IVAW, Mobile, Alabama [Photo: John Grant]
Veterans and Survivors march from Mobile to New Orleans
[homepage.mac.com/union_county_labor/Veterans_for_Peace/PhotoAlbum126.html]
"My Husband Did Not Return From Iraq" "Somebody Else Came Back In His Body"
I
told her that I was glad he deserted, because now they would not have
to worry about him coming home all fucked up like my husband is. My
husband did not return from Iraq, somebody else came back in his body.
He is not the same person and our lives have been hell since his
return. Because of what I have seen happen to my husband, I am glad Pat
chose not to support President Bush.
[This
is a Letter To The Editor, following a story about a combat veteran of
Iraq who decided to go to Canada, rather than go back again. Thanks to
Clancy Sigal, who sent this in.]
March 16, 2006, Artvoice, Buffalo, New York
Pat and Jill Hart are two of my dearest friends.
I,
like Jill, was an Army wife. She was and is all you wrote her to be.
She was almost military herself, she was so involved in her husband’s
career.
I met the Harts when my husband joined the Army in 2000.
We
were stationed in Fort Riley, Kansas and were soon best friends. The
Harts stayed in touch with us after we left in 2001 to deploy to Europe.
When
I could not get in touch with them and did not hear from them, I knew
something was wrong. I finally heard back from Jill. She wrote to me
telling me to sit down and then informed me that Pat had gone AWOL. She
also wrote that they would understand if we never spoke to them or
wanted anything to do with them. She knew that I bleed red, white and
blue and how strongly I feel about deserters.
I
wrote back that I loved them and still do and that even though I am
against deserters, I didn’t feel that Pat deserted my country.
He deserted Iraq.
I
told her that I was glad he deserted, because now they would not have
to worry about him coming home all fucked up like my husband is.
My
husband came back from Iraq after a year’s deployment and would have
returned there had he not decided against re-enlisting. I wanted him to
stay in the Army but not at the expense of his livelihood and sanity,
not to mention my own.
Had he stayed in the Army he would have gone right back to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
I support his decision.
My
husband did not return from Iraq, somebody else came back in his body.
He is not the same person and our lives have been hell since his
return. Because of what I have seen happen to my husband, I am glad Pat
chose not to support President Bush.
I support Pat and Jill Hart fully.
I will be there for them if ever they need me.
I was a loyal Bush supporter until this mess in Iraq.
I feel we have no business there and the time my husband spent there ruined our lives.
Sure, it may have helped some Iraqis’ lives, but why can’t they take care of themselves?
If
President Bush is so concerned about Iraq and its people, he needs to
take his ass, his family and his children over there to ensure the
Iraqi people’s rights and freedoms.
I
pray every night that the Canadians will allow Pat and his family as
well as others in the same situation to stay in their country as
Canadian citizens.
America keeps letting its people down due to the retard who is in charge.
I just hope the Canadians take mercy on those of us who choose not to support President Bush and cannot come home.
God
bless Canada. God bless the Harts and all in their situation. And God
bless President Bush and may God show him the right way to run our
country.
Kim Runner
IRAQ WAR REPORTS
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed In Anbar
3.25.06 Manar TV
The
two U.S. soldiers were killed in combat in insurgent-ridden Anbar
province, the American military reported Friday. The statement said the
soldiers, assigned to the 2/28th Brigade Combat Team, were killed
Thursday.
Kentucky Soldier Killed
Staff Sgt. Brock A. Beery, 30, of White House, Tenn., was killed on
March 23, 2006, when his armored vehicle encountered an improvised
explosive device near Al Habbaniyah, west of Fallujah. (AP
Photo/Kentucky National Guard)
U.S. Military Convoy Attacked:
Casualties Not Announced
The remains of a vehicle after a car bomber attacked a U.S. military
convoy in Falluja, March 24, 2006. The car bomb exploded near a U.S.
convoy damaging one military vehicle, witnesses said. There was no
independent confirmation from the U.S. forces in Iraq, but witnesses
said they believed there were casualties. REUTERS/Mohanned Faisal
U.S. Supply Convoy Ambushed At Badush:
Six Trucks Destroyed
3.25.06 Reuters: A convoy of trucks destroyed by insurgents near Mosul
March 25, 2006. Guerrillas ambushed and set ablaze six Turkish trucks
carrying goods to the U.S. military on a road to the west of Mosul.
