26 Dec 2002 | Don Schenck said...

There are enough facts to go around. Seriously.

Two people look at the Matterhorn, give two completely different descriptions. Two different mountains? Nope -- two different viewpoints (or perspectives).

And so it goes ...

26 Dec 2002 | Steven Garrity said...

Add "the fact of the matter" to my list of words and phrases due for retirement.

26 Dec 2002 | Mike said...

I can't stand how people are always referring to Saddam Hussein as 'this guy'.

26 Dec 2002 | Hagbard Celine said...

I don't understand why they* refer to him as "Saddam." Is that his family name, and they're used in the reverse order to what us English-speakers are used? Why don't they call him "Hussein?"

* "They" being a number of persons from George Bush I to various news readers and spokespersons.

26 Dec 2002 | Ry Rivard said...

A fact of the matter is that with the government and the media obfuscating the truth it is impossible to tell the fact of the matter.

26 Dec 2002 | ~bc said...

I don't understand why they* refer to him as "Saddam."

Easy, because it conjures a name from the Bible which is associated with evil, Sodom. And we have to portray them as evil to further our objectives of fear. Forget that North Korea is doing much worse things: they're impovershed and not sitting on top of oil. They also have a fit military with over a million soliders, trained for years by the Soviets. They'd be too good of a match for our military, when compared to Saddam's boys. We need a more easily defeated, vilifiable opponent.

The funny thing is my other theory: The North Koreans are only doing this to get more aid. They'll likely get paid to go away (they're messing up the script!)

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

whoops:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

27 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

I believe they call him Saddam because that is his name and is how he addressed over there.

The fact of the matter, though, is that no one really knows the facts. Hence we do what Dubya wants.

Paperhead...thanks for the link. Scary shit.

27 Dec 2002 | JF said...

Paperhead...thanks for the link. Scary shit.

What's scary is when people read this article and take it for fact. He's making huge leaps and taking information out of context to connect critical events. Take:

This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later.

So this guy figured out the whole JFK thing? Wow, that was easy.

And then how about this:

Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

I just love how everything Iraq does or has is just "alleged" ("Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction") yet everything Bush does or has is fact ("the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction").

Talk about propaganda.

27 Dec 2002 | Steve said...

Part of the reasoning behind using Saddam instead of Hussein was due to George the Elder's deliberate mispronounciation of the name. The name should be pronounced something like sah-DAHM. He pronounced it SAD-um, which is very simliar to the Arabic for dog or some other insult.

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

the facts as i understand them:

If Iraqs admit having weapons of mass destruction, the US will bomb them. If Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction, the US will call them liars, and them bomb them.

If the UN weapons inspectors find anything incriminating, the US will bomb Iraq. If the UN weapons inspectors do not find anything incriminating, the US will call them incompetent, and then it will bomb Iraq.

My point: there is but one important "fact of the matter", that no matter what "facts" are unearthed, the US will bomb Iraq, and that's as sure as the fact that he's always referred to as Saddam because Dubya can't pronounce Hussein [say is with me "Who - say - in"].

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

Hey JF,

if you have any proof that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction", let's hear it. I'm sure the rest of the world would be very grateful to you for telling us all. And in case you missed it, your government has already budgeted for and announced intentions on the creation of "star wars" and the "bunker-busters".

27 Dec 2002 | JF said...

if you have any proof that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction", let's hear it.

I don't have proof, never said I did. I'm just saying that I find it kind of humorous that everything Iraq has or does is "alleged" but everything that Bush is going to do is fact. The amount of lattitude you give Iraq is mindblowing.

It appears that in your eyes/mind, anything bad that someone says about Bush is true and anything bad said about Hussein is pure propaganda. That's not critical thinking, that's naivete. If I'm wrong on your position then I'm sorry for making the same kind of assumptions you are making about Bush and the US position.

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

JF, everything Iraq has or does is not an allegation.

There are houses in Iraq. That is a fact, we can see photos of them courtesy of US surveillance. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, however, has not been proven by 10 years of intense surveillance, so that remains an allegation. Do you see how it works now?

