EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Standing Up as the Republic Crashes

    First, and most importantly: it comes very, very late in the game – perhaps too late. All of the tnical powers enumerated by the editorial were claimed – and put into practice – by Bush and Cheney five years ago. I began writing columns about these very claims in October 2001. In November 2001, I first wrote of Bush’s claim that he could not only declare anyone on earth an "enemy combatant" and jail them forever in black holes without charges, but he could also have them summarily killed. This was not classified information that I got from some bold Ellsbergian whistleblower; these were claims being made openly and proudly by "senior Administration officials" to – the New York Times, among others. I’ll be writing more on this point later in the week.

    Second, the editorial, as strong as it is, doesn’t go far enough: We not looking at "our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts" as the newspaper puts it; things are much farther gone than that. What we are looking at is the death knell of the constitutional republic of the United States. Bush has long claimed dictatorial powers in secret; if Congress writes these liberty-gutting strictures into law, then the fundamental nature of the American state will be transformed. It will not be, in any sense – not even formally – a free country anymore. All of our rights and liberties will be the "gift" of the President, who can bestow them – or revoke them – as he sees fit.

    Third, many legal experts note that the language of the laws in question here does not specifically exclude their application to citizens of the United States. Although Bush’s willing executioners of liberty among the Senate leadership – such as Lindsay Graham, John McCain and the lipless, cat-torturing, money-grubbing excuse for a man named Bill Frist – insist that these draconian powers will apply only to "furreners" (as though that made it all OK), Cheney and his minions have in fact ensured that the measures can be used against American citizens as well – as they already have been, over and over, during the past five years.

    The Times has taken a good, strong first step; now they need to march forward boldly and tell the rest of the truth. Bush’s "War on Terror" is coming to the Homeland, and its target is the American people. Bush and his handlers want to destroy the ability of anyone to oppose their hard-right – and overwhelmingly unpopular – agenda. It’s the only way the Faction can maintain its domination – and avoid prosecution for its many crimes. They’re fighting for their freedom – so they’ll take ours. They’re fighting for their lives – so they’ll take ours.

    Next time, the NYT should put a piece like this on the front page – and end it with a call for mass marches in the street, exhorting the American people to rally for their liberty and bring down the bloodstained tyrants who have usurped the Republic and dishonored our name.

  • Iraq since 1880

    late 1800s
    		 British worked to control the Middle East as a route to India.
    1908
    		 Oil first discovered in Persia (1)
    WW-I years

    Pre-1914: A weakening Ottoman Empire was in the process of gradually losing its territorial holdings to neighboring European powers. In 1908, the Austria-Hungary Empire formally annexed (previously Ottoman) Bosnia and Herzegovina. Subsequent threats of territorial loss prompted the Turks to seek a protective military alliance with one of their neighbors. France and Russia were approached without success; the Germans (through an interesting series of historical accidents) formed a protective alliance in 1914. [See: A Peace to End All Peace, by David Fromkin]

    1914, Sunday morning, June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austria-Hungary Empire and his wife were assassinated while visiting Sarajevo in Bosnia. Several of the assassins were apprehended and questioned. Austria-Hungary authorities determined that they had received instruction from neighboring Serbia, and responded by demanding return of the co-conspirators who had successfully fled there. The demand was refused, prompting Austria Hungary to declare war against Serbia immediately thereafter (see explanation (2)). A complex set of cascading alliances resulted in multinational war (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire against Britain, France and Russia.).

    1916: Anticipating a successful conclusion to the war and the Ottoman Empire breakup, and despite assurances given to Arab leaders that if they fought to defeat Ottoman forces they would be granted independence, the British and French drew the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (3), creating national borders of Middle Eastern countries, which would then be divided between the two of them. Mesopotamia, including Baghdad, was to be administered by Britain, with Lebanon and Syria to be under French control.

    1917: Britain invaded Mesopotamia (4), which had been controlled by the Ottoman Empire since the 16th century. The newly empowered Bolsheviks in Russia discovered the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement (3) and made public British and French true intentions of acquisition.

    1917: US business interests became involved, providing financial and material support to all parties. Each side reacted by attempting to block portions of US shipments to respective enemies. Germany took an aggressive approach, using its submarines to attack and sink US ships enroute. President Wilson, with an eye towards the potential spoils, called for war with Germany and entered the conflict, using a familiar rallying cry to convince a doubting public: "the world must be made safe for democracy." (4)

    1919: With the defeat of Germany and Turkey, Britain and France divided land previously held by Turkey, with the British controlling (newly drawn) Iraq, Kuwait, Palestine, and Jordan. (Kuwait was carved from Iraq – calculated to cut off Iraq’s access to the Persian Gulf, and to afford a future measure of British control over the divided region.) Conflict over allied control of Iraqi oil assets developed, and was solved with division of the Iraqi resource between Britain, France, Holland, and the US.
    1920-1923

    Treaty of Sevres (5) established British mandate over Iraq via authority of the League of Nations (essentially rubber-stamping the earlier Sykes-Picot agreement (3)), defining its borders (see also: Treaty of Lausanne (6)). (Borders drawn disrupted traditional cultural and economic ties, leading to persistent and ongoing conflicts.)
    1920s
    		 European and US oil companies began drilling operations (7) for Middle Eastern oil..
    Oct. 3, 1932

    Iraq recognized as a sovereign state, joining League of Nations (8) with the Sunnis continuing to control the government and the economically disadvantaged majority Shiites vying for power.
    WW-II Years
    		 The victorious allies, predominantly the US and Britain, moved to control Middle Eastern oil and to resist attempts at Soviet expansion into the region. By the close of hostilities, the British Empire had suffered losses, while US influence and wealth expanded considerably.
    May, 1948 – Present

    Following the Jewish Holocaust in Europe, and with an eye toward establishing meaningful western (military) influence in the oil-rich Middle East (9) , the British and the US moved to create a Jewish state in Palestine through UN authority (10a). (See also: Conf. of Middle East Chiefs of Mission 1951 – pg3, para6 (10b).) Despite the deep anger of the displaced indigenous inhabitants, and under US dominance over the UN, Israel was formally created May, 1948 (10c). (See

    Tension and bloodshed between the new state and the indigenous Palestinian people were present from Israel’s founding, and has persisted. Similar discord with Israel’s Arab neighbors also continues with open warfare occurring in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

    The US has continued to provide Israel with tens of billions of dollars in financial and military aid, building a massive regional military machine (11). This support, and the suffering and bloodshed that have followed the use of those materials continues to foster a deep anger toward the US among regional peoples.
    1951 – 1953

    Iran: 1951: Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq nationalized Iranian oil fields (12), expelling British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Two years later (1953) Mosaddeq was overthrown via a CIA orchestrated coup (13a), (see also: CIA documents (13b)) placing the Shah of Iran in control. (NOTE: American General Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr. helped the Shah of Iran develop SAVAK secret police.)

    Iraq: Oil revenues grew markedly, with little of the money reaching the Iraqi people. Street protests grew, resulting in the government declaring martial law (14), the banning of political parties, and the imposition of a curfew.

    1954 – 1956

    1954: The US granted Iraq military and economic aid.

