This is very long and conatains a lot of material with which we are all familiar, but I believe it also contains an interesting summary and some predictions that are worth considering.
Selma ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:17 AM Subject: BEYOND BUSH - Part I [long] > http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html > > From the Wilderness > July 1, 2003 > BEYOND BUSH - Part I > > by Michael C. Ruppert > > There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials > deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential > people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious...But even people who > aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's > dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the > implications... > > After all, suppose a politician - or a journalist - admits to himself that > Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on false > pretenses is, to say the least a breach of trust. So if you admit to > yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand > accountability - and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless > political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe > that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It's a scary > prospect. > > Yet, if we can't find people willing to take the risk - to face the truth > and act on it - what will happen to our democracy? > > Paul Krugman, The New York Times, June 24, 2003 > > July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW) -- Let's just suppose for a moment that George > W. Bush was removed from the White House. Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, > Ashcroft, Wolfowitz and Rove too. What would that leave us with? It would > leave us stuck in hugely expensive, Vietnam-like guerrilla wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan. It would leave us with the Patriot Act, Homeland Security > and Total Information Awareness snooping into every detail of our lives. > It would leave us with a government in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th > and 8th Amendments to the Constitution. It would leave us with a massive > cover-up of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11 that, if fully admitted, > would show not intelligence "failures" but intelligence crimes, approved > and ordered by the most powerful people in the country. It would leave us > with a government that now has the power to compel mass vaccinations on > pain of imprisonment or fine, and with no legal ability to sue the vaccine > makers who killed our friends or our children. It would leave us with two > and half million unemployed; the largest budget deficits in history; more > than $3.3 trillion missing from the Department of Defense; and state and > local governments broke to the point of having to cut back essential > services like sewers, police, and fire. It would leave us with a federal > government that had hit the debt ceiling and was unable to borrow any more > money. And we would still be facing a looming natural gas crisis of > unimagined proportions, and living on a planet that is slowly realizing > that it is running out of oil with no "Plan B". Our airports however, > would be very safe, and shares of Halliburton, Lockheed and DynCorp would > be paying excellent dividends. > > This is not good management. > > Leaving all of these issues unaddressed is not good management either. > > And this is why, as I will demonstrate in this article, the decision has > already been made by corporate and financial powers to remove George W. > Bush, whether he wants to leave or not, and whether he steals the next > election or not. Before you start cheering, ask yourself three questions: > "If there is someone or something that can decide that Bush will not > return, nor remain for long, what is it? And if that thing is powerful > enough to remove Bush, was it not also powerful enough to have put him > there in the first place? And if that is the case, then isn't that what's > really responsible for the state of things? George W. Bush is just a hired > CEO who is about to be removed by the "Board of Directors". Who are they? > Are they going to choose his replacement? Are you going to help them? > > What can change this Board of Directors and the way the "Corporation" > protects its interests? These are the only issues that matter. > > So now the honest question about the 2004 Presidential campaign is, "What > do you really want out of it?" Do you want the illusion that everything is > a little better while it really gets worse? Or are you ready yet to roll > up your sleeves and make some very unpleasant but necessary fixes? > > The greatest test of the 2004 presidential election campaign is not with > the candidates. It is with the people. There are strong signs that > presidential election issues on the Democratic side are already being > manipulated by corporate and financial interests. And some nave and > well-intentioned (and some not-so-nave and not-so-well intentioned) > activists are already playing right into the Board's hands. There are many > disturbing signs that the only choice offered to the American people will > be no choice at all. Under the psychological rationale, "This is the way > it has to be done", campaign debates will likely address only half-truths > and fail to come to grips with - or even acknowledge - the most important > issues that I just described. In fact, only the least important issues > will likely be addressed in campaign 2004 at the usual expense of future > generations who are rapidly realizing that they are about to become the > victims of the biggest Holocaust in mankind's history. The