Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Contents of http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032503_perfect_storm_2.html

Expand Messages
  • andrea
    THE PERFECT STORM - Part II Shock and Awe Is Mocked and Flawed -- War Plan Stumbles as Bush Tells CNN, It’s Gonna Take a While to Achieve Our
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 30, 2003

      "Shock and Awe" Is "Mocked and Flawed" -- War Plan Stumbles
      as Bush Tells CNN, "It�s Gonna Take a While to Achieve Our
      Objective... This Is Just the Beginning of a Tough Fight."
      -- U.S. Soldiers Captured, Iraqi Resistance Significant and

      U.S. Press/Political Hostility to Bush Administration
      Intensifies � Major Papers Discussing Criminal Behavior,
      Impeachment as Focus Intensifies on Forged Niger Uranium
      Docs � Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld Implicated

      Oil Bonanza Fading as Economic Indicators Weaken in an
      Unstable Environment � Iraqi Oil Deliveries Interrupted �
      Reality Tramples Market Exuberance

      Turk-Kurdish Chaos More Likely

      Has the U.S. Been Set Up by Europe, Russia and China?

      by Michael C. Ruppert

      � Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications,
      www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted,
      distributed or posted on an Internet web site for
      non-profit purposes only.

      March 24, 2003, 2100 EDT (FTW) � Atlanta, Military,
      economic, oil, and political storms continue to gather and
      converge in what may become a Perfect Storm for the Bush
      Administration and the United States economy.

      On the fifth day of a U.S. military campaign rejected by
      the U.N. Security Council, at least 12 U.S. soldiers have
      been captured by Iraqi forces near al Nasiriyah even as
      various foreign news sources are reporting that as many as
      four to ten of the vaunted M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks
      have been destroyed in combat.� A helicopter aircrew has
      been captured further north. ABC has reported that
      coalition casualties are approaching 200. Promises that
      Iraqi civilians expecting liberation would greet coalition
      troops with open arms have been unfulfilled as Iraqi
      resistance stiffens on a daily basis. In a tragic event, an
      African-American Sergeant of the 101st Air Assault Division
      staged a grenade attack on tents occupied by his
      comrades-in-arms, killing one and wounding fourteen. The
      fallout from this tragedy will have lasting repercussions
      on the psyches of both U.S. military and civilian
      populations. Images of an American Black man face down and
      handcuffed - no matter how serious the offense - will not
      fade quickly and will further erode an extremely fragile
      and increasingly volatile domestic landscape. The suspect
      is Muslim.

      Saddam Hussein and his forces are now gaining strength,
      political cachet, and popular support with each new
      engagement while coalition forces lose it with every
      casualty and delay. One of the first questions asked at a
      somber, live press conference at Central Command
      headquarters in Qatar on Sunday was, "Has America gotten
      itself into another Vietnam?" This question came after only
      three days of ground combat. Around the Arab and Muslim
      world, Saddam Hussein�s picture is becoming an icon of
      anti-colonial resistance. Over a thousand years of European
      and American history, the Arab world has never given in
      easily to occupying forces; they always prefer one of their
      own � no matter how distasteful � to an outsider. The
      Crusades were the earliest lesson for Europe and the Suez
      crisis of 1956 the most recent.

      Consistent with predictions made in FTW, the Turkish
      government, poised to send several brigades into northern
      Iraq, is threatening to turn Northern Iraq into absolute
      chaos. The Kurds who live in the region ethnically blur the
      borders of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran and their support
      is critical to U.S. military plans. Having sought an
      independent homeland for decades, they have been
      consistently used by the U.S. and western powers for covert
      operations and destabilization programs and they have
      always been betrayed later. At the moment FTW gives a 50-50
      likelihood that the U.S. will ultimately � and after much
      protestation for effect � allow the Turkish incursion. That
      will instantly create a highly unstable and balkanized
      region. The U.S. has historically both created and
      preferred "balkanization" to secure commercial control of
      natural resources and civilian populations with devastating
      results for anyone living in the region. This could
      ultimately � if the U.S. invasion is successful - result in
      Iraq being divided into three or more separately governed

      The instability created by such a development would likely
      spread throughout the Middle East quickly. None of the
      region�s borders has existed for more than eighty years and
      all of them were drawn by departing colonial powers.
      Perceptions in Saudi Arabia of this kind of trend might
      automatically require U.S. forces to engage in a two-front
      war if the already unstable Saudi regime begins to fracture
      and weaken.

