Sunday, 11 September 2011
9/11 Legacy - Part 2: "Illegal Endeavours..."
History shows us that part of the legacy of 9/11 was the “War On Terror”. Although this war began in Afghanistan, it was obvious that it was never going to be confined to this country alone. The eventual scope of this endeavour appeared disproportionate with the implications of the ‘official’ account of 9/11. Documented accounts show that the Bush administration (with the support of several other western powers) had considered both extensive military incursions in Syria and Pakistan, whilst an invasion of Iran was discussed on a weekly basis. With this, the public began to hear the alarm bells and questioned the true nature of these events. What was the real agenda behind the “War On Terror”? Tens years after 9/11, it is hindsight and information leaks and disclosures that have shown why questioning the real agenda was justified. The next stage of the “War On Terror” began “officially” in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. However, like Afghanistan, evidence shows that this target was on the cards long before 9/11.
It has always seemed strange that the turn of the millennium showed such obvious aggressive intentions toward Iraq. Strange given the historical context of Iraq’s (and by association, Saddam Hussein) relationship with the US. There is a tangible history of business deals between the two countries and more importantly, an arms deal. The US armed Iraq to the teeth many times throughout the latter part of the twentieth century (see: Iran / Iraq War) and the extent of this arming was fully realised when US troops discovered that most of the small arms, ammunition, rockets and many vehicles (seized from fighters, post invasion), were US-made.
Many have theorised about “what went wrong”, in order to change the nature of this relationship. Some have speculated about Saddam’s plans to sell oil via a system other than the petro-dollar, some have talked about Global Agenda plans and others have simply pointed to financial reasons. It is difficult to truly know. As with Afghanistan, the usual suspects of business and military contractors profited hugely from the Iraq War and on a much larger scale than Afghanistan. Recently, it has been revealed that billions of dollars were wasted on black hole projects that certainly never benefited the people of Iraq, improved the infrastructure or helped to rebuild the country. This is simply nothing more than a crime of greed and corruption, but I’m digressing here…
Although it was perhaps the first Gulf War that set the precedent for Iraq always being an eventual target of the “War On Terror”, it seems that the first credible evidence appeared in late January of 2001... A full 7 months before 9/11 and 2 years before the actual invasion. This evidence relates to a Treasury Department memo received by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on January 24 2001 which contained a summary of a "military plan" for a "post-Saddam Iraq" which was marked “secret“. O’Neill later admitted that, within days of George Bush entering the White House, the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq. Even former White House anti-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke later revealed, "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12. Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq". He also said that Rumsfeld said, “There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq".
The pretence could be seen on September 10 2001, when Rumsfeld warned of Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs. In 2002, CNN reported that mid afternoon of 9/11, Rumsfeld began planning strike plans against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On September 12, Rumsfeld insisted (at a Cabinet meeting) that Iraq “should be a principal target of the first round of terrorism". In October of 2001, former CIA Director James Woolsey said Iraq was likely involved in 9/11 and the ‘alleged’ anthrax attacks of the time, and that “the US will probably confront Saddam Hussein as part of its war on terrorism“.
From this period onwards, Iraq was inextricably connected to 9/11, despite there being no evidence to prove it. The West began to build a case for the invasion of Iraq. In February 2002, US military intelligence warned the Bush administration that a captured Al Qaeda operative had given fabricated information that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in how to make chemical and biological weapons. Despite this information being totally unreliable and despite being warned by intelligence agencies that the information “may be faulty”, President Bush used this information in a (October 2002) speech to try to link Iraq to 9/11. On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about alleged WMDs in Iraq and alleged connections with Al Qaeda.
Despite the continued search for, and lack of, credible evidence to connect Iraq, the West appeared unfettered and unconcerned. The rhetoric was that it was always ‘inevitable’. The true arrogance of the ‘Agenda’ players was witnessed in January 2003 in a war memo showing that George Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq, regardless of whether or not they had the backing of the UN. The memo also quoted him as “discussing ways they could provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation“. By March 2003, Iraq had been invaded.
The most damning proof of a cover up began to unfold in George Bush’s State Of The Union address on January 28, 2003. It was here that Bush uttered those now infamous 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". This intelligence became mired in controversy when columnist Robert Novak exposed CIA operative Valerie Plame, the wife of retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. This is key because Wilson was sent to Niger, Africa in February 2002 to investigate the possible purchase of Uranium Yellowcake by Iraq. His conclusion that this was “highly unlikely” was considered by the CIA to be “less than definitive”. With the onset of the ‘British Intelligence Reports’ and Bush’s statement of evidence in his address, many in US and British politics began to accuse the Bush administration of ignoring prior intelligence and eventually added to the notion that the President “lied the country to war”.
The involvement of the British Government and Intelligence Agencies, at this point, is key to understanding why Iraq became known as an “illegal war”. As early as October 4, 2001, the U.K. Government released a 70 point dossier as evidence against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda networks and their alleged involvement in 9/11. Both experts and media reports stated that their case against Osama was "thin on facts," "full of conjecture," and "still no smoking gun". It seems bizarre that when the Iraq scenario came around, the British Government continued, in part, to refer to this document. This is despite there being no real relationship between this 70 point dossier and the ‘Iraq Case’.
Throughout 2002, Tony Blair’s government began to work on building a case against Iraq as part of their commitment to a U.S.-led Iraq invasion. By early 2003, The UK released a document entitled “Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation “, now known as “The Dodgy Dossier”.
Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, they had inadvertently opened Pandora’s Box…
To Be Continued…