|

|
To look at Iraq in the light
of 9/11 - or at 9/11 in the light of war on Iraq?
by John-Paul Leonard
Yesterday the Christian Science
Monitor let the cat have a peek out of the bag when they
wrote: "Bush's speech Monday reveals how much America, not
Hussein, has changed... The Bush administration ... is
focusing not so much on new charges as on old information
presented in a new context... 'On Sept. 11, 2001, America felt
its vulnerability even to threats that gather on the other
side of the earth," said President Bush on Monday.' " [1]
In other words, no news on the
Iraq front. All Bush has to push for war is September 11. That
was all we had to go on for the invasion of Afghanistan, too
(waged for a UNOCAL president and pipeline there, and the
greater glory and profit of the Bush family's Carlyle Group
and Cheney's Halliburton).
On Iraq, the Monitor
summarized, "It isn't President Hussein that has changed. It
is us." Who had an interest to engineer a change in us?
There is an immense, and
immensely disturbing body of evidence of self-terror on 9/11 -
all over the Internet, and in a recently released book, The
War on Freedom.[2] Despite the
apparent 9/11-Taliban link, the US Army let perennial
scapegoat bin Laden escape again. Of course, Osama
collaborated with the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war, and
the bin Laden family have deep and longstanding business ties
with the Bushes in the Carlyle Group. Right after Sept. 11,
when all other air flights were grounded, a special charter
flight whisked the bin Ladens out of the US. On the morning of
Sept. 11 itself, Pakistani general Mahmud Ahmed, who
transferred $100,000 to Mohamed Atta through a bagman linked
to the CIA, was sitting with the congressional CIA committee
chairmen, who now head the commission to investigate
"intelligence failure" on 9/11. Not one person in the FAA or
Pentagon has been disciplined for failing to follow standard
procedures and intercept the hijacked Boeings.
How is it that option
trades on airline shares, made with clear foreknowledge of
911, were traced not to Al-Qaeda, but to the AB Brown bank,
with very strong CIA links (and even a historical link to the
Bushes, through their family bank Brown Bros. Harriman) - but
then ignored? There are literally dozens of such unexplained
issues.
And as for the other recent change in
Afghanistan: the opium harvest is back up to pre-Taliban
levels. Is that also what the war was about? Is it coincidence
that Bush and Cheney are members of a Yale fraternity that was
founded on the opium trade to China? Or that Bush and Cheney
started taking the anthrax antidote Cipro on Sept. 11, a month
before the anthrax scare was public?
The administration attempt to pin the anthrax
attacks on Iraq failed miserably. Yet when it became clear the
source came from our own US Army, the investigation went
nowhere. The C.S. Monitor, among others, has documented how
Bush Sr. used lies to get allied support for the first Gulf
War - a non-existent tank buildup on the Saudi border, and the
imaginary incubator baby atrocity. [3]
So all Bush has to go on against Iraq is 9/11 -
but he has shown no link between 9/11 and Iraq, despite many
attempts to fabricate one. Let us look now at those clear
links implicating the Bush coterie in 9/11, in arranging a
pretext for war, as the cunning tactic of a clique of
private-sector militarists.
It is also none too soon to look at the
eagerness of the Bushes to decimate Iraq's civilian
population, in light of the origins of the Bush family
political and commercial fortune: the financing of Hitler's
rise to power by Prescott Bush and associates, his payoff in
Auschwitz slave labor for the Thyssen-Flick steel works there,
which he personally managed, [4] and which financed the Bush
family's political careers - a blood money scandal which,
incredibly, has been suppressed throughout the election
campaigns of all three generations of Bushes.
When the Reichstag burned and the Bush-Thyssen
protegé Hitler seized power, America had already gone to war
twice on what were assuredly acts of self-terror: the sinking
of the Maine and the Lusitania. Strange? Not at all. After
all, America first introduced bio-weapons to Iraq, and nuclear ones to the
world.
Note:
[1] "Why US won't give way on
Iraq," http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1009/p01s02-usgn.html
[2] http://www.thewaronfreedom.com/
[3] "In war, some facts less
factual", http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html
[4] "Heir to the Holocaust. Prescott
Bush, 1.5 Million Dollars, and Auschwitz: How the Bush Family
Wealth is Linked to the Jewish Holocaust," by Toby Rogers,
Clamor Magazine. Based on an interview with John Loftus,
president of the Florida Holocaust Museum. http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.html
Mr. John-Paul
Leonard is a free-lance writer and a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network
(MMN)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sign Mr. John-Paul Leonard's
Appeal to UN Security Council to Halt Naked
Aggression
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Buy the related book (s)
now:
- Source:
by the same
author:
|

|
|