CHRONICLES OF OUR GENERATION

CHRONICLES OF OUR GENERATION

Monday, August 26, 2013

911 Review: A Metaphor of the Pentagon Papers

 

 

 

911 REVIEW: A METAPHOR OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS

9/11 Film The Government Does Not Want You To See

 

Scores of People, facing impending death, peering frantically out of the burning north tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Centre Photo: REUTERS

 

This is the British made film the Cheney/Bush administration did not want you to see and for good reason. The film THE FALLING MAN explores in depth the human tragedy of that day whereas the Main Stream Media airbrushed the human cost and concentrated instead on selling heroism and a carefully orchestrated false flag terrorist scenario

110 stories high, and a distance of over 1,300ft, it was impossible at first to see what it was that was falling from the north tower at street level. One witness said it looked like confetti but instead it was human beings desperately trying to escape the searing heat and chocking smoke at the top of the north tower ~ many desperately jumping toward fresh air and certain death.

Thomas Dallal, a photojournalist at the time, was on the ground near the North Tower. He put a long lens on his camera and began snapping away at the uppermost floors. One of his photographs, later to be named “Impending Death”, has become an iconic image from that day. It shows scores of figures leaning out of the broken windows of the North Tower shortly before it was obviously imploded by planted explosives.

A nation’s media stroked anger at that time has now,10 years later, turned to sadness and reflection as well as increasing doubt over what really happened on that infamous day ~ and who was really responsible. Americans are no longer satisfied with the discredited 9/11 Commission’s airbrushed official version of events, where both Cheney and Bush were never questioned under oath, and are now seemingly ready to face the brutal truth of that day as well as the true criminal perpetrators and enablers of 9/11.

Back in 2000, the Supreme Court placed George “W” Bush in office, a mentally unstable individual with little personal focus, an addict, a “dry drunk” with delusional religious beliefs and a personal history it took millions to bury.

Soon afterward, the largest terror attack in history accidentally happened on a day that NORAD was “off duty.”

It was a day that the Air Force was involved in war games and unable to respond to threats a day that scientists will tell you the laws of physics, of “conservation of matter and energy” and even the flow of time itself seemed suspended.

A country led by a psychotic dupe, one not dissimilar from the virtual army of malignant narcissists lining up to run against Obama, was capable of anything.

After all, the military had been taken over by the Dominionist cult, dedicated to bringing on the “end times” through staging a nuclear war while the White House held hourly prayer sessions and with the term “rapture” used far more often than “fiscal.”

The first step towards the truth is fully facing the emotional reality and human cost of what happened on that day.

  • Note also in this video at the 23:48 minute mark ~ detonation flashes are clearly seen below the smoke as the North Tower begins its collapse.
  • The video also interviews the recipient of the last known phone call from the north tower whose trapped and frantic husband told her that people were jumping from the burning floors above him as he lay huddled in fear.

Only the truth of 9/11 can rescue us from the moral quagmire we have engaged in for the last ten years but it will take countless Americans demanding that truth.




This video concentrates on the two major 9/11 issues: The Unidentified Planes and The Controlled Demolitions. Nothing else. It does not mention the NORAD stand--down; the don't-fly and don't-go-to-work warnings or the Dancing Israelis or any of the other anomalies and suspicious happenings. The alleged amateur suicide pilots are not mentioned, either, for obvious reasons, and I do not know what happened to the allegedly hijacked planes or their alleged passengers and crews.
It is my contention that the 9/11 Truth Movement has got to concentrate on the most blatant and provable lies in the official story, and stop trying to be an amateur Police Precinct or a citizen's District Attorney's Office. The Movement must bring pressure to bear in the authorities for a new enquiry, so that the police, the FBI, the NTSB and all of the other law enforcement and investigative agencies can do what should have been done 10 years ago: Find out who was responsible for the crime of the attacks on 9/11 and bring them to justice.
While I was thinking about a video for the 10th anniversary of 9/11, an English artist named David Borrington got in touch, and asked if I would write and record some voice commentaries to be included in a set of prints that he was making for the same occasion. When I saw his strangely haunting artwork, I decided to incorporate David's images into my video.

Among the thousands of pieces of proof, videos, scientific papers, testimony, timelines, so much proof it is overwhelming, this video, less than 2 minutes, makes an utter mockery of the 9/11 Commission report.

The scientists had described it, but I could never really believe it possible.

Join 23-year architect Richard Gage, AIA, in this feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields — high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. Each is highly qualified in his/her respective fields. Several have Ph.D’s — including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis. She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the “overwhelming” evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC. High-rise architects and structural engineers layout the evidence in the features of the destruction of these three high-rises that point inevitably to explosive controlled demolition.

Recently, the 9-11 truth movement has been trying to revise the official story as to what really happened that fateful day in 2001.  They have experienced many much more subtle forms of censorship and ridicule and several have mysteriously had ‘accidents’ or “committed suicide.” Since trust in our government is at an all time low, many people are now willing to examine alternate theories and the movement seems to be gaining some steam.  It is  doubtful that we will ever know the whole truth; after all it has been 48 years since the JFK assassination and we are still debating what really happened. That does not mean that we should not try, however.

What puzzles me the most in all this is if the official history is the truth, why does it need to be defended by the power of law? What are they trying to hide? If  others are wrong, why not simply challenge their facts and conclusions. It is ridiculous that countries that claim to value freedom, still employ the thought police.  Telling people what they have to believe under penalty of law is what we are allegedly fighting the Taliban to get rid of.  The right to think for yourself and express your thoughts is one of the real freedoms we still have. I suggest that you exercise this right as much and as often as you can. If we are not vigilant, it could be taken away.

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

Everyone knows that “truth is the first casualty of war“. And one of the most highly decorated American soldiers of all time said that “war is a racket”.

It's big news that the Pentagon Papers have finally been released by the government. But the statements from Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg about 9/11 have not been covered by the corporate media.

As Fire Dog Lake's Jeff Kaye writes today:

The entire 9/11 field of inquiry has been vilified, poisoned over the years by ridicule, sometimes fantastic conspiracy mongering, and fearfulness by journalists of approaching the material, lest they be branded as irresponsible or some kind of conspiracy freak. As a result, little work has been done to investigate, except by a small group of people, some of whom have raised some real questions ...

Similarly, Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski - who blew the whistle on the Bush administration's efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - wrote (page 26):

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

Similarly, Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official Karen Kwiatkowski - who blew the whistle on the Bush administration's efforts to concoct false intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - wrote (page 26):

I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.

Several months after 9/11, famed news anchor Dan Rather told the BBC that American reporters were practicing "a form of self-censorship":

There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around peoples' necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.... And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.

What we are talking about here - whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not - is a form of self-censorship.

The head of CNN agreed: There was 'almost a patriotism police' after 9/11 and when the network showed [things critical of the administration's policies] it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and "big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'

Keith Olbermann said: You can rock the boat, but you can never say that the entire ocean is in trouble .... You cannot say: By the way, there's something wrong with our .... system.

Former Washington Post - and now Huffington Post - columnist Dan Froomkin wrote in 2006: Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do. . . . There’s the intense pressure to maintain access to insider sources, even as those sources become ridiculously unrevealing and oversensitive. There’s the fear of being labeled partisan if one’s bullshit-calling isn’t meted out in precisely equal increments along the political spectrum. If mainstream-media political journalists don’t start calling bullshit more often, then we do risk losing our primacy — if not to the comedians then to the bloggers. I still believe that no one is fundamentally more capable of first-rate bullshit-calling than a well-informed beat reporter - whatever their beat. We just need to get the editors, or the corporate culture, or the self-censorship – or whatever it is – out of the way.

The Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam, Seymour Hersh, said:



Bush Insider: '911 Was An Inside Job'


Saturday, June 25, 2011 10:20

Morgan O. Reynolds was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Every abuse of power by the Cheney/Bush administration can be traced to the 9/11 false flag operation and cover up and we, as a nation, will not be free until we fully investigate, uncover the evidence and prosecute the perpetuators of America’s greatest bamboozle ~ no matter how difficult it may be to acknowledge this evil deed.

It was Schopenhauer who wrote ~ “The truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed ~ Second, it is violently opposed and Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Ten years has elapsed since the events of September 11, 2001. There has been no hard evidence linking the claims made by the 9/11 Commission to their conclusions. Even the 9/11 Commission admits they have been lied to and “Set up to fail”.

It is now self-evident that a missile hit the Pentagon; it is now self-evident that all three trade towers were brought down by controlled demolitions and it is now self-evident that Jonathan Briley and the thousands of others who died on 9/11 will not rest until the full extent of the 9/11 false flag operation and cover up becomes self-evident and that the true perpetrators and enablers are brought to justice.

In that regard, the recent self-serving, deceptive and revisionist history books by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney should be reminders to all Americans that the first casualty of war, and in particular illegal pre-emptive wars based on lies, is the truth.


 

Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

-The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.
- President Ronald Reagan met the leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House in 1985
-Under the Reagan adminstration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic "freedom fighters". In today's World, the "freedom fighters" are labelled "Islamic terrorists".
-In the Pashtun language, the word "Taliban" means "Students", or graduates of the madrasahs (places of learning or coranic schools) set up by the Wahhabi missions from Saudi Arabia, with the support of the CIA.
-Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. The US covert education destroyed secular education. The number of  CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.

The Soviet-Afghan war was part of a CIA covert agenda initiated during the Carter administration, which consisted  in actively supporting and financing the Islamic brigades, later known as Al Qaeda.
The Pakistani military regime played from the outset in the late 1970s, a key role in the US sponsored military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan. In the post-Cold war era, this central role of Pakistan in US intelligence operations was extended to the broader Central Asia- Middle East region. From the outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979, Pakistan under military rule actively supported the Islamic brigades. In close liaison with the CIA, Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), became a powerful organization, a parallel government, wielding tremendous power and influence.
America's covert war in Afghanistan, using Pakistan as a launch pad, was initiated during the Carter administration prior to the Soviet "invasion":

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention." (Former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, 15-21 January 1998)

In the published memoirs of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who held the position of  deputy CIA Director at the height of the Soviet Afghan war, US intelligence was directly involved from the outset, prior to the Soviet invasion, in channeling aid to the Islamic brigades. 

Robert Gates

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". (Dipankar Banerjee, "Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry", India Abroad, 2 December 1994). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. (Ibid) 

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

"Relations between the CIA and the ISI had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia’s ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime. … During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984." (Ibid)

The ISI operating virtually as an affiliate of the CIA, played a central role in channeling support to Islamic paramilitary groups in Afghanistan and subsequently in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.

Acting on behalf of the CIA, the ISI was also involved in the recruitment and training of the Mujahideen. In the ten year period from 1982 to 1992, some 35,000 Muslims from 43 Islamic countries were recruited to fight in the Afghan jihad. The madrassas in Pakistan, financed by Saudi charities, were also set up with  US support with a view to "inculcating Islamic values". "The camps became virtual universities for future Islamic radicalism," (Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban). Guerilla training under CIA-ISI auspices included targeted assassinations and car bomb attacks. 

"Weapons' shipments "were sent by the Pakistani army and the ISI to rebel camps in the North West Frontier Province near the Afghanistan border. The governor of the province is Lieutenant General Fazle Haq, who [according to Alfred McCoy] . allowed "hundreds of heroin refineries to set up in his province." Beginning around 1982, Pakistani army trucks carrying CIA weapons from Karachi often pick up heroin in Haq’s province and return loaded with heroin. They are protected from police search by ISI papers."(1982-1989: US Turns Blind Eye to BCCI and Pakistani Government Involvement in Heroin Trade See also McCoy, 2003, p. 477) .


Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan's
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a mujahedeen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
(source RAWA)
Osama Bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, America's bogyman, was recruited by the CIA in 1979 at the very outset of the US sponsored jihad. He was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerilla training camp.

During the Reagan administration, Osama, who belonged to the wealthy Saudi Bin Laden family was put in charge of raising money for the Islamic brigades. Numerous charities and foundations were created. The operation was coordinated by Saudi intelligence, headed by  Prince Turki al-Faisal, in close liaison with the CIA. The money derived from the various charities were used to finance the recruitment of Mujahieen volunteers. Al Qaeda, the base in Arabic was a data bank of volunteers who had enlisted to fight in the Afghan jihad. That data base was initially held by Osama bin Laden. 

The Reagan Administration supports "Islamic Fundamentalism"

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". CIA covert support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In December 1984, the Sharia Law (Islamic jurisprudence) was established in Pakistan following a rigged referendum launched by President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Barely a few months later, in March 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which  authorized  "stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen" as well a support to religious indoctrination.

The imposition of The Sharia in Pakistan and the promotion of "radical Islam" was a deliberate US policy serving American geopolitical interests in South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.  Many present-day  "Islamic fundamentalist organizations" in the Middle East and Central Asia, were directly or indirectly the product of US covert support and financing, often channeled through foundations from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Missions from the Wahhabi sect of conservative Islam in Saudi Arabia were put in charge of running the CIA sponsored madrassas in Northern Pakistan.

Under NSDD 166, a series of covert CIA-ISI operations  was launched.

The US supplied weapons to the Islamic brigades through the ISI. CIA and ISI officials would meet at ISI headquarters in Rawalpindi to coordinate US support to the Mujahideen. Under NSDD 166, the procurement of US weapons to the Islamic insurgents increased from 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983 to 65,000 tons annually by 1987.  "In addition to arms, training, extensive military equipment including military satellite maps and state-of-the-art communications equipment" (University Wire, 7 May 2002).

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
VIDEO (30 Sec.)
With William Casey as director of the CIA, NSDD 166 was described as the largest covert operation in US history: 

The U.S. supplied support package had three essential components-organization and logistics, military technology, and ideological support for sustaining and encouraging the Afghan resistance....

U.S. counterinsurgency experts worked closely with the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in organizing Mujahideen groups and in planning operations inside Afghanistan.

... But the most important contribution of the U.S. was to ... bring in men and material from around the Arab world and beyond. The most hardened and ideologically dedicated men were sought on the logic that they would be the best fighters. Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the Jihad. (Pervez  Hoodbhoy, Afghanistan and the Genesis of the Global Jihad, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)

Religious Indoctrination

Under NSDD 166, US assistance to the Islamic brigades channeled through Pakistan was not limited to bona fide military aid. Washington also supported and financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the process of religious indoctrination, largely to secure the demise of secular institutions:

... the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..

The White House defends the religious content, saying that Islamic principles permeate Afghan culture and that the books "are fully in compliance with U.S. law and policy." Legal experts, however, question whether the books violate a constitutional ban on using tax dollars to promote religion.

... AID officials said in interviews that they left the Islamic materials intact because they feared Afghan educators would reject books lacking a strong dose of Muslim thought. The agency removed its logo and any mention of the U.S. government from the religious texts, AID spokeswoman Kathryn Stratos said.

"It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction," Stratos said. "But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity."

... Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994." (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

The Role of the NeoCons

There is continuity. The architects of the covert operation in support of "Islamic fundamentalism" launched during the Reagan presidency played a key role in launching the "Global War on Terrorism" in the wake of 9/11.

Several of the NeoCons of the Bush Junior Administration  were high ranking officials during the Reagan presidency. 

Richard Armitage, was Deputy Secretary of State during George W. Bush's first term (2001-2004). He played a central key role in post 9/11 negotiations with Pakistan leading up to the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. During the Reagan era, he held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In this capacity, he played a key role in the implementation of NSDD 163 while also ensuring liaison with the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus.

Richard L. Armitage
Richard Armitage

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz was at the State Department in charge of  a  foreign policy team composed, among others, of Lewis Libby, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmay Khalilzad.

Wolfowitz's group was also involved in laying the conceptual groundwork of US covert support to Islamic parties and organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Paul Wolfowitz

Paul Wolfowitz


Zalmay Khalilzad.

Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who now serves the Obama administration, was also involved in setting the groundwork for CIA covert operations. He was appointed Deputy Director for Intelligence by Ronald Reagan in 1982, and Deputy Director of the CIA in 1986, a position which he held until 1989. Gates played a key role in the formulation of NSDD 163, which established a consistent framework for promoting Islamic fundamentalism and channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades. He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal. .

The Iran Contra Operation

Richard Gates, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, among others, were also involved  in the Iran-Contra operation. 

Armitage was in close liaison with Colonel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North.

Of significance, the Iran-Contra operation was also tied into the process of channeling covert support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan. The Iran Contra scheme served several related foreign policy:

1) Procurement of weapons to Iran thereby feeding the Iraq-Iran war,

2) Support to the Nicaraguan Contras,

3) Support to the Islamic brigades in Afghanistan, channeled via Pakistan's ISI.

Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. and the Mujahideen:

"The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan." (US News & World Report, 15 December 1986).

Although Lieutenant General Colin Powell, was not directly involved in the arms' transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among "at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA." (The Record, 29 December 1986).  In this regard, Powell was directly instrumental in giving the "green light" to lower-level officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:

"Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ''focal point system'' procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the CIA., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran" (New York Times, 16 February 1987)

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was also implicated in the Iran-Contra Affair.

The Golden Crescent Drug Trade

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. (Alfred McCoy, Drug Fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive, 1 August 1997).

Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer." (Ibid) Various Islamic paramilitary groups and organizations were created. The proceeds of the Afghan drug trade, which was protected by the CIA, were used to finance the various insurgencies:

"Under CIA and Pakistani protection, Pakistan military and Afghan resistance opened heroin labs on the Afghan and Pakistani border. According to The Washington Post of May 1990, among the leading heroin manufacturers were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan leader who received about half of the covert arms that the U.S. shipped to Pakistan. Although there were complaints about Hekmatyar's brutality and drug trafficking within the ranks of the Afghan resistance of the day, the CIA maintained an uncritical alliance and supported him without reservation or restraint.
Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan's northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin. By contrast, a lone Norwegian detective, following a heroin deal from Oslo to Karachi, mounted an investigation that put a powerful Pakistani banker known as President Zia's surrogate son behind bars. The DEA in Islamabad got nobody, did nothing, stayed away.
Former CIA operatives have admitted that this operation led to an expansion of the Pakistan-Afghanistan heroin trade. In 1995 the former CIA Director of this Afghan operation, Mr. Charles Cogan, admitted sacrificing the drug war to fight the Cold War. "Our main mission was to do as much damage to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade," he told Australian television. "I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout. There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes, but the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan." (
Alfred McCoy, Testimony before the Special Seminar focusing on allegations linking CIA secret operations and drug trafficking-convened February 13, 1997, by Rep. John Conyers, Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus)

Lucrative Narcotics Trade in the Post Cold War Era

The drug trade has continued unabated during the post Cold war years. Afghanistan became the major supplier of heroin to Western markets, in fact almost the sole supplier: more than 90 percent of the heroin sold Worldwide originates in Afghanistan. This lucrative contraband is tied into Pakistani politics and the militarization of the Pakistani State. It also has a direct bearing on the structure of the Pakistani economy and its banking and financial institutions, which from the outset of the Golden Crescent drug trade have been involved in extensive money laundering operations, which are protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus:

According to the US State Department  International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (2006) (quoted in Daily Times, 2 March 2006),

“Pakistani criminal networks play a central role in the transshipment of narcotics and smuggled goods from Afghanistan to international markets. Pakistan is a major drug-transit country. The proceeds of narcotics trafficking and funding for terrorist activities are often laundered by means of the alternative system called hawala. ... .

“Repeatedly, a network of private unregulated charities has also emerged as a significant source of illicit funds for international terrorist networks,” the report pointed out. ... "

Means & Motive

means

remote control

NORAD's no-show

stand-down

war games

demolition tech

energetic materials

covert demolition

wtc explosives

military command

motive

manufacturing enemies

empire expansion

attack on Afghanistan

invasion of Iraq

drug trafficking

petroleum pursuit

corporate profiteering

corporate welfare

urban renewal

gold heist

precedent

20th century attacks

Reichstag Fire

Operation Himmler

Pearl Harbor

Gulf of Tonkin

Operation Gladio

Operation Ajax

1990s attacks

Kuwaiti incubators

WTC 93 bombing

Oklahoma City

attack scenarios

Northwoods

Operation Bojinka

Attack & Cover-Up

attack

timeline

World Trade Center

Twin Towers

impacts

fires

explosions

dust clouds

Building 7

implosion

Ground Zero

Pentagon attack

strike location

witnesses

impact damage

hypotheses

flights

Flights 11 and 175

Flight 77

Flight 93

psychological assault

anthrax terror

mythology

hijackers

bin Laden

crumbling towers

clueless commanders

coverup

military promotions

evidence suppression

WTC steel

WTC eyewitnesses

Pentagon

changing stories

DCANG website

Van Romero

collapse inquiry

FEMA's folly

NIST's evasion

engineering fantasies

handwaving

steel-melting fires

pile-driver

shockwave

pancaking floors

shoddy construction

progressive collapse

anthropomorphism

executive obstruction

9/11 Commission

he hawala system and the charities are but the tip of the iceberg. According to the State Department report, "the State Bank of Pakistan has frozen more twenty years] a meager $10.5 million "belonging to 12 entities and individuals linked to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Taliban". What the report fails to mention is that the bulk of the proceeds of the Afghan drug trade are laundered in bona fide Western banking institutions.  

The Taliban Repress the Drug Trade

A major and unexpected turnaround in the CIA sponsored drug trade occurred in 2000.

The Taliban government which came to power in 1996 with Washington's support, implemented in 2000-2001 a far-reaching opium eradication program with the support of the United Nations which served to undermine a multibillion dollar trade. (For further details see, Michel Chossudovsky, America's War on Terrorism, Global Research, 2005).

In 2001 prior to the US-led invasion, opium production under the Taliban eradication program declined by more than 90 percent.

In the immediate wake of the US led invasion, the Bush administration ordered that the opium harvest not be destroyed on the fabricated pretext that this would undermine the military government of Pervez Musharraf.

"Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. According to these sources, Pakistani intelligence had threatened to overthrow President Musharraf if the crops were destroyed. ...

'If they [the CIA] are in fact opposing the destruction of the Afghan opium trade, it'll only serve to perpetuate the belief that the CIA is an agency devoid of morals; off on their own program rather than that of our constitutionally elected government'" .(NewsMax.com, 28 March 2002)

Since the US led invasion, opium production has increased 33 fold from 185 tons in 2001 under the Taliban to 6100 tons in 2006. Cultivated areas have increased 21 fold since the 2001 US-led invasion. (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 6 January 2006)

In 2007, Afghanistan supplied approximately 93% of the global supply of heroin. The proceeds (in terms of retail value) of the Afghanistan drug trade are estimated (2006) to be in excess of 190 billion dollars a year, representing a significant fraction of the global trade in narcotics.(Ibid)

The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of the revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan.

The laundering of drug money constitutes a multibillion dollar activity, which continues to be protected by the CIA and the ISI. In the wake of the 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.

In retrospect, one of the major objectives of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was to restore the drug trade.

The militarization of Pakistan serves powerful political, financial and criminal interests underlying the drug trade. US foreign policy tends to support these powerful interests. The CIA continues to protect the Golden Crescent narcotics trade. Despite his commitment to eradicating the drug trade, opium production under the regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai has skyrocketed. 

The Assassination of General Zia Ul-Haq

In August 1988, President Zia was killed in an air crash together with US Ambassador to Pakistan Arnold Raphel and several of Pakistan's top generals. The circumstances of the air crash remain shrouded in mystery.

Following Zia's death, parliamentary elections were held and Benazir Bhutto was sworn in as Prime Minister in December 1988. She was subsequently  removed from office by Zia's successor, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on the grounds of alleged corruption. In 1993, she was re-elected and was again removed from office in 1996 on the orders of President Farooq Leghari.

Continuity has been maintained throughout. Under the short-lived post-Zia  elected governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, the central role of the military-intelligence establishment and its links to Washington were never challenged.

Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif served US foreign policy interests. While in power, both democratically elected leaders, nonetheless supported the continuity of military rule.  As prime minister from 1993 to 1996, Benazir Bhutto "advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan" which were being supported by Pakistan's ISI (See F. William Engdahl, Global Research, January 2008)

Benazir Bhutto's successor as Prime Minister,  Mia Muhammad Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) was deposed in 1999 in a US supported coup d'Etat led by General Pervez Musharraf. 

The 1999 coup was instigated by General Pervez Musharaf, with the support of the Chief of General Staff, Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad, who was subsequently appointed to the key position of head of military intelligence (ISI).


From the outset of the Bush administration in 2001, General Ahmad developed close ties not only with his US counterpart CIA director George Tenet, but also with key members of the US government including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, not to mention Porter Goss, who at the time was Chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence. Ironically, Mahmoud Ahmad is also known, according to a September 2001 FBI report, for his suspected role in supporting and financing the alleged 9/11 terrorists as well as his links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
(See Michel Chossudovsky, America's "war on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005)

Concluding Remarks

These various "terrorist" organizations were created as a result of CIA support. They are not the product of religion. The project to establish "a pan-Islamic Caliphate" is part of a carefully devised intelligence operation.

CIA support to Al Qaeda was not in any way curtailed at the end of the Cold War. In fact quite the opposite. The earlier pattern of covert support took on a global thrust and became increasingly sophisticated.

The "Global War on Terrorism" is a complex and intricate intelligence construct. The covert support provided to "Islamic extremist groups" is part of an imperial agenda. It purports to weaken and eventually destroy secular and civilian governmental institutions, while also contributing to vilifying Islam. It is an instrument of colonization which seeks to undermine sovereign nation-states and transform countries into territories.

For the intelligence operation to be successful, however, the various Islamic organizations created and trained by the CIA must remain unaware of the role they are performing on the geopolitical chessboard, on behalf of Washington.

Over the years, these organizations have indeed acquired a certain degree of autonomy and independence, in relation to their US-Pakistani sponsors. That appearance of "independence", however, is crucial; it is an integral part of the covert intelligence operation. According to former CIA agent Milton Beardman the Mujahideen were invariably unaware of the role they were performing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". (Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998).

"Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA."

