Centre for Research on Globalisation

Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

 www.globalresearch.ca                                                                                                                                                                 

 

What are the implications of Bush's October 7 Speech?

Bush Military Adventure threatens Future of Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

 globalresearch.ca ,  8  October/ octobre 2002

"Those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves…" (George W. Bush, Remarks on Iraq Cincinnati Museum Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 October 2002)

 

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, in the largest display of military might since the Second World War, the Bush Administration  has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

This threat was reconfirmed in President Bush' October 7 televised address, which was broadcast on the first anniversary of the US bombing of Afghanistan..

This war has in fact already started  with US-UK bombing raids directed against Iraq. The Bush Administration is waiting for the rubber stamp of US Congress, to proceed with an all out attack. In the words of President Bush in his October 7 speech:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Despite mounting public dissent in the US and internationally, the House and the Senate are working on a resolution which will authorise President Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and appropriate" in Iraq.

The American people must understand the implications of President Bush’s decision. A war against Iraq will engulf a much larger region, extending from the Mediterranean, across the Middle East to Central Asia, integrating several war theatres.

This war on Iraq, presented to a public opinion by President Bush as part of the "war on terrorism", does not exclude the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis.

Moreover, the Pentagon has confirmed its intention to extend the military campaign into Iran. It has also confirmed that the not so hidden agenda of this war is "to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil":

The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.  (USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy )

Israel and the Dangers of Nuclear War

The ongoing war waged by Israel against the Palestinian people is part and parcel of America’s New War strategy. An invasion of Iraq would inevitably trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East in which Israel would definitively be aligned with the Anglo-American military axis.

 Israel’s nuclear warheads are pointed at Baghdad and major cities in the Middle East.

According to John Steinbach, a leading authority on Israel's nuclear programme:

..the existence of an [Israeli] arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region ...  has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the] next war will not be conventional." ...  The unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern [Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity] is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent." Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. John Steinbach, Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html , CRG, March 2001)

Weapons of Mass Destruction:  Double Standards

President Bush justifies his war plans by quoting  former chief weapon’s inspector Butler, who until recently was an unbending supporter of the US administration::

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." (GWB, October 7)

The statement by Butler was made a year ago in the immediate wake of 9/11. In a bitter irony, the man quoted in the President’s speech is now accusing the Bush administration of "double standards". In an recent 2002 statement,  Butler said  that:

"even educated Americans were deaf to arguments about the hypocrisy of their stance on nuclear weapons...

My attempts to have Americans enter into discussions about double standards have been an abject failure - even with highly educated and engaged people… I sometimes felt I was speaking to them in Martian, so deep is their inability to understand… What America totally fails to understand is that their weapons of mass destruction are just as much a problem as are those of Iraq… [The entrenched idea among Americans is that there are] good weapons of mass destruction and bad ones…

Amongst my toughest moments in Baghdad were when the Iraqis demanded that I explain why they should be hounded for their weapons of mass destruction when, just down the road, Israel was not, even though it was known to possess some 200 nuclear weapons…

I confess, too, that I flinch when I hear American, British and French fulminations against weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the fact that they are the proud owners of massive quantities of those weapons, unapologetically insisting that they are essential for their national security, and will remain so." (quoted in Sydney Morning Herald, op cit)

The Pretext for Waging War: "The US is under Attack"

The legitimacy of this war hinges upon the official 9/11 narrative. "The US is under attack". The war against Iraq is presented as a pre-emptive operation to "defend ourselves" against terrorists and rogue states.

The Bush administration requires legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion, namely, that in launching the war in Iraq, it is acting in response to the tragic events of September 11.

In this regard, President Bush in his October 7 speech has linked Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda:

"We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq…

The evidence presented below confirms that the Bush Administration (rather than Iraq) has supported and abetted international terrorism:

Links between the US Government and Al Qaida

The evidence now amply confirms that the pretext for waging "the war on terrorism" –which now includes by extension-- the war on "rogue states" (including Iraq) has been totally fabricated. The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned intelligence operation. And it was not Iraq but America's ally Pakistan who supported Al QaIda.

The evidence from official sources confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's military intelligence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI is supported by the CIA and there are close links between the two agencies.(Michel Chossudovsky, The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence Agency (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks, November 2001) 

Moreover, official documents including Congressional transcripts confirm that Al Qaida is in fact a creation of the CIA, namely an "intelligence asset".

Since the Soviet-Afghan war and throughout the post-Cold war era, "the militant islamic base" has been used by successive US administrations to wage covert operations in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who is Osama bin Laden , 12 September  2001)

US government-Al Qaida links in Bosnia (1990s)

In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaida in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee (US Congress):

The Clinton administration’s hands-on involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... [T]he Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia...  TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing) and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. (Congressional Press Release, Republican Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC, 16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html.)

In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organizations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists" (to use GWB's expression in his October 7 speech).

The Republicans wanted to undermine the Clinton administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, they no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.

The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for having lied to the American people regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive Aforeign policy lies regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA, not to "spill the beans".

