Yes mtbrad it was quite remarkable the way Bush danced around that.  But this is the known Orwellian quality of Bush that we know so maddeningly well; the real story is that the press doesn't riot and burn the conference hall down after that.  They chuckle and play along.  The emporer says a dog is a duck and 2 + 2 = 5 and it's on to the next respectfully framed question.  If the New York Times was a serious guardian of public truth and democratic morality (as its managers claim it is), then this sort of mendacious mockery of democratic discourse would have been bitterly and harshly exposed.   No such exposure came.  And there's nothing left of the Times in "mainstream" (dominant) US media: thus far and no further. Helen Thomas is curiously framed as a wild woman in the wings, as part of the lunatic fringe for asking  reasonable questions that flow from common ordinary peoples sense and the more educated and sophisticated and cynical media staff in the room generally play along.  The "royal brute" (As Thomas Paine described King George in January 1776) in the White House gets to browbeat the crazy journalist lady and move on......this is how it works.

What follows is the complete exchange between Helen Thomas and Bush at the March 21 press conference.  You will notice many mistruths (lies) and a constant conflation of Iraq with Afganistan (maybe its time for someone to buy this guy an atlas).

HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

HELEN THOMAS: Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

HELEN THOMAS: -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

HELEN THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

HELEN THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

HELEN THOMAS: -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

 

So Saddam denied inspectors post 1441?  What was it that he did not disclose?  Also, as the Downing Street Memo and other released documents show the decision to go to war was made far in advance of the passing of 1441 and Saddams alleged denial of inspectors.  We could also argue over whether the world is safer because of the US invasion and occupation, in fact we could make a strong case that the US is less safe since invading, I think the pentegon has said as much. 

You will alos notice how Helen asked a question about the Iraq invasion and occupation then Bush shifted to or conflated with Afganistan and Al Quida.  Only after Helen reminded him that they are seperate countries did he resort to the lies listed above.  So this is the method of his maddness, tie everything to 9/11 and Al Quida and when that fails, just lie through your teeth!  

The president when asked yesterday about the possibility of the US ever leaving Iraq made a comment to the effect of, thats one possible plan, which is to imply that it is not his plan and never was his plan.  The statement by Rumsfeld is basically the same and others in the neocon admin have said simular things.  These statements if taken together would indicate that the plan has been to have a US military presence and base in Iraq for generations to come.   Now how exactly this plays with the stated plan to "stand down as the Iraqis stand up" is confusing to me. 

The whole affair seems to be sort of a plan to create chaos and lots of it, then offer the only available protection.  If we follow this further it would them seen that a US as godfather for the globe can be acheived by creating civil war in Iraq and provoking an islamic resistance, having created the mujahadeen (sp?) in the first place.  The problem arises in the need to connect the said "terrorists" with particular political spatial institutions, namely nation-states, in order to facilitate the requsite imperialist designs.  This is were the propaganda comes in and the US corporate media and sheepish civitizenry seem all to willing to oblige.   

 

Here is the link for the important story that Victor referenced: Associated Press,  "Extended Presence of U.S. in Iraq Looms Large," March 21, 2006.  See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/

A section of the story reads: 'Less formally, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about “permanent duty stations” by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was “an interesting question.” '

And this:

'Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.'

'“I think we’ll be here forever,” the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base.'

'The Iraqi people suspect the same. Strong majorities tell pollsters they’d like to see a timetable for U.S. troops to leave, but believe Washington plans to keep military bases in their country. '

 

Apologies for the duplicate post.  The website didn't appear to have posted my first try.

So much for the concept of when order is restored the US will leave Iraq.  Who really believed that anyway?  Not only are the Iraqis humiliated by the unlawful occupation of a terrorist state, their deepest suspicions are now being confirmed - that this is a war for control of the Middle East and its oil.  The MSNBC has reported today that the US military is busy building very permanent bases at Balad, al-Asad, and Tallil.  There are probably more.  These bases are being heavily poured with concrete, conveniences such as shops and swimming pools and ohter recreational facilities are being put into place.  These are by no means signs of temporary stays.  Beyond all the spin, as usual actions speak so much louder than hype.  Concrete is not removable.  And once McDonalds and Burger King get a foothold, the conquest is complete.

 

The US will NEVER willingly leave Iraq.

