Let's get things straight - reasons for invading Iraq

By Rowan Wolf

Yesterday Bush & Blair took their little dog and pony show to The Cross Hall (Transcript of Bush, UK PM Blair Discuss War on Terror "discussion"). If you listened to Blair speak, he did an excellent job all round. But it is distraction and the message from the Shrub regime is distraction as well. Lots of folks are talking about the Niger documents, and lies. We hear tales of "technically accurate" truth, while Dr. Kelly who testified before the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons on this very "intelligence" shows up dead this morning (a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0718-03.htm">Body 'Matches' Iraq Expert BBC). Now isn't that a coincidence - or maybe a warning to others who would open their mouths.

So the story we get now is that it "doesn't matter" whether info on Iraq's "WMDs" was right or not, whether it was legitimate or not, whether it was for 2003 or 1991. What matters is that he was a despot terrorizing, torturing, and starving his people. "We" did the "right" thing. What gets left out of this impassioned appeal for the "rightness" and humanitarian nature of the preemptive invasion of Iraq is that this is not what was used to generate public support for the invasion.

What Bush and Blair did was to create a climate of fear by presenting as "fact" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the US and UK. They outright stated that if action was not taken immediately, that the next "smoking gun" would be a "mushroom cloud." The Brits were told that Hussein could launch in 43 minutes. To many, an overwhelming majority globally, and a vocal minority in the US, even these claims of imminent destruction were not enough to violate international agreements and preemptively invade Iraq - especially without UN support and approval. But that aside, with general public support in the US they went forward.

What is being said now, if what they claim is true (more on this below), is totally beside the point. If they wanted to overthrow Hussein to "save" the people of Iraq, then that is the case that they should have made to the public, and the UN. The evidence that they would have needed to present would have been very different. Of course, it would have been very difficult to generate any credibility to preemptively invade another sovereign nation.

In making this story change, they are in effect saying that the "public" is too stupid and self-centered to support "freeing the Iraqi people," but they will support us if they think they are going to be randomly destroyed. So let's "scare" them into doing the "right" thing. If everyone isn't totally insulted by being dealt with in this manner then they should be.

However, I seriously doubt that there were either concerns about the imminent lethality of Hussein OR humanitarian concerns about the people of Iraq. Let's step back in time a bit.

Most recently ... remember the "energy crisis" of 2001 - manufactured in part by Enron , and for which Gray Davis (Gov of California) is being pushed for recall? Remember Cheney's "energy task force," and the White House refusing to comply with either Congressional demands or GAO subpoena's (White House to GAO: 'See you in court' CNN 1/26/02) to produce the documents of said task force? Well, guess what, some of those documents have been released (Cheney Task Force Docs: Maps Of Iraqi Oilfields from Judicial Watch 7/18/03). Within the paltry amount of documents released, Judicial Watch found

a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org.

Likewise Judicial Watch found

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country’s oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

For links to the actual MAPS AND CHARTS OF IRAQI OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE

So the "energy task force" took a detailed look at Iraq's oil, and we already know that prior to Shrub ever entering the White House the neo-cons were pushing to invade Iraq. (see following links: Is there a strategy here?; Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President Mackay, Sunday Herald, 9/15/02)

But let's go back a bit further - Afghanistan.

Through the Clinton presidency and into the Bush Jr. presidency, the Taliban were our friends. In fact, in July of 2001 Colin Powell went to Afghanistan and gave the Taliban $43 million (Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team ) and planned at that time to militarily enter Afghanistan by October of 2001. Please remember that this is well before September 11, 2001.

So before the "terrorism" of 9/11, we had planned to go to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Cheney's energy task force was eyeballing the Iraqi oil fields. In September of 2002 the White House released The National Security Strategy of the United States of America which clearly delineated our new policy of pre-emptive war and use of weapons of mass destruction to forward US interests.

So the current claim to justify invading Iraq (humanitarian) is as much of a lie as the fradulent Niger documents, or stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, or Hussein's connection to al Qa'ida. This is, and was, all part of "The Plan." The question is, where does "The Plan" take us next?

For a related article of broader issues with tons of supporting documents read Power Play? by Rowan Wolf 3/29/2002)

Posted by rowan at July 18, 2003 10:44 AM | [eMail this article!] |