ETERNAL VIGILANCE

Essay: Postponement of the November Election - by Michael C. Ruppert

What had been merely a rumor has now become fact.

The Bush administration has asked for legislation enabling it to postpone the November election as a result of a terror attack. While worded very carefully to suggest that an attack must take place for such a move; I do not see either of the below stories unequivocally state that, if granted, these powers might not also permit elections to be “postponed” on merely a well-publicized threat. Don’t believe the press stories. Read the legislation when it is introduced to see what it says there. If that discretion is included then we are at the edge of an abyss more dangerous than anything we have ever faced.

These powers, if enacted, will go to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS would also be the entity to decide when, or if, postponed elections would be held.

Allowing suspension of the elections on just the threat of a terror attack would create a hole in the legislation big enough to drive an oil tanker, or an open dictatorship, through. Since the legislation has not been seen yet we do not know what it will say. Once introduced, the bill would then go into Senate and House Committees (Republican controlled) where the language could easily be modified to give discretionary power to the Administration. At that moment the Constitution would overtly cease to have any operational meaning at all. The separation of powers would vanish.

Judging from the news stories tonight we will probably see the legislation introduced fairly quickly. From the instant it appears, this legislation must be tracked daily, even hourly, at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Does any one of us doubt that if threatened or desperate, the administration would use those powers without hesitation?

I ask those who read this to stop for a moment and consider what it would mean for all of us on this side of the fence if the Bush administration both acquired and used the power to suspend the election -- with or without an attack. What restraints would be left to prevent some of our worst-case scenarios from coming true? Why even maintain the illusion of democracy? All vestiges of accountability will have been removed.

We should each evaluate our own situations accordingly. Hopefully most of us will see that we have no choice but to bond together more than ever before. To quote Ben Franklin: “We must all hang together or else we shall surely all hang separately.”

This is the moment at which it all becomes very, very real. Although there is strong Democratic Party opposition appearing with derisive statements from Rep. Jane Harman and Sen. Diane Feinstein, my initial assessment, after watching CNN, FOX and MS-NBC, is that the press is already “selling” us this legislation. Fortunately, early stories also report that the act would also require a constitutional amendment.

However, with this Supreme Court we can be assured of nothing. Yet, knowing this, we can be sure that there will be many chances to fight and beat this travesty. There will be many places at which our skills and resources can function to create and implement a coordinated response.

All the efforts put into 9/11 and into the anti-war movement will need to pale by comparison with the effort that must be put forth to prevent this legislation from passing. Every lesson learned about organizing; mobilizing; reporting; strategy; education; and influencing congress (if that’s possible), needs to be remembered and applied now. There will be many tests to come.

May whatever form of divinity each of us holds dear give us guidance, wisdom and strength as we consider this.

For almost three years FTW, along with many other brave souls, has been saying that 9/11 was just the beginning. Tonight it seems that the next stage – whatever that will turn out be – is knocking tonight at everyone’s door. Do not give up. Do not be afraid. If all this is true and comes to pass, then everything is as bad as we have been saying all this time. So we had that much of a head start, didn’t we?

We are not defenseless. The cause is not lost. There is always a sense of relief when a dreaded event finally arrives because – only in that moment – can anything be done about it.

I don’t usually quote Dianne Feinstein but she was right when she said that America holds elections in the middle of wars, earthquakes and disasters. No matter what, we must demand an election this November. Even the debates about which candidate is or isn’t better, or whether one will or won’t make a difference, are now moot.

Stop. Catch your breaths. Steel your hearts and minds in preparation. Soon we’re all going to find out what we’re made of. If we do not have an election this November then the world we have been fighting to change until tonight will become only a “pleasant” memory compared to the world that will follow.

Mike Ruppert

------------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Reuters

Sunday 11 July 2004

Washington - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

July 19 issue

American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections - as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives - has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.

As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously - along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Go to Original

Background Briefing by Senior Intelligence Officials
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact 202-282-8010
Washington, D.C.

Thursday 08 July 2004

Senior Intelligence Official: If I could say a few words first. First of all, to address the question regarding TTIC Online, TTIC Online is a website, at the Top Secret, and now also at the Secret level. It is an information system to make available to different types of recipients information at different levels of classification. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing, with what you referred to as the JRIES -

(Gap)

As Secretary Ridge mentioned, we know, from a broad base of (inaudible) intelligence that al-Qaeda remains committed to carrying out a full-on attack, series of attacks, in the homeland. And recent and credible information indicates that al-Qaeda is determined to carry out these attacks to disrupt our democratic processes.

Al-Qaeda has not been reluctant to, in fact, articulate that intent and that threat. Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have issued several public statements last fall, threatening to carry out those attacks. And numerous al-Qaeda spokespersons have, in fact, said that these plans are underway and are near completion.

We are very concerned that al-Qaeda, even though it has been a degraded organization as a result of counterterrorism successes and efforts over the past several years, remains a dangerous organization, because it is flexible and adaptable, as many international terrorist organizations are.

There are strong indications that al-Qaeda will continue to try to revisit past targets, those that they were able to attack, as well as those that they were unable to attack.

In addition, there is intelligence that indicates that they are looking at various transportations systems, as the Secretary alluded to, and Madrid, the attacks against the subway systems there that resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries.

And looking at the current terrorist threat reporting and information that we have, we continue to look at past plots to gain a better understanding of the strategy and tactics that al-Qaeda may, in fact, try to employ here in the states. In particular, looking at some past al-Qaeda plans, as well as their capabilities and their attacks overseas, we're concerned about Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices -- VBIEDs, truck bombs - and similar types of vehicle borne explosives, given al-Qaeda's long history of successful attacks overseas. These types of means of attack can be used to go against different types of infrastructure targets, such as tunnels, bridges, other types of targets that would lend themselves to that type of targeting.

In addition, we know that al-Qaeda has carried out successful attacks overseas in various locations, in Asia and in Europe recently.

Also, al-Qaeda has remained very interested in aviation attacks. We know that it is a consistent focus of their efforts, as we saw in 9/11. But since 9/11, and despite the numerous security enhancements that have been made, al-Qaeda continues to pursue capabilities that can use aircraft, either as a weapon or to target.

What we know about this most recent information that is being directed from the senior-most levels of the al-Qaeda organization, which includes Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and others, and we know that this leadership continues to operate along the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And we'll take your questions.

Question: Are you saying then, that bin Laden and Zawahiri are now actively directing their followers?

Senior Intelligence Official: When I mentioned the senior al-Qaeda leadership, and there's senior al-Qaeda leadership, which include Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, also includes other senior operatives. So this type of plotting, this type of operational activity, is being done with the direction and authorization of that senior leadership.

Question: This intelligence that you have, are they specifically mentioning their intent to thwart the democratic process, the election? And if so, in what context?

Senior Intelligence Official: Al-Qaeda, for many years, has, in fact, tried to carry out attacks here or to design attacks that would create political, economic and psychological damage on the United States. Our various institutions, including the electoral process, democratic processes here, are part of those institutions that al-Qaeda is determined to try to disrupt.

So what we're doing is we're looking at this intelligence information recently in the context of what is it that is happening, for example, this year; and we know, with the election process here, this is one of the reasons why I think everybody has to be - remain vigilant.

Question: So this is actually carrying on from the Madrid. I mean, again, I just want to kind of follow-on on this question. Is it that you're looking at it and there's a gut reaction, that you're assuming that he must mean the political process, or you see information that's specifically talking about the successes of Madrid and wanting to replicate that here?

Senior Intelligence Official: We are seeing, in a number of areas, to include various websites that are used, as far as extremists organizations are concerned, different types of reporting, that they are focusing on what they perceive to have been successful attacks in Madrid, as far as the impact on the electoral process there and the outcome of that election.

And so the reporting and other things that we're seeing now is with the same type of expectation and anticipation that similar types of attacks could have, as I think the Secretary said, the mistaken belief that it would have an impact here on the electoral process. But the reporting that we are seeing, the information that we have, is tied to the different types of democratic processes here.

Question: Sir, in any of this intelligence, is there specific, credible intelligence about what they want to do, in terms of how they would carry this out, or is this basically intent only?

Senior Intelligence Official: It's an intent and preparation to carry out major attacks that would inflict major casualties, as well as to create economic damage, political damage, psychological damage to the United States. So it's the intent as well as the preparation and plans that are underway to, in fact, effect those attacks.

Question: When you're talking about political conventions, right, you're talking about physical sites that can be defended, protected. But how do you protect polling in thousands of places across the country? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. And also, where do you think the threat is going to be highest? At the convention stage of our process, or as we get closer to the actual decision by the people?