      To date, this writer has seen no reportage of how the Saudi
      populace is reacting to a war plan that is stumbling. For
      approximately six months, FTW has been reporting that Saudi
      Arabia would likely become unstable with the invasion and
      that American war planners might be planning for a nearly
      simultaneous operation to control Saudi oil fields, which
      contain 25% of all the oil on the planet. But as the
      efficacy of U.S. military might comes into question, the
      brass ring of oil becomes ever more elusive and a Saudi
      occupation becomes a military goal out of reach.

      In the meantime, there are increasing signs that the U.S.
      political and economic elites are laying the groundwork to
      make the Bush administration, specifically Bush, Cheney,
      Rumsfeld, Powell, Perle and Wolfowitz, sacrificial
      scapegoats for a failed policy in time to consolidate post
      9-11 gains, regroup and move forward. These indications
      include: written press attacks on the Bush administration
      by select journalists long known for their loyalty and
      obedience to financial interests and the CIA; a growing
      revolt from within the intelligence communities of the U.S.
      and the U.K. including damaging leaks undermining the
      credibility of the administration; serious economic
      consequences closing in on the financial markets; growing
      signs of pending oil shortages; and indications that the
      use of forged documents by the Bush and Blair regimes may
      become the Watergate burglary of the 21st century.


      While most of the American people rely on television
      coverage for their worldview, those within the government,
      politics and the financial markets look to a select group
      of entrenched print journalists to sniff the winds of
      political change. Those winds started blowing against
      George W. Bush and his administration before the war began.
      In what appears to be intensifying anti-Bush rhetoric, an
      unprecedented media effort is beginning to cut the legs
      from under the administration even as it gambles everything
      on an increasingly elusive military victory.

      March 12 � Beginning with a relatively unknown press
      organization, it was reported at www.informationtimes.com
      that 35 members of the U.S. Congress, overwhelmingly
      Democrat, had flatly rejected the U.S. war effort and were
      calling for a repeal of the February resolution authorizing
      the president to use force against Iraq.

      March 12 � On the same day, journalistic heavyweight Howard
      Fineman of NEWSWEEK reported that the "blame game" had
      already begun for a war that had not. He wrote "But few
      think it�s going to be easy. And my guess is that team
      discipline inside the Bush administration is about to be
      fractured by the collateral damage that already is being
      caused by a war we have yet to fight. We are embarrassingly
      alone diplomatically, and State Department underlings
      (privately) blame Rumsfeld & Co. Inside the Pentagon - but
      outside of Rumsfeld�s office � I�m told that E-Ring brass
      have adopted what one source calls a �Vietnam mentality,� a
      sense of resignation about a policy...they seriously doubt
      will work...

      "This time around is a different story. The closer we get
      to the event, the less Bush is in control of events..."

      March 14 � The Los Angeles Times� Greg Miller reported that
      a State Department document was contradicting the Bush
      administration�s claim that the Iraqi invasion would
      encourage the spread of democracy.

      "A classified State Department report expresses doubt that
      installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of
      democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has
      made in trying to build support for a war, according to
      intelligence officials familiar with the document.

      "The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush
      administration over the so-called domino theory, one of the
      arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq."

      The story specifically singled out Pentagon hawks Richard
      Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as objects of criticism by the
      U.S. intelligence community.

      March 15 � The International Herald Tribune reported that
      top officials of the World Trade Organization had also
      started turning on Bush by reporting, "...officials said
      they feared that American moves within the organization and
      toward a war in Iraq would weaken respect for international
      rules and lead to serious practical consequences for the
      world economy and business.

      "In the past months the United States has compiled one of
      the worst records for violating trade rules...

      "They said they were worried that all international
      institutions would suffer a loss of credibility if the one
      superpower appeared to be choosing which rules to obey and
      which rules to ignore."

      The WTO, globalization, is the heart of the economic power
      bloc that brought Bush into power.

      March 16 � The big guns at The Washington Post begin to
      open fire. In a lengthy story on the controversial Carlyle
      Group, a major private investment bank with which both the
      President and his father have deep financial connections,
      Greg Schneider made some absolutely stunning statements:

      "David M. Rubenstein is exasperated, and he blurts
      something that a quick look around the room proves is
      outrageous: "We�re not," he nearly shouts, "that well

      "Behind him is a picture of Rubenstein on a plane with
      then-Gov. George W. Bush. Across the room, a photo of
      Rubenstein with the President�s father and mother. Next to
      that, Rubenstein and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elsewhere:
      Rubenstein and Jimmy Carter. On a bookshelf: Rubenstein and
      the pope...

