Slashdot Mirror
Powell Aide Says Case for War a 'Hoax'
PBS recently aired an interview with Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson (Ret), Chief of Staff at the Department of State from Aug 2002 - January 2005, addressing some of the skepticism surrounding the pre-war claims made by the Bush administration. Wilkerson claims in no uncertain terms that he "participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council." This is not the first time that Wilkerson has spoken out against the administration and intelligence community.
Everyone outside the US already knows this.
I wonder whether he'll be marked - crazy, unreliable, or simply unpatriotic
I've been watching Wilkerson's speeches and interviews and opinions since early 2005. He's been one of the highest ranking officials to speak about the cabal that is in control of the White House now, but he also has inferred that the cabal has been in power for longer than the currency administration has been. For those who are anti-Bush, do not believe the Clinton was not part of the power party, either.
I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power. I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.
Iran's current oil bourse theories came along just before the power party started beating the war drums against Iraq. I posted today the link to the Cheuvreux Report that reconfirms my crazy tinfoil hat theories about the control of the dollar, and this time from a huge international investment bank. War is the health of the State, said Randolph Bourne. For millenia, war was always about directly controlling others. Yet in the recent centuries, war has been about controlling others indirectly -- by controlling the means of barter between people.
No matter what Bush or Rice or Clinton or Nixon or Kennedy have said, hindsight lets us see what they were really about -- making sure that their peers and families and cronies were at the front of the welfare lines when our Federal Reserve was handing out newly printed paper dollars. To believe anything else is to continue to be a pawn to the system.
It's too bad that there are no news organizations left that do any kind of investigative reporting. It would be nice to have this guy's claims analyzed by a third party. Oh well, I guess profits are more important than protecting the People of the US from their government.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Where's my "-1 Corrosively Jaded" when I need it? ;-)
War is almost always a hoax, and war other than in self-defense always is.
The only just reason for war is because the alternative would be even worse - that by not going to war we would have doomed even more people to slavery or death. That is almost never the case.
It clearly was not the case here, even if every allegation made against Hussein had been true, although most of them were not. The hypothetical murder of some relatively small number (hundreds or thousands) of people, via a terrorist attack Hussein had little reason and less ability to commit, would not justify the actual murder of hundreds of thousands or millions (keep in mind the long-term effects of depleted uranium, not just on Iraqis, but on US forces as well).
This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it will go down as one of the greatest crimes of modern history, and those who knowingly support it deserve at least as bad as what is coming to them, and probably worse.
But, as is almost always true of almost every war, the innocent - including those in the US - will suffer far, far more.
That of course is one of the many good reasons not to start one.
Nonaggression works!
...there'll be an interview with another crew-cut dude with a dot-mil e-mail address, not retired, who'll say the first dude had an axe to grind and is totally wrong. And he'll be right. And the first guy will have been right, too, well, mostly...
Yeah, but Fox is slanted.
Wait, I thought it was PBS that was slanted.
Hillary's moving to the right!!
But Condi's a snappier dresser.
Act before midnight tonight, and we'll throw in a debate on global warming!
Step Right Up! Choose yer channel, make yer choice!
(Get away from me, Mod, ya bother me...)
I really feel bad for him.
He should have either run for President or gotten out after Clinton and not come back.
Bush & Cheney took all the credibility he had built up and wasted it by sending him to the U.N. to tell fairytales.
You can read the speech here but it isn't really worth doing, as so many of the facts provided in that speech have been proven false and were apparently known to be false at the time the speech was given.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Snopes confirms that it was a hoax.
Note that he claims to not have *known* that it was a hoax at the time that he participated and that some of his superiors were in the same boat.
I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"
The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.
He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...
Have fun,
Nathan 'Nato' Uno
http://web.unos.net/
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 - June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket, one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. Butler came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1934 to report that a proposed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
The problem is that politicians could lie and get away with it. Before the war Bush & Co were pretending that we were in danger from Iraq, and now that they've been proven wrong no one called them on the original claims. If I call the police and falsely claim there's a robbery when there isn't, I will be fined for false call. Bush made a false call which caused 2,000+ Americans and unknown number of Iraqis to die - and he just got away with it.
We need some sort of accountability system that would force politicians to pay for their mistakes. Require them to publicly estimate cost of war and take all outstanding costs from their personal bank accounts. Wolfowitz estimated war to cost around half a billion, and so far we ended up with more than $200 billion (yes, two hundreen billion US dollars) of extra costs. If Bush & Co were forced to pay all outstanding costs, they would've estimated the cost of war honestly, and people wouldn't be misled into supporting war.