US government links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia (2001)

Barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces.

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities, the U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists were funded from U.S. military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget in Kosovo, as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden=s Al Qaeda. Drug money was also used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the U.S. government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia was implemented through various Islamic groups.

U.S. military advisers mingle with the Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force; Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside the Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the U.S. media calls this a >blowback= where so-called " intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors!

The US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11. One would, therefore, expect that the CIA were fully informed on the activities and whereabouts of their "intelligence assets".

In other words, the media's spotlight on foreknowledge and so-called FBI lapses serves to distract public attention from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as part of its covert operations.

While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links.

In other words, the foreknowledge issue, focussing on FBI lapses, is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter), in support of the "Islamic Militant Base", is simply not mentioned.

The Role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence in the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

President Bush states in his speech that:

those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

The evidence confirms that agencies of the US government have harbored the 9/11 terrorists using Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) as a go-between.

The FBI confirmed in late September, in an interview with ABC News (which went virtually unnoticed), that the 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from unnamed sources in Pakistan:

As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader, Mohammed Atta. As well  "Time Magazine" is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It's all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker's high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind. (Statement of Brian Ross reporting on information conveyed to him by the FBI, (ABC News, This Week, September 30, 2001)

The FBI had information on the money trail. They knew exactly who was financing the terrorists. The findings of the FBI were confirmed by Agence France Presse (AFP) and the Times of India (9 October 2001) , quoting an official Indian intelligence report (which had been dispatched to Washington). According to these two reports, the money used to finance the 9-11 attacks had allegedly been Awired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan, by Ahmad Umar Sheikh, at the instance of [ISI Chief] General Mahmoud [Ahmad]" According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source):  "The evidence we have supplied to the U.S. is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act of terrorism.". ( AFP, 10 October 2001. Full details on the ISI connection are contained in Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, the Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook and CRG, 2002, see Michel Chossudovsky, Political Deception: The Missing Link behind 9/11,  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html, CRG, June 2002)

Now, it just so happens that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money man" behind 9/11, was in the U.S. when the attacks occurred. He arrived on the 4th of September, one week before 9-11, on what was described as a routine visit of consultations with his U.S. counterparts.

Mysterious 9./11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill with the Alleged 9/11 Money-man

On the morning of September 11, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham (Democrat) and Representative Porter Goss, Chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, respectively. The subject matter of this breakfast meeting was Pakistan's cooperation in going after the terrorists.

The Bush administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged "money man" behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his >cooperation= in the "war on terrorism".  The precise terms of this  "cooperation" were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government, and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13.

In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9-11 to seek the  cooperation of Pakistan's ISI in "going after Osama", despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists.

During his visit, General Mahmoud, the alleged money-man behind 9/11 had meetings with senior Bush Administration officials, and member of the US Congress. These include Secretary of State Colin Powell (12-13 Sept), Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (12-13 Sept), Under-Secretary of State Marc Grossman (before 11 Sept)

CIA Director George Tenet (before 11 Sept), Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (11 Sept), Senator John Kyl, member of the Senate Intelligence committee (11 Sept), Representative Porter Goss, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee (11 Sept), Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 Sept)

In a bitter irony, Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham  the men who hosted the mysterious September 11 breakfast meeting with the alleged "hijacker's high commander" were put in charge of the investigation and public hearings on so-called "intelligence failures"

These ties to Pakistan’s ISI should be starting point of an investigation. While hundreds of people have been arrested on trumped up charges, key members of the Bush administration have personal links with the alleged "money-man".

Surely this should be the object of an investigation, rather than a cover-up of the ISI’s alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile the Bush administration is blaming Iraq of complicity, .

Misleading Public Opinion

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11. The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie. Amply documented, the pretext to wage this war is totally fabricated.

While the Bush administration implements, in several stages, its "war on terrorism", the evidence (including mountains of official documents) amply confirms that successive U.S. administrations have supported, abetted and harbored international terrorism

Realities have been turned upside down.

Acts of war are heralded in President Bush's speech as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring "democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as peace-keeping operations.

The derogation of civil liberties -- by imposing the so-called anti-terrorist legislation--is portrayed by President Bush as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties:

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day. (GWB,  Oct 7, 2002)

"Regime Change" in America

9/11 is the pretext for waging a war, which threatens the future of humanity. When viewed historically, September 11 is the biggest fraud in American history.

The dangers of a possible World War unleashed by an attack on Iraq must be addressed and understood.

Uncovering and revealing to our fellow citizens the lies behind 9/11 is the basis upon which we can effectively reverse the Bush administration’s war plans and prevent the war from occurring.

When these various acts of cover-up and political complicity are revealed and fully understood, the legitimacy of the so-called "war on terrorism" --including the war on Iraq-- will collapse "like a deck of cards"

The shaky legitimacy of the Bush administration will be shattered. In turn, this loss of legitimacy will be the basis for implementing a "regime change" in America.


 Copyright  CRG 2002.  All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact the CRG at [email protected]


The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO210A.html

[home]