or Alive? (April, 2003)
... and the
question is of course about Saddam Hussein.
According to a video released, Saddam appears to
have been alive and well as late as April 9th,
2003.  This would be
immediately before Iraq fell and after several
bombing attempts by American forces intending to
kill him and his ranking staff.
suddenness of the fall of the Iraqi government
despite repeated rhetoric of eternal resistance
has surprised many, especially the Arab world
itself. Comparisons between Lebanon and Iraq were
common. Although Israel invaded Lebanon and
remained badly mired for some 18 years and the
large city of Beirut delivering massive
resistance, Iraq turned out to be nothing like
Lebanon. Except for the first part of the war the
military resistance to American forces in Iraq
was both scattered and inconsistent. This is not
to say it wasn't intense at times or that Iraq as
a whole under the despotic authority of Saddam
could have lasted much longer, even prolonging the
conflict into a Vietnam of sorts given the proper
motivation. Basra for instance in the south,
about the first city that coalition forces
encountered on their drive north from Kuwait
proved surprisingly stubborn in its resistance to
invasion forces and steadily escalating number of
American and British casualties. Keep in mind
that this was the first theater of combat to ever
see M1A1 main battle tanks destroyed and knocked
out in combat by Iraqi forces. Marines were in
constant gun battles with unknown, shifting
guerilla style enemies. Sandstorms and high-winds
were slowing down allied advances and creating
accidents. Meanwhile poor communications and
sleep deprivation led to a rapid series of
fratricide incidents, mistaken targeting and other
'accidents'. It's a good thing the heavy combat
did not last any longer than it did because it
was not going to be a pretty war for the
Americans. Hundred of pan-Arab volunteers were
streaming into Iraq by bus from Egypt, Syria,
Jordan, all over, just to fight the American
forces in Iraq but the game was over before they
could even play!
the frenetic pace of victories presented to the
American public by their biased mass-media,
stumbling over themselves to prove which network
is more 'patriotic' in its lack of objectivity,
the war did not even put a dent into Iraq's
military forces. The vaunted Republican Guard was
not even scratched, most of their equipment
remained because they learned to hide them and
scatter them around instead of doing the opposite
and seeing them get obliterated as during the
first Gulf War.
Stalin was Saddam Hussein's role
the fact remains that this war was less
of a nationalist, collective effort to
resist imperialist invaders as it was
about Saddam's own skin - keeping it safe
and fairly wealthy in this case. And this
is where the speculation begins because a
remarkable confluence of personal
interests can be seen to emerge at this
that Iraq could hold out and prolong the conflict
into another Vietnam for America or at least
another Somalia. Somalia as typified by the
Hollywood movie 'Black Hawk Down' was Saddam's
blueprint for resistance. Around a year ago he
ordered hundreds of light trucks, the kind that
drive around Somalia with machine guns on the
back, for use by the Fedayeen guerrilla forces in
Iraq. This sort of scattered, opportunistic
attacking proved fairly effective in Somalia and
it was looking to be at least that in Iraq. So
why did Baghdad not turn into another bloody
urban-warfare scene even bigger than Basra? Why
did all the command and leadership elements
simply vanish at the exact same time and where
did they go? Why were none of the bridges into
Baghdad ever destroyed? And if Saddam had
chemical weapons why didn't he use them?
question right now is all the brand new Federal
Reserve money in the form of huge bails of
unopened $100 dollar bills popping up all over
Baghdad. This is not just in banks but even in
private houses in upscale neighborhoods; the
total so far is in the billions! Another billion
in gold bullion was found in a Baghdad bank and
the Marines had to sized it even as the looters
were about to do so themselves. Tariq Aziz's
house was looted and it seems that most of his
valued possessions, the kind you'd want to take
with you like photographs, were still there. All
of this points to a very rapid egress on the part
of the Saddam clique.
I think all
of these questions can be answered if we look at
it from the perspective of Saddam half-expecting
to leave from day one. Every wily dictator has a
Plan B in the back of their mind whether they
tell others or not. This is one reason why they
last so long - they always play it safe. Saddam
had already barely escaped with his life at least
two bombing attacks directly targeting him from
the Americans, some have said these attacks
missed by only three hours! Saddam knew it was
only a matter of time before they got a lucky
shot and his ran out. By early April it was
fairly clear to him that Plan B needed to be
invoked. At some point a deal was brokered for
his safe escape from Iraq likely along with his
family and some of his ranking government. This
likely occurred very late in 'the game' hence the
rapid exit and near instantaneous vanishing of
the military leadership. Baghdad fell without a
fight because no one was left to give any orders!
likely that even before the war began Saudi
Arabia had already sent out tentative appeals for
Saddam to step-down and save the Middle East from
the social and political turmoil that would
inevitably ensue from such an egregious and
discretionary war as this one on the part of the
Bush administration. Saudi Arabia was probably
the most at risk from the likely public revolts
and riots that would come from war on Iraq as
their government is already weak enough and
public sentiment near boiling to begin with.
Saudi Arabia had a significant interest in seeing
this war either not happen or end as quickly as
possible and the surprisingly robust resistance in
Iraq at the beginning of the shooting was very
bad news for the Saudi government in that regard.
Bush even said as much that to see Saddam go
rather than fight would be acceptable if not
preferable. And this is where the confluence of
interests arises. About April 9th it seems Saddam
decide to take up Saudi Arabia with their offer
of exile rather than face the next 2000 pound
bomb falling from the sky. He may have gone
through Syria first probably in single,
unpretentious cars. It's know that all his
important staff already had multiple passports
and documents to get them anywhere and money was
not an issue. Yemen has been talked about as
another very safe place for him to hide among
But now the
heat is on Syria and even if Saddam was still
there he couldn't stay much longer. Yemen is very
remote and the government has been trying to
crack down on rebel groups already. Saudi Arabia
is the safest place because they are already
aligned with the Bush administration. And there
is precedent for this. Saudi Arabia provided and still
provides sanctuary to Uganda's notorious
dictator Idi Amin, a true pillar of Islamic faith
there! If Saddam is anywhere he's probably in
Saudi but the terms of his escape deal no doubt
stipulate that he remain invisible for at least
the remainder of Bush's term in office.
At Fort Hood, Bush was asked for an update on the status
of Saddam Hussein and replied,
would suggest he not pop his head up."
Politicians often make inscrutable or simply
incoherent comments; interpret the previous one
as you wish.
This is why
the Bush administration and its handful
of lackeys in the intelligence
departments are so desperately trying to
convince everyone that Saddam is really
dead despite the dearth of compelling
evidence. The last thing Bush needs is
another Osama running around causing
trouble. Meanwhile to make things look
nice for the public a token number of
small fish and second bananas will be
picked up every so often to make it look
like America is in hot pursuit of Saddam
liberated looters scavenge
through Saddam City in the
flaming aftermath of American
But in Iraq
right now Saddam's secular Ba'ath party remnants
are already consolidating their power. They may
even re-emerge in slightly altered form as part
of the new government, it wouldn't surprise me.
Besides that, the religious fervor gripping Iraq
is definitely worth noting - remember Saddam is
not Islamic but tribal in roots and his politics
are secular-socialist. Religion was suppressed in
Iraq until shortly after the first Gulf War in a
frantic bid to re-glue Saddam's country and his
power back together. It worked but at the price
of de-centralizing some control and placing it in
the hands of local chiefs and tribal bosses as
well as some religious leaders. Today this effect
is re-emerging as a renewed interest in creating
an Islamic state and kicking out the American
military occupiers but to American interests this
is like going out of the frying pan and into the
the case, this war has confounded the 'experts'
and had several surprising twists to it already
and it's not even over yet. Now, on to the money
Oil and the
the American economy is only competitive in the
world today due to cheap energy prices, it's not
labor costs, it's not even worker productivity
really. America has cheap gasoline, low
electricity costs and low energy taxes as
compared to most any other industrialized country.
This advantage means that American products can
be transported and fabricated at lower cost than
many other places. Needless to say the economic
health of America is dependent upon cheap and
plentiful energy while oil or natural gas form
the basis for most of this energy. Very high
prices or interruptions in power supplies are
poison to the American economy. This fact alone
is justification enough to economic authorities
for a country to go to war, especially during a
energy costs are a huge competitive advantage but
this in itself is not enough to make American the
number one economy that it is. The second even
more crucial factor is called Dollar hegemony.
This means that the Federal Reserve notes are so
widely used around the world that they have
assumed a de facto authority as the dominant
currency. Most of the world's commodities are
denominated in Dollars when they trade and just
about all oil is traded in Dollars too. And if
that weren't enough American control, oil trades
are done through New York's NYMEX exchange.
The advantages of Dollar hegemony are astounding
and easily explain the mysteries of American
exceptionism in economics like why the United
States can continue to run up massive trade and
budget deficits that would cripple any other
The secret of Dollar
hegemony is that all those Greenbacks are what's
called fiat currency meaning they have no backing
in any substance like gold, just a promise
of repayment upon demand. American Dollars are
just IOU's, they are just debt, and they
can be printed in any amount needed to suit
political or economic interests of their
printing money wildly without any concern for
inflation would quickly drive the economy into a
tailspin as the currency rapidly devalued but
America can export its inflationary money and
trade them for basic commodities like bananas
from Ecuador or oil from Saudi Arabia. This is
the equivalent of you or me going to the grocery
store and paying for it with Monopoly game money!
And guess who gets stuck holding the bag so to
speak? The store does, or Ecuador or Argentina or
Saudi Arabia, etc. Some countries quickly build
up a surplus of Dollars and have to convert them
because America doesn't want their own Monopoly
money back. Sometimes this takes the form of them
buying American government bonds by the multiple
billions like in the case of Japan or expensive
American weapons systems as in Saudi Arabia.
countries can't get enough dollars in trade from
selling their raw commodities to meet basic
national needs and are forced to borrow to stay
afloat. Usually the only way they can get funding
is from very large American banks such as
CitiGroup or Chase Manhattan or through American
government agencies. These debts are of course in
Dollars and many countries soon end up bankrupt
or just implode like Argentina or Ecuador. The
United States can always pay off it's own debts
or buy more commodities by simply printing more
Dollar bills but no other country has that
loophole. So places experiencing economic
instability like Turkey or Brazil, they get
International Monetary Fund (IMF) bail outs
denominated in, guess what? Federal Reserve
Dollars of course! And who owns them after that?
Take a guess. Not surprisingly the IMF is based
right in the middle of Washington DC; it
masquerades as an objective developing world
assistance agency but is really a shameless tool
of the government powers just a few blocks away.
Note that Russia was in the same situation a few
years ago but they figured out the scam and paid
off nearly all their Dollar IMF loans with oil
cash even before paying off any other loans.
In a few
cases such as Ecuador the entire economy has been
'stabilized' by eliminating the native currency
and replacing it with Federal Reserve greenbacks.
But by doing so the country loses all control
over their own economy because it can no longer
deficit finance (print money) to pay for anything.
This is good in the sense they cannot over-spend
but bad in the sense they are completely at the
mercy of the loan holders in the United States, essentially reduced to economic slavery
necessitating increased natural resource
extraction to deliver the commodities to America
for a token payment in Dollars.
obviously, all the little countries would love to
pay for everything with Monopoly money too but
they lack the economic and political clout to do
it. They don't have a New York or a Chicago to
serve as commodity trading hubs, they can only
fight for scraps. This is the primary reason
behind the advent of the Euro economic system
itself, to get a piece of that hegemony action
for Europe! And now we know why Bush
administration multi-millionaire plutocrats like
Donald Rumsfled go off on bizarre tangents
attacking longtime allies like Germany and France
calling them wimps, cowards, 'old-Europe' etc.
but simultaneously building up England as heroes.
England does not use the Euro but France and
Germany do! Even Iraq figured this out and in
2002 started to denominate what little oil they
could sell legally in Euros () switching
away from Dollars ($).
Iraq is now being
intentionally flooded with millions in Dollar
bills, surprised?  The
stated reason is to jump-start the Iraqi economy
with payments to 'civil servants' or for the more
likely but unstated reason as bribes to hush-up
rebellious elements. Even though this is supposed
to be temporary it's very likely to be permanent.
No way are the American authorities going to give
up the power that goes along with a Dollar
denominated Iraqi economy! Even if a new Iraqi
currency is eventually circulated it will almost
undoubtedly be pegged to the U.S. Dollar.
reason the Bush administration initiated war on
Iraq is that by controlling Iraqi oil, even if it
is not directly being piped to American cars and
power plants, it can still be used as a
bargaining tool against the other countries of
the world that do rely heavily on Mideast
oil. Unlike America which gets much from Alaska
and Venezuela, Japan is very reliant on Mideast
oil, about 80% of their imports, and helps to
explain their government's wildly enthusiastic
support of this latest foray into Iraq. Australia
may well be in the same situation for oil and
could also explain their government's pro-war
enthusiasm too. The American government can now
use Iraq as a powerful tool of economic and
political leverage throughout the world,
rewarding allies and punishing dissenters just on
the basis of allocating Iraqi oil. Finally one of
the most convincing incentives for war against
Iraq is to placate the powerful Israel lobby.
cannot understand American foreign policy without
Israel in the equation and this war plan
unfolding today is about Israel at least as much
as it is about oil. The military threats
to Israel come primarily from Iraq which was an ulterior
motive for the first Gulf War by W. Bush's father.
However even after bombing them into the ground
then, Iraq still has missiles like the Scuds
which directly threaten Israel but absolutely
nothing that could possible reach any fortress or
strike American interests, just Israeli ones. The
Israeli government headed by ex-General Ariel
Sharon and a panoply of zealously pro-military Likud party
members are adamant in their anti-Iraq stance. Direct American
control of Iraq eliminates Saddam's support to the Palestinian
cause and removes the direct missile threat too.
direct military threat to Israel is Syria and lo'
and behold this is exactly the target Bush &
Associates have latched onto in the Iraq war's
aftermath, trumping up charges of chemical
weapons and anything else that they can use as
pretext for war. The number three threat to
Israel is Iran and now not only does the U$ have
a military base in the heart of west-Asia but
Iran is nearly surrounded with nominally American
controlled Afghanistan on the other side, Syria
is nearly surrounded with Israel on the other
flank. All these enemies of Israel can be either
kept in line through fear or more likely directly
targeted through economic warfare such as the
sanctions about to be slapped on a 'non-compliant'
Syria and the oil deprivation against Syria and
Lebanon of more limited effect. Of further direct
benefit to Israel is the fact that they are set
to get a direct pipeline of Iraqi oil through
Jordan and terminating at the Israeli port of
Haifa.  This plan was
originally envisioned in 1975 under
Kissinger and promoted by a then much younger
bureaucrat known as Donald Rumsfeld. The
construction contract was to go to none other
than Bechtel, primary contract winner to
rebuild the important (oil) parts of Iraq now in
So now we
have a pretty good idea of why this war was
started and maybe even where it will lead in the
short-term. But several key questions still
remain to be answered such as where are the
chemical weapons that were endlessly trumpeted by
Bush & Associates as an imperative threat to
world stability justifying immediate military
action? It would only seem logical that if Saddam
really had these things and was obviously aware
of the corner he was locked into that using them
on American troops would be a given. Yet this did
not happen. Intense UN inspections prior to the
war failed to find any credible evidence of
chemical weapons or indeed any banned weapons
wroth mention. They found a small remotely
controlled plane that was made from slapped
together spare parts that couldn't even fly. They
found some harmless aluminum tubes that Colin
Powell of the State Department blatantly lied
about to the world as being useful for making
nuclear materials. During the war multiple
reports of white powder and mysterious chemicals
all turned out to be innocuous - pesticides,
No chemical weapons here either,
sir. Only anti-tank mines.'
Saddam may have had chemical or
biological weapons but if he did they
were small amounts and either very well
hidden or destroyed with little if any
intent to actually employ them in combat.
Further, it's fairly clear that President
Bush's whole pretext for war was a sham;
the threat to America was a lie and the
threat of spreading Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD) were vastly blown out
Case of the Ambushed Russian Diplomatic Convoy
protests from the Bush regime the Russian
embassy remained occupied and functional for most
of the shooting war, monitoring the conflict
around them. As American ground forces closed in
on Baghdad and bombs began to fall uncomfortably
close to their building the Russians decided it
was time to leave, shredded documents as all
embassy staff are trained to do and packed up
what they needed onto a convoy to head for Syria.
The Russian embassy team fully coordinated with
the American military on their planned exit route
to ensure their safety.
However upon leaving
they were attacked in Baghdad by American forces.
The actual damage was limited and could have been
worse but it still succeed in slowing the
Russians down and forcing them to leave some
vehicles, apparently. Whatever the case, this event
was highly inconvenient for Condi Rice who
happened to be starting a semi-covert diplomatic
mission in Russia at this exact moment.
basically the American's say they were shooting
back at Iraqi soldiers but their excuses couldn't
fly and they just decide to cover it up as much
as possible. The question is why did this happen?
This sort of egregious 'accident' is reminiscent
of the American bombing of the Chinese embassy in
Serbia during that Clinton war (see report:
Say NO to NATO). Keep in mind that
Russia has been a consistent benefactor and
sponsor of Iraq just like to Serbia. It is known
that the Iraqis captured at least one (maybe more)
completely intact AH-64D Longbows, arguably the
most advanced attack helicopter in the world. The
Serbians shot down an F-117A Nighthawk stealth
and very likely scooped up the
parts and sent them off to Mother Russia. A Longbow is not quite
as good a catch but the radar is worth the weight in gold, at
least. Similarly the Iraqi archives are mostly
missing and speculation resides on where they
could have gone to. Some think the Russians
funneled out incriminating documents via the
diplomatic convoy and that the Americans knew of
this and that's why they tried to ambush them.
Whatever the case something is going on behind
the scenes and it doesn't smell nice.
It ain't over
'till its over
words from Generals and Presidents aside this
conflict is far from being over. Sporadic
fighting both between ethnic groups and between
occupying American military forces and
disgruntled Iraqi factions will continue for the
foreseeable future. The state of Iraq's vast oil
resources have yet to be determined and so have
the equally huge foreign debts
 accumulated by the
former Iraq government. Indeed,
whatever long term plans the Bush administration
has for Iraq besides permanent control of at
least four key military bases may be open for
debate but their immediate priorities in Iraq
remain completely transparent. The Oil Ministry
building not only survived the bombing campaign
unscathed but is now one of the few buildings in
Baghdad to be thoroughly guarded by American
have a lot of experience with coups
d'etat and this one is the worst,"
he said. "Any colonel in the Iraqi
army will tell you that when he does a
coup he goes to the broadcasting station
with five announcements.
"The first one is long live this,
down with that. The second one is your
new government is this and that. The
third is the list of the people to go on
retirement. The fourth one, every other
official is to report back to work
tomorrow morning. The fifth is the curfew."
This is usually done within one hour, he
added. "Now we are waiting more than
a week and still we hear nothing from
them." - Useful
commentary from the new/old director
general of Iraq's Oil Ministry who
refuses to give a name!