      "Rubenstein, after all, is founder of the Carlyle Group...

      "But the connections have cost Carlyle, in ways that are
      hard to measure. It has developed a reputation as the CIA
      of the business world � omnipresent, powerful, a little

      "Last year then-congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even
      suggested that Carlyle�s and Bush�s ties to the Middle East
      made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror
      attacks. While her comments were widely dismissed as
      irresponsible, the publicity highlighted Carlyle�s
      increasingly notorious reputation. Internet sites with
      headlines such as "The Axis of Corporate Evil" purport to
      link Carlyle to everything from Enron to Al Qaeda.

      "�We�ve actually replaced the Trilateral Commission� as the
      darling of conspiracy theorists, says Rubenstein � who,
      truth be told, happens to be a member of the Trilateral

      "It didn�t help that as the World trade Center burned on
      Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business
      conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a
      brother of Osama bin Laden. Former President Bush, a fellow
      investor, had been with him at the conference the previous

      "The company has rewarded its faithful with a 36 percent
      average annual rate of return...

      "Times are changing, though. It�s no longer valid to assume
      that Carlyle�s golden roll of all-stars automatically opens
      doors in certain parts of the world, says Youssef M.
      Ibrahim of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
      �George Bush junior is kind of screwing his father up,
      slowly but surely, in terms of securing relationships in
      the region,� Ibrahim says of the Mideast. The current
      administration�s support for Israel, its hostility toward
      Iraq and its rocky dealings with the Saudi royal family
      have soured business and political relationships alike, he

      [To view previous FTW stories on the Carlyle group please

      March 16 � On the same day as the Carlyle story, one of The
      Washington Post�s biggest pundits for several decades,
      Walter Pincus, fired a serious shot into the
      administration�s belly. To veterans of the 1996-98 popular
      nationwide campaign to expose CIA connections to cocaine
      trafficking, Pincus� name will be remembered as one of the
      chief defenders of the CIA. In fact, Pincus has been one of
      the Post�s primary CIA conduits for more than thirty years.
      In 1967, he wrote a short feature for the Post titled, "How
      I Traveled the World on a CIA Stipend."

      In a story titled "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms",
      Pincus described how U.S. "Senior intelligence analysts say
      they feel caught between the demands from the White House,
      Pentagon and other government policymakers for intelligence
      that would make the administration�s case �and what they
      say is a lack of hard facts,� one official said.

      "The assertions, coming on the eve of a possible decision
      by President Bush to go to war against Iraq, have raised
      concerns among some members of the intelligence community
      about whether administration officials have exaggerated
      intelligence in a desire to convince the American public..."

      Pincus went on to detail how key U.S. Senators like Carl
      Levin and John Warner were questioning data that had
      apparently been misrepresented and/or hidden from the U.N.

      An ominous note at the end of the story, reminding anyone
      who read it of Watergate and the demise of the Nixon
      presidency, added "Staff Writer Bob Woodward contributed to
      this report."

      March 18 � Pincus returned again, in the company of Post
      Staff Writer Dana Milbank, to place more bricks in the wall
      that might seal the administration�s fate. The story
      titled, "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq"
      opened with the lead, "As the Bush administration prepares
      to attack Iraq this week, it is doing so on the basis of a
      number of allegations against Iraqi president Saddam
      Hussein that have been challenged � and in some cases
      disproved � by the United Nations, European governments and
      even U.S. intelligence reports."

      The story went on to document misrepresentations by George
      Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell that made it clear that
      if George W. Bush was going down his whole administration
      was going with him. It was now a part of the official
      Washington record that all three had been guilty of
      misrepresentations to the press and the American people.

      March 20 � Columnist Craig Roberts, writing in the
      traditionally pro-Republican, conservative Washington Times
      delivered perhaps the most shocking signal that the power
      establishment, which should have stopped the war before it
      started, was moving to set the administration up for a fall.

      In a column titled "A Reckless Path", Roberts� lead
      paragraph read:

      "Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal?
      These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted
      a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world
      opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and
      America�s allies."

      It got worse from there.