Police sources said the trucks were driving in the Badoush area while
on their way to the U.S. military base in Tal Afar. They said that all
of the six drivers of the trucks were safe and were taken by U.S.
forces to the base. REUTERS/Stringer
AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
One U.S. Soldier Killed, Another Wounded
3.25.06 Manar TV
A US soldier was killed Saturday and another was wounded in a fierce clash with about 20 fighters in southern Afghanistan.
TROOP NEWS
"Over Time, The Soldiers Became More Reluctant To Go On Patrols"
"It’s Like Our Government Is Selling These Soldiers To The United States"
Over
time, the soldiers became more reluctant to go on patrols. The decline
in morale was partly fueled by rumors of corruption among the
battalion’s leadership, whom soldiers suspected of stealing new
uniforms and boots. They were also humiliated to learn that troops from
other developing nations were being paid up to seven times what they
were getting.
March 25, 2006 By N.C. Aizenman, Washington Post [Excerpts]
The
Salvadoran government’s willingness to keep sending troops to Iraq –
after three other Latin American countries pulled out their forces –
underscores the unusually strong political and economic bonds, as well
as the unique military relationship, forged in the past two decades
between this tiny country and the United States.
One
reason El Salvador has agreed to stay, according to analysts, is that
its three most recent elected presidents have been members of the
rightist ARENA party, which has close ties with the Bush administration
and shares its commitment to a proposed regional free-trade agreement.
Some Salvadorans feel it is unfair to send the troops to Iraq. One is Herminia Ramos, whose son Natividad died there in 2004.
"Yes,
they have a duty to serve. But it’s a duty to protect their own
country, not to take care of a country so far away that has nothing to
do with us," Ramos, 47, said bitterly on a recent morning as she
shelled peas in the dirt yard of her village home. "It’s like our
government is selling these soldiers to the United States."
Ramos
said Natividad dropped out of school at age 15 to join the army after
his father died. Ramos, an illiterate laundress, needed money to raise
her three younger children, and the army paid about $240 a month.
Within
two years, Natividad was deployed to Iraq. He was killed in the city of
Najaf on April 4, 2004, when supporters of the Shiite cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr stormed a barracks defended by Salvadoran and Spanish troops. A
second Salvadoran soldier died in a vehicle accident.
Ramos
said she knew her son was dead the moment she saw a delegation of
soldiers coming up the path to her mud-brick hut. "I had this horrible
feeling in my stomach," she recalled, tears rolling down her cheeks.
"All I felt was pain."
Her
grief soon turned to anger. It took months of nagging to get the
military to build the small cement house it had promised her, and
Natividad’s $7,000 government life insurance payment soon ran out.
Salvadoran
soldiers have faced plenty of danger in Iraq, including the ambush at
Diwaniyah. On patrols, they said, bullets would strike their Humvees;
at night, their barracks were frequently attacked with mortars.
One
day, Gustavo’s unit was called to guard the scene of a suicide bombing
in a market. Picking his way past body parts, he said, he was flooded
with gruesome memories of the civil war he had tried to forget: his
brother, blinded after stepping on a mine; the corpse of a female
social worker, cut open and left naked in the middle of a road.
Now,
three weeks after returning home, Gustavo said he still has trouble
sleeping. If his wife taps him even gently, he bounds out of bed and
takes cover.
"You felt like you were taunting death every time you went out," Gustavo said.
Over
time, the soldiers became more reluctant to go on patrols. The decline
in morale was partly fueled by rumors of corruption among the
battalion’s leadership, whom soldiers suspected of stealing new
uniforms and boots. They were also humiliated to learn that troops from
other developing nations were being paid up to seven times what they
were getting.
Pablo,
37, a corporal now on leave in his cinder-block home in a slum near the
capital, said he was hoping for his first raise in 10 years. If it
doesn’t come through, he said, he will have no choice but to try to
sneak into the United States. He has four young children and mounting
school expenses.
Besides,
he said with a hopeful smile, "if the border police catch me, then I’ll
just explain to them that I’m a Salvadoran who served in Iraq. Then
maybe they’ll let me stay."
Truth For Tillman Family:
The Latest Investigation Must Go Further, Up The Chain Of Command
March 27, 2006 Army Times editorial
Next
month marks the two-year anniversary of the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman.
His memory lives on as an all-American tale of inspiration, a
millionaire football player who quit the high life to serve his country
as an Army foot soldier.
But his death leaves lingering questions the Army has yet to answer.
Tillman
was shot and killed April 22, 2004, while on patrol with his 75th
Ranger Regiment comrades in Afghanistan. Initial reports hailed him as
a hero, and within three weeks of his death — and in time,
miraculously, for his nationally televised memorial service — he was
awarded a Silver Star for bravery in action.