The fabrication of "terrorism" --including covert support to terrorists-- is required to provide legitimacy to the "war on terrorism".

The various fundamentalist and paramilitary groups involved in US sponsored "terrorist" activities are "intelligence assets". In the wake of 9/11, their  designated function as "intelligence assets" is  to perform their role as credible "enemies of America".

Under the Bush administration, the CIA continued to support (via Pakistan's ISI) several Pakistani based Islamic groups. The ISI is known to support Jamaat a-Islami, which is also present in South East Asia, Lashkar-e-Tayya­ba, Jehad a-Kashmiri, Hizbul-Mujahidin and  Jaish-e-Mohammed. 

The Islamic groups created by the CIA are also intended to rally public support in Muslim countries. The underlying objective is to create divisions within national societies throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, while also triggering sectarian strife within Islam, ultimately with a view to curbing the development of a broad based secular mass resistance, which would challenge US imperial ambitions. 

This function of an outside enemy is also an essential part of war propaganda required to galvanize Western public opinion. Without an enemy, a war cannot be fought.  US foreign policy needs to fabricate an enemy, to justify its various military interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia. An enemy is required to justify a military agenda, which consists in " going after Al Qaeda". The fabrication and vilification of the enemy are required to justify military action.

The existence of an outside enemy sustains the illusion that the "war on terrorism" is real. It justifies and presents military intervention as a humanitarian operation based on the right to self-defense. It upholds the illusion of a "conflict of civilizations". The underlying purpose ultimately is to conceal the real economic and strategic objectives behind the broader Middle East Central Asian war. 

Historically, Pakistan has played a central role in "war on terrorism". Pakistan constitutes from Washington's standpoint a geopolitical hub. It borders onto Afghanistan and Iran. It has played a crucial role in the conduct of US and allied military operations in Afghanistan as well as in the context of the Pentagon's war plans in relation to Iran. 

"All of the institutions we thought would protect us -- particularly the press, but also the military, the bureaucracy, the Congress -- they have failed. The courts . . . the jury's not in yet on the courts. So all the things that we expect would normally carry us through didn't. The biggest failure, I would argue, is the press, because that's the most glaring....

Q: What can be done to fix the (media) situation?

[Long pause] You'd have to fire or execute ninety percent of the editors and executives. You'd actually have to start promoting people from the newsrooms to be editors who you didn't think you could control. And they're not going to do that."

Veteran reporter Bill Moyers criticized the corporate media for parroting the obviously false link between 9/11 and Iraq (and the false claims that Iraq possessed WMDs) which the administration made in the run up to the Iraq war, and concluded that the false information was not challenged because:

"the [mainstream] media had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked."

Of course, the corporate media is always pro-war. Since 9/11 provided a justification for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere, the mainstream media doesn't want to question the government's version of events.

As Tom Brokaw notes:

All wars are based on propaganda.

What Does Ellsberg Say?
Ellsberg
says that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.

* * *

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"

He supports a new 9/11 investigation.
He
says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.

And he says that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

Alternative Media Is Not Much Better
It is not just the corporate media.
I have had the owners of highly-regarded alternative media companies confide in me privately that they don't believe the government's version of 9/11, but that are scared of discussing it publicly because they don't want to be tarred-and-feathered for discussing "conspiracy theories".
Even writers like Glenn Greenwald - who are good on so many issues -
won't touch it.
Of course - as Ellsberg
points out - "Secrets ... can be kept reliably ... for decades … even though they are known to thousands of insiders”. Indeed, the whole label "conspiracy theory" is just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.
People used to understand this. As the quintessential American writer Mark Twain
said in a more rational age:

A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.

Of course, as thousands of top American military officers, counter-terrorism officials, intelligence officers, congressmen, structural engineers, and others have publicly said, the government's story about 9/11 makes absolutely no sense. See this, this, this and this. And family members of people who died on 9/11 - and many New Yorkers - want a new investigation.
But you'll never hear that in the corporate media.

FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials “were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power”. Indeed, the former Secretary of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – admits that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. In terms of a possible “why”, remember that psychologists and sociologists have demonstrated that fear of terrorism makes people stupid and easy to manipulate and control.

War is always sold to it’s people by artificially demonizing the enemy: Countries need to lie about their enemies in order to demonize them sufficiently so that the people will support the war. That is why intelligence “failures” – such as the following – are so common:

The U.S. Navy’s own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine — the justification for America’s entry into the Spanish-American War — was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.

It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (confirmed here).

And two lies were used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies and the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government, but from a public relations firm hired by the government).

Indeed, in a newly-released documentary, U.S. soldiers admit that if they accidentally kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants:

Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton told Jon Stewart that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq:

(And see this; and this excerpt from General Shelton’s book).

This might seem, at first glance, like just an odd, one-off suggestion.

However, as reported by the New York Times and other newspapers, George W. Bush also suggested to Tony Blair that a U.S. plane be painted in United Nations colors so that – if Saddam shot it down – it would create a casus belli. As the Times wrote in 2006:

The memo [confirmed by two senior British officials as being authentic] also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire ….

Indeed, the former director of the National Security Agency said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

(audio here).Former FBI station chief Ted Gundersen also says most terror attacks are committed by our CIA and FBI:

Specific Historical Examples

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Nine months earlier, a false flag attack was discussed in order to justify an invasion of the Dominican Republic. Specifically, according to official State Department records, Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles wrote on June 3, 1961:

The Vice President [Lyndon Johnson], [Attorney General] Bob Kennedy, Secretary [of Defense Robert] McNamara, Dick Goodwin [who was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs], [head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General Lemnitzer, Wyn Coerr, and Ted Achilles were here. Bob McNamara and Lemnitzer stated that under the terms of the contingency paper, they were required to be prepared to move into the island on short order if required to do so, and this, in their opinion, called for substantially more troops that we had in the area. After some discussion we considered two more aircraft carriers, some destroyers, and 12,000 marines should be moved into a position some one hundred miles off the Dominican Republic shore…

The tone of the meeting was deeply disturbing. Bob Kennedy was clearly looking for an excuse to move in on the island. At one point he suggested, apparently seriously, that we might have to blow up the Consulate to provide the rationale.

His general approach, vigorously supported by Dick Goodwin, was that this was a bad government, that there was a strong chance that it might team up with Castro, and that it should be destroyed–with an excuse if possible, without one if necessary.

Rather to my surprise, Bob McNamara seemed to support this view …

The entire spirit of this meeting was profoundly distressing and worrisome, and I left at 8:00 p.m. with a feeling that this spirit which I had seen demonstrated on this occasion and others at the White House by those so close to the President constitutes a further danger of half-cocked action by people with almost no foreign policy experience, who are interested in action for action’s sake, and the devil take the highmost …

[At a subsequent meeting], Bob McNamara went along with their general view that our problem was not to prepare against an overt act by the Dominican Republic but rather to find an excuse for going into the country and upsetting it.

When Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:

Indeed, many people have questioned whether or not the anthrax was intentionally sent to scare people. For example:

  • Senator Patrick Leahy said:

And I think there are people within our government — certainly from the source of it — who know where it came from. [Taps the table to let that settle in] And these people may not have had anything to do with it, but they certainly know where it came from.

  • The American bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989), who holds a doctorate of law magna cum laude and a Ph.D. in political science, both from Harvard University, and teaches international law at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-92) and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court, and who “advised the FBI in its initial investigation of the anthrax letters”, is convinced that the anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government. The motive: to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the Patriot Act and the later Military Commissions Act. He has said:

    Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were holding it up because they realized what this would lead to. The first draft of the PATRIOT Act would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus [which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment and guarantees due process of law]. Then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, come these anthrax attacks.

Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

As Chris Floyd and many others have noted, this plan has gone live.

United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

There is substantial additional evidence of hanky panky in Iraq.

We’re not alone. Countries around the world have played this terrible game for thousands of years.

If We Don’t Learn Our History, We’re Doomed to Repeat It

Indeed, many former high-level officials are warning that it could happen again:

“We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want.”

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to “play fast and loose” with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

  • Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said “if there is another terror attack, “I believe the president will get what he wants”, which will include a dictatorship…….Why we got snookered into the Vietnam war.

    On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf -- a report cited by President Johnson as he went on
    national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.
    But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.
    Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. Cables from the U.S. task force commander in the Tonkin Gulf, Captain John J. Herrick, referred to "freak weather effects," "almost total darkness" and an "overeager sonarman" who "was hearing ship's own propeller beat."
    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."

    Captured: Vietnam and the 35th Anniversary of the Fall of Saigon

    But Johnson's deceitful speech of Aug. 4, 1964, won accolades from editorial writers. The president, proclaimed the New York Times, "went to the American people last night with the somber facts." The Los Angeles Times urged Americans to "face the fact that the Communists, by their attack on American vessels in international waters, have themselves escalated the hostilities."
    An exhaustive new book, The War Within: America's Battle Over Vietnam, begins with a dramatic account of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. In an interview, author Tom Wells told us that American media "described the air strikes that Johnson launched in response as merely `tit for tat' -- when in reality they reflected plans the administration had already drawn up for gradually increasing its overt military pressure against the North."
    Why such inaccurate news coverage? Wells points to the media's "almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information" -- as well as "reluctance to question official pronouncements on `national security issues.'"
    Daniel Hallin's classic book The `Uncensored War' observes that journalists had "a great deal of information available which contradicted the official account [of Tonkin Gulf events]; it simply wasn't used. The day before the first incident, Hanoi had protested the attacks on its territory by Laotian aircraft and South Vietnamese gunboats."
    What's more, "It was generally known...that `covert' operations against North Vietnam, carried out by South Vietnamese forces with U.S. support and direction, had been going on for some time."
    In the absence of independent journalism, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution -- the closest thing there ever was to a declaration of war against North Vietnam -- sailed through Congress on Aug. 7. (Two
    courageous senators, Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska, provided the only "no" votes.) The resolution authorized the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."
    The rest is tragic history.

Postscript: Most serving in our military are good and honorable people who want to protect America and her people. It is only rogue elements within civilian and military circles who carry out false flag attacks.

It’s not that the average American isn’t aware that we still have tens of thousands or troops in Iraq, or that nearly 4,400 U.S. military personnel have died there since the war began. Scattered demonstrations were scheduled around the country to call for the troops’ swift return.
But with so much else going on — a torpid economy, a climactic debate over health care reform, a mounting conflict in Afghanistan — it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that Americans are still fighting and dying in  Iraq.

July 25, 1990: US Ambassador Gives Seeming ‘Green Light’ for Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait

Edit event

April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein.April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. [Source: Wilson's Almanac]The US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, goes to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to meet with Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, to deliver a statement made earlier in the week by State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutwiler. The statement is equivocal about Iraq’s belligerent pose towards Kuwait (see July 22, 1990), noting that although the US has no mutual defense pact with Kuwait, “Iraq and others know there is no place for coercion and intimidation in the civilized world.” Deputy Chief of Mission Joseph Wilson will later describe Glaspie as having “a keen mind and a profound understanding of the issues.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 98]
One-on-One with Saddam Hussein - Shortly after her meeting with Aziz, she is summoned back to the Foreign Ministry and driven from there to a meeting with Saddam Hussein. Wilson will write: “This was unprecedented. During the two years she had been ambassador, Saddam had never held a private meeting with her, delegating all contact to Aziz or other underlings.” During the meeting, Glaspie promises Hussein that President Bush wants “better and deeper relations.” She tells Hussein that Bush is an “intelligent man,” and adds, “He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.” [Washington Post, 12/30/2002; London Times, 12/31/2002; Wilson, 2004, pp. 98]
'No Opinion on Arab-Arab Conflicts' - Glaspie tells Hussein: “We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait.… We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship—not confrontation—regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?” Hussein answers that he intends to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Kuwait; Glaspie asks what solutions Hussein would find acceptable. Hussein wants to keep the entire Shatt al Arab [a strategically important waterway] under Iraqi control, and if given that, he is willing to make concessions to Kuwait. However, if he has to give up some control of the Shatt, he will renounce all control in favor of bringing Kuwait back under Iraqi dominion. Glaspie replies: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.” Reportedly Hussein takes this as a green light from the US to proceed with the invasion. [New York Times, 9/23/1990; Los Angeles Times, 1/5/2003]
Glaspie Said to Be Scapegoated - Wilson will later write that the US policy failure that led to the invasion is not Glaspie’s fault and that she is merely made a scapegoat for it (see
July 25, 1990 and After): “The one-on-one meeting with Saddam was fateful for Ambassador Glaspie. Out of it emerged the charge that she had not been tough enough with him and had somehow given him a green light to invade Kuwait. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Charge of US Manipulation - Author and investigative producer Barry Lando will say that the price of oil was manipulated with US connivance before the crisis in an effort to hurt Iraq (see
Around July 25, 1990).

9/11: Video of Missile Hitting Pentagon Leaked

 

10 Years Late, A Cruise Type Missile Hits Pentagon on 9/11

Suppressed video released below 10 years later clearly shows Pentagon attack was a cruise type missile; either a Tomahawk or Russian/Soviet Granit as described by Dimitri Khalezov

Gov. Jesse Ventura Proves 9/11 Cover-Up asks “Will America’s Government Fall?”

“thought it was a bomb…walked out through the hole..burning wreckage..no plane parts…threatened to keep silent”

Former Vice President Cheney Accused of Engineering Pentagon Attack

Donald Rumsfeld Cited as Possible Accomplice

 

Confirmed sources in the Nigerian government tell us, in order to keep former Vice President Cheney out of prison for crimes involving Nigeria, $500,000,000 in bribes have been promised, negotiated by former President George H.W. Bush.

Now, only a day later, Cheney faces possible charges, so many charges they can only be imagined, for planning the Pentagon attack on 9/11.

TV host, Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, former Governor of Minnesota, on a one hour documentary on prime-time American television, makes an open and shut criminal case tying Cheney, Rumsfeld and officials throughout the US government with complicity in the planning, execution and subsequent cover-up of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.

According to experts on 9/11, engineers, pilots, intelligence officers and members of our military, Jesse Ventura “hit the nail on the head.”  Ventura, using evidence developed over 9 years by hundreds of individuals, outlines the utter impossibility of the government’s cover story on 9/11 and systematically debunks it using testimony and scientific evidence.

Ventura cites, in an interview with a 9/11 commissioner, a possible motive for the Pentagon attack being included with the attacks on the World Trade Center.  $2,300,000,000,000, yes 2.3 trillion US dollars had disappeared, cited only the day before in a televised statement by Secretary Rumsfeld, money “gone missing” from the Pentagon’s accounting.  The area of the Pentagon hit by a missile or destroyed by explosives or both contained all records of this missing money.

NO PLANE, NO WAY, NOT EVEN CLOSE

Ventura proves, beyond any doubt that no airplane ever hit the Pentagon.  As the video shows, not even a highly trained airline pilot was capable of the maneuvers claimed.  Long before, it had been proven that the 757 was incapable of the task, either the maneuvers or the speed and trajectory.  The plane would have come apart, there is no disagreement with this and hasn’t been for some time, yet nothing had been done.  Why?

It is also clearly shown that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind showing a plane hit the Pentagon, no wreckage, no bodies, no luggage.  Items claimed to have been taken to Dover Air Force Base, bodies, plane parts, were never at the Pentagon as both video and testimony prove.

There is also proof that the government threatened witnesses, telling them to support the “aircraft scenario.”

NO MUSLIMS, NO HIJACKERS, NO BOX CUTTERS, ALL PROVEN LIES FINALLY

The basis for the conspiracy theory regarding Muslim hijackers with box cutters was based on supposed phone calls made by Barbara Olson, wife of Bush Solicitor General.  Solicitor General Olson claimed he talked to his wife on a
cell phone, spoke with her at length, while she described the hijackings as now dramatized by Hollywood.

When it was proven that a cell phone is incapable of making such calls, Olson claimed it was a “seat back phone.”  When it was proven that there were no seat back phones on American Airlines 757 aircraft, nothing further was asked.

Then investigations shows he received one call, lasting “0″ seconds.  Ventura questions as to whether Olson was duped or complicit?  Should he be arrested too?  Was his wife, Barbara, ever really on the plane?

Then Ventura looks into the flight itself.  Not only was the flight recorder “dead” but during the flight itself, the transponder was turned off.  Even more suspicious, the plane disappeared from radar for 28 minutes.

There is no discussion of this 28 minutes, but speculation, perhaps no longer speculation, has long been that the flight landed.  As to what happened then, we cannot guess, or can we.  One of my friends, a former Pentagon official, had a
friend on that aircraft.  Not long ago, he asked me.

“Gordon, what do you think happened to him, do you think he was executed?  Bullet in the brain as they stepped off the plane or something even worse?”

Ventura didn’t go there.  None of us want to.  It requires visualizing a scene out of Auschwitz.

Can Americans be so brutal, so devious, so traitorous?  It isn’t just Jesse Ventura that is willing to risk his life to bring it out, Fox News journalist Geraldo Rivera, several weeks ago, debunked the Building 7 collapse at the World Trade Center as “controlled demolition.”

9/11 COMMISSION DUPED, ADMITS THERE WAS NO REAL INVESTIGATION AT ALL

Commission video’s redacted to remove testimony by the Secretary of Transportation, transcripts altered, witnesses blocked, evidence, tons of evidence of government conspiracy withheld, this is the case against the government.  Threats, intimidation, going on for years, this is proven.  Were there more than threats, murders, “heart attacks” or threats against families?

Ventura proves the Pentagon was a government conspiracy, he “names names.” Geraldo makes any other explanation for Building 7 other than “controlled demolition” pure insanity.

IGNORING EVIDENCE, PROOF OF DICTATORSHIP OR ARE ARRESTS PLANNED?

It isn’t as though the evidence presented by Governor Ventura and Geraldo Rivera or even the other stories, Judge Napolitano’s revelations of knowledge of the attacks as early as 1999, was new.  All has been know, all highly credible and all systematically ignored, attacked by the press, suppressed by courts, officials at every level.

9/11 and the recent revelations aren’t proof of a conspiracy by 2 men, or Israel.  It is proof that there never was an Al Qaeda and that the deaths, two wars, the 9/11 deaths and the carnage across the world wrought by the United States was part of a criminal conspiracy, one that could only be perpetrated by a dictatorship under the guise of representative democracy.

Everything we have seen, and millions around the world have watched, nobody can ignore it anymore, it all says that what has happened is something no American would allow, not if this still were America.  Jesse Ventura proved something startling to most, suspected by some.  He proved that, at some point in our past, 10 years, more, we don’t know, our government was overthrown.

MORE WIKILEAKS, MORE ASSANGE, MORE 9/11 COVER-UP

The strongest and most vocal opponent of a new 9/11 investigation is Julian Assange of Wikleaks.  If any individual outside the US government were to be named as most complicit in a 9/11 cover-up, it would be Julian Assange.

Everything since then, certainly 9/11 and now, the news about Iran and, especially Wikileaks, all subterfuge.  When former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinsky cited Wikileaks on a PBS interview, televised nationally, that Wikileaks was the word of an intelligence agency, Israel never reported it or responded.

Instead, they attributed Brzezinski’s quote to me:

“Speaking to Haaretz, Duff added that ‘it sticks out like a sore thumb that WikiLeaks is obviously concocted by an intelligence agency.’”

This is what Brzezinski told Judy Woodruff of PBS:

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: But I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that.
Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it.

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed. …The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining
their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

BUSH, OBAMA, CONTINUING DICTATORSHIP, CONTINUING COVER-UP, CONTINUING WAR

Barak Obama ran for president on a platform based on justice, ending the wars and bringing accountability to government after 8 years of scandals, deceit and what can only be called “hooliganism and piracy.”  Instead, he has done nothing, the wars continue, drugs are flowing from Afghanistan even faster than before, 9/11 evidence, now overwhelming and impossible to ignore is still ignored.

Americans looking for reform wonder if Bush left at all.  Those complicit are, though few admit it, disturbed by seeing America led by an African American.  The visible public face on the very well financed attacks on President Obama are all very much based on race hatred.  This has long been the most effective tool for keeping Americans divided and compliant.  How else could a major political movement be successful supporting the least popular and least successful policies in American history?

Who would want a return to policies enacted by the least successful president in American history, George W. Bush, who left office with an approval record listed at 22%.  Many would find a number lower, even half, more credible. President Clinton, after surviving impeachment for lying about sexual misconduct left office with 68% approval.  Thus, we connect the dots and wake up one morning, informed, enraged and utterly powerless.

Even through the assaults on President Obama, many financed by the Koch brothers,  tied to ultra-nationalists in Israel, whether there was a real change of government is not clear.  As Jesse Ventura pointed out, while Vice President Dick Cheney was getting reports of a plane approaching the Pentagon, seemingly even orchestrating the attack himself, President Bush was in Florida reading to school children.  Two years of Obama have been similar, too similar.

What can we assume from this?  Is, in fact, the President of the United States no longer Commander in Chief?  Did our government hand itself over to “shadow” rule with Bush or did it happen earlier, after President Reagan’s dementia made him unable to manage the cabal that surrounded him?  How long have we been operating under no Constitution at all?

The headline on today’s New York Times:

SENATE BLOCKS BILL FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

The headline on today’s Washington Post:

TOP US SPY REMOVED AFTER THREATS

What is “their” message?  Certainly not “never again.”  In fact we know that “again” is just around the corner, an Iran war with or without a new 9/11, planned and executed by the same folks, older, not wiser and certainly more pathologically insane and murderous.

..and we continue to allow it.

 

Falling Man Of 9/11 Cries Out For Truth And Justice

 

Jonathan Briley was the falling man of 9/11 and one of 200 jumpers who leaped to their deaths on that infamous day in 2001. His image captured by Richard Drew continues to shock and it demands the truth and justice for those who perpetrated or allowed this treasonous false flag operation and carefully orchestrated cover up to occur.

The most despicable act of American treason was the 9/11 false flag operation and carefully orchestrated cover up which continues to this day.

The Obama administration is determined to keep this bamboozle covered up and is, as such, complicit in hiding the truth of 9/11.

But nothing captures the sheer horror of that day more graphically than Richard Drew’s photo of the falling man ~ later identified as Jonathan Briley. See story ~

The New York Post last year published a 9/11 macabre human remains map in trying to determine the physical scope of ground Zero as well as the human deaths, which obviously includes the over 200 Trade Tower jumpers along with  the falling man, Jonathan Briley.

New York Post human remains map of 9/11.

This New York post map is a graphic illustration of the human cost of that day for each red dot  is a human being who was loved and cherished by someone and became an unnecessary victim of the most treasonous act in American history.

It was Carl Sagan who wrote ~ ” One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge ~ even to ourselves ~ that we’ve been so credulous. So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.”

The 9/11 cover up is America’s greatest bamboozle and many Americans are apparently no longer interested in finding the truth ~ for it would indeed be too painful to acknowledge.

But here are some facts to ponder on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 ~

  • The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements .
  • 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue “
  • 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
  • 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
  • 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking.
  • And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened“

If even the 9/11 Commissioners don’t buy the official story, why do you?

Senior intelligence officers:

  • Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers“. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)
  • A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”
  •   A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe (and see this)
  • A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored)
  • A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
  • The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final 9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup”

If even our country’s top intelligence officers don’t buy the official story, why do you?

Congressmen:

  • According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here)
  • Current Democratic U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy said “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
  • Current Republican Congressman Ron Paul calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
  •   Current Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
  • Current Republican Congressman Jason Chafetz says that we need to be vigilant and continue to investigate 9/11
  • Former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
  • Former Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee endorses a new 9/11 investigation
  • Former U.S. Democratic Congressman Dan Hamburg doesn’t believe the official version of events
  • Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee Curt Weldon has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

If there is bipartisan questioning of the official story, why aren’t you questioning it?

Other government officials:

  • U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time”
  • Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
  • Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence“
  • The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
  • Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt”
  • The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

If top government officials are skeptical, why aren’t you?

Numerous other politicians, judges, legal scholars, and attorneys also question at least some aspects of the government’s version of 9/11. See evidence ~

David Ray Griffin, perhaps the leading scholar in the 9/11 Truth movement, made a plausible case in July in a 183-footnote open letter    for the view that “Among scientists and professionals in the relevant fields who have studied the evidence, the weight of scientific and professional opinion is now overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement.”

A new 15-minute documentary narrated by actor Ed Asner features many 9/11Truth experts, including structural engineers, chemical engineers, material scientists, physicists, building demolition experts, firemen and others.
See this remarkable documentary on YouTube: Video

Entity Tags: Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein, April Glaspie, Joseph C. Wilson, James A. Baker, Margaret Tutwiler

Timeline Tags: US-Iraq 1980s

Category Tags: Iraq Invasion of Kuwait, US-Iraq Collaboration

July 25, 1990: Hussein Pretends to Bluff over Intent to Invade Kuwait

Edit event

During a meeting with US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie (see July 25, 1990), Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein interrupts the meeting to take a phone call from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak has worked tirelessly to mediate the burgeoning dispute between Iraq and Kuwait. After the phone call, Hussein tells Glaspie that he has just told Mubarak the same thing he told her—that he will not invade Kuwait so long as there is an active negotiating process taking place. The US later learns that Hussein asked Mubarak not to share that piece of information with Kuwait in order to keep his “bluff” alive. Mubarak apparently honors the request, because Iraq’s subsequent invasion (see August 2, 1990) is a complete surprise to Kuwait. Mubarak is reportedly infuriated at Hussein’s apparent betrayal of his trust. [Wilson, 2004, pp. 98] In 2003, Glaspie’s then-deputy, Joseph Wilson, will tell an interviewer that Hussein “lied to [Glaspie]. He lied to President Mubarak that he was going to allow the negotiating process to go forward.” [PBS, 2/28/2003] In 2004, Wilson will write: “I believe that he met with Glaspie for the express purpose of deceiving us about his intentions, as he did with… Mubarak at the same time. In this way, he maintained the element of surprise. [Wilson, 2004, pp. 123]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, April Glaspie

Category Tags: Iraq Invasion of Kuwait

Bookmark and Share

July 25, 1990 and After: US Ambassador Scapegoated for Giving Iraq Permission to Invade?