Same thing for human cost. Require pro-war politicians to gather signatures. It's way too easy to say "I support a war" while sitting at home in front of TV. Make a law that starting a war would require million or so legally binding signatures from people to cover in case we run out of troops. There's always so many vocal pro-war supporters, but when it comes to actually fighting the war we always seem to run out of people. Make war supporters actually carry the cost of war, and they will actually start using their brains first.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
I've personally always fealt this was the right war, but for the wrong reasons. The Bush administration needed to come up with some reasons to go to war, but they didn't want to admit the truth of why, so they made up these cock-and-bull stories.
I can't really speak to what the Bush administrations true motives were. I suspect, that, mostly, Bush did think that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the US and the Western World, and didn't want to give him any chance to acquire any more WMD than he had. Maybe they sexed up the intelligence (which, btw, if they did do, I don't condone).
Why do I feel this was the right war? Perhaps my limited knowledge of history is incorrect, but, it is my current understanding that Europe and the US have played 'chess' with the Middle East for most of the 20th century, and that, to a large extent, Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq because earlier administrations had propped him up. The U.S. has, purportedly, done some very bad things in the region, including: Iran had, at one time, a democratic government. The CIA apparently helped overthrow the democratic government and install a dictator (I don't know that he was a *bad* dictator per se, but still), which lead to the Iranian revolution which installed the current Theocracy we all know and love. It my understanding that the US then propped up Saddam Hussein as a sort of first-line-of-defense against Iran.
Personally, I feel America needs to give the middle east an apology for so much meddling, and get the hell out of their business. But, alas, Saddam Hussein was part of that meddling. And so, to try to get things somewhat 'right' before leaving, we are forced to meddle some more. And that, I feel, is the truest and best justification for the current actions in Iraq. To turn over the future of Iraq to the Iraqi people. As for Iran, as much as I don't like the current government (espcially the hate-mongering, former-terrorist president of Iran) it should also be recognized that, for to some extent, the current government of Iran represents the people of Iran, and outside of defending ourselves against them, we need to let their politics run their own course.
Of course, I may be completely wrong. I can only go by the history that I have learned, and it is within possibility that the history I've been taught is either completely wrong, or incomplete in some critical way.
The sad thing is though, that what history will likely remember is that we entered into this action on bad intelligence and bull-crap stories from Bush & Cheney, LLP. And, because we entered into it the wrong way, with the wrong communication to the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Muslim world, it will probably have the wrong outcome - forcing us to meddle further in Middle Eastern affairs.
First let me say, I'm a Bush supporter. I'm in the Reserves, and I participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). I was lucky enough to be 1500 miles from the front lines, unlike the rest of my unit, but in any event I was there and I've got the tee-shirt to prove it. When the war first started, I was completely in favor of it. Today, I don't regret that we went in at all, and think in the long run the Iraqi people (and by extension the rest of the Middle East) will be much better off with a participatory democracy than living under the heel of a thug.
Having said all that, it's becoming more and more worrisome to me the degree to which the administration apparently ignored or possibly fabricated evidence. I remember saying at the time that it was a fool's errand to use WMD and/or terrorism as the reason to go to war, and that it seemed more like slick marketing than actual strategery. We had plenty of reasons to go in, and none of them had anything to do with WMDs or terrorism. Like the fact that the Iraqi forces habitually fired on US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No Fly Zones (considering that just prior to the war, I was working in the Turkish command center that controlled the Northern No Fly Zone and had friends and, literally, family flying over Iraq, yeah, I kinda took it personally).
But apparently someone, somewhere, decided that overt acts of aggression in violation of a cease-fire agreement weren't sufficient reason to justify reopening hostilities. So they decided to use weak or non-existant evidence to justify it, instead. Stupid. Just fucking stupid.
So now here we are, not-quite-three years later. We've spent billions of dollars, have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, and have thousands of war dead. What's the solution? Well, on the right you have people saying "It wasn't a lie, it was just a mistake." Well, when it comes to something of this magnitude, does it really matter if the root was incompetence or malfeasance? Sure, maybe from a criminal point of view (for instance, I'm not convinced there's a case for impeachment here). But not a whom-do-you-trust-to-run-the-country point of view.
Then on the left we have people like Murtha and Kennedy screaming that we should leave, RIGHT NOW GODDAMNIT!!! That's just insane, we can't leave the Iraqis in a worse position than we found them. That would be like walking away from a car stuck underwater with a woman trapped inside. I mean, what kind of man does that?
