In considering this question, I can not ignore "How to Generate Public Acceptance &
Enthusiasm for War by Hermann Goering", propagandist for Adolph Hitler
"Why, of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece?"
"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood."
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship."
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy."
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country."
In context, what that statement describes is how a national
leader can successfully "Wag the Dog".
I would also recommend that you read the book "Taliban"
by Ahmed Rashid, which will supply you with a great deal more detail than I will in this
publication.
Finally, in this preface, I want to remind you that I am not adamantly opposed to war,
rather, I view it as a tool that sometimes must be used at times when all other options
have failed, and a threat is imminent. There is often more to be gained through
peaceful arbitration and containment.
Part I: September 11, 2001
The implication is that our stance toward Iraq is related to the war on
terrorism. With the exception that our actions since September 11, 2001 will provoke
additional terrorist attacks, I disagree.
What occurred on September 11, 2001 was a true American tragedy. It was a tragedy
because of the many lives that were lost, the families disrupted, and an American culture
whose very security, the belief of our nation that we could live safely within our own
borders, was shaken to its core.
Our nation rallied for and around the leadership of our President, as they would any
president. In this case, it was George Bush, who announced a war on terrorism.
Many statements were made to suggest that we would not be victorious unless we captured
and executed Osama bin Laden. When Mullah Omar and the Taliban refused to cooperate
with our intent to capture bin Laden, the Taliban itself became an enemy.
Immediately, it was declared that we would, in turn, liberate the Afghani people from
the tyranny of the Taliban.
I have no argument with those decisions. I do, however, take exception to the reasons
stated in public for those actions, as well as the publicly undisclosed reasons for its
necessity. Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still free, and our administration's public
stance now is that capturing one person will not make the difference. That's true,
but focusing hatred toward one man "psyched us up for war." It's an important
distinction.
At times, it will seem as if I am directly attacking members of the Bush
Administration, when, in fact, I will simply be identifying the kinds of facades projected
by government leaders in order to cause the public to follow its leadership.
Part II: Afghanistan, the Taliban & The Caspian Sea Pipeline
When the Taliban took over control of the Afghani government, they immediately began
installing a government which imposed laws against its citizens' core cultural and social
traditions. It's fundamentalist religion became the basis for law and government,
and enforcement methods were severe.
The Taliban's disdain for women is widely known. From the beginning of its
government, girls and women were forbidden from education. Professional women, including
doctors and instructors and many others delivering vital services were required to abandon
their professions, regardless of the impact on the people in communities.
At that time, U.S. companies had been working (including Unocal, G.E. and Enron) in
order to secure a viable route to deliver oil from the Caspian Sea. They had
billions of dollars invested in the project already. Hamid Karzai, now President of
Afghanistan, was a consultant for the project.
The Taliban, under direction from Osama bin Laden, refused to allow the pipeline to be
completed unless the Afghani government, and the tribal governments along the routes,
received more money for their cooperation and assistance.
The Clinton Administration became deterred by the Taliban's insistence, and broke off
negotiations, or at least, its influence on behalf of the U.S. corporations. Still,
according to Gore Vidal, the Clinton Administration had already drawn up contingency plans
to attack Afghanistan in November 2000, which were supposedly given to the Bush
Administration once Bush had been determined to be the winner of the election.
When George Bush began his term as president, negotiations began again. However,
the Bush Administration put the weight of the U.S. military behind the weight of its
arguments on behalf of the corporations and the pipeline.
And, not to be forgotten, likely most important, is the fact that Sobristas, an
Argentinean oil company, was about to be awarded the contract to manage the pipeline.
In March of 2001, the Bush Administration informed the Taliban that if they would not
meet our terms, that we would use military force to overthrow their government, and to
secure the Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline. Leaks suggest that that attack would have
occurred in October, 2001.
In June of 2001, it is reported that a CIA agent met with Osama bin Laden at a hospital
in Dubai, where bin Laden was undergoing dialysis. No attempt was made to arrest or detain
him.
In June of 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft was instructed to cease the use of
commercial airline flights in the United States.
On September 11, 2001, 4 commercial airliners were hijacked, 3 of which succeeded in
their journeys to become weapons of mass destruction. The 4th was prevented due to
the heroic acts of the passengers on Flight 93.
This occurred despite the warnings of such an attack from the governments of Egypt,
Israel, Britain and others. The warnings came within weeks, and in some cases, days
before the attacks.