final platforms > for Election 2004 will likely be manifestos of madness unless we dictate > differently. > > It is amazing to see such words of honesty coming from The New York Times > as those of Paul Krugman. I am not referring to the recent scandals over > falsified stories that brought down a reporter and two editors at the > Times. That particular drama was overplayed by CNN, Fox and The Washington > Post as punishment for the Times' opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The > most vicious dogs of war are sometimes armed with sharpened, > saliva-drenched keyboards. No, Paul Krugman's words represent the essence > of what From The Wilderness has stood for since its very first issue. > Unless people find the will to address scandals, lies, and betrayals of > trust that, by their very existence, reveal that the system itself is > corrupt and that the people controlling it - both in government, and in > America's corporations and financial institutions -- are criminals, there > is no chance to make anything better, only an absolute certainty that > things will get worse. > > Already we can see the early signs of delusional and dishonest behavior > that is being willingly embraced by equally delusional activists who have > begun a sterile debate about which candidate to support and why it is > better to become involved on the side of one Democratic Party candidate or > another or why a vote for a Green Party candidate instead of a Democrat is > tantamount to treason. The Republicans, of course, are sharpening up a > campaign that will portray George W. Bush as the "Hero of 9/11", "The > Protector of the American Economy", "The Savior of the Free World", "A Man > Who Loves God", and "The Man Who Cut Taxes". Electroshock therapy might be > useful for these people. > > But is it any less warranted for people who believe that everything will > be fine if there is better theme music in the background, while none of > the real offenses of the past two years are addressed or undone? > > Short Memories > > Some on the Democratic side are already positioning themselves to co-opt > and control what happened on 9/11 into a softer, less disturbing "Better > this than nothing" strategy. This attitude, that the only thing that > matters is finding an electable Democrat, is nothing more than a > rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Has everyone suddenly > forgotten that the 2000 election was stolen: first by using software and > political machinery to disenfranchise tens of thousands of eligible > voters, then by open interference at polling places, and finally by an > absolutely illegal Supreme Court decision? Do these people believe that > such a crime, absolutely successful the first time, will never be > attempted again? > > And has everyone also forgotten that in the 2002 midterm elections the > proprietary voting software, in many cases owned by those affiliated with > the Republican Party or - as in the case of Senator Chuck Hagel of > Nebraska - the candidates themselves, has been ruled by the Supreme Court > to be immune from public inspection. (Hagel won by a lopsided 83% > majority). Throughout the United States in 2002 there was abundant > evidence that the so-called "solution" to hanging chads did nothing more > than enshrine the ability to steal elections with immunity and also much > less fuss afterwards? Who in their right mind would trust such a system? > Why have none of the candidates mentioned it? > > And, if all else fails, we can have more Wellstone plane crashes. It has > worked with three Democratic Senate candidates in key races over the last > thirty years. Maybe that's why no one in Congress is talking about the > election process. Plane crashes are part of that process too. > > This is the process in which some are urging us to place our trust? My > publication, which recently ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post, and > is about to unleash a national ad campaign, has already been unofficially > approached by people from two Democratic challengers seeking an > endorsement. I have made it clear that FTW will not endorse any candidate > who does not make the life-and-death issues facing mankind his or her > number-one priority and address them openly. > > Is the 2004 election already being rolled, like soft cookie dough, away > from the issues? Already there are signs that some candidates who speak > the truth are having their campaigns infiltrated by expert managers who > might dilute the message. There are signs that others, looked upon as > likely winners with strong progressive credentials, may be nothing more > than different dogs from the same kennel that brought us the Bush Wolf > Pack. > > But first let me convince you that the Bush management team is actually on > its way out and that this is not a reason to breathe a sigh of relief. > Don't get me wrong, I'll be glad to see the mean-spirited and dishonest > bastards go. I'll also acknowledge their healthy severance package and > I'll worry about the bastards that will likely replace them who might be > much harder to identify. > > BUMPING BUSH > > There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush > administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks > of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the > American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of > evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon > government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, > misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The > difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being > seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by > an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it. > > It is the hard record of official statements made by Bush, Cheney, > Rumsfeld and Powell on Iraq that will sink the administration, either > before or after the election. These guys are horrible managers and they > have really botched things up, big time - exactly as I said they would. > There is no amount of spin anywhere that can neutralize this record. As > FTW predicted back in March, the biggest and most obvious criminal action > of the administration, a knowing lie (one of many) used to deceive a > nation into war, was the administration's assertion that Iraq had > reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and had recently attempted to > purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. > > Just before the March 2003 Iraqi invasion in our two-part series titled > The Perfect Storm we wrote: > > There are serious signs of a major political revolt brewing in the United > States - one that could end the Bush Presidency - George W. Bush still has > his finger on the trigger and he knows that his only hope for survival is > to pull it. U.S. and British intelligence agencies are leaking documents > left and right disputing White House "evidence" against Iraq that has > repeatedly been shown to be falsified, plagiarized and forged. Quiet > meetings are being held in Washington between members of Congress and > attorneys like Ramsey Clark discussing Bush's impeachment. Leaders of the > World Trade Organization (WTO), as reported in a March 15 story in the > International Herald Tribune have said, "All international institutions > would suffer a loss of credibility if the one superpower appeared to be > choosing which rules to obey and which to ignore." And a Rockefeller has > called for an investigation of a Bush. On March 14, the Associated Press > reported that W. Va. Senator Jay Rockefeller has asked the FBI to > investigate forged documents which were presented first by Britain and > then the United States showing that Iraq had been trying to purchase > uranium from the African country of Niger for its weapons program. Of all > the glaring falsehoods told by the administration, the fact that these > forgeries were noted by a Rockefeller may make them the second-rate > Watergate burglary of the 21st century... > > There are few things more closely connected to or identified with Bush > family power than globalization and the Rockefellers. He has most likely > failed both of them and both have the power to remove him... > > In the meantime, there are increasing signs that the U.S. political and > economic elites are laying the groundwork to make the Bush administration, > specifically Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz, > sacrificial scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate post > 9-11 gains, regroup and move forward. > > That prophecy is coming true with a vengeance. > > The Bush administration's gamble is that, because it can raise more money > than all the Democratic challengers put together, it can still manage to > re-elect itself in 2004. No doubt, the administration will put up a good > fight. But an impeachment, long sought after by many - including > University of Illinois law Professor Francis Boyle -- will be waiting > after the second inauguration just as surely as it was for Richard Nixon > in 1973. > > My certainty is based upon a record that is utterly damning and penetrates > to almost every assertion made by the Bush administration in its pursuit > of Iraqi oil. Rather than digress into a lengthy discussion of the > offenses let me refer the reader to two examples that exemplify how strong > the case is and that it is being pursued. > > Hard Work from the House > > The legal groundwork for the Clinton impeachment of 1998-9 was laid out > quietly over a period of many months. The same holds true now. > > The foundation of the impeachment - or the scandal that will prompt a > regime change - was laid in a March 17 letter written by California > Congressman Henry Waxman who has been dogging the Bush administration on > its violations of law since it took office. Waxman's first battle was over > the refusal of the administration to release the mostly still-secret > records of Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. It is there > that some of the biggest secrets of 9/11 lay buried. With respect to the > Iraqi invasion -- using the record of official statements made by Bush, > Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powel -- Waxman has already laid out and won the > prima facie case that the administration has lied, deceived the public and > broken the public trust. There can be no defense against this record once > it gets into a legal proceeding. > > To read the full text of Waxman's March letter please visit: > http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_nuclear_evidence.htm > > This web page details Waxman's meticulous compilation of evidence and - > from a legal, as opposed to political standpoint - is no doubt the core of > any future impeachment case against Bush. It is damning and Waxman has > diligently continued to build, brick by brick, the wall into which the > administration could soon crash. An important historical novelty here is > that Waxman's compilation of irrefutable criminal activity also guarantees > that if Bush goes, so do Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell. What then? > > Rebellion From Inside the Beltway > > On June 26, a twenty-seven-year CIA veteran analyst tied the pieces > together and made it clear that, Bush is fighting a battle he cannot win. > Just as it was with Nixon, the intelligence agencies have turned