      "...On the eve of Mr. Bush�s ultimatum, it came to light
      that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush
      administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is
      a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the
      ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, has
      asked the FBI to investigate the forged documents that the
      Bush administration has used to make its case that Saddam
      Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

      Amazingly, Roberts then went on to make a comparison with
      Adolf Hitler�s faked attacks by SS soldiers dressed as
      Polish troops in 1939 to justify the invasion of Poland,
      which started the Second World War.

      Roberts closed his column with a dire warning. "Mr. Bush
      and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an
      American president is temporary and relative."

      March 22 � One of The New York Times� chief experts on
      intelligence, with close contacts at the CIA, is James
      Risen. Whenever reading a Risen story it�s a safe bet to
      assume that it was fed to him directly by CIA headquarters.
      In a story headlined, "CIA Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing
      Iraqi Reports" Risen wrote:

      "The recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to
      buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged
      documents has renewed complaints among analysts at the
      C.I.A. about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been
      handled, several intelligence officials said.

      "Analysts at the agency said they had felt pressured to
      make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush
      administration policies.

      "For months, a few C.I.A. analysts have privately expressed
      concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that
      they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to
      emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al

      "As the White House contended that links between Mr.
      Hussein and Al Qaeda justified military action against
      Iraq, these analysts complained that reports on Iraq have
      attracted unusually intense scrutiny from senior policy
      makers within the Bush administration.

      "�A lot of analysts have been upset about the way the
      Iraq-Al Qaeda case has been handled,� said one intelligence
      official familiar with the debate."


      It has been happening for two months now. Leaks, protests,
      even overt criticisms from those like former senior CIA
      analyst Stephen Pelletier, who has revealed that it was
      Iran rather than Iraq which had killed thousands of Kurds
      in massive poison gas attacks in the 1980s. More recently
      we have seen British intelligence personnel leak
      information to the press showing that Britain�s infamous
      intelligence dossier on Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction
      (WMD) had been plagiarized from outdated information in
      graduate student papers and that the U.S. National Security
      Agency (NSA) has engaged in illegal wiretapping of U.N.
      officials in attempts to secure enough votes for a
      resolution in support of the invasion. One or perhaps two
      of these events could be explained as the actions of
      individuals. But the frequency and number of these attacks
      is suggesting that the intelligence services, which view
      themselves as permanent and enduring institutions as
      compared to passing administrations, are slowly pulling
      structural supports from underneath the Bush and Blair
      administrations� platform.

      On February 8, Counterpunch published a statement by a
      group calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
      Sanity (VIPS) which gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a
      C- grade for providing "context and perspective" on Iraqi
      weapons and intent. The statement specifically and
      correctly chided the Bush administration for making the
      violation of a U.N. resolution a pretext for war pointing
      out that Israel�s refusal to comply from a U.N. resolution
      calling for its withdrawal from territories occupied in
      1967 has never been addressed.

      [NOTE: Israel is currently in violation of 64 U.N.
      resolutions as opposed to Iraq�s 17]

      The VIPS statement also vigorously disputed any notion that
      Iraq posed any immediate threat to the U.S. and quoted CIA
      reports supporting that position. It also disputed
      Bush/Powell contentions that Iraq had any previous
      involvement with terrorist activities. Revealing what may
      actually be an intention of the Bush administration, VIPS
      stated, "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq
      would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists
      into the indefinite future."

      And, striking a chord that is sure to resonate in millions
      of U.S. military veterans, VIPS observed, "Reminder: The
      last time we sent troops to the Gulf, over 600,000 of them,
      one out of three came back ill � many with unexplained
      disorders of the nervous system. Your Secretary of
      Veteran�s Affairs recently closed the VA healthcare system
      to nearly 200,000 eligible veterans by administrative fiat."

      Stories from early March in Britain�s The Observer actually
      produced a copy of a Top Secret NSA memorandum calling on
      allied intelligence agencies to increase their wiretapping
      and monitoring of U.N. diplomats who might swing a Security
      Council vote in favor of the U.S. While reportage on this
      major breach of international trust and protocol has gone
      away, the rage felt by many diplomats has not. It was later
      disclosed that an employee of British intelligence who was
      outraged by its contents had leaked the memo. However,
      reading between the lines, this writer suspects that the
      leak took place with a wink and a nod from higher ups.