Senior Intelligence Official: I'll just take the second part, and then I'll turn it over to [senior intelligence official] for the first part. As far as the - where the threat may be highest, al-Qaeda traditionally has tried to target venues, buildings, whatever, based on very meticulous and careful casing and surveillance, and a lot of pre-operational activity. They are a meticulous and patient organization that tries to optimize the chances for success. And therefore, I believe that their target selection here, as well as when they will carry out the attack, will be based on that type of careful preparation, the thoroughness that, in fact, has been a hallmark of al-Qaeda preparations.

So looking out over the next - the rest of the year, and even beyond, I think what we're doing, responsibly, collectively, is to look at the threat information, look at the reporting, look at those types of events, look at those types of venues and targets that might, in fact, lend themselves to that type of -

Question: So are you saying when we get closer to the actual voting? Or at the stage of the nominating conventions? What worries you the most?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think we're here today to say that we are concerned at this point, from this point on, and looking out over the next many months. The al-Qaeda threat is a real one, it's a continuing one, and I think we have to be vigilant from this point forward.

Question: Could you take the other part of my question, please? How do you protect the polling stations?

Senior Intelligence Official: Yes, I understand the question. And I think the answer now has to be that this issue has not escaped us. It's a very complex one, as you noted in your question.

We have begun a thought process and discussions about this issue. We have to form an approach to it that makes sense here in the United States, and that's what we'll be doing over the course of the next days and weeks.

It would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of our planning or our effort to secure the election, but you can rest assured that we'll certainly do our best to do that.

Question: Would you postpone voting?

Senior Intelligence Official: That's a speculative question that I'm not prepared to answer, frankly. There are all kinds of issues here we have to deal with. It's premature for anyone here at the Department to give information on this topic.

And by the way, when you're talking about securing an event that occurs on one day, very inappropriate for us to talk about the detail of that.

Question: Is this the result of a break in the case or is it a result of ongoing collection of a large gestalt of information that you've pieced together from many sources?

Senior Intelligence Official: It's based on a very strong body of intelligence acquired by intelligence and law enforcement over the last two and a half years, and on top of that strategic intelligence about al-Qaeda's plans and intentions, additional information that has come in, not in terms of, you know, breaks in cases or whatever, but just because of the continued determined efforts as far as intelligence collection, law enforcement activities and others to acquire the information. And as I think the Secretary said, very credible sources of information are providing this.

Question: But is any of this intelligence different than it was last month when we heard this exact same warning? Is anything different in the past several weeks? Is there new intelligence? Is there a new threat? Or is this exactly what we heard last month?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think I was mentioning that there has been a growing body of intelligence over the past several years, and I think over the past several months I would say we continue to gain knowledge and understanding about what al-Qaeda is planning to do. So every day there are nuggets that come in to the broader intelligence community that we take a look at and start trying to connect those pieces. So it's a dynamic process that allows us to have a better understanding of exactly what we are facing as far as the al-Qaeda threat.

Question: You talked about wanting to revisit targets, both successful and unsuccessful. That would be Los Angeles Airport, New York City landmarks, bridges and tunnels. Is that what you're talking about? You're saying New York City remains a prime target?

Senior Intelligence Official: I said that al-Qaeda has this penchant to return to those targets; for example, the World Trade Center, you know, the bombings in the mid-'90s and then coming back to it. I think what we need to do from an intelligence/law enforcement/homeland security perspective is continue to look at all those previous targets. You mentioned, you know, LAX, Los Angeles Airport, New York City, different places there. So we are not taking any of those targets sort of off of our areas of concern. So there is just a broad array of potential targets that al-Qaeda could threaten.

Question: In the aftermath of Madrid there was a statement that al-Qaeda had lost a lot of control and command and that these were al-Qaeda inspired groups and that one of the biggest problems facing the intelligence community was that there was no solid structure of command. And the way you're talking here is I'm wondering if what you're implying is that this new information you have leads you to the conclusion that there is a solid structure of command and that the guys in the Pakistan-Afghan border are back in control again.

Senior Intelligence Official: I don't think I - I certainly didn't mean to imply that solid structure. I don't think I used that term at all. What I said is that there are senior levels of the al-Qaeda leadership that continue to oversee and direct many of the operations as far as pointing at the different types of targets and encouraging this type of activity to take place and directing it and sponsoring it.

But what you're referring to now is that there is an international constellation of different types of Islamic extremist networks. Some of them are very closely tied to what we refer to as the al-Qaeda organization. Others are loosely affiliated with it. So what we need to do from an intelligence perspective is to understand exactly whether cells that exist within Southeast Asia or within Africa or Europe or other places are, in fact, part of this central al-Qaeda organization or are they offshoots of it.

What we see is because of tremendous successes against the terrorist target that the command and control structure of al-Qaeda has broken down, it's very difficult in terms of communication or whatever. So there may be some greater autonomy being given to some of these operatives who are responsible for certain areas and certain sort of theaters or responsibility.

Question: (Inaudible) that there are sleeper cells in the United States, sleeper cells in the United States, that people are scouting locations for, you know, explosions and so forth, or border crossings to effect the same end?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think we have seen from reporting that al-Qaeda, as I mentioned, does this very careful, meticulous planning ahead of time to carry out attacks. A lot of this type of preparation and pre-operational surveillance and casing is carried out by what you may be referring to as sleeper cells: those individuals that may have been deployed to a target area in order to carry out the type of casing and surveillance that's necessary in order to do the facilitation, maybe to identify a logistics network or other types of things.

So I think, again, from an intelligence perspective, what we're looking at is what does al-Qaeda have in place, what are they doing, in order to be able to realize their terrorist objectives.

Question: One question I have deals with Ridge said that in Italy, Jordan and Great Britain that they had not only the people but the means to carry out the attacks. Has some of the intelligence that you've picked up in the last few months suggested that there are, in fact, people already in place in the U.S.?

Senior Intelligence Official: There is intelligence that al-Qaeda has individuals dispersed worldwide, and worldwide would include the United States, that are - they are using in order to facilitate the operational planning necessary to carry out attacks successfully. So one of the things that we have learned, and I think the reference to different types of networks that have been wrapped up that the Secretary's mentioning, plans in the United Kingdom to carry out attacks with VBIEDs as far as individuals, the materials, we know that that was done as a result not just of plans and directions but also those individuals who helped facilitate that type of operation who may be in place for many years and then become facilitators and then may also go into an operational mode. So I think that we have to think about what we see overseas and then apply that to our understanding here in the States.

Thank you.

Question: Can we hear something from the FBI? Can we hear just a comment from the FBI? There's been no voice from the Bureau at all.

Senior Intelligence Official: Yes, I think one thing that's really important is in regards to Homeland Security one of the things that's happening in the federal government is we're all coming together working to address issues that arise in the country, specifically with JTTF, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. We've got representatives from most, if not all, federal law enforcement agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and we're working together.

I think what's really important and what I see from my position at headquarters is that when we get into these modes of having to operate, a lot of times you see the badges go off as far as the agency or department that the people are working for. I think that's what's really important. And I think what we have now is law enforcement sees a real mission in that we've got to safeguard the country and we're really working together to do it. And I think one of the keys is that it has been alluded to by Secretary Ridge and [senior intelligence official], is that we're working together as far as intelligence. There's a lot of intelligence sharing. There are constant meetings back here in D.C. as well as in cities and states around the country, and we're working together collectively and that's what really important. And we really think that's the way we're going to succeed and we do have a huge mission ahead of us.

Senior Intelligence Official: Thank you very much. Thank you.

COUP D'ETAT:
The Real Reason Tenet and Pavitt Resigned from the
CIA on June 3rd and 4th

Bush, Cheney Indictments in Plame Case Looming

by
Michael C. Ruppert

additional reporting by
Wayne Madsen from Washington

© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

JUNE 8, 2004 1600 PDT (FTW) - Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence "failures" before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

Based upon recent developments, it appears that long-standing plans and preparations leading to indictments and impeachment of Bush, Cheney and even some senior cabinet members have been accelerated, possibly with the intent of removing or replacing the entire Bush regime prior to the Republican National Convention this August.

FTW has been documenting this Watergate-like coup for more than fifteen months and almost everything we will discuss about recent events was predicted by us in the following pages: Please see our stories "The Perfect Storm - Part I" (March 2003); "Blood in the Water" (July 2003); "Beyond Bush - Part I" (July 2003); "Waxman Ties Evidentiary Noose Around Rice and Cheney" (July 2003); and "Beyond Bush - Part II" (October 2003).

There were two things we didn't get right. One was the timing. We predicted the developments taking place now as likely to happen after the November election, not before. Secondly, we did not foresee the sudden resignations of Tenet and Pavitt. Understanding the resignations is the key to understanding a deteriorating world scene and that America is on the precipice of a presidential and constitutional crisis that will ultimately dwarf the removal of Richard Nixon in 1974.

So why did Tenet and Pavitt resign? We'll explain why and we will provide many clues along the way as we make our case.