Only
later, after he had been buried, did the Army tell his family that
Tillman had actually been shot by his own forces, not the enemy.
Now
the Defense Department has ordered a new criminal investigation — the
fifth inquiry into the tragic case — in an effort to get the answer his
family wants: Was anyone criminally responsible for Tillman’s death?
But the inquiry should not stop with the tragic shooting accident.
Just
as important now is whether Army leaders intentionally lied and misled
the public about the circumstances of Tillman’s death.
Was
the Silver Star merited, or was it part of the elaborate cover-up,
misrepresenting the square-jawed Ranger as a hero, rather than a victim?
Seven soldiers in Tillman’s unit already have received nonjudicial punishment for their actions on the day Tillman died.
The
latest investigation must go further, to determine if others up the
chain of command knew the truth about Cpl. Tillman’s death and then
told or tolerated lies.
The
Army’s sloppy handling of this case has damaged its credibility not
only in the eyes of the Tillman family, but in the eyes of millions of
Americans who have followed this case.
It’s time to get to the bottom of the shenanigans.
With truth will come closure.
War Leaves National Guard At Home Sucking Wind For Equipment;
Units "Critically Wounded"
Mar. 22, 2006 BY KIRSTEN SCHARNBERG, Chicago Tribune
The
conflict in Iraq, launched three years ago as bombs began lighting up
Baghdad’s midnight skies, has left America’s National Guard as one of
the most critically wounded casualties of the war.
Since
the war began, the Guard has been badly stripped of equipment and
resources even as it is tasked with one of the most important on-call
jobs on American soil: to be the first line of homeland defense and
security in the event of a catastrophic terror attack or a devastating
national emergency such as Hurricane Katrina.
Statistics, compiled last year by the Government Accountability Office, are startling:
Non-deployed
Guard units have just 5 percent of the lightweight rifles and 14
percent of the machine guns they are authorized to have.
Units nationwide have just 8 percent of the flatbed semi-trailers they are authorized to have and 10 percent of the Humvees.
And
despite the fact the Guard likely would be the first force to respond
to a terrorist attack, which many experts fear could involve the use of
chemical or biological weapons, its units have only 14 percent of their
authorized chemical decontamination equipment and virtually none of the
chemical agent monitoring equipment they are supposed to have.
"How
in the world can we help ourselves or our fellow governors in a natural
disaster when we have none of the equipment to do it?" Washington Gov.
Christine Gregoire asked.
The
tug between the two increasingly conflicting duties of the Guard –
fighting in Iraq and protecting the home front – was on display in the
aftermath of Katrina.
Instead
of being able to draw on the equipment stores of the units in the
affected region, the Guard scrambled to get equipment brought to
Louisiana and Mississippi from the farthest reaches of the United
States. At one point, there was talk of flying troops and equipment
from Hawaii.
All
told, about 88,000 pieces of National Guard equipment – everything from
tanks to Humvees, radios to rifles – have been left in Iraq.
Not
only has the equipment, worth an estimated $3 billion, been left for
newly arriving troops, but much of it will never be returned to the
United States because it has been worn out, destroyed in bombings or
turned over to fledgling Iraqi units.
The end result is keenly felt inside National Guard armories across the United States.
In
New York and New Jersey, where fears of another catastrophic terrorism
attack may be the greatest and most plausible, equipment shortages are
acute.
As
of late last year, New Jersey’s Guard left about 1,000 Humvees in Iraq
and dispatched 16 of the state’s 20 helicopters there. New York, which
is authorized to have 900 Humvees, had just 266, and it had only 264 of
its authorized 1,000 night-vision goggles.
The
81st Brigade, based in Washington state, left $33 million worth of
equipment in Iraq last year, including radios that would be needed in
the event of a major emergency.
And inventory tallies for Illinois are far worse even than the national average.
According
to statistics released by the office of Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,
Illinois units have 4 percent of the medium-size trucks and 8 percent
of the heavy trucks needed for full readiness. The GAO report pointed
out that at least three Illinois Guard units were unable to conduct
training or meet proficiency levels because of lack of equipment.
"The
(Bush) administration refuses to acknowledge the real cost of this war:
the real costs in terms of deaths and dollars and equipment," Durbin
said.
Oklahoma National Guard Troops Deployed To Bush’s Imperial Slaughterhouse
Members of the 1345th Transportation Company, Oklahoma Army National
Guard, March 24, 2006, in Midwest City, Okla., as they prepare to
deploy to Iraq. (AP Photo)
5-Inch Metal Pin Does $6.7 Million Damage To Raptor
3.23.06 Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
An
accident involving a five-inch metal pin, attached with a three-foot
streamer, caused $6.7 million worth of damage to a new F-22 Raptor.