Edit event

The deputy for US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, Joseph Wilson, later writes of the fateful meeting between Glaspie and Saddam Hussein (see July 25, 1990). In his view, Glaspie will become a scapegoat, receiving unfair blame for giving Hussein tacit permission to invade Kuwait. Wilson later writes, “The one-on-one meeting with Saddam was fateful for Ambassador Glaspie. Out of it emerged the charge that she had not been tough enough with him and had somehow given him a green light to invade Kuwait. Nothing could be further from the truth. Glaspie has been made a convenient scapegoat for a more complicated and complex failure of foreign policy.… Her explanation of American policy towards Arab disputes did not waver from our standing instructions. The United States did not take positions on the merits of such quarrels between Arab nations, although the policy was to, in the strongest terms, urge that the parties to a dispute resolve it diplomatically or through international mediation, and not via military threats or action.” During the meeting, Hussein made clear to Ambassador Glaspie that Iraq had no intention of taking any military action against Kuwait so long as there was an ongoing negotiating process. He tells Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak the same thing (see July 25, 1990). In later years, Iraqi officials such as Aziz and then-Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Nizar Hamdun will acknowledge that Glaspie did nothing more than reiterate the main points of US policy towards Iraq to Hussein. Wilson, a friend of Hamdun’s, will recall his last conversation with Hamdun before his death in July 2003, where the ailing Hamdun confirmed that, in Wilson’s words, “The Iraqi leadership had not come away thinking she had tacitly indicated that the US condoned the use of force. On the contrary, [Hussein] knew exactly what the American position was—opposition to Iraqi military action, under any and all circumstances.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 99-101]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Joseph C. Wilson, Nizar Hamdun, April Glaspie, Hosni Mubarak

Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Project: Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
Open-Content project managed by Derek, KJF, blackmax

add event | references

May 1991: President Bush Authorizes CIA to Create Conditions for Removal of Saddam Hussein; CIA Hires PR Firm

Edit event

President George H. W. Bush signs a covert “lethal finding” authorizing the CIA to spend a hundred million dollars to “create the conditions for removal of Saddam Hussein from power.” [New Yorker, 6/7/2004] The CIA forms the Iraqi Opposition Group within its Directorate of Operations to implement this policy. [Ritter, 2005, pp. 128] Awash in cash, the agency hires the Rendon Group to influence global political opinion on matters related to Iraq. According to Francis Brooke, an employee of the company who’s paid $22,000 per month, the Rendon Group’s contract with the CIA provides it with a ten percent “management fee” on top of whatever money it spends. “We tried to burn through $40 million a year,” Brooke will tell the New Yorker. “It was a very nice job.” The work involves planting false stories in the foreign press. The company begins supplying British journalists with misinformation which then shows up in the London press. In some cases, these stories are later picked up by the American press, in violation of laws prohibiting domestic propaganda. “It was amazing how well it worked. It was like magic,” Brooke later recalls. Another one of the company’s tasks is to help the CIA create a viable and unified opposition movement against Saddam Hussein (see June 1992). This brings the Rendon Group and Francis Brooke into contact with Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi (see After May 1991). The CIA will soon help Chalabi and Rendon create the Iraqi National Congress (INC) to further the goal of toppling Hussein. [New Yorker, 6/7/2004] Author and intelligence expert James Bamford will later say, “Chalabi was a creature of American propaganda to a large degree. It was an American company, the Rendon Group, that—working secretly with the CIA—basically created his organization, the Iraqi National Congress. And put Chalabi in charge basically.… From the very beginning Chalabi was paid a lot of money from the US taxpayers. The CIA paid him originally about 350,000 dollars a month, to Chalabi and his organization.” [PBS, 4/25/2007]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Rendon Group, Iraqi Opposition Group, James Bamford, George Herbert Walker Bush, Francis Brooke, Central Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Chalabi, Iraqi National Congress

Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

March 8, 1992: Raw US World Dominance Plan Is Leaked to the Media

Edit event

The New York Times headline on March 8, 1992.The New York Times headline on March 8, 1992. [Source: Public domain]The Defense Planning Guidance, “a blueprint for the department’s spending priorities in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union,” is leaked to the New York Times. [New York Times, 3/8/1992; Newsday, 3/16/2003] The document causes controversy, because it hadn’t yet been “scrubbed” to replace candid language with euphemisms. [New York Times, 3/10/1992; New York Times, 3/11/1992; Observer, 4/7/2002] The document argues that the US dominates the world as sole superpower, and to maintain that role, it “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992; New York Times, 3/8/1992] As the Observer summarizes it, “America’s friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington.” [Observer, 4/7/2002] The document is mainly written by Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who hold relatively low posts at the time, but become deputy defense secretary and Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, respectively, under George W. Bush. [Newsday, 3/16/2003] The authors conspicuously avoid mention of collective security arrangements through the United Nations, instead suggesting the US “should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] They call for “punishing” or “threatening punishment” against regional aggressors before they act. [Harper's, 10/2002] Interests to be defended preemptively include “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, [and] threats to US citizens from terrorism.” The section describing US interests in the Middle East states that the “overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region’s oil…, deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect US nationals and property, and safeguard… access to international air and seaways.” [New York Times, 3/8/1992] Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) later says, “It is my opinion that [George W. Bush’s] plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report.” [Newsday, 3/16/2003] In response to the controversy, US releases an updated version of the document in May 1992, which stresses that the US will work with the United Nations and its allies. [Washington Post, 5/24/1992; Harper's, 10/2002]

Entity Tags: Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Lincoln Chafee, Soviet Union, United States

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Motives

Bookmark and Share

June 1992: Iraqi National Congress Formed

Edit event

The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), headed by Masud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), headed by Jalal Talabani, meet in Vienna along with nearly 200 delegates from dozens of Iraqi opposition groups to form an umbrella organization for Iraqi dissident groups. [Federation of American Scientists, 8/8/1998; New Yorker, 6/7/2004] The event is organized by the Rendon Group, which has been contracted by the CIA to organize the wide spectrum of Iraqi dissidents into a unified movement against Saddam Hussein. Rendon names the group the “Iraqi National Congress” (INC). The CIA pays the Rendon Group $326,000 per month for the work, funneled to the company and the INC through various front organizations. [ABC, 2/7/1998; CounterPunch, 5/20/2004; Rolling Stone, 11/17/2005 Sources: Unnamed former CIA operative] Thomas Twetten, the CIA’s deputy directorate of operations, will later recall: “The INC was clueless. They needed a lot of help and didn’t know where to start.” [New Republic, 5/20/2002; Bamford, 2004, pp. 296-297] Rendon hires freelance journalist Paul Moran and Zaab Sethna as contract employees to do public relations and “anti-Saddam propaganda” for the new organization. [SBS Dateline, 7/23/2003]

Entity Tags: Paul Moran, Zaab Sethna, Iraqi National Congress, Rendon Group, Jalal Talabani, Masud Barzani, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Kurdistan Democratic Party, Central Intelligence Agency, Thomas Twetten

Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

November 1993: Iraqi Exile Plans to Overthrow Hussein, with Approval of Clinton Administration

Edit event

Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi (see 1992-1996) approaches the Clinton administration with a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Defense Intelligence Agency agent Patrick Lang will later recall that the plan, dubbed “End Game,” starts with a revolt by Iraq’s Kurdish and Shi’a insurgents that will, theoretically, trigger an insurrection by Iraqi military commanders. The military will replace Hussein with a regime friendly to both Israel and the US. Clinton officials give the plan tentative approval, though as Lang will later write: “The plan was based on a belief that Iraq was ripe for revolt and that there were no units in the armed forces that would fight to preserve Saddam’s government. Since the same units had fought to keep Saddam in power during the Kurdish and Shi’a revolts of a few years before, it is difficult to see why the sponsors of End Game would have thought that.” Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein learns of the plan and prepares his own response. When Chalabi puts the plan into action, the Iraqi military, instead of revolting against Hussein, kills over 100 INC-backed insurgents (see March 1995). After the debacle, neither the CIA nor the White House will have anything more than superficial contact with Chalabi until 2001. [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004; Unger, 2007, pp. 126]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton administration, Patrick Lang, Ahmed Chalabi

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

March 1995: Chalabi Military Operation against Saddam Hussein Fails

Edit event

Ahmed Chalabi creates a militia army of about 1,000 fighters in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and bribes tribal leaders in the city of Mosul to support a planned rebellion against Saddam Hussein (see November 1993). He is also hosting members of Iranian intelligence who promise that when the operation is launched, Iran will simultaneously hit Iraq from the south. But the CIA learns that Baathist officials have caught wind of the plot and the CIA instructs agent Robert Baer to tell Chalabi that “any decision to proceed will be on your own.” Chalabi, who has no military experience, decides to go through with the plot anyway. But the operation quickly flounders when over 100 INC fighters are killed by Iraqi forces, many more of Chalabi’s fighters desert, the bribed Iraqi tribal leaders stay home, and the Iranians do nothing. The CIA is furious that it funded the operation, which becomes known within the agency as the “Bay of Goats.” [CounterPunch, 5/20/2004; New Yorker, 6/7/2004; Unger, 2007, pp. 126] CENTCOM commander General Anthony Zinni has similar feelings. “It got me pretty angry,” he recalls. “They were saying if you put a thousand troops on the ground, Saddam’s regime will collapse, they won’t fight. I said, ‘I fly over them every day, and they shoot at us. We hit them, and they shoot at us again. No way a thousand forces would end it.’ The exile group was giving them inaccurate information. Their scheme was ridiculous.” Zinni had warned Congress that Chalabi’s invasion plan was “pie in the sky, a fairy tale,” but was ignored. [Unger, 2007, pp. 160-161]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Robert Baer, Iraqi National Congress, Central Intelligence Agency, Anthony Zinni, Ahmed Chalabi, Rendon Group, Francis Brooke

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy

Edit event

Richard Perle.Richard Perle. [Source: Public domain]The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [Washington Times, 10/7/2002; Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/2003] The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other authors include:
bullet influential neoconservative academic and former Bush adviser Richard Perle, primarily responsible for the content of the paper;
bullet Meyrav Wurmser, the future director of the neoconservative Hudson Institute’s Center for Middle East Policy;
bullet her husband David Wurmser, the future chief adviser for Middle East policy for future vice-president Dick Cheney;
bullet neoconservative Douglas Feith, who will be the prime architect of the Iraq war;
bullet and a number of lesser-known neoconservatives, including James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Jeffrey T. Bergner, Jonathan Torop, and Robert Loewenberg.
Rebuilding Zionism by Abandoning Past Policies - It advocates making a complete break with past policies by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism.…” [Guardian, 9/3/2002]
Aggressive, Militant Israeli Policy towards Arab Neighbors - Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon (see
February 1982), the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says. [Perle, 7/8/1996; Guardian, 9/3/2002; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3/19/2003] Iraq is first on the list of nations to be transformed. Saddam Hussein must be overthrown, the authors say. But Iraq has long served as a counterweight to the Shi’ite theocracy of Iran; with the two at loggerheads, neither could pose as serious a threat to Israel as it could if not opposed by the other. To counter this, Perle and his co-authors propose restoring the Hashemites (an ancient Arab dynasty; King Faisal I of Iraq was a Hashemite) to power. Instead of the largely Shi’ite Iraqis aligning themselves with their fellow Shi’a in Iran after Hussein’s overthrow, the Hashemite government would align itself with the pro-Western Jordan, long a Hashemite regime. Unfortunately, the authors propose no plan to actually make such an extraordinary regime succession happen, nor do they seem concerned with some Iraqi Shi’ites’ alignment with Islamist terrorists or with many Shi’ites’ close ties to Iran. [Unger, 2007, pp. 145-148]
Abandoning Oslo Accords, Militant Palestinian Policy - Other suggestions for Israel include abandoning the Oslo Accords, developing a foreign policy based on a traditional balance of power strategy, reserving its right to invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a strategy of “self-defense,” abandoning any notion of “land for peace,” reestablishing a policy of preemptive strikes, forging closer ties to the US while taking steps towards self-reliance, and seeking an alternative to Yasser Arafat as leader of the PLO. [Perle, 7/8/1996]
'Seeds of a New Vision' - All these questions need not be answered right away, according to co-author Meyrav Wurmser. The document is “the beginning of thought,” she says, “… the seeds of a new vision.”
Similar to American Christian Right's Vision - According to author Craig Unger, the ideology of “ACB” is, in essence, a secularized version of the theology of the American Christian Right. Christian Zionists insist that Jews were ordained by God to reclaim the Biblican land of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank; the paper asserts that claim as well. The paper echoes Christian fundamentalists by demanding “the unconditional acceptance of Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension.” Perle and his fellow neoconservatives want to push the boundaries even further: the Bible can be interpreted to countenance Jewish dominion over all or parts of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia. Thusly, the authors claim that Israel and the US, by waging war against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, would reshape the “strategic environment” in the Middle East and greatly expand Israel’s influence in the region.
Influence in Upcoming Bush Administration - Perle will later become chairman of President Bush’s influential Defense Policy Board and will be instrumental is moving Bush’s US policy toward war with Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, as will Feith and the Wurmsers. [Unger, 2007, pp. 145-148]

Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Robert Loewenberg, Meyrav Wurmser, Jonathan Torop, Richard V. Allen, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Benjamin Netanyahu, David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Douglas Feith

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

November 12, 1997: Neoconservative Advocates Backing INC in Overthrowing Hussein

Edit event

David Wurmser, director of the Middle East program at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, writes an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the US government should support Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress [INC] and work to foment “an Iraqi insurgency to depose the butcher of Baghdad.” Wurmser writes: “Washington has no choice now but to abandon the coup option and resurrect the INC. An insurgency may be able to defeat Saddam’s weak and demoralized conventional army. But one thing is clear: There is no cost-free way to depose Saddam. He is more resolute, wily and brutal than we. His strength lies in his weapons of terror; that is why he is so attached to them…. Organizing an insurgency to liberate Iraq under the INC may provoke Saddam to use these weapons on the way down. Better that, though, than current policy, which will lead him to use them on his way back up.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/12/1997]

Entity Tags: David Wurmser, Saddam Hussein, Ahmed Chalabi

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Propaganda, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

January 26, 1998: Neoconservative Think Tank Urges US to Attack Iraq

Edit event

PNAC logo.PNAC logo. [Source: Project for the New American Century]The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative think tank, publishes a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” In a foretaste of what eventually happens, the letter calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations, and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretaries of State Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick, Undersecretaries of State John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, presidential adviser for the Middle East Elliott Abrams, Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, and George W. Bush’s special Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Other signatories include William Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Peter Rodman, William Schneider, Vin Weber, and James Woolsey. [Project for the New American Century, 1/26/1998; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 3/16/2003; Unger, 2007, pp. 158] Clinton does heavily bomb Iraq in late 1998, but the bombing doesn’t last long and its long term effect is the break off of United Nations weapons inspections. [New York Times, 3/23/2003] The PNAC neoconservatives do not seriously expect Clinton to attack Iraq in any meaningful sense, author Craig Unger will observe in 2007. Instead, they are positioning themselves for the future. “This was a key moment,” one State Department official will recall. “The neocons were maneuvering to put this issue in play and box Clinton in. Now, they could draw a dichotomy. They could argue to their next candidate, ‘Clinton was weak. You must be strong.’” [Unger, 2007, pp. 158]

Entity Tags: Robert B. Zoellick, Vin Weber, William Kristol, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Schneider Jr., Richard Perle, William J. Bennett, Richard Armitage, Robert Kagan, Paula J. Dobriansky, Donald Rumsfeld, Craig Unger, Peter Rodman, Elliott Abrams, John R. Bolton, James Woolsey, Francis Fukuyama, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Paul Wolfowitz

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Key Events Related to DSM, Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

February 19, 1998: Neoconservative Group Calls on US to Help Overthrow Hussein

Edit event

The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), a bipartisan group made up largely of foreign policy specialists, sends an “Open Letter to the President” calling for President Clinton to use the US military to help Iraqi opposition groups overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a US-friendly government. US law forbids such an operation. The group is led by, among others, former Representative Stephen Solarz (D-NY) and prominent Bush adviser Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense.
Largely Neoconservative in Makeup - Many of its co-signers will become the core of the Bush administration’s neoconservative-driven national security apparatus. These co-signers include Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Fred Ikle, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bernard Lewis, Peter Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, Gary Schmitt, Max Singer, Casper Weinberger, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim. [CNN, 2/20/1998; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] The CPSG is closely affiliated with both the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC—see
June 3, 1997 and January 26, 1998) and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), both of which boast Perle as a powerful and influential member. Jim Lobe of the Project Against the Present Danger later learns that the CPSG is funded in large part by a sizable grant from the right-wing Bradley Foundation, a key funding source for both the PNAC and the AEI. According to Counterpunch’s Kurt Nimmo, the plan for overthrowing Iraq later adopted by the Bush administration, and currently advocated by the CPSG, will be echoed in the PNAC’s September 2000 document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (see September 2000). [CounterPunch, 11/19/2002]
Advocates Supporting Iraq-Based Insurgency - The letter reads in part: “Despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to root out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions.… This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.… In view of Saddam Hussein’s refusal to grant UN inspectors the right to conduct unfettered inspections of those sites where he is suspected of storing his still significant arsenal of chemical and biological munitions and his apparent determination never to relinquish his weapons of mass destruction, we call upon President Clinton to adopt and implement a plan of action designed to finally and fully resolve this utterly unacceptable threat to our most vital national interests.” The plan is almost identical to the “End Game” scenario proposed in 1993 (see
November 1993) and carried out, without success, in 1995 (see March 1995). It is also virtually identical to the “Downing Plan,” released later in 1998 (see Late 1998). In 2004, then-Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will observe, “The letter was remarkable in that it adopted some of the very formulations that would later be used by Vice President [Dick] Cheney and other current administration officials to justify the preventive war in Iraq that commenced on March 20, 2003” (see March 19, 2003). The CPSG advocates:
bullet US support for Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC—see
1992-1996) as the provisional government to replace Hussein’s dictatorship;
bullet Funding the INC with seized Iraqi assets, designating areas in the north and south as INC-controlled zones, and lifting sanctions in those areas;
bullet Providing any ground assault by INC forces (see
October 31, 1998) with a “systematic air campaign” by US forces;
bullet Prepositioning US ground force equipment “so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq”;
bullet Bringing Hussein before an international tribunal on war crimes charges.
Carrying out these actions, Solarz says, would completely eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction that he claims Iraq owns. [Abrams et al., 2/19/1998; CNN, 2/20/1998; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]

Entity Tags: Richard Burt, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Paula J. Dobriansky, Peter Rosenblatt, Project for the New American Century, Richard V. Allen, Peter Rodman, Robert A. Pastor, Saddam Hussein, Robert Kagan, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, William Kristol, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William B. Clark, Sven F. Kraemer, Stephen Solarz, Roger Robinson, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Ledeen, Patrick Lang, Fred C. Ikle, Dov S. Zakheim, Elliott Abrams, Frank Carlucci, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Donald Rumsfeld, Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, American Enterprise Institute, Ahmed Chalabi, Max Singer, David Wurmser, Bernard Lewis, Caspar Weinberger, Gary Schmitt, Kurt Nimmo, Leon Wienseltier, Martin Peretz, Joshua Muravchik, Frederick L. Lewis, John R. Bolton, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Jarvis Lynch, Jeffrey Gedmin, Jim Lobe, Iraqi National Congress

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Alleged WMDs, Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

May 29, 1998: PNAC Calls on Republican Congressional Leaders to Assert US Interests in Persian Gulf

Edit event

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) publishes a letter addressed to Congressman Newt Gingrich and Senator Trent Lott. The letter argues that the Clinton administration has capitulated to Saddam Hussein and calls on the two legislators to lead Congress to “establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect [US] vital interests in the Gulf—and, if necessary, to help removed Saddam from power.” [Century, 5/29/1998]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich, US Congress, Project for the New American Century, Trent Lott, Clinton administration

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

July 1998: Prominent Neoconservative Says INC Control of Northern Iraq Would Increase Israeli Security

Edit event

David Wurmser says that having a region in northern Iraq controlled by the Iraqi National Congress would provide the missing piece to complete an anti-Syria, anti-Iran block. “If Ahmed [Chalabi] extends a no-fly, no-drive in northern Iraq, it puts scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel,” Wurmser says. “This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition.” [Forward, 7/31/2003]

Entity Tags: David Wurmser, Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

October 31, 1998: Clinton Signs Law Making It US Policy to Remove Hussein in Iraq

Edit event

President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (ILA) into law. The act, which passed with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate, was written by Trent Lott (R-MS) and other Republicans with significant input from Ahmed Chalabi and his aide, Francis Brooke. [US Congress, 10/31/1998 pdf file; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004] (Former Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will later write that one of the driving goals behind the ILA is to revive the failed 1995 coup plans against Saddam Hussein, called “End Game”—see November 1993.) [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] The act makes it “the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” To that end, the act requires that the president designate one or more Iraqi opposition groups to receive up to $97 million in US military equipment and nonlethal training. The act authorizes another $43 million for humanitarian, broadcasting, and information-collection activities. To be eligible for US assistance, an organization must be “committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq’s neighbors, to maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.” [US Congress, 10/31/1998 pdf file; Washington Post, 1/25/2002; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]
Chalabi Receives Millions from State Department - Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress receives $17.3 million from the State Department to carry out what it calls the “collection and dissemination of information” about Saddam Hussein’s atrocities to the public. It will continue to receive hundreds of thousands per month from the Defense Department as well. [Mother Jones, 4/2006] However, the Clinton administration itself has little use for Chalabi. One administration official will say, “He represents four or five guys in London who wear nice suits and have a fax machine.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 160]
Zinni Warns of Legislation Presaging Military Action - While few in Washington see the ILA as presaging military action against Iraq, one who does is Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the commander of CENTCOM. As the bill works its way through Congress, Zinni tells some of his senior staff members that the bill is far more serious than most believe. It is much more than a sop for the pro-war crowd, Zinni believes, but in reality a first step towards an invasion of Iraq. In 2004, former ambassador Joseph Wilson will write, “He was, of course, right, but few were listening.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 290]

Entity Tags: Patrick Lang, Francis Brooke, Iraqi National Congress, Clinton administration, US Department of State, Trent Lott, Ahmed Chalabi, US Department of Defense, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

Late 1998: ’Downing Plan’ to Overthrow Hussein Government Rejected by General Zinni

Edit event

A number of neoconservatives, led by retired General Wayne Downing (see 1990-1991) and retired CIA officer Duane “Dewey” Clarridge (see December 25, 1992), use the recently passed Iraqi Liberation Act (ILA—see October 31, 1998) to revive the failed “End Game” coup plans against Saddam Hussein (see November 1993 and March 1995). Both Downing and Clarridge are “military consultants” to Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress, who attempted to carry out the coup in 1995 with dismal results. Downing and Clarridge produce an updated version of the INC’s “End Game” scenario, calling it “The Downing Plan.” The Downing scenario varies very little from the original plan. Their plan stipulates that a “crack force” of 5,000 INC fighters, backed up by a detachment of US Special Forces soldiers, could bring down the Iraqi Army. Clarridge later tells reporters: “The idea from the beginning was to encourage defections of Iraqi units. You need to create a nucleus, something for people to defect to. If they could take Basra, it would be all over.” Former Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang will later write, “It is difficult to understand how a retired four-star Army general [Downing] could believe this to be true.” General Anthony Zinni, commander of CENTCOM, which has operational control of US combat forces in the Middle East, is provided with a copy of Chalabi’s military plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein. “It got me pretty angry,” he later recalls. He warns Congress that Chalabi’s plan is a “pie in the sky, a fairy tale,” and predicts that executing such a poorly envisioned assault would result in a “Bay of Goats.” Chalabi’s INC is nothing more than “some silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London;” neither the INC nor any of the other 91 or so Iraqi opposition groups have anywhere near “the viability to overthrow Saddam.” He tells the New Yorker: “They were saying if you put a thousand troops on the ground Saddam’s regime will collapse, they won’t fight. I said, ‘I fly over them every day, and they shoot at us. We hit them, and they shoot at us again. No way a thousand forces would end it.’ The exile group was giving them inaccurate intelligence. Their scheme was ridiculous.” Zinni earns the enmity of the neoconservative developers of the plan for his stance. [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004; New Yorker, 6/7/2004]

Entity Tags: Wayne Downing, Patrick Lang, Saddam Hussein, Ahmed Chalabi, Anthony Zinni, US Congress, Duane Clarridge, Iraqi National Congress

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

1999: George W. Bush Hints at Invading Iraq in Future Presidency

Edit event

Mickey Herskowitz.Mickey Herskowitz. [Source: Public domain]Presidential candidate George W. Bush tells prominent Texas author and Bush family friend Mickey Herskowitz, who is helping Bush write an autobiography, that as president he would invade Iraq if given the opportunity. “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief,” Herskowitz remembers Bush saying. “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of [Kuwait] and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Herskowitz later says he believes Bush’s comments were intended to distinguish himself from his father, rather than express a desire to invade Iraq. [Houston Chronicle, 10/31/2004]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Mickey Herskowitz

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Key Events Related to DSM

Bookmark and Share

February 1999: David Wurmser Urges US to Support Insurgency in Iraq

Edit event

In his book, Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute urges the US to support an insurgency aimed at toppling the Bath’ist government of Saddam Hussein as part of a broader policy to defeat pan-Arabism in Iraq. In its place, the US should encourage the creation of a “loosely unified Iraqi confederal government, shaped around strong sectarian and provincial entities,” Wurmser argues. [Wurmser, 1999, pp. 136-137] What happens in Iraq is vitally important, Wurmser notes, because the country is of extreme strategic importance. “It is a key transportation route, and it is rich in both geographic endowments and human talent,” he explains. “Its location on pathways between Asia and Europe, Africa and Asia, and Europe and Africa makes it an ideal route for armies, pipelines, and trade from both the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor to the Persian Gulf. Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, and other important resources. Its geographic centrality and abundance of natural advantages alone make the country a regionally important center.” [Wurmser, 1999, pp. 116-117]

Entity Tags: David Wurmser

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Motives

Bookmark and Share

February 4, 1999: President Clinton Designates 7 Iraqi Opposition Groups as Eligible for US Funding

Edit event

President Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 99-13 designating seven Iraqi opposition groups as being eligible to receive US federal funds under the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (see October 31, 1998). The act stated that the policy of the US should be to support regime change in Iraq. The seven groups include the Iraqi National Accord, the Iraqi National Congress, the Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. [White House, 2/4/1999]

Entity Tags: Kurdistan Democratic Party, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Iraqi National Congress, Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan, Iraqi National Accord

Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

April-July 1999: ’Desert Crossing’ War Game Predicts Instability, Potential Chaos if Saddam Hussein Ousted by US

Edit event

Photo of the cover of the Desert Crossing after-action briefing.Photo of the cover of the Desert Crossing after-action briefing. [Source: National Security Archives]The US Central Command, or CENTCOM (see October 1, 1986), conducts a series of war games called “Desert Crossing” centered on the scenario of Saddam Hussein being ousted as Iraq’s dictator. CENTCOM commander General Anthony Zinni will later say of the scenario, “I thought we ought to look at political reconstruction, economic reconstruction, security reconstruction, humanitarian need, services, and infrastructure development.” The game concludes that unless measures are taken, “fragmentation and chaos” will ensue after his overthrow. The after-action report finds that regime change may cause instability throughout the Middle East by giving impetus to “rival forces bidding for power” which, in turn, could cause societal “fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines” and antagonize “aggressive neighbors.” Securing borders and civil order may not be enough to restabilize Iraq, the report speculates, if the new government is perceived as either weak, subservient to outside governments, or out of touch with other Middle Eastern governments. The report finds that an exit strategy would be complicated by differing ideas for how a post-Saddam Iraq should be. Any US-supported transitional government will find it difficult to restrain various factions from pursuing their own tribal and sectarian vendettas against one another, the report finds. The game is quickly forgotten; years later, when the Bush administration will begin planning for its invasion of Iraq, the retired Zinni will recommend that his successors “dust off Desert Crossing,” and they will respond: “What’s that? Never heard of it.” [John Prados, 11/4/2006; Roberts, 2008, pp. 125, 233]

Entity Tags: Anthony Zinni, Saddam Hussein, US Central Command, Bush administration

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Planning, Predictions, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

November 19, 1999: Congress Allocates $10 Million for Iraq Opposition Groups

Edit event

Congress allocates $10 million “to support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq, of which not less than $8 million shall be made available only to Iraqi opposition groups designated under the ILA [Iraq Liberation Act of 1998] for political, economic humanitarian, and other activities of such groups, and not more than $2 million may be made available for groups and activities seeking the prosecution of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi Government officials for war crimes.” President Clinton signs the appropriation bill into law on November 29. [US Congress, 11/29/1999 pdf file] This $10 million dollars is the first allocation of funds to Iraqi opposition groups out of the total $97 million that was authorized by the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (see October 31, 1998).