HIGH CRIMES AND REALLY STUPID MOVES

Shortly after the "surprise" Tenet-Pavitt resignations, current and former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community and the Justice Department told journalist Wayne Madsen, a former Naval intelligence officer, that they were directly connected to the criminal investigation of a 2003 White House leak that openly exposed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer. What received less attention was that the leak also destroyed a long-term CIA proprietary intelligence gathering operation which, as we will see, was of immense importance to US strategic interests at a critical moment.

The leak was a vindictive retaliation for statements, reports and actions taken by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, which had deeply embarrassed the Bush administration and exposed it to possible charges for impeachable offenses, including lying to the American people about an alleged (and totally unfounded) nuclear threat posed by Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Conservative columnist Robert Novak, the beneficiary of the leak, immediately published it on July 14, 2003 and Valerie Plame's career (at least the covert part) instantly ended. The actual damage caused by that leak has never been fully appreciated.

Wilson deeply embarrassed almost every senior member of the Bush junta by proving to the world that they were consciously lying about one of their most important justifications for invading Iraq: namely, their claim to have had certain knowledge, based on "good and reliable" intelligence, that Hussein was on the brink of deploying a nuclear weapon, possibly inside the United States. It was eventually disclosed that the "intelligence" possessed by the administration was a set of poorly forged documents on letterhead from the government of Niger, which described attempts by Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium for a nuclear weapons program.

It has since been established by Scott Ritter and others that Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been dead in the water and non-functioning since the first Iraq war.

Wilson was secretly dispatched in February 2002, on instructions from Dick Cheney to the CIA, to go to Niger and look for anything that might support the material in the documents. They had already been dismissed as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the CIA, and apparently everyone else who had seen them. The CIA cautioned the administration, more than once, against using them. Shortly thereafter, Wilson returned and gave his report stating clearly that the allegations were pure bunk and unsupportable.

In spite of this, unaware of the booby traps laid all around them, the entire power core of the Bush administration jumped on the Niger documents as on a battle horse and charged off into in a massive public relations blitz. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz and others - to varying degrees - insisted, testified, and swore that they knew, and had reliable, credible and verified intelligence that Saddam was about to deploy an actual nuclear device built from the Niger yellowcake.

It was full court media press and they successfully scared the pants off of most Americans who believed that Saddam was going to nuke them any second.

George Bush made the charge and actually cited the documents in his 2003 State-of-the-Union address, even after he had been cautioned by George Tenet not to rely on them. In a major speech at the United Nations, Colin Powell charged that Iraq was on the verge of deploying a nuke and had been trying to acquire uranium. Dick Cheney charged in several speeches that Saddam was capable of nuclear terror. And shortly before the invasion, when asked in a television interview whether there was sufficient proof and advance warning of the Iraqi nuclear threat, a smug and confident Condoleezza Rice quipped, "If we wait for a smoking gun, that smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud over an American city." Rice was lying through her teeth.

By July of 2003, as the Iraqi invasion was proving to be a protracted and ill-conceived debacle, executed in spite of massive resistance from within military, political, diplomatic and economic cadres, there was growing disgust within many government circles about the way the Bush administration was running things. The mention of Wilson's report came in July though his name was not disclosed. It suggested corroborative evidence of criminal, rather than stupid, behavior by the administration. The San Francisco Chronicle reported:

A senior CIA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the intelligence agency informed the White House on March 9, 2002 - 10 months before Bush's nationally televised speech - that an agency source who had traveled to Niger could not confirm European intelligence reports that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from the West African country.

Note the reference to an Agency source.

It was inevitable that Wilson would move from no comment, to statements given on condition of anonymity, and finally into the public spotlight. That he did, in a July 6th New York Times Editorial titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Soon he was giving interviews everywhere.

On July 14th Novak published the column outing Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. As a result, any criminal investigation of the Plame leak will also go into the Niger documents and any crimes committed which are materially related to Plame's exposure.

Instead of retreating, Wilson advanced. In Septmeber he went public, writing editorials and granting interviews which thoroughly exposed the Bush administration's criminal use of the documents, Cheney's lies about the mission, and all the other lies used to deceive the American people into war.

At the moment he went on the record, Wilson became another legally admissible, corroborative evidentiary source; a witness available for subpoena and deposition, ready to give testimony to the high crimes and misdemeanors he has witnessed.

First Clue: James Pavitt was Valerie Plame's boss. So was George Tenet.

HOW THE TRAP WAS SET

Conflicting news reports suggest that perhaps several sets of the documents were delivered simultaneously to several recipients. I could find only one news story (out of almost 60 I have reviewed) which indicated just when the Niger papers were first put into play. One of the most fundamental questions in journalism, "when?" was omitted from every major press organization's coverage except for a single story from the Associated Press on July 13th.

… [T]he forged Niger government documents, showing attempts by Iraq to purchase yellowcake, were delivered by unknown sources to a journalist working for Italy's Corriere della Sera which then gave them to the Italian intelligence service. She then reportedly gave them to Italian intelligence agents who gave them to the US embassy. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker also offered this version indicating that the documents had surfaced in Italy in the fall of 2001.

The fall of 2001. That means that the documents were created no more than three and a half months after September 11th.

The earliest press report mentioning the documents was a March 7, 2003 story in The Financial Times. On that day, Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency reported to the UN Security Council that the documents were forgeries. The story contained a revealing paragraph.

"The allegation about the uranium purchase first surfaced in a UK government dossier published on September 24 last year about Iraq's alleged weapons programmes, though it did not name Niger. Niger was first named when the US State Department elaborated on the allegations on December 19 [2002]…

Canada's Globe and Mail reported on March 8, 2003:

…[T]he forgeries were sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con man some time ago and passed on to French authorities, but the scam was uncovered by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] only recently, according to United Nations sources familiar with the investigation. The documents were turned over to the IAEA several weeks ago.

"In fact, the IAEA says, there is no credible evidence that Iraq tried to import uranium ore from the Central African country in violation of UN resolutions.

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of these uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are, in fact, not authentic," Mr. El Baradei told the UN Security Council Friday….

The Chicago Tribune reported on March 13, 2003, "Forged documents that the United States used to build its case against Iraq were likely written by someone in Niger's embassy in Rome who hoped to make quick money, a source close to the United Nations investigation said.

The Washington Post gave yet a different story, also on March 8, 2003:

…Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. 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 CIA, which had also 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.

In a follow-up story on March 13th the Post reported:

It's something we're just beginning to look at," a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service...


…The phony documents - a series of letters between Iraqi and Niger officials showing Iraq's interest in equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons - came to British and U.S. intelligence officials from a third country. The identity of the third country could not be learned yesterday.

What if it wasn't a foreign intelligence service? I had been suspicious that a Watergate-like coup was forming immediately after reading the first few stories about the documents. I was convinced when the AP reported on March 14, 2003 (just days before the Iraqi invasion) that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee had called for an FBI investigation of the documents' origins. The Boston Globe reported two days later that the Senator was specifically seeking to determine whether administration officials had forged the documents themselves to marshal support for the invasion.

The request was not nearly as significant to me as who it had come from - Jay Rockefeller of the Standard Oil Rockefellers. An oil dynasty was calling for an investigation of a bunch of oil men. Somebody was screwing up big time.

Seymour Hersh dropped a major bombshell that went virtually unnoticed, 54 paragraphs deep into an October 27, 2003 story for the New Yorker titled "The Stovepipe."

Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that [the Italian intelligence service] Sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication.

"Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, 'Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.' He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves. [emphasis added]

Hersh's revelation provided corroboration for something I and others, like the renowned political historian Peter Dale Scott, had been suspecting for a long time. The CIA was fighting back. This was a well orchestrated, long-term covert operation - exactly what the CIA does all over the world.

POINT OF NO RETURN

Willing disclosure of the identity of a covert operative is a serious felony under Federal law, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it a crime for anyone with access to classified information to intentionally disclose information identifying a covert operative. The penalties get worse for doing it to a deep cover Direcorate of Operations (DO) case officer (as opposed to an undercover DEA Agent).

After John Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself from the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, was transferred to Washington and appointed special prosecutor in the Plame case.

Robert Novak, rightly standing by the journalistic code of ethics, has steadfastly refused to identify his White House source. We would do the same thing in his shoes. The investigation is nearing a climax with pending issuance of criminal indictments. Press reports citing sources close to the investigation have directly and indirectly pointed fingers at Dick Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as suspects.

Second clue: The criminal investigation of the Plame leak was investigated after a September 2003 formal request from the CIA, approved by George Tenet.

Not only was Plame's cover blown, so was that of her cover company, Brewster, Jennings & Associates. With the public exposure of Plame, intelligence agencies all over the world started searching data bases for any references to her (TIME Magazine). Damage control was immediate, as the CIA asserted that her mission had been connected to weapons of mass destruction.