    1955: Iraq joined the US drawn "Baghdad Pact" (15) of Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and later Britain. This was feared by Israel as the alliance excluded them. Egypt’s President Nasser rejected the Baghdad Pact and accepted Soviet arms, raising his regional status in his rejection of Western influence. (See: US Secretary of State reaction. (16) )

    Egypt – 1956: Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. (17). After an Israeli ship was seized in the Canal, with two Israelis being executed in Egypt, Israel attacked the Gaza Strip – then under Egypt’s control. Syria and Jordan offered Egypt military aid if requested, and Nasser threatened that Israel was doomed. Israel responded on October 29 by invading the Sinai peninsula [The Sinai-Suez War], with Britain and France joining Israel’s efforts against Egypt. Within one week, Israel controlled the Gaza Strip and the Sinai. The Soviets responded by threatening to intervene on Egypt’s behalf prompting a stand-down, and Israel’s return of the captured territory.
    1958 – 1959

    Years of public impoverishment, while oil wealth flowed to Iraq’s leaders and to Western oil companies, lead to a sudden revolution, lead by Brigadier Abdul-Karim Qassem, overthrowing the British installed king (18). Qassem supported poor farmers and middle class workers, allowed trade unions to form, worked to end the feudal land system long in place, and lifted a ban on Iraq’s Communist Party. Qassem also attempted to negotiate with the Iraq Petroleum Company to increase Iraq’s royalties (finally passing Public Law 80 (19) in 1961- see below). The US and Britain responded with rapid troop deployment to Jordan and Lebanon to head off further regional (and anti-
    Oct. 7, 1959

    22 yo Ba’ath party member, Saddam Hussein failed to assassinate Qassem in a CIA backed coup attempt (20). Hussein suffered a bullet wound to his own leg, and fled to Syria, then Egypt.(He escaped an imprisonment upon his later return, eventually helping to lead a successful Ba’athist coup in 1968.)
    1961

    Qassem repeatedly called for reunification of Iraq w/ Kuwait (21) stating at a June 19, 1961 press conference: "Iraq regards Kuwait as an integral part of its territory." Britain immediately stationed troops in Kuwait and positioned naval forces in the Gulf.

    Public Law 80 (22) was passed in December, prohibiting concessions being granted to foreign companies. Qassem also transferred control over Iraq’s oil resources to an Iraq National Oil Company. This, plus the fact that a few cabinet positions were filled with people sympathetic to Communist Party goals, lead the US to label the events as a communist takeover, and to begin actively supporting the Ba’ath Party. Furthermore, the Soviets began making overtures toward the new Iraqi government.

    Feb. 8, 1963

    Qassem was overthrown and subsequently assassinated via a second CIA backed coup (23a), with Ba’ath Party taking power under A.S. Arif. Thousands of Communist Party members were executed (with the list of members evidently provided by the US(23b). Arif held the presidency through his death in 1966 when the presidency was assumed by his brother, General Abdul Rahman Arif.
    1964

    The USSR continued to offer support to regional revolutionary movements.
    June 1967

    "Six Day War" (24) fought with Israeli capture of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, and Syria’s Golan Heights. With the war lost, Nasser resigned. (See: Nasser’s resignation speech June 7, 1967. (25)) Iraq-US diplomatic relations were immediately severed .
    1968

    Arif was toppled by another factional Ba’athist coup July 17, 1968, with Tikriti born, General Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr (26) named as president and Saddam Hussein (27) (who had helped lead the Ba’athists in the failed 1959 coup (20) ) was named as Vice President. Within two weeks many potential rivals were either purged or in some way weakened. (From this position, Hussein developed a vast network of secret police (28) who continued to execute dissident left voices.)
    1971

    Iraq broke off diplomatic connections with Iran after Iran occupied Persian Gulf Iraqi islands. (29). (Finally settled in 1975 with Iran retaining the islands.)
    June 1, 1972

    Bakr and Hussein (30a) were supported by the US until this year, when the Iraqi-Soviet Friendship Treaty (30b) was announced in April followed by the Iraqi oil-fields being nationalized (30c) in June, creating the Iraq Petroleum Company. (Note: this occurred after the price of oil, set by OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries), was raised from $3 per barrel to $22.) The US State Department under Nixon shifted support to the Shah of Iran, providing an eventual $22 billion in arms sales (31), while labeling Hussein as "unreliable," placed Iraq on the list of terrorist supporting nations, and began arming Iraqi Kurds in the north. [See: video quote of former Secretary of State Ramsey Clark in Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    1974

    Peace agreement with the Kurdish Democratic Party collapsed with suppression of Kurdish uprising and resulting refugee crisis. Despite the US’s role in encouraging and supporting the Kurdish revolt, it refused to aid the refugees. Kissinger, who had been responsible for crafting the plan stated: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work (33)."
    1975

    Iraq and Iran signed the Algiers Accord (34) regarding control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway that defined an important border between the two countries that allowed Iraq a water passage to the Gulf. With the accord signed, the US-[Nixon]-controlled Shah of Iran immediately withdrew support of the Kurds and stepped up the arming of Iran. (Primary US interest at the time was in limiting USSR influence in the region given the vast petroleum reserves at stake.)
    1976
    		 Amnesty International described Iran (35) as having the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."
    1977

    The Ayatollah Khomeini was expelled from Iraq, where he had lived in exile since the 1960s. He thereafter moved to France until the upcoming Iranian revolution a short time later (36).

    SUMMARY OF EVENTS RE: KHOMEINI: The Shah of Iran passed a series of new laws during the early ’60s, understood by the population to have been created under US influence/dominance, and calculated to bring personal benefit to the Shah. This was vigorously protested by the Ayatollah Khomeini, other religious leaders, and the public. The Shah responded with brutal attacks on demonstrators, killing many thousands of them, and in Khomeini’s imprisonment. Protests were suppressed, but not ended. Ongoing demands for Khomeini’s freedom led to his release and exile in Turkey and then Iraq in 1964, where he lived for the next several years. In 1977, rebellion exploded throughout Iran after the Shah’s security police assassinated Khomeini’s eldest son, who had also been exiled to Iraq. The Shah, hoping distance would interfere with Khomeini’s aid to the growing Iranian rebellion, requested he be expelled from Iraq. That request was granted in 1978, Khomeini’s then moving to a hamlet in France where he lived until his return to revolutionary Iran one year later (1979).
    1979

    Iran: The Shah’s obvious Western acquiescence along with his continued use of oppressive secret police tactics finally resulted in widespread popular rebellion, then in a full scale revolution in January. The Shah was ousted in February and fled the country. Khomeini, who had earlier returned from France, took control, vowed to spread the Islamic Revolution, and called for nationalism, anti-Americanism, and Islamic fundamentalism (37a). The American embassy in Teheran was overrun a few months later – Nov. 4, with several American diplomats being taken hostage. (The captors demanded that the Shah be returned from the US, where he had been granted asylum. (37b) (Note: The Shah of Iran was said to have died of cancer in Panama the following year – July 27, 1980.)

    Iraq: The US, alarmed over the loss of regional influence (and a corresponding increase in Soviet influence), shifted support back to Hussein in Iraq. Saddam Hussein replaced General Bakr, becoming the Iraqi President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Hundreds of party members were immediately executed. Shortly after, Hussein nullified the Algiers [Shatt-al-Arab waterway] Agreement, claiming full control over the waterway (38).
    1980

    The "Carter Doctrine" (39a), was announced, stating: "… an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." (39b)

    IRAQ-IRAN WAR: Iraq was supplied military materials by the US, despite the arms embargo in effect, and by September, following a series of border clashes, Iraq invaded its neighbor. [See: Iran-Iraq War (38), and Issues prompting war (40)] Note: Two months into the war (Nov.1980), Khomeini expressed interest in releasing the hostages provided: Iranian assets were released, all sanctions were canceled, and that all of the Shah’s property was returned to Iran. Two months later the agreement was completed and a few weeks later – all remaining hostages were released on January 20, 1981 (immediately upon Reagan’s inauguration).
    1980s (early)

    Hussein known to be developing and acquiring chemical and biologic weapons (See:"IRAQ – US Military Items Exported or Transferred to Iraq in the 1980s." (41)
    1980 (early)
    		 Evidence exists that a deal was stuck with Iranian intermediaries ("October Surprise (39c)") in which Iran would release the fifty-two hostages held, delivering them over to a newly inaugurated Reagan/Bush administration in 1981 (as it was highly likely Carter would be unseated). In return, arms would be shipped covertly (via Israel) during the last weeks of the presidential campaign. (A very similar scheme was again utilized in 1985, in another covert arms-for-hostages deal – See"Iran-Contra (47a)" below.) [See: October Surprise – America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan, by Gary Sick; RandomHouse, 1991] [See Also 39d, 39e, 39f, 39g, 39h]
    1981

    Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor (42).