So here's what I want to see from politicians: be willing to say "Looks like we screwed up. We completely apologize to the Iraqi people and ask that you forigive us. We promise, to our citizens and the world, that we'll never again invade another country without an individual declaration of war passed by the Congress, ensuring that there will be a full debate before we, as a nation, take the lives of other human beings. We also promise that, now that we're in Iraq, we need to do right by the Iraqis and help them fix all the problems we caused. To that end, we'll follow the policies implemented by the Iraqi National Congress, and be willing to lend whatever assistance they request of us.[1]" Any politician who can say that, consistently, with a straight face, would get my vote.
[1] I know this would be effectively giving the Iraqi government a blank check, but I think that would be worth it to gain some much needed good will.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Here are some current "facts" from the Bush administration that are being accepted without question by the media and most of the US population:
If we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will win.
This statement seems to imply that unless the USA maintains 100,000+ troops in Iraq for many years then the insurgents will overrun Iraq and set up Bin Laden as a dictator of Iraq. This is obviously false at a number of levels. At a most basic level, the insurgents lack the capability to defeat the Shiite militias. In the broader picture, even if the USA sets up a stable democracy after many year of occupation, there is no guarantee that the Iraqi people will not elect a government with strong ties to organizations that the USA considers to be terrorist organizations. Whether it is a good idea for the USA to maintain substantial trooop levels in Iraq for many years to come is unclear without substantial impartial detailed study. If these studies have been done at all, the results have certainly not been presented to the American people. Instead, we are merely given some simplistic message about how the terrorists will win unless we do what the Bush administration wants.
Social security is broken.
The way social security works is that people who are working pay into the system and that money is used to pay benefits for people who are retired. Strictly speaking, it's not possible for the system to break. The government just transfers the money that is collected from the workers to those receiving retirement benefits. In order to cushion the effect of the baby boom generation, however, the government was collecting more than it was paying out. The problem is that the rest of the government started borrowing against this surplus and now the Bush administration is looking to avoid having to pay it back. Whether the current system is optimal is certainly open to debate but the idea that the system is "broken" is obviously false.
The Bush administrion did nothing illegal in order the NSA to listen in on American phone conversations
From the Bill of Rights in the US constitution:
I'm not a constitutional scholar but that seems to rather clearly state that some kind of warrant is required. Maybe there's a loop hole and maybe there isn't but it is certainly not factual to blatantly assert that it is legal for the US government to listen in on American phone conversations without a warrant.The reason Clinton got impeached for parsing words, is because the Republicans controlled Congress & they managed to get Articles of Impeachment passed. The Impeachment died in the Senate... because the Republicans couldn't convince 75% of the Senators that it was a good idea.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Building WMDs on any large scale is a HUGE undertaking. Sure, anyone with a little knowledge can cook up poison gas in their bath tub but to make it on a military scale is very complex you need:
1) Chemical plants (or bio incubator sites) to make tons of the stuff.
2) Railrods or fleets of trucks to bring in precursor chemicals.
3) A source for the precusros, either from overseas or from plants in country.
4) Then you have to develop some sort of delivery system, shells, bombs, planes, boats etc.
5) You need thousands of people to support the operation: scientists, engineers, security people, administrative people etc.
6) Power plants to run the various factories.
7) Then you ned to train people in use of the delivery system.
During WWII the Germans tried to proect ahd hide some of their plants in caves. The locations were usually easy to spot due to the huge infrastructure needed. And even though many of the factories were deep enough not to be damaged by bombs, many of them could effectively be shut down by cutting off access to power or the transportation net. And factor in that there were UN inspectors on the ground as well as electronic survelliance, and the possibility of Sadam developing stockpiles of wepaons on the sly becomes slim to none.
We were definitely lied to.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Cost us $400B in direct losses and 1000+ lives so far with no end in sight. Some of that $400B goes to companies closely affiliated with Bush and Cheney. Bush gets blanket immunity from impeachment under the guise of "war on terror", domestic economy goes down the shitter, international relations follow, constitutional rights are infringed upon... Sure beats Clinton screwing an intern. Why was Clinton impeached and this fella is still in the office like nothing happened?
In another news story today, Bush announced he will cut the deficit by cutting domestic programs. Is it safe to assume that, after this story aired, PBS will be one of the programs cut?
I don't think most rational humans want to see Iraq become a terrorist state. This is why we need to stay the course at this point and why playing politics with the Iraqi war is going to do more damage than good to a potential presidential canidate.