      By March 14, the activities of VIPS were getting favorable
      coverage by the Associated Press, a sign that powers
      controlling both the media and the intelligence services
      were pushing the agenda. Although varying editions of the
      story appeared in print, on the AP web site and in
      different parts of the country, the basic story retained a
      key lead sentence. "A small group comprised mostly of
      retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still
      inside to go public with any evidence the Bush
      administration is slanting intelligence to support its case
      for war with Iraq."

      Such a statement from intelligence veterans has serious
      repercussions in a discipline that is noted for never
      leaking information. That is, unless there is an agenda
      that intelligence agencies themselves are pursuing. In
      those cases the CIA plays the media, as one CIA executive
      once described, "like a Mighty Wurlitzer."

      As resignations of outraged civil servants are stacking up
      on both sides of the Atlantic like freshly cut firewood,
      the Bush administration was also seriously hurt by the
      resignation of the top Bush National Security Council
      official in charge of terrorism, Rand Beers. A March 19 UPI
      story, while repeating the Bush administration position
      that Beers� resignation was not because of administration
      deceit and vanishing credibility, left no doubt that Beers,
      widely respected in Washington, was just plain fed up and
      possibly sensing a sinking ship.


      The utterly ridiculous and unjustified drop in oil prices
      and upsurge in the Dow last week is belied by real data on
      oil supplies as the Iraqi invasion stumbles. As the war
      intensifies some real garbage and some occasional gems of
      truth are coming from the major media.

      First, it is a given that while the war is in progress,
      Iraqi oil exports are virtually non-existent. The port
      region around Basra � which accounts for well more than
      half of Iraqi exports -- is virtually shut down. One
      pipeline running from northern Iraq to the Turkish port of
      Ceyhan is reported to be intact but there are no reports as
      to whether oil is actually flowing. It�s not likely. What
      this means is that it is a safe bet that two million plus
      barrels per day (Mbpd) have been taken out of world

      In the face of this, BusinessWeek, in the February 24
      issue, has engaged in the outrageously dishonest reporting
      that the Caspian basin may hold 200 billion barrels (Gb) of
      reserves and that there are some three trillion barrels of
      proven conventional oil remaining on the planet. Extensive
      research conducted by FTW has shown that Caspian reserves
      have been verified by drilling results over the last three
      years to be only around 40 Gb and are a major
      disappointment. FTW data was derived through extensive
      research in oil and gas journals, official government
      reports and by direct interviews with oil executives who
      have been in the region.

      Planetary reserves of conventional oil are only about one
      trillion barrels or enough to keep the world supplied for
      approximately 30 years in an ever tightening and ever more
      expensive marketplace that threatens economies all over the
      globe. Motives for the BusinessWeek deception would include
      providing propaganda cover for the fact that the invasion
      of Iraq is totally about oil and also give false confidence
      to investors as financial and equity markets teeter on the
      brink of collapse.

      The Wall Street Journal, however, on March 18, recently
      engaged in some serious truth telling. In a page-one story
      titled "Why the U.S. IS Still Hooked On Oil Imports", the
      Journal reported:

      "President Bush says hydrogen power will lead to energy
      independence... Mr. Bush is almost certain to be proved
      wrong, at least in the next couple of decades."

      After acknowledging that oil price spikes have always led
      to recessions, the Journal relied on an extensive body of
      research of the statements of OPEC founder, Saudi Sheikh
      Zaki Yamani to hit at one of the core motivators for the
      Iraqi invasion � oil production costs. Not every country or
      region spends the same amount of money to produce a barrel
      of oil. And nowhere is oil cheaper to produce than in the
      Persian Gulf. The Journal quoted Yamani as stating at a
      1980s OPEC meeting, "Let�s see how the North Sea can
      produce oil when prices are at $5 a barrel."

      The Journal continued: "At low prices, the Persian Gulf
      countries have an unbeatable edge. In the mid 1980s it cost
      them a couple of dollars a barrel to produce oil. It cost
      about $15 a barrel off the coast of Britain and Norway or
      in the U.S." That was in the 1980s. Credible estimates of
      North Sea production costs in dying fields now place the
      cost per barrel at over $20.

      Russia has current estimated production costs of between
      $19 and $27 a barrel which reveal the key to everything
      that�s going on now. The world is running out of oil. In
      order to save a teetering U.S. economy the Bush
      administration is betting on the rapidly diminishing hope
      that it can get Iraqi oil back on the markets and available
      to the U.S. at a price of between $15 and $20 per barrel.
      If the prices drop to the levels Bush needs, OPEC loses its
      profits and Russian oil becomes uncompetitive in the market

      Bush is not going to get his way.