So far United States
funds to rebuild a bombed-out and sanction-impoverished
country have been appallingly low. The stated
reason is so that other countries will kick-in
more funds! But as far as American interests are
concerned this is winning the battle and losing
the war. If the Iraqi's are not on America's side
then the whole effort is just taking a fairly
stable, centrally controlled minor threat and
turning it into a decentralized, ethnically and
religiously charged polyglot with a white-hot
grudge against America.
win any military battle but the war is not won
with military might alone. Americans are set to
pay a very high price for their military victory
unless their political leadership quickly wakes
up to this fact.
Million Dollar Update (July, 2003)
One of the most
astonishing anomalies emerging from the smoking remnants of
Baghdad has to do with the multi-million dollar bundles of
Federal Reserve bills found stashed in safe-houses. When I first
mentioned this it was too early to form any adequate picture of
what it meant but now details have filtered out which seem to
suggest a concerted effort by Saddam and his sons to organize a
resistance movement in the wake of a predictable American
military victory in Iraq.
The story goes that
immediately before the ground war began Saddam's son(s) went to
the Central bank in Baghdad and ordered $900 million dollars
removed.  This would likely have
necessitated two to three large trucks to haul it all
away! Some speculate it was sent to Syria but if it was instead
dispersed around Baghdad it would very neatly explain the
bundles of cash being found (see above). These bunches had all
the hallmarks of being directly from a bank as they were wrapped
in plastic still with the official seals and kept in neat metal
Why did the Iraqi central
bank have over a billion dollars in American money just sitting
in back of the bank vault? This is not standard banking
procedure and it makes even worse business sense. Granted this
was not a typical bank trying to make a profit by investing
their funds but rather a government entity and also one rarely
bothered or molested by Saddam. The Iraqi central bank was an
independent entity, or at least as much as was possible in
Saddam's Iraq. Still the fact remains Iraq was a heavily
sanctioned and impoverished country that got most of its funding
from illegal fuel trucks driving to Syria for cash and operating
outside of the UN food for oil program. Was this accumulation
over ten years enough to explain the money? But why would Saddam
keep it in the local bank instead of in his own private Swiss
bank account? Why did Saddam not take the money with him?
So although his plan to
fund a resistance movement may have met some snags with the loss
of two thirds of the cash, Saddam's other plan for resurrection
ala Osama bin Laden seems to be on track. An audio tape has been
released exhorting Iraqis to rise up against the occupation
forces in Iraq. 
At this point one thing is
clear - Saddam is not defeated yet and much like a bad summer
movie sequel he will be back in one form or another and
President Bush has already bought everyone a ticket courtesy of
the American taxpayer. 07.05.03
Saddam may be gone but his supporters remain,
leaving friendly reminders in the form of graffiti.
they don't know where Saddam is or even if he's deal or alive,
the United States government now offers a $25 million reward for
his capture or proof of death. $25 million is the same amount
still offered for catching Osama bin Laden. Would be bounty
hunters may also be interested to know that $15 million is
offered for information leading to the capture of Saddam's two
sons, Odai and Qusai. 03.07.03
clichéd ending to a bad gangster movie both of
Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were shot dead in
a lengthy firefight while barricaded
inside a house in the northern Iraq
town of Mosul after overstaying their welcome and being turned
in. Further, Saddam's own power network was dealt a significant
hit as his two sons were about the only people he trusted and
could use to carry out orders.
it's widely hoped attacks on American forces will decrease with
the death of these two, this may be more wishful thinking than
fact as many of the insurgents in Iraq have come in from outside
the country. Iraq is now a giant playground for anyone in the
Arab world with a grudge against America to visit and try and
exact revenge. 23.07.03
everybody? - A Few Questions on Iraq (October, 2003)
can’t the Occupation Forces find Saddam Hussein?
This seems especially odd since he’s most likely still in Iraq,
hiding in a small corner of the country and probably in one
town! Maybe if he’d left a forwarding address for his magazine
subscriptions the Americans could have found him!
What happened to the rumored Saddam body doubles?
Supposedly Saddam had several people surgically altered to look
exactly like himself and they would wander around Iraq and soak
up the bullets of assassins or something like that. It seems odd
that none have been spotted or arrested. And how would the
American forces identify the real Saddam from a double, DNA, and
And another thing, why have the old Saddam leadership clique
not been arrested and tried?
Catch and release! Many have been found and arrested but almost
immediately they are released and sent home! Why? Is that smart
given the guerrilla warfare going on?
So, absolutely NO weapons of mass destruction found at all in
You read right. Some fighter planes were found wrapped in
plastic and buried in shallow sand. This lead to thought of
finding actual WMD buried someplace but nothing has been found
and couldn’t have been of any use to Saddam in that capacity
anyhow. Conclusion: Saddam, if he ever had any WMD, destroyed,
lost, sold, got rid of them after the first Gulf War. No WMD,
indeed this has to rank as one of the biggest Presidential
blunders of recent history. This pretext for war against Iraq
was completely fabricated from day one; it was all built on one
lie after another and as of yet no one in the Bush
administration has been held accountable even as American
soldiers continue to die in Iraq on a daily basis! Wolfowitz,
Rumsfeld and the rest of the profligate posse thought that the
lies wouldn’t matter because they’d win and write the history
books. How much did you wager? All of it! Oooh, so sorry!
to be reiterated that the American public DID NOT want to invade
Iraq, however a sizeable portion of them did SUPPORT the
Presidential decision made to do so. OK, this is not democracy!
The decision to invade Iraq did not originate in heartland
America and rise up as a unified chorus until Congress and the
President responded, no this was more like monarchism – all hail
King George II of Texas!
supports a King and his decisions not because they necessarily
think his decisions wise and benevolent but because openly
opposing him serves no useful benefit to their own lives.
Unfortunately this is what America has descended into, a
low-grade plutocratic dictatorship where the Executive authority
can start any war anywhere he wants to, concoct and implement
(through executive order) any policy he wishes all regardless of
public opinion. Indeed now public opinion is just an
extension of the Kings anyway and so are the people just an
extension of his own property. 28.10.03
The Wall of Shame: Lying Liars and the
pro-Israel NeoCons who love them
George W. Bush
President – permanently residing in state of denial.
President - permanently residing at undisclosed
conflict of interest?
Secretary of Defense - ol' funny face.
Don’t worry, it’s
all under control.
Defense Secretary - war on Iraq mastermind.
Under-Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon
another ‘beady-eyed bastard'
Saddam (December, 2003)
13th, American soldiers on another mission to find Saddam were
busy scouring Ad Dawr on a tip-off from an informant. After
nearly giving up, closer inspection revealed a tomb-like secret
underground hiding place just barely large enough for one person
to fit into, then a disheveled and defeated Saddam emerged from
his ‘spider hole’. The only possession of any value discovered
nearby was a suitcase with $750,000.
at this point the Red Cross has not had been allowed to see him
and indeed the whole story lacks independent, outside
verification, it does nonetheless appear that the Saddam
Hussein, and not just a body-double, is now in the custody of
American military forces in Iraq.
still unresolved at this point include, who if anyone gets to
collect the $25 million reward for Saddam’s capture, what will
happen to Saddam, and what effect will all of this have on
events inside Iraq? Things we do know: Saddam was too busy
running to coordinate rebellion operations in Iraq and his
capture will not materially change the scale or intensity of
guerrilla warfare on the ground in the country. In the long run
the effect is more problematic since Saddam on trial could
create a martyr for the resistance, albeit an unlikely one. It
could also give a boost to the rebel fighter leaders inside Iraq
because they have the potential to assume to the role and
authority of Saddam now that he’s out of the picture!
Iraq is becoming exactly what Saddam was placed in and
maintained in power by the United States to prevent: the rise
of religious fundamentalism. [Preventing the rise of the
Communist party in Iraq was another aim.] Remember, Iraq is essentially
an artificial state, it's a colonial vestige of the British
Empire composed of vastly disparate and antagonistic ethnic and
Although the bipolar
geopolitical situation was slightly more complicated amid the
crumbling Cold War, Bush Sr. still had enough sense to recognize
the magnitude of the situation and allow Saddam to stay after
Gulf War I. Of course Bush Sr. also worked for the same
organization (CIA) that helped to put Saddam in power in the
first place. The fact remains that tyrant and military strongman
Saddam was the only thread holding the precarious but secular
Iraqi state together. Unless your Dubya Bush or you’ve got your
head in a paper bag, it’s plain to see that civil war in Iraq is
practically inevitable. More so than even Afghanistan after the
Soviet invasion, Iraq is becoming an incubator for Islamic
radicals to train, test weapons and tactics and then spill out
into other parts of the world. The American invasion of Iraq has
made the Middle East a much more dangerous place than it already
was and by extension made the world a much more dangerous place
as well. Further, without any credible exit strategy or means of
establishing a viable replacement government to Saddam’s deposed
regime it is clear that the United States is in it all very
Caught Saddam Hussein?
This has been a deep
background story since just before Saddam’s capture but it is
increasingly likely that the Kurds did capture Saddam and that
they held him for two weeks or so prior to the official
announcement / staged capture by the Americans. The Kurds
certainly had every reason to go after Saddam and the inside
intelligence to do the job. This was convenient for both sides
because the Kurds could use the time to bargain with the
Americans for the concessions they really want and also allowed
Bush to gain the political points from Saddam's capture to be
timed exactly the way he wanted it for domestic consumption. The
most intriguing twist of events that this presents is the fact
that the Kurds now will start to gain the political and economic
authority they have long sought, and long been denied by all the
regional powers from Turkey to Jordan and beyond. And because
the autonomy and control over the oil rich north is already
happening this leads me to conclude that the Kurds really did
catch Saddam and it's not just an idle rumor. Certainly it has
not been disproved and not even denied by any of the parties
Problem is, a win for the
Kurds will be seen unequivocally as a loss for everyone else in
the region because in the game of musical chairs that is Middle
East geography the Kurds have always been like the seventh
player in a six-chair game. This makes civil war inside Iraq and
probably spilling over into nearby countries too, very likely.
If the Bush administration follows through on its as yet
unstated concessions to the Kurds it will invariably worsen the
social and ethnic unrest in the region. Iraq is now for all
practical purposes an intractable dilemma because no matter how
many times one analyzes it, it always loops back to the same
thing - the only way to hold this polyglot of conflicting groups
together is a feared and ruthless strongman, a Saddam Hussein.
The only other option is to conclude that holding old Iraq
together is simply unrealistic and devolve power into separate
regional authorities and hope that the ensuing fracas will
eventually burn out and a new balance of power will emerge. The
nearest comparison I can think of is the Balkans in southeast
Europe that finally broke apart after the dictator Tito fell
from power, but we should also be aware of what happened
afterwards! Anyone remember Kosovo?
Clearly if short-term
regional stability in Iraq is a goal of the Bush administration,
for instance to extract the oil, this is impossible for all
practical purposes no matter how the cake is sliced.10.01.04
Bags of Money: The Contractor Scandal in Iraq
and corruption amongst the contractors hired to work in Iraq is
not a new story but news of the funding used to pay the
contractors has added a novel twist. It appears that the Bush
administration tapped Iraq’s Oil For Food program account,
taking something like 8 billion dollars, in order to provide the
financial liquidity necessary for operating the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq. The CPA was the interim
government established by the Bush Administration to setup
reconstruction contracts, disburse money, organize services and
basically run Iraq before an elected government could be formed.
anti-corruption organization Transparency International recently
rated the financial fraud and mismanagement in Iraq as
exceptionally serious: “If
urgent steps are not taken, Iraq ... will become the biggest
corruption scandal in history." Details
of this scandal are still emerging but so far it places great
doubt upon the ethical superiority of the Bush administration as
compared to Saddam’s since both parties have now been
implicated in the gross misuse of money from the same UN
program! The Bush administration's argument is that they
appropriated the cash to rebuild Iraq yet they did not allow
competitive bidding and instead spent billions on favored
American contractors, most of which were either crooks to begin
with or soon became corrupt because of the disbursement
mechanism, in this case literally nothing more than bags of
hundred dollar bills! Now it emerges that the records and
accounting of the CPA’s financial disbursements are missing,
forged, or even nonexistent in the first place.
Iraqis had no input on how their own oil earnings were being
spent the Bush administration perpetrated theft on a massive
scale against the Iraqi people in order to fund their imposed
regime on that country. This is even more ironic when
considering the level of criticism that was directed at the
United Nations over allegations of fraud and corruption in the
management of Iraq’s Oil-For-Food funds, yet when the
independent inquiry run by Paul Volcker was released recently
it cleared United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan of
wrongdoing. The ball is back in Bush’s court now.
In other news,
Iraqis are increasingly disappointed and disaffected by the
continuing inability of their elected leadership to move the
country forward or indeed to agree on much of anything besides
the need to get the United States, excuse me, Coalition
forces out of their country. And speaking of the ‘coalition’
many of these countries such as Spain, Italy, the Ukraine, all
want out and are looking for the nearest and quickest exit. For
example, Burlusconi may still be a Bush supporter but the
Italian public never wanted to get stuck in Iraq and definitely
want out now that a car full of their people,
a released hostage and an intelligence agent, were shot-up
by shoot-first-ask-questions-later American soldiers. This means
that by the end of 2005 it will not be much of a coalition
effort, if indeed it ever was.
continue to attack the fuel infrastructure in Iraq and that is
depriving the country of both electrical power and funding from
oil exports. Heading into the hot summer months Iraq is woefully
unprepared to meet electrical energy demands. Over the course of
this conflict, the American forces have managed to lose any
sense of legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people that they
may have had initially through a lengthy series of events such
as random arrests, detention without charges, prison abuse,
financial mismanagement, and so on. If the elected Iraqi
government remains unable to progress in any meaningful fashion
they will soon lose legitimacy in the view of the Iraqi people
as well. At that point the Bush administration will be left
without any overt and remotely legitimate tools with which to
control the situation in Iraq. Islamic fundamentalists remain
the only element in Iraqi society that has any legitimacy and
means of influencing the situation. 03.04.05
For details on
the contractor corruption in Iraq and the theft of Iraqi money
read these two articles:
Great ‘Rebuilding of Iraq’ Scam
declared their intent to investigate allegations of fraud and
waste by the contractors hired by the Bush administration to
rebuild Iraq after credible evidence has emerged that such
criminal actions were widespread, and indeed likely continue
now. If the final conclusion of this investigation is anything
but ‘massive corruption and financial fraud’ we will know the
investigation is itself a fraud. Indeed it is clear by now that
the whole intent of Bush & Associates' rebuilding of Iraq scheme
was to be as wasteful and inefficient as possible. They ignored
public complaints about allocating open ended contracts to
disreputable or underqualified companies and undermined or
underfunded financial oversight agencies so they could not
adequately monitor to whom or to what purpose the money was
At the same time the
Bush administration has charged the United Nations and its own
contractors with fraud and the misallocation of funds in the
Oil-for-Food (OFF) program that was intended to provide Iraq
with much needed food and supplies with its controlled oil sales
while under sanctions. The hypocrisy of Bush & Associates is
especially glaring in light of their own fraud perpetrated in
Iraq that dwarfs in scale the allegations against the UN.
Consequently, allegations of corruption by the UN in OFF are
very unlikely to ever go beyond rhetoric from the Bush
administration and the Neo-con schemers. The allegations are
just a calculated effort to redirect blame away from the actual
The real intent of
Bush & Associates was not to rebuild Iraq, it was to steal
Iraq’s money, billions of dollars worth, being held in the Oil
for Food fund. The could not do this directly because it would
be obvious theft and the paper trail would be damning so they
had to cook up some kind of scheme to make it look legitimate.
This scheme took the form of ‘rebuilding’ Iraq, even though in
further irony the damage was inflicted by a military invasion,
punitive sanctions, and years of aerial bombing by United States
and the UK as they enforced the ‘No-Fly-Zones’ over two thirds
of Iraq. Now that we recognize this plan everything else makes
sense, now we can see why certain contracting companies were
favored over others and why there was an intentional effort to
avoid oversight and accounting standards, even going so far as
to pay with bags of cash despite the dangers of transporting it
amidst a raging insurgency! 13.08.06
Civil War in Iraq
Regardless of the smokescreen being thrown up from heated
rhetoric and car bombs, Iraq has essentially split into three
mini-countries. The Shiite’s control the southern third, the
Sunnis have nominal control over the central third, and the
Kurds the northern third.
The Shiite section of Iraq in the south is aligned with Iran
because of ethnic and historic connections; they also have
access to the Persian Gulf and major oil production capacity. So
far, the Shiites for the most part have shown a surprising
unwillingness to get involved in the civil war strife that is
wracking Iraq. It seems doubtful this situation can be sustained
given the increasing pace of the carnage bleeding out into the
The Sunni section in the middle of Iraq has suffered a major
defeat having lost the exclusive control over the country they
enjoyed under Saddam Hussein. Their chunk of real estate does
not have the oil resources and their closest neighbor Syria,
still in Ba’ath party control, is economically weak and
politically marginalized. The Sunni of Iraq have little left to
lose, consequently revolt and violence are widely seen as the
only means left of rectifying the situation. Taking advantage of
this situation is the cryptic and extremely militant Jordanian
Abu Musab Zarqawi, acting for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi doesn’t
represent Iraqi Sunni interests but he knows how to exploit
their disenfranchisement in conjunction with a steady influx of
foreign fighters to build a formidable insurgency with the aim
of forming a country run on the strict interpretation of Islamic
law that can then be used as a base to do the same thing to
neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia.
the three groups the Kurds are the most advanced in their quest
for independent statehood. The Kurds now have their own
international airport, flag, government and militia forces, as
well as grand ambitions to reclaim a big chunk of Iran and
Turkey that they claim is also Kurdish territory. Not
only that, now the Kurds are pushing for a ‘no fly zone’ over
northern Iran in a crass attempt to gain that land for Kurdistan
by mimicking the low-level air-war campaign over Iraq for a
decade after the first Gulf War. This situation is exactly why a
disintegrating Iraq was so feared by Iraq’s neighboring
countries because, in the game of ethnic musical chairs the
characterizes the land distribution in West Asia, the Kurds were
the group without a seat and now that they do have a ‘chair’
they are pushing someone else out in the process.
The Kurds and Shiites have no
reason to compromise with the Sunnis, so even constructing a
confederated Iraq is a long shot and realistically the only
possibility is a loose association of disjointed states. Iraq
has effectively become a giant Yugoslavia in heart of the middle
east. The next phase in this torturous development will be
ethnic cleansing as each group struggles to assert control over
important portions of land. The city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq
is already experiencing this process as the Kurds move people in
and force others out. The Kurds know that lines on the map are
meaningless without the demographic facts on the ground to back
American and coalition forces are caught in the middle of all of
this. The grand notions of reconstructing Iraq have stalled as
the security situation continues to deteriorate. Most of the
military effort is focused on a shell game of reclaiming
villages and towns from insurgents, leaving to retake another
town, and then coming back to do it all over again. For all
practical purposes the Army is locked in stalemate and without a
viable and functional pro-American government in Iraq that can
defend itself, United States forces have no way of getting out
of the bloody mess they’re trapped in. What the civilian
planners of this foolish conflict had to learn the hard way is
that the only way to hold Iraq together, being a tenuous
multi-ethnic agglomeration, is through a Stalin-like dictator
i.e. Saddam Hussein. Saddam was the keystone that held the
structure together and no practical way exists to put humpty
dumpty Iraq back together again without that keystone.
