The Exaggeration Of Al-Qaeda, Again
Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
In his recent address to the nation about Iraq, President Bush kept referring to Al-Qaeda being in Iraq, its continued efforts to undermine and attack the United States, and the importance of stabilizing Iraq to the safety and security of the US and the rest of the world. He even made the claim that the same people that are causing the problems in Iraq were involved in the events of 9-11.
But we are being told the "big lie" once again.
First, Al-Qaeda was never present in Iraq before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq today is a direct result of the US presence in Iraq, which upset the strict, authoritarian security and persecutions that were in place under the Saddam Hussein regime. While Hussein was a dictator with a penchant for human rights violation, the use of torture, the indiscriminate use of police and security powers, violation of international law through the use of chemical weapons against his own people, and so much more... But the level of violence among the factions present in Iraq at the time--the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites--remained non-existent. Event the influence of Iran's ultra-conservative Shi'ite, ultra-Islamist clergy was kept to a minimum.
Al-Qaeda was never a factor in the pre-invasion Iraq. Even after our illegal invasion of Iraq, Al-Qaeda's influence is only to stir those people and groups that were already involved in the struggle for sharing or controlling the power that was torn away from the Hussein regime. The Shi'ites saw an opportunity for the majority group in Iraq to take control and exert power that they had been denied for decades under the Baath regimes, and especially under the oppressive Hussein regime. Not only were they now capable of practicing their religious ceremonies that were quelled or prohibited under Hussein's rule, but they were seeing an opportunity to grab some oil wealth and political power.
The Sunnis were in a struggle to keep control over their relative wealth (wealth compared to most Shi'a), political participation and power (most Baath members were Sunna), and establish a better distribution of the oil wealth that was once pocketed by Hussein, his family and his friends. The Sunnis in Iraq before the invasion were not interested in Al-Qaeda at all... they had their own problems just trying to stay on the good side of the Hussein regime and assuring that their sectarian and secular power would not be further dampened by Saddam's whims. Al-Qaeda's influence in the post-invasion era has been to supply arms, money and training for insurgents. The fact that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is a direct result of the US invasion and erosion of all border and national security.
The Kurds are just happy to have a change of government that allows their identity to emerge and an opportunity to share in wealth, government and power that were denied to them not only by the Hussein regime, but almost every nation in that region of the world, including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Macedonia, the Balkan nations, etc.
So when Bush and company continue hyping the influence and presence of Al-Qaeda as a threat to the United States and the rest of the world, he is lying. He is manipulating the truth of matters to push his distorted agenda and perverted understanding of the Middle East, and his prejudiced, pre-determined invasion plans that are solely designed to circumvent the control over Middle East oil reserves for the Big Business powers in the US, especially those that have expanded to multi-national and globalized status. Since the Bush family is wealthy because of oil and business centered around the oil industry, it makes sense that taking de facto control over the oil in Iraq would aid the Bush family and their friends in the oil industries--and the oil-related industries.
Since many will scoff at this assertion that Bush is all about the oil and the interests of Big Business, I point out that their is no other legitimate rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There never was a threat to US national security by the Hussein regime. Even Hussein's defiance of the no-fly zones and the sanctions against Iraq left over from the first Gulf War did not rise to the level of threat that Bush asserted before the invasion and occupation. The fact is, as was evident by the failure of Iraqi forces to deal with US and coalition forces during the invasion, the Iraqi armed forces and Republican Guard were disorganized, ill-equipped and a definitive mismatch. Many Iraqi soldiers were so eager to surrender that some were doing so to CNN news crews.
So, why is Bush still asserting Al-Qaeda is a powerful presence in Iraq and the Iraqi version of Al-Qaeda is a powerful threat to the US? There can only be two answers to that question. Either Bush and his officers are completely incompetent, or they are so intent upon an agenda not fully revealed to us that they are willing to lie, twist, turn and pervert the facts to complete their latent plans.