    1982

    Under Reagan’s new administration (inaug.: 1981), Iraq was removed from the US’s list of terrorist-supporting countries. (43)
    1983 – 1985
    		 Truck bombs were detonated in Lebanon against American targets in April and October 1983. Pro-Iranian terrorists were said to have been involved in the attacks (44a)/(44b)/(44e). (Multiple seizures of American hostages earlier in Iran, and again, repeatedly in Lebanon in 1983 and 1984 eventually lead to the "Iran-Contra" plan in 1985. (See below (47a)).
    1983 – 1984
    		 Reagan’s special envoy – Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly met with Hussein (45a) regarding the US-Iraq relationship and mutual interests. Rumsfeld did not raise the issue of Iraq’s use of chemical weapons despite the fact that the State Department was well aware of Hussein’s use of those weapons in 1982 and 1983 (45b).
    1984

    Full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were reestablished (46a) and increased support in the form of weapons, intelligence information, etc. were given to Hussein (46b).

    1985

    Reagan administration IRAN-CONTRA (47a) plan: Oliver North worked with Iran, promising US aid to help them topple Saddam Hussein. A deal was struck whereby the Reagan administration, in cooperation with the Israeli government, would secure the release of the American hostages held in Lebanon via the sale of various arms materials, including one-thousand TOW missiles to Iran. (This occurred secretly via official sale of the weapons to Israel. Israel then secretly passed them along to Iran.) A portion of the proceeds of those illegal sales were to be delivered to the Nicaraguan Contras to finance their insurgency against the Sandinista socialist regime then in power, despite Congress’ clear expression that such actions were forbidden. (See also: (47b), White House Email (47c), CIA’s description of cocaine connection (47d), Senate Committee Report (47e), and video testimony of US Dept. of State, David Welch in Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    1986

    Iraq’s use of mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian soldiers well known to Reagan, VP Bush, Sr., and by senior national security aids (48a). Despite this, US aid to Iraq was increased (including chemical and biologic agents (48b) and (48c)).

    (1986 – early 1990s)
    		 Regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and the creation of al Qaeda, See: "Timeline-1 Afghanistan."
    1984-87

    Persian Gulf Iran-Iraq "Tanker War (49)."

    1987
    		 General Norman Schwartzkopf, Jr. named to head CENT-COM. (Note: General Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr. had helped the Shah of Iran develop the brutal SAVAK secret police thirty years earlier.) Following Iranian military successes in the Iran-Iraq war, the decision was made to send send a massive US naval force into the Gulf (50).
    1988

    Hussein attacked Iranian troops and Kurdish opponents in northern Iraq (Halabja) (51) in the Anfal campaign, again using chemical agents. Total deaths in the campaign have been estimated at 100,000. Note: a top CIA analyst has published information stating that the Iranians were responsible for the gassing of Iraqi Kurds, not Husein. (51a). In any case – despite subsequent claims that Hussein was responsible for these events, the US continued to send billions to Hussein for "agricultural purposes." (Items included armored trucks, helicopters, large amounts of pesticide chemicals, and anthrax.) Concerns regarding the funding of these items were raised in Congress and were quelled by the Reagan/Bush, Sr. White house.[Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]

    Aug. 20, 1988

    Ceasefire with Iran. By end of war with Iran, Iraq was economically devastated (52). In order for Hussein to maintain his power-base, he announced a $40 billion program of rebuilding, requiring a maximization of oil income. [Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    1989
    		 As other Gulf states, including Kuwait, had recently increased oil production, thereby driving down oil prices, Hussein’s plans to rebuild Iraq were frustrated – financing his large army became problematic. He thus began to publicly threaten Kuwait because of their 1) 20% increase in oil shipments over agreed upon quotas, and 2) for slant-drilling/extraction of oil from fields over the Iraqi side of the border. [Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)] In response to these statements, the US revised an earlier plan written to counter Soviet threat to the region – War Plan 1002 – renaming Iraq as main threat in region, and renaming the plan as 1002-90 (53).
    Jan. 1990
    		 CENT-COM conducted computer analysis/games – testing Plan 1002-90. [Video testimony – Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)] US War College report written: "Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone (54). Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace."
    Feb. 1990
    		 General Norman Schwartzkopf, Jr. argued to Congress for increased US presence in the Gulf.
    May 1990
    		 Saddam Hussein publicly accused Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq, with Kuwait singled out as using American equipment to achieve slant-drilling across the border into Iraq’s oil-fields (55). At this same time and following urging from the US, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia demanded immediate repayment of loans earlier made to Iraq. In response, Hussein began moving large numbers of troops to the Kuwaiti border. [Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    July 27, 1990

    Despite these growing tensions between Iraq and Kuwait, and despite the US’s dependence on cheap Kuwaiti oil, the US State Department issued the statement that it was aware of the movement of Iraqi troops threatening Kuwait, but that "there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." — Telegraphing a straight forward message to Hussein: an invasion of Kuwait would not be countered. [See: 1. Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32) video footage of 07-27-90 US State Dept. Briefing, 2. N.Y.Times excerpts re: Meeting with US Envoy (56a), 3. Reported that US Ambassador April Glaspie issued the same information to Hussein July 25, 1990 (56b)/(56c), 4. Summary study of this disinformation program (56d).] These reports of Ms. Glaspie’s meeting with Saddam Hussein were officially countered by the US government, although the State Department declined to release meeting transcripts (56e)..
    Aug. 2, 1990

    Iraq invaded Kuwait. UN Security Council Resolution 660 (57a) immediately passed – condemning Iraq for invasion of Kuwait. All Iraqi assets in the US were immediately frozen (57b) and the US Navy instituted a blockade of the Iraqi coast before the UN had a chance to convene.
    Aug. 1990

    Bush Sr. expressed shock at Iraqi invasion, despite the fact that for several months it had practiced for the exact military situation with troops and armaments in place in the middle east poised for response. [General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.: "We went ahead and did an exercise, what’s called a command post exercise, which is what ‘Internal Look’ was, to test our ability to deal with this particular scenario and also to uncover any command and control problems that might exist, any doctrine problems that might exist between the air force, and the navy and the army forces. And it just so happened that we were in the middle of conducting the "Internal Look Command Post" exercises at the same time that the crisis developed in the Gulf." [Video testimony within the highly regarded film "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)"]

    Aug. 5, 1990

    US State Dept. representatives, including General Colin Powell, flew to Saudi Arabia, telling them that the Iraqis were amassing on their borders preparing to invade. Official press releases included the fact that the Saudis were shown satellite photographs proving this buildup. [ABC and the St. Petersburg times revealed January 6, 1991 that commercial satellite photographs obtained from that same period did not show the claimed buildup (58a) – i.e.. the military photos shown to the Saudis were falsified (58b). [See discussion of evidence (58c) , CS Monitor coverage(58d), and video testimony within Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]

    Aug. 6, 1990

    UN Security Council Resolution 661 (59) passed – levying sanctions against Iraq and setting a deadline set of 1/15/91 – i.e.. Martin Luther King, Jr. birthday, for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait.

    Aug. 7-8, 1990

    Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd, after being told by US representatives that Iraq was preparing to invade (See Aug. 5, 1990 above) agreed to the basing of US forces on Saudi land (fulfilling a long held US ambition). Over the next 24 hours, without pre-notification of Congress, forty-thousand troops and a cache of military supplies were flown to Saudi Arabia. [See: 60a, 60b, 60c, 60d, and Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    Aug. 8, 1990

    Iraq announced the annexation of Kuwait (61).