The most pathetic result from this fracas is that all of the
elements of civil society that America tried to impart to the
new Iraq such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law,
have all been discredited because they are intricately
associated with the weak and corrupt regime imposed upon the
country through force. None of the three groups in Iraq want to
be a part of the American regime just as they don’t want to be a
part of a federal Iraq, all of the parties involved are just
exploiting it for their near-term gain. Equally pathetic is that
the process of drafting a constitution has not brought Iraqis
together in mutual cooperation as promised but instead has
driven them apart as it has exposed the deep divisions between
the separate parties!
The Consequences Come Home
The official statistics for the United States' economy indicate
around a 3% national growth rate. Unfortunately, this economic
growth is quite narrowly distributed, mostly in construction
thanks to the speculative real estate bubbles in markets across
the country, with more popping up at an increasingly rapid pace.
The other growth sector is of course the defense and related
infrastructure/support contracting industry. Most every other
sector of the American economy is stagnant or declining, but
since a few are getting rich while real estate values are rising
it is just enough to present the illusion of a moderately
Actually the United States’ economy is far from healthy. High
oil prices and chronic, record setting trade deficits are
draining Dollars out of the country as fast as they can be
printed. Offsetting this to a small extent, the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq provide an initial boost to specific
sectors of the economy due to the direct federal, debt-funded,
spending. The problem is that since the infrastructure being
built is in another country, the direct benefit to the American
taxpayer is dubious at best but of significant benefit to the
corporations, CEOs and shareholders benefiting from the
contracts. Besides that most of the reconstruction in Iraq is
being demolished as fast as it can be built by a frenetic
insurgency that shows no signs of abating. Anymore these
reconstruction projects are simply getting put on indefinite
hold because so much of the funding has to be diverted to
the ongoing war on terrorism is now approaching $7 billion
dollars per month, and that’s just money needed to
continue operations not the cost of equipment that will need to
be replaced. The price tag of Bush’s war is actually higher on a
monthly basis than the war in Vietnam even after adjusting for
inflation!  Meanwhile, the Hurricane
Katrina relief and reconstruction program is costing around $1
billion per day.
Bush & Associates continue to spend billions of Dollars with the
national credit card to such an extent that the ballooning
national debt and rapidly widening gap between federal income
and federal spending is starting to make Wall Street investors
very nervous. Not too surprisingly, gold is now at a 17 year
high in price, a level not seen since 1987, the year of the New
York stock market crash! Bottom line: a rising gold price is a
solid indicator that the national economy is not on the right
erosion of economic well being isn’t the only consequence of the
escapades in Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else in the
universe through the ill-defined ‘war on terrorism’. United
States ground combat forces, the Army and Marines, are getting
badly mangled in more ways than one through the ongoing,
grueling combat in theater. Equipment lost through wear and tear
or through combat will be costly to replace but it is the loss
of personnel that really concerns the military planners.
Recruitment shortfalls are only the most obvious indicator of
trouble ahead. The modern military relies on advanced technology
but especially upon highly skilled personnel for the critical
advantage on the battlefield and once those people are gone,
either through combat death or injury or simply because they are
fed up with multiple back to back tours of duty, they are
difficult, costly and time consuming to replace; the people with
leadership skills that are lost will take years, even decades.
The real reason that America had to pull out of South Vietnam 30
years ago was because the Army had ceased to be an effective
fighting force. Officer fragging, rampant drug abuse, and
miniscule morale simply devastated the capacity of the Army to
continue fighting in Vietnam. If the funding to pay for the
military doesn’t dry up the Army will simply collapse from the
pressure in Iraq and cease to be an effective force on the
ground. The ground forces will not emerge from Iraq in the same
condition that they entered. Armed conflict involving the United
States over the next decade at least will see a return to the
Clinton era policy of using Navy cruise missiles and
air-launched precision strikes in place of ground combat.
The Thief in Chief and the Great Giveaway
The similarities already emerging from the reconstruction of
Hurricane damaged New Orleans indicate that the crony
capitalism, corruption and general financial malfeasance
characteristic of the Bush administration is not an aberration
but part of an intentional plan.  Only
Congress, not the President, can allocate money from the budget
but Bush & Associates have found a novel means of getting around
this barrier. By using the pretext of a disaster, be it
artificial like Iraq or natural like Hurricane Katrina, they can
exploit the imperative necessity of quick reaction to the
situation to extract multi-billion dollar supplemental budgets
from Congress with few, if any, limitations restricting how to
spend the money or who to give it to - it’s an emergency
after all! Once the funding is in the pipeline then all the
people at the head of federal departments, the people that were
appointed by President Bush & Associates, use their influence to
divert the billions of dollars to the people and corporations
that they favor.
The Bush administration is playing the public like a fiddle
while they burn the Empire and have their associates act as the
private, for-profit fire department. From carpet-baggers to war
profiteers, opportunism is just the American way, right?!
June 8, 2006 the Bush administration announced they had
successfully killed public enemy number one,
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
near Baghdad Iraq using two 500lb bombs delivered
Zarqawi had practically
every bombing and nefarious deed in Iraq pinned on him by the
Bush administration, and the Pentagon even admitted they had
intentionally exaggerated the threat from him in a calculated
propaganda effort. Now that he is out of the picture, assuming
his death isn’t just more Pentagon propaganda, then a new public
enemy number one will have to be concocted since Osama bin Laden
is, apparently, not important anymore.
So despite the barely concealed excitement in the rhetoric from the Bush
administration’s mouthpieces and the American media outlets, the
outcome is unlikely to slow the pace of killing and insurgent
attacks in Iraq or elsewhere. Is the war over now? Can all the
troops finally come home?! Yeah right.
has the killing of Zarqawi really changed?! Has either side lost
the desire to continue the conflict? Hardly. Iraq now holds the
distinction of being the most violent place on the planet.
Zarqawi had a frenetic run and it’s surprising how long he did
last against the most powerful military empire in history, but
his days were clearly numbered. Besides the multiple death
sentences charged against him, from the Jordanian government for
instance, Zarqawi had managed to alienate, or kill, nearly every
potential ally in the region from tribal leaders to Shiite and
even Sunni Iraqis with his ultra-violent tactics and singular
and exclusionary version of Islamic law. Nonetheless he did not
seem to lack for weapons, tactical allies, foot soldiers and
suicide martyrs to conduct his campaign against the occupational
regime in Iraq and the coalition military forces operating
Zarqawi knew the rules of the game he was
playing. He was living by the sword and was undoubtedly aware
that he would eventually die by it, yet others just like him are
more than willing to take his place.
Many American’s probably
aren’t aware of the massive effort that went into this
operation. Thousands of people toiling for years, millions of
collective hours, while burning through billions of dollars -
all that effort just to find and assassinate one man! Something
is seriously wrong with the United States, the national
leadership isn’t even just treating the symptoms by attacking
terrorism, now they’re an active participant in the sickness. The Bush administration is trying to use terrorism to defeat
the enormous resources required to kill just one threat, imagine what will be required when it’s not just one Zarqawi in a small region of a small country in a far corner of
the planet, but ten Zarqawi’s all over the world. This is
where we are headed because as long as persistent injustice and
pervasive violence are prevalent terrorism will follow when
people are given no other option to resolve their grievances.
Iraq in 2006: From Bad to Worse
Iraq is now
characterized by a pervasive, low level civil war featuring
refugees fleeing the country en masse and ethnic cleansing
against the ones who don’t have the money to buy or forge the
documents to get out. The south of Iraq, focused on the critical
city of Basra, is run by criminal gangs that siphon-off
resources to benefit their cliques while their violent militias
kidnap, torture and extort opponents. The north of Iraq is under
nominal Kurdish control, with the city of Mosul at the center,
but the two political groups running the show, the Kurdish
Democrat Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK),
are increasingly at odds with each other. The oil-rich northern
city of Kirkuk is an inter-ethnic battleground for an ethnic
cleansing tug-of-war. The center remainder of Iraq, with Baghdad
in the middle, is a collage of internecine hot spots with Ramadi
being the latest Fallujah full of pitched battles between
American soldiers and a very brazen and surprisingly strong
So not only is the,
mostly Sunni, insurgency still raging in Iraq but the now the,
mostly Shiite, militia groups are also running amok. These
militias originally emerged as a protection force for ethnic
groups in the power and security vacuum of the post Saddam era.
Nonetheless these militias now create more trouble then they are
supposed to be stopping. Militia groups are illegal according to
Iraqi law but no on is powerful enough to enforce the law and
shut them down, and indeed their influence has continued to
expand. Now Shiite militias have even taken over Iraq's entire
prison system "from Basra to Baghdad"!
The water and
electricity supply to Iraq has continued to fall below demand
and most areas of the country only have power and water for a
few hours a day. Although it’s true that a few remote regions of
Iraq remain virtually unaffected by the conflict, in the major
population centers most every element of organized society such
as centralized government, sewer services, garbage collection,
and even regular civil commerce, have broken down. Indeed the
situation is so appalling it simply defies comprehension by a
It seems reasonable
that at some point in the not too distant future Iraq will have
to hit bottom and plateau, forming some semblance of stasis to
the violence. If this does happen look for the Bush
administration to immediately exploit the flat-lined numbers to
show the world and the skeptics that finally Iraq is stable and
getting better, see we told you so! Unfortunately, at that bleak
point there probably won’t be anything left of Iraq to save.
In the meantime the
formation of another Iraqi government has been finished, with
great fanfare. Yet just like the previous occupational regimes
put in power through the military and political influence of the
United States, this one has no more legitimacy in the eyes of
the Iraqis than previous provisional governments. Further, the
influence of the Iraqi government is weak at best and barely
extends beyond the heavily fortified walls of the Green Zone in
Baghdad that they are forced to reside in due to the intense
violence going on outside.
If a weak, illegitimate and chronically partisan
government was not bad enough for Iraq’s future, there is a
looming budget problem that threatens to derail what little that
has been accomplished in the way of unification of the country.
oil production, distribution, and exporting levels are at or
below pre-war Saddam Hussein era levels, and since the majority
of Iraq’s national income is derived from petroleum sales, the
result is a perpetual struggle to get enough oil to exchange for
cash to pay the bills. Record high prices for oil, now around
$70 per barrel, have greatly assisted Iraq because even though
they sell volumes far below their capacity the higher prices
have offset the loss. If oil prices fall, as an increasing
number of economic analysts are predicting, then the Iraqi
government is going to find a progressive agenda even more
difficult to accomplish. Iraq, already a corrupt kleptocracy,
will further descend into outright partisan war over the
dwindling resources. Not too surprisingly reconstruction funding
has begun to dry up amidst donor fatigue and massive corruption;
more funding is not expected. Further exacerbating the budget
problem are the onerous IMF budgetary restrictions and
regulations that Iraq was forced to agree to follow as part and
parcel of the Bush administration’s neo-liberal,
privatize-everything-to-benefit-big-business agenda. Not a
promising mixture is it?
It’s important to
note that even three years into the war in Iraq, with most
things still going from bad to worse, the mass media in the
United States has yet to start asking tough questions about the
war or about the Bush administrator’s handling of it. This
despite multiple opportunities and an American public
increasingly disenchanted and even angry with the course of the
conflict as well as the disingenuous and fraudulent
justifications used by the Bush administration to get involved
in this discretionary war in the first place. Both parties,
Republican and Democrat, are continuing to underestimate the
level of public outrage over the flailing execution of the War
on Terrorism, and are actively trying to suppress arguments that don’t
support the establishment myth that the war is winnable and
America must stay militarily involved in Iraq. This is a bizarre
position when considering the political benefits that would go
to a party that adopted a genuine opposition platform to the
continuation of the war on Iraq that is burning up
$8,000,000,000 every month!  What does
this mean politically? It's a general rule in the United States
that if both political parties agree on an issue, or despite
idle arguments they still act in a manner that is effectively
the same as agreement, it means one of two things: either
massive public support exists for the issue or the
is flexing their muscles and has cowed Congress into submissive
When the truth
becomes unpatriotic national disaster soon follows.
On June 15th
the House and the Senate both held a debate to determine the
future course of America's involvement in Iraq. Predictably,
debate circled around the same tired arguments about letting the
terrorists win and 'cutting and running'. Congress is not even
questioning the fundamental, flawed assumptions used to
prosecute the 'War on Terrorism', consequently everything that
emerges from their pseudo-debate will be incapable of solving
the real problems that created the insurgency in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as the September 11 attacks in New York and
the Pentagon. Only six senators dared to vote for a troop
withdrawal by the end of 2006.  Congress
is locked on a one-way rail line but a few mainstream voices can
see things clear enough to spell out the truth, like this
commentary article in the Washington Post newspaper.
 Unfortunately, these voices of sanity
aren’t reaching the policy makers.
Consequences of America trapped in Iraq
America as a
country, and as an empire in denial, now finds itself in a
situation of staggering geopolitical magnitude, being sucked
ever deeper into the hot and bloody sands of Iraq. Japanese
ground forces are leaving, Italian troops are leaving Iraq by
the end of 2006, Australian troops are ready to bail out, and British troops are headed for the
door in the near future. The domestic political cost from
widespread public resistance to participating in the war on Iraq
is just too strong for these governments to continue to defy.
is like an insect impaled on a display board with a pin, its
legs flailing wildly in a vain effort at movement yet going
nowhere. America the insect can’t solve its painful problem
because it cannot see outside of itself; it can’t see things
through the eyes of others. But if it could America would
realize how angry and humiliated the Iraqis feel and that no
nation, no people want to be invaded and occupied no matter how
benevolent and righteous the invaders claim to be in their
endeavor. That should seem obvious, as should the fact that much
of the anger directed against Saddam is not due to his thuggish
behavior while in power, that was expected, but rather his
failure to repel foreign invaders and keep Iraq a proud and
independent country as part of the social bargain implicitly
promised to the Iraqi people!
America can’t leave
Iraq without a de facto admission of military defeat, yet the
longer it stays the worse things get for both Iraq and America.
Even ignoring the fact that the military occupation itself is
generating most of the animosity that fuels the insurgency, the
only logical solution is to accept the wisdom in the economic
principle of sunk losses and just leave Iraq immediately,
cutting the losses and stopping them from continuing. But since
America is now an empire that justifies its supremacy through
the application of its superior military power it cannot leave
without undermining the very basis of its justification,
becoming a barking dog without any teeth! Iraq has also taken on
an irrational, emotional aspect because many in the Bush
administration have personalized the conflict and are struggling
to declare a victory in order to strike back at the rising
cacophony of critics that say otherwise.
The United States is
trapped in a philosophical paradox by refusing to ‘let the
terrorists win’ in Iraq yet at the same time refusing to rescind
the military occupation that is fueling insurgency and terrorism
to begin with! This is like a fool complaining of a headache
while continually banging their head against the wall.
What is the solution
for the Iraqi crisis? A happy ending is probably impossible at
this stage but at least one lesson is clear, Iraq should never have been disassembled by
external military force to
begin with. So at this point it is, in a practical sense, an
intractable dilemma for America. But any real solutions will
have to come from thinking that is a radical departure from the
circular, reactionary, and self-defeating pool of ideas that has
gone into making Iraq the mess it is now.
America can still
win in Iraq but it will have to sacrifice something in order to
get there. One plan is this: officially apologize to the Iraqi
people and to Saddam Hussein, stop the show-trial that is rigged
to convict Saddam of crimes that, for sheer brutality, pale in comparison
to the widespread carnage that is currently being perpetrated on
the Iraqi people from all sides. Give Saddam whatever support he
needs to retake control of Iraq and crush the resistance groups.
Is this a crazy idea? If you objectively study the situation and
look past all the biased rhetoric and propaganda Saddam Hussein
provided everything that is currently needed in Iraq –
stability, centralized authority, domestic political legitimacy
and a bulwark against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Again,
ironically, many Iraqis would actually welcome him back into
power because his reign of power was much more appealing than
the random carnage they are currently enduring.
Another option is to
pull out non-Iraqi forces entirely and let the place totally
blow apart. From the smoking ruins the Iraqi people will sort it
out and rebuild on their own. The product will have natural
legitimacy because it will be self-created, not imposed from
invaders. Of course the process will be extremely ugly and
violent and the final outcome will most likely displease the
You the reader can
invent your own solution too, but it really doesn’t matter much
because the influential decision-making is still in the hands of
the Bush administration and, as incredible as it seems, they are
still only listening to the advice of the same
that planned and pushed for an American invasion of Iraq years
ago. Winston Churchill once stated, “You
can always count on Americans to do the right thing but only
after they've exhausted every other possibility.” It
appears that America will be deeply involved in Iraq, exhausting
every other possibility, for many years to come. 16.06.06
Wins, Who Loses?
(Green = gain, Red = loss)
Vietnam Without the Water
The war in Baghdad
is getting more ugly by the day, with the fighting reaching
right up to the blast walls of the Green Zone. Sunni, Shiite,
militia, Iraqi government forces, Americans, everyone is
fighting everyone else and no one really seems to know who is
who anymore. 
The Prime Minister
reiterated the state of emergency in the city (serious this
time!), and extended it further, now even banning pedestrian
traffic! But in just one week of June, 12 American soldiers
have been killed, two being captured and tortured first. It’s clearly not
The Few, the Proud,
the Pre-Meditated Murderers
The war atrocities
are beginning to get notice in the domestic American mass
media, with the Haditha massacre the most widely reported.
 Another incident features the
abduction and pre-meditated murder of a disabled Iraqi man in
a wheelchair, known as Hashim the lame, by seven Marines and
one Navy corpsman in the town of
Combat in Iraq is
undeniably brutal and people are bound to snap under the
stress of the situation. The source of the problem is not
so much the Marine that gets carried away with the job he was
trained to do, to kill the ‘enemy’, but with the politicians,
lobbyists and warmongering jingoists that put him in the Iraqi
bloodbath to begin with. Nonetheless, expect the Marine Corps,
just like the other military commands, to come down hard on a
few low ranking kids that get caught committing a war atrocity
that leaks out and gets picked up by the major media outlets.
The picture packaged and delivered to the naive public will
always be that this is just a ‘few bad apples’ in an otherwise
stellar cast of noble warriors. But it’s not a
wonderful system being marred by a few criminals; the whole
damn thing is rotten, that’s why these incidents keep
happening over and over, every war everywhere. The weakest
will be sacrificed as scapegoats to protect the integrity of a
Combat in Iraq is
now so similar to America’s previous occupational military
escapade that many Vietnam veterans are having flashbacks
triggered by the TV coverage in Iraq!
Iraq is Vietnam without the water. Put two and tow together:
if you want to know how the America’s war on Iraq will
conclude, just remember the fall of Saigon in Vietnam, 1975.
lining up in a desperate attempt to flee the country, fighting
each other to grab on to the last departing helicopter, and
then when the helicopters reach the aircraft carrier they are
pushed off the deck into the ocean to make room for more!