If your government states: "We are going to build small high-impact nuclear weapons called 'bunker busters' and here's the money we're going to use to do it" then stating that the US is developing weapons of mass destruction is not an allegation, it is a fact confirmed by your own government.

I hope that's cleared it up.

JF said: "It appears that in your eyes/mind, anything bad that someone says about Bush is true and anything bad said about Hussein is pure propaganda. That's not critical thinking, that's naivete. If I'm wrong on your position then I'm sorry for making the same kind of assumptions you are making about Bush and the US position."

...and exactly what kind of assumptions is it that I'm making about the Bush government JF, other than reiterating their own press releases and announcements? The current administration has announced its intentions of developing both "star wars" and "bunker-busters", so what is it that I am supposedly assuming here? Seriously, tell me.

I am no apologist for anyone. It is a fact that Hussein gassed the Kurds. It is a fact that the US government knew about that and kept quiet because it didn't suit it's agenda at the time to vilify Hussein. It is a fact that your government has announced its intention to develop more weapons of mass destruction. It remains an allegation that Iraq has developed/ is developing weapons of mass destruction. It remains a fact that the US has continually bombed Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. It is a fact that most of the money and personnel involved in the events of 9-11 were Saudi Arabian, yet the Saudis are invited to pleasantries at the White House. It remains a fact that despite intense efforts, the Bush administration cannot link Hussein and the Iraqi regime to international terrorism. It remains a fact that the US government has invoked sanctions on Iraq, continually bombed Iraq for a decade, has subjected it to an insane amount of surveillance, and yet still cannot substantiate any of the ALLEGATIONS it has made about Iraqi weapons programs.

And you call me naive.

27 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

What's scary is when people read this article and take it for fact. He's making huge leaps and taking information out of context to connect critical events.

It's scary when people take ANY media snippet and take it for fact. Don't be so quick to assume that anyone reading that would do so.

Whenever people bring up an 'alternative' POV, there is always a group that is quick to criticize anyone for believing it. THAT is scary.

As for Weapons of Mass destruction point you bring up, JF, it's irrelevant. We *do* have weapons of mass destruction.

The 'alleged' comment regarding Iraq's weapons is because Mr. Bush hasn't given us anything BUT allegations. What else can the author say about that? Maybe they have them, maybe they don't. We don't know yet.

I don't agree that 'Bush WILL bomb Iraq' is fact, as we can't know that. I hope he doesn't, or at least finds true justification before doing so.

As you said, JF, this IS all propoganda. We're getting it from all sides, so one has to gather as much as they can and sift through it the best one can.

27 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

'doh. That first P above is quoted. Sorry.

27 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

Here's what I find scary:

i posted a link to a document that referred to:

a US military plan to kill Americans and blame it on Cubans to justify an invasion of Cuba
the US president stating that he is prepared to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states
Condoleezza Rice pondering how to capitalise on the opportunities presented by September 11
Rumsfeld demanding the US attack Iraq the day after September 11, with no evidence whatsoever
a presidential "thinker" advising "total war"

and someone reads that document and objects to the use of the word "alleged" to refer to allegations.

Now that's scary.

27 Dec 2002 | alisha said...

the rest of the western world is against a war in iraq. (beisdes the uk) america will have to go it alone if they want war.

"There are several glaring weaknesses in this presentation of Iraq policy, both by the Bush administration and its mainstream critics. First of all, it has excluded consideration of the relevance of international law, as well as the exclusive authority of the United Nations when it comes to waging a non-defensive war. Secondly, it avoids altogether the manifestly unconstitutional claim that the president has the legal power to initiate such a war without formal Congressional authorization. Thirdly, it puts forward a series of "facts" about Iraq's behavior that magnifies any threat it poses out of all proportion to the realities, while calling for a preemptive war that could have dire regional and global consequences."

-Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practise, Princeton University

28 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

Darrel said: "I don't agree that 'Bush WILL bomb Iraq' is fact, as we can't know that. I hope he doesn't, or at least finds true justification before doing so."

The secret war has already started. American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by 300 per cent.

Darrel said: "It's scary when people take ANY media snippet and take it for fact. "

True, although I find it easier believing a price winning journalist like John Pilger who was journalist and reporter of the year, than the US government (it's not in their interest to tell the truth and they have a pretty bad track record).