However, it was not long before stories from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal tied Brewster, Jennings & Associates to energy, oil and the Saudi-owned Arabian American Oil Company, or ARAMCO. Brewster Jennings had been a founder of Mobil Oil company, one of Aramco's principal founders.

According to additional sources interviewed by Wayne Madsen, Brewster Jennings was, in fact, a well-established CIA proprietary company, linked for many years to ARAMCO. The demise of Brewster Jennings was also guaranteed the moment Plame was outed.

It takes years for Non-Official Covers or NOCs, as they are known, to become really effective. Over time, they become gradually more trusted; they work their way into deeper information access from more sensitive sources. NOCs are generally regarded in the community as among the best and most valuable of all CIA operations officers and the agency goes to great lengths to protect them in what are frequently very risky missions.


By definition, Valerie Plame was an NOC. Yet unlike all other NOCs who fear exposure and torture or death from hostile governments and individual targets who have been judged threats to the United States, she got done in by her own President, whom we also judge to be a domestic enemy of the United States.

Moreover, as we will see below, Valerie Plame may have been one of the most important NOCs the CIA had in the current climate. Let's look at just how valuable she was.

ARAMCO

According to an April 29, 2002 report in Britain's Guardian, ARAMCO constitutes 12% of the world's total oil production; a figure which has certainly increased as other countries have progressed deeper into irreversible decline.

ARAMCO is the largest oil group in the world, a state-owned Saudi company in partnership with four major US oil companies. Another one of Aramco’s partners is Chevron-Texaco which gave up one of its board members, Condoleezza Rice, when she became the National Security Advisor to George Bush. All of ARAMCO’s key decisions are made by the Saudi royal family while US oil expertise, personnel and technology keeps the cash coming in and the oil going out. ARAMCO operates, manages, and maintains virtually all Saudi oil fields – 25% of all the oil on the planet.

It gets better.

According to a New York Times report on March 8th of this year, ARAMCO is planning to make a 25% investment in a new and badly needed refinery to produce gasoline. The remaining 75% ownership of the refinery will go to the only nation that is quickly becoming America's major world competitor for ever-diminishing supplies of oil: China.

Almost the entire Bush administration has an interest in ARAMCO.

The Boston Globe reported that in 2001 ARAMCO had signed a $140 million multi-year contract with Halliburton, then chaired by Dick Cheney, to develop a new oil field. Halliburton does a lot of business in Saudi Arabia. Current estimates of Halliburton contracts or joint ventures in the country run into the tens of billions of dollars.

So do the fortunes of some shady figures from the Bush family's past.

As recently as 1991 ARAMCO had Khalid bin Mahfouz sitting on its Supreme Council or board of directors. Mahfouz, Saudi Arabia's former treasurer and the nation's largest banker, has been reported in several places to be Osama bin Laden's brother in law. However, he has denied this and brought intense legal pressure to bear demanding retractions of these allegations. He has major partnership investments with the multi-billion dollar Binladin Group of companies and he is a former director of BCCI, the infamous criminal drug-money laundering bank which performed a number of very useful services for the CIA before its 1991 collapse under criminal investigation by a whole lot of countries.

As Saudi Arabia's largest banker he handles the accounts of the royal family and - no doubt - ARAMCO, while at the same time he is a named defendant in a $1 trillion lawsuit filed by 9/11 victim families against the Saudi government and prominent Saudi officials who, the suit alleges, were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Both BCCI and Mahfouz have historical connections to the Bush family dating back to the 1980s. Another bank (one of many) connected to Mahfouz - the InterMaritime Bank - bailed out a cash-starved Harken Energy in 1987 with $25 million. After the rejuvenated Harken got a no-bid oil lease in 1991, CEO George W. Bush promptly sold his shares in a pump-and-dump scheme and made a whole lot of money.

Knowing all of this, there's really no good reason why the CIA should be too upset, is there? It was only a long-term proprietary and deep-cover NOC - well established and consistently producing "take" from ARAMCO (and who knows what else in Saudi Arabia). It was destroyed with a motive of personal vengeance (there may have been other motives) by someone inside the White House.

From the CIA's point of view, at a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the three or four countries of highest interest to the US, the Plame operation was irreplaceable.

Third clue: Tenet's resignation, which occurred at night, was the first "evening resignation" of a Cabinet-level official since October 1973 when Attorney General Elliott Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned in protest of Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Many regard this as the watershed moment when the Nixon administration was doomed.

SAUDI ARABIA

Given that energy is becoming the most important issue on the planet today, if you were the CIA, you might be a little pissed off at the Plame leak. But there may be justification to do more than be angry. Anger happens all the time in Washington. This is something else.

One of the most important intelligence prizes today - especially after recent stories in major outlets like the New York Times reporting that Saudi oil production has peaked and gone into irreversible decline - would be to know of a certainty whether those reports are correct. The Saudis are denying it vehemently but they are being strongly refuted by an increasing amount of hard data. The truth remains unproven. But the mere possibility has set the world's financial markets on edge. Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi came to Washington on April 27th to put out the fires. It was imperative that he calm everybody's nerves as the markets were screaming, "Say it ain't so!"

Naimi said emphatically that there was nothing to worry about concerning either Saudi reserves or ARAMCO's ability to increase production. There was plenty of oil and no need for concern.

FTW covered and reported on that event. Writer and energy expert Julian Darley noted that there were some very important ears in the room, listening very closely. He also noted that Naimi's "scientific" data and promises of large future discoveries did not sit well many who are well versed in oil production and delivery.

[See FTW's June 2nd story, "Saudi's Missing Barrels" and our May 2003 story, "Paris Peak Oil Conference Reveals Deepening Crisis." In that story FTW editor Mike Ruppert was the first to report on credible new information that Saudi Arabia had possibly peaked.]

If anybody has the real data on Saudi fields it is either ARAMCO or the highest levels of the Saudi royal family.

The answer to the Saudi peak question will determine whether Saudi Arabia really can increase production quickly, as promised. If they can't, then the US economy is going to suffer bitterly, and it is certain that the Saudi monarchy will collapse into chaos. Then the nearby US military will occupy the oilfields and the U.S. will ultimately Balkanize the country by carving off the oil fields - which occupy only a small area near the East coast. That U.S. enclave would then provide sanctuary to the leading members of the royal family who will have agreed to keep their trillions invested in Wall Street so the US economy doesn't collapse.

So far the Saudis haven't had to prove that they could increase production due to convenient terror attacks at oil fields, and more "debates" within OPEC.

Fourth clue: Bush and Cheney have both hired or consulted private criminal defense attorneys in anticipation of possible indictments of them and/or their top assistants in the Plame investigation. On June 3, just hours before Tenet suddenly resigned, President Bush consulted with and may have retained a criminal defense attorney to represent him in the Plame case.

According to various press reports Bush has either retained or consulted with powerhouse attorney Jim Sharp, who represented Iran-contra figure retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord; Enron's Ken Lay; and Watergate co-conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder. All three were facing criminal rather than civil charges. Either way, a clear signal has been sent that Bush expects to be either called to testify (which was a precursor in Watergate to a criminal indictment of Richard Nixon) or be named as a defendant. Either way, the President's men are falling faster than their counterparts fell in Watergate, and the initial targets are much higher up the food chain.

Cheney's attorney is Terrence O'Donnell, a partner of the Williams and Connolly law firm. O'Donnell worked for then White House chief of staff Cheney in the Ford administration and as General Counsel for the Pentagon when Cheney was Defense Secretary under the first President Bush. He has been representing the Vice President in criminal and civil cases involving Cheney's chairmanship of Halliburton. These include a Justice Department investigation of Halliburton for alleged payment of bribes to Nigerian political leaders and a stockholders' fraud law suit against Halliburton. O'Donnell also represented former CIA director John Deutch when he was accused of violating national security by taking his CIA computer home and surfing the Internet while it contained hundreds of highly-classified intelligence documents.

SPRINGING THE TRAP

Now, seemingly all of a sudden, Bush and Cheney are in the crosshairs. Cheney has been questioned by Fitzgerald within the last week.

The CIA Director's job by definition, whether others like it or not, is to be able to go to his President and advise him of the real scientific data on foreign resources (especially oil); to warn him of pending instability in a country closely linked to the US economy; and to tell him what to plan for and what to promise politically in his foreign policy. In light of her position in the CIA's relationship with Saudi Aramco, the outing of Valerie Plame made much of this impossible. In short, the Bush leak threatened National Security.

Former White House Counsel and Watergate figure John Dean, writing for the prestigious legal website findlaw.com on June 4th made some very ominous observations that appear to have gone unnoticed by most.