U.S. Government Demands $7.5 Billion Ransom For Getting Marines Out Of Japanese Territory
March 23, 2006 By Chisaki Watanabe, Associated Press
TOKYO:
Japan and the United States held sweeping defense talks Thursday to
discuss the realignment of U.S. troops in Japan, the war against
terrorism and plans for a joint missile defense shield, officials said.
By
the end of this month, the two sides hope to finalize the details of an
agreement that includes a proposal to shift 7,000 Marines from the
southern Japanese island of Okinawa to the U.S. Pacific island
territory of Guam.
The
Tokyo talks are expected to focus on a U.S. request for Japan to pay 75
percent of the $10 billion cost to move the Marines to Guam, Japan’s
Kyodo News agency reported, citing unidentified government sources.
Okinawa hosts most of the 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan.
IRAQ RESISTANCE ROUNDUP
Armed Demonstration Against The Occupation In Baghdad
Iraqi citizens shout anti American slogans, after Friday prayers, in Baghdad, March 24, 2006. (AP Photo/ Karim Kadim)
OCCUPATION ISN’T LIBERATION
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
Assorted Resistance Action
Mar 25, 2006 By Alastair Macdonald and Mariam Karouny (AP) & Reuters
Insurgents in Baghdad left a booby trap package that killed a policeman when he opened it.
Guerrillas killed a traffic policeman in central Baghdad.
Three
police commandos and a civilian were wounded when a car bomb exploded
near their patrol in Samarra, 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad,
police said.
In north Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on a police patrol in a drive-by shooting, wounding one officer, police said.
IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE RESISTANCE
END THE OCCUPATION
FORWARD OBSERVATIONS
One
day while I was in a bunker in Vietnam, a sniper round went over my
head. The person who fired that weapon was not a terrorist, a rebel, an
extremist, or a so-called insurgent. The Vietnamese individual who
tried to kill me was a citizen of Vietnam, who did not want me in his
country. This truth escapes millions.
Mike Hastie
U.S. Army Medic
Vietnam 1970-71
December 13, 2004
"The Bush Administration Is On A Death March, And We Are The Only Ones Who Can Stop It"
From: Mike Hastie
To: GI Special
Sent: March 21, 2006
I’m sending you a picture of a Marine standing in front of the White House.
The photo was taken in Washington, D.C. on September 26, 2005. The picture he is holding says it all.
The Bush Administration IS the "Scream Administration."
People
need to take a good look at this photograph, because it is the
beginning of the end for America, if citizens in this country do
nothing.
The Bush Administration is on a death march, and we are the only ones who can stop it.
Mike Hastie
Vietnam Veteran
March 19, 2006
Photo
from the I-R-A-Q (I Remember Another Quagmire) portfolio of Mike
Hastie, US Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71. (For more of his outstanding
work, contact at: (hastiemike@earthlink.net) T)
"The Truth About The Iraqi Resistance Is:
There Are No Terrorists: None"
March 21, 2006 Jack Random, www.dissidentvoice.org [Excerpt]
The truth about the Iraqi resistance is: There are no terrorists: none.
Even
if we accept the neocon definition of terrorism (which conveniently
exempts sovereign nations — otherwise, Shock & Awe would be the
operative model), an act of terrorism requires the intent to terrorize.
In
Iraq, the intent of roadside or suicide bombs is not to terrorize the
most powerful military force on earth but to exact a price on the enemy
occupiers and their collaborators.
We
may not favor the form and nature of any number of governments around
the world but it is not for us to determine by military means which
will stand and which will fall. We have embraced far too many despots
to defend such a distinction as grounds for war.
As
the Bush administration continues to promote its dark doctrine of
military supremacy and preemptive strike, at this juncture of
international affairs, there is not a single nation on earth less
peaceful and more threatening than our own.
The
truth about Iraq is: We were wrong at the inception of the war; we have
been wrong for three years, and we continue to be wrong today.
What do you think? Comments from service men and women, and veterans, are especially welcome. Send to thomasfbarton@earthlink.net. Name, I.D., address withheld unless publication requested. Replies confidential.
Got That Right
March 21, 2006 Paul Craig Roberts www.uruknet.info?p=21789 [Excerpt]
The fantasy Iraq that Bush painted was only his warm-up.
He went on to tell his Cleveland audience that American could not be safe unless Iraq was a democracy.
What a weak, pitiful, vulnerable place Bush’s America must be.