A rational human being would have a difficult time justifying the total incompetence argument because there can't be that many irrational, incompetent people in the government. Even if all of Bush's cabinet were that incompetent--and most assuredly some are--the career foreign service officers, ambassadors and State Department officials would certainly speak out. With all of our international think tanks and policy analysts, one would think there would be some sort of consensus among them that would take such incompetence to task.
So, if we can rule out the total incompetence theory, we are left with the idea that there is an underlying agenda. That idea is supported by the numerous lies and distortions--and the wide-spread secrecy--practiced by the Bush administration. The number of scandals over lies being offered to Congress and the general public is astounding. Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and so many others have been caught in lies, half-truths and distortions that we know we cannot trust them (nor can we go hunting with Cheney).
We are even told by high Bush officials that have resigned that any opposition to the agenda set forth by Bush and his gang of fascist thugs is treated with a full court press of political, supervisory and public relations power. We have those US District Attorneys as one example. We have a recently resigned Surgeon General as well. Colin Powell has hinted at similar problems while he held the office of Secretary of State. We have CIA, Foreign service officers and military officers (i.e. Mary Ann Wright) who have made public these types of incidents. Even members of the Republican hierarchy have produced books about the deliberate distortions offered by the Bush administration. Richard Clarke's testimony and book details a lot about these distortions. Bob Woodward's book does as well.
As for the Big Business connections, all we have to refer to is Steven Emerson's "The American House of Saud" (c.a. 1984) and David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" (2007) to see the connections. While both investigators point to an across-the-aisle connection, both indicate that the Republicans have the larger interests in supporting Big Business and involvement in bigger and badder scandals (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff, the S&L scandals of the 80s, Randall "Duke" Cunnigham, etc.)
Additionally, under the Republican banner and leadership, we have seen a very active resistance to facts and figures, offering subjective views about scientific and medical matters rather than accepting the consensus of the science and medical communities. Bush and company have insisted on "abstinence-only" sex education when there is significant and reliable evidence--including evidence from proponents of the concept and approach--that abstinence-only does not work. The entirety of the meteorological community has all but endorsed the problems of global warming as approaching catastrophic proportions, only to be scoffed at by Bush and company, including loading the decks of the government authority on these matters with supervisors and managers that have had to take leave to deal with the uprising against them. The distortions offered by Bush and company on stem cell research are numerous and appeal to the emotions of right-winged Christians rather than seeking procedural steps to preclude their assertions of harm to humanity from being possible. Even the governmental role of the EPA in protecting air and water quality has been adversely influenced by Bush and company, right up to the point of having a US court issue a judgment against the Bush administration's restrictions--restrictions that were placed upon the government's own experts.
Hitler and company made the assertion (c.f. Mein Kampf) that a big lie is more believable than a bunch of little lies. We are seeing the same propaganda and public relations approach used by Hitler's bunch used by Bush and company, even to the point of hiring Tony Snow away from Fox News, no doubt due to his undeniable ability to twist facts into propaganda when reporting them on the Fox networks.
I tire of the big lie. It is time for Bush and company to recognize we are failing in Iraq and that there hidden agenda is no longer as hidden as it once was. People are beginning to talk and are being heard. If the idiots in Congress would grow some balls, some backbones and some integrity, we would withdraw from Iraq within the next six months.
REFERENCE:
No Progress Report
CIA Said Instability Seemed 'Irreversible'
White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up
Rough Justice - The Case Against Alberto Gonzales
Part I: Alberto Gonzales: A Willing Accessory at Justice
Part II: Alberto Gonzales, Presidential Enabler
Part III: Alberto Gonzales: The "Empty Suit" AG
Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say
Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations: After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing
This is not our fight: Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for
Part IV: The Case for Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald
Ex-Aide to Respect Confidentiality Of White House in Hill Testimony
On Leave, Hurricane Center's Director Is in the Eye of the Storm
Ex-Surgeon General Says White House Hushed Him
The New Hippocratic Oath
Ask the Doctor
After Lobbying, Wetlands Rules Are Narrowed
In his recent address to the nation about Iraq, President Bush kept referring to Al-Qaeda being in Iraq, its continued efforts to undermine and attack the United States, and the importance of stabilizing Iraq to the safety and security of the US and the rest of the world. He even made the claim that the same people that are causing the problems in Iraq were involved in the events of 9-11.