This action by Bush is a rather stunning and extraordinary development. The President of the United States is potentially hiring a private criminal defense lawyer. Unsurprisingly, the White House is doing all it can to bury the story, providing precious little detail or context for the President's action…

…But from what I have learned from those who have been quizzed by the Fitzgerald investigators it seems unlikely that they are interviewing the President merely as a matter of completeness, or in order to be able to defend their actions in front of the public. Asking a President to testify - or even be interviewed - remains a serious, sensitive and rare occasion. It is not done lightly. Doing so raises separation of powers concerns that continue to worry many…

…If so - and if the person revealed the leaker's identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker's identity. - Then this fact could conflict with Bush's remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of "anybody in [his] administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.

If Bush is called before the grand jury, it is likely because Fitzgerald believes that he knows much more about this leak than he has stated publicly.

Perhaps Bush may have knowledge not only of the leaker, but also of efforts to make this issue go away - if indeed there have been any. It is remarkably easy to obstruct justice, and this matter has been under various phases of an investigation by the Justice Department since it was referred by the CIA last summer…

…On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush's move - unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. "It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak," he told me.

What advice might Bush get from a private defense counsel? The lawyer I consulted opined that, "If he does have knowledge about the leak and does not plan to disclose it, the only good legal advice would be to take the Fifth, rather than lie. The political fallout is a separate issue."

I raised the issue of whether the President might be able to invoke executive privilege as to this information. But the attorney I consulted - who is well versed in this area of law - opined that "Neither 'outing' Plame, nor covering for the perpetrators would seem to fall within the scope of any executive privilege that I am aware of."

That may not stop Bush from trying to invoke executive privilege, however - or at least from talking to his attorney about the option. As I have discussed in one of my prior columns, Vice President Dick Cheney has tried to avoid invoking it in implausible circumstances - in the case that is now before the U.S .Supreme Court. Rather he claims he is beyond the need for the privilege, and simply cannot be sued. [Emphasis added]

Suffice it to say that whatever the meaning of Bush's decision to talk with private counsel about the Valerie Plame leak, the matter has taken a more ominous turn with Bush's action. It has only become more portentous because now Dick Cheney has also hired a lawyer for himself, suggesting both men may have known more than they let on. Clearly, the investigation is heading toward a culmination of some sort. And it should be interesting.

Last and final clue: Under Executive Privilege, a principle intended to protect the constitutional separation of powers, officials in the Executive Branch cannot give testimony in a legal case against a sitting President. The Bush administration has invoked or threatened to invoke the privilege several times. Dick did it over the secret records of his energy task force and George Bush tried to use it to prevent Condoleezza Rice from testifying before the "Independent" Commission investigating September 11th.

Former officials of the Executive Branch are, however, free to testify if they are no longer holding a government office when subpoenaed or when the charges are brought.

[To learn more about Executive Privilege visit www.findlaw.com]

The Bush administration has proved itself to be an insular group of inept, dishonest and dangerous CEO's of the corporation known as America. They have become very bad for business and the Board of Directors is now taking action. Make no mistake, the CIA works for "The Board" - Wall Street and big money. The long-term (very corrupt and unethical) agenda of the Board, in the face of multiple worsening global crises, was intended to proceed far beyond the initially destructive war in Iraq, toward an effective reconstruction and a strategic response to Peak Oil. But the neocons have stalled at the ugly stage: killing hundreds of thousands of people; destroying Iraq's industrial and cultural infrastructure as their own bombs and other people's RPGs blow everything up; getting caught running torture camps; and making the whole world intensely dislike America.

These jerks are doing real damage to their masters' interests.

But (not surprisingly) Tenet and the CIA were and remain much better at covert operations and planning ahead than the Bush administration ever was. Tenet and Pavitt actually prepared and left a clear, irrefutable and incriminating paper trail which not only proves that they had shunned and refused to endorse the documents, the CIA also did not support the nuke charges and warned Bush not to use them.

Where are those documents now? They're part of the Justice Department Plame investigation - and they're also in the hands of the Congressman who will most likely introduce and manage the articles of impeachment, if that becomes necessary: Henry Waxman (D), of California. If you would like to see how tightly the legal trap has been prepared, and how carefully the evidence has been laid out, I suggest taking a look around Waxman's web site at: http://www.house.gov/waxman/.


THE SWARM

There are a multitude of signs that the Bush administration is being "swarmed" in what is becoming a feeding frenzy as opposition is surfacing from many places inside the government, including the military. The signs are not hard to find.

The June 3rd issue of Capitol Hill Blue, the newspaper published for members of Congress, bore the headline "Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name". That article virtually guaranteed that the Plame investigation had enough to pursue Bush criminally. The story's lead sentence described a criminal, prosecutable offense: "Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq."

A day later, on June 4th Capitol Hill Blue took another hard shot at the administration. Titled "Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides", the story's first four paragraphs say everything.

President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."

The attacks have not stopped. On June 8th, the same paper followed with another story headlined, "Lawyers Told Bush He Could Order Suspects Tortured".

Journalist Wayne Madsen, a Washington veteran with excellent access to many sources has indicated for this story that the Neocons have few remaining friends anywhere. All of this is consistent with a CIA-led coup.

Ahmed Chalabi

Madsen reported that the Plame probe comes amid another high-level probe of Pentagon officials for leaking classified National Security Agency cryptologic information to Iran via Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi. FBI agents have polygraphed and interviewed a number of civilian political appointees in the Pentagon in relation to the intelligence leak, said to have severely disrupted the National Security Agency's ability to listen in on encrypted Iranian diplomatic and intelligence communications.

Chalabi's leak has once again forced Iran to change equipment, resulting in impaired U.S. intelligence gathering of Iran's sensitive communications. The probe into the Chalabi leak is centering on Pentagon officials who have been close to Chalabi, including Office of Net Assessment official Harold Rhode, Director of Policy and Plans officials Douglas Feith and William Luti, Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In addition, some former Pentagon advisers are also targeted in the probe.

Many press reports throughout 2003 indicated that Chalabi, distrusted and virtually discarded by the CIA, had been resurrected and inserted into the Iraqi political mix on the orders of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the other Neocons listed above.

Abu Ghraib and Torture

A former CIA official told Madsen that between the Plame leak and the Abu Ghraib torture affair, the Bush administration is facing something that will be "worse than Watergate."

PLANNING FOR SUCCESSION

If both Bush and Cheney are removed or resign, what happens? Madsen reported that lobbyists and political consultants in Washington are dusting off their copies of the Constitution and checking the line of presidential succession.

One lobbyist said he will soon pay a call on Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens, who, as President pro tem of the Senate, is second in line to House Speaker Dennis Hastert to become President in the event Bush and Cheney both go.

It is one of the greatest ironies of the Plame affair that the Bush administration, spawned and nurtured by oil, might have committed suicide by vindictively, cruelly and unthinkingly exacting personal retribution on an intelligence officer who had committed no offense, and who was, quite possibly, providing the administration with critical oil-related intelligence which the President needed to manage our shaky economy and affairs of state for a while longer to squeak through to re-election. In our opinion, nothing better epitomizes the true nature of the Neocons.

That being said, they have to go. FTW wishes that it was as certain that what will come after them will be better.

Jurassic Park, Pseudo-events, and Prisons:
The fallout from Abu Ghraib (Part I)

by
Stan Goff


[The greatest ally of an insurgency is the occupier's arrogance, his linear thinking, and his top-down decision making structure. In this as in so much else, America's glittering military juggernaut is even dumber than its British predecessor. The Abu Ghraib prison “abuse” scandal — which is really a torture scandal — is the unmistakable death-knell of the occupation. No matter how long it drags on, it can't possibly restore Iraqi production to 3.5 billion barrels per day if the occupiers are perceived as depraved, sadistic racists. But surely this sort of behavior can be pinned on the guys who held the broom handles? No, this week Seymour Hersh reports that Abu Ghraib is a transplant of DoD's most cherished black operation, for which the approval (and perhaps even the planning) came from the top of the Department and maybe even higher. As the United States grabs at all the petroleum it can steal, Russia and China position themselves for a role in the post-Bush energy landscape; China trying to avoid encirclement, and Russia trying to compete with a politically fragmenting OPEC. –JAH]

_____

May 18 , 2004 1800 PST (FTW) -- On May 5, 2004, President of the United States George W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces and the man with the authority to launch the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, alleged-architect of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, went onto two Arab news channels and laid himself before the Middle Eastern public like shirtless King Henry II taking his licks at the tomb of Thomas a Beckett.

Henry was forgiven. Bush's pseudo-event was received with contempt throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

"This is a show," said a young Lebanese woman said. "They're trying to cover this up. If they hadn't been exposed, Bush would not have done this."

How did a dozen pornographic snapshots bring pitiful Prince George down from his throne to bare his tender back to the wogs?