Unless a small, devastated Middle Eastern country is a democracy, America cannot be safe.
Who in the Cleveland audience could possibly have believed this utter nonsense.
"Here We Are, Stymied By Two Of The Smallest, Poorest Countries On Earth"
March 21, 2006 Tomdispatch Interview with Chalmers Johnson [Excerpts]
The
military budget is starting to bankrupt the country. It’s got so much
in it that’s well beyond any rational military purpose.
It equals just less than half of total global military spending.
And
yet here we are, stymied by two of the smallest, poorest countries on
Earth. Iraq before we invaded had a GDP the size of the state of
Louisiana and Afghanistan was certainly one of the poorest places on
the planet.
And yet these two places have stopped us.
These
people have talked us into building a fantastic military apparatus, and
then, there was that famous crack (Clinton Secretary of State)
Madeleine Albright made to General Colin Powell: "What’s the point of
having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use
it?"
Well, if you want to use it today, they charge you another $120 billion dollars! (He laughs.)
But even the official budget makes no sense.
It’s
filled with weapons like Lockheed Martin’s F-22 — the biggest single
contract ever written. It’s a stealth airplane and it’s absolutely
useless.
They want to build another Virginia class nuclear submarine. These are just toys for the admirals.
NEED SOME TRUTH? CHECK OUT TRAVELING SOLDIER
Telling the truth – about the occupation or the criminals running the
government in Washington – is the first reason for Traveling Soldier.
But we want to do more than tell the truth; we want to report on the
resistance – whether it’s in the streets of Baghdad, New York, or
inside the armed forces. Our goal is for Traveling Soldier to become
the thread that ties working-class people inside the armed services
together. We want this newsletter to be a weapon to help you organize
resistance within the armed forces. If you like what you’ve read, we
hope that you’ll join with us in building a network of active duty
organizers. www.traveling-soldier.org/ And join with Iraq War vets in the call to end the occupation and bring our troops home now! (www.ivaw.net)
"Don’t Impeach; Impale"
[Thanks to Phil G, who sent this in.]
March 15, 2006 By Will Durst, AlterNet.
Impeachment just isn’t proper punishment for the evil, cowardly, imperialistic slime buckets of the Bush administration.
I
don’t know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying,
thieving, holier-than-thou, right-wing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche,
coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate,
dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting,
infrastructure destroying, hysterical, history defying, finger-
pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking,
collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clear
cutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture outsourcing, "so-called"
compassionate-conservative, women’s rights eradicating, Medicare
cutting, uncouth, spiteful, boorish, vengeful, noxious, homophobic,
xenophobic, xylophonic, racist, sexist, ageist, fascist, cashist,
audaciously stupid, brazenly selfish, lethally ignorant, journalist
purchasing, genocide ignoring, corporation kissing, poverty inducing,
crooked, coercive, autocratic, primitive, uppity, high-handed,
domineering, arrogant, inhuman, inhumane, insolent, know-it-all,
snotty, pompous, contemptuous, supercilious, gutless, spineless,
shameless, avaricious, poisonous, imperious, merciless, graceless,
tactless, brutish, brutal, Karl Roving, backward thinking, persistent
vegetative state grandstanding, nuclear option threatening, evolution
denying, irony deprived, depraved, insincere, conceited, perverted,
pre-emptory invading of a country that had absolutely nothing to do
with 9/11, 35-day-vacation taking, bribe soliciting, incapable, inbred,
hellish, proud for no apparent reason, smarty pants, loudmouth,
bullying, swell-headed, ethnic cleansing, ethics-eluding, domestic
spying, medical marijuana-busting, kick-backing, Halliburtoning, New
Deal disintegrating, narcissistic, undiplomatic, blustering,
malevolent, demonizing, baby seal-clubbing, Duke Cunninghamming,
hectoring, verbally flatulent, pro-bad- anti-good, Moslem-baiting,
photo-op arranging, hurricane disregarding, oil company hugging, judge
packing, science disputing, faith based mathematics advocating,
armament selling, nonsense spewing, education ravaging, whiny,
unscrupulous, greedy exponential factor fifteen, fraudulent, CIA
outing, redistricting, anybody who disagrees with them slandering, fact
twisting, ally alienating, betraying, god and flag waving, scare
mongering, Cindy Sheehan libeling, phony question asking, just won’t
get off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, two- faced,
inept, callous, menacing, your hand under a rock- the maggoty remains
of a marsupial, oppressive, vulgar, antagonistic, brush clearing suck-
up, showboating, tyrannizing, peace hating, water and air and ground
and media polluting which is pretty much all the polluting you can get,
deadly, illegal, pernicious, lethal, haughty, venomous, virulent,
ineffectual, mephitic, egotistic, bloodthirsty, incompetent,
hypocritical, did I say evil, I’m not sure if I said evil, because I
want to make sure I say evil…
EVIL,
cretinous, fool, toad, buttwipe, lizardstick, cowardly, lackey
imperialistic tool slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I
could just spit.