    Aug. 25, 1990
    		 UN Security Council Resolution 665 (62) passed – calling for use of force if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait.
    Nov. 8, 1990
    		 US increased forces within the area to 400,000 (mostly in Saudi Arabia). The stationing of US troops on sacred Saudi soil infuriated Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi. [Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
    Nov. 29, 1990
    		 UN Security Council Resolution 678 (63) passed by a vote of 12-2 w/ China abstaining – authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Jan. 15, 1991. [UN states were pressured by the US to vote for war. Example: Yemen voted against the use of force resolution, following which a US representative was quoted as stating "that will be the most expensive no vote you ever cast." 3 days later, Yemen – the poorest country in the Arab world – had its entire aid budget cut by the US. (64)]
    Jan. 12, 1991

    US Congress authorized use of force if Iraq hasn’t withdrawn from Kuwait, pursuant to UNSC 678, by Jan. 15, 1991 [Joint Res.77 (65), becoming Public Law No: 102-1 on 1/14/91]
    Jan. 17, 1991

    US lead "Operation Desert Storm" began air assault using "pinpoint accuracy" (only 8% of bombs used were of the -smart- variety, despite mainstream press reports (66)). The bombing resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 people, including thousands of innocent civilians. Bombing included reservoirs, filtration and water treatment plants (67a), electric power distribution, food distribution systems. Civilian deaths included 1,500 within the Al-Amariyah shelter. Kuwait entered by coalition forces. (See: Jan. 15, 1991 National Security Directive #54 (67b))

    Feb. 15, 1991
    		 President Bush, Sr. called upon the Iraqi people to "…take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside…" (68a) [See also: Guardian, UK (68b)] [See Mar.-Apr. 1991 below]
    Feb. 23, 1991
    		 Beginning of US lead, coalition ground assault eventually lasting 100 hours.
    Feb. 26, 1991
    		 Hussein announced an immediate withdrawal of forces from Kuwait. Bush, Sr. issued these comments (69a). A large anti-Hussein militia rose, partially in response to President Bush, Sr.’s February 15, 1991, comments. (69b)
    Feb. 28, 1991

    Ceasefire announced – war abruptly stopped after coalition forces pursued Iraqi troops only to the outskirts of Basra and Nassiyya.
    Mar. 2, 1991
    		 Despite announced ceasefire, thousands of retreating Iraqi soldiers killed by US 24th Mechanized Infantry. UN Security Council Resolution 686 (70) passed – calling on Iraq to revoke their claim to the annexation of Kuwait.
    Mar. 3, 1991

    Schwarzkopf concluded formal peace agreement with Iraq near the Kuwaiti border, allowing Hussein to continue using helicopter armaments, etc. (UN Security Council Resolution 687 (71) passed one month later – specifying ceasefire conditions, including UN inspections.)

    Mar. – Apr. 1991

    Popular rebellion spread broadly across Iraq in March. Under the ceasefire agreement, Schwartzkopf allowed Saddam’s helicopters to fly through coalition force lines, that were used to slaughter Shiite rebels in the south and Kurdish rebels in the north (72). In addition, rebelling Republican Guard troops in the south were denied the use of their stored weapons. A massive refugee crisis on Turkish and Iranian borders followed. The failed rebellion resulted in over one-hundred thousand rebel deaths, and in keeping Hussein in power.

    1991 – 1992

    No-fly zones established in Northern and Southern Iraq..
    1991 – 2003

    Iraqi embargo continued for 12 years – resulting in the death of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 children from lack of water purification, lack of medications, and starvation (73). In 1991 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 706 (74) – the "Oil for Food Resolution, " but the US blocked such materials as chlorine, and medications to be supplied – claiming these to have secondary, wartime, uses. Many scholars find that this embargo has functioned (perhaps knowingly) to keep Hussein in power, as survival staples all must come through his regime, not through commerce. In addition, it is noted that keeping Hussein in power allowed the US military to remain in the region and consolidate a presence with thousands of US troops stationed within Saudi Arabia and elsewhere on a permanent basis. In addition, regional arms sales have continued and accelerated resulting in marked profits of the US arms industry.

    June 1993

    Stated to be a response to an alleged attempted assassination of George Bush, Sr. in April, the US fired twenty-three cruise missiles at Iraqi headquarters in Baghdad (75).
    1994

    Hussein took titles: Prime Minister and President of Iraq. The Iraqi National Assembly formally recognized Kuwait’s independence (76).
    Apr. 1995

    UN Security Council Resolution 986 (77) "Food for Oil" program. (Accepted by Iraq in Dec. 1995)
    May 12, 1996

    Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, was asked a question on a "60 Minutes News Hour" broadcast: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And – and you know, is the price worth it?" Her reply: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it." (78)
    1998

    Inspectors withdrew abruptly from Iraq under orders of Richard Butler; this after he unilaterally violated agreed upon UN Security Council protocols ("Modalities for Sensitive Site Inspections") – drawn in recognition of Iraq’s legitimate security concerns, and accepted by the UN Security Council in 1996. Butler had acted outside of agreed upon UN Security Council protocol demanding inspection of an Iraqi "sensitive site"; this resulted in Iraqi officials refusing entry. Operation Desert Fox (79) (bombing by US and British forces) over Dec. 16-19, 1998 (79a) followed – justified to the public (79a) – by stating the "Iraq threw the inspectors out."
    1999

    UN Security Council Resolution 1284 (80) created UNMOVIC, replacing UNSCOM – rejected by Iraq.
    Nov. 2000
    		 Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros, rather than for dollars
    Feb. 2001

    Major bombing raid over Iraq by US and British forces

    Sept. 11, 2001

    A group of SAUDI nationals within the al-Qaeda network and aided by Osama bin Laden, attacked multiple targets in the US. This was said to have been in response to the ongoing US presence and increasing interference in the region. [See: TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE]

    Oct. 7, 2001
    		 The US attacked Afghanistan where al-Qaeda training camps were said to have been active. [See: TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE]
    Dec. 2001
    		 Shortly thereafter, the US placed a new regime in Afghanistan that was strongly linked to the oil industry. The building of a US controlled one-million barrels/day trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline, earlier refused by the Taliban, was soon after approved. [See: TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE]
    2002

    The Bush administration and US media suddenly switched focus from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, despite there being no known connection between 9/11 events and the Hussein regime in Iraq.
    Mar. 2002
    		 US and UK aircraft dramatically increased (81a) bombing of Iraqi targets.
    May 2002

    UN Security Council Resolution 1409 (81b) streamlined Iraqi sanctions.
    Jul. – Aug. 2002

    Weapons inspections negotiations between Iraq and UN continued without success.

    Sept. 2002
    		 Massive airstrikes on Iraqi targets undertaken (81c) (one month before the US Congress voted to give Bush the authority to invade).
    Oct. 9 – 11, 2002

    Passage of resolution authorizing George Bush, Jr. to employ military force in Iraq without further Congressional action (82a) – House voted 10/09/03 / Senate voted 10/11/03 – thereby abrogating Congress’s constitutional responsibility in the matter of war. [Hear: Senator Robert Byrd’s Senate Floor comments. (82b)] [See roll-calls: House (yes:296 no:133) (82c) / Senate (yes:77 no:23) (82d)
    Nov. 2002

    UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (83) established Iraqi weapons inspection program, threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply. Iraq allowed inspections to resume with work beginning Nov. 27, 2002.
    Jan. 27, 2003

    Hans Blix [UNSCOM/UNMOVIC] report given to UN Security Council (84) – stating progress being made, and that more time was required to complete the task. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei’s reported to the UN Security Council that no evidence of an ongoing nuclear program had been discovered throughout Iraq to date. (85)
    Feb. – Mar. 2003
    		 The US pushed the UN Security Council to sanction the use of force against Iraq. (86) As the council was sure to vote "no," the US withdrew that requested vote.
    Feb. – Mar. 2003

    US ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS – JUSTIFYING WAR W/ IRAQ

    ARGUMENT 1 : US may act unilaterally under Article 51 of the UN Charter (87) that any state under imminent threat may respond with military action. Evidence of imminent threat included claims that Iraq held and continued to develop "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)," i.e.. nuclear materials, nerve agents (sarin, tabun, and VX), and biological agents.

