Re: Bush Lies - who lies? (njc) (pc)

[sl . m]

Hi Kakki,

No, I'm not saying the CIA has been involved in anti-war protests. Wouldn't surprise me, but no, I have no information on this.

I know only that the Arabists in the CIA and its equivalent in the UK - M16 - have long opposed the idea of installing a democratic government in Iraq, or in any of the other Arab states.

They want the status quo to remain. The British in particular are anxious to see that the families THEY installed as rulers are allowed to remain in power. And there is a general fear of what will happen to oil prices if there is instability in the oil-rich states. There's also a sense of "better the devil you know", and the Arabists all know the ruling families, and have great sources, and stay in palaces when they visit etc etc. It's a small, very cliquey world, consisting of Arab ambassadors, Arab princes, Western intelligence officers, politicians, journalists, academics and businessmen. I would guess there are probably no more than 200 serious players who are deciding the future of the Middle East, and they want to be left alone to do it.

The CIA controls intelligence in America (not entirely, but almost), and so it controls the flow of information as to who should/should not be funded or otherwise supported. That was the point the Vanity Fair article was making. The CIA doesn't like the Iraqi National Congress, so the INC have had problems getting money, getting to see people etc. So sure, the CIA doesn't control government policy. But they can manipulate who is taken seriously and so they do influence policy enormously. It's only when something like September 11 happens that people in the American government - the Pentagon, for example - say "right, screw the CIA, I want to speak to these sources (groups, whatever it is) directly and judge them for myself".

Actually, I think I probably agree with the CIA's assessment of the INC to some extent. The INC does seem to have some "flexible" players as part of its set-up. But this is inevitable in an opposition group like this, and the bottom line is they are a thousand times better than Saddam, so I feel we should give them a chance.

I'm not familar with ANSWER. I'll take a look at their website. It doesn't surprise me that the anti-war movement is basically Marxist. I have to say that I don't understand the morality of the Left when it opposes a war like this.

The most telling thing I heard is that, in London, anti-war campaigners refuse to allow any Iraqis to speak at their meetings (even though there are hundreds of Iraqi exiles living in London) in case they say the "wrong" thing i.e. appeal for war. That says it all for me.

Sarah