Entity Tags: William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Iraqi National Congress

Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

2000: US Political Parties Advocate Regime Change in Iraq

Edit event

During the 2000 presidential campaign, the Republican Party calls for “a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein.” Similarly, the Democratic Party’s platform supports using “America’s military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary.” [Republican National Committee, 2000; Democratic National Committee, 2000, pp. 46]

Entity Tags: Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

2000: Former CIA Director Woolsey Works With Chalabi’s INC

Edit event

Former CIA director James Woolsey serves as a corporate officer for the Iraqi National Congress Support Foundation which manages the Iraqi National Congress’ US funding. Also during this time, Woolsey and his former law firm, Shea and Gardner, provide the INC and Iraqi exiles with pro bono work. [Knight Ridder, 7/16/2004]

Entity Tags: Shea and Gardner, Iraqi National Congress, James Woolsey

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Chalabi and the INC

Bookmark and Share

Spring 2000: Future Bush Adviser: ‘Number One’ Agenda to Overthrow Hussein

Edit event

Stephen Hadley, a neoconservative foreign affairs analyst who will become the future President Bush’s national security adviser (see November 2, 2004), briefs a group of prominent Republicans on the national security and foreign policy agenda of Bush. Hadley tells the assembled policymakers that Bush’s “number-one foreign policy agenda” will be removing Iraq’s Saddam Hussein from power. Hadley also says Bush will spend little or no time trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. According to Virginia Military Institute professor Clifford Kiracofe, who speaks to many of the policymakers after the meeting, many of them are shocked at the briefing. [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004; Unger, 2007, pp. 175]

Entity Tags: Clifford Kiracofe, George W. Bush, Stephen J. Hadley

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Decision to Invade Quotes

Bookmark and Share

May 17, 2000: Bush Allegedly Says He Will Take Saddam Hussein Out

Edit event

Osama Siblani.Osama Siblani. [Source: Publicity photo]Presidential candidate George W. Bush allegedly tells Osama Siblani, publisher of an Arab American newspaper, that if he becomes president he will remove Saddam Hussein from power. “He told me that he was going to take him out,” Siblani says in a radio interview on Democracy Now! almost five years later. Siblani will also recall that Bush “wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.” As Siblani will later note, as a presidential candidate Bush has no access to classified intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs. [Democracy Now!, 3/11/2005]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Osama Siblani

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Key Events Related to DSM, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

September 2000: Neoconservative Think Tank Writes ‘Blueprint’ for ‘Global Pax Americana’

Edit event

People involved in the 2000 PNAC report (from top left): Vice<br />President Cheney, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld,<br />Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis<br />Libby, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of Defense Dov<br />Zakheim, and author Eliot Cohen.<br />People involved in the 2000 PNAC report (from top left): Vice President Cheney, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, and author Eliot Cohen. [Source: Public domain]The neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century writes a “blueprint” for the “creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’” (see June 3, 1997). The document, titled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, was written for the George W. Bush team even before the 2000 presidential election. It was written for future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and Bush’s brother Jeb Bush, and Cheney’s future chief of staff Lewis Libby. [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000, pp. iv and 51 pdf file]
Plans to Overthrow Iraqi Government - The report calls itself a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.” The plan shows that the Bush team intends to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The report calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool” (see
February 7, 2003). [Project for the New American Century, 9/2000 pdf file; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002]
Greater Need for US Role in Persian Gulf - PNAC states further: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
'US Space Forces,' Control of Internet, Subversion of Allies - PNAC calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the Internet, and the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries.
Bioweapons Targeting Specific Genotypes 'Useful' - It also mentions that “advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
'A New Pearl Harbor' - However, PNAC complains that thes changes are likely to take a long time, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003]
Bush Will Claim a 'Humble' Foreign Policy Stance - One month later during a presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush will assert that he wants a “humble” foreign policy in the Middle East and says he is against toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq because it smacks of “nation building” (see
October 11, 2000). Around the same time, Cheney will similarly defend Bush’s position of maintaining President Clinton’s policy not to attack Iraq, asserting that the US should not act as though “we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments.” [Washington Post, 1/12/2002] Author Craig Unger will later comment, “Only a few people who had read the papers put forth by the Project for a New American Century might have guessed a far more radical policy had been developed.” [Salon, 3/15/2004] A British member of Parliament will later say of the PNAC report, “This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.” [Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 9/7/2002] Both PNAC and its strategy plan for Bush are almost virtually ignored by the media until a few weeks before the start of the Iraq war (see February-March 20, 2003).

Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, Robert Martinage, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Robert Killebrew, Peter Rodman, Project for the New American Century, Roger Barnett, Paula J. Dobriansky, Saddam Hussein, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, Steve Forbes, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William J. Bennett, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Stephen A. Cambone, Steve Rosen, Thomas Donnelly, Norman Podhoretz, Phil Meilinger, Midge Decter, Donald Kagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov S. Zakheim, Devon Gaffney Cross, Aaron Friedberg, Abram Shulsky, Michael Vickers, Dan Quayle, Eliot A. Cohen, Dan Goure, Alvin Bernstein, Barry Watts, David Epstein, Elliott Abrams, Frank Gaffney, John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush, James Lasswell, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Mark P. Lagon, Mackubin Owens, Francis Fukuyama, Henry S. Rowen, Gary Schmitt, Fred C. Ikle, Fred Kagan, David Fautua, Hasam Amin, George Weigel

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Key Events Related to DSM, Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

October 5, 2000: Vice Presidential Candidates Advocate Tough Stance Toward Iraq; Cheney Says the Use of Force against Iraq May Be Necessary

Edit event

During the vice presidential debates, both Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney advocate a tough stance toward Saddam Hussein. Lieberman says he and Gore would continue to support Iraqi opposition groups “until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days: get rid of a despot.” Cheney says it might be necessary “to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.” [CATO Daily Dispatch, 10/6/2000]

Entity Tags: Joseph Lieberman, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, George W. Bush

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: The Decision to Invade, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

October 25, 2000: Congress Allocates $25 Million for Iraq Opposition Groups

Edit event

Congress substantially increases its support for Iraqi opposition organizations, more than doubling the groups’ funding to $25 million for 2001. Of this amount, $18 million is specifically designated for the Iraqi National Congress: $12 million for “food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance,” and $6 million for the “production and broadcasting inside Iraq of radio and satellite television programming.” In addition, $2 million is allocated for groups and activities seeking the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, while the remaining $5 million is “to support efforts to bring about political transition in Iraq.” [US Congress, 11/6/2000 pdf file; US Congress, 11/6/2000 pdf file]

Entity Tags: Iraqi National Congress, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton

Category Tags: Chalabi and the INC, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

November 1, 2000: David Wurmser Urges US and Israel To ‘Strike Fatally’ Against Arab Radicalism

Edit event

In an op-ed piece published by the Washington Times, David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute calls on the US and Israel to “broaden” the conflict in the Middle East. The US, he says, needs “to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza” —in order to “reestablish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal.” This is necessary, according to Wurmser, because the policies of the US and Israel during the last decade have strengthened Arab radicalism in the Middle East. Wurmser complains that the two countries have mistakenly identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and their own behavior as the primary causes of anti-Israeli and anti-American violence instead of focusing on what he claims are the real sources of resentment among Arab leaders—Israeli and American values. “Few anti-American outbursts or Arab-Israeli confrontations initially have much to do with Israel’s or America’s behavior; they have more to do with what these two countries are: free societies,” Wurmser writes. “These upheavals originate in the conditions of Arab politics, specifically in the requirements of tyrannies to seek external conflict to sustain internal repression.… A regime built on opposition to freedom will view free nations, such as the United States and Israel, as mortal threats.” The US and Israeli failure to grasp this reality, along with the Clinton administration’s reluctance to remove Saddam from power, according to Wurmser, has only empowered Arab radicalism. The answer, he argues, is to forcefully reassert US and Israeli power. [Washington Times, 11/1/2000]

Entity Tags: David Wurmser

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

December 19, 2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It’s Saddam Hussein Instead

Edit event

Clinton and Bush meeting in the White House on December 19, 2000.Clinton and Bush meeting in the White House on December 19, 2000. [Source: NBC]President Clinton and President-Elect Bush meet for their "exit interview," in a two-hour meeting. [CNN, 12/19/2000] Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton’s hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you’ve got your priorities wrong. I’m putting Saddam at the top of the list." [Moore, 3/15/2004, pp. 16-17] Just one day before, CIA Director George Tenet had warned Clinton that al-Qaeda could attack US interests in the next several weeks (see December 18, 2000). In 2003, Clinton will speak about the interview, saying that he recognized Bush felt the biggest security issues facing the US was Iraq and a national missile defense: "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden." [Reuters, 10/16/2003]

Entity Tags: Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

Before January 20, 2001: Pre-Inaugural Discussions about Removing Saddam Hussein

Edit event

There are discussions among future members of the Bush administration, including Bush himself, about making the removal of Saddam Hussein a top priority once they are in office. After the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will say that the Bush team had been planning regime change in Iraq since before coming to office, with newly named Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (see December 28, 2000) and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz (see January 11, 2001) taking the lead. “Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq,” he will write in his book Against All Enemies. “My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7-9; Unger, 2007, pp. 192] During an appearance on Good Morning America on March 22, 2004, he will say, “[T]hey had been planning to do something about Iraq from before the time they came into office.” [Good Morning America, 3/22/2004] Evidence of pre-inaugural discussions on regime change in Iraq comes from other sources as well. Imam Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini, who heads the Islamic Center of America in Detroit, will tell the New York Times in early 2004 that he spoke with Bush about removing Saddam Hussein six or seven times, both before and after the 2000 elections. [New York Times, 1/12/2004] In 2007, author Craig Unger will write: “In certain respects, their actions were a replay of the 1976 Team B experiment (see Early 1976 and November 1976), with one very important difference. This time it wasn’t just a bunch of feverish ideologues presenting a theoretical challenge to the CIA. This time Team B controlled the entire executive branch of the United States.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 192]

Entity Tags: Richard A. Clarke, Imam Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini, Craig Unger, Saddam Hussein, ’Team B’, George W. Bush, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Key Events Related to DSM, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

After January 20, 2001: Cheney to Push for Invasion of Iraq for Political Reasons, Personal Vendettas

Edit event

Vice President Cheney takes office with every intention to push President Bush into invading Iraq. According to an unnamed former subordinate of Cheney’s while Cheney was secretary of defense (see March 20, 1989 and After), Cheney wants to “do Iraq” because he thinks it can be done quickly and easily, and because “the US could do it essentially alone… and that an uncomplicated, total victory would set the stage for a landslide re-election in 2004 and decades of Republican Party domination.” Cheney believes that overthrowing Saddam Hussein “would ‘finish’ the undone work of the first Gulf War and settle scores once and for all with a cast of characters deeply resented by the vice president: George H. W. Bush, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and Jim Baker.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 182]

Entity Tags: George Herbert Walker Bush, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, George W. Bush, James Baker, Saddam Hussein

Category Tags: Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

Shortly after January 20, 2001: Pentagon Analysts Replaced With Neoconservative Ideologues

Edit event

Shortly after George W. Bush is inaugurated, “[k]ey personnel, long-time civilian professionals” at the Pentagon’s Near East South Asia (NESA) desk are moved or replaced with people from neoconservative think tanks. [American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] Joe McMillan, the Office Director, is moved to a new location outside of the Pentagon, which according to Karen Kwiatkowski, who works at the NESA desk, is odd because “the whole reason for the Office Director being a permanent civilian (occasionally military) professional is to help bring the new appointee up to speed, ensure office continuity, and act as a resource relating to regional histories and policies.” [American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Salon, 3/10/2004] Larry Hanauer, who has long been at the Israel-Syria-Lebanon desk and who is known to be “even-handed with Israel,” is replaced by David Schenker of the Washington Institute. [American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] Other veteran NESA employees who are banished include James Russell, who has served as the country director for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, and Marybeth McDevitt, the country director for Egypt. [Mother Jones, 1/2004]

Entity Tags: Marybeth McDevitt, David Schenker, Larry Hanauer, James Russell, Karen Kwiatkowski, Joe McMillan

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Office of Special Plans

Bookmark and Share

January 22, 2001 and After: Neoconservatives Begin Push for Invasion of Iraq

Edit event

An orchestrated push in the media begins to make the case for the need to invade Iraq. The San Diego Union-Tribune reprints a Weekly Standard article by William Kristol and Robert Kagan that tells readers (after comparing President Bush favorably to Ronald Reagan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Harry Truman, and lauding Bush’s “steely determination”) that US military action “could well be necessary to bring Saddam down.” They write: “At some point, Bush could well find himself confronted by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction. During these past few years, it was relatively easy for congressional Republicans to call for arming and funding the Iraqi opposition. That remains a good idea. But the more sober of Bush’s advisers, like Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz (see February 18, 1992 and February 27, 2001), have recognized that this alone will not do the trick. Some use of American military force, both from the air and on the ground, could well be necessary to bring Saddam down, no matter how wonderfully the Iraqi opposition performs. Whether he chooses it or not, Bush may quickly be faced with the same decision his father had to make in 1990. He has in his cabinet at least one person who counseled inaction the last time [referring to Secretary of State Colin Powell]. If the crisis comes, Bush, like his father, will not be able to rely only on the judgment of the men and women around him: He will have to act from his own instincts and his own courage.” [Weekly Standard, 1/22/2001; Unger, 2007, pp. 206] In the coming weeks, an onslaught of print and television op-eds and commentaries, some from Bush administration officials, will advocate the overthrow of Hussein (see February 27, 2001, February 16, 2001, April 9, 2001, and July 30, 2001).

Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, William Kristol

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Media Coverage, Motives, Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Public Opinion on Iraqi Threat

Bookmark and Share

January 29, 2001: Bush Tells Muslim Leader Hussein Must Go

Edit event

Imam Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini, who heads the Islamic Center of America in Detroit, one of the nation’s largest mosques, meets with President Bush in the White House about the administration’s policy towards Iraq. The president says he supports a policy aimed at removing Saddam Hussein from power, though he does not discuss by what means. “No method was discussed at all,” al-Qazwini will tell the New York Times two years later. “It was a general desire for regime change.” He will also tell the newspaper that he had spoken with Bush about removing Saddam Hussein a total of six or seven times, both before and after the 2000 elections. [New York Times, 1/12/2004]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Imam Sayed Hassan al-Qazwini

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not Terrorism

Edit event

The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 261] This meeting sets the tone for how President Bush intends to handle foreign affairs. Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke wants to focus on the threat from al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism, especially in light of the recent attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). But Bush isn’t interested in terrorism. [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be 'Tilted Back Towards Israel' - Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (see
February 18, 1992 and April-May 1999), in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Referring to President Clinton’s efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Bush declares: “Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That’s why we’re in trouble. If the two sides don’t want peace, there’s no way we can force them. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of the situation.… We’re going to correct the imbalance of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt it back towards Israel.” His view is that the Israeli government, currently headed by Ariel Sharon, should be left alone to deal as it sees fit with the Palestinians. “I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. I’m going to take him at face value. We’ll work on a relationship based on how things go.” Justifying his position, he recalls a recent trip he took to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition. “We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there.… I don’t see much we can do over there at this point.” Secretary of State Colin Powell, surprised by Bush’s intended policy towards the 50-year old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, objects. According to Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil, Powell “stresse[s] that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army.” When Powell warns the president that the “consequences of that [policy] could be dire, especially for the Palestinians,” Bush shrugs. “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,” he suggests. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 265-266; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] In this and subsequent meetings, Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “parrot[s]… the neocon line,” in author Craig Unger’s words, by discussing Iraq. “Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region,” she says, clearly alluding to regime change and overthrow in that nation (see March 8, 1992, Autumn 1992, July 8, 1996, Late Summer 1996, Late Summer 1996, 1997-1998, January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, September 2000, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, and Shortly after January 20, 2001). [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Possible WMD Sites in Iraq Spark Bush to Order Plans for Ground Assaults - The meeting then moves on to the subject of Iraq. Rice begins noting “that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.” She turns the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet who summarizes current intelligence on Iraq. He mentions a factory that “might” be producing “either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture.” The evidence he provides is a picture of the factory with some truck activity, a water tower, and railroad tracks going into a building. He admits that there is “no confirming intelligence” on just what is going on at these sites. Bush orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq’s northern and southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 267; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] Author Ron Suskind later sums up the discussion: “Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam.” Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang later writes: “If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Regime Change Intended from the Outset - US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, later recalls: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” O’Neill will say officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” O’Neill will explain. “That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” [CBS News, 1/10/2004; New York Times, 1/12/2004; Guardian, 1/12/2004; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 234] Another official who attends the meeting will later say that the tone of the meeting implied a policy much more aggressive than that of the previous administration. “The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,” the official will tell ABC News. “That went beyond the Clinton administration’s halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force.” [ABC News, 1/13/2004] Unger later writes, “These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to implement.” One senior administration official says after the meeting, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Funding the Iraqi National Congress - The council does more than just discuss Iraq. It makes a decision to allow the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an Iraqi opposition group, to use $4 million to fund efforts inside Iraq to compile information relating to Baghdad’s war crimes, military operations, and other internal developments. The money had been authorized by Congress in late 2004. The US has not directly funded Iraqi opposition activities inside Iraq itself since 1996. [Guardian, 2/3/2005]
White House Downplays Significance - After Paul O’Neill first provides his account of this meeting in 2004, the White House will attempt to downplay its significance. “The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear,” Bush will tell reporters during a visit to Mexico In January 2004. “Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.… And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines.” [New York Times, 1/12/2004]

Entity Tags: Richard B. Myers, Hugh Shelton, Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George J. Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Craig Unger, Iraqi National Congress

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Key Events Related to DSM, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

February 2001: Bush: If US Determines that Iraq Is Developing WMD, ‘We Will Take the Appropriate Action’

Edit event

President Bush hosts British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David. Iraq is on the agenda. Bush and Blair tell reporters that they want to restructure the sanctions on Iraq through the United Nations, using what the White House calls “smart sanctions”—sanctions that are designed to constrain the Iraqi government without harming the Iraqi citizenry. The new sanctions are primarily aimed at tightening controls on “dual-use” goods, items that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, and to keep the regime from getting illicit funds from oil smuggling. Bush says: “A change in sanctions should not in any way, shape, or form, embolden Saddam Hussein. He has got to understand that we are going to watch him carefully and, if we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction, we’ll take the appropriate action. And if we catch him threatening his neighbors we will take the appropriate action.” In 2008, former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan will write: “Saddam was viewed more as a ‘problem’ to deal with than a ‘grave and gathering danger’ in the early days. Talk centered on if he was developing WMD, not that he was developing them.” [McClellan, 2008, pp. 93-94]

Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Scott McClellan, United Nations, Tony Blair

Category Tags: Alleged WMDs, Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

February 2001 and After: Bush Administration Begins Planning for Regime Change in Iraq

Edit event

“Within weeks” of taking office, the Bush administration begins planning for a post-Saddam Iraqi government. The State Department convenes a series of secret discussions attended by prominent Iraqi expatriates, many with ties to US industries, to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. The meetings are held in the home of Falah Aljibury, an adviser to OPEC, Goldman Sachs, and Amerada Hess’s oil trading arm. He also served as Ronald Reagan’s backchannel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. According to Aljibury, the discussion group, led by Pamela Quanrud, an NSC economics expert, quickly evolves into an “oil group.” The plan they develop is said to represent the views of the oil industry and the State Department. According to the plan, Saddam Hussein would be replaced by some former Baathist general, while the rest of the government would continue to function as before. One of the candidates that is considered to head post-Saddam Iraq is Gen. Nizar Khazrahi (see Between February 2001 and February 2003), who is under house arrest in Denmark awaiting trial for war crimes. “The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry—they’d hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days,” Aljibury will later tell reporter Greg Palast. “You have martial law… and say Iraq is being liberated and everybody stay where they are… Everything as is.” [BBC Newsnight, 3/17/2005; Democracy Now!, 3/21/2005; Harper's, 4/2005, pp. 74-76]

Entity Tags: Falah Aljibury, Pamela Quanrud, Bush administration, Nizar Khazrahi

Category Tags: Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Planning

Bookmark and Share

February 1, 2001: Rumsfeld Wants to Get Rid of Hussein in Iraq; Envisions Iraq After Hussein Is Gone

Edit event

The Bush White House holds its second National Security Council meeting. Like the first meeting (see January 30, 2001), the issue of regime change in Iraq is a central topic. [CBS News, 1/10/2004; New York Times, 1/12/2004] Officials discuss a memo titled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,” which talks about troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth. [ [Sources: Paul O’Neill] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld interrupts Colin Powell’s discussion of UN-based sanctions against Iraq, saying, “Sanctions are fine. But what we really want to discuss is going after Saddam.” He continues, “Imagine what the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with US interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond it. It would demonstrate what US policy is all about.” [Suskind, 2004, pp. 85-86 Sources: Paul O’Neill] According to Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Rumsfeld talks at the meeting “in general terms about post-Saddam Iraq, dealing with the Kurds in the north, the oil fields, the reconstruction of the country’s economy, and the ‘freeing of the Iraqi people.’” [New York Times, 1/12/2004 Sources: Paul O’Neill] Other people, in addition to O’Neill, Bush, and Rumsfeld, who are likely in attendance include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers. [US President, 2/13/2001]

Entity Tags: Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush, George J. Tenet, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Planning, The Decision to Invade, Key Events Related to DSM

Bookmark and Share

February 21, 2001: US and British Forces Bomb Iraqi Military Facilities, Leading to Conflict within US Military Leadership

Edit event

A joint US-British air force strike team bombs 20 radar and command centers inside Iraq, enforcing the UN no-fly zones in the largest air strikes within Iraq in two years. While the White House is informed of the strikes by a general from the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is livid because he feels he hasn’t been given enough information about the strikes quickly enough. Rumsfeld’s information comes to him, by established law and protocol, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton; thus it could be hours before Rumsfeld learns of such events. Saying, “I’m the secretary of defense. I’m in the chain of command,” Rumsfeld decides to upend the entire system and ensure that he, not Shelton, will be informed first about any such operations. Rumsfeld presses Shelton for information about the reporting of the air strikes: who had selected those targets and why, who had briefed, who had been briefed, and most importantly, why wasn’t Rumsfeld consulted? CNN had reported air strikes in Baghdad, though the actual bases struck were not in the city itself; it looked for a moment if the US had just declared unilateral war on Iraq. Rumsfeld feels misled and ignored. He is the one in the chain of command, he insists, he is the one reporting to the president, so he should be informed first. Shelton replies that he has to know what’s going on, to know what details to press for and what questions to ask, in order to properly inform the Secretary of Defense, who can then properly inform the president. Rumsfeld insists on being informed before Shelton, and demands a top-to-bottom review of the procedures involving the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and detailed timelines of each incident where Shelton was informed before Rumsfeld. [Woodward, 2006, pp. 22-25]