But we are being told the "big lie" once again.
First, Al-Qaeda was never present in Iraq before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq today is a direct result of the US presence in Iraq, which upset the strict, authoritarian security and persecutions that were in place under the Saddam Hussein regime. While Hussein was a dictator with a penchant for human rights violation, the use of torture, the indiscriminate use of police and security powers, violation of international law through the use of chemical weapons against his own people, and so much more... But the level of violence among the factions present in Iraq at the time--the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites--remained non-existent. Event the influence of Iran's ultra-conservative Shi'ite, ultra-Islamist clergy was kept to a minimum.
Al-Qaeda was never a factor in the pre-invasion Iraq. Even after our illegal invasion of Iraq, Al-Qaeda's influence is only to stir those people and groups that were already involved in the struggle for sharing or controlling the power that was torn away from the Hussein regime. The Shi'ites saw an opportunity for the majority group in Iraq to take control and exert power that they had been denied for decades under the Baath regimes, and especially under the oppressive Hussein regime. Not only were they now capable of practicing their religious ceremonies that were quelled or prohibited under Hussein's rule, but they were seeing an opportunity to grab some oil wealth and political power.
The Sunnis were in a struggle to keep control over their relative wealth (wealth compared to most Shi'a), political participation and power (most Baath members were Sunna), and establish a better distribution of the oil wealth that was once pocketed by Hussein, his family and his friends. The Sunnis in Iraq before the invasion were not interested in Al-Qaeda at all... they had their own problems just trying to stay on the good side of the Hussein regime and assuring that their sectarian and secular power would not be further dampened by Saddam's whims. Al-Qaeda's influence in the post-invasion era has been to supply arms, money and training for insurgents. The fact that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is a direct result of the US invasion and erosion of all border and national security.
The Kurds are just happy to have a change of government that allows their identity to emerge and an opportunity to share in wealth, government and power that were denied to them not only by the Hussein regime, but almost every nation in that region of the world, including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Macedonia, the Balkan nations, etc.
So when Bush and company continue hyping the influence and presence of Al-Qaeda as a threat to the United States and the rest of the world, he is lying. He is manipulating the truth of matters to push his distorted agenda and perverted understanding of the Middle East, and his prejudiced, pre-determined invasion plans that are solely designed to circumvent the control over Middle East oil reserves for the Big Business powers in the US, especially those that have expanded to multi-national and globalized status. Since the Bush family is wealthy because of oil and business centered around the oil industry, it makes sense that taking de facto control over the oil in Iraq would aid the Bush family and their friends in the oil industries--and the oil-related industries.
Since many will scoff at this assertion that Bush is all about the oil and the interests of Big Business, I point out that their is no other legitimate rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There never was a threat to US national security by the Hussein regime. Even Hussein's defiance of the no-fly zones and the sanctions against Iraq left over from the first Gulf War did not rise to the level of threat that Bush asserted before the invasion and occupation. The fact is, as was evident by the failure of Iraqi forces to deal with US and coalition forces during the invasion, the Iraqi armed forces and Republican Guard were disorganized, ill-equipped and a definitive mismatch. Many Iraqi soldiers were so eager to surrender that some were doing so to CNN news crews.
So, why is Bush still asserting Al-Qaeda is a powerful presence in Iraq and the Iraqi version of Al-Qaeda is a powerful threat to the US? There can only be two answers to that question. Either Bush and his officers are completely incompetent, or they are so intent upon an agenda not fully revealed to us that they are willing to lie, twist, turn and pervert the facts to complete their latent plans.