    Nuclear: In testimony to the UN, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated there was no evidence of an extant Iraqi nuclear weapons program (88), and that nuclear materials were not detected within the country despite exhaustive inspections.

    Chemical: Scott Ritter (89), who acted as a UNSCOM inspector for over seven years in Iraq through 1998, explained that 1) all discovered caches of nerve agents were destroyed during inspections in the 1990s, 2) the means of creating new stocks of those agents was destroyed by inspectors in the 1990s and could not be rebuilt under current scrutiny, 3) if any caches of tabun or sarin agents were not discovered in the 1990s, they would have deactivated spontaneously after only five years – i.e. they would be useless by 2003, 4) VX agent not discovered in the 1990s would likely also have deactivated spontaneously over the past decade, and again production means had earlier been destroyed. Dr. Hans Blix, the UN Chief Weapons Inspector addressed the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003 (90) stating there was no evidence of ongoing Chemical or Biological programs in Iraq and that at the current rate of progress it would only take a matter of months (not years) to conclude an exhaustive inspection program.

    Biologic: Scott Ritter (89) had repeatedly explained how biological agent production facilities were destroyed in the early 1990s and that new facilities could not be rebuilt given our ongoing inspections and reconnaissance. Regarding evidence of earlier production of anthrax in the 1990s he noted that over this period of time any caches of liquid anthrax would have germinated within 3 years – deactivating it as a biologic weapon. Similar evidence regarding the absence of other agents was provided. Mr. Ritter offered further refutation of evidence of any attempted ongoing programs of biological weapons production within Iraq. (See: UN Chief Weapons Inspector, Dr. Hans Blix’s, statement above. (90))

    ARGUMENT 2 : Earlier UN Security Council resolution 687 (71) (passed Apr. 1991) and 1441 (83) (passed Nov. 2002) enables use of force by the US and Britain.

    UNSC Resolutions did not specify use of force, UN Security Council Resolution 687 (71) stated that the option of force was available as implied in paragraph I-34: "Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region."; 1441 (83) similarly stated that further enforcement would require further resolution: "we remained seized on the matter." The US requested such a resolution of the security council, but as votes could not be found – the request was withdrawn.

    ARGUMENT 3 : Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are cooperative.

    There was no evidence for this. In fact, Hussein was a secular dictator who worked to crush Islamic fundamentalism and was thus considered to be an al-Qaeda enemy (91).

    Mar. 3, 2003
    		 WAR IN IRAQ. NOTE: Thousands of rebels who might have been successful in toppled Hussein in Feb. 1991 had been killed by Hussein forces; this as a result of the US cease-fire policy at the time, and following the US’s failure to support the uprising. (92). As this militia no longer existed, military experts within the Bush (Sr. and Jr.) governments calculated that occupation of Iraq would be met with less militia resistance (suggesting this war came as a result of at least a decade of planning and scripting.) [See: Reports from un-"embedded" observers (93)]
    Mar. – Apr., 2003

    Hundreds – perhaps thousands – of civilians, including many-many small children, lost their lives and/or limbs in what can only be described as psychopathic bombardment of public places. (Cluster munitions were used on civilian populations – an internationally recognized war crime. (94)) Among those killed include an unusual number of independent journalists (95a). (See also: FAIR (95b) and Fisk (95c) Articles.)

    No "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were used (or discovered), the oil fields were immediately secured by US forces, and the museums containing priceless artifacts of our common heritage were left unguarded – and were looted, … and gasoline prices are coming down as Iraqi oil flows westward. (March 7, 2003: IAEA Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei’s comments to the UN Security Council. (96))

    Mar. 25: Halliburton Corporation was awarded a contract to rebuild Iraq. In addition Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root was further awarded a contract to operate Iraqi oil facilities and to "distribute" Iraqi petroleum products (97) – despite statements by President Bush that "Iraqi oil is for the Iraqis." (The contracts are to be worth a great deal more than a contract held by a new Halliburton subsidiary (Dresser Industries) in 1998 when – then Halliburton CEO – Dick Cheney (98) oversaw the subsidiary’s acquisition.)Dick Cheney gave up his CEO position when taking the role of US Vice President in 2000.

    Apr. 17: Bechtel, another US corporation with present and former White House ties, was awarded another lucrative contract (99a) to rebuild bomb damaged Iraq.

    BECHTEL’S PAST AND PRESENT WHITE HOUSE CONNECTIONS Bechtel notes (99b):1) In December, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then working within the Reagan administration, now secretary of "defense", negotiated with Saddam Hussein to build an oil pipeline across Iraq. 2) The failed pipeline deal was later investigated by Congress as it involved former Reagan White House counsel and Attorney General, Edwin Meese III. 3) George Schultz, former Secretary of State under Reagan, was Bechtel’s CEO before assuming his cabinet position. Mr. Schultz currently serves as senior counselor and as a director at Bechtel.4) Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense under Reagan was a Bechtel executive before assuming his Reagan White House role.
    Apr. – May, 2003
    		 Continued US occupation of Iraq with outbreaks of violently suppressed resistance (100).
    Aug. 2003
    		 Halliburton subsidiary contract (US Taxpayer money) now valued at over $1 billion.
    Nov. 2003
    		 US occupation of Iraq met with growing Iraqi resistance, and with increasing violence. Leaked CIA report estimates Iraqi resistance at 50,000 and growing rapidly. (‘We Could Lose This Situation’ (101)
    Sept. 2004
    		 Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue with no exit strategy (102) apparent. Past Bush Administration statements regarding Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" now widely held as false. To date over 1000 US Troops and over 13,000 Iraqi civilians killed with tens of thousands injured, [Hear: MoveOn call for censure – 943KB mp3 file (103).]
    Oct. 2004
    		 Official and final conclusion of the Iraqi Survey Group (104): 1) No weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq despite Whitehouse insistence they would be found.
    Sept. 2005
    		 Under continued US occupation, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and 1900 US troops have been killed. Iraq approaches civil war (105).
    Oct. 2005
    		 Video hint of the reality of October, 2005 (106), … and the many preceding months.
    Feb. 2006
    		 Zogby International Poll of US Troops in Iraq: 72% say ‘US should exit Iraq this year‘ (107).
    June 2006
    		 Conditions in Iraq continue to deteriorate (see: leaked US Ambassador memo (108a)).
     

     

  • Afghanistan since 1979

     

    See map of area

    July 3, 1979
    		 President Carter signed a secret directive aiding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, calculated to induce a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (See: Interview with former President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski)
    Mid to Late 1980s

    Sept. 1986: In response to apparent successes of the Soviet Hind-D helicopter-gunship in Afghanistan, President Reagan authorized the shipment of Stinger missiles via Pakistan to Afghanistan. Overwhelmingly successful use of the Stinger resulted in neutralization of the Hind-D, and three years later (1989) to full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

    The US, wishing to increase its regional influence, worked with the Saudis to import an army of Saudis, Egyptians, and others into Afghanistan. The Saudis chose a member of a wealthy construction family with close royal family ties – Osama bin Laden – to lead the effort. Many of the men bin Laden recruited were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, a regional fundamentalist group. bin Laden’s newly constructed army (shortly thereafter known as al Qaeda) successfully fought to settle Afghanistan in favor of an Afghan fundamentalist group, the Taliban. [See: Against All Enemies, Inside America’s War on Terror; Richard A. Clark, Free Press (Simon & Schuster), 2004]
    Dec. 1991

    Collapse of the Soviet Union, and the birth of Caspian Sea nations of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (1).
    1993

    US Oil companies reached for the estimated 200 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian Sea area. (Also: 2 3 4 5 6)
    1995

    Unocal, seeking to build a pipeline across Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (for delivery to energy hungry Asia via the Pakistani Arabian Sea coast), signed an agreement with Turkmenistan for natural gas purchasing rights for transport through a proposed pipeline (7). (See also 2) Unocal also signed an agreement with Turkmenistan for an oil pipeline (8) along the same route.
    Aug. 13, 1996

    Unocal and Delta Oil Co. of Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding (9) with Russia’s Gazprom and Turkmenistan’s Turkmenrusgaz to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.
    Oct. 1997

    Unocal and other oil companies formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) (10) in preparation for building the trans-Afghanistan pipeline.
    1997
    		 US Congress passed a resolution declaring the Caspian and Caucasus region to be a “zone of vital American interests”.
    Dec. 1997

    Unocal invited Taliban representatives to their corporate headquarters in Sugarland, TX. (11) to discuss the pipeline project. They were thereafter invited to Washington for meetings with Clinton Administration officials.