This is The Question coiled still as a snake under the table around which harried staffers are now putting in 20-hour days manufacturing televised regret. Lots of regret. Enough, they hope, to entertain the newly anxious American masses who sign their checks. Enough, they pray, to hold at bay the surlier multitudes of Southwest Asia and North Africa whose patience has dwindled to a thimble of water in a hot room.

It is The Question they can't answer - won't.

They have nothing left but illusions, and the answer to that question - the true answer - is that they were illusions all along.

Dangerous, dirty, deadly illusions for which others pay.

One of my favorite modern parables is Jurassic Park, a story about the impossibility of control and the law of unintended consequences. Character Ian Malcolm, a chaos theorist, tells John Hammond, the visionary who has just cloned dinosaurs back into existence in order to build a giant theme park, "John, the type of control you are attempting here is simply not possible."

Hammond, of course, ignores him, and before long Tyrannosaurs and Velociraptors are sampling lawyers and game wardens like hors d'oeuvres.

Perhaps we should find Malcolm and send him over to speak with Donald Rumsfeld.

What we have seen - beginning with the millisecond it takes for a camera shutter to snap and ending by threatening the government of the most powerful empire in history - is "the butterfly effect."

This is the poetic shorthand that chaoticians use for "sensitive dependence on initial conditions." Lorenz once asked at a symposium if a butterfly flapped its wings in Brazil, could it cause a tornado in Texas?

It is more than merely a line of dominoes falling. The Butterfly Effect says that each domino, so to speak, creates multiple instabilities that then move out through multiple systems. It takes into account that real life is not linear, not a line of dominoes.

That's why the weather is a good example. Meteorologists can make some decent broad predictions most of the time, but then every so often… well, shit happens.

If a system itself is unstable, then a tiny variation can lead to catastrophic consequences for the whole. Malcolm said that Jurassic Park was unstable.

James Gleick compares the equation for standing a pencil on its point with the equation for keeping a marble inside a bowl. Both solutions can be mathematically worked out, but the pencil trick is an unstable solution and will be disrupted almost before we attempt to employ it. We can introduce all sorts of disequilibrium to the marble in the bowl, however, and it is fairly easy to keep the marble inside, where it will tend back toward the bottom-center at all times.

The Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were unstable solutions in an unstable system.

Here is an analogy from mathematician Jim Loy of "sensitivity to initial conditions":
Imagine a flat surface with nails driven in it. The surface is slanting, so that a marble will roll down it. A marble hits one of the nails, and momentarily stops, before falling to one side or the other. The situation is chaotic. A very small change in the marble's initial trajectory will make a big change in its final trajectory. The phenomenon is called "sensitivity to initial conditions," and is one pervasive feature of chaos. The study of chaos has become the science of the unpredictable. And sensitivity to initial conditions is a chief source of that unpredictability. And sensitivity to initial conditions is the main way in which you can recognize a chaotic system.
There were nails all over this surface in Afghanistan and Iraq… and a lot of marbles… and a lot of initial conditions.

What were some of those initial conditions?

It is an arbitrary decision where to start, so I'll start with September 11, 2001.

In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Europe, Russia, and China - each of whom is a uniquely situated economic and political competitor - were confronted with the sudden disruption of geopolitical inertia. All these actors immediately sent condolences and convened emergency meetings at home to begin figuring out how to position themselves to the greatest advantage within this transformation.

It was apparent within hours - especially given the previous declarations of Bush cabinet ministers through the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, Project for a New American Century, etc. - that the US would use this event as a pretext for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

In fact, my own thinking on the 9/11 attacks is that (1) this was a pre-emptive strike by Bin Laden, who was privy via his close relation to Pakistani intelligence to American plans to invade in October anyway. It has already been well-established that the Pakistani foreign ministry was advised at least as early as July 2001 of this intent. (2) The Bush administration had foreknowledge that something was about to happen, even if it didn't know the specific time, place, or scope of the operation, and there was a plan on the table to mobilize outrage to gain support for the follow-on invasion of Iraq.

The Europeans certainly saw an advantage in allowing the US to become the heavy among Islamists with an invasion of Afghanistan. It would shift the attention of Islamist international guerrillas away from potential European targets - given that Europeans have been consistently more critical of Zionist depredations against Palestinians - and onto American targets.

But there was a more direct financial inducement to the Europeans, especially European banks. Heroin.

Under the Taliban, the production of heroin for the European market (Afghanistan had produced 70% of Europe's total heroin.) was cut by over 90%. The top three industries in the world, in terms of cash flow, are - in order - petroleum, weapons, and illicit drugs. Drug money not only circulates like all money, it has to be laundered, and that means it has to be moved through banks that collect fat royalties in the process, meaning European banks and the Central Intelligence Agency share one key characteristic. They are both addicted - so to speak - to the un-traceability of cash flowing from the illicit drug trade.

Before the Taliban dammed this river, that flow was around $300 billion a year.

And then there's oil… which brought up Iraq… which is where Russia and China (and of course, Japan) came in.

Prior to the 1991 invasion, Iraq was the world's second largest exporter of oil, behind only Saudi Arabia. With the systematic destruction of Iraq, via war and sanctions, the second-place position fell to Russia. This became the backdrop for Bush and Putin gazing into one another's eyes in the wake of September 11.

Russia's continuing dream of regaining great-nation status hung completely on a strategy of displacing the power of OPEC. Sensing the decline of US imperial power in the face of the looming global energy slump, Putin maneuvered to take advantage of that weakness by positioning Russia to answer the inevitable increase in US dependence on foreign oil. Putin drew the Russian oil oligarchs closer to him and began plotting a US-Russian strategy to shatter OPEC's power, and position Russia in an international Troika of the US, Russia, and Europe, as indicated by his constant lobbying to become a member of NATO.

Putin even stood aside as US military forces began staking out positions in the former Soviet backyard of the Caucasus. In reciprocation, the US made supportive noises on behalf of Russia's continuing counter-insurgency against the Chechens.

China grew very alert. For the world's most populous nation, this was as ominous a sign as they might imagine. Just as the Americans, Europeans, and China had encircled Russia a generation before, now the Chinese were seeing a steel ring being constructed around them.

In his commentary, Stand-off Between OPEC and Russia, in November 1991, Mark Jones - who had worked in the Soviet oil sector and was intimately familiar with the methods and psychology of post-Brezhnev apparatchiks - explained:

If the emerging US-Russian strategy succeeds, then the balkanization of the Middle East can only accelerate. The West will reassert its control over the social and political destiny of the Islamic world. Other potential rivals may fare no better; China, in particular, will face a grim future. A geopolitical realignment which leaves China effectively encircled by Russo-American power, means that the 21st century will not, after all, be one of Asian renewal, as many had speculated.

But control is no more possible for the Russians and Chinese than it is for the Americans, and the Mad Maximalists prevailed in the administration on the point of Russia. Russia would be abandoned, and none too gently either.

By September 2002, Russian and American oil execs were holding a joint convention in Houston, "the first U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Summit," and the subject was… Iraq.

Eugene Rumer, reporting on the summit for the Washington Post, said it had the potential to "form a partnership that could bring stability and security to the global oil market."

Further along in the article, however, he reported:

The Russian oil executives attending the Houston summit, including some
holding contracts with Hussein's government, have been watching U.S. policy toward Iraq with a wary eye. They are concerned that the post-Hussein oil sweepstakes will be rigged against them. They have used a variety of surrogates to let it be known that when Iraq's future leaders award new oil contracts, Russian oilmen want a seat at the table.

With two U.S. Cabinet secretaries in attendance -- Commerce's Donald Evans and Energy's Spencer Abraham -- as well as scores of other senior officials, Russia's oilmen will be looking for clues about the direction of U.S. Iraq policy.

Clues wouldn't be long in coming, and the other actor with fat existing contracts in Iraq was Total-Fina-Elf of France. Russian oil gangsters like Mikhail Khodorkovsky - who had Putin's ear - were more than willing to play Cassius to Saddam's Caesar. But hard-line US machinations in the UN to secure a fig leaf for the coming invasion had strongly hinted that the US military-petroleum complex was not in a sharing mood.

By November, Ian Bruce, writing for the Herald, would remark on the impending invasion of Iraq:

Russia's Lukoil has the largest potential stake, with a 23-year deal worth
£2bn to exploit the West Qurnah field. France's TotalFinaElf is negotiating to develop the Majnoon field and its 30 billion barrels of black gold.

China's state-owned national petroleum corporation has a contract to repair and bring back on stream part of the Rumailah production area damaged in the 1991 Gulf war.

All three governments suspect that toppling Saddam and installing a
US-controlled military administration would lead inevitably to a carve-up of the oil riches among American corporations to the exclusion of their own firms.

There was little doubt among insiders about why Russia and France lined up to threaten a veto on the Security Council… or why China played so coy with the whole process.

