Pat Shannan's MUSINGS
Sorting It Out
Saddam Hussein may be a ruthless dictator, but there is no credible evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11 or that he poses an imminent threat to the United States or any other nation.
A talking head said on March 14th that 73% or Americans approve of the attack on Iraq. (Who believes polls?) But in forming this opinion, how many succumbed to the lies of George II spokesman Ari Fleisher or Secretary of State Colin Powell, et. al.? How many read Norman Schwarzkopf's book, It Takes a Hero, to learn that the administration of George I created another "Gulf of Tonkin" scenario by claiming that satellite photos showed 260,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks were poised on the Saudi border ready for an attack, when there weren't any. This was to justify U. S. intervention and the start of the Gulf War I, but General Schwarzkopf assures us now that there were no troops or tanks amassed. General Powell later admitted, too, that "the numbers were wrong" and there was no imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia by Iraq, yet Gulf War I began with the blessings of more than 73% of the American suckers, I mean people, at that time. This is but one more example of the mesmerizing power of the propaganda machine.
Further, the Kuwait ambassador's daughter, coached by a Washington PR firm, lied to the U. S. Congress, the UN, and the American people about the infamous "Incubator Baby" murders. Even the claims of the use of Iraqi poison gas were never proven. International relief organizations that examined the Kurds - in Turkey, where the alleged victims had gone for asylum - failed to discover any truth to the matter; nor were any gassed victims found inside Iraq. (However, around 80 were found at Mt. Carmel, outside of Waco, Texas, on April 19, 1993,in case you forgot).
Soooo, what does all this mean? It means that nothing changes with time, politicians never lie until necessary, propaganda will always be spread by those in a position to spread it, and the citizen is expected to grant lenient trust to any bureaucrat. And it means that there were secret reasons for Gulf War I and that we are being fooled again.
Fast Forward to 2003 and Gulf War II
Colin the Deceiver testified to the UN that there was a "poison factory" in northern Iraq. Foreign journalists were invited in two days later and found nothing, not even an aspirin.
Next the evidence linking a nuclear reactor weapons program to Iraq appeared to have been fabricated, so said the UN's chief nuclear inspector in a report on March 7th. Former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro said, "There is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism."
The media have simply become a branch of the war effort. What has entirely disappeared from television is anything remotely resembling a consistently dissenting voice.
What connection did Iraq have to the phony 9/11 attack anyway?
Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from Gulf War I, and that unknown thousands have died? Will Gulf War II be any safer?
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. What ever happened to Ol' Sammy bin Laden? Wasn't he our excuse for going into Afghanistan?
Those missing pieces are falling into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as NWO policeman. It's the culmination of a plan 12 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means living up to the image of "American Imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once it is over, the troops won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran, and further aiding Israel as never before.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. Oh, no? What about the major U.S bases in Germany and Japan in 58 years later? Who really expects anything different about this one?