Home > Political Ranting > The Case Strenghtens

The Case Strenghtens

October 14th, 2007

It should be crystal clear by now that everything the Bush administration has said it did because of 9/11 was in fact its agenda before 9/11. It did not invade Iraq because of 9/11, it did not spy on its own citizens because of 9/11, and it is almost as certain that it did not begin its quest to quash civil liberties and deny Constitutional rights because of 9/11. These were all things they wanted to do from day one.

The Washington Post has come out with an article which shows that the Bush administration was trying to acquire all Americans’ phone records long before 9/11, and given the administration’s virtual blindness to terrorism at the time, it’s damned certain that this wasn’t being done to make us safe from outside attack. It was late February, 2001, barely a month and a week after Bush took office.

We also know that Bush wanted not only to topple Saddam Hussein, but to invade the country, put in peacekeeping forces, and divvy up the oil fields–all from the very first month of the administration, and all under the cloak of secrecy. From January 2004, when Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill spilled the beans on what he saw in the Bush White House:

[O’Neill] got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’” adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

In short, the new WaPo article simply reinforces what so many of us have been sure of in our guts for so long: nothing the Bush administration has done has been centered on fighting terrorism, but instead simply to forward their own Neocon agenda. This is clear not just because their “reactions” to 9/11 all predate 9/11, but because the administration’s counter-terror record, where it does not intersect their agenda, has been dismal: cities and municipalities underfunded in key counter-terror capabilities, the vast majority of incoming cargo still not scanned or checked when entering the country, massive resistance to forming committees to analyze and correct flaws in our counter-terrorism policy, foot-dragging in complying with their recommendations, virtually giving up on finding bin Laden and turning away from controlling Afghanistan, and so on–the list goes on. Instead we get tax cuts for the rich, a useless and even harmful missile defense shield, a quagmire in Iraq, spying on our own citizens completely divorced from counter-terrorism, and a drive to repeal or make null and void our Constitution rights and liberties.

Where it counts, this administration is not fighting the war on terror. They are only using it as a convenient excuse for imposing the Neocon dream of a militaristic, corporatist police state.

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. October 14th, 2007 at 10:29 | #1

    Amen!

  2. Tim Kane
    October 14th, 2007 at 23:08 | #2

    Perhaps the most striking, brazen thing was the invasion of Iraq with Bin Laden still at large.

    We had no business going after Saddam as long as Bin Laden was at large.

    On the other hand, he would have had a plausible case if he had first captured Bin Laden and eliminated Al Qaida.

    It’s obvious now he didn’t give a rats ass about the 3000 people who died after 9/11, or ever intended to get Bin Laden.

    It’s quite possible that the Bin Laden family insisted to Bush that Bin Laden not knocked out of action. Arabs ethics are based upon vendetta law, where one is protected by ones kinship, which is iron clad. Otherwise, Bush had every reason to go after Bin Laden, because if he had gotten him he would have had much more moral authority to invade Iraq.

    Recently I heard that Saddam offered to abdicate for $1billion.

    The heart of darkness runs through the President of the United States. Its very possible that this country might not survive this President. Like the twin towers, the collapse will come, not at the time of the impact, but shortly their after.

  3. William Kerr
    October 15th, 2007 at 14:57 | #3

    I find it incredibly hypocritical that these cowardly weak willed moronic talk show hosts like Bill Maher and John Stewart used to plaster, 24/7, the news media and their shows with a non-stop drum beat to attack Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein because of the threat Iraq posed to Israel. Now that the war is not going so well, these same hypocritical idiots are defaming the Bush Administration when it was in fact THEIR lobbying power, money, media pressure, and political pressure that got us into the war in the first place.

    What a bunch of hypocritical bastards. Do they not think that some people have tape recorded those shows?

  4. Tim Kane
    October 17th, 2007 at 09:46 | #4

    William Kerr:

    Bush is the decider. Not Bill Maher. And neither he nor Stewart told Bush to invade Iraq.

    If Bill Maher, or say Captain Kangaroo, or Count Chocula tell Bush to invade Iraq, and because of this Bush invades Iraq, I ask you… who is the weak willed moronic character? Count Chocula or Bush (aka, the decider?

    Maybe your just using satire to be funny, and I just missed the joke.

Comments are closed.