28 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

JF said: "What's scary is when people read this article and take it for fact. He's making huge leaps and taking information out of context to connect critical events."

Like Bush connecting 9-11 to Iraq?

28 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

The PNAC's seminal report: Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century.
(as referered to in the article by John Pilger)

Chapter 3, page 26
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Chapter 5, page 62, talks about how the
Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies (even biological) and operational concepts. And how long this transformation will take:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor. " (page 63)

28 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

. . . and for those who can be arsed to read it, the Operation Northwoods documentation.

<sarcastic> Of course, personally, I feel absolutely confident that the upper echelons of the US military is a much less cynical place nowadays, a place where a plan such as this would be thrown out without any consideration. </sarcastic>

intriguing choice of phrase as well isn't it "like a new Pearl Harbor". That would be the Pearl Harbor that the US administration knew was going to happen? The Pearl Harbor where the US government allowed thousands of Americans to be killed so that they could manipulate an indifferent electorate into war.

What was that phrase that kept running around in the wake of September 11, "the worst loss of life in US history since . . . "

28 Dec 2002 | JF said...

That would be the Pearl Harbor that the US administration knew was going to happen? The Pearl Harbor where the US government allowed thousands of Americans to be killed so that they could manipulate an indifferent electorate into war.

What was that phrase that kept running around in the wake of September 11, "the worst loss of life in US history since . . . "

Must be fun to assume opinion is fact and connect dots that are unrelated to try to prove your point. Sure makes life easier.

I'm sure that if Mohammad Atta was rumored to meet with a CIA agent in Omaha, you'd believe that was fact, but there's no way you'd ever believe Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, right? That's just US propaganda to try to connect two unrelated (Iraq and Al Qaeda) dots. Right?

And, P8...
True, although I find it easier believing a price winning journalist like John Pilger who was journalist and reporter of the year, than the US government (it's not in their interest to tell the truth and they have a pretty bad track record).

Would you believe a prizewinning author that completely disagrees with you or would that disqualify them from being believable? Just curious. And, as a prizewinner, Pilger should know better than to connect a few dots and proclaim that JFK was assasinated because..."This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later." I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking anything this guy says at face value after reading such a reaching statement.

28 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

Must be fun to assume opinion is fact and connect dots that are unrelated to try to prove your point. Sure makes life easier.

- ooh, stunning rebuttal. Care to clarify.

Which point are you contesting, that the US administration knew of the attacks on Pearl Harbor or the increasing weight of evidence that the current administration had prior knowledge of the attacks on September 11. Or are you contesting the point that both events allowed the administration of the day to whip up enthusiasm for a war that – pre-event &ndash the US electorate would not have allowed to happen.

As for the rest, well actually you're the one connecting the dots for yourself and you should think real hard about that. For example.

Fact One: the US military did propose a plan to kill Americans to raise support for an invasion of Cuba.
Fact Two: JFK rejected this plan.
Fact Three: JFK was assassinated a few months later.

Now, how many dots have you just connected. All by yourself too. I'm not having a go, it's understandable. Probably everyone that reads those lines connects the dots like that. The interesting question, surely, is: WHY? Personally, I'd suggest it's just because almost no-one actually believes the official line.

As for:

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking anything this guy says at face value after reading such a reaching statement.

well, you could always go read the documents and interviews for yourself, heck, people have even provided some of the links for you, just to, y'know, make it easy to actually GO READ THE DOCUMENTS FOR YOURSELF. Have you no curiosity chap?

oh yeah, for what it's worth, it's still scaring me that you take no issue with Rice talking about the "opportunities" afforded by September 11, or your government stating that they'd nuke non-nuclear countries, or demanding an attack on Iraq on September 12 based on no evidence whatsoever. I'm glad we seem to have got that business about how "allegations" are "alleged" cleared up though.

28 Dec 2002 | Steve said...

I'm not JF, but there are a few things here that deserve comment:

Which point are you contesting, that the US administration knew of the attacks on Pearl Harbor or the increasing weight of evidence that the current administration had prior knowledge of the attacks on September 11.

