Contents of http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/032503_perfect_storm_2.html
- 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
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
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
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.
THE WRITTEN PRESS TURN ON BUSH, BIG TIME
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
"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
"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
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
"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
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
"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."
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TURN ON BUSH/BLAIR
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
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.
OIL'S NOT WELL
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
"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
BUSH'S WATGERATE BURGLARY
"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
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?"
THE PERFECT STORM
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.