The attacks occurred despite the investigators in Arizona who warned of suspicious
activities that could lead to such an attack. They occurred despite the efforts of
agents such as Colleen Rowley, who testified that they were prevented from following leads
having the potential to uncover and prevent the 911 plots.
This "prevention" appears to have been nothing more than a "cover"
for the Saudis, where Al Qaeda began as a movement, to force the Saudi government to expel
the United States. The Bin Laden family, after all, has had lucrative business
dealings with the Bush family for years, and members of the Bin Laden family, some of whom
may have been otherwise investigated, were given safe passage out of the United States
after 911.
If the great debate, so far, about the Saudi influence on current terrorist events, one
fact has been overlooked, but came into play when Al Jazeera was kicked off the NYSE
trading floor, but was allowed back to do their reporting after threatening to locate
themselves and report on NASDAQ.
The fact is, Arab nationals, particularly Saudi Arabians, have huge investments in our
stock markets, and their withdrawal of investments would hurt the U.S. economy
substantially. And, of course, we rely on Saudi oil.
So, it becomes suspect that a substantial amount of trading was done on the stock
market in the 2 days before the disasters. Many investors invested in
"puts", a stock market term suggesting they were "betting" on American
Airlines' stock price going down.
This was an unusual occurrence, and should have triggered automated systems in the
stock market to call for a report/investigation on the trend, and immediate suspension of
trading would not have been an unusual result.
Cynthia McKinney's1 remarks on the subject elicited counter-remarks from
Republicans who declared that she must be crazy. Ari Fleischer said "Anyone who
would believe that would also likely be a member of the Grassy Knoll Society"
(eluding to the notion that President John Kennedy, according to the Warren Commission,
was killed by a lone gunman and was attacked with one bullet, and that anyone who believed
otherwise must be crazy. That claim was made by Fleischer despite the fact that a
preponderance of evidence and many witnesses, including those inside the
vehicle with Kennedy, reported that at least 3 shots were fired, if not 4, some coming
from different directions, and that it was impossible for 1 person to have carried out the
attack.) See also: The Warren Commission Report and "History Will Not Absolve
Us" by E. Martin Schotz. (which seems to have become unavailable since I first posted
this to the web site.)
Why would Fleischer and others want to discredit any notion of prior knowledge or a
suppression of the facts leading up to the September 11, 2001 disasters?
Part III: America Never Starts A War, But...
I always remember, and have always respected, what my high school history teacher said
over and over again. He said "What always gives America its moral high-ground
is that we never start wars. We only fight to defend ourselves or to defend other
nations."
Prior to becoming a high school teacher, Col. Kasem had been a career military man, and
he ultimately retired from his position at the Pentagon. (He was also the supervising
teacher for our team on the Model United Nations, in which I participated as a
representative of the Central African Republic.)
We must consider what we believe constitutes "starting a war".
At Pearl Harbor, our Navy forces encountered a Japanese submarine and sank it, and
reported that contact to superiors at Pearl Harbor at least 1 hour prior to the actual
Japanese attack. Yet, American commanders did nothing to prepare Pearl Harbor for an
attack.
We were already heavily engaged in weapons production to assist the British and
Russians in the beginning of World War II against Hitler. FDR desired to serve his
time as president without having gone to war. And, they would need an awfully good reason
to engage in a military action and put American lives, not just machinery, on the line.
To pursue the beginning of a new conflict requires convincing the people first.
Had we launched a defensive action or averted an attack at Pearl Harbor, casualties would
have been much lower, if any would have occurred at all, and the American people would not
have been willing to go so readily into yet another war. I do not say that to
disclaim that an attack was already beginning or could have been prevented.
In Vietnam, our government claimed that enemy forces attacked our vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin,
which justified our escalation of the Vietnam War. What was not reported was
that there was no attack on our ships at all. The press reported the incident as President
Johnson announced it to the public, no questions asked.
One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James
Stockdale, who gained fame later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential
candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event," recalled
Stockdale a few years ago, "and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets
-- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American
fire power."
In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at
whales out there."
But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers.
From Fair.org
In the Persian Gulf War, we took multi-lateral action against Iraq because they invaded
our ally Kuwait. What was not made known was that Kuwait was
"cross-drilling" or "vertical-drilling" for oil. In other words,
they were drilling at an angle underneath and beyond the border of Iraq in order to
"steal" Iraqi oil. Of course, this was not the only issue.
I'll add, I still support the actions we took to repel Iraq from Kuwait in that
situation, because the Iraqi action was much more extreme than necessary to enforce their
boundaries and protect their national resources, if they were being violated.