If you expect a graceful exit from the Iraqi
quagmire then you underestimate how badly the people driving
the Bush administration want control of Iraq and its
Why is America still in Iraq?
What is the Bush administration gaining from
this war in Iraq that they want so badly to continue it? I can
see some political calculus going on up through the
congressional elections. The Republican party calculates that
standing tough on the war is a smarter move than trying to
climb down now and admit errors since that would undermine
their, diminished but still believing, support base and give
more ammunition to Democratic opponents. But the planners in
the Pentagon and White House, meaning Cheney, Bush and
Rumsfeld, have to know by now this war is unwinnable.
Assassinating Zarqawi was clearly a major effort on their part
to turn the tide but it has actually backfired rather badly.
Zarqawi’s death has empowered the resistance fighters in Iraq
because it removed a polarizing factor and now they are better
coordinated and motivated!
Since the reconstruction funding has dried up
the corrupt contractors hired by Bush & Associates aren’t
taking home the loot, except for a few crumbs that are left.
So what’s left to gain from it? Anymore the country is so
dangerous that leaving the Green Zone is practically a death
sentence for westerners.
Look past the rhetoric and study the actions.
This whole war is so fanatical in its execution it’s almost as
if the brain of Israel had been put into America’s head. If
the only real goal is hatred, and a feverish desire to inflict
as much suffering on the Arab, specifically Iraqi, people as
possible, then this pogrom begins to form an element of
consistency and begins to make sense. Remember that Saddam
Hussein was the guy that had the audacity to attack Israel
with his (ineffective) Scud missiles during the first Gulf
War. Do you really think Israel would forget that?
What was the effect of the ten years of heavy
sanctions and sporadic bombing attacks that occurred under the
no-flay zone campaign between the two Gulf Wars? It starved
and malnourished thousands if not millions of Iraqi children,
the depleted uranium weapons remnants sickened and deformed
many more, and the loss of national income led to the erosion
of civil infrastructure. Admittedly Saddam Hussein and his
sons were contributing factors to this humanitarian disaster,
but they certainly were not the cause for Iraq was a
prosperous nation before!
Is the war on Iraq a pogrom of genocide against
the Iraqi people, and perhaps even a prelude to a wider
genocide against Arabs and Persians in Iran - all the main
enemies of Israel? It seems to be having that effect, but even
if it isn’t that still leaves the question of why the Bush
administration and most of Congress are so adamant about
continuing the war on Iraq without any signs of preparing the
public for a shift in tactics or strategy in the face of a
losing conflict. 25.06.06
Lack of Imagination
“[I]t is hard to conceive that it
would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam
Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to
secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his
army - hard to imagine."
- Paul Wolfowitz to a Congressional committee in 2003 as Deputy Defense
currently employs his vast lack of imagination as
president of the World Bank.
Lack of Responsibility
Bob Woodward interviews Rumsfeld
At the end of the second of two interviews, I quoted
former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: "Any military
commander who is honest with you will say he's made
mistakes that have cost lives."
"Um hmm," Rumsfeld said.
"Is that correct?"
"I don't know. I suppose that a military commander …”
"Which you are," I interrupted.
"No I'm not," the secretary of defense said.
"Yes, sir," I said.
"No, no. Well ..."
"Yes. Yes," I said, raising my hand in the air and ticking
off the hierarchy. "It's commander in chief, secretary of
defense, combatant commander."
"I can see a military commander in a uniform who is
engaged in a conflict having to make decisions that result
in people living or dying and that that would be a truth.
And certainly if you go up the chain to the civilian side
to the president and to me, you could by indirection, two
or three steps removed, make the case.”
From: Newsweek, ‘Denial’ and
Disaster, by Bob Woodward, page 42, October 9, 2006.
Along with the
increasing pace of ethnic cleansing based on religious
affiliation occuring in Iraq recent reporting now describes
Shiite militias battling each other for control of neighborhoods
and what basically amounts to gang warfare breaking out across
the country.  After publicly calling for
restraint atop massive public resentment of American and British
military occupation as well as blatant support for Israel in
their recent war against Hezbollah and Lebanon, the official
leadership, like Muqtada al-Sadr, has apparently lost control
over their militias in Iraq. No longer is the internecine
conflict limited to Sunni versus Shiite, it has now descended
further into intra-Shiite and intra-Sunni conflict. This October
the southern city of Amarah was briefly taken over by Shiite
militias before it could be retaken by Iraqi national army
forces. But all indicators point to the fact that these kinds of
uprisings will only become more common and more fierce in the
reasons exist to explain the widespread and ongoing violence in
Iraq. A patriarchal authoritarian history and a culture that
responds to grievances using revenge set the basic standard for
behavior. Moderating social forces are lacking, most of Iraq’s
middle class has left Iraq due to obvious reasons, and life in
general is just miserable for Iraqis amidst chronic stress, a
lack of power, open sewers and garbage piling up everywhere.
Although the violence may be fueled by revenge the ultimate aim
is power. The ethnic-religious cleansing of towns and regions is
intended to create a cohesive group as a political power base
and to protect against influence of outside groups.
The struggle for power is necessary because the coalition
military forces consistently attack and dismantle any authority
that develops and attempts to operate outside of their control
being exerted through the central government in the Green Zone
of Baghdad. The lack
of any functional and legitimate central authority in Iraq, a
country and culture that is traditionally based on the strongman
dictator capable of holding everything together using
intimidation and violence, means that if the Iraqis want
security and prosperity they will have to achieve it on their
The appearance of
gang warfare is an extremely serious development because it
means very little, if any, legitimate authority remains with
which to reconstitute the political power structure in Iraq.
Iraq is rapidly being turned into another Afghanistan with
tribes battling in the countryside and gangs at war in the
cities. The fact that the power struggle in Iraq has descended
so far down that independent neighborhood gangs are battling to
carve out a security zone are startling indications that, after
three and a half years of war, the United States has delivered
essentially nothing that benefits the Iraqi people, and in fact
is the source of most of their misery.
Independence Not Allowed / Israel's Lawn Mower
A consistent pattern is revealed by the military
and political actions of the United States in Iraq. Every
authority they can't control or influence, from Saddam Hussein
is systematically undermined and eventually crushed.
This is the same ‘lawn mower’ strategy that
Israel has used against her Arab neighbors for decades. As soon
as any independent leadership grows they move in and cut it down
using diplomatic isolation tactics or military force. Hamas in
Palestine is a classic example of this strategy in action. Hamas
was popularly elected into power in the Palestinian territory,
angering Israel and the White House. The predictable response
features the U.S. government isolating Hamas and the Israeli
military kidnapping and killing Hamas’ elected leaders.
The obvious weakness to the ‘lawn mower’ strategy
is that by dismantling a cohesive authority that is contained,
like Saddam Hussein was, it only generates multiple uncontained
authorities that may be individually weaker but are much more
difficult to contain collectively. It’s like putting out a blaze
with a sledgehammer, it may stop the big fire but it sends
burning embers flying in all directions only to start many more
conflagrations! Israel has always assumed that the subsequent
fires could just as easily be extinguished using the same tactic
but their 2006 war against Hezbollah demonstrated this is not
always the case. Change is blowing in the wind and so are a lot
of burning embers.
Out of (Politically
It is widely agreed
that Baghdad is now the epicenter of the conflict in Iraq and
getting it under control is crucial. Consequently American
troops have been pulled out of other unstable parts of Iraq and
sent into Baghdad but without any notable successes to show for
it. Talk of sending even more soldiers into Baghdad only
highlights the lack of politically acceptable options open to
war planners at this stage. Military commanders and now even the
Bush administration are being forced to face the fact that
everything they have tried so far to control the violence in
Iraq has not succeeded. What they still refuse to accept, at
least in public statements, is that the very presence of their
armed forces in Iraq is fueling the majority of widespread
The Generals get in
front of the camera and say the same thing over and over, ‘we’re
turning the corner’, ‘the latest violence is just a spike on the
chart’, it only looks bad now because of an expected rise due to
[insert Muslim holiday here]’, etc. They may as well just stand
in front of a map of Vietnam and a calendar from 1969! How does
someone sleep at night knowing their career is to be a lying
shill for a criminally corrupt political leadership just to get
another star on their collar?
Chronic lying and
self-delusion directly lead to the current situation where,
despite the lack of any major military offensives, the month of
October has set a record for the most U.S. soldiers killed for
the year of 2006. The other comparable numbers were related to
major military assaults on the city of Fallujah in years past.
The carnage in Iraq is clearly getting worse not better. And
that’s just the heavily armed and heavily protected American
troops. The Iraqi people are getting killed at an incredible
pace with western news reports typically describing 50 people
being killed by bombs or extra-judicial torture and execution
every day. The most recent and authoritative study on the number
of Iraqis killed since the start of the war done by Johns
Hopkins University and published in the British medical journal
Lancet puts the estimated total at 655,000.
 The White House immediately denounced
the study without providing any evidence to support their own
numerical claim that still stands at 30,000, a figure that
George W. Bush made up when put on the spot at a press
contractor scandals continue to leak out. The New York Times
reported that in some cases more money was being spent on
overhead costs, like security and paperwork, than on the actual
construction projects in Iraq.
proportion of overhead was incurred in oil-facility contracts
won by KBR Inc., the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as
Kellogg Brown & Root, which has frequently been challenged by
critics in Congress and elsewhere.
The actual costs for many projects could be even higher than
the estimates, the report said, because the United States has
not properly tracked how much such expenses have taken from
the $18.4 billion of taxpayer-financed reconstruction approved
by Congress two years ago.
But, as I’ve
already explained this kind of behavior is
completely in line with the true reason behind the great Iraq
reconstruction scam – to funnel as much taxpayer cash into the
hands of private American corporations as possible using the
rebuilding of Iraq as the pretext.
It gets worse.
Investigative reporting and former employees reveal that the
massive U.S. embassy being built in Baghdad, expected to be the
world’s largest, is using large-scale worker abuse bordering on
slavery.  The embassy is unlikely to be
the only construction project being built this way either.
Genocide for Dollars
The situation in Iraq has gotten so bleak, and
it’s not anywhere near the bottom yet, that there’s really not
anything positive to report! Eventually the internal instability
in Iraq will become so pronounced that neighboring states like
Syria, Turkey, and Iran will be forced to become involved to
preserve their own interests or simply to keep Iraq from
exploding all over everyone. Bush & Associates, the Dick Cheney
war hawks, and the rest of the neo-conservative architects of
war for dominance have clearly miscalculated on a cosmic
scale and then shamelessly refused to take responsibility for
any of it!
Elections in the United States are only about a week
away as I write this and the public is expected to punish the
Republican Party by voting against them for their fiasco in
Iraq, the only question being how severely. Nonetheless it is
also expected that the Democratic Party will not offer any
substantive alternative to correct the situation in Iraq.
Adding it all up and taking out the rhetoric the
operation in Iraq is nothing short of genocide for dollars,
and Iraq represents everything that the neo-cons and war hawks
believe in: self-supremacy through the calculated exploitation
and suffering of everyone else. And what’s even more pathetic
about it all, even regardless of the moral arguments against
this kind of behavior, is the totally counter-predictive outcome
of their short-sighted arrogance and greed! They will only reap
unlimited hatred of themselves and their despised policies while
creating authority vacuums and instability they cannot control
and that will inevitably engulf them and the American public as
Genocide for Dollars: The Great Gun Give-Away
If you think I’m
exaggerating then think about this: a federal report
commissioned by Senator Warner investigating arms shipments to
Iraq was released on Sunday October 29. What did the Inspector
American military did not even take the elementary step of
recording the serial numbers of nearly half a million weapons
provided to Iraqis, the inspector general found, making it
impossible to track or identify any that might be in the wrong
its assessment of Iraqi weaponry, the inspector general
concluded that of the 505,093 weapons that have been given to
the Ministries of Interior and Defense over the last several
years, serial numbers for only 12,128 were properly recorded.
The weapons include rocket-propelled grenade launchers, assault
rifles, machine guns, shotguns, semiautomatic pistols and sniper
those weapons, 370,000 were purchased with American taxpayer
money under what is called the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction
Fund, or I.R.R.F., and therefore fell within the inspector
The inspector general’s report said that
when asked why so many weapons went to Iraq with no record of
serial numbers, American military officials in Baghdad replied
that they did not believe the regulations applied to them.
So Bush & Associates
use government funds paid to private American corporations to
buy a gun show’s worth of firearms, they then ship the weapons
to Iraq to try and prop up an unstable and corrupt puppet regime
while making essentially no attempt to track any of the weapons
because 'the regulations don’t apply'. At the same time Iraq
descends into a religious civil war of the worst sort and these
same weapons intended for official use are undoubtedly being
employed by the very same people that the U.S. military is
trying to defeat! If this isn’t genocide for dollars, then what
State of Iraq - 2006
The Iraqi education system is in tatters;
the medical system in ruins; basic social and urban services
almost undeliverable; oil production barely up to pathetic
prewar levels (if present-day figures are even real, which is in
doubt); the position of women now disastrous; child malnutrition
on the rise; and well over a million Iraqis have fled their
homes in a country of only 26 million people.
In addition, national sovereignty has been destroyed; the
national police system is on its last legs, its ranks well
stocked with men loyal to various murderous Shi'ite militias; a
Sunni insurgency rages ever more violently; a Kurdish form of
independence seems ever more likely (though inconceivable to
neighboring states); corruption is rampant; and a central
government, whose sway doesn't reach most streets in its
capital, is now considered "the least accountable and least
transparent regime in the Middle East". (The Interior Ministry
alone "reportedly employs at least 1,000 ghost employees, whose
wages amount to more than $1 million a month".)
The danger of a 'dignified' exit from Iraq, by Tom
Engelhardt, November 21, 2006.
is the United States still in Iraq?
President Gore recently called America’s war on Iraq,
"the worst strategic mistake in the
entire history of the United States." He’s almost
correct but he can’t explain why America got into this mess to
begin with. The greatest mistake in US history was becoming
‘till death do us part’ allies with the state of Israel. That
decision is what started it all and what powers America’s
absurd, self-defeating foreign policy like a heavily armed,
psychotic Energizer bunny. America's current situation is the
product of a specific chain of events that follows from that
initial proposition. If it wasn’t for the United States
government’s overt support for the state of Israel there
wouldn’t have been an Arab oil embargo and there wouldn’t be
OPEC, America wouldn’t be in Iraq today, and everything
connected to those parameters in between. Iraq would be stable
and relatively prosperous and Saddam Hussein would be just
another petty dictator in a far corner of the world happy to
sell oil to the United States at market rates because he isn’t
being assaulted by American values at the tip of a bayonet!
“Our goal remains a free and democratic
Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself
and is an ally in the war on terror.” – President George
W. Bush, December 2006
George W. Bush and his administration, people like Bolton and
Rice, talk about creating democracy in Iraq and the Middle East
they really mean creating compliant puppet regimes that
officially approve of Israel, hence the emphasis on turning Iraq
into an 'ally in the war on terror.' This is why when real democracy
elected Hamas in the Palestinian territories the Bush
administration and the neo-cons went ballistic because a
political authority was about to assume power in the region that
did not approve of Israel and associated policy. This is why the
Bush administration, Congress, and the neo-conservatives cannot
allow the voice of the Iraqi people to support the political
parties they really want because that would mean a win for every
group that doesn’t like Israel. That’s the litmus test, that’s
what differentiates a ‘good’ Arab from a ‘bad’ Arab in the eyes
of those in power in Washington DC and Israel. Egypt? They
officially like Israel so they can be on the American team.
Jordan, Morocco, Turkey? They like Israel, so they can play too.
Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah? They don’t like Israel and
consequently are inflated into worldwide threat numero uno and
get excluded from playing with America. There's simply no other
way to express the true nature of the situation in an honest
manner without factoring in Zionism.
This is the true
reason why the Bush administration, with the support of the
neo-cons, can’t leave Iraq, because they will lose the chance to
achieve their true goals. They need to stay in Iraq to build
‘democracy’ meaning they want to influence the political
landscape to form a pliant regime that officially approves of
Israel. Bush & Associates need to stay in Iraq in order to keep
the military bases necessary to intimidate neighboring countries
into, you guessed it, liking Israel and to sell large volumes of
affordable oil on the world market thereby breaking the
influence of the OPEC oil cartel.
“I want the enemy to understand that this
is a tough task, but they can’t run us out of the Middle East,
that they can’t intimidate America.” – President George
W. Bush, December 2006
Tragically for the well being of America
as a whole Congress is just as deeply influenced by this skewed
view of the Middle East that is focused on the demands of Israel
as the President is. Recently this December Democrat
Silvester Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee who is promoting the idea of sending
20,000-30,000 more troops into Iraq, stated:
“I don’t want Iraq to become the next
Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for
Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot
allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further
destabilize the Middle East.” 
Isn’t this interesting? Why would he use Hamas and Hezbollah as
critical examples to make his point for the need to stay in
Iraq? Both are completely different organizations than the
international al Qaeda and neither Hamas nor Hezbollah threaten
the United States. This guy is
going to be chairman of the Intelligence Committee and he
can't even tell the difference between Hezbollah and al Qaeda?!
But Reyes, through his personal
ignorance and Congressional devotion to blank-check support for
Israel, demonstrates the fundamental conundrum of the U.S.
government position in Iraq. Military force cannot be withdrawn
because the power vacuum will undoubtedly elevate political
authorities hostile to the presence of the United States
military and hostile to the state of Israel. Yet everything that
the United States has done to Iraq has had the unambiguous
effect of spreading misery and creating enemies!
the Bush administration and the neo-conservatives want out of
Iraq fundamentally contradicts the needs of the Iraqi people.
There is more at
stake here than a battle of wills over who will rule various
cities in Iraq. The ferocious resistance against American rule
derives from the original goals of the American-led invasion:
installing a regime in Iraq that, minimally, would embrace a
military alliance with the United States, a foreign policy
actively hostile to Iran (and Syria), and an economic policy
that replaced state-delivered food and oil subsidies with a
"free market" dominated by American multinational companies.
beginning, the various factions that are contending for
control of Iraq-on-the-ground have resisted elements of this
program. The Shi'ites detested the American insistence on
antagonism to Iran; the Sunni rebelled against the de-Ba'athification
policies instituted by our viceroy in Baghdad, L Paul Bremer
III, the dismantling of state-run enterprises, and the
disbanding of the military; the oil workers struck against the
contracts that allowed American oil companies to dominate the
marketing of Iraqi oil; and virtually everyone resisted the
elimination of fuel and food subsidies.
occupation of Iraq is not the solution to the violence and
instability, it is the source of the problem!
commitment - to subdue the forces that oppose the American
occupation - ultimately translates into a perverse formula in
which more American forces generate further sectarian
American patrols in Shi'ite
neighborhoods immobilize the local defenses and make the
community vulnerable to jihadist attack; while American
invasions of Sunni communities are even more
damaging. They not only
immobilize the local defense forces, but almost always involve
the introduction of Iraqi Army units, made up mainly of
Shi'ite soldiers (since the army being stood up by the
Americans is largely a Shi'ite one). What results is violence
in the form of battles between a Shi'ite military (as well as
militia-infiltrated Shi'ite police forces) and Sunni
resistance fighters defending their communities.
