Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
What did Rumsfeld do in Iraq in 1983?
junge Welt, a left German newspaper, published the following expose on what Rumsfeld actually was doing in Baghdad 20 years ago: trying to get an oil pipeline built from Iraq under US control.
http://www.jungewelt.de/2003/04-16/006.php
16.04.2003
junge Welt
(translated)
Foreign country
Thomas Immanuel Steinberg
The Rumsfeld Saddam Deal
Secret documents after 20 years publishes: Pipeline business despite chemistry weapon war negotiates
Donald Rumsfeld, today US Secretaries of Defense, met on 20 December 1983 with Saddam Hussein and its deputy Tariq Aziz in Bagdad. They spoke, are certain now, not over the chemistry weapons, which the Iraq straight had inserted use the war against Iran. They did not speak also about the pursuit of the Kurds, the Shiites or other minorities. Their only topic was oil? more exactly: the financing and the building of a pipeline of the Iraq to the gulf of Akaba, to the Red Sea. Akaba lies in Jordan, a few kilometer only far away from Eilat, and belongs to Israel. Also Israel should be included into the project.
The reasons for the current US campaign may be still unclear some. The reasons for Rumsfelds journey to Bagdad before twenty years are openly evident, since US safety archives waived the secrecy of the appropriate documents. On 18 sides that occupies which hanging toners of "institutes for Policy Studies" together with the Sustainable Energy & Economy network on the basis the accessible papers: The same persons, who give to look until today in the Iraq for massenvernichtungswaffen, had at that time the massenvernichtung of Iranians and Kurds before eyes, but only one in the head: Oil.
In March 1982 the Syrian government had its large oil export line for the support of Iran the Iraqis to the Mediterranean closed. As main export route the route remained southern to the insufficient harbor facilities of Basra at Persian Gulf. Additionally the route has the disadvantage that it can be blocked by Iranian side, thus by the northeast bank of the gulf out, easily. That applies despite the numerous western bases at the south side of the road of Hormus, for example in the Exklave of Oman. A further possibility for the removal the northIraqi oil led predominantly and leads by Kurdish and Turkish area after Ceyhan at the Mediterranean. It was and is endangered, as long as the there conflicts are unresolved.
Reagans's minister of foreign affairs George Shultz, before, therefore the idea of a pipeline launched managers with the large building contractor and oil technology giant Bechtel to the Red Sea for its former employer, which seemed excluded from such considerations up to then? because of the proximity to Israel. Rumsfeld spoke the Investitonsvorhaben several times in Bagdad, so also in a variant on 26 March 1984. On the same day a UN committee condemned unanimously the employment of Iraqi chemistry weapons against Iranian soldiers. The Shultz only to ask the Iraqis it the USA may not bring the US minister of foreign affairs compelled into the "embarrassing situation" buy in the future chemicals which could be "raw material for something, which could contribute to the production of chemical weapons".
Meanwhile the US-delegated advanced the financial programmes for the pipeline project and insured in view of the chemistry weapons their Iraqi official contacts: "we would not like that this topic controls our mutual relations." The conscious linkage of the private-economical motive for profit with geostrategic criteria becomes clear with Bechtel manager H.B. Scott in view of an apparently which is approaching conclusion of the negotiations with the Iraq in the year 1984: "I cannot stress at all enough, how important the efforts of the Bechtel management on all levels of the US government and the industry are to support this project. The project has important geopolitical Untertoene. The time might be ripe with the project fast to advance with very important rewards for the fact that Bechtel made it possible."
The U.S. export import bank and the U.S. Overseas private Investment corporation, which helps to secure with government support of export trades, was pushed by lobbyists and Reagan officials to make available 500 million dollar credits and endorsements. But Saddam Hussein required for his part security. He was afraid, Israel could attack the pipeline. Thus the US government developed plans to pass yields on from the pipeline to the Israeli work party. Also it considered coupling military and civilian assistance for Israel to the warranty that the pipeline remains untouched. Judge William Clark flew therefore as fuerstlich paid employees of the technology company Bechtel to Bagdad? proven as representatives of president Reagan and its national security council. Also a close friend of the Israeli Prime Minister at that time Schimon Perez switched himself on into the negotiations. Swiss billionaire Bruce Rappaport turned to Bechtel with the offer of an Israeli security guarantee for the planned route. Rappaport required an anticipated payment on the conclusion of ten per cent, by which a part should be passed on to him, another at Israel.
On 25 February 1985 Schimon Perez insured that Israel would not accomplish "unprovoked attack" against the pipeline. But the project operators were afraid that this linguistic idiom would not be sufficient to calm the Iraqis down. Let Saddam Hussein the entire plan one year later fall. The authors of the study mean: Since then the irakisch?US American relations from year to year would have worsened.
Again once is it shown: Which is made ridiculous as Konspirationstheorie in the presence of war proponents, is possibly long in documents held as naked fact. The documents are provisionally inaccessible to us only. Today far more right-wing extremist Neokonservative participates than before twenty years in war plans and their execution. They act Israeli government in the consent with the right-wing extremist. A bribery of the work party might have been unnecessary in view of the weakness of the war opponents in Israel.
The authors of the study judge finally: "the bitter lesson from the Akaba project probably is that a?uebler dictator? as a good friend of the United States is considered, if it is ready a business to make? and as a deadly enemy, if it opposes."
16.04.2003
junge Welt
(translated)
Foreign country
Thomas Immanuel Steinberg
The Rumsfeld Saddam Deal
Secret documents after 20 years publishes: Pipeline business despite chemistry weapon war negotiates
Donald Rumsfeld, today US Secretaries of Defense, met on 20 December 1983 with Saddam Hussein and its deputy Tariq Aziz in Bagdad. They spoke, are certain now, not over the chemistry weapons, which the Iraq straight had inserted use the war against Iran. They did not speak also about the pursuit of the Kurds, the Shiites or other minorities. Their only topic was oil? more exactly: the financing and the building of a pipeline of the Iraq to the gulf of Akaba, to the Red Sea. Akaba lies in Jordan, a few kilometer only far away from Eilat, and belongs to Israel. Also Israel should be included into the project.
The reasons for the current US campaign may be still unclear some. The reasons for Rumsfelds journey to Bagdad before twenty years are openly evident, since US safety archives waived the secrecy of the appropriate documents. On 18 sides that occupies which hanging toners of "institutes for Policy Studies" together with the Sustainable Energy & Economy network on the basis the accessible papers: The same persons, who give to look until today in the Iraq for massenvernichtungswaffen, had at that time the massenvernichtung of Iranians and Kurds before eyes, but only one in the head: Oil.
In March 1982 the Syrian government had its large oil export line for the support of Iran the Iraqis to the Mediterranean closed. As main export route the route remained southern to the insufficient harbor facilities of Basra at Persian Gulf. Additionally the route has the disadvantage that it can be blocked by Iranian side, thus by the northeast bank of the gulf out, easily. That applies despite the numerous western bases at the south side of the road of Hormus, for example in the Exklave of Oman. A further possibility for the removal the northIraqi oil led predominantly and leads by Kurdish and Turkish area after Ceyhan at the Mediterranean. It was and is endangered, as long as the there conflicts are unresolved.
Reagans's minister of foreign affairs George Shultz, before, therefore the idea of a pipeline launched managers with the large building contractor and oil technology giant Bechtel to the Red Sea for its former employer, which seemed excluded from such considerations up to then? because of the proximity to Israel. Rumsfeld spoke the Investitonsvorhaben several times in Bagdad, so also in a variant on 26 March 1984. On the same day a UN committee condemned unanimously the employment of Iraqi chemistry weapons against Iranian soldiers. The Shultz only to ask the Iraqis it the USA may not bring the US minister of foreign affairs compelled into the "embarrassing situation" buy in the future chemicals which could be "raw material for something, which could contribute to the production of chemical weapons".
Meanwhile the US-delegated advanced the financial programmes for the pipeline project and insured in view of the chemistry weapons their Iraqi official contacts: "we would not like that this topic controls our mutual relations." The conscious linkage of the private-economical motive for profit with geostrategic criteria becomes clear with Bechtel manager H.B. Scott in view of an apparently which is approaching conclusion of the negotiations with the Iraq in the year 1984: "I cannot stress at all enough, how important the efforts of the Bechtel management on all levels of the US government and the industry are to support this project. The project has important geopolitical Untertoene. The time might be ripe with the project fast to advance with very important rewards for the fact that Bechtel made it possible."
The U.S. export import bank and the U.S. Overseas private Investment corporation, which helps to secure with government support of export trades, was pushed by lobbyists and Reagan officials to make available 500 million dollar credits and endorsements. But Saddam Hussein required for his part security. He was afraid, Israel could attack the pipeline. Thus the US government developed plans to pass yields on from the pipeline to the Israeli work party. Also it considered coupling military and civilian assistance for Israel to the warranty that the pipeline remains untouched. Judge William Clark flew therefore as fuerstlich paid employees of the technology company Bechtel to Bagdad? proven as representatives of president Reagan and its national security council. Also a close friend of the Israeli Prime Minister at that time Schimon Perez switched himself on into the negotiations. Swiss billionaire Bruce Rappaport turned to Bechtel with the offer of an Israeli security guarantee for the planned route. Rappaport required an anticipated payment on the conclusion of ten per cent, by which a part should be passed on to him, another at Israel.
On 25 February 1985 Schimon Perez insured that Israel would not accomplish "unprovoked attack" against the pipeline. But the project operators were afraid that this linguistic idiom would not be sufficient to calm the Iraqis down. Let Saddam Hussein the entire plan one year later fall. The authors of the study mean: Since then the irakisch?US American relations from year to year would have worsened.
Again once is it shown: Which is made ridiculous as Konspirationstheorie in the presence of war proponents, is possibly long in documents held as naked fact. The documents are provisionally inaccessible to us only. Today far more right-wing extremist Neokonservative participates than before twenty years in war plans and their execution. They act Israeli government in the consent with the right-wing extremist. A bribery of the work party might have been unnecessary in view of the weakness of the war opponents in Israel.
The authors of the study judge finally: "the bitter lesson from the Akaba project probably is that a?uebler dictator? as a good friend of the United States is considered, if it is ready a business to make? and as a deadly enemy, if it opposes."
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Well, gee I guess this is the big smoking gun once and for all pulling the mask off of our amoral profiteering warmongering hawk government.
Or maybe it simply shows that the issue isn't weapons of mass destruction IN AND OF THEMSELVES, but rather those weapons in the hands of a regime that is willing to provide them to forces which directly threaten the United States of America. We always have had, and probably always will have relations with less than savory governments. Such is the way of the world.
Removing Saddam Hussein accomplished this primary goal, and removed the possibility of horrific attacks springing from the efforts (directly or indirectly) from his regime and their weapons programs. A secondary yet incredibly important result is the overwhelming moral victory in freeing the millions of Iraqis from the brutal tyranny that had oppressed them.
This war was a war primarily of protection and prevention, and secondarily one of liberation.
Deals Donald Rumsfield attempted to broker twenty years ago are as fundamentally irrelevant as the fact that we assisted Hussein in the Iran-Iraq wars of the 1980's (or even that we assisted Osama bin Laden against the Soviets). The big picture is primarily one of global protection and security of US interests, and secondarily of moral justice (as in Kosovo) - it always has been and always will be.
Or maybe it simply shows that the issue isn't weapons of mass destruction IN AND OF THEMSELVES, but rather those weapons in the hands of a regime that is willing to provide them to forces which directly threaten the United States of America. We always have had, and probably always will have relations with less than savory governments. Such is the way of the world.
Removing Saddam Hussein accomplished this primary goal, and removed the possibility of horrific attacks springing from the efforts (directly or indirectly) from his regime and their weapons programs. A secondary yet incredibly important result is the overwhelming moral victory in freeing the millions of Iraqis from the brutal tyranny that had oppressed them.
This war was a war primarily of protection and prevention, and secondarily one of liberation.
Deals Donald Rumsfield attempted to broker twenty years ago are as fundamentally irrelevant as the fact that we assisted Hussein in the Iran-Iraq wars of the 1980's (or even that we assisted Osama bin Laden against the Soviets). The big picture is primarily one of global protection and security of US interests, and secondarily of moral justice (as in Kosovo) - it always has been and always will be.
Thanks for being one of our most loyal viewers. We distort, you comply.
They weren't speaking about chemical weapons? Damn. That undermines a lot of good conspiracy theories.
Although I have asked on many threads, I have yet to receive an answer. Either the posts are censored/removed before anybody can respond, or nobody knows. Here goes:
Please provide details of how the US supplied Iraq with WMDs. I always read this charge here, but never have read any detail. Thanks.
Although I have asked on many threads, I have yet to receive an answer. Either the posts are censored/removed before anybody can respond, or nobody knows. Here goes:
Please provide details of how the US supplied Iraq with WMDs. I always read this charge here, but never have read any detail. Thanks.
Hi,
Just a note to tell you there is an excellent article by one Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist, entitled
"The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet?.
You can find it (and several others) at
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill
Angie in Canada
Just a note to tell you there is an excellent article by one Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist, entitled
"The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet?.
You can find it (and several others) at
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill
Angie in Canada
Guess I'm too late, the Counterpunch article by Scahill comes up as HTTP Error 404: Page Not Found. Someone was too quick with the memory hole.
Rumsfeld's misdeeds are almost innumerable. This man singlehandedly commanded a cruise missile attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 and lied about it afterwards, poisoned thousands with Nutrasweet Aspartame..er..Formaldehyde Diet Soda and Equal Sweetener while CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals, insulted Vietnam Veterans as having "no real value," ; lied about the Iran-Contra affair; oversaw the torture of innocent Afghans and Arabs at Camp X-Ray, and pretty much caused all the wars in the Middle East in the last twenty years. The blood of untold thousands of innocent people worldwide is on his hands. To say he has committed high treason would be an understatement. He is the most sinister bastard this country has ever seen, next to that scumbag Daddy Bush.
Read Orwell's "1984", everything makes sense today once you do. At the end, when Winston is tortured by O'Brien, I kept picturing O'Brien as Rumsfeld, saying "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. The object of power is power. If you want to see a vision of the future we are preparing, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. In the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it."
Orwell was so prophetic. Here's an essay I wrote using Orwell's "Ignorance Is Strength" chapter as a model. You'll all love this.
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" REVISED VERSION, ADAPTED FROM GEORGE ORWELL's "1984"
by
(An Anonymous WRH Reader), Feb 2003
He opened the book and began to read:
By comparison with the one existing today in the United States, all tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups of those previous tyrannies were always infected with liberal ideas and were not interested in what their citizens were thinking. Part of the reason for this was that in the past, no government had the power of broad surveillance. With the invention of tiny wireless digital cameras, new standards on high definition television, and interactive media, however, private life came largely to an end. Coupled with the concentration of the media via numerous corporate mergers permitted by federal deregulation, and the creation of a
Total Information Awareness program authorized by the PATRIOT Act, citizens could be kept for the majority of their daily lives under the eyes of the police and inundated with official propaganda with all other channels of communication effectively closed (except for a few underground websites such as http://www.whatreallyhappened.com, bankindex.com, gooff.com, feralnews.com, and cooperativeresearch.org). With the majority of the American population unaware of these underground websites, the possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, heralded by such phrases as "United We Stand," and "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," now existed for the first time.
After World War II, society regrouped as always into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. The ruling group in the United States - comprised mainly of bureaucrats, Zionists, arms manufacturers, military strategists, publicity experts, oil and energy company executives, bankers, lawyers, journalists, and professional politicians - realized they could combine this concept with colonial imperialism, knowing that wealth and privilege, in particular, access to and control of oil, are more easily defended when possessed jointly. The so-called "concessions" - pieces of territory which the host country has allowed a corporation to occupy or use in a particular way, usually for a sum of money - resulted in situations of blackmail where the US would give arms and monetary aid to puppet regimes in countries containing significant oil and natural gas deposits, and would provoke war and unrest in these countries to secure tighter military control. By the 1980s, the interchangeability of Big Oil and US Government personnel had become a tradition of American political life, resulting in the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before. With control of oil meaning, ultimately, control over which nations can fight wars, economic inequality
has now been made permanent.
But the problems of maintaining a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle class to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. A ruling class which guards against all of these remains in power permanently.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the first danger had in
reality disappeared. The United States is now the world's only military superpower and is essentially unconquerable without the consequence of total nuclear devastation of the entire world. The second danger, also, is only a theoretical one. The masses never revolt of their own accord, and never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Cut off from reality by constant propaganda, without standards of comparison, many never become aware that they are oppressed. As for the problem of overproduction, it is solved by the Bush Administration's covert attack on its own citizens on September 11, 2001, which was falsely blamed on Arabs whose countries possess oil or desired land assets. The post- 9/11/01 declaration of continuous warfare, called "War on Terror" became useful in keying up public morale (and fear) to the necessary pitch. Therefore, from the Bush Administration's point of view, the only real dangers are the splitting off of a new group of informed, educated, able, liberal-minded activists. The problem, that is to say, is educational. It is a problem of continuously moulding the consciousness both of the directing group and of the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way.
...The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the American bourgeoisie, like the working poor, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from the foreign press, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard
the infallibility of the American political system. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, polls, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the US Government were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If for example, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or the Baathist regime in Iraq (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that regime must always have been "in league with terrorists", and thus "regime change" is needed. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered.
Thus history is constantly rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media whores, is as necessary to the stability of the American regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the CIA, the Mossad, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Rumsfeld's misdeeds are almost innumerable. This man singlehandedly commanded a cruise missile attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 and lied about it afterwards, poisoned thousands with Nutrasweet Aspartame..er..Formaldehyde Diet Soda and Equal Sweetener while CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals, insulted Vietnam Veterans as having "no real value," ; lied about the Iran-Contra affair; oversaw the torture of innocent Afghans and Arabs at Camp X-Ray, and pretty much caused all the wars in the Middle East in the last twenty years. The blood of untold thousands of innocent people worldwide is on his hands. To say he has committed high treason would be an understatement. He is the most sinister bastard this country has ever seen, next to that scumbag Daddy Bush.
Read Orwell's "1984", everything makes sense today once you do. At the end, when Winston is tortured by O'Brien, I kept picturing O'Brien as Rumsfeld, saying "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. The object of power is power. If you want to see a vision of the future we are preparing, imagine a boot stamping on a human face. In the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it."
Orwell was so prophetic. Here's an essay I wrote using Orwell's "Ignorance Is Strength" chapter as a model. You'll all love this.
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" REVISED VERSION, ADAPTED FROM GEORGE ORWELL's "1984"
by
(An Anonymous WRH Reader), Feb 2003
He opened the book and began to read:
By comparison with the one existing today in the United States, all tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups of those previous tyrannies were always infected with liberal ideas and were not interested in what their citizens were thinking. Part of the reason for this was that in the past, no government had the power of broad surveillance. With the invention of tiny wireless digital cameras, new standards on high definition television, and interactive media, however, private life came largely to an end. Coupled with the concentration of the media via numerous corporate mergers permitted by federal deregulation, and the creation of a
Total Information Awareness program authorized by the PATRIOT Act, citizens could be kept for the majority of their daily lives under the eyes of the police and inundated with official propaganda with all other channels of communication effectively closed (except for a few underground websites such as http://www.whatreallyhappened.com, bankindex.com, gooff.com, feralnews.com, and cooperativeresearch.org). With the majority of the American population unaware of these underground websites, the possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, heralded by such phrases as "United We Stand," and "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," now existed for the first time.
After World War II, society regrouped as always into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. The ruling group in the United States - comprised mainly of bureaucrats, Zionists, arms manufacturers, military strategists, publicity experts, oil and energy company executives, bankers, lawyers, journalists, and professional politicians - realized they could combine this concept with colonial imperialism, knowing that wealth and privilege, in particular, access to and control of oil, are more easily defended when possessed jointly. The so-called "concessions" - pieces of territory which the host country has allowed a corporation to occupy or use in a particular way, usually for a sum of money - resulted in situations of blackmail where the US would give arms and monetary aid to puppet regimes in countries containing significant oil and natural gas deposits, and would provoke war and unrest in these countries to secure tighter military control. By the 1980s, the interchangeability of Big Oil and US Government personnel had become a tradition of American political life, resulting in the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before. With control of oil meaning, ultimately, control over which nations can fight wars, economic inequality
has now been made permanent.
But the problems of maintaining a hierarchical society go deeper than this. There are only four ways in which a ruling group can fall from power. Either it is conquered from without, or it governs so inefficiently that the masses are stirred to revolt, or it allows a strong and discontented Middle class to come into being, or it loses its own self-confidence and willingness to govern. A ruling class which guards against all of these remains in power permanently.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the first danger had in
reality disappeared. The United States is now the world's only military superpower and is essentially unconquerable without the consequence of total nuclear devastation of the entire world. The second danger, also, is only a theoretical one. The masses never revolt of their own accord, and never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Cut off from reality by constant propaganda, without standards of comparison, many never become aware that they are oppressed. As for the problem of overproduction, it is solved by the Bush Administration's covert attack on its own citizens on September 11, 2001, which was falsely blamed on Arabs whose countries possess oil or desired land assets. The post- 9/11/01 declaration of continuous warfare, called "War on Terror" became useful in keying up public morale (and fear) to the necessary pitch. Therefore, from the Bush Administration's point of view, the only real dangers are the splitting off of a new group of informed, educated, able, liberal-minded activists. The problem, that is to say, is educational. It is a problem of continuously moulding the consciousness both of the directing group and of the larger executive group that lies immediately below it. The consciousness of the masses needs only to be influenced in a negative way.
...The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the American bourgeoisie, like the working poor, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from the foreign press, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard
the infallibility of the American political system. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, polls, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the US Government were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one's mind, or even one's policy, is a confession of weakness. If for example, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan or the Baathist regime in Iraq (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then that regime must always have been "in league with terrorists", and thus "regime change" is needed. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered.
Thus history is constantly rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media whores, is as necessary to the stability of the American regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the CIA, the Mossad, and the Department of Homeland Security.
"Rumsfeld's misdeeds are almost innumerable. This man singlehandedly commanded a cruise missile attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 and lied about it afterwards"
Yea, sure.
"poisoned thousands with Nutrasweet Aspartame..er..Formaldehyde Diet Soda and Equal Sweetener while CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals, "
You betcha.
"insulted Vietnam Veterans as having "no real value," ; lied about the Iran-Contra affair;"
Perhaps.
"oversaw the torture of innocent Afghans and Arabs at Camp X-Ray,"
How do you know they are innocent?
"and pretty much caused all the wars in the Middle East in the last twenty years."
Of course he did.
--------
Understanding the world is fairly simple when you can rely on a few conspiracy theory websites to explain it all to you. McBlack&WhiteWorld for Dummies.
Yea, sure.
"poisoned thousands with Nutrasweet Aspartame..er..Formaldehyde Diet Soda and Equal Sweetener while CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals, "
You betcha.
"insulted Vietnam Veterans as having "no real value," ; lied about the Iran-Contra affair;"
Perhaps.
"oversaw the torture of innocent Afghans and Arabs at Camp X-Ray,"
How do you know they are innocent?
"and pretty much caused all the wars in the Middle East in the last twenty years."
Of course he did.
--------
Understanding the world is fairly simple when you can rely on a few conspiracy theory websites to explain it all to you. McBlack&WhiteWorld for Dummies.
Never give up on a site until you search it, the article Angie referred to is there.
Search the article title:
"The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet" you will be directed to the following link
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill0802.html
Also check out from SF Chronicle:
Who armed Iraq? Sunday, March 2, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/02/IN123519.DTL
For Reason: I am not much on conspiracy theories but I will at least listen to any reasonable argument and decide for myself.
Regards,
Search the article title:
"The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet" you will be directed to the following link
http://www.counterpunch.org/scahill0802.html
Also check out from SF Chronicle:
Who armed Iraq? Sunday, March 2, 2003
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/02/IN123519.DTL
For Reason: I am not much on conspiracy theories but I will at least listen to any reasonable argument and decide for myself.
Regards,
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$135.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network