In Afghanistan, there were many mitigating circumstances. Regardless of those
circumstances, let it be said that I supported our actions to retaliate against Osama bin
Laden and The Taliban, although I believe we provoked and ignored available information
911 attacks.
Why?
Because the Bush Administration needed a reason that would be publicly justifiable in
order to attack Afghanistan and remove the Taliban. I do not believe it had anything
to do with liberating the Afghani people.
That outcome was simply a by-product that could be used politically. And, we have
been so distracted with Iraq and world conquests of one type or another, that the Taliban
is re-grouping and gaining strength once again.
Whenever we wage war, we claim that a fundamental purpose is to liberate the people
of "an oppressed nation" in order to give Americans a sense of pride and
to generate an aura of nationalism.
By the way, under the control of President Hamid Karzai, negotiations for the
Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline were completed.
Part III: The Threat of Terrorism is Real
Regardless of the causes of terrorist attacks and intentions against us, the threat is
very, very real. After September 11th, 2001, accepting the plausibility of sleeper
cells and a determined enemy, I personally created a list of more than 100 ways that a
terrorist could attack this nation, little by little, with very minimal possibility of
being caught or even detected. I wanted to consider what I could do in an effort to
prevent terrorism, what to look for and how to prepare.
The first thing I considered was the likelihood of a bio-attack by means of the mail. 3
weeks later, the anthrax attacks became public knowledge. (The anthrax, by the way, was
tracked back to U.S. labs at Ft. Dietrich, MD.)
Now, I don't mention this to take credit for foreknowledge. I mention it because of the
reactions of the Bush Administration.
Administration officials, many involved in National Security, acted astounded at the
idea that anthrax could be sent through the mail, and that its dust could get through a
sealed envelope. I thought, surely I am not the only American who could understand
how easily it would happen.
Condoleeza Rice, our National Security Advisor, highly touted by George H.W. Bush as
well as his son George W. Bush as a National Security expert prior to being assigned to
her position, lead the way with her supposed astonishment.
When confronted with the concept of using commercial airliners in the September 11th
attacks, Condoleeza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have
predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center,
take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as
a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,” she said. “All of this reporting
about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.”
Despite her supposed expertise, she later claimed that she was just too new to the job
to have grasped all of the details and possibilities.
These remarks, despite
at least 14 separate warnings to the United States Government, as reported by
the London Times, several of which came just weeks before the 911 Attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. Many of them mentioned the possible, and at times,
the probable use of commercial aircraft to strike military, political and financial
targets.
My response to her and other officials' remarks is simple: they're either inept or
liars. There's little other explanation. Many reports had been compiled since 1989
suggesting that such an attack was not only possible, but likely. And, just prior to the
attacks, other countries warned us of such attacks.
I know these are strong words, and I will accept the criticism they will attract.
My answer is simple: the evidence is on my side. I am not at all pleased to
believe I am in the position to make these observations.
Understand, I'm not saying they knew of a specific plan or participated in it. I'm
saying that their show of disbelief as to the possibility of such attacks was a show, and
did not lead me to feel confident about any of the reports they have offered since, or
their sincerity toward addressing the issues of the war on terrorism.
It's important to understand that Osama's determination to attack the United States did
not begin on September 11, 2001. His most compelling reasons surfaced after the Gulf
War, when the government of Saudi Arabia denied his demands that U.S. Military Forces
leave Saudi Arabian territories. His claim was that American military presence was
undermining the moral and religious values of the people of Saudi Arabia. There's
much more to the story, but that is a consistent part of it.
Since then, and since September 11th, 2001, there has been a consistent theme to the
attacks against United States' and our ally's interests. That consistency comes down
to a simple message: go home and stay there. Leave us to ourselves. All of the messages we
have heard of since September 11th indicate that his threats are retaliatory in
nature. That is the part you are not told by the American press. It justifies
nothing, but it's good to understand. It justifies nothing.
One taped message from bin Laden via Al Jazeera was fairly clear in the declaration of
defending Iraq as an act of solidarity not for Saddam Hussein, but for Muslims. Yet,
Colin Powell went before the Senate and told them that it was a declaration of partnership
with Saddam Hussein, and proved Iraq's formal ties to terrorism.
He also said that the moment of truth about Iraq is coming. I'm still waiting.
Remember, George Bush has stated that the American press should never read Bin Laden's
messages in their entirety on the premise that he could signal orders to operatives. That
is a real possibility.