Would you personally be willing to die to "stay the course"? Would you ask your children to die for this cause? You're assuming that we can win the war in Iraq. If we can't win, then letting more of our bravest and most patriotic citizens die needlessly is equivalent to murdering them.
If anyone in this administration, including the president, lied or ignored evidence in order to push this war on the people, then they should be executed for treason.
I remember that Clinton signed the treaty for membership in the International Criminal Court, though he didn't submit it for ratification to the Republican Congress. And I remember that Bush nullified Clinton's signature when he took over a couple of years later.
I don't know what you remember, but the facts show there was a big difference.
--
make install -not war
Our "defense" department is only minimally defensive. The fundamental design of our military is offensive and aggressive, built on the projection of power globally.
The primary example of this is the aircraft carrier and its associated air power elements, which allows the US to attack any target in the world within a week if not a day. This advantage subjugates any defenses of a target country.
ICBMs are likewise designed for intimidation and aggression. Whereas the soviet-era ICBM standoff was defense by mutual destruction, now our ICBMs threaten any country not armed with similar capability with instantaneous death.
Our long-range bomber fleet is likewise a power projection (offensive) unit, for the delivery of bombs over distances thousands of miles from our borders
Even ground forces have been reconfigured for maximum mobility, so that full effective ground combat can be waged anywhere in the world in the span of a month. This delay is considered acceptable since that provides a month for our air and sea forces to gain air superiority and soften any defenses.
The implicit reason for this is maintenance and coercion of our economic projects throughout the world, in order to sustain the resource consumption of America's economy. Our overconsumption leads to the reality that we must project power (via offensive threats) in order to "defend" our "security" (availability of resources)
This can only be concluded to mean we are an imperialistic aggressive country. Any pretensions to the contrary is strictly propaganda.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
back in 1998 hussein had WMDs and a WMD program. that's why all of those quotes are from 1998. in late 1998, clinton got pissed and bombed the shit out of iraq, targeting anything that looked remotely like a WMD storage or manfacture facility.
that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
"You know why we went into Iraq right? OIL!" and so I politely responded "See, I just don't see what we have to gain by overtaking Iraq, in terms of oil." to which he responded "That's right, we don't! It's not worth it!". He made my point quite cleary
You've conflated two completely separate concepts and somehow imagine you've had a "point" made.
The motivation for an act says nothing about the actual (or even just perceived) results. We can invade Iraq for oil, and wind up even worse off than before. That the result of our actions didn't match our desires doesn't retroactively change our motivation. That your professor doesn't believe it was "worth it" has no bearing on the motivation either, it's a statement of his opinion on the cost/benefit analysis.
I don't know where you were in 2002, but the war WE were all sold was to be a few months long, we were to be greeted as liberators, and within a year Iraq's oil sales would pay us back every penny for the cost. Either they were lying or they were just as absolutely wrong as any human can be about something. Neither speaks highly of their capabilities for leadership, but their complete failure/deception is the reason we've seen little benefit. Had they accomplished what they intended/sold, we would have seen many clear benefits, both in increased oil production/market availability and greater political influence at zero direct financial cost, as it would all be subsidized by another country's oil sales. We also would have seen American oil companies take production share from European competitors, potentially leading to economic benefits for America in general, but definitely leading to benefits for the major campaign contributors and dinner party guests of our current administration.
I hope for your sake that if you intend to remain a neo-con, you find much better mentors than any of the current influential neo-cons. They seem to be so lost in the theory of what they're doing, they never bother to open the door and see what the real world is like. Tragic that they've fallen victim to the same major failure they once condemned liberal "ivory tower intellectuals" for.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
IRA terrorism finally disappeared after 9/11. Up until then sympathetic Americans were happy to fund an organisation that bought weapons from Libya to kill people in England.
As a non-American, I find it slightly disturbing that the US is now justifying its Iraqi invasion as 'spreading democracy'. This has traditionally not been a strong point of American foreign policy e.g. the Vietnamese people would have voted for 'Uncle Ho' (Ho Chi Min - Communist leader) had the US allowed those elections to go ahead. Now we're seeing the 'wrong' (for the US, the EU and Israel) result in Palestine.
The danger is that the US will intervene whenever there is a free and fair election result with which it doesn't agree - then we're back with the US installing and supporting their own dictators (Saddam Hussein anyone?) with all of their attendant power abuses simply to keep the 'wrong' people out of (legitimate) power.
History always repeats!