Error in Terror: "Honest Mistake"
By Ted Lang
01/28/04: (ICH) Well who'd have thunk it? The invasion of Iraq was just an honest mistake - kinda like a homeowner of an old house putting a penny in an antique, screw-in fuse socket and then watching his house catch fire and burn to the ground from the resultant electrical overload. Oh well, simple error in judgment! Any family members trapped in the blaze? Only one? Too bad! Hey, an honest mistake is an honest mistake!
one planned on killing anyone. Can you see such an argument justifying dismissal in an ordinary criminal or civil court?
Here we are, we the people, in order to establish a more perfect union, hiring a guy at $400 thousand a year, supplying him with round-the-clock protection via scores of trench coat wearing professional assassins wearing slings of machine-guns, street sweeper shotguns and 15-shot Glock semi-autos under their coats, providing him and his family with this same protection even after his leaving office, making available 24-7 a world class, six figure-earning chef to prepare his meals, funding outrageously lavish dinner and cocktail parties, providing world class air travel in his own private 747 airliner without him having to access same by running through a line of TSA thugs with police records, and offering a fantastic retirement plan unmatched anywhere. And the guy makes a simple mistake that puts US on the edge of the next World War? Now ain't that somethin'?
But shame on US even more if we believe that the lies President George W. Bush offered in his 2003 State of the Union address, as well as the continuation of those lies in his recent 2004 State of the Union address, do not justify impeachment and preclude justifying inquiry as regards beforehand knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. An increasingly uncomfortable realization is also showing up big-time on the political pre-dawn horizon that raises that unthinkable query: Was there pre-planned intent to justify the unconstitutional and unjust invasion of Iraq in order to primarily advance the interests of Israel, secure the Mid East from Russia and China and arrange non-bid sweetheart deals for their corporate buddies at Halliburton and Bechtel, such that intelligence that actually proved to be 100 percent totally correct was deliberately ignored?
The unshakeable, rock-solid postures taken by Bush, Cheney and Powell are now being back-pedaled: nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, deployable within 45 minutes, have now morphed in reverse to mere "programs;" Niger "yellowcake" was an error on the part of British intelligence; and now, everything the Bush administration received as intelligence is questionable, even though it was all used to fool Congress and the American people into an unnecessary war? Then if the Bush administration allowed itself to be incorrectly fooled into an unjust invasion of Iraq to advance the interests of Israel, and this now proves to be "false" intelligence, why wasn't President George W. Bush similarly fooled by our intelligence reports concerning 9-11?
Why has the White House accepted intelligence reports to initiate an unprovoked, first-strike declaration of war, a declaration of war that is a first time occurrence in the entire history of our republic, yet failed to accept as valid these very same intelligence reports when it came time to take action to protect the American people from the possibility of the 9-11 attacks? What preventive measures were immediately taken by the Bush administration, similar to those previously undertaken of arming airplane cockpit crews in anticipation of hijacking threats that followed the hostilities and tensions involving Castro's Cuba? What precautions, if any, did Bush take after Condoleezza Rice's briefing to Bush in August 2001 concerning the al-Qaeda threat? Of course, the specifics relative to the impending attack might not have been known at the time, but precisely what preventive measures were taken to protect the American people?
There is a serious lack of consistency with regard to when the Bush administration reacts to intelligence, irrespective of whether or not that intelligence is good or bad, and the way it cavalierly and selectively dismisses them. But considering the three-pronged motives in the Bush administration's PNAC plans to advance the interests of Israel, a serious breakdown in the "logic" of the White House's reaction to intelligence information is the last excuse and alibi they should have resorted to. How can such a breakdown occur within such a tight, secret and well-oiled regime as is characterized by the Bush administration? Think: "Surprise!"
The Bushies probably always knew that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was a "loose cannon," and might someday go public with revelations of the behind-closed-door intrigue of Bush's "secret government." So damage control was quick and easily handled by Bush's hired mouth Scott McClellan. But consider the almost immediate resignation of David Kay, and his astonishing revelation that dovetails nicely with the O'Neill accusation that invading Iraq was the Bush administration's number one objective at the time he took office.
O'Neill's revelations were decried as really no biggie - this was a mere extension of the Clinton administration's priorities. But then, why wasn't "global warming" a continuing policy as well? Why weren't environmental issues a continuation as well? Why did moderate Republican, former Environmental Protection Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, resign as well? Wasn't the latter resignation based upon Bush' failure to follow through on environmental issues initiated by Clinton?
The invasion, subjugation and intended colonization of Iraq was not carried out as an extension of Clinton's policies, but rather as an originally created PNAC neoconservative Republican foreign policy objective, prepared in anticipation of what they believed would be a rout of Al Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. O'Neill's revelations, on top of those offered by WMD Inspector David Kay, the latter also boasting impressive CIA intelligence credentials, now create an entirely new focus on the behind-the-scenes machinations of the secret Bush administration.
There were, obviously, no "intelligence failures!" The way Bush, Cheney and Powell offered up Saddam's WMD was that they were readily available and usable within 45 minutes of initial deployment. What actual words were used now becomes entirely irrelevant. One president is discredited for attempting to define "is," but this president is exempted from specifics regarding the word "imminent?" Nonsense!
Returning to the incompatible reliance upon bad intelligence concerning Iraq, compared to the selective, cavalier disregard of good intelligence regarding an impending 9-11, why didn't the White House take more seriously the threat of 9-11? This now, becomes a real problem. Did Bush know that 9-11 was on its way? Did he allow it to happen to anger the American people and Congress in order to capitalize upon that momentum to repay Zionists that helped to get him elected? Why couldn't American air defenses be deployed to stop these hijacked planes? Why were the latter airborne for an hour without a reaction from our Air Force?
Notice how Bush, Cheney and Powell are quickly backing off and now stating that they never said this or that? Notice how no one is asking why David Kay resigned, or making inquiry as to why he quit so soon after the president gave his State of the Union address? There is a dire need for Congress and the American people to get to the bottom of this outrageous pack of lies that are threatening to boil over in Iraq, set US up for more terrorist attacks, provide the Bush regime with justification to keep searching for WMD that "never existed" in Syria and Iran, in order to create a war to keep the world safe for Israel.
© THEODORE E. LANG 1/28/04 All rights reserved
Join our Daily News Headlines
Daily News Headlines