These attacks generate immense
bitterness among Sunni, who see them as part of a Shi'ite
attempt to use the American military to conquer and pacify
Sunni cities. The result is a wealth of new jihadists anxious
to retaliate by sacrificing their lives in terrorist or
death-squad-style attacks on Shi'ite communities - which, in
their turn, energize the Shi'ite death squads in an escalating
cycle of brutalizing violence. 
This is why I call
the fiasco in Iraq ‘genocide for Dollars’ because the only
functional purpose it currently serves is to kill as many Iraqis
as possible for as long as possible while enriching weapons
manufactures and defense support contractors. The Bush
administration justifies this on a moral basis through the
belief that the more that die in Iraq the fewer bad guys they
will have to fight. Once again they are looking at the situation
through the wrong end of the telescope.
The Iraq Study
Group, made up of Democrat and Republican Party veterans,
concluded its lengthy study to determine how to rescue America
from the quagmire in the Middle East. Disappointment was
inevitable considering the media hype that preceded the release
of the final document. The main recommendation is to raise the
level of diplomacy to include neighboring countries in an effort
to collectively work out some kind of solution. Diplomacy is a
reasonable enough suggestion but after nearly four years of
brutal conflict that has generated a nightmarish religious civil war the
time is a bit late. The major criticism against the ISG is the
lack of a military path to victory outlined in the report;
however that criticism assumes that a military path to victory
More important, it
ignores the fact that the Iraqi government is weak as much
because of US action as because of Iraq's inherent problems.
The US destroyed the secular core of the country by disbanding
the Ba'ath Party. The US created a constitutional process long
before Iraq was ready, and created an intensely divisive
document with more than 50 key areas of "clarification",
including federation, control of oil resources and money,
control of security, the role of religion, the nature of the
legal system, etc.
The US created an electoral system
that almost forced Iraqis to vote to be Sunnis, Shi'ites and
Kurds and divided the nation on sectarian and ethnic lines.
The US in effect sent a bull in to liberate a china shop, and
the ISG now called on the US to threaten to remove the bull if
the shop doesn't fix the china. 
It also appears that
a political path to a victory amenable to the U.S. government
does not exist either. 09&30.12.06
Iraq: The Most
Ambitious Failure in American History
The Los Angeles Times newspaper
ran an article today that very neatly encapsulated the current
mindset of the Bush administration and the top level military
planners in the Pentagon concerning the war in Iraq and how to
win it. What grand strategy for success do they have in mind?
Well, just pick some of the worst choices possible and you’re on
the right track!
Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has
coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double
down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American
troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat
offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader
impeding development of the Iraqi government.
So instead of walking away from the
table poorer but wiser, the plan is to increase the wager on a
losing bet and hope for a big payout at the end. Double down,
yeah, come on big money - roll them dice! That would make perfect
sense to me … if I was insane! The plan to go after Sadr's
security force is especially inspired. The absurdity of this
thinking in a war is hilarious except for the fact that
thousands of people are being killed because of it.
Nonetheless, an internal logic does exist to these plans but in
order to understand that we have to go deep into the brains of
the Bush administration and the Pentagon’s top war planners.
officers believe that Iraq has become a test of wills, and
that the U.S. needs to show insurgents and sectarian militias
that it is willing to stay and fight. "I've come to the
realization we need to go in, in a big way," said an Army
officer. "You have to have an increase in troops…. We have to
convince the enemy we are serious and we are coming in
Despite the obvious foolishness of
trying to scare a growing insurgency into submission this late
in a lost cause the true meaning of statements like these are
that the reputation and credibility of the United States’ war
machine are on the line. Another loss like Vietnam will shut the
door to further military adventurism and, in the view of
paranoid war hawks and neo-conservatives, increase the morale of
essential for the president to couple any recommendation of a
significant surge in Iraq with the announcement that he will
increase permanently the size of the Army and the Marines,"
Kagan said. 
This is an unambiguous message: in
order for the Army and Marine Corps to stretch their neck out
even further they want a payback in the form of permanent
enlargement. A bigger ground military means a bigger budget and
not just through tenuous supplemental allotments but through
permanently expanded funding. The militarization of American
society is continuing unabated because a ready excuse is present
to expand and no braking force has the authority, or desire, to
slow it down.
outside experts — notably Frederick W. Kagan of the conservative
American Enterprise Institute think tank in Washington — have
suggested that the Army should grow annually by one division,
about 20,000 people, until it reaches 750,000 soldiers.
Kagan said that from 1979 to 1991, America had an all-volunteer
active-duty force of 780,000. "I do not believe we cannot find a
way to recruit to a higher level," he said. "The president is
going to have to call on the young people of this nation to come
out and support this effort."
Hey kids, now you
know who to send your thank-you notes to when the draft gets
reinstated in order to inflate the military and replace the
argue that the U.S. needs to show substantial progress in
decreasing the violence and instability in Iraq before the
2008 presidential election. 
The political needs of the Bush
administration are strongly factored into the decision to
escalate the military conflict in Iraq. Bush has little in
political capital left to lose as the situation currently stands
– he already has lost the vote of public confidence as indicated
by the Democrat Party’s success in November’s election. The Bush
administration hopes that they can possibly pull of some kind of
victory to minimize, or even reverse, the Republican Party’s
losses by election season 2008.
Intelligence Chief Found to be Lacking
Looks like I’m not the only one that
noticed the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s
startling ignorance. When asked the simple question, is al Qaeda
a Sunni organization, or Shi'ite? Reyes answered,
"Predominantly -- probably Shi'ite."
Reyes had a fifty-fifty shot and he still missed! But
describe the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Congressional
Quarterly said Reyes responded: "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah,"
and then said, "Why do you ask me these questions at five
well, nobody said you had to be smart to be in Congress, all you
have to do is wear a fancy suit, get the right haircut, talk a
lot and read the script AIPAC hands you –just like the
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
In 2005, she told a meeting of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that "the
greatest threat to Israel's right to exist ... now comes from
She’s not preaching to the choir she’s trying out for the part -
reading her lines in front of the casting directors to get the
official kosher stamp of approval necessary to keep her career
in Washington D.C.
I don't think there has ever been a
greater disconnect between what the elite in power want and what
the public wants than in America today. The most recent election
is a case in point. Having sent the message that the public is
sick of war in Iraq and demanding a swift conclusion the leaders
do everything they can, not just to prolong the occupation, but
to expand it!
That’s a little snapshot of this former
Constitutional Republic called the United States of America
distorted into an Imperial insane asylum sickened by a military
industrial machine that grows like a cancer and inspirited by a
Zionist brain transplant. It has never been more true than now:
to predict America’s future just ask yourself, what would
Zionism do? 13&18.12.06
Saddam Hussein, age 69, has been
reportedly executed by hanging at dawn on December 30, 2006
inside the American controlled compound called ‘Camp Justice’ in
the suburb of Khadimeya
in north Baghdad.
Loved by few,
feared by many, Saddam was the despotic force that held Iraq
together for decades, a country that even in the twentyfirst
century is primarily based on tribal affiliations. He was
the classic embodiment of my dictum in
Disconcerting Wall-Mounted Aphorism #19,
“They hate the brutality … but they love the winners.” Most
Iraqis respected him as a powerful despot within a
patriarchal culture that values strong autocratic authority
figures, but when he failed to stop or defeat a foreign
invasion he broke the contract with the people of Iraq and
was discredited as national leader.
was a triumph for Maliki, whose grip on his fragile national
unity coalition has been questioned.
complaints of political interference in the trial, however,
the speed of the execution may fuel further unease about the
fairness of the U.S.-sponsored process. 
Clearly the Shiite government of Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in a rush to have Saddam eliminated,
his trial over the killing of Kurds in the 1988 Anfal campaign
was not even complete! Instead of being executed for genocide
Saddam Hussein was executed for killing 148 Shias in the town of
Dujail in reaction to a failed assassination attempt.
By nearly any
standard the legal process that yielded Saddam’s conviction was
the product of a show trial with little, if any, legitimate
legal merit within widely accepted international standards.
Witnesses were intimidated, lawyers were assassinated, sources
were anonymous, and it was all instigated by a nominal puppet
regime sponsored and established by a foreign occupational force
from the United States.
Hanging After Flawed Trial Undermines Rule of Law is the
apt subtitle to a Human Rights Watch article on the topic
detailing the multitude of serious flaws in the legal process.
There never seemed
to be any demand for remorse on the part of Saddam Hussein for
his actions, as is expected in Western culture, because
condemning what he did wasn’t really the intent of the trial.
Saddam’s execution is an act of revenge not a condemnation of
the values and the culture he acted within. The Shiite tribe in
power now is just as likely to commit atrocities and mass-murder
to enforce their rule as Saddam’s was. Now we see why the civil
strife within Iraq is so brutal, it’s a zero-sum game where the
one winner takes it all, and why Bush’s pronouncements sound
increasingly absurd being so far removed from reality:
“[Executing Saddam] is an
important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy
that can govern, sustain and defend itself, and be an ally in
the war on terror.'' – President
George W. Bush
the location was intentionally left unclear, supposedly for
security reasons, the trial was undoubtedly within a United
States military compound. The eventual conviction was never in
doubt; Saddam in court made the Nuremberg trials look fair and
unbiased in comparison. If legal legitimacy was the aim then
Saddam Hussein should have been handed over to the International
Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. The ICC was made expressly
for the very purpose of trying people who are otherwise above
the law for mass-murder and war crimes. But the Bush
administration couldn’t afford to do that, they had to retain
full physical and informational control over the trial of
Saddam. If Saddam had been taken to the Hague the ensuing debate
would have revealed many embarrassing events and associations
that the Bush administration could not afford to have leak out.
Saddam Hussein shaking hands with a smiling Donald Rumsfeld
would have been just the opening act.
at the start of Eid is highly symbolic. The feast marks the
sacrifice the prophet Abraham was prepared to make when God
ordered him to kill his son and many Shi'ites could regard
Saddam's death as a gift from God. Such symbolism could
further anger Sunnis, resentful of new Shi'ite power.
The unusual timing of Saddam’s execution
and the triumphant attitude of much of the Shiite population are
very likely to increase the polarized political atmosphere in
Iraq and will only exaggerate the damaging effects of the bloody
religious civil war raging in Iraq. 30.12.06
Death Squads Return in Iraq
The same characters
responsible for the infamous CIA sponsored death squads of
Central America have rebuilt them in Iraq, specifically John
Negroponte who is moving from being Director of National
Intelligence to the position of deputy secretary of state.
It is Negroponte
who oversaw the implementation of the "Salvador Option" in
Iraq, as it was referred to in Newsweek in January 2005.
"Salvador Option", Negroponte had assistance from his
colleague from his days in Central America during the 1980s,
retired Colonel James Steele. Steel, whose title in Baghdad
was counselor for Iraqi security forces, supervised the
selection and training of members of the Badr Organization and
Mehdi Army, the two largest Shi'ite militias in Iraq, to
target the leadership and support networks of a primarily
Planned or not,
these death squads promptly spiraled out of control to become
the leading cause of death in Iraq. Intentional or not, the
scores of tortured, mutilated bodies that turn up on the
streets of Baghdad each day are generated by the death squads
whose impetus was Negroponte. And it is this US-backed
sectarian violence that largely led to the hell-disaster that
Iraq is today.
violations carried out by Negroponte were described as
been described as an "old-fashioned imperialist" and got his
start during the Vietnam War in the CIA's Phoenix Program,
which was responsible for the assassination of some 40,000
Obviously it is better
for Iraqi militias and resistance groups to be fighting one
another instead of uniting to battle occupation forces. The
age-old strategy of divide and conquer applied yet again. 
Thanks for the help
"We in the Middle East have been
following the American policy in Iraq for a long time, and
we are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability
that the war in Iraq has brought to the Middle East."
- Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert December, 2006.
this any way to run a [criminal] enterprise?
You bet it is!
week, we were treated to the spectacle of the former U.S.
civilian overlord of Iraq, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer,
squirming in the hot seat as he attempted with little success
to explain what he did with 363 TONS of newly printed,
shrink-wrapped $100 bills he had flown to Baghdad.
That's $12 billion in cold, hard American cash, and no one,
especially Bremer, seems to know where it went.
After all, the former czar told the representatives, it wasn't
really our money anyway. It was Iraqi money - oil earnings and
bank accounts seized from Saddam Hussein's government - that
we were holding in trust.
Perhaps we should let a no-bid cost-plus contract to
Halliburton to construct large additions to the country club
federal prisons to accommodate a population explosion in the
years ahead. Or, for convenience sake, maybe we could just add
a prison wing to the $500 million George W. Bush Presidential
Library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
(appropriate uses for this icon include:
CIA, Enron, etc.)
Created: May 2003
Bush administration impedes war-profiteering and fraud
The Justice Department has opted out of at least 10
whistle-blower lawsuits alleging fraud and corruption in
government reconstruction and security contracts in Iraq, and
has spent years investigating additional fraud cases but has
yet to try to recover any money. ...
"In our fifth year in the war in Iraq, the Bush administration
has not litigated a single case against any war profiteer
under the False Claims Act," Grayson said. ...
"Basically, they have done nothing , and it is hard to explain
what is going on there, other than direct orders from the very
top of government," said Patrick Burns , director of
communications for Taxpayers Against Fraud, a center that
advises whistle-blowers on filing suits to recover government
funds. "It can no longer be explained by incompetence alone."
Besides the two cases that were settled for $6.1 million, the
Justice Department has declined to join in 10 other cases. One
was against Custer Battles, a politically connected military
contractor in Iraq that was accused of supplying the military
with trucks that didn't work and overcharging the US
government by as much as $50 million. When the government
chose not to participate, the whistle - blower went on with
the suit anyway, and a federal jury ordered Custer Battles to
pay $10 million in damages.
That judgment, however, was overturned. The case is currently
A second, new whistle - blower lawsuit alleges that the
company was renamed and sold to former acting Navy secretary
Hansford T. Johnson and former acting Navy undersecretary
Douglas Combs . It is unclear if it is still doing business.
Justice Dept. opts out of whistle-blower suits, by
Farah Stockman, Boston Globe, June 20, 2007.
Saddam / al-Qaeda Fiction by Feith
declassified report done by the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense has found that, as everyone should already
know by now, neo-con Douglas Feith exaggerated and manipulated
information to concoct a convincing link between Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda in order to create the justification needed to
launch a war on Iraq. The full report is available to read here:
Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. 07.04.07
More of the Same
The so called
‘surge’ effort to put over 30,000 new soldiers in Iraq and
concentrate military efforts on the city of Baghdad has been a
complete failure, another colossal fiasco that is self-evident
to anyone not working for the Bush administration. Violence in
Baghdad has increased in direct contravention to the outcome
predicted by occupational authorities. Once again it’s quite
clear that more military force only leads to greater
public resentment, resistance and greater civilian, and even
military, casualties. Even the U.S. military has been forced to
February, when the security plan was launched, to March, the
total number of deaths -- civilians, Iraqi security forces and
U.S. troops -- rose by 10 percent, he said. "What does this
mean? It means that we still have a lot of work to do,"
William B.] Caldwell said.
so the military spokesman for operations in Iraq,
Major General William B. Caldwell,
official mouthpiece for
the Bush administration, concludes that Iraq needs more
of exactly what is generating the violence and carnage in the
first place. And so the
United States, under the rule of Bush and Cheney, continues for
a fifth year to
militarily occupy Iraq despite the widespread agreement of
the Iraqi people (and the world) that the United States must
leave Iraq immediately. In response Caldwell has this to say to:
“The death and
violence in Iraq are bad enough without this outside
interference. Iran and all of Iraq's neighbors really need to
respect Iraq's sovereignty and allow the people of this country
the time and the space to choose their own future."
of recognizing and rectifying the internal flaws of their own
plans occupational authorities deflect their problems onto
neighboring countries, with particular focus on (surprise!)
Iran. Yet even if foreign involvement in Iraq was a major source
of the problem and even if it wasn’t an obviously hypocritical
allegation to be making, if the Iraqi people aren’t supporting
the presence of the U.S. military in their country then what
does anything else matter? Without popular support how can the
United States government ever achieve any sustainable gains from
this endeavor? Obviously they can’t, yet the needs and concerns
of the Iraqi people do not seem to ever be anything but the most
fleeting of concerns for the occupation forces. Indeed the Red
Cross recently announced that as difficult as it is to imagine
the everyday situation for the people in Iraq continues to get
The ICRC also sees
no sign that the US-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing
relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with
mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water
shortages become more frequent across the country.
"Every day dozens of people are killed and many more wounded,"
it says. "The plight of Iraqi civilians is a daily reminder of
the fact that there has long been a failure to respect their
lives and dignity."
Bush-Cheney administration wants out of Iraq they can only
acquire it through the continual application of brute military
force and that means that the violence and armed resistance will
continue in Iraq and will eventually bleed out and destabilize
the entire region. 12.04.07
Greatest Game Show on Earth!
U.S. government builds its largest embassy in
Baghdad's 'Green Zone'
When completed, it will indeed be the perfect folly, as well
as the perfect embassy, for a country that finds it absolutely
normal to build vast base-worlds across the planet; that
considers it just a regular day's work to send its
aircraft-carrier "strike forces" and various battleships
through the Strait of Hormuz in daylight as a visible warning
to a "neighboring" regional power; and whose CIA operatives
feel free to organize and launch Balochi tribal warriors from
Pakistan into the Balochi areas of Iran to commit acts of
terror and mayhem.
In addition, the United States' commander-in-chief president
can sign a "non-lethal presidential finding" that commits the
US to a "soft power" version of the economic destabilization
of Iran, involving, according to one report, "a coordinated
campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of
Iran's currency and international financial transactions". The
vice president, meanwhile, can appear on the deck of the USS
John C Stennis to address a "rally for the troops", while that
aircraft carrier is on station in the Persian Gulf, readying
itself to pass through those straits, and can insist to the
world: "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're
sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike. We'll
keep the sea lanes open. We'll stand with our friends in
opposing extremism and strategic threats. We'll disrupt
attacks on our own forces ... And we'll stand with others to
prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this
region"; whose military men can refer to Iraqi insurgents as
"anti-Iraqi forces". ...
recognize such imperial impunity and its symbols for what they
are, all you really need to do is try to reverse any of these
examples. In most cases, that's in essence inconceivable.
Imagine any country building the equivalent Mother Ship
"embassy" on the equivalent of two-thirds of the Washington
Mall; or sailing its warships into the Gulf of Mexico and
putting its second-in-command aboard the flagship of the fleet
to insist on keeping the sea lanes "open"; or sending
Caribbean terrorists into Florida to blow up local buses and
police stations; or signing a "finding" to destabilize
economically the US government; or planning the future shape
of the US from a foreign capital. But you get the idea. Most
of these actions, if aimed against the United States, would be
treated as tantamount to acts of war and dealt with
accordingly, with unbelievable hue and cry.