So much for the concept of when order is restored the US will leave Iraq.  Who really believed that anyway?  Not only are the Iraqis humiliated by the unlawful occupation of a terrorist state, their deepest suspicions are now being confirmed - that this is a war for control of the Middle East and its oil.  The MSNBC has reported today that the US military is busy building very permanent bases at Balad, al-Asad, and Tallil.  There are probably more.  These bases are being heavily poured with concrete, conveniences such as shops and swimming pools and ohter recreational facilities are being put into place.  These are by no means signs of temporary stays.  Beyond all the spin, as usual actions speak so much louder than hype, spin and speculation.  Concrete is not removable.  And the act of pouring concrete is an act whose intentions and motivations cannot be argued.  And once Pizza Hut and Burger King get a foothold, the conquest is complete.

 

The US will NEVER willingly leave Iraq nor leave the fate of its oil in Iraqi hands, or anyone else's for that matter..

 

 

In the context of lamentable reporting on Iraq in the UK media, the Channel 4 program last night, Dispatches, represented an hour of welcome but harrowing viewing.

For the Rudy's of this world, the $23bn dollar project for the rebuilding of Iraq was handed, by George Bush, over to the Pentagon, who created a $23bn dollar US/Iraq-law-free zone around this money.

Convicted American fraudsters were allowed to raise contracts on the basis of this money; a company that defrauded the fund of $10m for $3m worth of product was allowed to contract for funds for another year despite there being a record of their fraud available; scams, such as repainting heavy-duty Iraq fork-lifts and hiring them out, or providing security for internal flights that never happened were commonplace. Millions of dollars cash simply vanished from the warehouse in which it was stored and guarded by US forces.

Iraqi journalist/doctor, Ali Fadhil, took us to an Iraqi hospital that had had a paltry $4m dollars assigned to it, only for it to have raw sewerage leaking inside and in the grounds of the hospital. The hospital lacked basics, and we watched as an Iraqi infant died because its father was too late getting vitamin K from the black market (Infants often come to the hospital suffering from waterborn diseases and dehydration as a result of failure of water treatment and sewerage infrastructure.) The Iraqi health system, once the pride of the Middle East, is left with 70s incubators patched up with plaster, and housing 2 or 3 infants. Bremer, who adopted a myopic deBaathification of the Iraqi health structure, can be said to be personally partly responsible for the ruin of the Iraq health system and the deaths of thousands, and should be at the Hague Tribunal.

During the making of this program, Ali Fadhil's house was raided by US forces that physically abused his relatives and smashed up his house and car. He eventually got $1,500 compensation flung at him, and the US ambassador in Iraq only apologised after the program makers made a scene. Ali Fadhil was understandibly close to tears when he stood amongst the traumatic devastation of his house and life and testified to his need  to take his family out of Iraq. Another talented Iraqi flees the allied-produced ruin that is Iraq.

One point the program did not pose is that the Pentagon - the capital of international state-terror - is certainly fully aware of its actions in this matter, that ensure the correct elite business interests of the US are rewarded even beyond the usual sociopathic rules of corporate law, and that Iraq is permamently reduced to under-developed status and punished for its independent hubris.

Another point the program failed to make is that the UK, through Blair and co,. and a history of supporting Western state-terror, is complicit in this snowball effect of crimes against the people of Iraq. Stop the War Coalition marches are not enough. We need to take responsibility for our government's crimes, to take some pressure off of the Iraqi people: we need to create so much non-violent civil unrest in the US and the UK that the scumbags have to bring the troops back; and we need to extend the agenda to the basis of all this crime: the corporate globalisation project and the 'externalisation' of the interests of whole countries in the pursuit of this goals.

If Rudy wishes to assess the "evidence" of terrorists operating in Iraq and financially supported by Hussein pre-invasion, then lets look at what there is on offer.

I happen to believe that Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq pre-invasion and was "operational". Intelligence reports claim he was in the north...trying to get support from the Kurdish regions TO OVERTHROW Sadddam! The Kurds quite rightly rejected this offer, realising that it would hinder their own chances of securing some sort of autonomy post-invasion. So the (foreign) terrorists in Iraq were "operational", in the sense that their objective was primarily mirrored by US/UK goals...removal of Saddam. To argue that Saddam was aiding and abetting these very terrorists is redundant...he was paranoid, but not suicidal!!