    Jan. 1998

    Unocal agreement signed between Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban (12) to arrange funding of the gas pipeline project, with Unocal also considering a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Arabian Sea coast oil pipeline.
    1998

    VP Dick Cheney, then CEO of the giant oil services company, Halliburton, stated: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." (13)
    Feb. 28, 1998

    Unocal VP International Relations addressed US House of Representatives(14) clearly stating that the Taliban government should be removed and replaced by a government acceptable to his company. He argued that creation of a 42 inch oil pipeline across Afghanistan would yield a Western profit increase of 500% by 2015.
    March 1998

    Unocal announced a delay in finalizing the pipeline project (15) due to Afghanistan’s continuing civil war
    Aug. 7, 1998

    Terrorists said to be linked to Osama bin Laden bombed two US embassies (16) in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
    Aug. 20, 1998

    Clinton ordered a 75-80 cruise missile attacks (17) on Afghanistan and Sudan targets.
    Aug. 21, 1998

    Unocal temporarily halted development of the pipeline(18) project following the US missile attack above.
    Aug. 22, 1998

    BBC reported that the US and al-Queda leader Osama bin Laden exchanged warnings (19) of things to come following the cruise missile attacks ordered two days earlier. (You may be required to copy and paste -> newsid_156000/156273.stm <- into the search window of this link to find this page.)
    Nov. 1998

    The Trade and Development Agency commissioned Enron to perform a feasibility study (20) re: an east-to-west route, crossing the Caspian Mountains and terminating in Turkey along the Mediterranean. (The route was considered impractical as it would cost an estimated $1 billion more than a route through Afghanistan.)
    Dec. 1998

    Unocal issued a statement (21) that it had withdrawn from the pipeline project on 12/4/98, noting "business reasons."
    April 30, 1999

    Excluding US interests, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Turkmenistan reactivated the pipeline project (22 – cached copy via Google) (see also 22a)
    July 4, 1999
    		 An executive order (13129) was issued by Clinton, freezing US held Taliban assets (23), & prohibiting trade plus other transactions. (See also: 23a)
    Oct. 15, 1999
    		 UN Security Council Resolution 1267 imposed sanctions on the Taliban (24a), demanding that the Taliban "turn over the terrorist Usama Bin Laden without further delay…"
    Oct. 12, 2000

    The USS Cole was attacked (25) in the Yemeni port of Aden.
    Dec. 19, 2000
    		 UN Security Council Resolution 1333 (24b) demanded compliance with Resolution 1267, and imposed further sanctions on the Taliban (24b).
    Jan. – Feb. 2001

    Upon taking office, the Bush administration immediately engaged in active negotiations with Taliban representatives (27) with meetings in Washington, DC, Berlin, and Islamabad. During this time the Taliban government hired Laila Helms, niece of former CIA director Richard Helms (28), as their go-between in negotiations with the US government.

    Bush (oil) administration (29) includes:

    • Dick Cheney, VP: Until 2000 – President of Halliburton (in position to build the Afghan pipeline).
    • Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor: 1991-2000 – Manager of Chevron Oil, and Kazakhstan go-between.
    • Donald Evans, Sec. Commerce: former CEO, Tom Brown, Inc. (a $1.2 billion oil company).
    • Gale Norton, Sec. Interior: former national chairwoman of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates – funded by, among others, BP Amoco.
    • Spencer Abraham, Sec. Energy: Up through his failed bid for senatorial reelection in the 2000, he received more oil and gas industry money than all but three other senators (January 1997 through July 2000) (30).
    • Thomas White, Secretary of the Army: former Vice Chairman of Enron and a large shareholder of that company’s stock.
    May 15, 2001
    		 Regarding the placement of the Unocal Pipeline, a US Official delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban (via the Pakistani delegation acting as their interlocutors): "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." (Ref: Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie in "Forbidden Truth" (31) (Book’s Preface online-pdf format (32) )
    June 2001

    US Ambassador to Yemen, Ms. Barbara Bodine forbade Deputy Director FBI John O’Neill (33) from entering Yemen in that group’s ongoing investigation into al-Qaeda and the USS Cole attack.
    July 2001

    Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (34a) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. (See also BBC report(34b))
    Aug. 2, 2001

    Last meeting with the Taliban (5 weeks before the 9/11/01 attack). (35) Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for US government, met with the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan (Abdul Salam Zaeef) in Islamabad, at which time Taliban representatives were reminded that the US had provided monetary relief assistance. (The above referenced State Department report fails to mention that oil topics were also discussed.) (36).
    Aug. 22, 2001

    John O’Neill – Deputy director FBI, established national expert on the al-Qaeda network and in charge of that investigation, resigned in protest over the Bush Administration’s obstruction (37) of those investigations. (See also: New Yorker 1/14/02 (37a) )
    Aug. 23, 2001

    John O’Neill accepted position as chief of security, World Trade Center buildings (38). NOTE: Electronic security for the World Trade Center was provided by Securacom (now Stratesec), a company initially founded with Kuwaiti capital. Marvin P. Bush, President George W. Bush’s youngest brother served as a Securicom/Stratesec board member from 1993 through 2000. (38a)
    Sept. 4-11, 2001

    July – Sept. 2000 – Pakistani Intelligence Chief (ISI) Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad reportedly instructed British born Saeed Sheikh (alias: Ahmad Umar Sheikh, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed, ….) in Pakistan to wire $100,000 (7/00-9/00) to two Florida bank accounts held by hijacker Mohammed Atta. (Washington Post 10-7-01 (39a), (Times of India 10-9-01 (30b), (Dawn News 10-9-01 (39c), (World Net Daily 1-30-02 (30d), (Times of India 08-1-03 (39e)

    Sept. 4, 2001 – ISI’s Lt. General Ahmad entered the United States and subsequently met with many top officials within the Bush Administration. (Philadelphia City Paper 12-20-01 (39f), (Counterpunch 10-1-02 (39g)

    Sept. 11, 2001 – Lt. General Ahmad concluded a breakfast meeting with Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Representative Porter Goss (R-FL), and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ). (Graham and Goss subsequently served as CO-Chairs of the Joint-Intelligence Committee investigating the 9/11 attacks.) (Counterpunch 10-1-02 (39h) (Online Journal 8-7-03 (39i), (S.A.Tribune 4-11-04 (39j)

    During Ahmad’s brief stay in the US, he also met with: Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE). (Dawn News 9-10-01 (39k), (Reuters 9/13/01 (39l), (Deutsche Presse-Agentur 9-12-01 (39m), Center for Cooperative Research – See: section: Sept. 11-16 (39n)
    Sept. 9, 2001

    Ahmed Shah Masood was assassinated in Afghanistan (40). His assassination severely weakened the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which he had led.
    Sept. 11, 2001

    World Trade Center attacked by al Qaeda; fifteen of the nineteen were from Saudi Arabia [41a, 41b]. John O’Neill, WTC security chief, and former deputy director of the FBI, where he headed investigation of the al-Qaeda network, was killed in those buildings on that day. (41c)