There has been a lot of speculation about the foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor, but nothing in the way of evidence. It's disingenuous to present that as fact.

From the evidence that's been available so far, many people within the US government knew that something big was coming, and that it was probably coming on US soil, but I've seen nothing to indicate that they knew specifically of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. The evidence also seems to indicate that the administration ignored or didn't give much attention to the evidence others were gathering that something big was afoot.

I'd venture to guess that at the tend of the day both Pearl Harbor and September 11 will bear one siimilarity - in both cases people with knowledge knew something was coming, but didn't know when and where. War with Japan was going to happen regardless. Ditto terrorism on US soil.

Or are you contesting the point that both events allowed the administration of the day to whip up enthusiasm for a war that pre-event &ndash the US electorate would not have allowed to happen.

The US was heading well down the road toward participating in WWII before Pearl Harbor, although support wasn't as overwhelming before as after. I don't disagree at all the current administration is using the terrorist attacks to drum up support for a war it wants and that has, at best, peripheral realationship to the catalyst.

As for the rest, well actually you're the one connecting the dots for yourself and you should think real hard about that. For example.

Fact One: the US military did propose a plan to kill Americans to raise support for an invasion of Cuba.
Fact Two: JFK rejected this plan.
Fact Three: JFK was assassinated a few months later.

Take it you didn't take any logic courses in school? One of the first lessons is that correlation does not equal causation. This is like saying 1. I ate pizza, 2. On the way home from eating pizza, I got in an accident, 3. Eating pizza causes accidents.

Making a logical leap that JFK was killed because of Northwoods is just that - a leap. Not to mention, if there was a conspiracy, there are a multitude of other theories that are just as, if not more plausible, than that.

29 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

JF said:"Would you believe a prizewinning author that completely disagrees with you or would that disqualify them from being believable? Just curious."

I would believe the facts a prizewinning author would present, although I always try to stay critical. My opinions change. I don't claim to know the thruth or the best solutions to all problems. You need opposing views to get an objective view.
You might not agree with John Pilger but the facts are pretty scary.

As for the assasination JFK...
Pilger doesn't state as fact that JFK was killed because of Northwoods. He states some facts and puts the thing in (time) perspective.
It could have been one of the reasons JFK was killed. (You can still believe Oswald killed JFK by himself if you want to.)
Ok, maybe he should have written it differently.
(Pretty good red herring, by the way.)

JF said: "It appears that in your eyes/mind, anything bad that someone says about Bush is true and anything bad said about Hussein is pure propaganda."

Both Bush and Hussein use propaganda. Hussein is pure evil but that doesn't make Bush the good guy.

Do you think the people who wrote the PNAC report and advise Bush have done everything they could have to prevent this second Pearl Harbor? While these people have stated a new Pearl Harbor would greatly benefit their mission.

I'm not sure although I doubt it, but I agree with Paperhead that it's scary you seem sure they have.

29 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

Steve said:
Take it you didn't take any logic courses in school? One of the first lessons is that correlation does not equal causation. This is like saying 1. I ate pizza, 2. On the way home from eating pizza, I got in an accident, 3. Eating pizza causes accidents.

Well – as an aside – back in my day, passing a logic paper was part of the entrance requirement for Cambridge.

Now, maybe I should walk through this again. What I said was that the article contained three consecutive facts [dots] and that the connection of those dots was done by the reader and not the writer.

So, to recap using your example, here is what I said:
_______________________________________

1. I ate pizza,
2. After eating pizza I went home,
3 On the way home, I got in an accident.

JF was supplying the "eating pizza causes accidents" part, not the writer, not the three consecutive facts, and – most definitely – not me.

I also said that given the subject of the three facts in the article (JFK and a US military conspiracy [Northwoods]), it was understandable that most people would connect the dots in the way that JF did.
_______________________________________

I hope that's cleared it up for you Steve, though I'm sure that if you'd read it through properly you'd have got that for yourself.

29 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

I think the following example better fits the JFK facts:

1. I ate a pizza at a restaurant,
2. The pizza was disgusting and I told this to the owner,
3. The next week I almost get run over by someone who looked like the pizza baker.