Entity Tags: Joint Chiefs of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Hugh Shelton, US Department of Defense, National Military Command Center

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Attacks against Iraq

Bookmark and Share

Spring 2001: White House Pressures CIA to Drop Objection to Chalabi

Edit event

During a White House meeting, Bush administration officials discuss new proposals on how to undermine Saddam Hussein. At one point during the meeting, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley tells Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin that the CIA needs to stop bad-mouthing Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi so the Bush administration can work with Chalabi to overthrow the Iraqi government. McLaughlin reportedly makes it clear to Hadley that the agency will not undermine White House efforts to work with Chalabi. Hadley’s pressure on the CIA produces the intended results. Though the CIA will never work directly with Chalabi, the CIA will nonetheless allow the Pentagon to disseminate intelligence reports to other US intelligence agencies based on information from Iraqi defectors supplied by Chalabi’s organization, the Iraqi National Congress. One CIA official later tells author James Risen that the White House message to drop its objections to Chalabi was sent to the CIA “a thousand times, in a thousand different ways.” [Risen, 2006, pp. 183-184]

Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, John E. McLaughlin, Ahmed Chalabi, Stephen J. Hadley

Category Tags: Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

Between March 2001 and May 2001: Richard Clarke: Bush Officials Discuss Creating Casus Belli for War with Iraq

Edit event

Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke later says that sometime between March and May, Bush administration officials discussed creating a casus belli for war with Iraq. In a 2007 interview with radio show host Jon Elliot, Clarke says: “Prior to 9/11 a number of people in the White House were saying to me you know this—this administration, particularly Cheney, but also Bush [and] people like Wolfowitz in the Pentagon, are really intent on going to war with Iraq. And this was the whispered conversations in the National Security Council staff.… Early, early on in the administration people I knew and trusted in the administration were saying to me, ‘You know. They’re really going to do it. They are going to go to war with Iraq.’ And I was flabbergasted. Why would you want to do that of all the things in the world that one could choose to do?… And how are we going to do it? How are we going to cause that provocation? And there was some discussion of ‘Well maybe [we’ll] keep flying aircraft over Iraq and maybe one day one of them will be shot down.’… And some of the talk I was hearing—in the March, April, May timeframe—‘Maybe we’ll do something that is so provocative and do it in such a way that our aircraft will be shot down.’ And then we’ll have an excuse to go to war with Iraq.” [Jon Elliot Show, 1/11/2007 Sources: Richard A. Clarke]

Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, George W. Bush, Richard A. Clarke

Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks, Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

March 2001: US Begins Giving Weapons Training to Members of INC

Edit event

Retired US soldiers give weapons training to members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the Iraqi opposition group led by Ahmed Chalabi. The five-day training session takes place in College Station, Texas, and is said to only be the first round of training. The INC has a contract with the Guidry Group, a consulting firm comprised of ex-secret service agents, to learn diplomatic security. Previously, the US backed training for the INC, but limited it only to “non-lethal” activities such as public relations, emergency medical care, and war crimes investigations. But with the Bush administration newly in power, approval has been given to let the INC learn how to use 12-gauge shotguns, pistols, Kalishnikov rifles, and other fire-arms. Retired Gen. Wayne Downing says, “This is significant because this is the first lethal training. It is designed to protect, so the significance is that this is the first time they are being trained to do anything on this level.” Downing, who has been advising the INC for three years, calls the training “a drop in the bucket.” He adds, “This is not the training they will need to put together a liberation army. There you would need individual training, basic training, weapons training, involving anti tank weapons, machine guns, rockets and that sort of thing.” The Washington Post will later call Downing the INC’s “mentor and biggest cheerleader.” [United Press International, 2/12/2001; Washington Post, 11/20/2001]

Entity Tags: Ahmed Chalabi, Wayne Downing, Guidry Group, Iraqi National Congress

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

March 2001: Cheney’s Energy Task Force Eyes Iraq’s Oil Reserves

Edit event

Cheney’s Energy Task Force authors a variety of documents relating to the oil industries of Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. [Judicial Watch, 7/17/2003; CBS News, 1/10/2004; New York Times, 1/12/2004]
Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts - This document, dated March 5, 2001, includes a table listing 30 countries which have interests in Iraq’s oil industry. The document also includes the names of companies that have interests, the oil fields with which those interests are associated, as well as the statuses of those interests. [Vice President, 2001 pdf file; Vice President, 2001]
Map of Iraq's oil fields - The map includes markings for “supergiant” oil fields of 5 billion barrels or more, other oilfields, fields “earmarked for production sharing,” oil pipelines, operational refineries, and tanker terminals. [Vice President, 2001 pdf file]
Other documents - Other documents include oil field maps and project tables for both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates [Vice President, 2001; Vice President, 2001; Vice President, 2001; Vice President, 2001]

Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: The Decision to Invade, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Motives

Bookmark and Share

March, 2001: Perle Says Hussein Has Weapons of Mass Destruction

Edit event

Defense Policy Board chairman and prominent neoconservative Richard Perle tells the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Does Saddam [Hussein] now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons.…How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate…. And, unless you believe that we’ve uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.” Perle fails to offer any evidence of his claims to the senators, and fails to provide evidence from UN inspectors that shows virtually all of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles and programs have long since been destroyed. [Hersh, 2004, pp. 209-210]

Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Saddam Hussein

Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Attacks against Iraq

Bookmark and Share

April 12, 2001: Report on Energy Security Argues US Needs to Review Policy on Iraq

Edit event

A report commissioned by former US Secretary of State James Baker and the Council on Foreign Relations, titled “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century,” is completed and submitted to Vice President Dick Cheney. The report was drafted by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Edward L. Morse, an energy industry analyst, chaired the project, and Amy Myers Jaffe was the project’s director. The paper urges the US to formulate a comprehensive, integrated strategic energy policy to address the current energy crisis, which it attributes to infrastructural restraints, rapid global economic expansion, and the presence of obstacles to foreign investment in the oil-rich Middle East. The report says the world’s supply of oil is not a factor in the crisis. “The reasons for the energy challenge have nothing to do with the global hydrocarbon resource base…. The world will not run short of hydrocarbons in the foreseeable future,” the paper says. One of the report’s recommendations is to “[r]eview policies toward Iraq” with the ultimate goal of stemming the tide of anti-Americanism in the Middle-East and “eas[ing] Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions.” Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, remains a “destabilizing influence… to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.” It also notes, “Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets.” Therefore, the report says, the “United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments” and work with key allies to develop a new integrated strategy toward Iraq. Key elements of the new policy should include narrowing the focus of sanctions and using diplomatic means to enforce existing UN resolutions. [University, 4/2/2001 pdf file; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 10/5/2002; Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/2002]

Entity Tags: Council on Foreign Relations, James A. Baker, Edward L. Morse, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Amy Myers Jaffe, James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Motives, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Key Events Related to DSM

Bookmark and Share

(Show related quotes)

Excerpts
  • “[T]he United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention.”  — April 2001 [University, 4/2/2001, pp. 34 pdf file; University, 4/2/2001, pp. 34 pdf file]
  • “Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to… the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies…”  — April 2001 [University, 4/2/2001, pp. 42 pdf file; University, 4/2/2001, pp. 42 pdf file]
  • “Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.”  — April 2001 [University, 4/2/2001, pp. 43 pdf file; University, 4/2/2001, pp. 43 pdf file]

May 2001: Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz Discuss Iraq Invasion; Scowcroft Initially Favorable

Edit event

According to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, “Four months before 9/11”, FBI monitoring overhears Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz “discussing with the Turkish ambassador in Washington an arrangement whereby the US would invade Iraq and divide the country.… They were negotiating what Turkey required in exchange for allowing an attack from Turkish soil.” National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, later a critic of the Iraq War, is initially in favor of the plan, but will later drop his support when it becomes clear Turkish demands for control of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq will not be granted. [The American Conservative, 11/1/2009]

Entity Tags: Sibel Edmonds, Brent Scowcroft, Douglas Feith, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Paul Wolfowitz

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

Late July or Early August 2001: US Authorities Look into Theory that Iraq Had Role in 1993 WTC Bombing

Edit event

Laurie Mylroie.Laurie Mylroie. [Source: Publicity photo]US authorities re-open the files on Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the WTC bombing in 1993, and begin looking into the theory that Yousef may have actually been an Iraqi agent. Presumably this is in response to requests by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz the month before to look into the matter (see June 2001). Yousef was convicted in 1996 (see September 5, 1996) and has been in custody since 1995 (see February 7, 1995). According to the official version of events, Yousef’s real name is Abdul Basit, a 27-year-old Pakistani who until 1989 was a computer student studying in South Wales. In late 2000, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) published Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America arguing in support of the theory that Yousef was actually an Iraqi agent (see October 2000). The book, written by AEI scholar Laurie Mylroie, says that Basit was living with his parents in Kuwait in 1990 when Iraq invaded the country (see November 8, 1990). During the occupation, Iraqis presumably murdered him and his family and then altered police files so Iraqi intelligence could use his identity. [New Republic, 9/13/2001; London Times, 9/22/2001] In February 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey traveled to Britain in an attempt to find evidence to support this theory (see February 2001). But Mylroie’s theory is debunked by authorities who match the fingerprints of Yousef to those of Basit. [Washington Monthly, 12/2003; Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 81]

Entity Tags: Ramzi Yousef, American Enterprise Institute, Abdul Basit, Laurie Mylroie, Paul Wolfowitz

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Neoconservative Influence

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

Summer 2001: IAEA Scientist: US ‘Wants to Attack’ Iraq

Edit event

After CIA analyst Joe Turner’s presentation to UN atomic energy scientists (see Late July 2001), one of the scientists calls David Albright, a nuclear physicist who runs the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, and warns him that the “people across the river [i.e., the CIA] are trying to start a war. They are really beating the drum. They want to attack.” [Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 37]

Entity Tags: David Albright, Institute for Science and International Security, Central Intelligence Agency

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Aluminum Tubes Allegation

Bookmark and Share

August 6, 2001: Perle’s Concern About Iraq, North Korea, and Iran Before 9/11 Becomes Axis of Evil Afterward

Edit event

Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board and foreign policy adviser to Bush, is asked about new challenges now that the Cold War is over. He cites three: “We’re concerned about Saddam Hussein, We’re concerned about the North Koreans, about some future Iranian government that may have the weapon they’re now trying so hard to acquire…” [Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 8/6/2001] Note that these three nations are the same three named in Bush’s famous January 2002 “axis of evil” speech (see January 29, 2002). [US President, 2/4/2002]

Entity Tags: Richard Perle, North Korea, Iran, Saddam Hussein

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War

Bookmark and Share

September 2, 2001: Bush Administration Enthusiastic to ‘Take Down Saddam Once and For All’

Edit event

Time magazine reports, “Enthusiasm is building inside the Administration to take down Saddam once and for all. Powell too would love to see Saddam [Hussein] unhorsed, says an official at State. ‘But you need a serious plan that’s doable. The question is how many lives and resources you have to risk.’” Powell is said to have doubts about how to remove Hussein, and calls such an idea still “hypothetical.” But Time notes that “plenty of others on the Bush team are gung-ho.” [Time, 9/2/2001]

Entity Tags: Colin Powell, Saddam Hussein, Bush administration

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade

Bookmark and Share

Mid-September, 2001: Cheney and Rumsfeld Create ‘Cabal’ to Influence Foreign Policy

Edit event

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz create a secretive, ad hoc intelligence bureau within the Pentagon that they mockingly dub “The Cabal.” This small but influential group of neoconservatives is tasked with driving US foreign policy and intelligence reporting towards the goal of promoting the invasion of Iraq. To this end, the group—which later is folded into the slightly more official Office of Special Plans (OSP) (see 2002-2003)—gathers and interprets raw intelligence data for itself, refusing the participation of the experts in the CIA and DIA, and reporting, massaging, manipulating, and sometimes falsifying that information to suit their ends. [New Yorker, 5/12/2003] In October 2005, Larry Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, will say of the Cabal and the OSP (see October 2005), “What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. Now it is paying the consequences of making those decisions in secret, but far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences.” [Financial Times, 10/20/2005]

Entity Tags: Thomas Franks, Paul Wolfowitz, Office of Special Plans, “The Cabal”, Central Intelligence Agency, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Colin Powell, Douglas Feith, Lawrence Wilkerson, Defense Intelligence Agency, Donald Rumsfeld

Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, Domestic Propaganda

Category Tags: Alleged WMDs, Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties, Media Coverage, Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Planning, Propaganda, The Decision to Invade, Aluminum Tubes Allegation, Poisons and Gases, Office of Special Plans, Alleged WMDs, Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties, Media Coverage, Politicization of Intelligence, Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Pre-war Planning, Propaganda, The Decision to Invade, Aluminum Tubes Allegation, Poisons and Gases, Office of Special Plans

Bookmark and Share

September 17, 2001: Republican Senator: US Needs to Foment Regime Change in Middle Eastern Countries

Edit event

Senator George Allen (R-VA) says on CNN that the US needs to consider fomenting regime change in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. [Unger, 2007, pp. 217]

Entity Tags: George F. Allen

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, The Decision to Invade, Democracy Rhetoric

Bookmark and Share

Autumn 2002: Anthrax Attacks Suspect Hatfill Helps Train US Special Forces while FBI Investigates Him

Edit event

In autumn 2002, US Delta Force units train on a mobile biological weapons factory to prepare them for dealing with mobile biological weapons factories in Iraq. The factory is just like the factories the US accuses the Iraqi government of having but which it does not have. The chief designer of the factory is Steven Hatfill, who is also the FBI’s main suspect at the time for the 2001 anthrax attacks (see October 5-November 21, 2001). Hatfill began designing the factory while working for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a contractor for the US military and the CIA. He begins gathering parts to build it in 2000, and construction began in September 2001, at a metalworking plant near Fort Detrick, Maryland. SAIC fired him in March 2002, after he failed to get a high-level security clearance and he came under suspicion for the October 2001 anthrax attacks. But Hatfill continues to work on the half-built factory on his own, for no pay, until it is finished later that year. Once it is done, Hatfill continues to advise the US military about it, and sometimes supervises Delta Force training exercises on it at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. However, at the same time, the Justice Department and the FBI is heavily investigating Hatfill for the anthrax attacks, and there is a conflict between agencies over Hatfill’s continued role with the factory. The FBI wants to confiscate the factory, but the military will not give it up. Its equipment includes a fermenter, a centrifuge, and “a mill for grinding clumps of anthrax into the best size for penetrating human lungs,” according to experts familiar with it. However, its components are not connected and it is never used to make lethal germs. The FBI examines the unit but finds no anthrax spores or any other evidence linking it to the anthrax attacks. [New York Times, 7/2/2003] Hatfill will be cleared of any connection to the anthrax attacks in 2008 (see June 27, 2008).

Entity Tags: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Steven Hatfill, Delta Force

Timeline Tags: 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Category Tags: Pre-9/11 Plans for War, Alleged WMDs, 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Bookmark and Share

September 2002: ’Office of Special Plans’ Created; ‘Stovepipes’ Questionable Intelligence Reports to Office of Vice President

Edit event

William Luti.William Luti. [Source: Helene C. Stikkel / Defense Department]Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both staunch neoconservatives, rename the Northern Gulf Affairs Office on the Pentagon’s fourth floor (in the seventh corridor of D Ring) the “Office of Special Plans” (OSP) and increase its four-person staff to sixteen. [Knight Ridder, 8/16/2002; Los Angeles Times, 11/24/2002; New Yorker, 5/12/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; Tom Paine (.com), 8/27/2003; American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] William Luti, a former navy officer and ex-aide to Vice President Cheney, is put in charge of the day-to-day operations [Guardian, 7/17/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] , apparently at the behest of Cheney. Luti was, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang, a member of Cheney’s “shadow National Security Council.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Transforming NESA - Luti worked for the Near East and South Asian Affairs desk (NESA) at the Pentagon since mid-2001. Lang later describes NESA as having been “a Pentagon backwater, responsible primarily for arranging bilateral meetings with military counterparts” from various nations. Before the Afghanistan war, NESA worked closely with the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Defense Intelligence Officer (DIO) for the Near East, South Asia, and Counterterrorism. During Luti’s first months at NESA, the DIO was Bruce Hardcastle. The Pentagon dismantled the entire DIO system, partly because of friction between Luti and Hardcastle (see
Early 2002). Lang will write, “The roots of the friction between Hardcastle and Luti were straightforward: Hardcastle brought with him the combined wisdom of the professional military intelligence community. The community had serious doubts about the lethality of the threat from Saddam Hussein, the terrorism links and the status of the Iraqi WMD programs. Luti could not accept this. He knew what he wanted: to bring down Saddam Hussein. Hardcastle could not accept the very idea of allowing a desired outcome to shape the results of analysis.” Luti transforms NESA into what Lang will call “a ‘de facto’ arm of the vice president’s office,” and in the process shuts Hardcastle out of NESA (and later OSP) intelligence briefings. Luti does not report to either Feith or Donald Rumsfeld, as his chain of command delineates, but to Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby. OSP staffer Karen Kwiatkowski later recalls being “shocked” to learn that Luti reports to Libby and not to his putative Pentagon superiors. She will say, “In one of the first staff meetings that I attended there, Bill Luti said, ‘Well, did you get that thing over to Scooter? Scooter wants this, and somebody’s got to get it over to him, and get that up to him right away.’ After the meeting, I asked one of my co-workers, who’d been there longer, ‘Who is this Scooter?’ I was told, ‘That’s Scooter Libby over at the OVP (Office of the Vice President). He’s the Vice President’s chief of staff.’ Later I came to understand that Cheney had put Luti there.” Under Luti, NESA becomes a virtual adjunct to the OSP. [Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Strong Neoconservative Influence - The Office of Special Plans is staffed with a tight group of like-minded neoconservative ideologues, who are known advocates of regime change in Iraq. Notably, the staffers have little background in intelligence or Iraqi history and culture. [Salon, 7/16/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] Some of the people associated with this office were earlier involved with the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, also known as the “Wurmser-Maloof” project (see
Shortly After September 11, 2001). They hire “scores of temporary ‘consultants‘… including like-minded lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous right-wing think-tanks in the US capital.” Neoconservative ideologues, like Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, and Newt Gingrich, are afforded direct input into the Office of Special Plans. [Guardian, 7/17/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Vanity Fair, 7/2006, pp. 150] Kwiatkowski later says she saw Ledeen going “in and out of there (OSP) all the time.” [Vanity Fair, 7/2006, pp. 150]
Planning for Post-Saddam Iraq - The official business of Special Plans is to help plan for post-Saddam Iraq. The office’s staff members presumably “develop defense policies aimed at building an international coalition, prepare the secretary of defense and his top deputies for interagency meetings, coordinate troop-deployment orders, craft policies for dealing with prisoners of war and illegal combatants, postwar assistance and reconstruction policy planning, postwar governance, Iraqi oil infrastructure policy, postwar Iraqi property disputes, war crimes and atrocities, war-plan review and, in their spare time, prepare congressional testimony for their principals.” [Insight, 12/2/2003]
Covert Source of 'Alternative' Intelligence - But according to numerous well-placed sources, the office becomes a source for many of the administration’s prewar allegations against Iraq. It is accused of exaggerating, politicizing, and misrepresenting intelligence, which is “stovepiped” to top administration officials who use the intelligence in their policy decisions on Iraq. [Knight Ridder, 8/16/2002; Los Angeles Times, 11/24/2002; New Yorker, 5/12/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; Tom Paine (.com), 8/27/2003; American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Daily Telegraph, 7/11/2004; CNN, 7/11/2004]
'Top Secret' - There are very few news reports in the American mainstream media that report on the office. In fact, the office is reportedly Top Secret. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 308] “We were instructed at a staff meeting that this office was not to be discussed or explained,” Kwiatkowski will later say, “and if people in the Joint Staff, among others, asked, we were to offer no comment.” [American Conservative, 12/1/2003]
Part of a 'Separate Government,' Powell Feels - Colin Powell is said to have felt that Cheney and the neoconservatives in this “Gestapo” office had established what was essentially a separate government. [Washington Post, 4/17/2004] Powell’s former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, is even more blunt. “When I say ‘secret cabal,’ I mean ‘secret cabal,’ he says of the White House officials behind the OSP. He compares Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neoconservatives to the Jacobins, the radical zealots who plunged 18th-century France into the Reign of Terror. “I see them as messianic advocates of American power from one end of the globe, much as the Jacobins in France were messianic advocates of the French Revolution. I don’t care whether utopians are Vladimir Lenin on a sealed train to Moscow or Paul Wolfowitz. You’re never going to bring utopia, and you’re going to hurt a lot of people in the process.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 299-300] Among the claims critics find most troubling about the office are:
Heavy Reliance on Intelligence from Exiles and Defectors - The office relies heavily on accounts from Iraqi exiles and defectors associated with Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC), long considered suspect by other US intelligence agencies. [New Yorker, 5/12/2003; Salon, 7/16/2003; Guardian, 7/17/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; Independent, 9/30/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] One defector in particular, code-named “Curveball,” provides as much as 98 percent of the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged arsenal of biological weapons. [CNN, 7/11/2004] Much of the information provided by the INC’s sources consists of “misleading and often faked intelligence reports,” which often flow to Special Plans and NESA directly, “sometimes through Defense Intelligence Agency debriefings of Iraqi defectors via the Defense Human Intelligence Service and sometimes through the INC’s own US-funded Intelligence Collection Program, which was overseen by the Pentagon.” [Mother Jones, 1/2004] According to Kwiatkowski, the movement of intelligence from the INC to the Office of Special Plans is facilitated by a Colonel Bruner, a former military aide to Gingrich. [Newsweek, 12/15/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Salon, 3/10/2004] Bruner “was Chalabi’s handler,” Kwiatkowski will tell Mother Jones. “He would arrange meetings with Chalabi and Chalabi’s folks.” [Mother Jones, 1/2004] Kwiatkowski also finds that OSP personnel, along with DIA and CIA officials, are taking part in the debriefing of INC informants. She will recall confronting one DIA officer, John Trigilio, about the practice: “I argued with [Tregilio] after the president’s Cincinnati speech (see
October 5, 2002 and October 6, 2002). I told him that the president had made a number of statements that were just not supported by the intelligence. He said that the president’s statements are supported by intelligence, and he would finally say, ‘We have sources that you don’t have.’ I took it to mean the sources that Chalabi was bringing in for debriefing… Trigilio told me he participated in a number of debriefs, conducted in hotels downtown, or wherever, of people that Chalabi brought in. These debriefs had Trigilio from OSP, but also CIA and DIA participated… If [the information] sounded good, it would go straight to the OVP or elsewhere. I don’t put it out of possibility that the information would go straight to the media because of the (media’s) close relationship with some of the neoconservatives. So this information would make it straight out into the knowledge base without waiting for intelligence [analysts] to come by with their qualifications and reservations.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Cherry-Picked Intelligence - The Office of Special Plans purposefully ignores intelligence that undermines the case for war while exaggerating any leads that support it. “It wasn’t intelligence—it was propaganda,” Kwiatkowski will later explain. “They’d take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don’t belong together.” [New York Times, 10/24/2002; New Yorker, 5/12/2003; Salon, 7/16/2003; Guardian, 7/17/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003; Independent, 9/30/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] “At the OSP, what they were doing was looking at all the intelligence they could find on WMD. That was the focal point, picking bits and pieces that were the most inflammatory, removing any context that might have been provided in the original intelligence report, that would have caused you to have some pause in believing it or reflected doubts that the intelligence community had, so if the intelligence community had doubts, those would be left out… They would take items that had occurred many years ago, and put them in the present tense, make it seem like they occurred not many years ago… But they would not talk about the dates; they would say things like, ‘He has continued since that time’ and ‘He could do it tomorrow,’ which of course, wasn’t true… The other thing they would do would be to take unrelated events that were reported in totally unrelated ways and make connections that the intelligence community had not made. This was primarily in discussing Iraq’s activities and how they might be related to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups that might be against us, or against Israel… These kinds of links would be made. They would be made casually, and they would be made in a calculated way to form an image that is definitely not the image that anyone reading the original reports would have. The summaries that we would see from Intelligence did not match the kinds of things that OSP was putting out. So that is what I call propaganda development. It goes beyond the manipulation of intelligence to propaganda development.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
No Intelligence Oversight - The OSP bypasses established oversight procedures by sending its intelligence assessments directly to the White House and National Security Council without having them first vetted by a review process involving other US intelligence agencies. [New Yorker, 5/12/2003; Salon, 7/16/2003; Guardian, 7/17/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004] The people at Special Plans are so successful at bypassing conventional procedures, in part, because their neoconservative colleagues hold key positions in several other agencies and offices. Their contacts in other agencies include: John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security; Bolton’s adviser, David Wurmser, a former research fellow on the Middle East at the American Enterprise Institute, who was just recently working in a secret Pentagon planning unit at Douglas Feith’s office (see
Shortly After September 11, 2001); Elizabeth Cheney, deputy assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs; Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser; Elliott Abrams, the National Security Council’s top Middle East aide; and Richard Perle, Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey and Kenneth Adelman of the Defense Policy Board. The office provides very little information about its work to other US intelligence offices. [Salon, 7/16/2003; Guardian, 7/17/2003; Inter Press Service, 8/7/2003]
'Stealth Organization' - Greg Thielmann, the former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department’s Intelligence Bureau, later says of the OSP: “It was a stealth organization. They didn’t play in the intelligence community proceedings that our office participated in. When the intelligence community met as a community, there was no OSP represented in these sessions. Because, if they had done that, they would have had to subject their views to peer review. Why do that when you can send stuff right in to the vice president?” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004; Unger, 2007, pp. 299] Lang will say in January 2004 that what happened was fundamentally different from anything that had happened under previous presidents. Cheney’s staff and allies “behaved as though they had seized control of the government in a ‘silent coup,’” The result, according to Lang, is “a highly corrupted system of intelligence and policymaking, one twisted to serve specific group goals, ends, and beliefs held to the point of religious faith.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 301]
Pressuring Intelligence Analysts - Retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Dale Davis, who headed the International Programs Department at the Virginia Military Institute until March 2004, and an expert on Middle East affairs, later says he believes intelligence analysts at the CIA and other agencies were pressured indirectly. Davis will say, “By creating the OSP [Office of Special Plans], Cheney was able to say, ‘Hey, look at what we’re getting out of OSP. How come you guys aren’t doing as well? What is your response to what this alternative analysis that we’re receiving from the Pentagon says?’ That’s how you do it. You pressure people indirectly.” Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior counterterrorism official with the CIA, will agree: “Over a long period of time, there was a subtle process of pressure and intimidation until people started giving them what was wanted… When the Senate Intelligence Committee interviewed, under oath, over 100 analysts, not one of them said, ‘I changed my assessment because of pressure.‘… The environment was conditioned in such a way that the analyst subtly leaned toward the conceits of the policymakers… The intelligence community was vulnerable to the aggressiveness of neoconservative policymakers, particularly at the Pentagon and at the VP’s office. As one analyst said to me, ‘You can’t fight something with nothing, and those people had something. Whether it was right or wrong, fraudulent or specious, it almost didn’t make any difference, because the policymakers believed it already, and if you didn’t have hard countervailing evidence to persuade them, then you were at a loss.’” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Strong Pro-Israel, Anti-Arab Biases - Lastly, the people involved in Special Plans openly exhibit strong pro-Israel and anti-Arab bias. The problem, note critics, is that the analysis of intelligence is supposed to be apolitical and untainted by ideological viewpoints. [American Conservative, 12/1/2003] According to a CIA intelligence official and four members of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, Special Plans is the group responsible for the claim Bush will make in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from an African country (see
9:01 pm January 28, 2003). [Nation, 6/19/2003; Information Clearing House, 7/16/2003]
Personal Grudges against Intelligence Community - The OSP reflects the personal grudges and ill will of many in the Office of the Vice President against the intelligence community, in part because of the CIA’s refusal to give much weight to the claims of Chalabi and the INC. “This had been a fight for such a long period of time, where people were so dug in,” a friend of one of Vice President Cheney’s senior staffers will later reflect. A colleague of the senior staff later says, “They so believed that the CIA were wrong, they were like, ‘We want to show these f_ckers that they are wrong.’” [New Republic, 11/20/2003]
Propaganda - Kwiatkowski will later recall that the OSP generated a large amount of what she terms propaganda, in the form of “talking points” used in briefings and in press conferences. “With the talking points, many of the propagandistic bullets that were given to use in papers for our superiors to inform them—internal propaganda—many of those same phrases and assumptions and tones, I saw in Vice President Cheney’s speeches and the president’s speeches,” she will say. “So I got the impression that those talking points were not just for us, but were the core of an overall agenda for a disciplined product, beyond the Pentagon. Over at the vice president’s office and the [neoconservative news magazine] Weekly Standard, the media, and the neoconservative talking heads and that kind of thing, all on the same sheet of music.” Kwiatkowski identifies Abram Shulsky, a neoconservative academic and recent Pentagon hire, as the source of many of these talking points. [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Denials, Counter-Accusations after Public Learns of OSP - After the existence of the Office of Special Plans is revealed to the public, the Pentagon will deny that it served as a direct conduit to the White House for misleading intelligence, instead claiming that its activities had been limited to postwar plans for Iraq. [New York

Wikeleaks Exposed Bush 1 approved Saddam ‘s invasion of Iraq, then turned tables and made Saddam a neo Hitler. Ron Paul addressed congress about this crime and the start of the 20 years war.

