E-mail this page link

"Yet another former Bush administration cabal member steps up to the microphones and cameras and explains that not only did Bush desire to attack Iraq from the get-go, confirming O'Neill's revelations, but he also deliberately avoided going after al-Qaeda!"


Cabal Babble
Posted March 25, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org

By: Ted Lang

Recall the Bush administration's concerted effort to discredit former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when he revealed that attacking Iraq unilaterally in the absence of any provocation was number one on President George W. Bush's agenda?  Remember the outrage displayed by members of Bush's secret government, and how they tried to belittle O'Neill's accusation as being merely a vengeful and childish act to retaliate against the Bush administration because they fired him?

That was the first public release by the mainstream corporate media exposing what Internet surfers had known for months: Iraq was attacked for political reasons not at all related to the 9-11 al-Qaeda attacks on America.  Shortly after that, David Kay, a former UN weapons inspector and head of Bush's Iraq Survey Team, the US version of the weapons of mass destruction investigative team, resigned after admitting that the Bush administration deliberately hampered the search for WMD by failing to provide support, at which time he also expressed strong doubts that WMD had ever existed in the first place.

As could be expected, the Bush regime immediately went into heavy damage control mode, enlisting the brilliant maneuvering by Bush loyalist, CIA Director, George Tenet.  Tenet offered that there was confusion in the intelligence gathering, an effort which he offered was always heavily fraught with unreliable information, thereby exonerating himself, his agency and President Bush as well.

Yet now another former Bush administration cabal member steps up to the microphones and cameras and explains that not only did Bush desire to attack Iraq from the get-go, confirming O'Neill's revelations, but saying that he also deliberately avoided going after al-Qaeda!  What is necessary now is to compare the inconsistencies in the reaction of Bush's secret government to contrasting issues.

When critics correctly challenged Bush's obsession with Iraq, which motivated him to set a higher priority for attacking Iraq over the supposedly real perpetrators of 9-11, al-Qaeda in their strongholds in Afghanistan, the administration offered that this was merely an extension of the Clinton administration policy.  And they also offered in rebuttal that Clinton did little as regards implementing an effective policy dealing with al-Qaeda.  How curious: attacking Iraq was merely an extension of Clinton's initiatives, whereas ignoring al-Qaeda wasn't?

In her article for The New York Times of March 22nd, Judith Miller writes, "In a new book, Richard A. Clarke, who was counterterrorism coordinator for President Bill Clinton and President Bush, asserts that while neither president did enough to prevent the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has undermined national security by using the 9/11 attacks for political advantage and ignoring the threat of Al Qaeda in order to invade Iraq."

In the article entitled "Former Terrorism Official Criticizes White House on 9/11," Miller states, "Mr. Clark, who has spent more than 30 years as a civil servant in Republican and Democratic administrations, issues a highly critical assessment of the Bush White House in Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, which is being released on Monday.  Mr. Clark resigned from government in March 2003."

Another resigned Bush official, just as in the case of David Kay, and yet another book, as in the case of Paul O'Neill, and of course, once again, the Bush cabal is smearing the messenger.  Lies, falsehoods, no WMD, no "yellowcake," no drones, no poison gas, no delivery methods, no quick regime change, no evidence of a 9-11 connection, and no troop withdrawals.  Our credibility in the world is now totally gone!  Lies and denials; that seems to be not only the best way to describe the Bush administration, but it fully explains the motivation behind President Bush's need for a secret government.

Considering the volatile situation in the Middle East, as well as the many possible reasons for Bush's obsession with destroying Iraq, one thing is certain: Israel is coming out way ahead in this Iraqi debacle, more so than the United States ever will.  Both Israel and the US are now more hated than ever before, so Israel is now ratcheting up political events and their campaign of terror on the Palestinians to create even more pressure on the Arabs.  And all this is being done for one ultimate goal: to use the US to do their bidding and marshal US military forces against all the Arab states to give Israel supreme and total power there.

In an article dated March 21st entitled "Did Bush Press For Iraq-9/11 Link?" posted on CBSNEWS.com, the article presents an account of Clarke's interview on 60 Minutes with Lesley Stahl.  Clarke told Stahl, "'The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.'  Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.'"

The article goes on to explain that Clarke was asked a second time to re-look the Iraqi connection after he came up with a negative report.  He states emphatically that President Bush was pressuring him.  The article goes on, "Clarke continued, 'It was a serious look.  We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts.  We wrote the report.  We sent the report out to the CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?'  They all cleared the report.  And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy.  It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. .Do it again.'"

"Wrong answer?!"  In other words, President Bush let it be known that a fraudulent report leading to an unconstitutional, unjust war and pre-emptive strike against another sovereign nation was required, and all this evidence and testimony confirms this?  And the 9-11 Commission will receive this testimony?  And will Clarke be sworn in before giving it?

CBSNEWS.com then reports that the CIA made numerous efforts to warn President Bush: "The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. 'George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead.  He said that in June, July, August.'"

The Bush administration is guilty not merely of lying the United States into an unnecessary and unjust war, but deliberately allowing 9-11 to happen to generate the expected public outrage to justify a bait-and-switch substitution of Iraq for al-Qaeda.  The statements made by O'Neill, Kay, and now Clarke all point to this irrefutable conclusion.  Combined with Condoleezza Rice's lie to the press wherein she offered the US government had no knowledge that al-Qaeda would use hijacked airliners and fly them into buildings when this intelligence was provided to the US government in 1993, leads to the obvious conclusion once voiced on the Senate floor by Hillary Clinton: "What did President Bush know and when did he know it?"

If Clarke offers his testimony under oath, what reason can now be offered for not starting impeachment proceedings against President Bush?  Not only did he allow 3,000 of our fellow citizens to die when that could easily have been prevented, but he and Congress are responsible for the unnecessary deaths of a number approaching 600 of our military, as well as the deaths of more then 10,000 Iraqi citizens.  This is why the world hates US.  This is why another 9-11 will happen.  This is why putting our entire nation in harm 's way for Israel is not only totally insane, it's TREASON!

Considering this despicable cabal of traitors, is it too much to assume that they will magically produce bin Laden at just the right time to affect a favorable outcome for Bush's re-election?  Is it too much not to expect that al-Qaeda or some other Arab or Palestinian terrorists will want to unseat Bush or get even with him and his cabal of traitors by staging yet another 9-11-type act of terror, this one on an even larger scale?

The terrorist acts immediately preceding the elections in Madrid will now become a normal part of the election process all over the world, as well as, in all likelihood, standard operating procedure here in America too.  George Bush has used terrorism to his advantage, and now America/Israel haters will use it also in our elections.  We can thank George Bush for introducing terrorism right here at home.  Soon, we will be in competition with Israel in terms of the number of daily terrorist bombings.  If for no other reason, isn't this enough of a motivation to impeach George Bush?


Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 3/25/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.



FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted articles and information about environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. This news and information is displayed without profit for educational purposes, in accordance with, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Thepeoplesvoice.org is a non-advocacy internet web site, edited by non-affiliated U.S. citizens. editor