30 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

Some facts:

Afghanistan war results:
According to Amnesty: "There have been many positive changes over the past year. However, despite changes in the government in Afghanistan, major human rights abuses continue."
Mega Afghan pipeline deal signed: "The pipeline was originally launched in 1997 by a consortium led by U.S. energy giant Unocal Corp. but abandoned after the United States fired cruise missiles into Afghanistan in 1998 in pursuit of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network."
Bin Laden has not been caught

Iraq:
The US left Saddam in charge the last time and did not support the opposition: "The Tehran-based Supreme Command of the Islamic Revolution... ...were badly let down during the failed rebellion of 1991 when US promises of support failed to materialise."
Iraq infrastructure, already hobbled, faces worse with new war.
An increase of approximately 90,000 deaths yearly in Iraq due to the sanctions (more than 250 people a day).

Reasons for new attack:
Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction and no evidence has yet been found to proof they do.
North Korea admits to having weapons of mass destruction.
The US is keen on attacking Iraq but not North Korea.
Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush wrote: "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

30 Dec 2002 | Darrel said...

Totally off topic, but why do links appear as dashed underlines?Aren't dashed underlines indicitive of a 'help' or 'more info' pop-up rather than a hyperlink?

30 Dec 2002 | p8 said...

... and if you check the "remember me" checkbox and preview a comment the checkbox doesn't stay checked (using Mozilla 1.2.1 win2k).
You're still remembered though.

30 Dec 2002 | ek said...

All I can say is that the North Koreans are really freaking smart.

They are playing the U.S. and South Korea like a violin and making the Bush administration look really stupid in the eyes of the World community.

The one fact that's clear to me is that these are damn scary times. Could anyone have imagined that this is what the world would be like just three years ago when the future seemed so bright. I guess the problem is that these problems existed all the time and we largely ignored them. That doesn't seem to be an option any more.

30 Dec 2002 | JF said...

I guess the problem is that these problems existed all the time and we largely ignored them.

Thank you. These are not new problems -- they've been festering for years mostly due to inaction, empty words, and misplaced trust on leaders who can't be trusted. We're paying for the procrastination of the blissful, bubbled 90s. Thanks Bill.

30 Dec 2002 | JF said...

As for the assasination JFK...
Pilger doesn't state as fact that JFK was killed because of Northwoods. He states some facts and puts the thing in (time) perspective.

So what was his point? Why does he bring it up? What value does it add to the story other than to get conspiracy theorists all riled up and on his side for his main argument?

30 Dec 2002 | ek said...

You mean Bill Gates? ;-)

30 Dec 2002 | Paperhead said...

it's still scaring me JF that you seem so unconcerned about all of the other facts in the document, but seem happy to keep coming back to one largely irrelevant semantic point. Ah well, nevermind, let's play a game. This game is called FOLLOW THE MONEY [i'm sure you'll recognize some of the names].

Just the Facts Ma'am

Fifty-days before September 11, Egyptian President Mubarak, told Bush that Al Qaeda was targeting civilian jetliners for hijacking. Bush told John Ashcroft to stop using commercial jetliners for travel. On August 16, 2001, an FBI arrest in Minnesota detained a known terrorist in flight training school.

What Mubarak had said, didn't make sense at the time, Condoleezza Rice said. But within two hours of the first tower falling, the administration had named Osama bin Laden.

The attacks gave Bush carte blanche to enforce two Executive Orders and the War Powers Act. Under this legislation, the president can direct the military in the name of national security, and exclude the press from what he and his administration is doing. The War Powers Act involves both the president and Congress. If Congress does not approve an act of war within 60 days, the president must withdraw troops within another 30 days. Bush declared a "war on terrorism", with Congress authorizing Bush to use "appropriate force to respond to the attacks," but also clearly stating that Iraq could only be attacked if it was involved.

On November 1, 2001, Bush signed an order overriding the 1978, Presidential Records Act, created in the wake of Watergate; this order prevents access to all records, confidential or not, of his and of past presidencies. Less than two weeks later, Bush signed an order that relieves him of international criminal liability as commander in chief of the armed forces; that no state, territory or foreign court, or international tribunal has the right to question his authority or limits of authority.