A rational human being would have a difficult time justifying the total incompetence argument because there can't be that many irrational, incompetent people in the government. Even if all of Bush's cabinet were that incompetent--and most assuredly some are--the career foreign service officers, ambassadors and State Department officials would certainly speak out. With all of our international think tanks and policy analysts, one would think there would be some sort of consensus among them that would take such incompetence to task.
So, if we can rule out the total incompetence theory, we are left with the idea that there is an underlying agenda. That idea is supported by the numerous lies and distortions--and the wide-spread secrecy--practiced by the Bush administration. The number of scandals over lies being offered to Congress and the general public is astounding. Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and so many others have been caught in lies, half-truths and distortions that we know we cannot trust them (nor can we go hunting with Cheney).
We are even told by high Bush officials that have resigned that any opposition to the agenda set forth by Bush and his gang of fascist thugs is treated with a full court press of political, supervisory and public relations power. We have those US District Attorneys as one example. We have a recently resigned Surgeon General as well. Colin Powell has hinted at similar problems while he held the office of Secretary of State. We have CIA, Foreign service officers and military officers (i.e. Mary Ann Wright) who have made public these types of incidents. Even members of the Republican hierarchy have produced books about the deliberate distortions offered by the Bush administration. Richard Clarke's testimony and book details a lot about these distortions. Bob Woodward's book does as well.
As for the Big Business connections, all we have to refer to is Steven Emerson's "The American House of Saud" (c.a. 1984) and David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" (2007) to see the connections. While both investigators point to an across-the-aisle connection, both indicate that the Republicans have the larger interests in supporting Big Business and involvement in bigger and badder scandals (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff, the S&L scandals of the 80s, Randall "Duke" Cunnigham, etc.)
Additionally, under the Republican banner and leadership, we have seen a very active resistance to facts and figures, offering subjective views about scientific and medical matters rather than accepting the consensus of the science and medical communities. Bush and company have insisted on "abstinence-only" sex education when there is significant and reliable evidence--including evidence from proponents of the concept and approach--that abstinence-only does not work. The entirety of the meteorological community has all but endorsed the problems of global warming as approaching catastrophic proportions, only to be scoffed at by Bush and company, including loading the decks of the government authority on these matters with supervisors and managers that have had to take leave to deal with the uprising against them. The distortions offered by Bush and company on stem cell research are numerous and appeal to the emotions of right-winged Christians rather than seeking procedural steps to preclude their assertions of harm to humanity from being possible. Even the governmental role of the EPA in protecting air and water quality has been adversely influenced by Bush and company, right up to the point of having a US court issue a judgment against the Bush administration's restrictions--restrictions that were placed upon the government's own experts.
Hitler and company made the assertion (c.f. Mein Kampf) that a big lie is more believable than a bunch of little lies. We are seeing the same propaganda and public relations approach used by Hitler's bunch used by Bush and company, even to the point of hiring Tony Snow away from Fox News, no doubt due to his undeniable ability to twist facts into propaganda when reporting them on the Fox networks.
I tire of the big lie. It is time for Bush and company to recognize we are failing in Iraq and that there hidden agenda is no longer as hidden as it once was. People are beginning to talk and are being heard. If the idiots in Congress would grow some balls, some backbones and some integrity, we would withdraw from Iraq within the next six months.
In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”
It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.
But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.
There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.
The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.”
But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them.
REFERENCE:
No Progress Report
CIA Said Instability Seemed 'Irreversible'
White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up
Rough Justice - The Case Against Alberto Gonzales
Part I: Alberto Gonzales: A Willing Accessory at Justice
Part II: Alberto Gonzales, Presidential Enabler
Part III: Alberto Gonzales: The "Empty Suit" AG
Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say
Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations: After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing
This is not our fight: Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for
Part IV: The Case for Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald
Ex-Aide to Respect Confidentiality Of White House in Hill Testimony
On Leave, Hurricane Center's Director Is in the Eye of the Storm
Ex-Surgeon General Says White House Hushed Him
The New Hippocratic Oath
Ask the Doctor
After Lobbying, Wetlands Rules Are Narrowed
posted by Jim Downey at 5:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home