If it wasn't clear enough to the Cheney faction that held sway over Commander-in-Chief Presidente Arbusto, Viktor Kremenyuk of the USA-Canada Institute in Moscow said, "Resolving the Iraq problem is all about the rivalry surrounding the country's oil bonanza. How it is managed is the key."

But the lunatic faction, ears blocked with the wax of its own hubris, could not hear this clear statement. And they were confirmed in their delusions by the intense lobbying by American giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco. The US petroligarchs were assisted by Dick Cheney's buddy Ahmed Chalabi who - facing a lengthy prison sentence if ever extradited to Jordan - never found an American oil company's ass he didn't desperately want to kiss, kiss, kiss… since he was being lined up as the new post-war leader of Iraq.

Everyone had visions of conquered Iraq producing 3 million barrels of oil a day, and of US companies, not unlike Halliburton for example, getting the reconstruction contracts to bring the war shattered production infrastructure back up to that magic capacity. This blinding vision is what reduced key members of the UN Security Council to behaving like seagulls fighting for a single fish.

And Russia was not in the fight simply for access to Iraqi oil, but for more control of the market where they are still - for a while at least - a major exporter. China, on the other hand, has been a net oil importer since 1993, and its phenomenal economic growth is predicated on ever steeper increases in fossil fuel consumption.

Writing for Japan Times in 2001, Kenichi Ohmae described "Asia's Next Crisis: Made in China." Ohmae's approach was aptly revisited last year by oil industry commentator Andrew McKillop:

"To get to its present status…China has used what the Japan Times article rightly calls 'Dickensian England' sweat shops and near slave labor… This fulfils that dream of any true grit, reptile minded capitalist - to have throwaway labor. About 100 years later, and still in England, Mrs. Thatcher spouted loud and strong that this kind of labor 'flexibility' is what any 'advanced' country or nation needs.

"Just like Dickensian England, China today depends mostly on a vast - and growing - coal burn. At over 1.3 Giga tons per year it is about one and one-half times the coal burn of the USA, already second to China in this league table. Contrarywise, the USA today uses over 4 times more oil than China, which can be understood from just one statistic: the USA has about 747 cars and motor vehicles per 1000 population. China has about 9 / 1000.

Using a growth rate figure of 16% per year for automobiles and oil-powered motor vehicles China can likely get to about 36-50 cars / 1000 population by around 2015, and just this will require at least 5 Million barrels/day of additional oil consumption, to produce and keep those vehicles running, serviced, repaired, with bitumen-based roads and highways, with all kinds of mostly oil-based support and control systems. At 36-50 motor vehicles / 1000 population China would still be trailing the USA by a long, long way in this road transport oil consumption league.

Adding in other requirement China is facing an oil need that - very simply - the world cannot supply, and will be increasingly unable to supply. In other words China is cutting into an "exponential oil growth" period of its economic history, like Singapore in the 1960s and 1970s, at just that moment when world oil output will hit its absolute geological limit, or ceiling on production (perhaps about 85 Million bpd and by 2007).

From about 2005 oil prices only rise."

Not simply because of peak oil, with which readers of this site are already painfully familiar, but because of the immense energy thirst of the world's most populous nation, and their willingness to bid up the price to get as much of it as they need. And while China's aggressive wrangling and investment in places like Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Sudan, and Azerbaijan are related to this escalating petroleum addiction, the global reality is that there is only one region where that oil can ultimately come from ten years from now, and that is the Gulf.

If the US fails in its current war, and if the US-Saudi relationship goes sour or there is an Islamic regime change there, China is waiting in the wings with the idea of filling the void left by US expulsion.

Coy as China was on the issue of the UN resolution for a US-led invasion of Iraq, behind the scenes it split hairs over the text of the resolution while indicating its support of the Russian-French position against US occupation.

At the same time, there was a global anti-war movement exploding onto the scene. This anti-war movement, combined with the delays in the UN created by "betrayed" France and Russia, would push the invasion into late March with increasing heat and wild sandstorms, and it would deny the US military its northern front.

The neocon marble was bouncing off the nails of this new realignment.

But there were more nails further along

Theatrical Militarism Gets More Bad Reviews:
Rumsfeld's Monster Pictures And The Fallout From Abu Ghraib (Part II)

by
Stan Goff

[In the first installment of this multi-part report, Stan Goff found the neocons squirting a few apologies at the media. Their embarrassment was somebody else's psychic and/or physical maiming. In this sequel, Goff looks at a few other public relations disasters (PR is what diplomacy amounts to these days) leading up to the second War on Iraq. Less than delighted with American looting of the post-Soviet economy, Russia surely gave Iraq clandestine help; and when the Bush administration administered Turkey the arrogant assumption of total compliance with U.S. warplans, Turkey administered them a robustly democratic flourishing of the middle finger. Coupled with the undeniable monstrosity of Abu Ghraib - which we now know was sent straight from the Defense Department's highest echelons - all this suggests that the next stop on the endless warpath will not be a cakewalk. - JAH]

JUNE 11, 2004: 1100 PDT (FTW) -- What goes around, comes around.

The Russians didn't say it in 2002, but the hauteur of the Bush administration toward Russian aspirations, their own lingering, resentful inferiority complex at having begun their forced march into modernism only in the 1930's, the humiliation of having collapsed under the strain of the Cold War, and the very tangible new reality that the U.S. was about to kick the Russians into the global periphery, all coalesced into icy retribution.

Russia began advising Iraq. Their political advice and maneuvering was intended to delay, delay, delay… in particular, to incrementally make concessions to the United Nations as a means of raising the bar for the Americans to legitimize their sought-after invasion.

By March 2002, London's Telegraph reported, this link was firmly established. The Telegraph hinted hint that military advice and assistance might also have been provided.

I had said the same thing in Full Spectrum Disorder (Soft Skull Press, 2004).

Accusations by the United States that the Russians were providing material assistance were likely true. The Russians had now thrown in their lot with "old Europe" and China, and they were aiming to undermine U.S. power at every opportunity. I suspected they had not only provided equipment and training on that equipment, but advisory assistance on the reorganization of the Iraqi military.

Someone surely had.

The Iraqi military had abandoned its former Soviet-style doctrine, predicated on armor, mass, and centralized command. It had now seemingly adopted tactics more suited to Special Operations: agile and decentralized. Such a switch requires a very intentional and systematic reorientation from top to bottom. This is an "asymmetrical" response to the high-tech doctrine the U.S. developed to overcome the doctrine of its own predecessor. This Iraqi doctrinal reorientation proved stunningly effective, even though it was often tragically amateurish in its execution, with Iraqis simply stepping into the street to fire RPG's and being cut down by a tsunami of fire and lead.

In December 2003, the United States retaliated openly with a Pentagon announcement that barred Russia from any post-invasion contracts in Iraq.

Dmitry Rogozin of the Duma said this action "shows the very primitive vindictiveness of the current U.S. administration."

Asia Times reported this year (Sergei Blagov, "Putin to expand strategic partnership with China," Asia Times, March 12 2004) that it would expand its agreements with China. Part of that agreement was a strategic energy pact. Another part was an increase in the Chinese importation of Russian weapons.

Like balsamic vinegar and extra virgin olive oil… petroleum and guns.

But back to our account of how these circumstances built into a political storm, catalyzed by some photographs that could very well destroy the Bush administration.

While the bully boys advising the White House were rampaging around with the pre-capsized Ahmed Chalabi, NATO ally Turkey was in the throes of an election.

It is important to note that Turkey is a "democracy" that serves at the pleasure of its own military, a military that itself has a historical power base that is deeply involved in the drug trade. Note also that the U.S. has traditionally relied on the Turkish military to secure policy outcomes favorable to Washington. The majority of Turkish citizens are ethnic Turks (which is itself a historical composite of many groups) and religiously Muslim.

Istanbul is on the Bosphorus, a strait that divides Europe from Asia, and, as Louis Proyect pointed out after a visit there to see his in-laws in January 2003, it points to a geographic fault that could rival San Andreas.

The geological fault line obviously has a counterpart in the city and country's precarious location on the political-tectonic plates that divide the Christian West from the Islamic East. If these plates clash with each other at full force, the impact can be as devastating as any earthquake. Istanbul is geographically unique. It is the only city in the world, as far as I know, that straddles two continents. Imagine getting in your car each morning in Asia and driving across a bridge to get to your workplace in Europe. Not only is the city divided spatially, it is also divided culturally and politically.

This division that the Turkish economic, military, and political elites have so carefully negotiated over the years was brought into bold relief after September 11.