At any moment, Bush has the power to order the assassination of another leader, and to order the complete takeover of the sovereign country of Iraq, without anyone's approval. This is not to say that Hussein is absolved of wrongdoing, But, so far, none of the allegations of "weapons of mass destruction" have been proved.

The United States currently imports 51 percent of its oil, this is predicted to rise to 64 percent by 2020.

The Caspian Basin is a large, untapped resource of oil and natural gas, over 30 times more oil than Alaska. It was only feasible for US-based companies to transport this crude via ship, by building a pipeline to the Indian Ocean, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, rather than a costlier, landlocked line through China, Russia or Iran. Unocal, the ninth largest oil company, pursued rights to cross Afghanistan, almost a sure-bet with that country's well-respected politician, Hamid Karzai, on Unocal's board of directors. Construction plans were underway for Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium (CentGas), under the services of Halliburton, and its CEO, Dick Cheney. Plans were abandoned in 1998 due to Afghanistan's political unrest.

The multi-joint-venture, between Unocal, and two former Soviet Republics, would have been profitable, until former President Clinton bombed the region in retaliation for fallen US-embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Unocal funded 40 percent of the project. In 1999, the $2.6 billion Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) planned 935-miles of pipe aligned to the North of Afghanistan, extending from the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea, in conjunction with Enron Inc., Halliburton, and General Electric Capital Services. Once Unocal abandoned Afghanistan plans, Enron pursued the project independently by entertaining Taliban officials in 1999, to negotiate a Afghan-land deal from company headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. This deal wasn't sealed, and details were destroyed.

Afghanistan is under US-military control as a result of the war on terrorism. ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobile, and Great Britain's BP, started pumping oil through the CPC on November 28, 2001. ChevronTexaco leads production with 15 percent while ExxonMobil at 7.5 percent. Bush congratulated US-corporate efforts. He said, "The project advances this [Bush] administration's National Energy Policy by developing a network of Caspian pipelines, which help to diversify US-energy supplies, and enhance energy security." Link

Bush named Zalmay Khalilzad to lead a special envoy to Afghanistan to help plan the new Afghan-pipeline. Khalilzad, while consulting for Unocal had also been a founder member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, would know the plans well, and he had been unofficially advising Bush throughout his presidency. Khalilzad told Bush to provide economic relief to the area, for which, in exchange, US-companies, like Enron and Halliburton, could potentially lay pipes. Khalilzad reports to Rice, who served on the board of directors for Chevron as that company's expert on Kazakhstan.

Afghanistan was first targeted for a pipeline during the 1980s, when the CIA funneled $3.5 billion through Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence agency to arm and train Islamic extremists to fight the Soviets, who were there for the same reason. Once the Soviets withdrew, the fighters remained and fought for political control. The Taliban emerged and took control instituting a repressive Islamic regime. A second group left the region to form Al Qaeda, which explains why the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to a neutral nation after the attacks in the USA. If the Bush administration had agreed to the Taliban terms, there would have been no reason to invade Afghanistan to "find" bin Laden.

Iraq holds the world's second largest oil supply behind Saudi Arabia, and sits on a substantial natural gas field. US-companies don't have direct access, and have to purchase oil through Russia, Malaysia, France, or China at a premium price. Iraq is negotiating plans to open its reserves to Turkey and all of Europe.

Unlike the days following September 11, the United States has now politically isolated itself. Many longtime allies, and even some of Iraq's enemies want UN-policy enforced, not US-policy. The Bush administration assumes Saddam could do "something." Is this enough to order that country's takeover, or its leader's assassination? Knowing hijackers were going to board commercial airlines was not enough of "something" to increase security measures in July, 2001, after Mubarak's warning to Bush, even though it apparently was enough of a threat for Bush to protect his own.

Funding for Bush-Cheney presidential campaign saw corporate financiers gave him $25 million, with another $10 million in [still] undisclosed contributions; these companies included Andersen Worldwide, Enron, KPMG LLP, Bank of America, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and of course, the now defunct Enron, which gave Bush $2.4 million.