against > him. Ray McGovern, affiliated with the watchdog group Veteran Intelligence > Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), has been out front with criticisms of the > Bush administration's abuse of intelligence procedures for some time. > However, in his interview with William Rivers Pitt, writing for > Truthout.org, McGovern took Waxman's work several steps further. He was > also critical of CIA Director George Tenet's endorsements of intelligence > abuses by Powell, Cheney and Bush, yet he did not mention that Tenet had > left a paper record showing that the CIA had never trusted the forged > Niger documents that the administration still - even after warnings -- > sold to the public and to the world as authentic. > > McGovern also let Tenet off the hook for the biggest crime of the > administration, allowing and facilitating the attacks of 9/11, saying, "My > analysis is that George Bush had no option but to keep George Tenet on as > Director, because George Tenet had warned Bush repeatedly, for months and > months before September 11, that something very bad was about to happen". > Even still McGovern let the Bush administration know that its conduct > before the attacks was a sword of Damocles hanging over Bush's head. > > "On August 6, the title of the [Presidential] briefing was, Bin Laden > Determined to Strike in the US,' and that briefing had the word Hijacking' > in it. That's all I know about it, but that's quite enough. In September, > Bush had to make a decision. Is it feasible to let go of Tenet, whose > agency flubbed the dub on this one? And the answer was no, because Tenet > knows too much about what Bush knew, and Bush didn't know what to do about > it. That's the bottom line for me." > > I disagree with McGovern---there is a record showing that the CIA knew > about 9/11---but otherwise McGovern's analysis matched perfectly with > FTW's of three months ago. Here are some excerpts: > > In the coming weeks, we're going to be seeing folks coming out and coming > forth with what they know, and it is going to be very embarrassing for the > Bush administration. > > To be quite complete on this, it encourages me that the analysts at the > Defense Intelligence Agency - who share this ethic of trying to tell the > truth, even though they are under much greater pressure and have much less > career protection because they work for Rumsfeld - to their great credit, > in September of last year they put out a memo saying there is no reliable > evidence to suggest that the Iraqis have biological or chemical weapons, > or that they are producing them... > > They looked around after Labor Day and said, "OK, if we're going to have > this war, we really need to persuade Congress to vote for it. How are we > going to do that? Well, let's do the al Qaeda-Iraq connection. That's the > traumatic one. 9/11 is still a traumatic thing for most Americans. Let's > do that." > > But then they said, "Oh damn, those folks at CIA don't buy that, they say > there's no evidence, and we can't bring them around. We've tried every > which way and they won't relent. That won't work, because if we try that, > Congress is going to have these CIA wimps come down, and the next day > they'll undercut us. How about these chemical and biological weapons? We > know they don't have any nuclear weapons, so how about the chemical and > biological stuff? Well, damn. We have these other wimps at the Defense > Intelligence Agency, and dammit, they won't come around either. They say > there's no reliable evidence of that, so if we go up to Congress with > that, the next day they'll call the DIA folks in, and the DIA folks will > undercut us." > > So they said, "What have we got? We've got those aluminum tubes!" The > aluminum tubes, you will remember, were something that came out in late > September, the 24th of September. The British and we front-paged it. These > were aluminum tubes that were said by Condoleezza Rice as soon as the > report came out to be only suitable for use in a nuclear application. This > is hardware that they had the dimensions of. So they got that report, and > the British played it up, and we played it up. It was front page in the > New York Times. Condoleezza Rice said, "Ah ha! These aluminum tubes are > suitable only for uranium-enrichment centrifuges." > > Then they gave the tubes to the Department of Energy labs, and to a > person, each one of those nuclear scientists and engineers said, "Well, if > Iraq thinks it can use these dimensions and these specifications of > aluminum tubes to build a nuclear program, let em do it! Let em do it. > It'll never work, and we can't believe they are so stupid. These must be > for conventional rockets." > > And, of course, that's what they were for, and that's what the UN > determined they were for. So, after Condoleezza Rice's initial foray into > this scientific area, they knew that they couldn't make that stick, > either. So what else did they have? > > Well, somebody said, "How about those reports earlier this year that Iraq > was trying to get Uranium from Niger? Yeah...that was pretty good." But of > course if George Tenet were there, he would have said, "But we looked at > the evidence, and they're forgeries, they stink to high heaven." So the > question became, "How long would it take for someone to find out they were > forgeries?" The answer was about a day or two. The next question was, > "When do we have to show people this stuff?" The answer was that the IAEA > had been after us for a couple of months now to give it to them, but we > can probably put them off for three or four months. > > So there it was. "What's the problem? We'll take these reports, we'll use > them to