When it's a matter of other countries halfway across the
planet, however, Americans largely consider such things, even
if revealed in the news, at worst tactical errors or
miscalculations. The imperial mindset goes deep. It also
thinks unbearably well of itself and so, naturally, wants to
memorialize itself, to give itself the surroundings that only
the great, the super, the hyper deserves.
Did you have any
doubts about the U.S. invasion of Iraq back in 2003? The U$
mass-media sure didn’t - read what they had to say!
"We don't want to destroy the
infrastructure of Iraq, because in a few days we're gonna own
that country." —NBC's Tom Brokaw March 19, 2003
"We're all neo-cons now."
—MSNBC's Chris Matthews April 9, 2003
“As far as I'm concerned, we do not need
to find any weapons of mass destruction to justify this
war.... Mr. Bush doesn't owe the world any explanation for
missing chemical weapons (even if it turns out that the White
House hyped this issue)." —New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman April 27, 2003
"It ended quickly with few civilian
casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or
infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up
against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire
they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house
fighting they warned us to expect." —Richard Perle,
"Relax, Celebrate Victory," USA Today op-ed May 1, 2003.
Transmission Accomplished, by Peter Hart,
EXTRA! May/June 2007.
A Few More
points out that the costs of the Iraq war in particular have
been increasing rapidly with this year's expected tally of
$135 billion amounting to a 40 percent increase over 2006. It
notes that the average cost of a single U.S. soldier in Iraq
last year was $390,000, up 22 percent from the $320,000 it
cost in 2003.
Congressional Agency Predicts War Costs Will Climb,
by Walter Pincus, Washington Post, July 11, 2007.
Militants in Iraq Come From Saudi Arabia
US foreign policy were at all consistent, the White House and
the Pentagon would be condemning Riyadh and demanding action to
halt the flow of Saudi fighters. Stories would be appearing in
the American media exposing autocratic Saudi rule, its
repression of women and savage application of Sharia law. Grave
fears would have been raised by the State Department over the
announcement last year that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States
were launching a civilian nuclear program. The most strident US
militarists would be demanding regime change and Bush would be
declaring that “all options were on the table”—including the
bombing of Riyadh.
That none of this is happening, or is likely to happen, again
demonstrates that the US accusations against Tehran are simply
pretexts used to justify possible military action against Iran.
The threats against Iran are not motivated by concerns about the
lives of US troops but the Bush administration’s ambitions to
establish American dominance over the Middle East and its huge
energy reserves. Far from publicly remonstrating with Riyadh,
the White House has in recent months been seeking to line up
Saudi Arabia and other “moderate” Arab states, including Egypt
and Jordan, in an anti-Iranian alliance.
An unpalatable truth for Bush: most foreign insurgents in Iraq
are Saudis, by Peter Symonds, WSWS, July 17, 2007.
Under Saddam than Under U.S. Occupation
"Children today are much worse off than they were a year ago,
and they certainly are worse off than they were three years
ago," said Dan Toole, director of emergency programs for the
United Nations Children's Fund. He said Iraqis no longer have
safe access to a government-funded food basket, established
under Saddam Hussein to deal with international sanctions.
UN: Iraqi Children Worse Off, by Frank Jordans, AP via
Washington Post, July 16, 2007.
Keep Pokin' the
Hornet's Nest, Keep Makin' New Enemies
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been
able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by
repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and
by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose
to U.S. interests.
But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday
with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that
concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key
elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing
a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The
report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and
indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by
associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary. ...
Although only a portion of the instability in Iraq is
attributed to al-Qaeda and the group had no substantial power
base there before the U.S. invasion, Bush again cast the war
as a battle against its members, whom his aides have described
as key provocateurs there.
"The fact is, we were harassing them
in Afghanistan, we're harassing them in Iraq, we're
harassing them in other ways, non-militarily, around the
world. And the answer is, every time you poke the hornet's
nest, they are bound to come back and push back on you. That
doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing it."
- Frances Fragos Townsend, Homeland Security Adviser for the
Bush/Cheney administration, July 2007.
Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA analyst who has been involved in
previous intelligence estimates, said that the administration
has correctly identified the danger posed by al-Qaeda in Iraq
and that there are indeed links between the Iraq group and the
larger international terrorist network. But he said the White
House is drawing the wrong conclusion, and argued instead that
it is the U.S. presence in Iraq that is fueling the
"Iraq matters because it has become a cause celebre and
because groups like al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Qaeda central
exploit the image of the United States being out to occupy
Muslim lands," Pillar said.
Referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq, Clinton administration official
Daniel S. Benjamin, who has written books and articles on
international terrorism, said: "These are bad guys. These are
jihadists." He added: "That doesn't mean we [should] stay in
Iraq the way we have been, because we are not making the
situation any better. We're creating terrorists in Iraq, we
are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who are inspired by
what's going on in Iraq. . . . The longer we stay, the more
terrorists we create."
Intelligence Puts Rationale For War on Shakier Ground,
by Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, July 18, 2007.
authorities, failing in their stated effort to rebuild Iraq,
continue to blame Saddam Hussein for that countries decrepit
infrastructure and the difficulties in repairing and restoring
necessities like power and water services. Yet this blame
conveniently ignores the fact that Iraq was a nation under
severe international sanctions, demanded by the United States
government, for over ten years prior to the 2003 military
In 1990 the United Nations
imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, administered mainly by the
United States and Britain. These sanctions which continued
through President Clinton and into Bush II, are perhaps the
sorriest legacy of U.S. policy toward Iraq.
No Westerners know Iraq better
than Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who served
successively as UN humanitarian coordinators there from 1997
to 2000. Both resigned in protest of the sanctions regime,
which Halliday has characterized as "genocidal." As Halliday,
von Sponeck, and others had pointed out for years, the
sanctions devastated the Iraqi population while strengthening
Saddam and his clique, increasing the people's dependency on
the tyrant for their survival.
"We have sustained [the
Saddam regime] and denied the opportunities for change,"
Halliday said in 2002. I believe if the Iraqis had their
economy, had their lives back, and had their way of life
restored, they would take care of the form of governance that
they want, that they believe is suitable to their country.”
From: Interventions, by Noam Chomsky,
page 59, 2007.
Cheney's Brain: Why War on Iraq?
It’s clear by now that the whole War
on Terrorism ploy and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are not
products from the mind of President George W. Bush since, as
near as anyone can tell, it takes the collective sum of his
intellectual powers just to get his socks to match every
morning. Conversely, Vice President Dick Cheney has all the
hallmarks of being a rather shrewd political insider with a
noticeable manipulative streak, someone that's smart enough to
recognize the implications of his decisions – in other words
Cheney isn’t a completed idiot and therefore has to be making
decisions based on some kind of semi-rational thought process.
And all the evidence we have points to the fact that the White
House decision-making process, at least as far as the wars go,
revolves around Cheney like a wheel revolves around its axle.
So, the main question becomes: why did Cheney decide to attack
Iraq and risk destabilizing the Middle East?
must have known that the people responsible for planning and
executing the 9-11 attack were not from Iraq, or really even
from Afghanistan, but were actually from Saudi Arabia. Yet Saudi
Arabia, being a wealthy and influential ally to the United
States and particularly to the Bush clan, was obviously off
limits as far as a direct attack. Nonetheless Saudi Arabia, in
Cheney’s mind, was gaining so much power from oil wealth that
something had to be done to stop them and with OPEC being the
source of that great oil wealth, OPEC must be the focus of the
attack. What better way to ruin OPEC then to attack Saddam’s
Iraq, a weak and heavily sanctioned country with few allies, and
acquire some of the cheapest and most plentiful oil supplies on
the planet. With Iraq under new management, American friendly
management, they would pump as much oil as America wants and
thereby break the OPEC oil cartel once and for all while
Cheney’s Halliburton incorporated could make a fortune
rebuilding Iraq’s oil infrastructure. Considering the political
and economic benefits the decision was a no-brainer for Cheney
even at the risk of destabilizing the entire region if something
went wrong. But how could anything go wrong? The first Gulf War
against Saddam after he invaded Kuwait was so easy! This war
will probably be even easier.
Attacking Iraq was easy, but
taking control of Iraq’s oil supplies has turned out to be
impossible. Now Cheney has no allies anywhere except the gang of
unscrupulous Israel-imported neo-cons that he made the original
bargain with and they love the Arab genocide that’s going on in
Iraq now. So, even if Cheney wanted to stop the show he really
has little choice but to keep pushing a war that can’t be won,
hence Bush’s pronouncements that war on Iraq will last at least
as long as he is in office as President. 26.08.07
Iraq Killing Rate
Worse Than Rwanda
On average, at least 56 Iraqis —
civilians and security forces — have died each day so far in
2007, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
* * *
September 2007 ORB made public its finding that an estimated
1.2 million violent deaths had taken place in Iraq since March
2003. The agency commented at the time that US-occupied Iraq
had “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 exile, either
internal or foreign.
The ORB findings vindicated the study published in the Lancet,
the British medical journal, in October 2006, which put the
Iraqi death toll then at approximately 655,000.
Wars on Iraq and Afghanistan Spreading Deadly Bacteria
to arrive at a hospital near you is a deadly drug-resistant
bacteria courtesy of the ongoing wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.
An Army infectious disease physician
says the germ has spread rapidly since the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq began. "Prior to the war, we were seeing one to two
cases of acinetobacter infection per year," remembers Lt. Col.
Kimberly Moran, deputy director for tropical public health at
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in
"Now that's much different. We've had hundreds of positive
cultures over the last four years."
And the toll has been serious, observes Army Col. Glenn
Wortmann, acting chief of infectious disease at Walter Reed
Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. "Of the infectious
disease problems that have come out of the conflict," notes
Dr. Wortmann, "it is the most important complication we've
In 2006, doctors at Walter Reed began
successfully curbing acinetobacter infections using an
antibiotic called imipenem. Soon thereafter, Endy recalls,
frontline surgeons began using imipenem as a prophylactic
antibiotic-infusing it into injured service members even when
it was not clear the bacteria had colonized on the patients'
skin or invaded their wounds. The result, he says: "We started
to see increasing resistance to this antibiotic, resulting in
the use of the more toxic drug, colistin."
Latest Cost Estimate
for Bush/Cheney Terror Wars: $3,000,000,000,000
Why doesn't the public understand the
staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the
administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are
mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is
apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.)
These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12
billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By
the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget,
the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and
money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel
have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal
government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion. ...
The long-term burden of paying for the
conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other
urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in
November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes
it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale
repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build
better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the
wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other
discretionary federal programs, including the National
Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and
cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since
the invasion of Iraq. 
Lies and More Lies
the British and U.S. government lied, and continue to lie about
events in Iraq. In the latest revelation the British government
lied about their warship being in Iraqi waters when it was
captured by Iran - they repeatedly and emphatically stated that
Iran had violated an internationally recognized boundary when in
reality the US/UK military 'coalition' had defined a new
boundary and never informed Iran of the change! In other words
it was a setup: Iran was framed; British and American military
provocations were intended to force a high-profile response from
Iran in order to inflate that country into an imperative threat
thereby justifying further US/UK military actions in the region.
Fifteen British sailors and Marines were seized by Iran in
internationally disputed waters and not in Iraq’s maritime
territory as Parliament was told, according to new official
documents released to The Times.
The Britons were seized because the
US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for Iran’s
territorial waters without telling the Iranians where it was,
internal Ministry of Defence briefing papers reveal.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’
coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line
at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who
apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian
gunboats came alongside; …
Iran always claimed that it had arrested
the Britons for violating its territorial integrity.
Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the Commons
that the personnel were seized in Iraqi waters.
official lies on just the one claim that Iraq had weapons of
mass-destruction have been catalogued and documented in
The War Card, a report produced by the journalism
research organization Center for Public Integrity (CPI).
These false statements were not accidental but were part of an
orchestrated campaign to generate public support for an
unprovoked war on Iraq. Having lied about
Saddam having WMD to justify the
invasion of Iraq and then having subsequently lied about most
every major aspect of the conflict the real question at this
point is why anyone would believe any of the claims
emanating from the US/UK governments and their mass-media
cheerleaders concerning events in Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else
in the ‘War on Terrorism’? 23.04.08
rising body count has, after all, taken away the last metric by
which to measure "success" in Iraq. Even the small explanations
(and, these days, those are just about the only ones left) seem
increasingly bizarre. Take, for instance, the convoluted
explanation of who exactly is responsible for the devastation in
Sadr City. Here's how military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel
Steve Stover put it recently:
sole burden of responsibility lies on the shoulders of the
militants who care nothing for the Iraqi people ..." He said the
militiamen purposely attack from buildings and alleyways in
densely populated areas, hoping to protect themselves by hiding
among civilians. "What does that say about the enemy? ... He is
heartless and evil."
Mind you, this comes from the
representative of a military that now claims to grasp the true
nature of counterinsurgency warfare (and so of a guerrilla war);
and you're talking about a militia largely from Sadr City,
fighting "a war of survival" for its own families, its own
people, against foreign soldiers who have hopped continents to
attack them. The Sadrist militiamen are defending their homes
and, of course, with Predator drones and American helicopters
constantly over their neighborhoods, it's quite obvious what
would happen to them if they "came out and fought" like typical
good-hearted types. They would simply be blown away. (Out of
curiosity, what descriptive adjectives would Stover use to
capture the style of fighting of the Predator pilots who "fly"
their drones from an air base outside of Las Vegas?).
The last war and the next one, by Tom Engelhardt, May 6,
The Senate Select
Intelligence Committee produced the first official study of the
truthfulness of pre-war claims used to justify launching the war
on Iraq. As we already know, and now this report demonstrates,
the President and Vice President lied extensively.
Just a few of the reports conclusions in plain
Claim that former dictator Saddam Hussein was
in league with Osama bin Laden – complete lie.
Contention that Saddam was going to give
terrorists weapons of mass destruction to attack the United
States – total fabrication.
Cheney's claim that Mohammad Atta met with an
Iraqi spy in Prague – crazy lie.
Adamant claims by officials that Saddam had
stockpiled chemical and biological weapons in violation of
U.N. resolutions – cynically concocted fantasy to serve
Bold assertion by Bush and Cheney that Iraqis
would welcome U.S. troops as liberators – deluded fantasy that
defied known facts.
Here Comes the
[Pentagon Propaganda] Circus!
The United States
Government under the command of President Bush and Vice
President Cheney along with the complicit support of both
political parties, Republican and Democrat, continues to
perpetrate an orchestrated campaign of psychological warfare
upon the citizens of the United States, and not just the people
of Iraq and Afghanistan.
warfare campaigns, deemed critical by the Pentagon for winning
on the battlefield, are no longer restricted to the traditional
regions of ground combat. Official Psychological Operations (PsyOps)
now extend outward to include United States domestic opinion,
and indeed even the entire world, perhaps because this new ‘war
on terrorism’ is reasoned to have no traditional political state
evidence of this mind-warfare campaign has emerged with the New
York Times revealing in April 2008 that numerous retired
military leaders were employed as stealth TV and radio
propagandists who falsely presented themselves to the public,
and the news networks, as independent military analysts. These
supposedly independent experts were cited over 4,500 times by
the U.S. mass-media and had personal connections to defense
corporations directly profiting from the war on Iraq, yet none
of the media outlets revealed these enormous conflicts of
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used
its control over access and information in an effort to
transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an
instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the
major TV and radio networks.
As a consequence of
these tricks mass-media credibility in the United States,
already at an abysmal low, is declining further because a
boundary no longer exists to distinguish between objective
journalism and official statements of state propaganda designed
to elicit public support for a brutal and largely pointless
conflict that otherwise would have none.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military
analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who
could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own
maneuvers intended to warp public opinion only serve to magnify
the illegitimacy of establishment authorities that act only to
profit the interests of a small oligarchy, with both political
parties being willing, if not enthusiastic, participants having
both supported and aided the launch and expansion of foolish
perpetual wars on terrorism, drugs, Islam, Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. May & June 2008
Cares About the Iraqis?
to officials the war on Iraq was launched as an effort intended
to directly benefit the Iraqi people (by ‘liberating’ them from
Saddam Hussein and delivering freedom and democracy) those same
officials as well as the complicit mass-media are
silent when it comes to describing the staggering scale of the
humanitarian crisis facing the Iraqi people today. Indeed to do
so would undoubtedly undercut the dwindling patriotic enthusiasm
for perpetuating the war on Iraq that can only be charitably
described as criminal and more accurately characterized as
genocidal. To describe the humanitarian disaster spilling out of
Iraq would illuminate troubling contradictions between
official rhetoric and brutal reality that officials prefer left
Here's a typical
example of average Iraqis struggling to survive sanctions and
war imposed upon them by outside forces:
Mohammad Saleem ran a successful
supermarket in Baghdad. "I was leading a comfortable life with
my family, despite the 13 years of UN sanctions. My four sons
worked together to keep our supermarket running, and so we
passed the dark sanctions period successfully. The big suffering
started with the 2003 occupation that brought closed roads and
reduced income for people."
The United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) estimates there are 1.5 million Iraqis in
Syria. But the economy of Syria itself is struggling under U.S.
sanctions. Jobs for refugees on the black market bring no more
than 100 dollars a month.
And expenses have risen. "I paid 300
dollars rent when I came here in early 2005," said Dr. Shakir
Awad. "In 2006 I had to rent a smaller flat for the same amount
of money because rent went up after more Iraqis fled for Syria
when sectarian evictions escalated in Iraq.”
The Syrian government does not allow
Iraqis in Syria to work legally, and an increasing number of
refugees have taken to prostitution. While there are no precise
figures, refugees speak of many cases of families who left their
belongings back home, and now have no means to support
themselves – and whose women have taken to prostitution.
When President Bush
and Vice President Cheney are put on trial for war-crimes one
can only hope that every mass-media news editor that ash-canned
interviews with Iraqi refugees in favor of more smarmy pieces on
‘rebuilding Iraq’ or on how many 15 year-old ‘terrorists’ the
Army killed inside Sadr City are included as co-conspirators
knowing full-well that their decisions mean that thousands of
innocent Iraqi moms are turning to prostitution for food money,
millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes, and
countless thousands are unemployed, homeless, hungry, or dying.
War for Oil?
The Pentagon spent
$15 billion dollars in 2007 just for fuel, and for every dollar
oil goes up in price an extra $130 million has to be added to
the Pentagon's budget.
U.S. Department of Defense is the
largest single user of fuel in the world, consuming more than
the entire country of Sweden every day, and this is one
reason for high gasoline prices --- the very fact that so much
oil is being diverted towards feeding the insatiable
appetite of the Pentagon’s war machine consisting of fleets of
aircraft, swarms of tanks and trucks, and a multitude of ships.
Every day, the average GI in Iraq uses
approximately 27 gallons of petroleum-based fuels. With some
160,000 American troops in Iraq, that amounts to 4.37 million
gallons in daily oil usage, including gasoline for vans and
light vehicles, diesel for trucks and armored vehicles, and
aviation fuel for helicopters, drones, and fixed-wing aircraft.