Ties between Enron and the Bush family extend back two presidencies. Enron gained a hefty oil-services contract from Kuwait after that country's liberation from Iraq in 1991, under Bush, Sr. Clinton supported Enron, when he threatened to withdraw US-foreign aid from Mozambique in 1995, if that country chose not to award its natural gas pipeline contract to Enron. While governor of Texas, Bush accepted Enron's contribution as his top campaign financier, perhaps because at that time the Bush Sr's former cabinet members, James Baker and Robert Mosbacher had joined Enron, which was able to lobby itself a clause to avoid shoring-up plants for the Clean Air Act. In 1999, Governor Bush deregulated the Texas utility markets as the California-Enron crisis was in full-swing.

Enron closed, all evidence shredded, and one executive, John Baxter, dead. But how could such a large company simply vanish? Enron purchased land in the Alaskan wildlife area, prior to the Bush administration's plan to drill. They secured similar land-deals in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Enron were active participants in Cheney's Energy Task Force, but the White House refused to hand-over documents related to this activity, which prompted the General Accounting Office (GAO) to sue the White House for the first time. Ever.Why would the White House protect Enron? The GAO insists that Enron influenced Cheney's decisions, which would benefit the firm financially. With Executive Order in place, there is now no chance of any documents being reviewed.

Campaign contributions from oil giants are still pouring in. For the year 2002, Bush has received $4.2 million so far from El Paso Corp., ChevronTexaco, Koch Industries, and ExxonMobile.

Cheney's history in politics, before running Halliburton stock-up 150 percent: after serving as former defense secretary under Bush, Sr., he accepted the position as CEO of Halliburton. He targeted contracts from the Caspian region, securing investment opportunities between Chevron and the state of Kazakhstan, while he also sat on Kazakhstan's Oil Advisory Board.

Under Bush, Sr., Cheney controlled the Washington press-pool, and held tight control over what the press was told. In 1990, Cheney told the press about the invasion of Panama after-the-fact to minimize leaks, he said. During the Gulf War, the press-pool was not activated for five days into the event, and during that war, the press was blocked from information until it appeared that US-troops were on the way to victory.

Cheney denies the White House had explicit information on 2001 terrorists attacks, he is also instrumental in blocking further investigations around September 11, and has resisted Congress on revealing intelligence, as well as documents related to Enron.

While serving at Chevron, Rice had her name on one of its tankers (subsequently renamed to avoid "conflict of interest".)

Rice directed Chevron's board while it invested in the Caspian Basin, the company became the largest member of the CPC with a 45 percent interest. Meanwhile, a continent away -- Chevron was fighting human-rights violation charges in Nigeria for brutalizing a local community who protested their presence. Chevron and other oil companies were sued for polluting the Nigerian Delta, and with illegally supplying the Nigerian government with helicopters and weapons to fight against and kill civilian protesters. In 1998, after religious-group shareholders demanded Chevron disclose details of the lawsuit on the company's annual report, the Securities and Exchange Commission allowed Chevron to leave all references to the suit off its proxy statement.

Rice said that oil companies have "addressed environmental concerns, because they are important to US security, giving us [the] ability to explore abroad." Oil companies are good citizens, she said, and we can't live without oil. "We have to have American oil companies doing it."

Oh yeah. And you're heading for a huge budget deficit.

Glad it's still all smelling so sweet for you JF.

31 Dec 2002 | JF said...

Glad it's still all smelling so sweet for you JF.

I'm not even sure what this means. I haven't taken a single position on Iraq or Afghanistan or Bush or Hussein anywhere in this thread or post.

31 Dec 2002 | Steve said...

Yeah, Paperhead, that does make more sense. I'll admit to not following every twist and turn of the discussion, and I didn't read the original article, so I missed that someone else was connecting the dots. And, yeah, most people's minds want to connect those dots in that manner when they see correlative facts next to each other. Which does make it disingenuous for someone just to put correlative facts up without disclaiming that there's no causation (I'm saying that in general, not necessarily this case, again not having read the original material).

20 Nov 2003 | health quotes said...

the fact of the matter is....no one knows what they're talking about