      In a major development, it was reported on Saturday that
      growing unrest in Nigeria, an OPEC member and the world�s
      sixth largest exporter, had shut down the Chevron Texaco
      pumping facilities. A story in today�s Economist confirmed
      earlier reports that both Chevron and French giant
      TotalFinaElf had not only shut down production but ordered
      evacuations of all their personnel. These moves take an
      immediate 330,000 barrels a day out of world supplies and
      they also hearken back to recent lessons learned in
      Venezuela after a massive strike shut down Venezuelan
      production. Refineries and wells don�t operate at the flip
      of a switch. They require a constant flow of chemicals and
      products to keep their systems primed. When recovering from
      a shut down, it often takes a considerable period to reach
      previous production levels.

      While OPEC has announced that it will increase production
      to offset shortages, its ability to do so is limited to
      perhaps� a 3-5 Mbpd increase. That�s a drop in the bucket
      in current tight markets and in a world that consumes a
      billion barrels every twelve days. Iraqi oil fields will
      require billions of dollars of investment and years to
      increase Iraqi production to five or eight Mbpd. And that
      clock will only start ticking once the country is secure
      and safe, an outcome that is not at all guaranteed at the

      In the meantime, according to The Financial Times today,
      the Mexican government has announced its intent to start
      selling U.S. dollars on world currency markets. This move
      could further weaken an already shaky U.S. dollar,
      especially if other nations, angered at the U.S. invasion
      of Iraq, follow suit. Since oil is currently purchased in
      dollars, inevitable future oil price spikes could become
      doubly painful for the U.S. economy as the dollar loses


      "At the Security Council, some are questioning the veracity
      of any U.S. claim regarding Iraq." � The Boston Globe,
      March 16, 2003

      The first official report that documents prepared on
      stationery of the governments of Niger and Iraq detailing a
      planned sale of uranium to Iraq were forged came on March
      7. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief nuclear inspector for the
      International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security
      Council that the documents, "were not authentic." The first
      paper to break the news was London�s Financial Times. The
      documents, not very clever or convincing, failed to
      convince the U.N. but were, however, included in British
      Prime Minister Tony Blair�s now legendary flawed
      intelligence dossier, which had been presented to
      Parliament on Sept. 24, 2002.

      The Washington Post picked up on the story on March 8 where
      it reported that, "The forgers had made relatively crude
      errors that eventually gave them away � including names and
      titles that did not match up with the individuals who held
      office at the time the letters were purportedly written,
      the officials said."

      The Post reported administration officials as giving the
      somewhat lame excuse, "We fell for it." No one even tried
      to suggest a motive for someone other than the Bush or
      Blair regimes to commit the crime.

      Not everyone fell for it. As reported in what are now at
      least a half dozen stories, the CIA was suspicious of the
      documents and purposely left them out of their own report
      on Iraqi weapons. That did not, however, prevent George W.
      Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney from
      touting them as authentic. The State Department even
      authoritatively referred to the documents in a December 19,
      2002 Fact Sheet titled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions
      From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security

      By March 13, The Post was back with a story indicating that
      the FBI was looking into the source of the documents and
      "the possibility that a foreign government is using a
      deception campaign to foster support for military action
      against Iraq."

      Huh? Is there some country out there we haven�t heard of
      that really hates Iraq other than the U.S., Britain or

      The Post story closed by saying, "The CIA, which also had
      obtained the documents, had questions about �whether they
      were accurate,� said one intelligence official, and it
      decided not to include them in its file on Iraq�s program
      to procure weapons of mass destruction."

      This begs the question as to whether CIA Director George
      Tenet told Bush or Cheney or Powell that the documents were
      forged. That�s his job above all else: to give the
      President reliable and trustworthy intelligence.

      On March 14, Ken Guggenheim of The Associated Press
      reported that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa.), ranking
      member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had called the
      FBI and asked for an investigation of the documents.
      Rockefeller�s full name is John D. Rockefeller, IV and he
      is a direct descendant of the same family that essentially
      brought the Bush family into power. What is amazing here is
      not only that someone has requested an investigation of
      just one of the hundreds of Bush administration
      inconsistencies and proven lies since 9-11, but that it was
      a Rockefeller who requested it. That reality has thundered
      throughout Washington�s power corridors like an earthquake.