More than one million Iraqi deaths since US invasion

As part of its campaign to justify a long-term US occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration has increasingly resorted to warning of chaos and even genocide in the wake of a withdrawal of American troops. But a new report suggests that something akin to genocide is already taking place, under American auspices.

The British polling agency ORB reported Thursday that the death tool in Iraq since the 2003 US invasion has passed the one million mark.
According to
ORB, US-occupied Iraq, with an estimated 1.2 million violent deaths, has “a murder rate that now exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered),” with another one million wounded and millions more driven from their homes into internal or external exile.

RSS Feed

Showing 1-20 of 100 recently added events:    next 20

Recently Updated Events

Showing 1-20 of 39 recently updated events:    next 20

Showing 1-20 of 39 recently updated events:    next 20

ORB (Opinion Research Business), which has conducted polls in Iraq since 2005, released the findings of a survey of 1,461 adults across the country. Among other questions, it asked: “How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e., as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.”

Of those responding, 78 percent said their households had experienced no violent deaths, 16 percent had experienced one death, 5 percent two deaths, 1 percent three deaths or more. Given the number of households in the country, 4,050,597 according to 2005 census figures, this works out to nearly 1.2 million deaths.

The survey found that 48 percent of the violent deaths were due to gunshot wounds, 20 percent to car bombs, 9 percent to aerial bombardment, 6 percent to other ordnance or explosions, and 6 percent to accidents.

 

The figure for aerial bombardments is particularly noteworthy since such deaths—numbering well over 100,000 according to the ORB study—go virtually unreported in the American media. This is doubtless because such killings are entirely the work of the US and British occupation forces, the only ones equipped with helicopters and warplanes.

The ORB survey found a far higher death rate than the figures released by Western media outlets, the US-established Iraqi government in Baghdad, or the United Nations. But it dovetails with the public health survey conducted last year by a team of scientists from Johns Hopkins University and published in the British medical journal Lancet, which estimated the death toll (as of early 2006, nearly 18 months ago), at about 665,000.

The Lancet figures were denounced by the US and Iraqi governments and dismissed by the American media, and the ORB figures are likely to face the same fate. The study’s findings were reported only in passing in Friday’s daily newspapers, most prominently by the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe, not at all by the New York Times or Washington Post.

The ORB survey was based on face-to-face interviews conducted between August 12 and August 19 among a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults (of whom 1,461 responded), with a standard margin of error of 2.4 percent. Random sampling was used to select those interviewed in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.

For security reasons, no interviews were conducted in Al Anbar or Karbala provinces, or in the province of Irbil, where Kurdish authorities refused to allow field interviews. Since Anbar and Karbala are among the bloodiest battlefields of the war, and Irbil among the quietest, the exclusion of the three provinces would more likely to lead to an underestimation of the death toll than an exaggeration.

The ORB study was made public on the same day that President Bush went on national television to deliver a report on conditions in Iraq that was nothing short of delusional. With a million Iraqis dead, a million wounded, and four to five million displaced, Bush hailed the return of “normal life” to the devastated country. “Sectarian killings are down, and ordinary life is beginning to return,” he said.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

The war in Iraq is the war of President Bush

1999: George W. Bush Hints at Invading Iraq in Future Presidency
The war in Iraq is the war of President Bush and every cowardly member of Congress who voted to give him war-waging powers out of fear of being viewed as "unpatriotic" in the wake of 9/11. Bush's definition of victory is an Iraq where everyone gets along and it is a peaceful, democratic society. Good luck with that.

Hot Zone Documentary

Bush calls for permanent US military occupation of Iraq in nationally televised address
How cruel it is to keep sending American soldiers into this meat grinder in pursuit of this impossible dream! We need to pull out, let the Iraqis hash it out, and offer closely-audited economic aid to help the winners rebuild their country as reparations for the damage that we have allowed this president to do in our name.
Personally, I have more respect for someone like Clinton, who was up front about his objections to the Vietnam War and did what he could to avoid serving in it, than for George W. Bush, who avoided combat in the Air National Guard (courtesy of family influence), so that he could claim to have "served his country". That is the very definition of a hypocritical chicken hawk.

If I Die Before You Wake

Dedicated To The American Soldier, the men and women in uniform in the service of our country overseas.
It was reasonably certain that Saddam was not hiding any new WMD because once we had surrounded Iraq with our military, he didn't restrict access to any site. Bush still chose to invade for the petty reason of establishing his legacy as a "wartime president". George Tenet, no matter who appointed him, was the same type of weak-willed, eager-to-please, do-anything-to-keep-the-job person as Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzales and sad to say, Colin Powell turned out to be.
Read it and weep.

"US and the Triumph of Unilateralism,"Asia Times, Sept. 10, 2002

"George Bush and the World,"New York Review of Books, Sept. 26, 2002 issue

"The Next World Order,"The New Yorker, March 25, 2002

"Saddam in the Crosshairs,"Village Voice, Nov. 21-27, 2001

"Rebuilding America's Defenses,"Project for a New Century, September 2000

"Statement of Principles,"Project for a New American Century, June 3, 1997

"Fortunes of war await Bush's circle after attacks on Iraq,"The Independent (UK), Sept. 15, 2002

"Don't Mention the O-Word,"The Economist, Sept. 12, 2002

"Backing on Iraq? Let's Make a Deal,"Los Angeles Times, Sept. 13, 2002

"In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is a Key Issue,"Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002

"Cronies in Arms,"New York Times, Sept. 17, 2002

"Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq,"U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, Republican, Texas, Sept. 10, 2002

"Bombs Will Deepen Iraq's Nightmare: An Iraqi Dissident Speaks,"The Guardian, Sept. 17, 2002

"Looking War in the Face,"Boston Globe, Sept. 10, 2002

"Iraqgate,"Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1993

1988: Bin Ladens Bail Out George W. Bush?
The WMD that were found were so old that they were no longer of any use, made from components supplied by us during the Iran-Iraq war. The slaughter of the Kurds using these weapons occurred in 1987 and 1988, while the darling of Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, stood by. I have nothing but respect for the military men and women who do what they are asked, but nothing but contempt for the cowards who sit comfortably in the White House sending them off to die for a legacy, not our protection.

June 4, 1992: FBI Investigates Ties Between George W. Bush and Saudi Money
sEL('1626004942-10001','10001')

Arbusto, HARKEN, Spectrum-7, Aloha -- Every company Bush W ever touched, he's run into the ground. Yet Poppy's family and friends, including James R Bath, the bin Mahfouz and bin Ladens, always help him out. No wonder he went off thinking of ENRON, Kenny Boy and all the possibilities.

James Bath. [Source: Time Life Images]The FBI investigates connections between James Bath and George W. Bush, according to published reports. Bath is Salem bin Laden’s official representative in the US. Bath’s business partner contends that, “Documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence US policy,” since George W. Bush’s father is president. George W. Bush denies any connections to Saudi money. What becomes of this investigation is unclear, but no charges are ever filed. [Houston Chronicle, 6/4/1992] July 2000: Bush Meets with Suspected Terrorism Supporters

Recently Updated Events.
View all events for this timeline (1094)
Timelines filtered by category
Key Events
Key events related to DSM (57)
General Topic Areas
Alleged al-Qaeda ties (90)Politicization of intelligence (98)Pre-9/11 plans for war (36)Weapons inspections (124)Alleged WMDs (124)The decision to invade (127)Internal opposition (30)Motives (71)Pre-war planning (31)Predictions (35)Legal justification (102)Propaganda (33)Public opinion on Iraqi threatDiversion of Resources to Iraq (9)Pre-war attacks against Iraq (18)
Specific Allegations
Africa-uranium allegation (119)Al Zarqawi allegation (10)Aluminum tubes allegation (79)Biological weapons trailers (53)Drones (6)Poisons And Gases (5)Prague Connection (27)
Specific cases and issues
Anabasis (12)Chalabi and the INC (68)Office of Special Plans (30)Outing of Jose Bustani (13)Powells Speech to UN (21)Spying on the UN (8)
Quotes from senior US officials
Chemical and biological weapons allegations (25)Imminent threat allegations (8)Iraq ties to terrorist allegations (17)Nuclear weapons allegations (28)WMD allegations (9)Democracy rhetoric (33)Decision to Invade quotes (20)
Events Recently Added to the Inquiry into the decision to invade Iraq timeline


5/11 - Cheney Gives Speech at Institute of Petroleum, Autumn 1999, posted by Derek
4/19 - ConocoPhillips CEO ‘Covet[s] the Opportunity to Get’ Iraq Oil, February 2003, posted by Derek
4/19 - Former Iraqi Oil Minister Believes Iraq Could One Day Rival Saudi Arabia in Oil Production, February 2003, posted by Derek
4/19 - Shell Oil Looking for PR Officer with ‘Strong Family Connections’ to Work for Shell Iraq, August 2004, posted by Derek
4/18 - US-Educated Iraqi Oil Minister Announces that Plan for Privatization of Iraq’s Oil Industry is in the Works, September 4, 2003, posted by Derek

I am only showing all the sides of the spectrum. To be silent, in view of what is happening to our country is a crime. I have to speak up, not only because it is my right, but I do not want to be an enabler to the waste being done to my fellow citizen and to the world. The WTC event was capitalized by the Bush Administration's false justifications for war in Iraq within the larger context of a two-decade struggle by neoconservatives to dramatically increase military spending in the wake of the Cold War, and to expand American power globally by means of military force. The plans for the attack on Iraq, was made 2 years in advance and decisions were already made by Bush and company to invade before 2003, the only problem was the selling of the war to the American people. Thereafter, the congress, the people got duped into believing Iraq was a threat and a terrorist base.

Again, Mr. Bush is doing the same kind of propaganda to convince the American public in the expansion of troop strength in Iraq. This may touch a wider war that will include Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, preparations are underway towards that objective. There are now two carrier battle groups in that area, instead of just one in the initial invasion previously. A navy admiral commands all the troops in that area, instead of the two battle tested field army or marine generals. Who needs a navy admiral in a land war, except for a wider war. Something big is in the works and being cooked as we speak. Those carrier battle groups represent a projection of power in a wider theater of war, there is a sinister plan in effect and could be the possible invasion of Iran and Syria. We do not need another war.

If Mr. Bush is using those carrier battle groups as a tool for gunboat diplomacy, we are being seen again by the people of the world as a bully. Congress, the people, should be aware of all these motives of our fearless leader, sacrificing our youth and duping us to another war. We do not need this war. The legislative branch of our government should check and balance the moves of this runaway administration.

The attack on Iraq caused the lives of over 1,200,000 civilians. The destruction of a sovereign country, that was not a threat to us. The total anarchy in Iraq that lead to a civil war, the blood and lives of our troops, the debasing of our economy only for what, the naivete of this president of the difference between Sunnis and Shiites (that Saddam was the stabilizing factor that prevented both sects from killing each other) or there is his axe to grind against Saddam, or is it the oil.........................ASC
Bush before the midterm election was trying to pass thru congress a provision to make him and his cronies safe from War Crimes Prosecution."Here's the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases ... all punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They've been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they're trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns. The reason there's such a rush to do this? If the Democrats get control of the House in November this kind of legislation probably wouldn't pass. "You wanna know the real disgrace about what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this. I really do wonder sometimes what we're becoming in this country."

If you're interested in knowing this other truth, horrible as it is, then I suggest you watch this and other videos. These atrocities, will continue until the American people wake up and put a stop to this evil. The first step is to understand and have an open mind that this could really be happening.

1999: George W. Bush Hints at Invading Iraq in Future Presidency

Mickey Herskowitz. [Source: Public domain]Presidential candidate George W. Bush tells prominent Texas author and Bush family friend Mickey Herskowitz, who is helping Bush write an autobiography, that as president he would invade Iraq if given the opportunity. “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief,” Herskowitz remembers Bush saying. “My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of [Kuwait] and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade Iraq, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Herskowitz later says he believes Bush’s comments were intended to distinguish himself from his father, rather than express a desire to invade Iraq.

Context of 'October 14, 2003: Libby Interviewed by FBI concerning Plame Wilson Leak'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event October 14, 2003: Libby Interviewed by FBI concerning Plame Wilson Leak. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.y Outs CIA Official to New York Times Reporter

Edit event

Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, “outs” a covert CIA agent to a reporter. Libby tells New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who has been a reliable outlet for administration leaks and disinformation (see December 20, 2001, August 2002, and May 1, 2003), that Valerie Plame Wilson is a CIA official. Plame Wilson is a covert CIA officer currently working at CIA headquarters on WMD issues in the Middle East. More importantly for Libby, she is the husband of former US ambassador Joseph Wilson, who went to Niger to verify the administration’s claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002), and who has become  an outspoken critic of the administration’s war policies both on television and in print (see July 6, 2003).
Libby Blames CIA for 'Slanted Intell' - Miller meets Libby at the Old Executive Building. Her focus is, as she has written in her notebook, “Was the intell slanted?” meaning the intelligence used to propel the US into war with Iraq. Libby is “displeased,” she notes, by what he calls the “selective leaking” of information to the press by the CIA. He calls it a “hedging strategy,” and Miller quotes him in her notes: “If we find it, fine, if not, we hedged.” Miller feels that Libby is trying to use the interview to set up a conflict between the White House and the CIA. He says that reports suggesting senior administration officials may have selectively used some intelligence reports to bolster their claims about Iraq while ignoring others are “highly distorted.” The thrust of his conversation, Miller will later testify (see
September 30, 2005), is to try to blame the CIA for the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq invasion. The CIA is now trying to “hedge” its earlier assessments, Libby says. He accuses it of waging what he calls a “perverted war” against the White House over the issue, and is clearly angry that it failed to, in his view, share its “doubts about Iraq intelligence.” He tells Miller, “No briefer came in [after the State of the Union address] and said, ‘You got it wrong, Mr. President.’”
Joseph Wilson and 'Valerie Flame' - Libby refers to “a clandestine guy,” meaning Wilson, and tells Miller that Cheney “didn’t know” about him, attempting to disassociate Cheney from any responsibility for Wilson’s trip. In her notes, Miller writes, “wife works in bureau?” and she will later testify that she is sure Libby is referring to the CIA. In her notes, she also writes the words “Valerie Flame,” a misspelled reference to Wilson’s wife. [New York Times, 10/16/2005; Vanity Fair, 4/2006; Unger, 2007, pp. 310; MSNBC, 2/21/2007]
No Story from Interview - Miller does not write a story based on the conversation with Libby. [New York Times, 10/16/2005; New York Times, 10/16/2005]

 

The official narrative is that 9/11 was planned by Al Qaeda leader and mastermind Osama bin Laden. However, what the government will not mention is its ties to Bin Laden, starting out in the 1980s, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In 1979, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in order to join Afghan mujaheddin fighters in fighting the Soviet Union. By 1984, he “was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.” [1] The MAK had ties to the CIA as it was run by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which the CIA used to arm the Islamic fighters.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia and started up Al Qaeda, including some of the more extremist members of the MAK. [2] Due to US training, Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups that sprang up after the Soviets left Afghanistan had “the arms, money - and most importantly - the knowledge of how to run a war of attrition violent and well-organized enough to humble a superpower.” [3] On September 11, 2001, this decision to back known Islamic extremists simply came home to roost for the US government.

Aftermath of 9/11

Soon after 9/11, President Bush in an address to Congress and the nation in which he declared the War on Terror, saying that America would “direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.” [4]

He made it clear to the American people and the world that the War on Terror was going to be quite long, saying “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” and that “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen” [5] He also made an appeal to the world for aid to fight terrorism, saying that the War on Terror is not “just America’s fight” that it was “civilization’s fight” and “the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” [6]

This was an attempt to make the War on Terror seem as if it were truly a just cause, however invading Afghanistan was in the plans of the Project for the New American Century. The same day that President Bush gave that speech, PNAC sent a letter to him with recommendations as to what the first opening moves of the War on Terror should be. In regards to Osama bin Laden, PNAC said that the US should “support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.” (emphasis added) [7]

In providing “substantial financial and military assistance” to anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan, it was meant that the US would back the Northern Alliance, which was a mixture of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, and Pashtuns, among others, who were anti-Taliban. While the US media made it seem that the Northern Alliance were the ‘good guys,’ in reality, they were just as bad as the Taliban. One of the alliance members, General Rashid Dostum, was accused of having massacred between 250 and 3,000 (the number depends on one’s source) Taliban members in the Dasht-i-Leili desert. In addition to this, there were large amounts of in fighting with in the Northern Alliance, as the Afghan tribes settled disputes between one another.

The letter also mentions Iraq, saying that Iraq may have “provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States.” However, the letter goes further, arguing for an invasion of Iraq.

But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means. (emphasis added) [8]

This was, without a doubt, a clear admission that the neoconservatives wanted to invade Iraq by any means necessary, PNAC was blatantly encouraging the President to engage in destabilizing the Iraqi government and then sending in US troops to overthrow Saddam.

Unfortunately due to the neoconservative elements in the Bush Administration these plans would come to fruition.

9/11 Commission Report

In 2004, the US government released the 9/11 Commission Report, which told how 9/11 had been perpetrated. The report bought up evidence that the US government may have know that 9/11 was going to occur beforehand.

According the the report, in early 2001 counter-terrorism officials began “receiving frequent but fragmented reports” concerning “possible threats almost everywhere the United States had interests- including at home.” [9] During the entire year of 2001, CIA Director George Tenet “was briefed regularly regarding threats and other operational information regarding Osama bin Laden” [10] and this information was passed, via Tenet himself, to President Bush on a daily basis. Thus, President Bush had to have some information that terrorists were planning to attack the US, especially in the spring of 2001 when “the level of reporting on terrorist threats and planned attacks increased dramatically to its highest level.” [11] In May of 2001as well as in later months, it was reported that bin Laden’s plans were advancing, however the US government still did not take any major action.

The report also advocated making serious changes to the US intelligence structure. The report advocated that the Director of Central Intelligence be replaced “by a National Intelligence Director with two main areas of responsibility: (1) to oversee national intelligence centers on specific subjects of interest across the US government and (2) to manage the national intelligence program and oversee the agencies that contribute to it.” [12] However, this could have potentially been problematic as the powers of this National Intelligence Director were never clearly defined and the creation of such a position would move in on the turf of already established homeland, foreign, and defense intelligence agencies, thus the newly created Department of Homeland Security, CIA, and the Defense Intelligence Agency might have ended up having a serious turf war with the National Intelligence Director and his/her team.

However, what is most interesting about the 9/11 Commission Report is that President Bush originally did not want it to occur. In 2004, it was reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in an interview between Rafael Epstein and Eleanor Hall that “ it was George W. Bush who initially didn't want this commission to take place. He fought with them about adequate funding, and whether or not he should give them access to documents, and whether or not he and his staff should talk to them.” [13] It is quite interesting that a man who seemed to care so much about the events of 9/11, even going so far as to declare a War on Terror, would fight said event being investigated.

Patriot Act

On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, which at the time was hailed as a major part of fighting terrorism at home and keeping Americans safe. What was not known at the time were the destructive policies of the Patriot Act which allowed for the government to begin to erode the civil liberties of American citizens.

The Patriot Act expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to be

an act ""dangerous to human life"" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. [14]

This definition of terrorism was so broad as to “encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations” such as “Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front.” [15] This broad definition was (and still is) quite dangerous as it allows the government to target groups that protests its agenda and imprison them indefinitely.

There was already resistance to the Patriot Act soon after it was signed into law. It was reported that several civil libertarians argued that “the surveillance powers give law enforcement too much leeway to collect private information on people on the periphery of investigations” as the Patriot Act included “the expansion of Internet eavesdropping technology,” [16] in addition to the illegal wiretapping of phones.

However, this resistance wasn’t large enough, and the erosion of citizen’s civil liberties would continue.

War in Afghanistan

Leading up to the invasion of Afghanistan, the US government told Americans and the world that they were going into Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda and establish a democracy in Afghanistan, however, this was nothing but the typical deceit of the American government. In reality, the US had been planning to go into Afghanistan before 9/11 and not to kill bin Laden, but rather to establish an oil pipeline.

It was a fact that America had been planning to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. A BBC News article released just days after 9/11 stated that “Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.” [17] It may have seemed that 9/11 was just an excuse to invade Afghanistan, however, Naik also stated that “it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan” even if the Taliban had given up bin Laden.

In addition to this, President Bush “was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.” [18] Thus, even if the 9/11 attacks had not occurred, the US still would have launched an invasion of Afghanistan.

However, in reality, the US didn’t care about getting Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda, rather they were interested in the greater Central Asian region because it didn’t want any Central Asian nation to come within the Chinese or Russian sphere of influence, thus closing out US and general Western access to the oil and gas wealth of that region. So far at that point, the “sales of Central Asia’s states’ large energy holdings [were] restricted to Russia.”[19] To overcome this, the US tried to create other pipelines such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline so that Western oil companies would be able to get at the oil and gas reserves.

The creation of new pipelines would serve two major US interests in the region besides accessing oil. America would “isolate Iran from Central Asian energy by urging states to build pipelines that bypass Iran and enforcing sanctions upon those states and firms who are trading with Iran” and it would disrupt the creation of a “Russian pipeline or overall [Russian-led] energy monopoly from forming in the oil market.” [20] By disrupting the formation of a Russian led “oil cartel” and attempting to create a US pipeline, America was also protecting its European allies as “the degree to which Central Asian energy markets are open or closed is an issue of great and increasing importance to European states’ energy security.” [21] The US knew that Europe was importing large amounts of gas from Russia and to make sure that the Russians didn’t use this as a political weapon, America planned on making sure that their European allies were able to access the gas of Central Asia.

Thus the American government wasn’t as truly interested in avenging the deaths of the 9/11 victims as they so professed, they also wanted to expand the empire.

Venezuelan Coup

In early 2002, the US government attempted to overthrow democratically-elected leader Hugo Chavez in an attempted coup, due to the fact that he wouldn’t subjugate himself to Western economic interests. Chavez “was elected on a radical programme of opposition to the austerity measures of the outgoing regime” and as soon as he entered office, Chavez began “to take measures against the economic and political establishment” [22] through actions such as building roads, schools, and hospitals, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and purging sections of former state apparatus. His actions and attitude had far reaching changes as could be seen in the insurrectionary events which took place in Ecuador at the beginning of [2002]. A movement spearheaded by the organisations of the indigenous peoples, who make up 40% of the population, overthrew the government and established a National Salvation Assembly. Looking to Venezuela the new leadership proclaimed their "Chavismo" after Chavez. [23]

In addition to this, Chavez nationalized the oil company PDVSA, “encouraged lowering oil production to raise prices,” and “changed a 60 year-old agreement with oil companies that raised royalties for Venezuela.” [24] This, along with his other moves to turn Venezuela socialist, did not please the US and thus they began to hatch a plan for a coup.