    Sept. 28, 2001
    		 UN Security Council Resolution 1373 imposed further sanctions on the Taliban (26).
    Oct. 7, 2001

    Military operations with aerial bombardment began in Afghanistan (42)
    Oct. 31, 2001

    The Bush White House drafted an unprecedented executive order (43a) sealing presidential records including those of prior administrations. [See also: US House Committee on Governmental Reform analysis (43b)]
    Dec. 22, 2001

    The US-backed interim government headed by Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, Afghanistan (44a). (Hamid Karzai had formerly functioned as a Unocal Corporation consultant (44b) )
    Dec. 31, 2001

    Bush appointed Zalmay Khalilzad, as his Special Envoy to Afghanistan (45a). Zhalilzad, like Karzai had earlier functioned as a Unocal consultant, participating in 1997 talks between Unocal and Taliban officials. (Regarding Zhalilzad’s "neocon" credentials, See: 45b).
    Jan. 29, 2002

    CNN reported: "President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of 9/11/01" (46).
    Feb 8, 2002

    Afghanistan’s interim ruler Hamid Karzai and the Pakistan president agreed to revive plans (47a) for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline..
    Feb 9, 2002

    Turkmenistan officially stated that they hoped their trans-Afghanistan route would be soon built.
    Feb. 2002

    Proposal to deploy US Special Operations forces to the Caucasus state of Georgia (47b) (would help enforce a Washington pipeline policy – neutralizing Russian influence in Central Asia.)

    May 13, 2002

    Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts (47c) regarding a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, and through Pakistan to the coast. Mohammad Alim Razim, Afghanistan’s minister for Mines and Industries, stated Unocal was considered "the lead company" to build the pipeline. (See also: 47d.)

    May 30, 2002
    		 Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan agreed to construct a gas pipeline to the subcontinent (48a) (See also: 48b.)
    Nov. 2004
    		 The annual US Government estimate for opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan was released Nov. 2004 (49): approximately 206,700 hectares of poppy were grown in 2004, representing a 239% increase in production over 2003 estimates.

     

  • Why Bush Will Nuke Iran

    Bush has tried to pawn Afghanistan off on NATO, but Europe does not see any point in sacrificing its blood and money for the sake of American hegemony. The NATO troops in Afghanistan are experiencing substantial casualties from a revived Taliban, and European governments are not enthralled over providing cannon fodder for U.S. hegemony.

    The "coalition of the willing" has evaporated. Indeed, it never existed. Bush’s "coalition" was assembled with bribes, threats, and intimidation. Pervez Musharraf, the American puppet ruler of Pakistan, let the cat out of the bag when he told CBS’ 60 Minutes on Sept. 24, 2006, that Pakistan had no choice about joining the "coalition." Brute coercion was applied. Musharraf said Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Pakistani intelligence director that "you are with us" or "be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age." Armitage is trying to deny his threat, but Dawn Wire Service, reporting from Islamabad on Sept. 16, 2001, on the pressure Bush was putting on Musharraf to facilitate the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, stated: "’Pakistan has the option to live in the 21st century or the Stone Age’ is roughly how U.S. officials are putting their case."

    That Musharraf would volunteer this information on American television is a good indication that Bush has lost the war. Musharraf can no longer withstand the anger he has created against himself by helping the U.S. slaughter his fellow Muslims in Bush’s attempt to exercise U.S. hegemony over the Muslim world. Bush cannot protect Musharraf from the wrath of Pakistanis, and so Musharraf has explained himself as having cooperated with Bush in order to prevent the U.S. destruction of Pakistan: "One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did." Nevertheless, he said, he refused Bush’s "ludicrous" demand that he arrest Pakistanis who publicly demonstrated against the U.S.: "If somebody’s expressing views, we cannot curb the expression of views."

    Bush’s defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s defeat by Hezbollah in Lebanon have shown that the military firepower of the U.S. and Israeli armies, though effective against massed Arab armies, cannot defeat guerillas and insurgencies. The U.S. has battled in Iraq longer than it fought against Nazi Germany, and the situation in Iraq is out of control. The Taliban have regained half of Afghanistan. The king of Saudi Arabia has told Bush that the ground is shaking under his feet as unrest over the American/Israeli violence against Muslims builds to dangerous levels. Our Egyptian puppet sits atop 100 million Muslims who do not think that Egypt should be a lackey of U.S. hegemony. The king of Jordan understands that Israeli policy is to drive every Palestinian into Jordan.

    Bush is incapable of recognizing his mistake. He can only escalate. Plans have long been made to attack Iran. The problem is that Iran can respond in effective ways to a conventional attack. Moreover, an American attack on another Muslim country could result in turmoil and rebellion throughout the Middle East. This is why the neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine to permit a nuclear strike on Iran.

    Neocons believe that a nuclear attack on Iran would have intimidating force throughout the Middle East and beyond. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East.

    Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America’s will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate.

    Revised U.S. war doctrine concludes that tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons cause relatively little "collateral damage" or civilian deaths, while achieving a powerful intimidating effect on the enemy. The "fear factor" disheartens the enemy and shortens the conflict.

    University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch, an authority on nuclear doctrine, believes that an American nuclear attack on Iran will destroy the Nonproliferation Treaty and send countries in pell-mell pursuit of nuclear weapons. We will see powerful nuclear alliances, such as Russia/China, form against us. Japan could be so traumatized by an American nuclear attack on Iran that it would mean the end of Japan’s sycophantic relationship to the U.S.

    There can be little doubt that the aggressive U.S. use of nukes in pursuit of hegemony would make America a pariah country, despised and distrusted by every other country. Neocons believe that diplomacy is feeble and useless, but that the unapologetic use of force brings forth cooperation in order to avoid destruction.

    Neoconservatives say that America is the new Rome, only more powerful than Rome. Neoconservatives genuinely believe that no one can withstand the might of the United States and that America can rule by force alone.

    Hirsch believes that the U.S. military’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has been overcome by the civilian neocon authorities in the Bush administration. Desperate to retrieve their drive toward hegemony from defeat in Iraq, the neocons are betting on the immense attraction to the American public of force plus success. It is possible that Bush will be blocked by Europe, Russia, and China, but there is no visible American opposition to Bush legitimizing the use of nuclear weapons at the behest of U.S. hegemony.

    It is astounding that such dangerous fanatics have control of the U.S. government and have no organized opposition in American politics.

    Dr. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

    Copyright © 2006 Creators Syndicate

  • Yanks fight for coastal retreat

    question I’m wondering if you would comment specifically on erosion control and beach nourishment projects. Do you sense any evolution in public thinking about "real estate" on barrier islands and beaches, or are we always in danger of shortsighted technological "solutions"? — Joseph Clark, Tallahassee, Fla.

    answer We are always in danger of shortsighted technological solutions. I have observed that each state, and even each community, seems to have to learn for itself the lessons that are already well understood elsewhere. It is an undeniable fact that seawalls destroy beaches, but Florida more than any other state refuses to learn (or to accept) that fact. Hundreds of seawall permits, mostly at the county level, were granted after Hurricane Ivan passed by the panhandle. One can even build a seawall without a permit, if it is an emergency, and of course, every seawall is built in an emergency.