As for the terrorists now operating in Iraq, of course some are there to conflate an already exacerbated situation. However, most (70%>) are Iraqi. So the argument rests that terrorists in Iraq were Iraqi pre-invasion...what an epiphany! Yet, recorded memory doesn't offer any evidence that militant Iraqi's ever bombed or killed US/UK civilians in acts of agression. Also evident, Iraq was never a haven for terrorists...society was excessively controlled. Iraq only became a terrorist "haven" after the invasion, not pre-invasion.

As for WMD, then US/UK forces must have been so terrified of their use that their first task in "freeing" the country should have been to secure "known sights". Not so. Blix's team didn't find much. When oredered to leave, the weapons under control were freed to be pillaged by the militants. US/UK first task in Iraq was to prevent the burning of the oil-fields...justly so, but why not secure the bigger threat of the arms depots of WMD. No such US/UK activity took place. Poor Rudy must also think that these huge WMD were passed to Syria under a magic carpet. The US has the most powerful satelites in the world and can film you taking a dump 500,000 miles away. They controlled the 34/36 parallels(no-fly zones). But no evidence of this has emerged...no photos, no cartoons, not even a match-stick men reconstruction video. Incidently, I was watching Spanish and French news channels this morning. Their reporters in DC said there were some leaked US intelligence documents claiming that Saddam told his military entourage in Dec. 2002 that he did not possess any WMD. However, I do use the term "intelligence" loosely!

I think Rudy is in a severe case of denial. He can no longer even beleive the views now professed by a large part of neo-con Republicans...that the war was bogus. Thankfully, his Dear Leader is still around...i know where the donkey stays, anyone got the tail?

I agree that those who were pro gun should die by it and that those on the left warned of a civil war (I was one of them).  Funny how the left gets it right over and over (Iraq, the environment, civil rights etc.) yet we still don't vote them in.  I disagree with the fact that it is a coin toss as to whether Iraq will be better off if we stay or go, the situation has no chance of getting better if we stay.  Bubble boy (or what did chavez call him a drunken donkey) has been saying it will get better if we stay, yet it has been deteriorating as we do so.  Also I would not dismiss the ultimate and innitial goal, getting a base and a hand on the middleeast oil spiget.  Any notion of a benevolent US precence to "stabilize" an "independent" Iraqi govenment is a farce.

 

As for the consequences of a withdrawl on the creation of a terrorist state, heah, you reap what you sow. 

Rudy has identified himself as an Orwellian true believer --- a true suckhole (to use an old labor movement term for workers who swallowed all the "good intentions" rhetoric of of the employer class) for the worst type of war propaganda.

Thankfully, the war masters are running out of people still willing to offer this sort of cringing moral and ideological obedience.

"I'm sure if you were to poll the anti-war movement, the majority would erroneously say the war was started to further U.S. imperialism, make Republicans rich, and to control oil.  While stating such is to make nothing but wild assertions..."

Nothing all that partisan about who gets rich, but the notion the U.S. policymakers seek to control ME oil is somehow "a wild assertion" is sort of a, well,...wild assertion. As agents of a self-described empire, U.S. foreign policymakers would be insane not to be incredibly concerned with the control of ME oil, which they have correctly identified as a super-strategic material prize ---- the greatest in history ----  since at least the end of WWII.  Of course they want to deepen their grip on that many-sided and hyper-significant prize, control of which gives Uncle Sam remarkable "critical leverage" (as Brezinski [sp] put it) over rival states and regions that happen to be out-performing us economically (not to mention socially in most cases) but are more dependent on ME oil than the U.S. 

The intent of "furthering imperialism" (well deepening the reach of U.S. imperial power...as with the numerous new permanent U.S. military bases now up and running in Iraq) is so obviously relevant that its almost embarassing to have to mention it    

"The fact remains that there was a link between Saddam and terrorists and terrorist activity.  Additionally, there was more evidence showing that Saddam did have WMDs than evidence showing anything to the contrary.  Since that time, generals in the Iraqi military, one of whom who has written a book, have stated publicly that the WMD material was transferred to Syria.  The war always was, and remains one against terrorists and their state sponsors." 