brief Congress and to raise the specter of a mushroom cloud. > You'll recall that the President on the 7th of October said, "Our smoking > gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Condoleezza Rice said > exactly the same thing the next day. Victoria Clarke said exactly the same > thing on the 9th of October, and of course the vote came on the 11th of > October... > > The most important and clear-cut scandal, of course, has to do with the > forgery of those Niger nuclear documents that were used as proof. The very > cold calculation was that Congress could be deceived, we could have our > war, we could win it, and then no one would care that part of the evidence > for war was forged. That may still prove to be the case, but the most > encouraging thing I've seen over the last four weeks now is that the US > press has sort of woken from its slumber and is interested. I've asked > people in the press how they account for their lack of interest before the > war, and now they seem to be interested. I guess the simple answer is that > they don't like to be lied to... > > I think the real difference is that no one knew, or very few people knew, > before the war that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. > Now they know. It's an unavoidable fact. No one likes to be conned, no one > likes to be lied to, and no one particularly likes that 190 US servicemen > and women have been killed in this effort, not to mention the five or six > thousand Iraqi civilians. > > There's a difference in tone. If the press does not succumb to the > argument put out by folks like Tom Friedman, who says it doesn't really > matter that there are no weapons in Iraq, if it does become a quagmire > which I believe it will be, and we have a few servicemen killed every > week, then there is a prospect that the American people will wake up and > say, "Tell me again why my son was killed? Why did we have to make this > war on Iraq?" > > So I do think that there is some hope now that the truth will come out. It > won't come out through the Congressional committees. That's really a joke, > a sick joke... > > It doesn't take a crackerjack analyst. Take Pat Roberts, the Republican > Senator from Kansas, who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. > When the Niger forgery was unearthed and when Colin Powell admitted, well > shucks, it was a forgery, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on > that committee, went to Pat Roberts and said they really needed the FBI to > take a look at this. After all, this was known to be a forgery and was > still used on Congressmen and Senators. We'd better get the Bureau in on > this. Pat Roberts said no, that would be inappropriate. So Rockefeller > drafted his own letter, and went back to Roberts and said he was going to > send the letter to FBI Director Mueller, and asked if Roberts would sign > on to it. Roberts said no, that would be inappropriate... > > What the FBI Director eventually got was a letter from one Minority member > saying pretty please, would you maybe take a look at what happened here, > because we think there may have been some skullduggery. The answer he got > from the Bureau was a brush-off. Why do I mention all that? This is the > same Pat Roberts who is going to lead the investigation into what happened > with this issue. > > All I'm saying is that you've got Porter Goss on the House side, you've > got Pat Roberts on the Senate side, you've got John Warner who's a piece > with Pat Roberts. I'm very reluctant to be so unequivocal, but in this > case I can say nothing is going to come out of those hearings but a lot of > smoke... > > What I'm saying is that this needs to be investigated. We know that it was > Dick Cheney who sent the former US ambassador to Niger to investigate. We > know he was told in early March of last year that the documents were > forgeries. And yet these same documents were used in that application. > That is something that needs to be uncovered. We need to pursue why the > Vice President allowed that to happen. To have global reporters like > Walter Pincus quoting senior administration officials that Vice President > Cheney was not told by CIA about the findings of this former US ambassador > strains credulity well beyond the breaking point. Cheney commissioned this > trip, and when the fellow came back, he said, "Don't tell me, I don't want > to know what happened." That's just ridiculous. > > I strongly recommend a full reading of the McGovern interview, which can > be read at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml. > > McGovern's reference to Walter Pincus echoes an observation made by FTW in > March: > > FTW has previously noted strong signals in the form of published remarks > by powerful figures such as Senator Jay Rockefeller and news stories by > media powerhouses such as James Risen and Walter Pincus that quiet moves > were underway to remove the Bush administration from power. In a harsh and > stunning public statement to the BBC three days ago, former Bush I > Secretary of State and Henry Kissinger business partner Lawrence > Eagleburger smacked ol' "W" right between the eyes with a two-by-four. > > The shocking April 14 Eagleburger statement revealed the depth of > dissatisfaction in the real halls of power with the Bush team: > > If George Bush [Jr.] decided he was going to turn the troops loose on > Syria and Iran after that he would last in office for about 15 minutes. In > fact if President Bush were to try that now even I would think that he > ought to be impeached. You can't get away with that sort of thing in this > democracy. > > The Military's Silent Mutiny - A "Full Scale Rebellion" > > In his interview