    Nourishment (the pumping of sand to a beach) is a better solution, but it is costly, must be repeated every few years, is environmentally damaging, leads to intensified development, and in the long scheme of things, is really only a Band-Aid solution. It’s better to move structures back or demolish threatened buildings. Before the post-World War II economic boom, many beach houses were built on long lots that allowed the houses to be moved back as the shoreline eroded.

    question Who should pay for beach nourishment? — Donny Barber, Bryn Mawr, Pa.
     
     
    answer Despite protestations to the contrary, most of the political pressure to pump sand on a beach comes from beachfront property owners. They were the ones who were dumb enough to build a house right next to an eroding beach. No reason why the rest of us more prudent souls should pay for the new beach.

    question Do you know of any temporary coastal erosion structures (that work) that can be put in place prior to storms and removed after? — Joel Halsey, East Hampton, N.Y.

    answer Many of the devices on the market today might be called snake-oil devices. They have fancy names (wave buster, sta-beach, surf breaker), but they rarely work as claimed. Virginia Beach used to send bulldozers out to their beach just before a storm, to pile up sand in front of critical areas, and after the storm, if the sand was still there, they would put it back in place. Not good for beach fauna, but it was one way to protect buildings that were too close to the beach. Other than that approach, I am not aware of a successful temporary structure. The problem is that a single storm can move huge amounts of sand, and interfering with this sand transport could damage adjacent beaches.

    question Do you think artificial surfing reefs can help slow down erosion? — Chad Nelsen, San Clemente, Calif.

    answer Whether artificial surfing reefs slow down erosion or not depends on the local situation. The problem is that such reefs may reduce the wave input to a beach and cause sand to be deposited. That may sound good, but trapping of sand is usually stealing of sand from some other beach. However, under just the right and, I think, unusual circumstances, such artificial reefs can be beneficial to local beaches. The proposed site needs to be studied carefully, and if possible, the reefs should be made adjustable or removable in case they cause erosion.

    question The coastal cities near where I live seem hell-bent on development. How do we make them listen? — Erica Smith, Norfolk, Va.

    answer How do we make them listen? What an important question. I used to think that all we would need for society to wake up was one powerful hurricane. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo roared ashore, causing massive damage in South Carolina. I thought surely this would bring people to their senses. But Hurricane Hugo turned out to be an urban renewal project. Small cottages that were destroyed in the storm were rebuilt as grand cottages. Multifamily buildings became high-rises. Every hurricane since has resulted in urban renewal projects.

    Perhaps a glimmer of hope can be seen in the withdrawal of some insurance companies from the coast of Florida. But I suspect we will continue to see large buildings in costly developments. Prohibiting seawalls — like North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maine have done — helps. In the long run, prohibiting reconstruction of storm-destroyed buildings is an essential step, but this wouldn’t address the high-rise problem. High-rises essentially take away any flexibility for future response to sea-level rise. Once a high-rise is constructed, the pressure is great to preserve the valuable property, often at the expense of losing the beach.

    One approach no one has tried is to allow no increase in the density of buildings in communities that accept federal or state tax money for beach nourishment. But how to make them listen remains a deepening mystery to me!

    question Do you have any suggestions for moving away from building on beaches, cliffs, flood plains, steep slopes, or fire-prone canyons? — Ginger Wireman, Richland, Wash.

    answer Ultimately, the solution is a political one that will require that rare combination of vision and courage in politicians. There is little chance that New Orleans will not rebuild in its entirety because this administration, wounded by its failures, is hardly likely to take the drastic steps needed to prevent future disasters. The current course of action is certain to set up a future disaster in the next big storm. As certain as the rising sun and the falling tide!

    For beachfront property owners along eroding shorelines, one can guess within a few years when the building will fall in (unless costly beach-damaging action is taken). But the coastal development juggernaut seems unstoppable, even by hurricanes like Katrina. President Bush himself, on his first post-Katrina visit to the Gulf Coast and seeking to console Senator Trent Lott, stated, "Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott’s house — he’s lost his entire house — there’s going to be a fantastic house." This myopic view that the near-total destruction of seaside villages merely provides the opportunity to build bigger and better is a form of societal madness.

    question Would you please explain what the problem is with seawalls? And what exactly are abyssal plains? — Hanna D., Troy, Mich.

    answer When you build something stationary, like a seawall, next to the beach, you have stopped the retreat of the shoreline, but you have not addressed the underlying cause of erosion. Thus the beach continues to lose sand, growing narrower until it disappears. The process usually takes one to three decades.

    Abyssal plains are the flattest surfaces on earth. They form as massive fluid sediment flows arrive from the continents and spread out when they hit the flat ocean floor, forming sediment "lakes." Most of these plains, which can be thousands of square miles in area, are found at water depths between 16,000 and 19,000 feet. The Hatteras Abyssal Plain is 20 to 50 miles wide and extends from off North Carolina to well beyond the southern tip of Florida, and over all that distance, the change in depth of the plain surface is less than 300 feet. Using a remote camera on that plain, I once photographed a soda bottle at a depth of 16,600 feet!

    question I’m curious about your Folly Beach experience. How long ago was that, and why did they consider you "persona non grata"? — Jeanne Miller, Folly Beach, S.C.

    answer About a dozen years ago, I vehemently objected to seawall construction on Folly and to the Corp’s outlandish claims about the probable lifespan of the proposed nourished beach. The town council didn’t take kindly to my troublemaking, but I’m happy to say the pendulum has swung a bit, and the local government is now more environmentally sensitive (though too late to prevent construction of new high-rises). Local citizens should be alert to the possibility that it will swing back. According to the local paper, most of a new nourished beach disappeared overnight in a small storm a few weeks ago.

    question Why should a Midwesterner who may never see the ocean or the beach care about the health of our coastline? — Fred Dodson, Charlotte, N.C.

    answer The reason that the quality of the development on the beach environment on, say, Folly Beach, S.C., is important to someone in Omaha, Neb., is that her federal taxes will pay for all kinds of things for the beachfront buildings including beach nourishment, flood insurance, and storm-damage recovery. On a more idealistic plane, preservation of this very limited, narrow, ephemeral, and very threatened ecosystem should be important for the same reason that preservation of Yellowstone, Glacier, and Olympic national parks is important. And besides, people from Omaha sometimes come to Folly Beach for vacation.

    question It’s been proposed that we build barrier islands in the Mississippi Delta to protect and buffer New Orleans against future hurricanes. What are your thoughts? — Rob Carscadden, Kents Store, Va.

    answer We are kidding ourselves if we think we can rebuild the Mississippi Delta with its fringing barrier islands just as they used to be. That’s one of the Corps proposals, but I strongly suspect that if they do the job, it will involve a lot of concrete rather than sand. We’ve got to get out from under the Corps’ defense of the status quo, because it will be very costly, and these costs can only accelerate in the future. Some delta towns will have to be lost. In all of this, we must recognize that sea level is rising faster in the Mississippi Delta than almost anywhere in North America. We need flexible and dynamic solutions much like nature’s own. Coastal scientists have proposed diverting the river mouth to a new location to provide new sediment to starved marshes. This is a great idea — one that attempts to do what the river would do naturally.

    question Louisiana barrier islands are valuable ecosystems and highly endangered. Do you think they can and should be saved and restored to provide habitat for birds and fishes? — Ann Burruss, Lafayette, La.

    answer The Louisiana barrier islands took a big hit in Katrina, but that’s the way the delta evolves. Barrier islands form here and disappear there, and have been doing so for thousands of years. I don’t think any islands should be saved or restored by artificial means. Engineering the delta is a bottomless pit. To the greatest extent possible, let nature take its course on the outermost delta, and there will always be habitats for birds and fish.

    question Should people be allowed to move back into New Orleans’ flooded areas? — Clayton Ancona, Fort Collins, Colo.
      

    answer If I was king of New Orleans, I would not allow the most heavily damaged areas to be reinhabited. I would shrink the city. I would select certain areas and raise their elevation with fill material and require all buildings to be on stilts. As it is now, nothing has really changed, and the city is very vulnerable to the next big one. We can’t compare the situation with Holland, where the whole country is built on a delta. We have lots of vacant high ground on the margins of the Mississippi Delta that can be developed. Think new city. For those who remain in the city, recognize that you will someday be flooded again, and be prepared.

  • Antarctica’s extreme chill another global warming indicator

    Super-cold temperatures, that may be a further indicator of global warming, have helped produce an Antarctic ozone hole this year that rivals the largest. More details