapons” (in his odd formulation).

This was a flat lie that our allies did NOT believe, and it’s why Bush had such trouble putting together a coalition, having to resort to bribery, blackmail, spying, and threats.

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, June 10, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

News journalists, for lack of a better term, are intended to be the watch dogs, keeping the excesses of government at bay. Why do you suppose that the U.S. military targeted and extinguished the lives of what ever ‘independent’ journalists traversed the cross-hairs, an obvious impediment to the designs of this ‘loose-cannon’ administration?

Obviously, David Gregory’s psychological profile was given great consideration, when screened for the post of ‘Public Relations’, vetted and deemed a worthy mouthpiece for a major military contractor, NBC/General Electric. Unlike ‘Peter Arnett’ David Gregory, evidently, has no moral compass.

Don’t forget the endless parade of retired generals, whose checking accounts were given a BIG shot in the arm, as these, so called, journalists asked the professional warriors the appropriate leading questions that would elicit the expected and desired response; preying on a fidgety public, whose psyches were played like violin strings with images of looming mushroom clouds, etc., etc..

War is a racket and patriotism is a refuge for these racketeering scoundrels. May the innocent blood they have spilled, scream from the ground and resonate in their ears the rest of their days.

Peace, Best Wished and Hope

Report this

By Don Stivers, June 10, 2008 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

I hope I am wrong but I think the creeps of this administration are not going to be tried for war crimes or any other crime.  Sad to say but true.

Report this

By Lee Driver, June 10, 2008 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It shouldn’t surprise us these media stars or would-be media stars would tow the party line, should it? Their behavior consists of many qualities that we, to our increasing confusion nowadays it must be said, admire: like loyalty and advancing the interests of the company you work for as you advance your own. Many a parent advised and still advises their children to not bite the hand that feeds them. Scott McCleland did just that as press secretary; staying true to his boss, his party and his job description even when, or even especially when it was personally difficult to do so. We admire such things almost in a knee jerk manner, like we do the soldier that charges up the hill into a hail of bullets because he was told to, even when and especially when he thinks it’s an insane move. And as much as we admire loyal employees and good soldiers, we also admire wealth and success, in many cases no matter how ill-gotten. We like good and loyal soldiers and we like winners too. David Gregory is a both. But the nobility of his chosen profession, journalism more or less died with the leaving of scene of Walter Cronkite, as regards at least, the realm of power politics. Not to say there aren’t noble journalists today. There are. But they will not rise high in the field as it is now, to the heights of say a Tom Brokaw or a Tim Russert, without they tread deftly the corridors of power. Just being a good and noble reporter today, won’t cut it if you want to be a star, and Gregory wants more to be a star and keep his job and further his career, than he wants to be a paragon of good journalism. One has to play by the rules, even if the rules are not what they once were. Edward R. Morrow would be out on the fringes with Palast and Pilager were he working in this journalism climate of today. Gregory, like any smart player, knows that even while being a good soldier, it is important in the greater scheme of things to also appear to be edgy and confrontational, and he has done that here and there. But it could never be said he that he has pursued a sensitive line of questioning to it’s end. His quality of edginess is in the end, calculated and light-weight, only to rock the boat a little and not much, not unlike McCain’s touted quality of maverick-ness. Gregory has his own tell-all book in the wings, just wait, but we’ll not see a word of it so long as he keeps his job and keeps rising up the ladder at NBC. It’s understandable though, he’d be a little jealous of McCleland beating him to the punch.

Report this

By dick, June 10, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The USA went to war because the power elite, who control and make the decisions, want continuous war, and are, therefore,  eager to comply with Israel’s demands. The masses have no power or influence. There are these two factions , not partys. The masses are controlled by the media, part of the power elite. If and when the masses organize and protest, change may take place; not before.

Report this

By don knutsen, June 10, 2008 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The journalists prime responcibility should be to get the truth to the american people, period. If they want to pretend they are investigative journalists ( something in very short supply in america currently ) then they should be equipped with the facts, the history and be able to have enough information at their disposal to hear a blatant falsehood when they hear it. When one of this administration lies to them they, if they have any respect for the american people should call them on it there for all to see, not go back to just report what they are told to believe. If they had been doing this all along, do you suppose this administration wouldv’e been able to get away with as much as they have ? If when Condi Rice said to Tim Russert, “I don’t think anyone contemplated someone flying an airliner into a building”  - he shouldv’e known,if he had done any homework on the subject because Richard Clarke had already said as much, that she was lying to him and all of us, and that she had indeed been briefed prior to Sept. 11th that this type of attack was very much on the radar screen and that she should’ve , as the National Security Adviser acted on that information. When Bu$h uttered the famous 16 words about Iraq’s supposed effort to obtain yellow cake from Niger, the fact that the CIA had already discounted that falsehood should’ve been exposed to the american people on the spot by any so called investigative journalist who has done his or her homework. The vast majority of the journalists in this country today are just talking heads, flapping their gums from a talking points sheet of paper that has been prepared for them, in some cases by the white house itself. Scott Ridder is right on, he may be making some of these pathological liars in this administration alittle uncomfortable, but he’s doing what he can to inform people. Something in very short supply for along time in american politics and journalism today. Now its in the news that america is demanding some 53 permanent american military bases in Iraq. Why aren’t the statements previously aired on the media claiming they had no such designs flooding the airwaves ? But the bigger question ultimately is, why is a president and vice president, Sec. of State, etc. who we all have known for years have been continmually lying to us still in office calling the shots, not skipping a beat ? Well, its because of the mindset of so-called journalists like the one pointed out in Ridder’s article, who don’t consider getting the truth out to the american people ” part of their job”.

