Search This Blog

Showing posts with label PAUL WOLFOWITZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PAUL WOLFOWITZ. Show all posts

Sunday, September 12, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Juan Cole | The Accumulated Evil of the Whole: That Time Bush and Co. Made the September 11 Attacks a Pretext for War on Iraq

 


 

Reader Supported News
11 September 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

IF WE DON’T GET SERIOUS, SEPTEMBER WILL BE A DISASTER. Traditionally, September is our best month for donations. Right now, donations are down quite a bit from just one month ago. If we do not put all of our energy into turning this around now, September may well be a total disaster. In earnest.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

A desperate mother searches for her two children after they disappeared amid a gigantic fire at an illegal petrol station in central Baghdad. The Iraq war began in March 2003 with a U.S.-led invasion which ended nearly 25 years of Ba'athist rule. (photo: Moises Saman/Magnum Photos)
FOCUS: Juan Cole | The Accumulated Evil of the Whole: That Time Bush and Co. Made the September 11 Attacks a Pretext for War on Iraq
Juan Cole, Informed Comment
Cole writes: "They murdered Iraqis, blaming Baghdad for September 11 even though they knew that Iraq was not the culprit."

Kyle Swenson at Washington Post reported in 2018 that Floridian Ishnar Lopez-Ramos was in love, but her intended only had eyes for another woman. So Ms. Lopez-Ramos enlisted two 22-year-old accomplices to target the other woman, who worked at the Ross Dress for Less at a shopping Center near Kissimee. They observed a woman fitting the description of Lopez-Ramos’s rival leaving the store. They kidnapped her and zip-tied her. Then they met Lopez-Ramos, who saw that they had grabbed the wrong woman. She had see them, though, so they strangled her with garbage bag over her head, and dumped her body near Ormond Beach. The three, Glorianmarie Quinones Montes, Alexis Ramos-Rivera, and Ishnar Lopez-Ramos, face murder charges but the state attorney will not seek the death penalty.

George Walker Bush, Richard Bruce Cheney, Donald Henry Rumsfeld, Paul Dundes Wolfowitz and others in the coterie of capitalist colonialists that was the Bush administration, aren’t any different from Glorianmarie Quinones Montes, Alexis Ramos-Rivera, and Ishnar Lopez-Ramos. That is why I give all three of their names, which is how journalists report about criminals. They murdered Iraq i, blaming Baghdad for September 11 even though they knew that Iraq was not the culprit. The difference between them and the misguided love-triangle mob was that the latter whacked one poor, innocent victim whereas the Bush administration set in train events that would leave hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced, and a country in ruins.

The Bush crew desecrated the graves of the September 11 victims by using them pettily as a pretext to have the war that they had long wanted to have. Remembering the victims without remembering the further victims created in their supposed name is hypocrisy.

As the Nuremberg Tribunal said, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

In 2003-2008, 4 million Iraqis were displaced and made homeless in a country of 26 million, 1.5 million of them overseas. Something on the order of 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the maelstrom unleashed by Bush. This is certainly an under-estimate. We’re still upset about someone killing our 3,000 compatriots on 9/11, and rightly so. Imagine if someone had taken out 200,000 Americans? Given the disparity in population, that Iraqi death toll would equal 1.8 million Americans dead.

The number of Iraqi dead is certainly higher if you include everyone who died that would not otherwise have died if Bush had not invaded. Most of those killed were parents, so you create a whole class of Bush orphans in Iraq.

You figure 3 wounded for every 1 killed in war, so that would be 600,000 at least. In just the first stage of the war, the U.S. dropped 29,199 bombs on Iraq.

Ultimately, of course, against the backdrop of the Bush invasion and military occupation of Iraq (that is the correct diction, my beloved journalist colleagues), the ISIL terrorist group grew up and threw the eastern part of the Middle East into enormous turmoil for years, causing the US to drop more thousands of bombs on Iraq and displace millions more.

Wolfowitz came into office obsessed with Saddam, according to Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism tsar. Wolfowitz complained in spring, 2002, about Clarke being fixated on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Why are you worrying about one little guy, he is said to have asked. What about Iraqi terrorism against America? (Not sure what he was talking about.) After 9/11, Bush ordered Clarke to find out if Iraq was behind it. He might have noted that none of the hijackers was Iraqi. Wolfowitz told Bush without any evidence at all that there was a 50% chance that Saddam did it. Bush wanted to launch a war immediately on Iraq according to the then British ambassador. Tony Blair, afraid that Bush would leave al-Qaeda’s training camps alone in Afghanistan and so endanger London, argued him into hitting Afghanistan first. He pledged British support for an Iraq War down the line. What was this, a hostage situation? Why was Iraq even in question? Blair later alleged that Iraq could attack Europe with chemical weapons within just 45 minutes. No one could understand what he was on about. The allegation did not even make any sense, and was not true. He later admitted to having misunderstood an intelligence briefing. I mean, this is like an old Peter Sellers comedy of errors, only it isn’t funny, at all.