Impeachment?
Hell no.
Impalement.
Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people’s justice.
Do
you have a friend or relative in the service? Forward this E-MAIL
along, or send us the address if you wish and we’ll send it regularly.
Whether in Iraq or stuck on a base in the USA, this is extra important
for your service friend, too often cut off from access to encouraging
news of growing resistance to the war, at home and inside the armed
services. Send requests to address up top.
"Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq"
"THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCOMPLISHED"
March 20, 2006 by Greg Palast, The Guardian
Get
off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George
Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is
just dead wrong.
On
the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq’s border, most of
the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt
if his mission was accomplished.
But don’t kid yourself; Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do.
In
case you’ve forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of
White House spokesman Ari Fleisher’s original announcement, three years
ago, launching of what he called,
"Operation
Iraqi
Liberation."
O.I.L.
How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in
the White House change it to "OIF" — Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the
101st Airborne wasn’t sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq’s OIF.
"It’s about oil," Robert Ebel told me.
Who is Ebel?
Formerly
the CIA’s top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month
before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam’s former
oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq’s oil industry.
In
London, Bush’s emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the
man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the
correct method of disposing Iraq’s crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq’s oil?
The
answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted,
devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most
conspiracy-addicted blogger.
The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq’s oil secretly drafted by the State Department.
Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter.
The
key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to
Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its
relationship with OPEC."
Enhance
its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United
States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is
strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically,
the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq’s oil
production: limiting Iraq’s oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi
Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil: not to get more of Iraq’s oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.
You
must keep in mind who paid for George’s ranch and Dick’s bunker: Big
Oil. And Big Oil, and their buck-buddies, the Saudis don’t make money
from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the
supply, the higher the price.
It’s Economics 101.
The
oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an
"oligopoly" — a tiny handful of operators who make more money when
there’s less oil, not more of it.
So,
every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad
Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And
Dick and George just love it.
Dick and George didn’t want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less.
I
know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and
his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your
family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned
that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
Not so, gentle souls.
Three
bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means
colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick’s ticker go pitty-pat
with joy.
The
top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113
billion in profit in 2005, compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002
before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it’s been a good war
for Big Oil.
As
per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq’s occupation oil minister; the
conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price
of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished.
However, it wasn’t America’s mission, nor the Iraqis’.
It was a Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
"Dead Wrong" About Bin Laden
February 15, 2006 By Steve Perry, City Pages, Vol 27 Issue 1315 [Excerpts]
Most
officials thought last month’s Osama bin Laden tape was no big deal:
maybe even a gesture of weakness. Author and ex-CIA analyst Michael
Scheuer, who founded the Agency’s bin Laden unit 10 years ago, thinks
they’re dead wrong.
When
the latest Osama bin Laden tape aired on al Jazeera last month, Michael
Scheuer’s phone was one of the first to start ringing off the hook with
calls from journalists seeking a quick soundbite for that day’s news
cycle.
Scheuer
has credentials on the subject that few can match: By the time
September 11 happened, he had been studying and trailing bin Laden for
five years, as the creator and chief analyst of the CIA’s bin Laden
unit.
Later
on, writing as "Anonymous," Scheuer put out two books about bin Laden
and his group, Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical
Islam and the Future of America (published in 2002, but largely written
in 1999 as an unclassified manual for CIA personnel joining the bin
Laden unit) and the bestseller Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing
the War on Terror, which appeared in 2004 shortly before Scheuer
resigned the CIA to go public about his views.
Appearing
on CBS Evening News the day the tape surfaced, January 19, Scheuer told
anchor Bob Schieffer that "it would be foolish not to take this very
seriously as a threat to the United States."
He
discussed the Islamic custom of offering one’s enemies an out before
attacking them, and made reference to bin Laden’s long-standing wish to
obtain a nuclear weapon, and to the still-unsecured stockpile of nukes
in the former Soviet Union. "It sounds pretty scary, what you’re saying
here," Schieffer offered near the end of the two-minute segment.