with Pitt, retired CIA analyst McGovern hinted at what > appears to be a growing but quiet dissent within the ranks of the US > military at the totalitarian management style of Defense Secretary Donald > Rumsfeld, and the fact that the administration seems unconcerned with the > facts. He said: > > To be quite complete on this, it encourages me that the analysts at the > Defense Intelligence Agency - who share this ethic of trying to tell the > truth, even though they are under much greater pressure and have much less > career protection because they work for Rumsfeld - to their great credit, > in September of last year they put out a memo saying there is no reliable > evidence to suggest that the Iraqis have biological or chemical weapons, > or that they are producing them. > > Indeed the multitude of leaks of intelligence estimates, reports, memos > and other records from within the military and intelligence communities > suggests a deep dissatisfaction with the Bush regime. But perhaps nothing > is as telling as a recent report from Washington journalist and frequent > FTW contributor Wayne Madsen who is also a former US Naval officer and a > veteran of the National Security Agency. > > In a recent article for the Online Journal (www.onlinejournal.com) Madsen > noted, > > Other effects of Weaponsgate are already apparent. Defense Secretary > Donald Rumsfeld, the majordomo of the neocons within the Pentagon, cannot > find anyone to take the place of outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Eric > Shinseki. General Tommy Franks and Shinseki's vice chief, General John > "Jack" Keane, want no part of the job. After winning a lightning war > against Iraq, Franks suddenly announced his retirement. He and Keane > witnessed how Rumsfeld and his coterie of advisers and consultants, who > never once lifted a weapon in the defense of their country, constantly > ignored and publicly abused Shinseki. Army Secretary and retired General > Tom White resigned after a number of clashes with Rumsfeld and his cabal. > > Curious as to whether this indicated a no-confidence vote in the Bush > administration by career, professional military officers I e-mailed Madsen > and asked for further comment. > > His reply was straight to the point. > > Senior Pentagon officers have told me that Rumsfeld and his political > advisers take no criticism from the military or the career civil servants, > to complain publicly though is to sign a death warrant for your career. > The "cabal" as they call themselves are extremely vindictive but there > remains a full-scale rebellion within the Pentagon, especially the Defense > Intelligence Agency, as well as the CIA and State over the cooking of the > books on the non-existent Iraqi WMDs. The people who have been dissed by > Rumsfeld and his gang know WMDs are their weak point and even Richard > Perle is worried that the wheels are coming off their charade. > > As casualties continue to mount in the worsening guerrilla war in Iraq, > and as growing casualties in Afghanistan are beginning to attract notice, > it is a certainty that career military leaders are going to become more > restive as they watch their troops die in attacks that remind us all of > Vietnam and as the world continues to disintegrate. The power of the > military, rarely discussed in the news media, is substantial. And if the > military has no confidence in the White House, it will shake both > Washington and Wall Street to the core. Without the military, Wall Street > cannot function. This is especially true as conflicts continue to erupt > all over Africa and instability mounts in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That > instability was created by an administration that is increasingly > demonstrating zero management competence. > > THE MEDIA MASSES - THE MIGHTY WURLITZER PLAYS > > Not since the Watergate scandal of 1972-4 has a crescendo of press stories > been more carefully crafted. And it is because of this that we can see > many historical connections to Watergate - a coup that took down a > President who believed he was invincible. > > A Media Sampling > > What follows is a partial list of recent articles, reports, letters and > editorials in the mainstream press focusing the administration's > fraudulent case for the invasion of Iraq: > > June 6 - In a story published at the hugely influential FindLaw.com, > former Nixon counsel John Dean - the witness who broke Watergate wide open > - publishes a lengthy article comparing the current scandal to Watergate. > He states bluntly, "If Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war > based on bogus information, he is cooked." > > June 12 - Follow up letter by Henry Waxman to Condoleezza Rice asking why > he has received no response to previous inquiries; > > June 13 - US News and World Report states that in November 2002 "the > Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report stating that there was no > reliable information' showing that Iraq was actually producing or > stockpiling chemical weapons." > > June 15 - Retired NATO Commander Wesley Clark tells Meet the Press that > the administration had asked him to talk about Iraqi weapons and that he > refused because there was no evidence supporting the claim; > > June 18 - USA Today quotes former CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner > as saying that the administration stretched the facts on Iraq. > > June 18 - The Associated Press quotes Democratic candidates John Kerry and > Howard Dean as saying that the administration has misled Americans. > > June 19 - The Los Angeles Times calls for open hearings on the Iraqi > evidence; > > June 20 - The Boston Globe runs a widely