With US forces paying, as of late April, an average of $3.23 per
gallon for these fuels, the Pentagon is already spending
approximately $14 million per day on oil ($98 million per week,
$5.1 billion per year) to stay in Iraq.
Crude oil is
currently at $128 per barrel and continues to rise daily. If the
war on Iraq was really launched solely as an unstated effort to
secure the Middle East’s oil supplies, as claimed by many
ideologically biased critics, then the war has been a
catastrophic and self-defeating failure for the United States
and its massive oil-driven military, one showing no signs of
being corrected any time soon. 18.05.08
It’s clear with
objective analysis that the war on Iraq is not about oil
despite the superficial veracity and repetitiveness of claims to the
contrary, and indeed these false assertions are highly
convenient fiction for authorities precisely because they mask
fundamental truths they would prefer remain unrecognized. And
now, finally, someone else is making the same contentions that I
have (for instance read December 2006’s
Security - What Happened?), and with greater eloquence
and lengthier detail.
[T]here is strong evidence that, in
fact, oil companies did not welcome the war because they
prefer stability and predictability to periodic oil spikes
that follow war and political convulsion: "Looking back over
the last 20 years, there is plenty of evidence showing the
industry's push for stability and cooperation with Middle
Eastern countries and leaders, and the US government's drive
for hegemony works against the oil industry."
The real top-force
manipulating U.S. foreign policy is not ‘Big Oil’, it’s the
Israel Lobby and we know this because U.S. oil loses on many
counts from Middle East turmoil while Israel and the lobby gain
from it. Here is just one example of legislation passed that
punishes U.S. oil while rewarding Zionism:
It is no secret that the major force
behind the Iran-Libya Sanction Act was the America Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the main Zionist lobby in
Washington. The success of AIPAC in passing ILSA through both
the Congress and the White House over the opposition of the
major US oil companies is testament to the fact that, in the
context of US policy in the Middle East, even the influence of
the oil industry pales vis-a-vis the influence of the Zionist
The author of
Are they really oil wars?, Hossein-sadeh, also attacks
the fraudulent ‘theory’ of Peak Oil that is being used as
another convenient fiction by multiple factions,
The Peak Oil thesis serves as a
powerful trap and a clever manipulation in that it lets the
real forces of war and militarism (the military-industrial
complex and the pro-Israel lobby) "off the hook; it is a
fabulous redirection. All evils are blamed on a commodity upon
which we are all utterly dependent”.
Finally, and perhaps more importantly,
claims of "peaked and dwindling" oil are refuted by the
available facts and figures on global oil supply. Statistical
evidence shows that there is absolutely no supply-demand
imbalance in global oil markets. Contrary to the claims of the
proponents of Peak Oil and champions of war and militarism,
the current oil price shocks are a direct consequence of the
destabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the Middle
East, not oil shortages.
So why do these myths persist?
But the major reason for the
persistence of this pervasive myth seems to stem from certain
deliberate efforts that are designed to perpetuate the legend
in order to camouflage some real economic and geopolitical
special interests that drive US military adventures in the
Middle East. There is evidence that both the
military-industrial complex and hard-line Zionist proponents
of "greater Israel" disingenuously use oil (as an issue of
national interest) in order to disguise their own nefarious
special interests and objectives: justification of continued
expansion of military spending, extension of sales markets for
military hardware, and recasting the geopolitical map of the
Middle East in favor of Israel.
There is also evidence that for every
dollar's worth of oil imported from the Persian Gulf region
the Pentagon takes $5 out of the Federal budget to "secure"
the flow of that oil. This is a clear indication that the
claim that the US military presence in the Middle East is due
to oil consideration is a fraud. 
A War for Genocide
The US/UK Bush/Cheney war on Iraq is
a campaign of genocide against the people of Iraq disguised with
hollow moral platitudes and specious rhetoric. After all, Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq did not pose any threat to the United States and
indeed he was a valuable ally for many years, Saddam and Iraq
were however perceived as a serious threat by Israel. Hussein
was entirely willing to sell his oil on the world market even
under the punitive sanctions program imposed on his country
after the Gulf War, thereby benefiting the United States, but
the Bush-Cheney team invaded Iraq anyway despite massive
worldwide resistance and solid support only emanating from
portions of the UK government and Israel.
Invading and occupying Iraq under the
pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by
Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the
quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign
By all measures George W. Bush and
Vice President Cheney have been the most supportive and useful
executive leaders Israel has ever had helping them in the White
House. Bush even praised Israel during a special speech in May
2008 at the Israeli Knesset as a
"homeland for the chosen people"
while proclaiming the US as Israel’s
"closest ally and best friend in the
world". Bush delivered this
speech on the day that Palestinians commemorate as the Nakba
catastrophe of 1948 when Israel seized 78 percent of Palestine.
Bush subsequently toured the Arab states and excoriated them for
numerous perceived failings then demanded that Saudi Arabia pump
more oil to lower the price!
Whether or not the administrations of
Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit
genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the
bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any
reasonable person. The actions of these administrations
clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental
harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring
about Iraq’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq
is a clear-cut case of genocide. 
The bottom line is that the war on
Iraq is not a war for oil, it's a war of genocide
for Israel and for Bush, Cheney, and the Israeli government it
must continue until completed. 21.05.08
describe the brutality of military occupation in Iraq:
"I was in Husaiba with a sniper platoon right on the Syrian
border and we would basically go out on the town and search for
people to shoot," Kochergin said. "The rules of engagement (ROE)
got more lenient the longer we were there. So if anyone had a
bag and a shovel, we were to shoot them. We were allowed to take
our shots at anything that looked suspicious. And at that point
in time, everything looked suspicious."
Kochergin added, "Later on, we had no ROE at all. If you see
something that doesn't seem right, take them out." He concluded
by saying, "Enough is enough, it's time to get out of there."
Doug Connor was a first lieutenant in the army and worked as a
surgical nurse in Iraq. While there he worked as part of a
combat support unit, and said most of the patients he treated
were Iraqi civilians.
"There were so many people that needed treatment we couldn't
take all of them," he said. "When a bombing happened and 45
patients were brought to us, it was always Americans treated
first, then Kurds, then the Arabs."
Connor added quietly, "It got to the point
where we started calling the Iraqi patients 'range balls'
because, just like on the driving range (in golf), you don't
care about losing them." 
true Iraqi death toll from military occupation and religious
civil war is far higher than official authorities are willing to
"I lived in Gatoon district, the
volatile stronghold of the militants in Baquba," Yasir al-Azawi,
a 37-year-old truck driver told IPS. "Everyday I saw vehicles
dropping bodies in the river. Everyone in my district knows
this truth; that the river contained an extraordinary number
of bodies to the extent that living in that place became
Unmarked mass graves
litter the Iraqi countryside and the rivers are clogged with
dead bodies. "New burial grounds are found
often, and the dead are usually not recorded. Many residents
told IPS that farmers commonly find bones in their fields."
The Surge Success Scam
Adding more U.S. soldiers to Iraq has long been
treated by politicians and the mass-media as the solution that
reduced violence and managed to turn Iraq from a
downward-spiraling fiasco into a stable nation, all due to the
supposed brilliance of General Petraeus’ plan. Completely
missing is the fact that Iraq is still a formidable disaster
with inadequate power, unsafe water, a widespread lack of safety
and security, and a general paucity of every other basic element
of civilization. Indeed it’s easy to punch holes in the myth of
the successful ‘Surge’ but due to the need for a politically
pleasing storyline that reassures a nervous public the myth will
remain in circulation.
What’s more, that decrease in the level of
violence that “surge” supporters point to seems to have
virtually no connection to the increase in troop levels.
Mideast scholar Juan Cole (Informed Comment, 7/21/08, 7/24/08)
wrote that the decline occurred primarily in Al-Anbar, which
saw little troop increase, and in Basra, where British forces
had already largely withdrawn. Cole argued that if the
escalation contributed to decreased levels of violence, it was
because it “allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of
Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
from the country.”
Given that the total number of occupation
troops at the height of the surge—about 183,000—was the same
as the number present in November/December 2005, it is
unlikely that the escalation by itself did much to
fundamentally change the situation in Iraq.
Yet, the underlying contradiction still remains
-- if the ‘Surge’ has succeeded and violence in Iraq is no
longer a problem then why are thousands of U.S. troops still
militarily occupying Iraq? This is why authorities must
constantly raise the possibility of everything falling apart
again if the troops even so much as think about stepping
back and leaving. By manipulating the myth of a successful Surge
strategy they can gain exactly what they want: the perpetual
military occupation of Iraq. 13.10.08
Empire’s Visionary Leader
Pacifying Sunni Iraq
Although the ‘surge’ of troops into Iraq has been
proclaimed as a brilliant success in reducing violence in Iraq
by Bush-Cheney and Associates, as well as the supposed architect
General Petraeus, Dahr Jamail, who has actually been into
Fallujah more than once, describes what’s really going on. The
real business of pacifying Sunni Iraq for continued US
occupation has much more to do with bribes to crooks and
pallet-loads of Dollar bills than the presence of US soldiers
and ‘rebuilding’ the war-ruined country. 14.02.09
The reasons - and they are indeed plural - why the tribal
leaders were so willing to collaborate with the occupiers of
their country are, at least in retrospect, relatively clear.
Those in al-Anbar who had once supported, and had been
supported by, Saddam, and then had initially supported the
resistance became far keener to work with occupation forces as
they saw their power eroded by al-Qaeda-in-Iraq.
AQI proved a threat to
the sheiks, many of whom had initially worked directly with
it, when it began to try to embed its own fierce, extremist
Sunni ideology in the region - and perhaps even more
significantly, when it began to infringe on the cross-border
smuggling trade that had kept many tribal sheiks rich. As AQI
grew larger and threatened their financial and power bases,
they had little choice but to throw in their lot with the
a result, these men obtained backing for their private
militias, renamed Awakening groups, and in addition, signed
"construction" contracts with the Americans who put millions
of dollars in their pockets, even if not always into actual
construction sites. As early as April 2006, the Rand
Corporation released a report, "The Anbar Awakening",
identifying America's potential new allies as a group of
sheiks who used to control smuggling rings and organized crime
in the area.
Kill Zone: Iraq
15.03.09 In March 2009 Iraq remains a disaster
zone, and although the bombings are more sporadic than during
the peak of the religious civil war, attacks
continue with incredible violence.
The assailant, dressed in a camouflage police
uniform, struck at noon, rushing the armored car of police
Maj. Gen. Maarid Abdel-Hassan, who had been touring the market
with tribal leaders before the meeting. Abdel-Hassan was
unhurt, but he said a colleague lost a leg in the blast. The
bomber's body was smeared on the car's glass, as the general
sped away amid bursts of gunfire.
bombing unleashed chaos in the ramshackle vegetable market
that lines the street near the municipal buildings of Abu
Ghraib, on Baghdad's western outskirts. Metal pellets sliced
indiscriminately through men, women and children shopping
before lunch, and the force of the blast hurtled body parts
into streets strewn with trash and roamed by packs of feral
dogs. In vain, policemen chased one of the animals as it ran
with the severed leg of a victim clamped in its jaw.
We can’t even imagine the psychological trauma
that witnesses experience surviving an event like this. It’s no
wonder that violence becomes a self-perpetuating cycle in this
kind of environment. It even turns out that the police added to
the casualties by spraying gunfire in all directions immediately
after the bomb attack.
al-Zobaie, a doctor at the hospital, said most of the wounded
Tuesday were injured by police gunfire, an account corroborated
by several patients in the ward."
Adding barricades to roads and using giant walls
to slice-up neighborhoods has added to the siege-mentality of
the residents while making everyday life even more difficult,
but has little impact in deterring the assaults of motivated
After the bombing Tuesday, insurgents paraded
through the al-Amarat neighborhood of Abu Ghraib in their
cars, brandishing machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades,
an official at the National Security Ministry said, speaking
on the condition of anonymity.
Iraq remains a remarkably violent place. In
addition to the market blast, a roadside bombing in the
disputed city of Kirkuk killed two policemen. Near the
northern city of Mosul, where the insurgency remains fiercest,
a booby-trapped car exploded near the office of the mayor in
Hamdaniyah, killing the mayor's son and two other people.
this week happened in locales that are fortified even by the
standards of the capital, where virtually every street is
lined with blast walls. And in each attack, Iraqi security
forces seemed undisciplined in the immediate aftermath.
Torture Used to
Concoct Link Between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda
27.06.09 As official documents have slowly
leaked out, or been released under legal pressure from
public-interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), we’ve learned that the torture and
abuse of captives under the guidance of Vice President Dick
Cheney was part of an effort to generate evidence linking
Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in order to
justify launching war on Iraq. In other words, proceeding from
a fundamentally false premise, captives were tortured to
reveal facts that did not exist because Saddam never had any
ties to al Qaeda!
So, it turns out that the infamous lie about
al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein working together was extracted
through torture in Egypt, a notoriously brutal dictatorship
jointly sponsored by Israel and the U.S. government with
billions of dollars of American taxpayer money.
… which, incidentally,
should be hurled in the face of former Vice President Cheney,
every time he is invited onto a TV show to repeat his claims
that torture saved the US from further terrorist attacks — and
to ignore the crucial role he played in actually using torture
to launch an illegal war. 
Even more outrageous, the torture and abuse of
captives in the 'War on Terror', or whatever the latest bogus
title is that’s being officially used, continues under the
Obama administration. This kind of official behavior has now
been institutionalized but it still operates using erroneous
beliefs in non-existent ‘facts’, searching for information
that doesn’t exist in order to justify pre-existing plans and
ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people in the
process, wrecking the prestige of America, and directly
endangering the safety of American’s everywhere through the
inevitable retributive counter-attacks.
In the end, though, what is
most significant about al-Libi’s torture tour through US proxy
prisons and prisons run by the CIA is the realization that,
throughout his long ordeal, US interrogators or their proxies
were persistently using torture to secure information from him
about other prisoners and other suspects — either in the
presence of these men, or through the use of photographs —
that was just as unreliable as his “confession” about the
connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that
these other “confessions” must, in turn, have led to further
arrests and further torture, with a cumulative effect that is
truly mind-boggling in its scale.
The use of torture to elicit false information that
subsequently implicates other innocent people, who are then
captured and interrogated forming a chain-reaction, is
primarily why the Obama administration is still having so much
difficulty shutting down Bush-Cheney’s showcase concentration
camp in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. They have no valid evidence to
put anyone on trial, but they can’t release them without
effectively admitting that the captives were innocent to begin
with and the whole thing is a sick fraud!
Celebrate as U.S. Military Forces Officially Banned from their
Iraqi forces assumed formal control of
Baghdad and other cities Tuesday after American troops handed
over security in urban areas in a defining step toward ending
the U.S. combat role in the country. A countdown clock
broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline
passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to
bases outside cities. …
Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad
skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park
where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at
police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of
similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles
decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the
"All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and
Kurds on this day," Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated
at the park. "The Americans harmed and insulted us too much."
Al-Maliki declared a public holiday and
proclaimed June 30 as "National Sovereignty Day."
Saddam Hussein Revisited
11.07.09 The FBI was forced, through a Freedom of
Information Act request, to release the documents from
interviews with Saddam Hussein while he was in US captivity from
February to May 2004. After reading the interviews it’s clear
why the US government was reluctant to release them for public
viewing – they substantiate the known reasons not to
invade Iraq before Bush and Cheney launched their war.
Saddam improved the well-being of the Iraqi
"Saddam stated he has served the Iraqi
people for a very long time. He considers his greatest
accomplishments to be the social programs for the citizens of
Iraq and improvements in other sectors of the economy
including enhancements to education, the healthcare system,
industry, agriculture, and other areas that generally enhanced
the way of life for Iraqis. In 1968, Iraqi people "barely had
anything". The Iraqi economy depended entirely on oil
production, with most being exported from Iraq by foreign
companies. Iraq manufactured very few products; most goods had
to be imported. The healthcare system was "primitive" and the
mortality rate was very high, particularly among the poor. The
literacy rate was around 27 per cent. Roads were almost
non-existent in rural areas and "very bad" in the cities of
Iraq. Limited educational opportunities existed at university
level, even in Baghdad. 
Saddam repeatedly denied that he used ‘body-doubles’ to elude
When questioned whether he had
ever used "doubles" or those resembling him as has often been
discussed in books and other publications, he laughed and
stated: "This is movie magic, not reality. It is very
difficult to impersonate another individual."
But he was nonetheless very
concerned about a US assassination attempt against him.
Saddam stated he only recalled
using the telephone on two occasions since March 1990 because
he feared the US's ability to eavesdrop on him. Additionally,
Saddam did not stay at the same location for more than a day.
He communicated primarily through the use of couriers to
communicate or would personally meet with government officials
to discuss issues. 
Saddam originally had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a
deterrent against hostile enemies, particularly Iran. However
all the WMD were destroyed long before the war that forced him
acknowledged Iraq had made a mistake in destroying some
weapons without UN supervision. In Saddam's view UN inspectors
wanted all their expenses, including their accommodations,
travel and other costs, paid for by Iraq. Instead of waiting
for the inspectors and bearing these expenses, Iraq commenced
destruction of the weapons. Iraq did not hide these weapons.
Regarding destruction of weapons, Saddam stated, "We destroyed
them. We told you, with documents.
inspections were especially onerous and intrusive, to such an
extent that to accept them without reservation was to relinquish
national sovereignty to a hostile foreign power, treason in
Saddam said the US used
prohibited weapons in Vietnam. He asked whether America would
accept Iraqis inspecting the White House for such weapons.
Such a search would likely find nothing he said, adding: "A
country that accepts being violated will bring dishonour to
its people." 
The full interviews can be read at George
Washington University’s National Security Archive
They Came, They Saw, They Wrecked Babylon
We already know that the US military and allied
invasion/occupation has been terribly destructive to Iraq. One
of the most egregious incidents of senseless damage to Iraqi
culture, and indeed world history, has to do with Camp Alpha, a
U.S. military base built right atop the remnants of the 4,000
year-old of city of Babylon, south of Baghdad. The unique
remains of temples, palaces, and sculptures were irreparably
After five years of investigation, the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) has published a report detailing the damage done to
Babylon. US forces bulldozed hills and covered them with gravel
to make parking lots, soldiers and contractors filled sandbags
with archeological fragments, trenches were dug, and of course
relics were looted as well.
The use of
Babylon as a military base was a grave encroachment on this
internationally known archeological site. During their
presence in Babylon, the MNF-I and contractors employed by
them, mainly KBR, directly caused major damage to the city by
digging, cutting, scraping, and leveling. Key structures that
were damaged include the Ishtar Gate and the Processional Way.
working with the Iraqi government to stabilize and protect
what's left of the Babylonian historical site.
perfectly with the attitudes and actions already observed on
display in the military occupation of Iraq are revelations about
the the founder of the infamous mercenary company Blackwater,
now called Xe Services LLC. Sworn statements by witnesses
implicate Erik Prince in a racist-religious campaign to kill as
many Muslims as possible in Iraq.