Yikes (see subsequent commenters' posts on the facts) but that is ideological obedience to imperial masters on a scale rarely seen!

 

 

I can't beleve that some still insist on both, WMD's and IRaq- Al Quida connection.  Dispite the fact that even the Neocons have stated this was not the case. 

JANUARY 28, 2004: Iraq Survey Group inspector David Kay reports

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing. [Kay, 1/28/04]

OCTOBER 7, 2004: Duelfer Report: Iraq did not have WMD

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. [CNN, 10/7/04]

JANUARY 12, 2005: WMD search in Iraq is declared over

U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN. [CNN, 1/12/05]

MARCH 31, 2005: Silberman-Robb commission, the presidential commission on Iraqi WMD, concludes:

[T]he intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments. [USA Today, 3/31/05]

 

 

 

I may well be wrong but I think the real reason we invaded Iraq dates back to the 50's, when we helped the Shah back regain power in Iran. We've been trying for decades to establish a large, ground based, military installation in the middle east. We had the Shah, but that option ended with the '79 Islamic revolution. We tried with Saddam, vs. Iran, but that didn't work out either. We tried in Afghanistan, vs. the soviets, but the taliban ended that attempt. We had a brief opportunity with Saudi during the first gulf war but we all know how that turned out. After 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan but by then the infrastructure was shot. So.....Iraq. From what I've read we're currrently buidling several large, extremely well equipped bases in Iraq. Like Europe after WWII, I don't think we intend to completely leave Iraq. We'd like to be able to quickly control any event that might threaten the middle east's oil fields. Even if we were able to end whatever need we might have for oil from the middle east, we know that whoever controls the spigot......

This article published 8 days ago alludes to real concern for the return of Iraq war veterans who may be questioning the aggressive indoctrination of their government, officers and NCOs, but who have yet to fully experience the true domestic depth and breadth of feeling against the project to which they have devoted so much of their young lives. In addition, they will have seen comrades killed and injured.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=371972006

The article also points out the descepency in the UK, exposed in The Lancet, between official and real figures concerning the UK casualties of the war.

Of course, the lies and filtration concerning these figures are nothing compared with Iraqi deaths and injuries and reporting of such, but soldiers are not conditioned to appreciate the record on the other side of this murderous campaign.

The 'Good News' quoted is good news indeed, but just having returned from a disatisfying routine Stop the War Coalition march in London, where many of the guest speakers rarely extend their criticism beyond a fetishistic, parroted hate of Blair and Bush, my question is, 'How is the popular criticism and anger to be expressed in such a way as not simply to produce a change of military-industrial corporate globalisation guard?'

I am profoundly unimpressed by the offical alternative voices presented. There is no-one in Westminster I would like to see as the next Prime Minister in the UK, or part of a new cabinet. There is no-one in the UK union heirarchy I would trust...

Their was no WMD's rudy and no country has more WMD's than the US, open your eye's

I read that prior to the Iraq war only 3% of americans believed Saddam was linked with 9/11 and a year later 50% believed he was involved in someway (chomsky), propganda works well eh, people need to beieve what they are doing is right and just, as illistrated by the soliders, hence the propagada.

So how does one go about talking to people like rudy, who are so blinded by propaganda? i have found that those like rudy are not so much  bad people as much as they simply reflect the goverment and mainstream media'a propaganda. it is kind of like racist people who don't know see the hyprocrisy of their argument.

 

"Since that time, generals in the Iraqi military, one of whom who has written a book, have stated publicly that the WMD material was transferred to Syria."

This has to be the most stupid explanation I have ever heard (but than nothing surprises me anymore seeing that admin keep changing its excuses and still most Americans fell for it, until the body bags come back..). 

Hello? If you were Assad would you hand the WMD back to Iraq after the inspections were over? What was Saddam supposed to do if you didn't? Went to the world court to sue Syria for double crossing him?

I don't think Saddam was born yesterday but you,--or whover came up with this ludicrous explanation for the absence of WMD,--apparantly think we are.

But even if Saddam was THAT Stupid why invaded Iraq while you knew the WMD was in Syria(and in all liklihood would stay there) instead of Iraq? Or are you(your source) fabricating the story as the excuse for some future invasion of Syria?