The Baath government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was not in any way, shape or form behind the September 11 attacks. Even I, as a civilian Middle East specialist, could see that. The money for the September 11 attacks was wired by Mustafa al-Hasawi, the al-Qaeda paymaster from accounts he set up in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to the United States. Other money was sent to lead hijacker Mohammed Amir Atta in Florida from Pakistan. This was well known and had come out in the press in the months after the attacks. There was no Iraq connection to these funds. There was no Iraq connection period.

Fox Cable Lies ran segments nearly nightly from fall of 2002 through the U.S. invasion alleging that al-Qaeda operatives had been trained at a special camp at Salman Pak in Iraq. A transparent lie, and its falsity was later admitted by US intelligence The Baath government of Iraq was secular and nationalist and hated and feared al-Qaeda.

When Iraqi government documents were released on the web at a site at Ft. Leavenworth, I saw with my own eyes an Iraqi secret police all-points bulletin warning that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian associate of “the Saudi terrorist Ussama Bin Laden” was in Iraq and ordering his arrest. It suggested shaking down the expatriate Jordanian community. As Joshua Kameel notes, “Postwar intelligence revealed, however, that Saddam had fervently tried to locate and dismantle the terrorist organization, as he viewed it as a threat to his regime.”

The Saddam Hussein government was petrified of Zarqawi and of Bin Laden. Colin Powell and other Bush administration officials told fairy tales at the U.N. about Saddam Hussein hosting al-Zarqawi. It was all lies. Some of this so-called “intelligence” was produced by waterboarding people at Gitmo, who after a while told their torturers anything they wanted to hear. And Cheney wanted to hear that Iraq was behind 9/11. Other such reports came from Iraqi expatriates who hoped the US would attack Iraq and make them billionaires (they got their wish). This garbage raw intelligence was wrapped up as analysis by beleaguered CIA analysts, a quarter of whom later reported receiving direct pressure from the Bush administration to reach that conclusion. In the intelligence world, analysts who give in to such pressure and write what the higher-ups want to hear are called “weasels.” Others were just rushed. I later heard one of the CIA analysts in charge of producing the report Cheney demanded be written without delay observe, “If you want it bad, that’s how you get it.” He was speaking over at the State Department. Douglas Feith, the number three man at the Pentagon and more or less an Israeli West Bank squatter-settler, set up a shop, the Office of Strategic Plans, that cherry-picked raw intelligence and briefed the resulting pile of bullshit to government officials, which was irregular if not illegal.

Maybe Ishnar Lopez-Ramos apologized to the judge for her mindless murder. She lost her liberty, perhaps for the rest of her life. She received punishment. Her victim was mourned by her children and husband. Society recognized that a great wrong had been done.

Bush and his gang remain unpunished. Society does not hold them in contempt. The mass murderers sit on genteel corporate boards. Iraq is forgotten, never mentioned in the daily news, with the masses being given bread and circuses instead. The great American amnesia about our own miitarism and colonial misadventures is forgotten or denied.

The victims of September 11 lie defiled, made an excuse for a brutal war of choice that contained within it the accumulated evil of all war crimes.


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Monday, September 6, 2021

9/11 wasn’t the Pearl Harbor of our generation

 