But it is also a convenient premise upon which to withhold the truth from the American
people. When bin Laden stated that he would "send Americans home in body bags",
what the press did not report was that he said that as the end of a more complete sentence
that began with "If you attack us and kill us" (referring to citizens of any
Arab state).
In the case of bin Laden communication, the Bush Administration saw no problem in the
fact that Fox News broadcast the tape in its entirety. From their point of view,
given the soundbytes it provided, the Administrations spin had already been delivered, and
the perceptions generated were distorted, and the tape, when misrepresented, could
support Powell's remarks.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not justifying the attacks in any way. But, it is
useful to understand them. Just as it is useful to understand that if our nation, or
any other nation, was to negotiate with terrorists of this nature it would be equivalent
to giving in to their demands for attention and legitimacy. (I say that as a
statement of our government's policy, not necessarily my personal opinion.)
It would also force us to acknowledge our part in what has lead to the terrorist war
threatening the American homeland. That, all by itself, would revise history as it
is written, and could easily be a source of embarrassment to our "leaders", who
count on our trust and willingness to believe them to lead us. It would be incredibly
useful, though, in understanding how we can avoid future similar situations that have the
potential to destabilize the world.
It is just as useful to acknowledge how the Bush Administration has very conveniently
issued uncorroborated reports of terrorist threats, as did Colin Powell at the United
Nations today (2/5/2003) in order to scare the American people and allies into believing
there is an imminent terrorist threat from Iraq.
Thus, they say, Iraq is but another element in the war on terrorism. We're
certain of that, if only because our "leaders" brought it upon us.
Why? To cause Americans to be willing to go to war.
Taking actions that place Americans in danger without cause is an impeachable offense,
as is failing to take appropriate steps to protect Americans.
As Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton recently pointed out, this country's efforts to
provide a homeland defense and bolster security since September 11, 2001 is a facade.
Requirements have been made of the economically strapped states without federal funding,
speeches are made to inform you of steps the administration is taking, only to find out
that when it comes right down to it, the funding is denied.
Little has been done to protect the homeland. Instead, the Bush administration
has gone out of its way to provoke even more international hostility toward us.
For those who believe that "might makes right", consider facing the bully on
the playground: you'll give in so long as you believe you'll lose, but given a chance,
you'll take any opportunity to take that bully down.
If you believe those other small nations, coerced by economic threats, are really,
fully on our side, consider the playground bully. If you do, you will understand
that might does not make right, it makes enemies who will attack us, militarily or
economically, when the opportunity presents itself.
History is full of examples where empires decided they had the right answer, and chose
to make war on the world in order to claim their right to rule, in the name of
righteousness. And, as history tends to repeat itself, consider that each one was
ultimately defeated by its own arrogance and corruption.
Notes:
The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney Have you
heard about Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Congresswoman? “Ms.
McKinney (reportedly) suggest[ed] that President Bush might have known about the September
11 attacks but did nothing so his supporters could make money in a war.”
Problem is, McKinney never said it.
30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched
Vietnam War
Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror
Beers's
resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight
weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for
Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust
his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider
know? "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on
terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now
has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special
assistant to the president for combating terrorism
America's Initiation to Terror - Numerous
news reports regarding the 911 attacks.
5/24/2002 - Despite F.B.I. Memo,
Students in Phoenix Went Unchecked One, Harry Joseph Ellen, 54, a Phoenix
businessman who became a Muslim, said he had told Agent Williams about a conversation he
had in late 1996 or early 1997 with a mysterious visitor from Algeria. The visitor
identified himself as an instructor of commercial pilots, and he met in Phoenix with
various Muslim men.A second man, Aukai Collins, 28, an American who converted to Islam and
lost a leg helping militants fight the Russians in Chechnya, told ABC News on Thursday
that he gave the F.B.I. extensive reports on Islamic activity in Phoenix from 1996 to 1999
Source: FBI to bear brunt of 9/11 criticism
The FBI is expected to bear much of the criticism from the joint congressional committee
investigating the September 11 attacks, which is to release its final report Thursday,
according to sources. Members of the panel have criticized U.S. government officials for
classifying too much material as national security sensitive and thereby keeping it out of
the public version of the final report.Sources said much of the information about Saudi
Arabia and its alleged support of terrorism will be redacted from the version of the
report released publicly. "This inquiry has uncovered no intelligence
information in the possession of the intelligence community prior to the attacks of Sept.
11th that, if fully considered, would have provided specific advance warning of the
details of those attacks."