      FTW placed calls to both FBI headquarters and Rockefeller�s
      Washington offices asking for comment or further
      information. An FBI spokesperson told FTW that the Bureau
      had nothing to say. After hearing what the topic was, a
      Rockefeller spokesperson promised to call back but did not.

      Colin Powell immediately started denying that the State
      Department had anything to do with creating the forgeries.
      No one had accused him! And the story picked up "legs" in
      print media around the world.

      By the 15th, CNN had picked up the story on its web site
      and had added damning observations about the childish,
      crude and "obvious" nature of the forgeries that "should
      never have gotten past the CIA." But the CIA had already
      established a record saying that it never trusted the
      documents.� Asked about the documents on Meet the Press the
      previous Sunday, Powell simply stated, "It was the
      information that we had. We provided it. If that
      information is inaccurate, fine."

      Not so fine.

      Where did the documents come from? Already inconsistent
      finger pointing, eerily reminiscent of the loose threads
      pulled on by Woodward and Bernstein in 1972 and 1973 are
      starting to surface. Powell says he doesn�t know where the
      documents came from. Britain is remaining silent and the
      government of Niger has issued a blunt statement indicating
      that the documents were forged in London and Washington.

      My guess is that they were forged inside the National
      Security Council rather than at the CIA. The CIA would have
      done a better job. Can you say, "Iran-Contra"?

      The most scathing blow to date � and there are sure to be
      more � came from Congressman Henry Waxman (D, Ca.) who, in
      a six-page March 17 letter to George Bush, created a
      locked-down record of Bush�s, Cheney�s, Rumsfeld�s and
      Powell�s use of the documents, even pointing out that the
      President had made reference to the documents in his
      State-of-the-Union address in January by saying, "The
      British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
      sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
      Waxman noted next that, "a day later, Defense Secretary
      Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at a news briefing that Iraq
      "recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of
      uranium from Africa."

      Waxman closed his letter with three chilling questions that
      may now distance George Tenet from George W. Bush and his
      cabinet, who will all go down together if it becomes
      necessary. Waxman asked the President to directly address:

      Whether CIA officials communicated their doubts about the
      credibility of the forged evidence to other Administration
      officials, including officials at the Department of State,
      the Department of Defense, the National Security Council,
      and the White House;

      Whether the CIA had any input into the "Fact Sheet"
      distributed by the State Department on December 19, 2002;

      Whether the CIA reviewed your statement in the State of the
      Union address regarding Iraq�s attempts to obtain uranium
      from Africa and, if so, what the CIA said about the

      I can hear the distant echoes of Senator Howard Baker in
      the Senate Watergate hearings asking, "What did the
      President know and when did he know it?"


      It�s all coming together on the radar screen and the
      chances are that these storms are going to merge. In this
      all out economic war of survival, as Peak Oil forces its
      way into the public consciousness, Russia will likely
      continue to provide Saddam with arms and technical
      assistance. France may well share intelligence. China, with
      the slightest nod, can contribute tactical advice and many
      mines for the Mediterranean. All of them can indirectly,
      and through plausibly deniable methods, foster and supply
      revolts in oil producing regions around the globe. And they
      can all laugh and deny as the U.S. tries to point a finger
      at them. This has all been done before.

      In the meantime Vladimir Putin can cushion his allies with
      cheap oil as the U.S. starts to die of thirst.

      Before Americans become outraged that such a scenario might
      be unfolding, I would remind them that every one of these
      tactics has been employed by the United States in spades
      against each of these countries for more than fifty years.
      It was the U.S. that chose this course to begin with. The
      tragedy, of course, is that the American people will suffer
      greatly as the storms converge. The truth is that the
      American people have never been any more of a concern to
      the powers that be than the people in the rest of the world
      have, except that giving them a higher standard of living
      made them compliant and dumb. It appears as if even that is
      no longer necessary. The destruction of American
      credibility and the transfer of its wealth are necessary
      steps in the creation of the New World Order.

      Everything might just come crashing down all at once and if
      that happens the powers that rule will sacrifice their
      little Caesar and cut a deal with the other nations
      quickly. Just as in Shakespeare�s play, there will be many
      wounds in Caesar�s body, inflicted by many different
      people. But most certainly one of the daggers will be found
      in the hand of George Tenet and the CIA. He knows where the
      real power resides.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.