Actually there are some from the far right who also argue for a withdrawal from Iraq, though for somewhat different reasons than we imagine.For your amusement, take a look at, for example, the frothing and fuming lunatics at http://www.jihadwatch.org They actually think Bush is "appeasing" "muslims".

But I have to say I am not entirely sure if it is a responsible thing to withdraw from Iraq NOW.

The U.S has created the whole mess and it looks like Iraq is now in the full mode of a civil war, as its former, U.S installed Prsident said today. Going by main stream sources the "insurgents" are more interested in killing fellow Iraqis than fighting against U.S occupation (I haven't heard markedly different factual accounts from the alternative sources)

Granted that the invasion was criminal, but it has unleashed deadly forces in Iraq. The conflict has taken on a life and dynamics on its own. I am skeptical that things will sort themselves out in a desirable manner even if the U.S were to pull out at once. The genie is out of the bottle and you cannot put him back.

It is moot to argue against the invasion at this point, we have long passed that stage.The question should be whether the continued presence of the U.S would at least stablize the situtaion a bit or would it further inflame the conflict. I think one can reasonably argue on both sides without supporting the invasion in the first place.

Personally I don't have an answer . But I think it is extremely irresponsible to beat a retreat simply because the cost of the occupation is mounting. We should at least consider the possibility that Iraq may implode in an even bigger catastrophe if the U.S just pulls out without making proper arrangements.Aftherall, the U.S has created the current situation.

It is understandable that Americans would like to withdraw, seeing the prospect of having to commit more and more resources both in terms of American lives and money into a hopeless situation. But this scenario has been predicted by those who have been against the invasion since the begining. I must say I find the change of American public opinions rather self serving.When "shock and awe" decimated Iraqi cities and reports coming in all over the places indicating thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths (and god knows how many Iraqi conscript soldiers get insinerated without even a fighting chance) American public opinions cheered on. Americans (and the Dems) only become "anti war" when they see that "victory" is not cost free(still a very small cost btw comparing to what the Iraqis have paid for their unrequested "liberation" by our self described global do gooders)On one thing I would agree with Blair, namely that public opinions are a poor guidence for making policy decisions. They are fickeled, unprincipled and they shift easily. "Democracy" is no excuse for submitting unquestioningly to majority opinions. They have to be examined on their merits.

The proof that there was no WMDs is the fact that there are none found by those who made they claim that they were there.  It is not on the shoulders of the folks who say "X does not exist" to prove that literally x does not exist.  It is entirely upon the shoulders of those who say "Not only does x exist, but we know where they are," which is exactly what the administration said not only to the US but to the world as well.

Concerning the former general, if you actually read his book, he offers no proof other than (to paraphrase) "I was a former general, and you have to believe what I say, sorry, but I cannot prove anything I say.  Just trust me."  Sorry, heard that song before.  And just out of curiosity, how many books would that Iraqi general sell if the theme was "There were no WMDs in Iraq."  It is now accepted by the administration that there were none.  The fact that the administration has not thrown this general up in front of the tv cameras is proof positive that even they know he is full of BS.  what the admin wants to do is shift the blame for having said that there were any in the first place ("bad intelligence").

Terrorist links? Links to Al-QUeda? hardly.  Saddam and AL Queda hated each other. , and whatever terrorists Saddam had links to did NOT commit the acts of 9-11.  There is a much closer link between the Bush family and Osama than between Saddam and osama, are we to assume that because of the links, that Bush had something to do with the attacks on 9-11?  Bush does, however, have links to and actually sponsored Cuban-American terrorists.  he actually DID negoitiate and forgive a terrorist by the name of Muammar Khaddafi. You remember him, don't you?  It *is* about the empire and the oil.

I'm sure if you were to poll the anti-war movement, the majority would erroneously say the war was started to further U.S. imperialism, make Republicans rich, and to control oil.  While stating such is to make nothing but wild assertions, the fact remains that there was a link between Saddam and terrorists and terrorist activity.  Additionally, there was more evidence showing that Saddam did have WMDs than evidence showing anything to the contrary.  Since that time, generals in the Iraqi military, one of whom who has written a book, have stated publicly that the WMD material was transferred to Syria.  The war always was, and remains one against terrorists and their state sponsors.

I am reminded of one of Einstein's sayings:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

Ask them again tomorrow, and they'll forget everything they said today.