Matthew Warshauer at the Responsible Statesman website points out that Osama bin Laden won his "war" because Washington took 9/11 as a new Pearl Harbor (it wasn't, not faintly) and acted accordingly (as they wished to do). Definitely a piece worth the read! Tom
"When September 11 shook the nation to its core, many called it a new Pearl Harbor — the first time in more than a generation that the American homeland had been struck by a foreign enemy.
The shock of the twin towers crumbling onto the streets of New York, smoke spewing from the side of the Pentagon, and a burned-out hole in a Pennsylvania field where flight #93 went down, all told Americans they were vulnerable. But 9/11 wasn’t Pearl Harbor. It didn’t represent an existential threat to American democracy and didn’t require a two-front invasion with decades of never-ending combat operations.
The mastermind of Pearl Harbor, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, believed that only a quick, decisive victory over the United States was possible, yet he worried. When congratulated upon the success of his surprise attack, he allegedly responded, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” It was a day, announced President Franklin Roosevelt, that would “live in infamy.” In their “righteous might,” Americans fought Japan and Germany into total submission. The mission was clear, the enemy finite. Unconditional surrender inaugurated the “American Century,” an era of unprecedented military, economic, and political dominance. The atomic bomb at Hiroshima — the world’s original Ground Zero — confirmed that power.
For the next 50 years, U.S. strength was tested, but victory in the Cold War heralded America as the only remaining superpower. Neoconservative author Francis Fukuyama called it “the end of history.” No nation stood in the way of total victory for the American way of life.
Then came 9/11. The world’s new Ground Zero presented a direct challenge to 21st century American power — yet it was really a statement about the symbols of that power rather than its reality. 9/11 posed no true existential threat in the way that Japan or Germany did; both of those nations sought world domination. The Japanese declared “hakkō ichiu”: placing the eight corners of the globe under a Japanese roof.
Osama bin Laden had no such plans. Like the Japanese admiral, the bearded cleric of jihadi terror was also a master planner. But he didn’t fear attacking an all-powerful America. Nor did he have concerns about a quick campaign. His plan was a holy war, calculated to draw America into a generational, grinding conflict; one that bled us of our money, our soldiers’ lives, and our national reputation.
The truth of 9/11 is that it was a trap, one that could only be sprung by the United States. It worked. Late in the evening on September 11, President George W. Bush wrote in his diary, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century took place today.” Earlier in the day he had embraced his Rooseveltian moment, declaring, “a great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.”
But 1941 and 2001 were different; September 11 wasn’t Pearl Harbor. Both revealed that the U.S. could be attacked, and the American people’s patriotism rallied, but the U.S. response to 9/11 — the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the announcement of a nearly impossible to define War on Terror — have proven massive foreign policy blunders. It didn’t have to be so.
That the U.S. treated September 11 as a Pearl Harbor-like moment to rally a nation for war was the essential problem. Japan’s attack was an act of war. Bin Laden’s was a terrorist act treated by President Bush and his advisors as war. It wasn’t. 9/11 was a criminal justice issue that required a military component. Al Qaeda represented no nation state, no definable military that could be vanquished unconditionally. Nor did it pose an existential threat to the homeland or American power abroad. Bin Laden couldn’t touch, as President Bush put it, “the foundation of America,” unless we blundered; unless we decided that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor and carried that comparison for all it was worth.
How else could the Bush administration invade Iraq and expand its military footprint into the Middle East? How else could the administration secure unquestioned funding for the Pentagon and military industrial complex? Treating bin Laden as a criminal wouldn’t suffice. Equating him with an attack on freedom, an existential threat to American society, would. 9/11 had to be Pearl Harbor.
A year before September 11, neoconservative Republicans, many of whom later filled the highest echelons of the Bush White House, released a report through the Progress for the New American Century advocating the rebuilding of America’s defenses. The amount of money and time needed, they acknowledged, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”
The statement didn’t reveal malfeasance. Rather, a mere understanding of what could and couldn’t be done without an outside catalyst. Then came September 11.
Just hours after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld handed one of his aides a hasty note for General Richard Meyers: “judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein]@ same time—Not just UBL [Usama bin Laden]…go massive—sweep it all up—Things related and not.” The note didn’t insinuate that Saddam was in any way responsible for 9/11. Those arguments came later. Rumsfeld and other Republicans simply asked whether the U.S. could utilize the attacks for larger purposes.
Karl Rove, Bush’s ever-present campaign guru, said later, “Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 came our way.” The President and his advisors wouldn’t allow this “Pearl Harbor” moment to be wasted.
It became a point of contention inside the Bush White House. Secretary of State Colin Powell voiced caution, insisting that the focus should remain on Afghanistan, not Iraq. Powell testified before the 9/11 Commission that he worried about the views of his fellow Bush advisors, that “Paul [Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense] was always of the view that Iraq was the problem that had to be dealt with….And he saw this [9/11] as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem.”
The outcome is now well known – “mission accomplished,” chaos in Iraq, and spill over throughout the Middle East. The resulting refugee crisis is the largest since World War II and has spawned a destabilizing nationalism throughout Europe. The War on Terror remains the longest conflict in American history and its impact on our reputation has been catastrophic.
The original component of that conflict is now over. Kabul has fallen. The Taliban are once again in control of Afghanistan. Many Americans, especially veterans, wonder why we went to the Middle East in the first place. The answer is because bin Laden set a trap that the Bush administration and neoconservatives couldn’t resist. They made 9/11 Pearl Harbor to achieve other foreign policy goals and foolishly believed it would be easy. The bearded cleric of terror may be dead, but his larger strategy was brilliant. The American century is over, and we did it to ourselves."






"Look Me In The Eye" | Lucas Kunce for Missouri

  Help Lucas Kunce defeat Josh Hawley in November: https://LucasKunce.com/chip-in/ Josh Hawley has been a proud leader in the fight to ...