The coup began to be created when in June 2001, when “American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup.” [25] On April 11, 2002, there was a “killing of 17 anti-Chavez protesters by snipers” (the surrounding events of which are still murky) which the Venezuelan military used as an excuse to overthrow Chavez. Once the shootings took place TV announcements that had been produced by the CIA argued that “Chavez ‘provoked’ the crisis by ordering his supporters to fire on peaceful protesters in Caracas.” [26] After the military had overthrown Chavez and sent him to an island prison, they installed “Pedro Carmona, a wealthy businessman and former business associate of George Bush Sr., into office.” His first move as president was to “‘dissolve the Constitution, national legislature, Supreme Court, attorney general’s office, and comptroller’s office,’” [27] thus taking dictatorial control of Venezuela. It is quite reminiscent of the coups the CIA perpetrated in Latin America during the Cold War.

Thankfully, however, Chavez was bought back into power due to “a huge anti-coup civil protest involving hundreds of thousands of people” and because of this “within two days Carmona stepped down and Chavez returned to power” [28] and Chavez was bought back to his rightful place as president of Venezuela.

Even though the coup did not go as planned, that did not stop the US from continuing to portray Chavez as an evil doer, which continues to this day.

War in Iraq

Just as with the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq was filled with lies and deceit, however only more so. There were lies that Saddam had connections to and supported Al Qaeda and that he had WMDs, all of this now we know as untrue, however, even if PNAC had not recommended attacking Iraq, the US was already planning it.

The administration “began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House.” [29] The Bush Administration was planning even on 9/11 as “ barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.” [30 Even when all the intelligence pointed to bin Laden, Rumsfeld “wanted ‘best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.’ – meaning Saddam Hussein – ‘at same time.’”

US military doctrine changed greatly for the invasion of Iraq. Instead of using overwhelming force, the US military used a new doctrine called “rapid dominance.”

Rapid Dominance “rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force.” [31]The purpose of rapid dominance was to effect the enemy’s will to fight by denying him of information and creating perceptions, specifically overpowering the enemy “through the adversary’s perception and fear of his vulnerability and [America’s] own invincibility.” [32] Rapid Dominance was also very different in that it was very time-oriented, focusing on the fact that taking action in a timely and decisive manner “multiplies substantially the chances of ultimate success” and that action needed “to be taken precisely when it will have greatest impact.” [33] The entire point of Rapid Dominance was to achieve military supremacy in a short amount of time, using low amounts of troops and high levels of technology.

The Iraq war did well in lining the pockets of defense contractors and oil companies, however, it had deeply negative effects on the Iraqi population from education to economics to the destruction of Iraq’s cultural heritage. In November 2010, it was reported that since the invasion of Iraq, “more than 700 primary schools have been bombed, 200 have been burnt and over 3,000 looted” and that the number of teachers in Baghdad have fallen by 80%. [34] In addition to this “Between March 2003 and October 2008, 31,598 violent attacks against educational institutions were reported in Iraq, according to the Ministry of Education.” [35] Iraq’s middle class was destroyed because since the educated class had “been subject to a systematic and ongoing campaign of intimidation, abduction, extortion, random killings and targeted assassinations” [36] they fled Iraq, with only a few coming back in 2010. Iraq’s culture was destroyed as “attacks on national archives and monuments that represent the historical identity of the Iraqi people.” [37]

However, this destruction of the Iraqi state didn’t matter to the US and its allies as they aided Western economic interests in the form of introducing new economic laws that “instituted low taxes, 100% foreign investor ownership of Iraqi assets, the right to expropriate all profits, unrestricted imports, and long-term 30-40 year deals and leases.” [38]

With Afghanistan and Iraq subdued, it was time for the Empire to focus on its main regional enemy: Iran.

Iran

In 2002, the US government began propagating the myth that Iran was attempting to create nuclear weapons, with President Bush labeling Iran part of an “axis of evil” in the world and that they “aggressively pursue” nuclear weapons.

In later years the Bush administration would get more serious about trying to find evidence that Iran was making nuclear weapons, even going to far as to send unmanned aerial vehicles over Iran in 2005. [39] However, in that same year, it was acknowledged in a US intelligence review that Iran was “about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years.” [40] Due to this review, the question must be bought up of why the US was pushing so hard on the issue, when Iran was supposedly a decade away from gaining nuclear weapons? The answer is because the US was using the Iranian nuclear fabrication as a pretext to invade Iran. The very next year it was a fact that “some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran.” [41] This was without a doubt true, as in 2007 it was reported that America had plans attack Iran, as did Israel. However, what was not mentioned was the fact that the US and Israel had had plans to attack Iran for quite some time, with the US, Israel, and Britain working to create an unstable Iran which would in turn create a pretext for invasion. [42]

The US media and general Western media toed the line that Iran was attempting to make nuclear weapons, however, even with all the screaming and yelling, the US and its allies have yet to lay down any real evidence proving that Iran is trying to attain nuclear weapons.

Color Revolutions

In the years 2004 and 2005 new governments came about in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. In the West, these were hailed as democratically elected governments, however, in reality the elections were controlled by the United States in a bid to make sure that those states didn’t stray from the American sphere of influence.

Georgia

In November 2003, Georgian leader Edouard Shevardnadze was swept aside in the aftermath of the Rose Revolution to make room for Mikheil Saakashvili. This came about due to US and Western NGOs (non governmental organizations) creating “an atmosphere of popular protest against the existing regime” as Shevardnadze was “no longer useful to Washington when he began to make a deal with Moscow over energy pipelines and privatizations.” [43]

The plan involved having the NGOs led by US ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, and using George Soros’ Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Washington-based Freedom House, the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy, and the Georgia Liberty Institute in such a manner as to create a movement of that was anti-Russian, pro-Western, and would back Saakashvili in the elections preceding the parliamentary election fiasco, in which it was revealed that the voting system was rigged and there were calls for new elections among the US-backed protesters.

Once in power Saakashvili “led a policy of large-scale arrests, imprisonment, torture and deepened corruption” and created a “de facto one-party state, with a dummy opposition occupying a tiny portion of seats in the parliament.” [44]

Even though the people of Georgia suffered under a vicious dictator and had their hopes of a true democracy crushed, this was entirely fine with the US as it coincided with their interests in Georgia. The Rose Revolution aided the US in attaining oil from the Caucus region as Georgia was “crucial in the wider project of building an East-West transportation corridor” for oil and gas and important to the creation of “a [railroad] transit route connecting Europe to Central Asia, China, and India via the Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and the Caspian Sea” [45] which would have allowed the West to ship goods inexpensively across Asia. This creation of an oil pipeline fit in perfectly with America’s goal for Central Asia which was to deny the creation of a Russian-led energy cartel. Also, the US saw Georgia as a potential staging ground for an invasion of Iran.

Ukraine

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine took place from November 2004 to January 2005. The entire thing was “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing” [46] where the US organized and funded the installation of another puppet regime. The same formula that established a US puppet in Georgia was followed here. It included the same players as well, with a few new ones such as the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute which are NGOs used by both the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, to push a pro-American agenda around the world. There was the usual youth protest movement, Otpor (meaning resistance) but also the Americans “ordered opposition parties to unite behind the dour, elderly trade unionist, Vladimir Goncharik, because he appealed to much of the Lukashenko constituency.” [47]

With the protest movement in place, the opposition parties united, and the aid of having “thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups,” [48] the US through its weight behind Viktor Yushchenko. Even though there was a massive protest after the original run-off votes which caused the Ukranian Supreme Court to declare a re-vote on December 26, 2004, Yushchenko still succeeded in attaining the presidency.

Once in power, the Yushchenko regime “turned out to be just as incompetent and rife with cronyism as his corrupt and venal predecessors, if not more so” as large amounts of Western aid was siphoned off into the personal coffers of the elite. Overall, Ukraine “disintegrated, not only economically but socially as centrifugal forces of culture, language, and the weight of history were brought to bear on the unity of the country, and things began to come apart.” [49]

Once again, Washington came out on top as the Yushchenko regime wanted “closer ties with the European Union, NATO, and the United States, with the goal of eventual NATO and EU membership.” [50] The new US puppet regime would also hurt Russia due to its plans to get its oil from other sources. The Ukranian goverment was “studying how to move forward with a plan to extend into Poland an oil pipeline that currently runs from an oil terminal at the port of Odesa to the town of Brody” which would be used to transport Caspian Sea oil into Western Europe, “thereby reducing [European] dependence on Russian oil, and reducing Russia’s control of regional pipelines.” [51] By reducing European dependence on Russian oil, the US was once again making sure that Russia would be unable to use their oil wealth as a political weapon and by creating a new puppet state, the US was ensuring that it would be able to keep an eye on Russia and quickly counter any moves they made.

Kyrgyzstan

During early 2005, the US engineered its last takeover in Central Asia where Kyrgyz President Askar Akayev was ousted due to his efforts to increase economic and political ties with Russia and China. On March 24th, rioters forced Akayev to flee the country which allowed “a loose coalition of opposition forces under the leadership of Kurmanbek Bakiyev seized power.” [52] This occurred after parliamentary run-off elections on March 13th which were widely seen as fraudulent and in response to this, the opposition movement began holding protests. This opposition movement was “largely the product of US intervention in the country, owing its existence to the financial and logistical resources provided either directly from Washington or through US-funded non-governmental organizations” [53] such as Freedom House, which published opposition newspapers in an effort to stir up popular discontent.

The events seemed to be going according to plan, however the Americans were surprised when on March 13th “when Akayev was still in power, the opposition leadership began backing off its initial calls for the president’s resignation and instead demanded negotiations with the ruling authorities” [54] and protests became violent. By next week American was calling “for an end to the violence, urging ‘all parties in Kyrgyzstan to engage in dialogue and resolve differences peacefully and according to the rule of law’” [55] and had S Ambassador Stephen Young attempt to work with opposition forces and Akayev to find a solution. A solution was found: A new parliament was formed and Akayev resigned from the presidency. This allowed US front-man, Kurmanbek Saliyevich Bakiyev, to be elected President.

America’s main interests in Kyrgyzstan was that “the country is of great geopolitical significance due to its proximity to oil-producing countries” and that the “US military base near Bishkek is also critical to American efforts in Afghanistan.” [56]

Overall, Washington succeed in fulfilling its main interests of expanding oil routes and limiting Russian influence on its neighbors. However, the US also gained a foothold that would more easily allow for an attack or invasion of Iran or potentially a staging ground to do covert operations in Russia.

Africom

In October 2007, the US established Africa Command (Africom), Its stated goal was to aid the African people in military operations and promote US foreign policy, however, there was also the other goal of combating China as they were making moves into the continent to get at its oil resources. With the creation of Africom, the US would become the first nation in history to have military commands that covered literally the entire planet.

America was concerned about the Chinese making moves to access African oil due to the fact that “African oil supplies [would] account for 25% of its energy demands by 2015.” [57] In addition to this the US viewed Africa “as a backdrop” to take out terrorists.

Even before Africom was created, African leaders put up such a strong resistance “that commanders abandoned initial ambitions to install a headquarters on the continent.” [58] In general most Africans didn’t trust Africom as they didn’t even “trust their own militaries, which in places like [the] Congo [where militaries] have turned weapons on their own people.” Also, since Africom was itself a military force, many Africans were worried that the Americans wanted to make African states “proxies” and would use Africom to look out for American interests.

While dealing with this policy of imperial domination of the globe, the Empire’s homeland was economically about to crumble.

Financial Crisis

In late 2007, a massive financial crisis that originated in the US hit the world and its effects are being felt to this day. It began with the housing market having an upward spiral due to people buying houses due to easy credit, predatory lending by realtor companies, and massive government deregulation. This deadly mixture would lead to the global economy being put on the brink of collapse.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Federal Reserve “lowered the Federal funds rate 11 times - from 6.5% in May 2000 to 1.75% in December 2001 - creating a flood of liquidity in the economy.” [59] This access to easy credit (as well as predatory lending and Americans being able to purchase houses via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in many cases) led people to buy houses that they were unable to afford. With houses being snapped up quickly, it “made investments in higher yielding subprime mortgages look like a new rush for gold.” [60] Thus, companies began putting their money into these subprime mortgages. This only increased when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to 1% in June 2003. Financial companies then created a secondary market for subprime mortages by repackaging them into collateralized debt obligations, which, while they were quite risky, if successful, would pay off quite handsomely.

The risk increased in October 2004 when the Security Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital requirement for Goldman Sacs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley. This allowed the banks to “leverage up to 30-times or even 40-times their initial investment.” [61] This was essentially a green light from the feds for financial companies to take more risks with their investments.

Things began to go sour when “U.S. homeownership had peaked at 70%” in 2004 and “during the last quarter of 2005, home prices started to fall, which led to a 40% decline in the U.S. Home Construction Index during 2006.” [62] This was already bad as the job boom in the construction sector would end, but also many people began defaulting on their loans, which in turn made banks wary of lending people money.

This effects of this mass mortgage defaulting would come home in 2007 as the financial companies couldn’t solve the problem on its own and the crisis began spreading around the world. Even though the Federal Reserve began to slash discount and fund rates, the situation continued to worsen as corporations like Lehman Brothers and Merril Lynch collapsed. It an attempt to solve this, in 2008 the US government bailed out the financial companies at the tune of $700 billion. While this saved the financial corporations, it did nothing for those that had lost retirement or pension funds in the crisis. Many of those who had were directly involved in creating the crisis got multi-million and -billion dollar bonuses, while average Americans suffered in the form of skyrocketing unemployment and loss of investments.

While this financial disaster led to the near collapse of the global economy, there was also a moral collapse of America. Due to the unjustified war in Iraq, the torturing of prisoners, the illegal wiretapping, and the American government’s general disregard for both national and international law, the United States lost its moral standing with the world. No longer was it the nation that was the beacon of freedom, democracy, and liberty. Now the US was in an onset of imperial decline, something from which it would never come back from.

On the British side of the Iraq invasion:

The exhausted secret intelligence officer was heading home after a heavy session analysing reports from Iraq. As he stepped out through the high-security air-lock exit from MI6’s grand headquarters beside the Thames in London, a newspaper-seller’s placard caught his eye — ‘45 minutes from attack,’ it proclaimed.

Alarm bells rang in his head. It was September 2002, and Prime Minister Tony Blair had that day unveiled with great fanfare the government’s dossier detailing Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, as a justification for going to war.

He knew, in a way the public did not, the precise background to that headline. His first thought was that this was not what the original intelligence report had said. ‘If this goes wrong, we’re all screwed,’ he muttered to himself.

Mopping up: British soldier prepares to jump from a burning tank which was set ablaze in Basra

Mopping up: British soldier prepares to jump from a burning tank which was set ablaze in Basra

It did go wrong, spectacularly so, as a new history of MI6 by the BBC’s well-informed security correspondent Gordon Corera recounts. It’s a disturbing story of how tiny sparks of dubious information picked up in the backstreets of Baghdad and elsewhere were fanned into giant flames.

The result was a firecracker of a dossier which was pivotal in the run-up to the deeply divisive British and American invasion of Iraq. For many people, the scary information it disclosed — that Saddam was so advanced with his chemical and biological weapons that he could fire them with a mere 45 minutes notice — was a tipping point.

Millions who had been sceptical about the reality of the Iraq threat were brought up short by the Prime Minister’s assurance that the evidence of Saddam’s evil intentions was ‘extensive, detailed and authoritative’. The case for confronting him was cut and dried.

Only later would it emerge how dodgy that dossier actually was.

Victim: David Kelly, 59, after giving evidence in a Commons Select committee

Victim: David Kelly, 59, after giving evidence in a Commons Select committee

Yet disastrous consequences flowed from its false and exaggerated claims. They were cited as a pretext for the conquest of Iraq, which led to tens of thousands of deaths.

They also caused a damaging clash between the government and the BBC over suggestions that the dossier had been ‘sexed-up’ and the mysterious death of a respected weapons inspector, Dr David Kelly.

For MI6, the dossier brought the biggest crisis of confidence since the infamous Cambridge spy ring and the defection of one of its top men, Kim Philby, to the Soviet Union in 1963.

What happened was a lesson in the distortion that can arise when the painstaking craft of intelligence-gathering — MI6’s pride and joy since its inception in 1909 — was over-ridden by the wishful thinking and unrelenting ambition of politicians.

From the start, Blair had put his weight and his reputation behind U.S. plans to topple Saddam, believing in his heart that the world would be a better place without the Iraqi dictator. But selling a war to a sceptical public would be very difficult. Regime change on its own was not accepted in Britain in the way it was in post-9/11 America.

So the decision was taken to base the case for war entirely on Iraq’s possession of chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. This meant leaning heavily on intelligence. From his spymasters Blair sought material to make a public case for armed intervention.

OBLIGING: MI6 at Vauxhall Bridge, were supposed to be the nation's eyes and ears, but failed to smell something fishy

OBLIGING: MI6 at Vauxhall Bridge, were supposed to be the nation's eyes and ears, but failed to smell something fishy

They, in turn, were eager to oblige. MI6 was still in shock from having missed signs of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and Washington and was determined never to be caught out again.

There was a more deep-seated reason too. ‘One of the cultural weaknesses of MI6 is that it is too eager to please,’ one former senior official told Corera. For all the secret service’s James Bond-ish bravado, it has always been beset by a fear that one day it will no longer be needed.

Trauma: After the events of September 11, 2001, MI6 was concerned not to be caught out

Trauma: After the events of September 11, 2001, MI6 was concerned not to be caught out

The ending of the Cold War and MI6’s legendary cat-and-mouse tussles with the KGB seemed to herald that redundancy. Then the post-9/11 era offered a new mission.

Out to prove it still had a vital use in the modern world, MI6 set to work.

Early drafts were begun of a dossier on Saddam’s weapons programmes.

Some MI6 officers were unhappy with the idea of working to so precise an agenda. ‘All our training, all our culture, bias, is against such a thing,’ one complained.

But there was no stopping what quickly became a juggernaut as Britain’s two most senior spies — Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, and John Scarlett, chairman of the government’s Joint Intelligence Committee, whose job was to sift and assess MI6’s information — became central to the build-up to war.

Dearlove in particular became one of the Prime Minister’s closest advisers and, according to officials, enjoyed a ‘privileged relationship’. Blair was open about his reliance on him to provide the central plank of the argument for intervening in Iraq. At one point he turned to his spy chief and said: ‘Richard, my fate is in your hands.’

Meanwhile, Scarlett was working closely with Downing Street, to the extent that Alastair Campbell, Blair’s all-powerful media director, would talk of him as a ‘mate’ and ‘a very good bloke’.

The JIC’s brief was to make its dossier suitable for publication to the public, in itself an unprecedented step in the publicity-shy world of spies. Campbell called for it to be ‘revelatory’. As the drafting process continued, Scarlett attended meetings chaired by Campbell to look at the presentation.

Target: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was viewed with suspicion by the West after the invasion of Kuwait and the First Gulf War

Target: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was viewed with suspicion by the West after the invasion of Kuwait and the First Gulf War

Intelligence was being sucked closer to policy than it had ever been before in MI6’s history.

Scarlett disputes this, maintaining that he was just putting information in the public domain not taking sides. Subordinates disagree.

‘We knew the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war,’ one senior military intelligence officer later complained. ‘Every fact was managed to make it as strong as possible.’

Direction and pressure were being applied on the JIC and its drafters, he maintained. A line had been crossed. Intelligence was being used as a tool for political persuasion.

But what intelligence was there to gather? Not a lot, in reality.

Going to war: British airmen from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment shelter from the dust thrown up from a helicopter in 2009 in Basra, Iraq, after an invasion in 2003 that was supposed to bring peace and stability

Going to war: British airmen from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment shelter from the dust thrown up from a helicopter in 2009 in Basra, Iraq, after an invasion in 2003 that was supposed to bring peace and stability

Iraq had long been a backwater for MI6, with information about it, on the spy masters’ own admission, ‘sporadic and patchy’.

Then, suddenly, in the wake of 9/11, it was rocketed into top priority. All the dirt on Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction was required as a matter of urgency.

The problem was that it takes years to build up reliable intelligence sources. Potential agents have to be spotted, researched, cultivated, approached and their veracity and good faith validated.

But that was not the time-frame on offer. Though MI6 had a small stable of agents reporting from within Iraq, one or two long-standing and reliable, none of them had any first-hand knowledge of the WMD programme.

Terror: A resident runs from the site of a bomb attack as fire engulfs vehicles in central Baghdad in 2009

Terror: A resident runs from the site of a bomb attack as fire engulfs vehicles in central Baghdad in 2009

But, knowing exactly what MI6 was looking for — and with cash bonuses on offer — they managed to find it by recruiting (or claiming to recruit) sub-sources with what was little more than gossip to spill and the product of their own imaginations.

What the handful of agents didn’t report on — because they knew it was not wanted — was the large number of people they met in Iraq who knew nothing about special weapons and doubted their existence.

Herein lay another problem. Saddam was clever and cunning, a master of deception. So MI6 decided they would have to deal with him in the same double-bluff and double-cross way they had treated the Soviet Union during the great espionage and counter-espionage days of the Cold War.

This has an inherent difficulty. If you are convinced that your enemy is practising deception, and you can’t find what you are looking for, the logic — which, of course, is utterly flawed — is that your opponent is simply very good at deceiving you.

Absence of evidence, as U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it, was not evidence of absence. It was a doctrine that was about to implode over Saddam’s non-existent WMDs.

Any claims he now made that he had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons and halted his nuclear programme were simply dismissed in Washington and London as disinformation. Because Saddam had lied and cheated in the past, the overwhelming view was that he was doing the same now.

As things stood, though, the dossier proving that he still had WMDs was still looking thin.

Horror: The site of a car bomb explosion in Baghdad's al-Sadriyah district,in April 2007 in which 21 people were killed and 71 others wounded

Horror: The site of a car bomb explosion in Baghdad's al-Sadriyah district,in April 2007 in which 21 people were killed and 71 others wounded

Much of the ‘crucial’ material came from Iraqi defectors who pimped stories to the Western intelligence agencies, making wild assertions in return for asylum. One such ‘fabricator’, codenamed Curveball, was set up with a new life in Germany after making up information about biological weapons being manufactured on mobile trailers.

But in the climate of the times no one wanted to have a major source knocked out from under them. Curveball’s reports became the main evidence for Britain’s case that Saddam was still producing biological weapons.

War crime: US Army Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr. posing next to a detainee who died during interrogation in late 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq

War crime: US Army Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr. posing next to a detainee who died during interrogation in late 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq

Even so, as time marched on and deadlines approached, the JIC and Downing Street were increasingly desperate for something more concrete to still the nation’s doubts about war. Emails whizzed back and forth, pleading for more information to put into the dossier. ‘Has anybody got anything more they can put in it?’ was the constant cry.

Then, with a flourish, the magicians at MI6 pulled a rabbit or three out of their hat. They produced new intelligence, in the nick of time, that seemed to save the day.

From Baghdad, a long-serving agent had sent an encrypted message over a tiny transmitter. One of his sources had produced a rather vague and ambiguous report saying that biological and chemical munitions could be with military units and ready to fire within 20 to 45 minutes. Quite what the weapons were he could not say.

The source was untested but his identity was known, and he seemed to be in a position to know the information. The will for him to be right outweighed caution.

Not everyone was convinced. Some at the JIC thought MI6’s description of its new sub-source too vague. It was also unclear what sort of weapons he was referring to.

If the 45 minutes related to battlefield shells, as the JIC assessment staff believed, then it was not particularly surprising. In fact it was pretty pathetic rather than scary if it took the Iraqi army 45 minutes to fire a shell. But if it was referring to a ballistic missile, it was unrealistic to the point that it should be ignored.

Prisoners: Iraqi detainees mill about and others pray at the Camp Cropper detention centre in Baghdad, Iraq. In 2007 US forces held a total of some 25,000 detainees

Prisoners: Iraqi detainees mill about and others pray at the Camp Cropper detention centre in Baghdad, Iraq. In 2007 US forces held a total of some 25,000 detainees

Basically, what the source had provided was what Corera describes as ‘just a lonely piece of intelligence floating in a sea of uncertainty, to which those who wanted to could cling’. It was more local colour than hard intelligence, but the spooks grabbed at it gratefully.

Then, out of the blue, another piece of intelligence dropped. MI6 had apparently bagged an important new agent, who claimed that Iraq’s production of biological and chemical weapons was being accelerated and new facilities built.

The source was untested but Dearlove and senior officers around him were bullish. This was crucial in hardening up judgments and overcoming doubts. The reports were passed straight to Downing Street, bypassing assessors who could judge its technical credibility.

Convinced: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking at an inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq War

Convinced: Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking at an inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq War

Some inside MI6 believed this was emblematic of what had gone wrong. Too much unproven intelligence, hot off the printer, was rushed into the welcoming arms of No 10.

‘Everything was supposed to go through the assessment staff,’ one officer recalled, talking about intelligence reports in general, ‘but often we got it half an hour after it had gone to Downing Street, with it post-dated to cover their backs.’

But confidence was high. The new source promised another consignment of crucial intelligence soon, including details of WMD sites. This, it was hoped, might be Blair’s eagerly sought ‘silver bullet’.

The dossier, now stiffened by the new sources, was ready for the outside world. In a foreword, Blair wrote that Saddam’s continuing production of WMDs was ‘established beyond doubt’.

Any hint that there were limits to the intelligence and even major gaps had been lost, along with many other caveats.

Armed with MI6’s dossier, weapons inspectors for the United Nations — which still hoped to forestall war — now went back to Iraq to hunt once again for WMD. They inspected 300 sites and found nothing. ‘We went to a lot of chicken farms,’ one said,’ but there were just chickens’.