The former employee also
alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader
tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the
globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded
the destruction of Iraqi life." ...
that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain
men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and
wanting these men to take every available opportunity to
murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the
Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.
Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged
and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr.
Prince's executives would openly speak about going over to
Iraq to "lay Hajiis out on cardboard." Going to Iraq to shoot
and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince's
employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory
terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as "ragheads" or "hajiis."
Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that "Blackwater
was smuggling weapons into Iraq." He states that he personally
witnessed weapons being "pulled out" from dog food bags. Doe
#2 alleges that "Prince and his employees arranged for the
weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr.
Prince's private planes, which operated under the name
Presidential Airlines," adding that Prince "generated
substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms
Prince "obtained illegal ammunition from an American company
called LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode
after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's
employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to
inflict maximum damage on Iraqis."
another war contractor, also has a sordid history. Here are a
Halliburton and KBR, its former
subsidiary, were the largest defence department contractors in
Iraq. Critics allege that huge contracts were won in part
because of ties to George Bush's government, particularly to
his vice-president, Dick Cheney, a former Halliburton chief
executive who left the company during the 2000 presidential
campaign with a $36m pay-off.
The Texas-based firm has a controversial history. In the early
1990s it was fined $3.8m for breaking trade embargoes on Iraq
and Libya. Last year, a former KBR president, Albert "Jack"
Stanley, pleaded guilty to overseeing the payment of $182m in
bribes to win engineering contracts in Nigeria.
Critics allege that Halliburton/KBR won a contract to plan
oil-well firefighting in the Iraq invasion because no other
firm was permitted to bid.
The Pentagon's auditor found Halliburton/KBR was linked to
"the vast majority" of fraud cases investigated by the defence
department in Iraq. Furthermore, a civil servant who oversaw
contracts accused Halliburton of unlawfully receiving
preferential treatment over contracts for work in Iraq, Kuwait
and the Balkans. The firm reportedly severely overcharged the
Pentagon for fuel deliveries to Iraq. Halliburton is
headquartered in Houston, Texas but has recently opened a new
joint head office in Dubai. 
2010: State Dep't Helps
By now the 2007 Nisour Square shooting rampage, done by
Blackwater Worldwide ‘security’ guards, has become an infamous
icon of the American occupation of Iraq. Even from the very
beginning witnesses were consistent in portraying the Backwater
shooting, that killed 17 bystanders, as unjustified murder, and
the more information trickles out the more egregious the event
becomes. Even worse, the U.S. State Department assisted in the
cover-up to shield Blackwater Inc. through evidence tampering
and obstruction of justice.
Mr. Farrington had said he was
in meetings where diplomatic security agents said that after
they had gone to the scene and picked up casings and other
evidence, “They [State Department] said we’ve got enough to get these
guys off now.”
made public on Tuesday show that before the December dismissal
[of the charges against Blackwater], prosecutors and
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents working on
the Nisour Square case took the stand in October to argue that
they had plenty of untainted evidence. In a closed-door
hearing, they also contended that they had evidence that, in
the immediate aftermath of the shootings, there had been a
concerted effort to make the case go away, both by Blackwater
and by at least some embassy officials.
prosecutors were told that the embassy had never conducted any
significant investigation of any of the numerous shooting
episodes in Iraq involving Blackwater before the Nisour Square
case, according to the documents.
I had always idealized the military, like we were going out to
fight the Nazis, and had real moral high ground. When I got
over [to Iraq], I was shocked by the brutality. My whole first
tour, I can honestly say I never saw an Iraqi guy who deserved
to die, who had weapons or was attacking us or anything. In
many instances American soldiers took really bad decisions
that killed innocent Iraqis. I had a hard time reconciling
that with what I had thought I would be doing. By the time my
second tour was over, I had morphed into a killer. A lot of
people don't understand what war actually is. I don't know
what's worse: being charged with felony or having a head full
– US Army
Specialist Michael St Clair, 2009
Found Used in Iraq
10.04.10 In a twisted irony that shouldn’t be overlooked,
although Saddam’s Iraq was repeatedly accused of having
stockpiles of chemical weapons and a willingness to use them,
widespread chemical weapon use actually came from the United
States military! White phosphorous was used on the siege of
Fallujah (and probably elsewhere as well) and depleted uranium
from shells has saturated the ground (and probably the drinking
water too) throughout southern Iraq.
“The US government does not want it
known that it was using chemicals on human beings in a country
whose leader it overthrew ostensibly because he retained the
capacity to do the same thing.” – Charles Glass
In the case of Fallujah, U.S. troops fired ‘shake and bake’
missions to smoke and burn opponents in the city, as reported in
'Field Artillery Magazine', a U. S. Army publication, and by
freelance journalist Dahr Jamail from the site of the battle.
Depleted Uranium was used during the Gulf War, and again during
the occupation of Iraq even after the health hazards were well
known. The rise in birth defects in southern Iraq has direct
parallels to the continuing wave of deformities resulting from
the tons of deadly dioxin dumped over Vietnam in the form of the
Agent Orange defoliant.
Where did the money go?
16.06.11 & 21.06.11 Twenty billion dollars was flown into Iraq
in 2004 by the US authorities. This was money taken from the
UN's oil-for-food program, as well as seized and sold Iraqi
assets. But officials in the US and Iraq still can't determine
exactly who got the money or what they did with it.
Now, after years of effort to find multiple billions of dollars gone
missing during the Bush-Cheney war on Iraq, federal auditors
have finally given up and labeled it as theft. Even back in
2005, according to House Government Reform Committee investigators,
officials in charge of the money
"used virtually no financial controls to account for these
enormous cash withdrawals once they arrived in Iraq,"
given the consistency and refusal to heed warnings even at the
time, it can only be described as intentional.
Pentagon officials determined that one
giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $2.4 billion in
shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. They sent an initial full
planeload of cash, followed by 20 other flights to Iraq by May
2004 in a $12-billion haul that U.S. officials believe to be the
biggest international cash airlift of all time.
As I've written before, the main purpose of the wars on Iraq and
Afghanistan wasn't for oil or imperialism, as most shallow and
ideological critics contend. Although oil and imperial control
were certainly potential benefits in the minds of the architects and implementers
of the wars, their main goal has always been to
benefit Israel and Zionism, and to drain as much money as
possible from the public coffers and put it into the sweaty
hands of private commercial enterprise. And in this regard the Bush-Cheney money
scam worked very well. The global wars continue and private
companies are making more money than ever, providing everything
from armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and other weapons, to
food and supplies.
The Pentagon has always maintained that they could find where
the billions went if given enough time to track down receipts,
so to speak, but have yet to produce any results. Indeed, the
Pentagon's own accounting books haven't been balanced or
successfully audited in years. Literally trillions of dollars
are unaccounted for; not necessarily as intentional crime but
most of it probably due simply to the vastness of the Pentagon
that spends an annual budget of well over half a trillion every
Was Saddam still
alive as statue toppled?,
Borger, The Guardian, April 19, 2003.
U.S. Flies in
Millions of Dollars for Iraq,
Reuters, April 17, 2003.
Iraq Left With
Billions in Debt .
Hans Greimel, AP, April 18, 2003.
US leaves Iraq,
Tim Cornwell & Lara Marlowe in Najaf, The Scotsman, April
who is in charge of Iraq's oil,
Charles Clover, Financial Times, April 20 2003.
Shouldn't 'Pop His Head Up' If Alive,
FOX News, April 20, 2003.
pipeline for Iraqi oil,
Ed Vuillamy, The Guardian, April 20, 2003.
Hussein's Sons Took $1 Billion Just Before War, Bank Aide Says,
by Dexter Filkins, NYT, May 6, 2003.
Purported Saddam tape urges Iraq to fight,
Salah NasrawiI, Associated Press May 7, 2003.
As funds dwindle, U.S. halts work on Iraq water, power plant
projects - Security costs have cut into infrastructure money,
by T. Christian Miller, Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2005.
The reconstruction of New Oraq, by Tom Engelhardt and
Nick Turse, ATO, September 15, 2005.
Iraq war costs more per month than Vietnam,
by Alan Elsner, Reuters, August 31,2005.
Troop pullout from Iraq rejected by Senate,
by Christina Bellantoni, Washington Times, June 16, 2006.
Stay the Course? What Course?,
by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, June 16, 2006.
Shiite Militias Control Prisons, Official Says,
Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, June 16,
Iraqis call state of emergency in Baghdad,
by Kim Gamel, June 23, 2006, AP.
List of Military Accusations Gets Longer,
Tanner, AP via Forbes, June 23, 2006.
U.S. soldiers charged with murder in Iraq, Disabled man shot in
by Tim Harper, Toronto Star, June
Militias Splintering Into Radicalized Cells,
Washington Post, October 19, 2006.
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000,
by David Brown, Washington Post, October 11, 2006.
Idle Contractors Add Millions to Iraq Rebuilding,
James Glantz, New York Times, October 25th, 200
A U.S. Fortress Rises in Baghdad: Asian Workers Trafficked to
Build World's Largest Embassy,
by David Phinney, Special
to CorpWatch, October 17th, 2006.
Playing the numbers game with death,
by Tom Engelhardt, ATO
October 26, 2006.
U.S. Is Said to Fail in Tracking Arms Shipped to Iraqis,
by James Glanz, New York Times, October 30, 2006.
The myth of more in Iraq,
by Michael Schwartz, ATO,
Can’t Afford to Leave',
by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, December 5,
The elephant gives birth to a mouse,
by Anthony Cordesman, ATO, December 8, 2006.
Pentagon's plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq,
by Julian E. Barnes, LA Times, December 13, 2006.
House intelligence chair calls al Qaeda Shi'ite,
(unattributed), Reuters, December 11, 2006.
Democrat dilemma over Iran,
by Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus via ATO, Dec. 14,
Army is stretched too thin, by Julian E. Barnes, LA
Times, December 15, 2006.
Saddam hanged at dawn, by Mariam Karouny, Reuters,
December 30, 2006.
Negroponte and the escalation of death, by Dahr Jamail,
ATO, January 11, 2007.
Billions and billions of dollars just disappear in Iraq, by Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy Newspapers, February, 07, 2007.
Red Cross details 'unbearable suffering' of Iraqi
by Ian Black, Guardian (UK), April 11, 2007.
Iran Giving Arms To Iraq's Sunnis, U.S. Military Says,
by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, April 12, 2007.
The colossus of Baghdad, by Tom Engelhardt, ATO, May
British-Iraqi survey confirms one million deaths as a result of
by David Walsh, WSWS, February 1, 2008.
Insurgents in the Bloodstream, by Capt. Chas Henry
(Ret.), Proceedings, February 21, 2008.
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More, by
Bilmes and Stiglitz, Washington Post, March 9, 2008.
Report reveals Iran seized British sailors in disputed waters,
by Dominic Kennedy, The Times (UK), April 17, 2008.
Message Machine: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,
By David Barstow, New York Times, April 20, 2008.
IRAQ: Poverty Gets the Survivors, by Maki al-Nazzal and
Dahr Jamail, IPS news, April 26, 2008.
An oil-addicted ex-superpower, by Michael T Klare, ATO,
May 10, 2008.
Genocide in Iraq?, by David Model, Counterpunch
magazine, May 21, 2008.
US/IRAQ: "Enough Is Enough, It's Time to Get Out", by
Dahr Jamail, IPS, June 2, 2008.
IRAQ: Death Toll 'Above Highest Estimates', by Ahmed Ali
and Dahr Jamail, IPS, June 2, 2008.
Senate committee: Bush knew Iraq claims weren't true, by
Nancy A. Youssef and Mark Seibel, McClatchy, June 5, 2008.
49. Network News Blackout on Pentagon
Pundits, by Isabel Macdonald, Extra! Update, June 4, 2008.
Are they really oil wars?, by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, Asia
June 25, 2008.
Spinning the Surge,
by Peter Hart, Extra!, September/October 2008.
The new Fallujah up close and ugly, by Dahr Jamail, Asia
Times, February 14, 2009.
Blast Kills Dozens in Iraqi Market, by Anthony Shadid,
Washington Post, March 11, 2009.
New Revelations About The
Torture and Alleged Suicide Of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi,
by Andy Worthington, The Public Record, June 19, 2009.
55. The Saddam
Files: His final interviews, The Independent, July 5, 2009.
Baghdad as Iraqis take over cities, by Kim Gamel and Patrick
Quinn, AP, June 29, 2009.
57. Final Report on Damage Assessment
in Babylon, UNESCO, June 26, 2009.
Founder Implicated in Murder, by Jeremy Scahill, The Nation,
August 4, 2009.
case to force US defence firms into the open,
by Chris McGreal, The Guardian, October 15, 2009.
Seen in Blackwater Inquiry, by James Risen, New York Times,
March 2, 2010.
Covering up American War Crimes, From Baghdad to New York,
by Charles Glass, March 22, 2010.
Missing Iraq cash 'as high as $18bn' , Al Jazeera , June
Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say,
by Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2011.
Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres
The Guardian, 6 March 2013
Iraq: torture and corruption flourish in wake of U.S.
Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, The Guardian,
January 15, 2012.
US troops massacred Iraqi family in 2006,
by Matthew Schofield, McClatchy, August 31, 2011.
US transfer of Iraqi prisoners: an ongoing war crime,
by Bill Van Auken, WSWS, September 14, 2010.
Iraq littered with high
levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination,
by Martin Chulov, Guardian, January 22, 2010.
Iraq gives oil field
contracts to non-US oil companies
by Patrick Martin, WSWS, December 14, 2009
British troops abused
Iraqi captives just like Abu Ghraib,
by Robert Verkaik, The Independent, November 14, 2009.
Huge rise in birth
defects in Falluja,
by Martin Chulov, The Guardian, November 13, 2009.
Invitation to steal: War profiteering in Iraq,
by William D Hartung, ATO, May 30, 2008.
Mass-media hides failed plot to incriminate Iran
over weapons in Iraq,
by Gareth Porter ATO, May 16 2008.
U.S. reverses claim, suicide bombers not disabled,
by Bradley Brooks, AP, February 20, 2008.
Desperate plight facing millions of Iraqi refugees,
by Oscar Grenfell, WSWA, January 25, 2008.
Cutbacks to Iraqi food rations threaten malnutrition
by James Cogan, WSWS, January 5, 2008.
Iraqi archive documents taken by U.S., used for
by Sandy English, WSWS, November17, 2007.
The War Party: Democrats Lie to Prolong Iraq;
Reporters Go Along,
by Ted Rall, September 13, 2007.
Reports Assail State Department on Iraq Security,
by Eric Schmitt and David Rohde, New York Times,
October 23, 2007.
Cheney/Rice play good-cop/bad-cop as foreign policy
revolves around Israel
by Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, New York Times,
October 10, 2007.
State Dep't colluded with Blackwater to hush up
by Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy, October 1, 2007.
Blackwater Inc. focused on cost instead of safety,
by Kessler and DeYoung, Washington Post, September 28,
Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003
by Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz,
Washington Post, September 27, 2007.
Is the U.S. military baiting insurgents in Iraq or
by Josh White and Joshua Partlow, Washington Post,
September 24, 2007.
Iraqi diet meager, malnutrition increases under U.S.
by Sharon Behn, Washington Times, May 31, 2007.
Bush/Cheney/CIA interrogation tactics derided as
amateurish and counterproductive,
by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, May
Military rushes to buy new vehicles still vulnerable
to Iraq's bombs,
by Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today, May 31, 2007.
Pentagon Moved to Fix Iraqi Media Before Invasion,
by Jim Lobe, IPS, May 9, 2007.
Is there any truth to 'the enemy would follow us
by William Douglas, McClatchy, April 6, 2007.
Democrats boost Bush's war budget, drop Iran war
limits for Israel,
by David Espo & Mathew Lee, AP via The Guardian,
March 13, 2007.
Terrorism has increased over 600% since U.S. invasion
UPI news, February 22, 2007.
Has the U.S.A. initiated the 'mother of all genocides'
by Murtaza Mohsin, ATO, February 14, 2007.
Iraq: Official Lies over Najaf Battle Exposed,
by Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily, IPS, January 31,
Militias and occupation opponents rapidly multiply in
by Stockman and Bender, Boston Globe, January
effort doomed: Why 21,500 wrongs won't make it
by Julian Delasantellis, ATO, January 12, 2007.
Partisan execution turns Saddam into martyr/hero
and widens Sunni/Shiite divide,
by Nadia Abou El-Magd, AP, January 8, 2007.
Iraq as a living hell - those involved
reveal true extent of Iraqi misery,
by Dahr Jamail, ATO, December 13, 2006.
Impact of police being sent to Iraq felt on street,
by Kevin Johnson, USA Today, December 8, 2006.
The myth of more in Iraq - why military
occupation is the source of the problem not the
by Michael Schwartz, December 8, 2006
Neo-con miscalculation pushes U.S. towards bankruptcy,
Miami Herald, December 6, 2006
Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq,
Washington Post, December 5, 2006
Intelligence report finds war on Iraq magnifies
NYT via SF Chronicle, September 24, 2006
UN investigator: torture worse now than under
Guardian, September 21, 2006
Senate reports say Saddam rejected cooperating
MClatchy, September 8,
Iraq becomes fantastic fiasco, Iraqis loot
abandoned British base,
AP news, August 25,
The conflict in Iraq: Fall 2006 summary,
Michael Schwartz, ATO, August 24, 2006
Vietnamizaton of Iraq repeats the same mistakes,
by Judith Coburn, ATO, August 9, 2006
Religious fervor and retaliation desire drive brutal
sectarian conflict in Iraq,
Sunday Times (UK),
June 18, 2006
Is the Haditha massacre Iraq's My Lai?,
Online, June 6, 2006
Iranian-backed militia groups take control of much of
Knight Ridder, May 26, 2006
Neo-con plan to kill OPEC and privatize Iraq's oil goes bust,
Asia Times Online (ATO), May 17, 2006
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press,
Los Angeles Times,
November 30, 2005
Comment: Self-made threat to US oil and security,
Asia Times Online, November 3, 2005
Soaring birth deformities and child cancer rates in Iraq,
by James Cogan,
WSWS, May 10, 2005
trains US assassination squads in Iraq,
by Julian Borger, The Guardian, December 9, 2003
Currency and the War on Iraq,
Nunan - Dollar hegemony article
The truth about Jessica,
guards had long fled, she was being well cared for - and
doctors had already tried to free her. John Kampfner
discovers the real story behind a modern American war myth." The Guardian, May 15, 2003
The Saddam Hussein Interviews are at George
Washington University’s National Security Archive
Neo-Conned: The Neo-Conservative Connection
Sale: The War Profiteers (2006) DVD, directed by Robert
Greenwald. This revealing documentary details the main
unstated objective of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq:
to shift as much public money as possible into private
corporate hands; shows how many war contractors go to
outrageous lengths to pad their bill to the government, for
instance by burning slightly broken trucks so they can bill
for the entire cost of the vehicle! The film slams
Halliburton, but Titan and many companies are equally
lambasted for corruption and waste.