"This
is not a threat that should be defined as criminals, gangsters, and
deviants," Scheuer replied. "These are very serious people, they are
our deadly enemies, and they are extraordinarily talented. We can worry
about Saddam and we can worry about the Iranians," Scheuer answered,
"but the only people capable of attacking us inside the United States
in the world today is al Qaeda."
Scheuer’s
sense of alarm was soon forgotten, swallowed up by the official line
about the bin Laden tape, which also became the conventional media
wisdom: As ex-FBI terrorism hand Christopher Whitcomb put it to a
different CBS anchor the next morning, "I don’t think there’s very much
significance in this tape at all. And the reason is, we’ve seen so many
of these in the past four-and-a-half years. Osama bin Laden is trying
to show the world he’s still relevant. I think he’s not still relevant,
and I think he is trying just to say, 'I’m out here, look at me.’"
I phoned Scheuer recently to ask him more about his views of the tape and the status of the U.S.’s anti-terror efforts.
City
Pages: You’ve dissented strongly from the Bush administration line that
says bin Laden and other Islamic radicals "hate us for our freedoms."
What’s the real root of their opposition?
Michael Scheuer: The real root of their opposition is what we do in the Islamic world.
If
they were hating us because we had elections, or gender equality, or
liberty, they would be a lethal nuisance, but they wouldn’t be a threat
to our security. If you remember, the Ayatollah tried waging a jihad
against Americans because we were degenerate; we had X-rated movies, we
drank liquor, women were in workplaces. Very, very few people were
willing to die for that kind of thing.
Bin
Laden, I think, took a lesson from that and instead focused on the
impact of our policies in the Islamic world, our support for the Arab
tyrannies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our presence in the holy lands on
the Arabian Peninsula, our invasion of Iraq, our support for countries
like Russia that are deemed to repress Islamic people.
He’s
focused on things that are visible to the Islamic world every day, and
quite frankly there’s a direct correlation between what he says and
what all the Western polling firms are finding, that there is a huge
majority in Islamic countries that hate our foreign policy.
And
yet generally, every one of the same countries has a majority,
sometimes a large one, that admires the way Americans live, the basic
equity of our society.
We should be so lucky as to have him hate us only for our freedoms. He’s never even discussed that kind of thing.
CP:
After the latest bin Laden tape aired, the official spin was to call it
a political bluff, or even a call for truce out of weakness on his
part. But you’ve written and spoken about seeing a different aim behind
these bin Laden warnings, one that has more to do with meeting the
expectations of a Muslim audience than a Western one.
Scheuer:
I think that’s very much the case. He’s very conscious of the tradition
from which he comes and how that history works. It’s the tradition of
the prophet that you warn your enemy and you offer a truce before the
fighting starts. Saladin followed the same tradition against the
Crusaders in medieval times, and bin Laden has been very careful to
follow that in his time.
He’s
offered us warnings numerous times, but this is the first time he’s
offered a truce in addition. In the early summer of 2004, he offered
the Europeans an almost identical truce or cease-fire. They refused him
much like we did, and he attacked them in July of '05 in London.
CP:
Getting back to what you said a moment ago about the importance to bin
Laden of offering the U.S. a warning, didn’t he in fact get in trouble
in a lot of Islamic circles after 9/11 for failing to provide a warning?
Scheuer:
Yes, that is, for failing to provide enough of a warning. The prophet’s
guidance is that you go the extra mile to warn your enemy. Bin Laden
was called on the carpet by his peers in the Islamic militant movement
for three things.
One
was that he didn’t give us enough warning. He’s now addressed the
American people on five separate occasions since 2002. So he’s taken
care of that one.
He
was also called on the carpet for not offering us a chance to convert
to Islam. He’s now done that three separate times, and Zawahiri has
done it once. So they’ve covered that angle.
The
other thing they were taken to task for was that they didn’t have the
religious authority to kill as many Americans as they did. In the
summer of 2003, he got a religious judgment from a very reputable Saudi
cleric that he could use weapons of mass destruction, specifically
nuclear weapons, to kill up to 10 million Americans.
After
9/11, he had several very important loose ends to tie up, in religious
terms, before he could attack us again. He’s done all of those things.
It’s interesting, because he spoke on the eve of our presidential
election, and he said, This is the last time I’m going to warn you. In
his speech last week, he said, I was not going to talk to you again,
but your president is lying to you. I wanted to give you one more
opportunity to hear the truth. He again warned us about the impact of
our policies, and then offered us the truce. But you were right at the
beginning. He’s very much speaking to an Islamic audience as much as to
an American.
CP: How do you read the offer of truce, that being the unique element in this communiqué?