The response in London was that this proved only how devious and duplicitous Saddam was and how incompetent and naive the inspectors were. In any case, proof of WMDs was largely irrelevant now. Nothing was going to stop the momentum.

Murdered: British hostage Kenneth Bigley on a video tape in which he made a plea to Prime Minister Tony Blair to work for his release from captivity by Iraqi militants

Murdered: British hostage Kenneth Bigley on a video tape in which he made a plea to Prime Minister Tony Blair to work for his release from captivity by Iraqi militants

When hard intelligence of Saddam’s preparedness or otherwise for war suggested Iraq did not have usable weapons able to attack at all, let alone in 45 minutes, this was never revealed to the British public.

‘The books had been cooked, the bets placed,’ as an American intelligence officer put it. The conquest of Iraq began.

In no time, Saddam’s forces were caving in, and it seemed odd that with Coalition troops approaching Baghdad, he did not use any of his ‘special weapons’. When it was all over, the issue resurfaced.

Site after site was searched for evidence of WMDs. None was found.

Linchpin: Tony Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell played a major part in preparing the argument to involve Britain in Iraq

Linchpin: Tony Blair's former spin doctor Alastair Campbell played a major part in preparing the argument to involve Britain in Iraq

One by one MI6’s prized sources melted away like mirages in the desert heat. Three months after the fall of Baghdad, MI6 interviewed in person the cherished new source in whom so much had been invested and who had dispelled so many doubts.

He denied ever having said anything about accelerated production of biological and chemical weapons.

The military officer who had passed on the 45-minute claim also denied having ever said such a thing, and it became clear that he had made it all up. So too had ‘Curveball’.

The impact on MI6’s reputation was calamitous. The use of intelligence to sell a war to the public might not have mattered much if it turned out to be true.

But once it was proved to be wrong, it left the public, and especially those who had been persuaded by the intelligence, feeling bitter.

The recriminations began. Who was to blame for this fiasco, which had justified a war on a false premise? Who was responsible for launching Britain’s very own WMD, a weapon of mass deception?

MI6 over-promised and under-delivered, was the verdict of one JIC member. This is disputed by some at MI6, who maintain that they
always made clear the intelligence was scant.

Others argue that they had been left exposed by the politicians. The decision to go to war was a political choice by a prime minister who settled on intelligence as the best means by which to sell it to Parliament and the public. When it didn’t materialise: ‘We got dumped on.’

Many inside MI6 believed their organisation should take it squarely on the chin. Their sources had been wrong, and that was an end of it.

The politicians may have pushed and pressed and spun the intelligence, but ultimately, the problem was that MI6’s reporting was dud.

But others thought it was their own leadership who had let them down and left them exposed by getting too close to power.

Scarlett and his committee were accused of making a dreadful error in entering Blair’s ‘magic circle’. They had allowed themselves to be engulfed by the heady atmosphere and failed to keep their distance and objectivity.

The same criticism was made of Dearlove, who was said to have relished being at the epicentre of power, having informal meetings with Blair and even briefing Bush in the Oval Office. The truth — as we can now see nearly a decade later — is that politicians and spies became far too close in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Why the Death of the Man Who Was Not Behind 9/11 Was Announced on May 1st

After the announcement of Bin Laden’s death, hundreds of people gathered in front of the White House chanting “USA! USA!”.

It is in times like these that a line is drawn between critical thinkers and those who get swiped by media crap-storms; Between those who understand the complexity of a situation and those who’d rather not know; Between those who comprehend the underlying motives of the elite and those who go outside chanting “USA! USA!”.

On the evening of May 1st 2011, Barak Obama’s statement was one of triumph and celebration. He claimed that, with the death of Osama Bin Laden, “justice was served”. The media spin following the announcement was equally as celebratory: “It is a great day for America and the world”…”The biggest piece of news since 9/11″…”We’ll all remember where we were when we’ve heard this news”…The entire “event” was artificially inflated, exaggerated and glorified.

Should the death of a man cause happiness and celebrations? Since when have we devolved into such a barbaric state? Because he perpetrated 9/11? Did he also cause the Building 7 to implode? Damn you Osama and your team of engineers!

The Mujahideen were recruited and formed in the late 70′s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the United States National Security Advisor of Jimmy Carter (Brzezinski is today Obama’s main policy advisor). The military group was trained by the United States in order to repel Russian forces from Afghanistan. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the Communists and
the Taliban are a by-product of this US created movement.

Since the fall of the USSR, Bin Laden and his Taliban served a new agenda: providing an excuse for the invasion of key middle-eastern countries under the guise of a “war on terror”. In 2001, about 15 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC, the image of Bin Laden was shown on television. He was the ideal patsy on who to blame the attacks and the perfect boogey-man to scare the American people. This scapegoat allowed the unquestioned invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq. He even facilitated the enactment of the aberration called the Patriot Act.

In 2011, Bin Laden’s usefulness to the Agenda has ran its course. Furthermore, the Obama administration needed an exploit to boost its poll ratings until the next elections. Consequently, in a classic combination of occult rituals with pragmatic politics, the death of Bin Laden was announced on May 1st 2011 with triumph and jubilation. Through CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX, millions of viewers rejoiced at the death of man in the same matter ancient peasants rejoiced at the offering of human sacrifices to Baal. In a dumbed-down, politicized and “Illuminati-sed” version of the Beltane Festival, the masses have celebrated the ritual sacrifice of a man and, without even realizing it, partook in one of the Illuminati’s most important holidays.

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

2

U.S Army operations Spec. Jeremy Hopkins from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment stands on an overlook at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, May 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

3

Sgt. Darrell McKinstry, right, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment leads Marines as they carry a Marine wounded by an improvised explosive device to a waiting medevac helicopter in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

4

U.S. Marines gather around a colleague wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED) as smoke marks the landing area for a medevac helicopter from the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

5

Sgt. Quincey Northern of Lousiana, left, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment leads Marines as they carry an Afghan civilian wounded by insurgent gunfire on a stretcher to a waiting medevac helicopter in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

6

Sgt. Quincey Northern, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment gathers his equipment after finishing a medevac mission and arriving back at Camp Dwyer, in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 27, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

7

U.S. Marines run through dust kicked up by a Black Hawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment as they rush a colleague wounded in an IED strike for evacuation near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

8

US Army flight crew chief Spc. Torrell Bryant from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment tends to an Afghan suffering a gunshot wound, during a medevac from east of Musa Qalah in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan on Monday, May 9, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

9

US Army medic Sgt. Bob Winchester of Alaska, left, and US Navy nurse Lt. Cdr. Eric Gryn tend to a critically injured Afghan civilian on board a US Army medevac Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment. The civilian was shot in an area north of Sangin District, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

10

A United States Marine Cobra attack helicopter fires diversionary flares as it flies near Forward Operating Base Edi in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

11

US Army flight medic Sgt. Jose Rivera from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment shaves his head while waiting for missions at Forward Operating Base Edi in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

12

British medics wait to unload an Afghan patient, suffering from a gunshot wound, off a US Army medevac Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment at hospital at Camp Bastion, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

13

NATO soldiers from Georgia carry an Afghan Army soldier, suffering from a gunshot wound, to a waiting Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment west of Sangin District, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Friday, May 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

14

US Army flight crew chief SPC. Jenny Martinez holds her weapon as she secures the area in dust kicked up by a Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment while awaiting the evacuation of a United States Marine wounded in an IED strike near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, May 10, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

15

U.S Army soldiers from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment warm themselves on fire at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, May 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

16

U.S Army medevac pilot Chief Warrant Officer Eric Williams, left, holds onto his hat alongside Lt. Terry Hill of Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment during a brief dust storm at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

17

A Blackhawk helicopter attached to Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment flies over Kandahar Province in volatile southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

18

A brief dust storm rolls towards United States Marine Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

19

A United States Marine from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines carries his weapons and ammunition during an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, July 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

20

United States Marine LCpl. Grayson Barnette of Md. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion patrols past Afghan men at the market in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

21

An Afghan man answers the door of his house to a United States Marine from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines and an Afghan National Army soldier before they searched the house during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

22

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" try to keep warm after waking up on a cold morning during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, Dec. 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

23

United States Marine Combat Engineer PFC. Bryan Huffman, of Ohio from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" uses a metal detector to search for explosives during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

24

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" gather during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

25

A United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" takes position during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

26

Afghans stand near machine gunner LCpl. Tyler Holley of Ga. from the United States Marines 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines, during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

27

United States Army Spec. Brian Channon, left, of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, prepares a stretcher as United States Marines and Afghan Army soldiers run with a wounded Afghan man to a waiting medevac helicopter near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

28

An Afghan man looks on as a United States Marine from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines and an Afghan soldier search his house during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

29

The helmet of a United States Marine who was lightly injured in an explosion sits on the floor of a helicopter from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, following a mission near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

30

U.S. Army medevac crew chief Spec. Brian Channon from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, carries a fresh stretcher back to his waiting helicopter after dropping off a wounded Afghan man in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

31

United States Marines and Afghan soldiers prepare to move a wounded man to a waiting helicopter of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

32

A United States Marine shouts to a medic as United States Army's Spec. Brian Channon of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment waits to depart near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

33

U.S. Army medic Sgt. Joseph Campbell from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, evaluates the condition of a wounded Afghan man as they fly in a medevac helicopter near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

34

U.S. Army medic Sgt. Joseph Campbell from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, stands next to a helicopter following a medevac flight, at Camp Dwyer, in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

35

A United States Marine from the 4th Light Armored Recon walks toward a LAV fighting vehicle in Khan Nashin, in the volatile Helmand Province of Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

36

An Afghan man lifts his shirt to show a United States Marine from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion that he is unarmed during a patrol in Khan Neshin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan on Friday, Dec. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

37

An Afghan boy sits on a pile of wood as he rides a donkey cart past two United States Marines from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion who were patrolling near Khan Nashin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

38

A United States Marines Cpl. William Lins from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion speaks on his radio, during a patrol near Khan Nashin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

39

United States Marine Sgt. Adam Wilson from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines mans a Mark 19 heavy gun at a fire position near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, July 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

40

An Afghan police trainee from the United States Marine police mentoring program looks on as others speak to locals during a patrol in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan. The experience in Khan Neshin highlights the difficult task facing coalition partners as they work with the Afghan government to dramatically ramp up a police force known for its corruption, drug use, and lack of training in Dec. of 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

41

United States Marine Cpl. Joseph Kelly, of Md. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion walks across a makeshift bridge during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

42

An Afghan youth looks on as United States Marines from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion patrol during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

43

United States Marine Lt. Doug Toulotte from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion jumps across a canal during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

44

An Afghan youth stands next to an Afghan police officer during an operation by the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

45

Afghan elders walk into the desert on their way home from a meeting with members of the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion and Afghan National Border Police at North Station near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

46

A United States Marine and Afghan men rush a critically wounded elderly man to a helicopter for medevac by Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment following the explosion of an insurgent placed improvised explosive device near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011. At least five Afghan civilians were injured in the blast, military sources said. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

47

United States Marine Cpl. Jeremiah Judd of Hawaii, scans the ground below for insurgents with a 50 calibre machine gun from the back of a Marine Osprey aircraft as they fly over Lashkar Gah, in the volatile Helmand Province of Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

48

An Afghan man is checked by US Navy Medical Corps Chief Damon Anderson of Corpus Christi at a free clinic run by the United States Marines' 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at a in Khan Neshin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Monday, Dec. 7, 2009. The clinic provides medication and medical treatment for the local population. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

49

United States Marine Cpl. Benjamin Zellmann, of Va. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion holds a puppy taken in by the company during a briefing before a mission in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Friday, Dec. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

50

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords" rest during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

51

Afghans ride a motorcycle past United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords", not seen, during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

52

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords" are seen during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

53

An Afghan National Army soldier wears an ammunition belt around his neck during a joint patrol with United States Army soldiers from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City, Friday, July 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

54

United States Marines from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines watch the explosion after calling in an airstrike during a gunbattle as part of an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, July 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

55

A United States soldier from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, walks through a doorway during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City on Thursday, July 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

56

A United States soldier from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, walks through a flock of sheep during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City, Friday, July 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

57

United States soldiers from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, prepare to cross a deep irrigation canal during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City on Thursday, July 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

1

Army Sgt. Nick Wysong keeps watch as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, stops for fuel south of Baghdad, Iraq, on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

2

At sunrise, members of the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, crossed the Iraq desert a few miles from the Kuwait border in a tactical road march on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

3

Young Iraqi shepherds wave to members of the Army?s 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

4

Lt. Col. Richard D. Heyward, left, and Sgt. Nick Wysong, right, keep watch as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, crosses the southern desert lands of Iraq on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

5

After two twelve-hour troop movements, Army Specialist John Ray rests inside a Stryker vehicle as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, make their way towards the Kuwait border. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

6

Army Specialist Tyson Kuwaye lifts Specialist Matt Cullum after they completed a two-day road march with their division, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, to the Iraq-Kuwait border on August 18, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

7

In this Aug. 16, 2010 photo, U.S. Army soldiers from 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment pose with an American flag for a photograph after crossing the border from Iraq into Kuwait. The soldiers from 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, are the last combat brigade to leave Iraq as part of the drawdown of U.S. forces. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

8

At Taji Base outside of Baghdad, Iraq, members of the Army?s 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, prepares to leave on August 17, 2010, for the Kuwait border. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

Osama bin Laden's "Mountain Fortress", shown to the US public by the corporate media, and like Saddam's nuclear weapons, never actually existed. Below a song to the veterans and love ones an old melody but still current to the times.

121

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

9

A soldier with the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, puts down his weapon at Camp Taji, Iraq, on August 15, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

10

A U.S. Army soldier from 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division waves from his Stryker armored vehicle after crossing the border from Iraq into Kuwait Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010. The soldiers are part of the last combat brigade to leave Iraq as part of the drawdown of U.S. forces. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

11

Marine Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, 20, of Kentucky, a member of Charlie Company of the U.S. Marines First Division, Eighth regiment, smokes a cigarette. Miller came to be known as the "Marlboro Man" for this iconic photograph from the Iraq War. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

13

Tens of thousands of antiwar protesters gather on the National Mall in Washington to protest the war on Iraq Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003. (AP {Photo/Rick Bowmer)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

14

Haylee Schimmelpfenneg embraces her father, Sergeant First Class Robert Schimmelpfenneg, after a deployment ceremony for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team in Fort Carson. The soldier deployment from Fort Carson for impending war in Iraq is the greatest since the Vietnam War. (Glenn Asakawa/The Denver Post)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

15

Soldiers salute during the National Anthem at the beginning of a deployment ceremony for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team in Fort Carson. The soldier deployment from Fort Carson for impending war in Iraq is the greatest since the Vietnam War. (Glenn Asakawa/The Denver Post)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

16

Smoke covers the presidential palace compound in Baghdad 21 March 2003 during a massive US-led air raid on the Iraqi capital. Smoke billowed from a number of targeted sites, including one of President Saddam Hussein's palaces, an AFP correspondent said. AFP PHOTO/Ramzi HAIDAR

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

Related posts:

 

 

United States Marine LCpl. Franklin Romans of Mich. from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" searches a house during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

2

U.S Army operations Spec. Jeremy Hopkins from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment stands on an overlook at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, May 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

3

Sgt. Darrell McKinstry, right, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment leads Marines as they carry a Marine wounded by an improvised explosive device to a waiting medevac helicopter in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

4

U.S. Marines gather around a colleague wounded by an improvised explosive device (IED) as smoke marks the landing area for a medevac helicopter from the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

5

Sgt. Quincey Northern of Lousiana, left, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment leads Marines as they carry an Afghan civilian wounded by insurgent gunfire on a stretcher to a waiting medevac helicopter in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 25, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

6

Sgt. Quincey Northern, a medic with the United States Army's Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment gathers his equipment after finishing a medevac mission and arriving back at Camp Dwyer, in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 27, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

7

U.S. Marines run through dust kicked up by a Black Hawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment as they rush a colleague wounded in an IED strike for evacuation near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, May 10, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

8

US Army flight crew chief Spc. Torrell Bryant from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment tends to an Afghan suffering a gunshot wound, during a medevac from east of Musa Qalah in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan on Monday, May 9, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

9

US Army medic Sgt. Bob Winchester of Alaska, left, and US Navy nurse Lt. Cdr. Eric Gryn tend to a critically injured Afghan civilian on board a US Army medevac Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment. The civilian was shot in an area north of Sangin District, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

10

A United States Marine Cobra attack helicopter fires diversionary flares as it flies near Forward Operating Base Edi in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

11

US Army flight medic Sgt. Jose Rivera from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment shaves his head while waiting for missions at Forward Operating Base Edi in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

12

British medics wait to unload an Afghan patient, suffering from a gunshot wound, off a US Army medevac Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment at hospital at Camp Bastion, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, May 8, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

13

NATO soldiers from Georgia carry an Afghan Army soldier, suffering from a gunshot wound, to a waiting Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment west of Sangin District, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Friday, May 6, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

14

US Army flight crew chief SPC. Jenny Martinez holds her weapon as she secures the area in dust kicked up by a Blackhawk helicopter from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment while awaiting the evacuation of a United States Marine wounded in an IED strike near Sangin, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, May 10, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

15

U.S Army soldiers from Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment warm themselves on fire at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, May 5, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

16

U.S Army medevac pilot Chief Warrant Officer Eric Williams, left, holds onto his hat alongside Lt. Terry Hill of Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment during a brief dust storm at Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

17

A Blackhawk helicopter attached to Task Force Lift "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment flies over Kandahar Province in volatile southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

18

A brief dust storm rolls towards United States Marine Forward Operating Base Edi, in the volatile Helmand Province of southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 4, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

19

A United States Marine from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines carries his weapons and ammunition during an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, July 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

20

United States Marine LCpl. Grayson Barnette of Md. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion patrols past Afghan men at the market in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

21

An Afghan man answers the door of his house to a United States Marine from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines and an Afghan National Army soldier before they searched the house during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

22

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" try to keep warm after waking up on a cold morning during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, Dec. 18, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

23

United States Marine Combat Engineer PFC. Bryan Huffman, of Ohio from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" uses a metal detector to search for explosives during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

24

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" gather during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

25

A United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines "Warlords" takes position during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, Dec. 23, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

26

Afghans stand near machine gunner LCpl. Tyler Holley of Ga. from the United States Marines 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines, during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

27

United States Army Spec. Brian Channon, left, of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, prepares a stretcher as United States Marines and Afghan Army soldiers run with a wounded Afghan man to a waiting medevac helicopter near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

28

An Afghan man looks on as a United States Marine from the 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines and an Afghan soldier search his house during an operation in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

29

The helmet of a United States Marine who was lightly injured in an explosion sits on the floor of a helicopter from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, following a mission near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

30

U.S. Army medevac crew chief Spec. Brian Channon from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, carries a fresh stretcher back to his waiting helicopter after dropping off a wounded Afghan man in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

31

United States Marines and Afghan soldiers prepare to move a wounded man to a waiting helicopter of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

32

A United States Marine shouts to a medic as United States Army's Spec. Brian Channon of Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment waits to depart near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

33

U.S. Army medic Sgt. Joseph Campbell from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, evaluates the condition of a wounded Afghan man as they fly in a medevac helicopter near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

34

U.S. Army medic Sgt. Joseph Campbell from Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment, stands next to a helicopter following a medevac flight, at Camp Dwyer, in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Monday, Jan. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

35

A United States Marine from the 4th Light Armored Recon walks toward a LAV fighting vehicle in Khan Nashin, in the volatile Helmand Province of Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

36

An Afghan man lifts his shirt to show a United States Marine from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion that he is unarmed during a patrol in Khan Neshin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan on Friday, Dec. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

37

An Afghan boy sits on a pile of wood as he rides a donkey cart past two United States Marines from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion who were patrolling near Khan Nashin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

38

A United States Marines Cpl. William Lins from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion speaks on his radio, during a patrol near Khan Nashin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

39

United States Marine Sgt. Adam Wilson from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines mans a Mark 19 heavy gun at a fire position near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Wednesday, July 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

40

An Afghan police trainee from the United States Marine police mentoring program looks on as others speak to locals during a patrol in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan. The experience in Khan Neshin highlights the difficult task facing coalition partners as they work with the Afghan government to dramatically ramp up a police force known for its corruption, drug use, and lack of training in Dec. of 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

41

United States Marine Cpl. Joseph Kelly, of Md. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion walks across a makeshift bridge during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

42

An Afghan youth looks on as United States Marines from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion patrol during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

43

United States Marine Lt. Doug Toulotte from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion jumps across a canal during an operation near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

44

An Afghan youth stands next to an Afghan police officer during an operation by the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 12, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

45

Afghan elders walk into the desert on their way home from a meeting with members of the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion and Afghan National Border Police at North Station near Khan Neshin in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

46

A United States Marine and Afghan men rush a critically wounded elderly man to a helicopter for medevac by Task Force Shadow "Dust Off", Charlie Company 1-214 Aviation Regiment following the explosion of an insurgent placed improvised explosive device near Marjah in the volatile Helmand Province, Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2011. At least five Afghan civilians were injured in the blast, military sources said. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

47

United States Marine Cpl. Jeremiah Judd of Hawaii, scans the ground below for insurgents with a 50 calibre machine gun from the back of a Marine Osprey aircraft as they fly over Lashkar Gah, in the volatile Helmand Province of Southern Afghanistan, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

48

An Afghan man is checked by US Navy Medical Corps Chief Damon Anderson of Corpus Christi at a free clinic run by the United States Marines' 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion at a in Khan Neshin in the volatile province of Helmand, southern Afghanistan, Monday, Dec. 7, 2009. The clinic provides medication and medical treatment for the local population. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

49

United States Marine Cpl. Benjamin Zellmann, of Va. from the 2nd MEB, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion holds a puppy taken in by the company during a briefing before a mission in Khan Neshin, in the volatile Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, Friday, Dec. 11, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

50

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords" rest during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

51

Afghans ride a motorcycle past United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords", not seen, during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

52

United States Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marines "Warlords" are seen during an operation to hunt for insurgents following an exchange of fire in the Garmsir district of the volatile Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

53

An Afghan National Army soldier wears an ammunition belt around his neck during a joint patrol with United States Army soldiers from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City, Friday, July 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

54

United States Marines from Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd Marines watch the explosion after calling in an airstrike during a gunbattle as part of an operation to clear the area of insurgents near Musa Qaleh, in northern Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, Friday, July 23, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

55

A United States soldier from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, walks through a doorway during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City on Thursday, July 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

56

A United States soldier from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, walks through a flock of sheep during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City, Friday, July 9, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Kevin Frayer in Afghanistan

57

United States soldiers from Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne, prepare to cross a deep irrigation canal during a patrol in the volatile Arghandab Valley, outside Kandahar City on Thursday, July 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Kevin Frayer) #

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

1

Army Sgt. Nick Wysong keeps watch as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, stops for fuel south of Baghdad, Iraq, on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

2

At sunrise, members of the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, crossed the Iraq desert a few miles from the Kuwait border in a tactical road march on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

3

Young Iraqi shepherds wave to members of the Army?s 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

4

Lt. Col. Richard D. Heyward, left, and Sgt. Nick Wysong, right, keep watch as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, crosses the southern desert lands of Iraq on August 17, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

5

After two twelve-hour troop movements, Army Specialist John Ray rests inside a Stryker vehicle as the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, make their way towards the Kuwait border. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

6

Army Specialist Tyson Kuwaye lifts Specialist Matt Cullum after they completed a two-day road march with their division, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, to the Iraq-Kuwait border on August 18, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

7

In this Aug. 16, 2010 photo, U.S. Army soldiers from 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment pose with an American flag for a photograph after crossing the border from Iraq into Kuwait. The soldiers from 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, are the last combat brigade to leave Iraq as part of the drawdown of U.S. forces. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

8

At Taji Base outside of Baghdad, Iraq, members of the Army?s 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, prepares to leave on August 17, 2010, for the Kuwait border. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

Osama bin Laden's "Mountain Fortress", shown to the US public by the corporate media, and like Saddam's nuclear weapons, never actually existed. Below a song to the veterans and love ones an old melody but still current to the times.

121

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

9

A soldier with the Army's 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the last formal U.S. military combat detachment to leave Iraq, puts down his weapon at Camp Taji, Iraq, on August 15, 2010. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/MCT)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

10

A U.S. Army soldier from 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division waves from his Stryker armored vehicle after crossing the border from Iraq into Kuwait Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010. The soldiers are part of the last combat brigade to leave Iraq as part of the drawdown of U.S. forces. (AP Photo/ Maya Alleruzzo)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

11

Marine Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, 20, of Kentucky, a member of Charlie Company of the U.S. Marines First Division, Eighth regiment, smokes a cigarette. Miller came to be known as the "Marlboro Man" for this iconic photograph from the Iraq War. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

13

Tens of thousands of antiwar protesters gather on the National Mall in Washington to protest the war on Iraq Saturday, Jan. 18, 2003. (AP {Photo/Rick Bowmer)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

14

Haylee Schimmelpfenneg embraces her father, Sergeant First Class Robert Schimmelpfenneg, after a deployment ceremony for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team in Fort Carson. The soldier deployment from Fort Carson for impending war in Iraq is the greatest since the Vietnam War. (Glenn Asakawa/The Denver Post)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

15

Soldiers salute during the National Anthem at the beginning of a deployment ceremony for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team in Fort Carson. The soldier deployment from Fort Carson for impending war in Iraq is the greatest since the Vietnam War. (Glenn Asakawa/The Denver Post)

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

16

Smoke covers the presidential palace compound in Baghdad 21 March 2003 during a massive US-led air raid on the Iraqi capital. Smoke billowed from a number of targeted sites, including one of President Saddam Hussein's palaces, an AFP correspondent said. AFP PHOTO/Ramzi HAIDAR

On War: Last American combat brigade leaves Iraq

Related posts:

 

No comments: