Tuesday, 29 May 2012


WWII hero, Lieutenant General James Doolittle, semi-retired from the military life in 1946 and was immediately offered a Vice Presidency with Shell Oil, a company for whom he had worked before the war.

He was, a little while later, made a Director of that company. Notwithstanding his corporate duties, from 1955 until 1965, Doolittle was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Before taking up this duty, in July, 1954, President Eisenhower had commissioned Doolittle to compile a top secret report on the CIA's covert activities and to 'make any recommendations calculated to improve the conduct of these operations.'

In this report, Doolittle says:

"Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of 'fair play' must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy."
On 27 September 2003, Ben Fenton told us this in The Guardian:

“Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, BRITAIN AND AMERICA SOUGHT A SECRETIVE 'REGIME CHANGE' IN ANOTHER ARAB COUNTRY they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.

Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to 'eliminate' the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan's defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the 'preferred plan' reads: 'In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, A SPECIAL EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN KEY INDIVIDUALS. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time.'

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as 'a most formidable report'. Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency 'to chatter'.

Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.


SYRIA ALSO HAD CONTROL OF ONE OF THE MAIN OIL ARTERIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.

The 'preferred plan'adds: 'Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

'The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities... Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures.'

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, FRONTIER INCIDENTS AND BORDER CLASHES WOULD BE STAGED TO PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR IRAQI AND JORDANIAN MILITARY INTERVENTION. SYRIA HAD TO BE 'MADE TO APPEAR AS THE SPONSOR OF PLOTS, SABOTAGE AND VIOLENCE DIRECTED AGAINST NEIGHBOURING GOVERNMENTS,' the report says. 'CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension.' That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of 'sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities' to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a 'Free Syria Committee', and the arming of 'political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities' within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba'ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and 'would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power'.”
Well, if the great and the good could scheme to inflict such Machiavellian nastiness upon a sovereign country and its leaders back then, they could do it now, couldn’t they? We all know Iraq was just Bush, Blair, Neocon, CIA, Mossad and Murdoch b****hit, so what about Syria in 2012?

For an alternative view of events in Syria, have a listen to what Dr Randy Short says in an interview with the Iran backed internet news outlet, Press TV.

In November 1979, the American embassy in Tehran was overrun by Iranian students.

In September 1980, to the relief of the Saudis and most of the other non-fundamentalist states in the region and with the tacit encouragement of America and the West, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran. In January 1981, the hostages were freed after 444 days in detention.

In June 1982, Saddam attempted to make peace but Iran turned a deaf ear to his offers. At this point he began to buy crop dusting helicopters from the United States, which everyone concerned knew would be used to deliver chemical weapons. Loans from the Banco Nazionale del Lavaro to Iraq for arms purchases were organised as early as 1984 by Kissinger Associates.

In December 1983, a meeting took place in Baghdad in which Reagan’s Middle East envoy informed Saddam Hussein that Washington was willing to resume diplomatic relations. These had been severed at the time of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Reagan’s envoy was none other than Donald Rumsfeld.

In April 1984, Saddam asked for a face to face meeting with Ayatollah Khomeini to negotiate peace but the offer was refused.

In 1984, the American Jew, Jack Bernstein, wrote, The Life of an American Jew in Racist Israel.

In this essay he writes prophetically:

"The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel. They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.

If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends."
In February 1984, Aaron Sherf, the head of the Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations, (Mossad) the training academy for Israeli Security Service agents, said this to a group of new recruits:

"Our motto is: By way of deception, thou shalt do war."
This, as reported by ex-Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky, (who was one of the 'new recruits') in the 1990 exposé, By Way of Deception.
In this book Ostrovsky tells us how the Mossad tricked Reagan's US government into believing that, in 1986, Libya was co-ordinating terrorist operations around the globe. This by using strategem that Mossad agents termed the 'Trojan dick trick.' Ostrovsky says:

"A Trojan was a special communication device that could be planted by naval commandos deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad… and intended to be received by American and British listening stations…

The transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain. The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse. Further, the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad."
In other words, the Mossad could set up the Trojan inside enemy territory and broadcast information from there that would make the listener (the Western Intelligence Services) think that the regime targeted by the Mossad was up to no good.

Ostrovsky described the result of the Mossad's anti-Libyan deceptions, thus:

"On April 14, 1986, one hundred and sixty American aircraft dropped over sixty tons of bombs on Libya. The attackers bombed Tripoli international airport, Bab al Azizia barracks, Sidi Bilal naval base, the city of Benghazi, and the Benine airfield outside Benghazi.

The strike force consisted of two main bodies, one originating in England and the other from flattops in the Mediterranean. From England came twenty-four F-111s from Lakenheath, five EF-111s from Upper Heyford, and twenty-eight refueling tankers from Mildenhall and Fairford.

In the attack, the air force F-111s and the EF-111s were joined by eighteen A-6 and A-7 strike and strike support aircraft, six FA-18 fighters, fourteen EA-6B electronic jammer planes, and other support platforms. The navy planes were catapulted from the carriers Coral Sea and America.

On the Libyan side, there were approximately forty civilian casualties, including Qadhafi's adopted daughter. On the American side, a pilot and his weapons officer were killed when their F-111 exploded.

After the bombing, the Hizballah broke off negotiations regarding the hostages they held in Beirut and executed three of them, including one American named Peter Kilburn…

Ephraim had spelled it all out for me… 'After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We're starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there's no doubt it'll work'…

In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossad had all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible… It was very clear what the Mossad's overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi…

The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear."
In 1986, Vice President George Bush urged Saddam Hussein to intensify his air war against Iran, in order to increase Iran's demand for US made anti-aircraft weapons. In the same year, the Iran/Contra scandal was exposed. The US had, since 1984, secretly been arming Iran. They had done this whilst they had been overtly encouraging Iraq. The US wanted neither side to 'win' but were more than happy to see both sides 'lose.'

The eight-year war against Iraq discouraged Iran from supporting Islamic revolution in neighbouring countries. Saddam gained great respect amongst secular Araby because of this. He also believed himself to be in America’s good books and the US did not dissuade him of this notion.

During the war, some of the Iraqi Kurds had joined forces with Iran against Saddam’s regime. By 1987, the Kurds had become the most powerful internal opposition in Iraq. They controlled an area bigger than Kuwait. Saddam gave the governor of Northern Iraq, permission to use chemical weapons against the Kurds at this time.

The Halabja story was first broached by the Iranians and was, at first, received sceptically by most. It did not become a big issue in the Western media until 1 September 1988, when the neoconservative Jew, William Safire, wrote an article about Halabja in the New York Times.

In March 1988, Halabja was a hotly contested war zone and gas was used against the opposing forces by both sides in the Iranian/Iraqi conflict. It is unlikely that the civilian inhabitants of Halabja were deliberately targeted, as is so often categorically stated. The most likely scenario suggests that they were caught in the crossfire.

It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister and his Foreign Office officials would be ignorant of the alternative Halabja theories and, to suppress this side of the argument in order to achieve a political end as monumental as that which he, Bush and the American 'Neoconservatives' forced upon us, is unforgivable.

That the Iranian involvement in the Halabja tragedy was officially deleted in order to make the case for a 'moral war' cannot possibly be refuted once the whole story is known.

In March 1988, a week after the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja, US State Department spokesman, Charles Redman, said this:

"There are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting. We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of any chemical weapons."
In March 1988, a US Defence Intelligence Agency Report said this:

"Most of the casualties in Halabja were reportedly caused by cyanogen chloride. This agent has never been used by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons, because Iran has never been noted using that agent."
On 17 April 1988, The New York Times reported thus:

"Iran expects to reap a propaganda harvest by showing that Iraq is gassing those of its own citizens deemed sympathizers in the seven-year-old war... According to the Iranians, a single Iraqi chemical attack on the Iranian-occupied village of Halabja last month killed 5,000 people and injured 5,000 others. Baghdad has said that 58 Iraqi soldiers were injured by Iranian chemical weapons."
In November 1988, the Israelis broke off peace talks with the Iraqis. Victor Ostrovsky informs us as to why they did this in his 1994 work, The Other Side of Deception:

"The peace with Egypt was pressing hard on the Israeli right wing. In itself, the peace, so vigilantly kept by the Egyptians, was living proof that the Arabs are a people with whom peace is possible, and that they're not at all what the Mossad and other elements of the right have portrayed them to be.

Egypt has kept its peace with Israel, even though Israel became the aggressor in Lebanon in 1982 and despite the Mossad's warnings that the Egyptians were in fact in the middle of a ten-year military buildup that would bring about a war with Israel…

The Mossad realized that it had to come up with a new threat to the region, a threat of such magnitude that it would justify whatever action the Mossad might see fit to take.

The right-wing elements in the Mossad… believed that the military might of what had become known as 'fortress Israel' was greater than that of all of the Arab armies combined…

The corollary belief was that peace overtures would inevitably start a process of corrosion that would weaken the military and eventually bring about the demise of the state of Israel…

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad's general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region.

And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.

The Mossad regarded Saddam Hussein as their biggest asset in the area, since he was totally irrational as far as international politics was concerned, and was therefore all the more likely to make a stupid move that the Mossad could take advantage of.

What the Mossad really feared was that Iraq's gigantic army, which had survived the Iran-Iraq war and was being supplied by the West and financed by Saudi Arabia, would fall into the hands of a leader who might be more palatable to the West and still be a threat to Israel.

The first step was taken in November 1988, when the Mossad told the Israeli foreign office to stop all talks with the Iraqis regarding a peace front. At that time, secret negotiations were taking place between Israelis, Jordanians, and Iraqis under the auspices of the Egyptians and with the blessings of the French and the Americans. The Mossad manipulated it so that Iraq looked as if it were the only country unwilling to talk, thereby convincing the Americans that Iraq had a different agenda.

By January 1989, the Mossad LAP machine was busy portraying Saddam as a tyrant and a danger to the world. The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty Interna-ional to fully bought members of the U.S. Congress.

Saddam had been killing his own people, the cry went; what could his enemies expect? The gruesome photos of dead Kurdish mothers clutching their dead babies after a gas attack by Saddam's army were real, and the acts were horrendous. But the Kurds were entangled in an all-out guerrilla war with the regime in Baghdad and had been supported for years by the Mossad, who sent arms and advisers to the mountain camps of the Barazany family; this attack by the Iraqis could hardly be called an attack on their own people…

The media was supplied with inside information and tips from reliable sources on how the crazed leader of Iraq killed people with his bare hands and used missiles to attack Iranian cities. What they neglected to tell the media was that most of the targeting for the missiles was done by the Mossad with the help of American satellites.

The Mossad was grooming Saddam for a fall… They wanted the Americans to do the work of destroying that gigantic army in the Iraqi desert so that Israel would not have to face it one day on its own border… It was time to draw attention to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction…

The message that Israeli intelligence sent out was this… This maniac is developing a nuclear capability and pursuing chemical warfare… <br/><br/>Quite soon, he's going to have the ability to launch a missile from anywhere in Iraq to anywhere he wants in the Middle East and beyond."
On 3 May 1990, The Washington Post reported thus:

"A Defence Department reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has assembled what analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the worst civilian massacres of the war, in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja, was caused by repeated chemical bombardments from both belligerent armies… this calls into question the widely reported assertion of human rights organizations and Kurdish groups that Iraq bore the greatest responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of Iraqi Kurds, women, infants and elderly, who died at Halabja."
Did you get that?

That was 'hundreds of Iraqi Kurds,' not the '5,000' that Bush, Blair, Straw, Hoon et al. were constantly drumming into us in the build up to war with Iraq.

In the 1990 document, Iraqi power and US security in the Middle East, published by the US Army War College, Professor Stephen Pelletiere, Colonel Douglas V. Johnson and Leif Rosenberger reported thus:

"In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds…

Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war, the killing of Kurds at Halabja. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents, and the Iranians do, we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack…

As a result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq is now the most powerful state in the Persian Gulf, an area in which we have vital interests. To maintain an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf to the West, we need to develop good working relations with all of the Gulf states, and particularly with Iraq, the strongest… under pressure from the Iraqis, all the Arab states of the Gulf, with the possible exception of Oman, would tacitly support a move to withdraw US privileges in the Gulf."
The documentation above, which was produced by extremely high-ranking and respected military and intelligence personnel, directly contradicts the propaganda disseminated by Bush, Blair and their acolytes during the lead up to war with Iraq. I reiterate: 'Iraq was blamed for the Halabja attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.'


Many, many British MPs took the '5,000 Kurds killed by Saddam at Halabja' nonsense as gospel and repeated it ad nauseam, without ever researching and/or reporting the alternative conclusions. One or two will have told this tale knowing that it was probably a lie. All of them deserve the utmost condemnation for their laziness and/or their duplicity.

Now, tell me something, did any British politician, including the Liberal Democrats, ever tell you what you just read here? They didn't, did they? Why not? Why didn’t others, much better placed to tell the British people than I ever was, bring this alternative analysis of the events that took place in Halabja out into the open? Why did Blair, Straw, Hoon, Alistair Campbell and all the others suppress this information? Which, in the all-knowing, all-seeing world they inhabit, will certainly have been thoroughly investigated and understood.

As both sides had used chemical weapons throughout the Iran/Iraq War, the Reagan administration had turned a blind eye but George Bush senior saw an opportunity to make political capital and condemned their use at this point. He was happy to pick a fight with the country that gave the Zionist lobby in America the most cause for concern in the knowledge that he would, thereby, attract the Jewish vote in the coming election.

The invasion of Kuwait was largely provoked by the greed of the Kuwaiti leadership. Whilst Iraq was otherwise distracted during its war against Iran, the Kuwaitis used the opportunity to extend their borders into Iraq. Around 900 square miles of Iraqi territory was filched by the Kuwaitis as a result.

Having brought the border close to the beginnings of the vast Rumaila oilfield, the Kuwaiti Emir purchased the hardware and expertise of the Santa Fe Drilling Company of California for 2.3 billion dollars. This company specialised in slant drilling, that is, they didn’t drill straight down, they drilled diagonally. The Emir was now able to siphon off Iraq’s oil wealth by drilling right into the heart of Iraq’s prime reserve.

Adding insult to injury, the Kuwaitis chose this moment to dump oil on the world’s markets and its price fell substantially as a result. This, at a time when the Iraqis needed to maximise their oil revenues to rebuild an economy devastated by the long years of war with Iran.

The former CIA operative John Stockwell informed us thus in a speech he gave at Louden Nelson Community Center, Santa Cruz, in 1991.

"This past summer, Saddam Hussein called in the US Ambassador April Glaspie and asked her what the US position was on the defence of Kuwait. She did not know that she was being tape-recorded and she told him ten times in this conversation that we had no defence agreement with Kuwait... She said she had conferred with the President about it.

Congressman Lee Hamilton concluded… that WE HAD DELIBERATELY GIVEN SADDAM HUSSEIN THE GREEN LIGHT TO INVADE KUWAIT… Hussein thought he was being permitted to go in and take Kuwait… And he thought that we would not react".
The following is the tape recorded conversation that April Glaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq, had with Saddam Hussein eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

"President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq… I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

2 August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

On 19 August 1990, Henry Kissinger said this in The Washington Post:
"If it should be concluded that sanctions are too uncertain and diplomacy unavailing, THE UNITED STATES WILL NEED TO CONSIDER A SURGICAL AND PROGRESSIVE DESTRUCTION OF IRAQ'S MILITARY ASSETS, especially since an outcome that leaves Saddam Hussein in place and his military machine unimpaired might turn out to be only an interlude between aggressions."
On 20 August 1990, William Safire, once a speech writer for Richard Nixon, said this in his New York Times column:

"By waging A DECISIVE, CONVENTIONAL WORLD WAR TWO-AND-A-HALF, we avert a nuclear World War III…

The world interest in BRINGING DOWN SADDAM HUSSEIN is to insure that the means of MASS DESTRUCTION never fall into the hands of a mass murderer."
On 23 August 1990, A.M. Rosenthal, former editor of The New York Times, said this:

"If the U.S., with or without the allies and the United Nations, removes Saddam Hussein's missile, nuclear and chemical warfare bases, Iraqis will remove Saddam Hussein…

Now U.S. diplomacy studiously pretends Israel does not exist. But the whole world knows that if necessary the U.S. will rely on Israel as a critical, steadfast reserve of power in the Middle East war."
On 23 August 1990, Pat Buchanan, US politician, broadcaster, advisor to US Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and sometime Presidential hopeful himself, said this in his newsletter:

"Some voices, the Wall Street Journal, the New Republic, Henry Kissinger, neoconservative columnists, are urging Mr. Bush to… launch a pre-emptive U.S. air strike on Iraq's chemical weapons plants, its embryonic nuclear plants, anti-aircraft positions, Scud missile factories, munitions plants. CASTRATE HIM MILITARILY WHILE WE HAVE THE CHANCE, THEY SAID….

Such a war would unleash all the forces of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism."
On 26 August, Pat Buchanan said this on The McLaughlin Report:

"There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East, THE ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTRY AND ITS AMEN CORNER IN THE UNITED STATES."
On 28 August 1990, Richard Cohen said this in The Washington Post:

"The problem I have with those who argue for a quick military strike is that THEY SEEM TO BE ARGUING FROM AN ISRAELI PERSPECTIVE... Our national interest is to maintain the status quo in the Middle East, to keep oil in friendly hands and to ensure the survival of moderate regimes...

The United States faces no holocaust and a resort to military action is not yet justified. Those who plump for war are a bit premature, attempting to make the Middle East safe for not only oil BUT FOR ISRAEL AS WELL. A war, though, is one way to imperil both."
On 31 August 1990, political correspondent, Shalom Yerushalmi, said this in the Jerusalem weekly, Kol Ha'ir:

"While talking to Israeli right-wing politicians, it is easy to detect their fervent hope that the present crisis in the Gulf will NOT be solved by peaceful means."
On 19 September 1990 Pat Buchanan said this in The Baltimore Sun:



To its credit, American journalism, Jew and Gentile alike, is waking up to THIS CONTEMPTIBLE ATTEMPT TO STIFLE DEBATE, especially on the issue of America's relations with Israel. Regrettably, we did not do so, before decent and honorable men, left as well as right, had careers damaged and reputations seared.

Confession time. From June of '67, when I was in Israel with Nixon after the Six Day War, until I went back in the White House in 1985, I was an uncritical apologist of Israel, a Begin man all the way, defending everything from the attack on the Iraqi reactor to the invasion of Lebanon. I thought they were terrific friends.

And, yes, a change has taken place. For many reasons. Among them: THE MANIPULATION OF THE TRAITOR JONATHAN POLLARD TO SYSTEMATICALLY LOOT THE SECRETS OF THE MOST GENEROUS FRIEND ISRAEL WILL EVER HAVE. THE GRATUITOUS BRUTALITY AGAINST PALESTINIAN OLD MEN, WOMEN, TEENAGERS AND CHILDREN. The Good Friday land grab at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The shipment of cluster bombs to the Stalinist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia. The caustic, cutting cracks about my church and popes from both Israel and its amen corner in the United States. Finally, THE HATE MAIL AND HATE COLUMNS, every damn time some new fight breaks out.

Comes now a report that MOSSAD KNEW IN ADVANCE TERRORISTS WERE BUILDING THAT MERCEDES TRUCK BOMB USED TO MASSACRE OUR MARINES IN THE BEIRUT BARRACKS AND THEY DELIBERATELY DIDN'T WARN US. (283 Marines were killed by the 1983 blast) It is but one measure of the diminished regard in which Israel's regime is held in this city, that not one person I have spoken to has said he feels Mossad incapable of such an act. And, if that charge, made in a new book by an ex-Mossad agent, is true, and if they did sit back and watch those Marine kids die like that, CONGRESS OUGHT TO TURN ALL THESE ROCKS OVER BEFORE THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT GETS ANOTHER DIME.”
All of those 'beating the drum' for the first Gulf War mentioned above are Jewish.

The invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition(Desert Storm) began on 17 January 1991 and ended on 28 February.

Of this event, Wikipedia tells us this:

"U.S. forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths (35 to friendly fire), with one pilot listed as MIA (his remains were found and identified in August 2009). A further 145 Americans died in non-combat accidents.

The UK suffered 47 deaths (9 to friendly fire), France two,[109] and the other countries, not including Kuwait, suffered 37 deaths...

Out of a total of 358 coalition deaths... 44 soldiers were killed, and 57 wounded, by friendly fire. 145 soldiers died of exploding munitions, or non-combat accidents...

The number of coalition wounded in combat seems to have been 776...

Nine British service personnel were killed in a friendly fire incident when a United States Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs.

Many returning coalition soldiers reported illnesses following their action in the Gulf War, a phenomenon known as Gulf War syndrome or Gulf War illness... Some factors considered as possibilities include exposure to depleted uranium, chemical weapons, anthrax vaccines given to deploying soldiers, and/or infectious diseases...

On the night of 26–27 February 1991, some Iraqi forces began leaving Kuwait on the main highway north of Al Jahra in a column of some 1,400 vehicles. A patrolling E-8 Joint STARS aircraft observed the retreating forces and relayed the information to the DDM-8 air operations center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. These vehicles and the retreating soldiers were subsequently attacked, resulting in a 60 km stretch of highway strewn with debris—the Highway of Death."
The number of Iraqi casualties in this war is not known.

After the war was over, George Bush senior gave a nod and a wink to the Kurds in the north and the Shi’ites in the south to overthrow the remnants of the Iraqi regime. Both eagerly sought revenge on their erstwhile neighbours in the areas where they were predominant and many tens of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis were killed, the innocent along with the guilty.

This uprising was so successful that, at one point, it was said that the forces ranged against Saddam held sway in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. But then Bush reneged on the deal. The US wanted a unified Iraq not a fragmented bunch of warring tribes.

Secretly, Saddam was told that he could breach the 'no-fly' zones that had just been established to re-establish order. This was done with swift and brutal effectiveness and the 'stability' that the US required was restored.

On 26 March 1991, The New York Times printed a Washington dispatch.

This read:

"President Bush has decided to let President Saddam Hussein put down rebellions in his country without American intervention rather than risk the splintering of Iraq, according to official statements and private briefings today."
Leaving the Kurdish and Shi’ite minorities, who had been encouraged to rebel in the first place by the elder Bush, helpless and at the mercy of a vengeful Saddam.

So, when Tony Blair told us that Saddam 'twice before started wars of aggression' and 'over one million people died in them' he was not lying. However, he fails to mention that the first war against Iran was aggressively encouraged by the West and Saddam’s neighbours and he also chooses not to tell us that, before the second war against Kuwait, Saddam was led to believe that the US was not interested in its defence.

As for using 'these weapons against his own people,' well Tony B has never told us that a goodly number of the Kurds were actively fighting against Saddam’s regime at the time, has he?

I’m no fan of Saddam, he was certainly a brutal tyrant, but if Blair and Bush wanted rid of him they should have told the whole truth, not just the little bits of it that suited their game plan.

In the lead up to war with Iraq, Blair, Straw, Hoon et al, instructed us ad nauseam as regards the 'moral case for war.' One of the main constituents of this 'moral case' was the 'gassing of his own people.' The massacre of the Kurdish villagers at Halabja was the incident most often cited.

On 18 February 1992, the initial draft of Defence Policy Guidance was presented to Dick Cheney, George Bush senior's Defence Secretary.

It was prepared by Paul Wolfowitz, the Under Secretary of Defence and Lewis Libby, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defence.

This document said:

"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order… In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to the region's oil."
Wolfowitz and Libby presented the second draft to Cheney on 16 April 1992.

This said:

"Our most fundamental goal is to… preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests… In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region… and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil.

The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and US-Israel strategic co-operation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War."
Wolfowitz and Libby are Jewish.

In 1993, Gerald Frankel created the Industry Forum in order to bring the Labour Party together with Big Business.

On 1 December 2003, Frankel's obituary was written up in The Guardian thus:

"Gerald Frankel, who has died aged 82, was one of the unsung architects of Labour's remarkable 1997 election victory. Through the Industry Forum, which he created in 1993, Frankel built a firm bridge between Labour and business, and helped the party's credibility in its weakest area. Driven to create a business-government consensus, he did this at an age when most people are happily retired."
Frankel was Jewish.

BLAIR WARS cont...

No comments:

Post a Comment