Scheuer: I think he’s very serious about it.
I
don’t think for a second he believes we’ll take him up on it. But he’s
kind of done as much as he can do to make sure there’s no further
bloodshed between us and the forces he represents. It was very common,
you know, in the era of the prophet; truces came about fairly regularly.
There
were truces between Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted in the Third
Crusade. One of them was as specific as three years and some odd months
before the fighting was to resume. From his culture, from his history,
this is a very serious offer. I think he expected the kind of curt
response he got from Scott McClellan and then from the president and
vice president.
This
is a very difficult problem for a world that’s run on the basis of
nation-states. How do you respond to something like this?
CP:
The competing popular images of bin Laden in the U.S. seem to run to
opposite extremes: he’s either the supreme commander of anti-U.S.
forces or an isolated, mostly ceremonial figure. Can you describe his
place in the firmament of radical Muslim forces aligning against the
U.S.?
Scheuer: I think he is the hero and the leader in the Islamic world.
But that’s not to say that he controls very much beyond his own group.
The
two things I would point out are that, one, for a man of his stature in
the world, he probably has as little ego as I’ve ever seen in a leader.
He’s a man who clearly wants to control his own organization, but
outside of that he’s never really shown much interest in controlling
other groups.
The
other thing people tend to forget, or to lose in the rhetoric, is that
when he outlined his aims in 1996, the first one, and it still is the
first one, was to incite jihad around the world.
He
regarded al Qaeda and his role not as an instrument of American defeat,
but as an instrument that would incite the jihad that would spur
America’s defeat. He saw his job as encouraging other groups to join
in. Picking a number is kind of a mug’s game, but now we have 40 or 50
groups around the world that fight, sometimes locally, but also have an
intention of attacking the United States. So in his main goal, of
incitement, he’s been singularly successful.
CP: Can you talk about the role that the Iraq war has played in his recruiting successes?
Scheuer:
I have to tell you, Sir, I’m not an expert on Iraq. I don’t know what
the threat was from Saddam. My own judgment is, as a nation-state
(Saddam’s Iraq) was probably containable.
But
our invasion of Iraq broke the back of our counter-terrorism policy,
because it validated in the Islamic mind so much of what bin Laden had
said through the past decade. He said, Americans will do anything to
defeat a strong Muslim government.
We took Saddam out. He said we would take on and defeat any Muslim state that threatened Israel.
I think Iraq is an indication of that being true, from their perspective.
He
said we would occupy their sanctities and try to destroy their
religion. From the Islamist’s perspective, we occupy all three of their
sanctities now, the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. The
Israelis hold Jerusalem, but increasingly in the Islamic world,
Americans and Israelis are viewed interchangeably. He said we were
going to try to take all the oil from the Muslim world. And certainly
the view predominates that one of the reasons we went to Iraq was oil.
And so, in terms of perception, the Iraq war was a validation of what bin Laden had said.
In
addition, bin Laden and Zawahiri are not trained Islamic clerics or
jurists. The argument was always made that they had no authority,
therefore, to declare a jihad. Well, when we invaded Iraq, it was kind
of a textbook example of an event that necessitates jihad in the
Islamic world.
Now,
any number of well-credentialed clerics and jurists and scholars have
authorized jihad against the United States around the world, because we
invaded a Muslim land.
In
my view, the invasion of Iraq accelerated the transformation of al
Qaeda from a man and an organization into a philosophy and a movement.
We’re
at the point where it’s still very important to kill, preferably to
kill, or else to capture, Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri. But because of
Iraq, our problem is far from over if that happens.
CP:
From the standpoint of practical politics, do you think bin Laden and
his associates feel obliged to make the next attack on U.S. soil more
spectacular than the last?
Scheuer:
That’s certainly what they have promised. And one of the things I’ve
tried to point out when I’ve been interviewed is that, objectively, if
you examine bin Laden’s rhetoric, the correlation between words and
deeds is pretty much close to perfect. One of the things he always
stressed from the very first days of al Qaeda was, I intend to
incrementally ratchet up the severity of the pain I cause Americans
until they begin to listen and change their policies.
So
my answer would be yes. To keep true to his world, which seems to be a
major concern for him, the next attack on America will have to be more
damaging than 9/11.
CP:
You spoke on 60 Minutes over a year ago about bin Laden’s seeking and
obtaining the fatwa to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. Do you
think it’s his wish to use nuclear weapons in his next attack?
Scheuer: Sure. If he has them, he’ll use them. It’s not like he’s looking for a deterrent.
In old Cold War terms, he’s looking for a first-strike weapon