Report this

By tomack, June 10, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Palast isn’t the only good guy to be “re-directed” elsewhere for publication (although I wouldn’t cry for his current deals) I don’t care what Ritter gets paid, as long as the message continues to be delivered and read. As far as I’m concerned I would like to see this article, and others like it, pasted on every front page in America…Day After Day After Day.

Because in the end it aint the media that’s to blame, it’s the average American citizen. When their habits change—appreciably change—so too will the media. Because, after all, WHORES FOLLOW THE MONEY. I say that with all due respect and without personal invective to the every-day, common whore.

Report this

By Bill Blackolive, June 10, 2008 at 8:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Scott, you are exactly right.  You are stout and many of us heard you first.  Then we could marvel at the idiocy rote off corporate tv how “everybody believed there were weapons of mass distruction.”  I am glad you are at Patriotsquestion911, and I guess we need another year for there to come a Mongol Horde at Patriots to ever smash through teeth of all the pudgy wimps of corporate televison, and God bless them killed and tortured first.

Report this

By Ed Harges, June 10, 2008 at 6:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sam Snedegar doesn’t like hearing that Israel is behind the mess we’re in; nevertheless, it’s true.

Over several decades of increasing control over US Mideast policy, Israel has forced the US to maintain non-negotiable, existentially hostile, unsustainable relationships with Israel’s rivals such as Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The problem, in terms of US material interests, was that two of those countries are major oil producers.

The oil companies have historically always preferred to make friendly arrangements with the governments of oil-producing countries. They couldn’t make such deals with Saddam, because the Israel lobby insisted on maintaining a rigidly hostile US-Iraq relationship (sanctions, no-fly zones, etc.). The US oil industry prefers business to war. But war became, because of Israel, the only way that oil companies might gain access to Iraq’s oil, as they couldn’t under the conditions of permanent US mortal enmity toward Iraq enforced by Israel. Furthermore, this enmity caused Saddam to do everything he could to get back at the US, such as planning to switch Iraq’s oil sales to the Euro, undermining the reserve currency status of the US dollar. It was the very opposite of the good business relationship that oil companies would have preferred, and it was all for Israel.

So yes, it was, in a sense, a “war for oil”, but war became the only way to get access to the oil only because Israel would not allow us any other option. Additionally, the pro-Israel fanatics who planned the Iraq war in their 1996 “Clean Break” paper, before even Dick Cheney was involved, also aimed to conquer Iraq to use it as a platform to launch wars against Iran and Syria - for Israel’s aggrandizement, and for no other reason.

So, at the deepest level, the whole mess is FOR ISRAEL, period.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 10, 2008 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

One can make the practical argument the mass media is just an arm of special corporate interests controlled by the powers that be.  So why would one expect anything other than what we have as not the news?

Like religion the mass media is a tool to manipulate the ignorant masses.

We have talked about truth and it’s absence from the mass media until blue in our keyboard fingers many times before.

FYI: Comment Titles do not work anymore.

Report this
skulz fontaine's avatar

By skulz fontaine, June 10, 2008 at 5:31 am Link to this comment

The failure of America’s Fourth Estate to be more than simple ‘shills’ for Bush and the Bush treason is abysmal. Craven? Wanton? Incestuous? Yeah, that’d be the one. Pre-Iraq quagmire turned grotesque farce, was a nauseating exercise in promoting the “ancillary benefits of war” and that came from Tucker Carlson. Andrea Mitchell put on her cutest ‘pom-pom’ outfit and hit the network airwaves running. Matthews played his part as did Brokaw et all. I can remember when Brokaw broke out his nifty ‘American Flag’ lapel pin. Wore it proud. Gregory and all his insipid buddies in mainstream media are as guilty of treason as is the Bush regime. The Iraq disaster is the single gravest act of treason EVER committed by any elected official in American history. Lies and then more lies and orchestrated collusion and officially sanctioned torture and then some lies and then Congress put their stamp of approval on the lying and presto! Iraq ‘shock and awe’ turned disaster turned civil war turned quagmire turned the death of democracy in America and Gregory is directly at the top of the Bush criminal conspiracy. There were not too many voices of dissent way back when. Maybe you could count the numbers of dissenters on one hand. Ritter comes to mind, Blix comes to mind, Moyers, and Moyers ended up losing his job and got himself replaced by David what’s his name. Another shameless hack and I fully remember Brancaccio’s interview with Frank Luntz. Shameless. Yeah, Luntz would be another cog in the Bush war machine. Kind of like David Gregory. The American people have been betrayed and not just by the Gen. Petraeus. The Iraq mess has been betrayal and treason since before the git.
Maybe the vitriolic assessments being made now (I’m speaking personally here and not at Mr. Ritter) wouldn’t be quite so harsh if. If those of us in dissent hadn’t been so vilified. “Unpatriotic! Un-American! Worse than that!” Gregory IS a traitor to the American people and he’ll have to live with that. If there is ANY real justice in America and after the Bush gang of war criminals are left to face accountability, maybe America could line up the shills, hacks, and sycophants for a little public scrutiny.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, June 10, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

I guess Ritter is boilerplating his next book; more talk about all the reasons we DIDN’T go to war and occupy Iraq, and none about why we did.

Sure, the public doesn’t want to confront the fact that its country is guilty of coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing, mere crimes against God, as well as heinous war crimes stemming from the rape of Iraq, but our publishing industry won’t pay for the truth——so Palast is sent to England to publish, and Ritter is paid and paid and paid to keep on talking about why we DIDN’T go to war (wmds, gassed his OWN people, bombed Israel, etc.).

When do we start talking about why we DID go to war?

Report this

By elwood p.dowd, June 10, 2008 at 5:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

More truth and patriotism from one of the few voices in the deafening silence. Scott Ritter has not only been forceful in his criticism-since well before the invasion- but pretty much always right on in his predictions. ( Which is also what is scary, since he has been predicting a US invasion of Iran for some time now) The MSM so-called “journalists”  did nothing except roll over and kiss administration ass before the invasion and through the entire occupation- despite Gregory’s feigned outrage . And the proof is in the very fact that the invasion took place- if the MSM had actually done its job and asked the right questions, the invasion might never have taken place.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, June 10, 2008 at 3:38 am Link to this comment

Gregory,although the only REPOTER, to even venture a question which challenged the President to think on hie feet (ehich He always failed miserably at),did Not bother to follow up on Obvious leads from other sources.
A Bill Moyer Guest ?- stated it best, asked the questions but to the wrong people.
Even when other have written books, thye not only review the books and their claims- they never even bothered to interview the Insider Author.
McClellans book is only a Half truth,an attempt to cover the ‘Bosses Ass’.Although could be helpful to finally convict Rove and possibly Cheney.
Many Americans Like myself Knew the Media was intentionally turning a Blind Eye- as a result hoping We bought the Act.
Congressman Kucinich was on the House Floor for God Knows how many hours yesterday Listing 35 Counts of impeachable Acts and the Evidence to support Each. Any ONE would be grounds for Impeachment, any One worthy of Prosecution as a High Crime. Treason,Warcrimes, Embezzlement, Abuse of Power,election Fraud,...Crimes against Humaity (blood for Oil Business stratedgy).God Bless Rep Dennis Kucinich- the last pair of real BALLS in Gov’t.He has been waging this fight without ANY media assistance fro years- House is still sitting on his Cheney Impeachment.No Wonder they wanted to ‘Uninvite’ Kucinch to the ‘Democratic Candidate Debates’(False Advertising) he’d show the level of Complicity even the supposed’Liberal’ MSNBC has been involved with for Years.
Media, nor any of it’s so called ‘Journalist’ can claim they had No ideea they should be investigating this Admin. I Knew there were legimate cause for investigation as soon as ‘they hate US for Our Freedoms’ came out of W’s Mouth. Hell they never even bothered to follow up on the ‘00 Election when a candidates Brother was Governor of the State that Threw the Race!!!That was Proof the Media was already in on this game.there is No “Liberal” in MSM only ‘Obvious’ and ‘Covert’. Just like ‘Neo Con’ in gov’t just varying shades of complicity.
If Sen Obama wants to truely Prove He is for ‘Change’ his first order of business will be to arrest and detain the entire Bush Adminsitration -past & present along with their Cronies in Industry and Media. In fact he will do so before Revoking the New ‘Judical’ that were passed by them.Stick them in Gitmo- No attorny, no speedy trial, No Unbiased Judge, NO Jury of their Peers- Until WE FEEL Like Getting areound to them.
To help US clean Up Gov’t we need help from someone who has been disaffected from the Other Side, and will also help handily eliminate Mac’s run Quickly.We must send a clear Message we are Not deceived by ‘Party affliation’- REAL Democrats are Truely Color Blind when it comes to what is best for OUR country!

OBAMA/HAGEL ‘08 !!!

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.