reprinted Op-Ed by Derrick > Jackson saying that without WMDs Iraq must be about oil. > > June 22 - The Observer (UK) quotes Council on Foreign Relations Senior > Fellow, retired General William Nash saying that the administration has > distorted intelligence. > > June 22 - Washington Times/UPI correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave raises > serious questions about the administration's conduct. > > June 22 - The Washington Post, a front-page major story by Walter Pincus. > > June 24 - The Christian Science Monitor runs an editorial titled, "Bush > Credibility Gap - a Slow, Quiet Crumble". > > June 25 - The New York Times, James Risen and Douglas Jehl report that a > top State Department expert has told Congress he was pressed by the White > House to distort evidence. > > June 25 - Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff in a lengthy article > titled "Distorted Intelligence" reveals that intelligence documents from > Germany (in Newsweek's possession) and Qatar blow distinct holes in the > administration's claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance. This constitutes a > clear message to Bush that the media case against the administration is > tight. > > June 29 - Denver Post Columnist Diane Carman publishes a column titled, > "Scandal Lurks in the Shadow of Iraq Evidence". > > June 29 - Time Magazine publishes a story titled "Who Lost the WMD?" that > summarized many of the major points of the scandal including direct > interference with CIA analysis by Dick Cheney during "working visits" to > CIA headquarters. It contains the telling statement, "And as Bush's allies > and enemies alike on Capitol Hill begin to pick apart some 19 volumes of > prewar intelligence and examine them one document at a time, the cohesive > Bush team is starting to come apart." > > But who (and what) is the media serving? > > Of all of these stories, it is the June 22 front-page Washington Post > story by Walter Pincus that tells me that Bush is cooked. Pincus is a CIA > mouthpiece who wrote a 1967 column titled, "How I traveled the world on a > CIA stipend." He was the major damage control spokesman when Pulitzer > Prize winner Gary Webb's 1996 stories blew the lid off of CIA connections > to Contra-connected cocaine being smuggled into Los Angeles. If any > journalist is a weathervane for the tides of political fortune in a > scandal like this it is Pincus. His role, though likely to be shared with > other press organizations, will be the same as Woodward and Bernstein's in > Watergate. > > In that article, titled, "Report Cast Doubt on Iraq- Al Qaeda Connection" > Pincus created a virtual airtight separation of the CIA from the White > House. It was, in effect, a warning to Bush that if he sought an escape by > blaming the Agency, it would backfire. He wrote: > > In a nationally televised address last October in which he sought to rally > congressional support for a resolution authorizing war against Iraq, > President Bush declared that the government of Saddam Hussein posed an > immediate threat to the United States by outlining what he said was > evidence pointing to its ongoing ties with al Qaeda. > > A still-classified national intelligence report circulating within the > Bush administration at the time, however, portrayed a far less clear > picture about the link between Iraq and al Qaeda than the one presented by > the president, according to U.S. intelligence analysts and congressional > sources who have read the report. > > The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which represented the > consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, contained cautionary > language about Iraq's connections with al Qaeda and warnings about the > reliability of conflicting reports by Iraqi defectors and captured al > Qaeda members about the ties, the sources said... > > Similar questions have been raised about Bush's statement in his State of > the Union address last January that the British had reported Iraq was > attempting to buy uranium in Africa, which the president used to back up > his assertion that Iraq had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. In > that case, senior U.S. officials said, the CIA 10 months earlier sent a > former senior American diplomat to visit Niger who reported that country's > officials said they had not made any agreement to aid the sale of uranium > to Iraq and indicated documents alleging that were forged. Details of that > CIA Niger inquiry were not shared with the White House, although the > agency succeeded in deleting that allegation from other administration > statements... > > The presidential address crystallized the assertion that had been made by > senior administration officials for months that the combination of Iraq's > chemical and biological weapons and a terrorist organization, such as al > Qaeda, committed to attacking the United States posed a grave and imminent > threat. Within four days, the House and Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a > resolution granting the president authority to go to war. > > The handling of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programs and its > links to al Qaeda has come under increased scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with > some leading Democrats charging that the administration exaggerated the > case against Hussein by publicizing intelligence that supported its policy > and keeping contradictory information under wraps. The House intelligence > committee opened a closed-door review into the matter last week; its > Senate counterpart is planning similar hearings. The Senate Armed Services > Committee is also investigating the issue... > > Questions about the reliability of the intelligence that Bush cited in his > Cincinnati address were raised shortly after the speech by ranking > Democrats on the Senate intelligence and armed services panel. They > pressed the CIA to declassify more of the 90-page National Intelligence > Estimate than a 28-page "white paper" on Iraq distributed on Capitol Hill > on Oct. 4. > > In one of the more notable statements made by the president, Bush said > that "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or > chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," and added: > "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America > without leaving any fingerprints." > > Bush did not indicate that the consensus of U.S. intelligence analysts was > that Hussein would launch a terrorist attack against the United States > only if he thought he could not stop the United States from invading Iraq. > The intelligence report had said that the Iraqi president might decide to > give chemical or biological agents to terrorists, such as al Qaeda, for > use against the United States only as a "last chance to exact vengeance by > taking a large number of victims with him." And it said this would be an > "extreme step" by Hussein... > > These conclusions in the report were contained in a letter CIA Director > George J. Tenet sent to Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then the chairman of the > Senate intelligence panel, the day of Bush's speech. > > While Bush also spoke of Iraq and al Qaeda having had "high-level contacts > that go back a decade," the president did not say -- as the classified > intelligence report asserted -- that the contacts occurred in the early > 1990s, when Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, was living in Sudan and > his organization was in its infancy. At the time, the report said, bin > Laden and Hussein were united primarily by their common hostility to the > Saudi Arabian monarchy, according to sources. Bush also did not refer to > the report's conclusion that those early contacts had not led to any known > continuing high-level relationships between the Iraqi government and al > Qaeda, the sources said. > > On Oct. 4, three days before the president's speech, at the urging of > members of Congress, the CIA released its declassified excerpts from the > intelligence report as a "white paper" on Iraq's weapons programs and al > Qaeda links... > > "Senator Graham felt that they declassified only things that supported > their position and left classified what did not support that policy," said > Bob Philippone, Graham's deputy chief of staff. Graham, now a candidate > for the Democratic presidential nomination, opposed the war resolution. > > When the white paper appeared, Graham and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), an > intelligence panel member and at that time chairman of the Armed Services > Committee, asked to have additional portions of the intelligence estimate > as well as portions of the testimony at the Oct. 2 hearing made public. > > On the day of Bush's speech, Tenet sent a letter to Graham with some of > the additional information. The letter drew attention because it seemed to > contradict Bush's statements that Hussein would give weapons to al Qaeda. > > Tenet released a statement on Oct. 8 that said, "There is no inconsistency > between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by > the president in his speech." He went on to say, however, that the chance > that the Iraqi leader would turn weapons over to al Qaeda was "low, in > part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses" weapons > of mass destruction. > > On Oct. 9, the CIA sent a letter to Graham and Levin informing them that > no additional portions of the intelligence report would be made public... > > Why would Tenet refuse to declassify additional portions of the report? > Because, as I am sure he will ultimately testify, he was ordered not to by > President Bush himself. That would close the case for obstruction of > justice in a manner similar to the way that Richard Nixon's coup de grace > was an 18-minute gap on a tape recording of Oval Office deliberations. > That would follow the pattern set in the joint 9/11 intelligence hearings > when Staff Director Eleanor Hill objected to the fact that - even though > some of it was already a matter of public record and previously documented > in FTW's 9/11 reporting - the CIA had classified details as to what > information about impending attacks the President had received before the > attacks. > > Just as with Watergate, every time the administration wiggles now, it will > only be drawing the noose tighter. And this is what the "Board of > Directors" intends. The Bush administration will be controlled as it is > being eased out. Business and finance cannot afford any more militarism > and this is all that the Neocons know. > > The biggest challenge for those who run the country---who select, remove > and replace presidents---will be to oust the Bush administration and yet > keep the darkest secrets of 9/11 from being publicly acknowledged. > > It will be my biggest challenge to see to it that they fail. > > Coming in Part II - What is the real state of the world and why is it > necessary for the Board to remove the Neocons? Why doesn't the > administration just plant the WMD evidence to get off the hook? At this > critical juncture, which of the critical issues facing America have the > Democratic challengers really addressed and are there warning signs of > infiltration and manipulation? Have any suspicious characters turned up in > any of the campaigns? _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