It needs to be noted that the Bosporus is a huge trans-shipment point for oil. In 2003, Russia complained bitterly that passage through Turkey was far too slow for Urals crude. The establishment of a permanent U.S./NATO base, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosovo after the NATO-engineered breakup of Yugoslavia (with the assistance of the heroin-funded "Kosovo Liberation Army") paved the way for U.S. oil companies operating in the Caspian region (which has since turned into the biggest oil bust in recent history) to bypass the Bosporus. This was a huge political betrayal for Turkey - a NATO member state - which deepened Turkish suspicions about their European allies.

Bondsteel was built (it should be no surprise) by Halliburton, Dick Cheney's company.

Without belaboring Turkey's history overmuch, it is important to understand that Kemalism, the prevailing political current in Turkey - often mistakenly seen by the west as a rejection of Islam - is a system where the state exists over and above religion. It was built up within the complexities of the 20th Century and in the wake of Turkey's disastrous alliance with the Germans in World War I. The official ideology was initially pan-Islamic, but evolved into a pan-Turk racial identity, which was an effective method of social control of the majority Turk while the state systematically massacred the Armenians and subjected the Kurds as an internal colony.

Over time, the economic and political stability of Turkey came to depend absolutely on the suppression of the Kurds (Turkey's largest "minority"), and this suppression forged a revitalized movement for Kurdish autonomy. This ability to divert the general public's discontents into racially coded nationalism becomes increasingly important in times of economic instability - which for Turkey began in earnest in 1991 and has only gotten worse under the direction of the International Monetary Fund.

But the fact remains that contiguous Kurdish living space - referred to by some as Kurdistan - extends beyond Turkey into Iraq, Iran, and less so into Syria. The "Kurdish question" for Turkey, then, is necessarily internationalized.

Not coincidentally, Iraqi Kurdistan is sitting atop the richest oil fields in the nation, with its political center in Kirkuk.

Kurds once ruled a significant portion of the region, after the Kurdish military leader, Saladin, threw the Europeans out of Jerusalem in 1187. They prospered because the region - not yet dragged into the age of hydrocarbons - was a trade crossroads between Europe, Africa, and Asia. But with the so-called discovery of the Americas, the region went into a permanent economic slump, and the Kurds largely reorganized as criminal syndicates led by warlords.

In his February Swans piece, "The Kurdish Pawn," Louis Proyect says:

In addition to being economically marginalized, the Kurds were isolated geographically as well. Preferring to dwell in the mountains or rocky hills, they subsisted on sheep-herding and small-scale farming…

After the Ottomans created a new regional economic system based on trade between North Africa and Central Asia, they were not sure how the Kurds fit into the big picture. They finally decided to co-opt them into the Hamidiye, a warrior caste functioning more or less like the Janissaries -- slaves of Christian origin enjoying privilege and political power in spite of their subject status. Despite the high ideals of their nationalist leaders, Kurdish soldiers joined with the Turks in slaughtering other subject peoples like the Armenians…

For decades their leaderships have subordinated the needs of the Kurdish nation as a whole for their own narrowly self-defined political goals within each state. Backstabbing, backroom deals and suppression of more radical trends within the Kurdish struggle have been the norm rather than the exception. 1

Proyect goes on to quote scholar Amir Hassanpour:

The Kurdish movement for self-determination has thus been factionalized. In a supreme irony, Iraqi Kurdish leaders unleashed their own peshmergas (militias) in the early 1990s against the Turkey-based Kurdish separatists of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), in part to please their U.S. benefactors in the struggle against Iraqi Arabs. The U.S. had declared, on behalf of its NATO ally Turkey, that the PKK was a "terrorist" organization. 2

The PUK and KDP are two Kurdish factions in Iraq, each supported by the U.S. to weaken the Iraqi Ba'athists. Their rivalry exploded into a fratricidal mini-war in 1992 that claimed 3,000 lives, almost as many as were killed in the chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War which gained so much propaganda currency in the run-up to the latest U.S. invasion.

In "Reckless Disregard," a 1999 article by Vera Saeedpour quoted by Proyect in his superlative Swans piece, she noted:

The Iraqi Kurds, long accustomed to suffering in wars between guerrillas and governments, found themselves again beleaguered, this time not by Baghdad but by Kurds. Their new lament came to be, "Even Saddam Hussein didn't do this." But no one wants to hear, much less publicize, their plight. Only Amnesty International would produce a belated report in 1995 on human rights abuses of Kurds under Kurdish administration. Human Rights Watch has yet to bring out a word on the topic. In their zeal to provide documentation in support of the State Department's case against Saddam Hussein for his abuses of Kurds in the 1980s -- for which they have received considerable funding -- they deliberately ignored abuses of Kurds by Kurds in the 1990s. 3

The Kurdish peshmergas of northern Iraq were maintained courtesy of the U.S.A throughout the low-intensity war between the two U.S. invasions of Iraq, and they actually fought alongside American Special Forces in the last ground campaign. They are now a huge and unpredictable political factor in a zone where a decade of U.S.-protected political autonomy has only fed into the popular desire for an independent Kurdistan - which is anathema to Turkey's elites.

There are still new military and political storms waiting to form out of these turbulent winds.

This contextualizes the Turkish elections of 2003, where the U.S. suffered its first political defeat. That translated into a military setback which advanced the development of a credible Iraqi guerrilla resistance by several years.

By 2002, the widespread Turkish sense of humiliation at the hands of the Americans - national humiliation and economic humiliation - peaked in a political upheaval.

In a bit of political irony, the Turkish "proportional representation" system that requires at least 10% of the vote to qualify a party for any seat in parliament, a system designed to protect the domination of the incumbents, became a surprise landslide victory for the Islamic Party of Justice and Development (AKP), who got only 35% of the vote (far more than any other formation) and ended up with two thirds of the parliamentary seats.

At this point, Turkey was preparing to authorize the use of Turkish soil for the U.S. military to launch its north-to-south ground offensive into Iraq, even though more than 90% of the Turkish public passionately opposed this plan. That authorization required passage of a law by the Turkish parliament.

Even the newly empowered AKP had to take into account the Turkish military, which supported assistance of the American invasion. The Turkish military had already demonstrated that they would stand back from politics only so far.

When the vote was taken on March 1, after the invasion plans were already laid out and preparations were in the 11th hour, in a stunning defeat the parliament narrowly voted to deny the U.S., even in the face of massive bribery and intimidation by both Washington and factions within Ankara. The decisive pressure on the Turkish parliament, elected as an Islamic Party, was the mass movement in Turkey opposing the war, and the weight of the international mass movement against the war that stood behind it.


From Full Spectrum Disorder:
How had the antiwar movement become a material force on the Iraqi battleground?

A snapshot of the tactical situation, as least what could be gleaned from different accounts, revealed that the original battle plan was scrapped. The complexity of planning a military operation of that scope is simply indescribable, and it takes months to do it right. But the unexpected loss of ground fronts, in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south, forced a complete reconstruction of plans in a matter of days. The operation could be put off no longer. The aggressor's back was against the weather wall. The pre-summer sandstorms had already begun, and by late April the heat index inside a soldier's chemical protective gear could be 140 degrees Fahrenheit.

The international antiwar movement had firmed up political opposition around the world and forced the delays that culminated in the UN Security Council becoming a key arena of struggle. For the ossified left who couldn't see beyond their own simplistic shibboleths and who dismissed the UN on ideological - and therefore idealist - grounds, there was an example of how politics translates dialectically into military reality.

We had stalled the Bush administration to push the war back, and there was an effect. There is an effect to this day. Never doubt it.

The entire 4th Infantry Division was still sitting in the barracks waiting for their equipment to steam around the Arabian Peninsula in cargo ships because the Turkish parliament denied them their battlefront. Medium- and short-range tactical aircraft that could have struck dozens of key targets were sidelined because they were forbidden to take off from Saudi Arabia to deliver their payloads.

Inside the Department of Defense there was another war raging between the Generals of the Army and Marine Corps and the clique of doctrinal "revolutionaries" pushing Rumsfeld's crackpot theory, cyberwar combined with commandos.

The new "doctrine" was creating a military debacle in Iraq. Rumsfeld was refusing to learn what was in front of him, that in war, which is an extreme form of politics, success is not measured on a point system like a golf tournament. It is not measured in body counts or inventories of destroyed war materiel. In fact, it is not perfectly measurable at all. Success has to be gauged against the expectations of the military operation and its final objectives - which are always political. The U.S. inflicted a terrible empirical toll on Southeast Asia and ultimately lost the Vietnam War. The U.S. never grasped the political character of that war…

Fragile Turkey was beset by a severe economic crisis. Its majority-Muslim population had just elected a moderate Islamic Party and the popular opposition to the war was overwhelming.

The Turkish ruling class could not afford another insurrection from Kurdish nationalists, and the Turkish military had no intention of watching a Kurdish state take form to their south. As a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Turkey was becoming a powder keg behind its stable exterior, and Kurdistan was a furnace.

The political implications reach deep into Europe, where less than two years ago the U.S. pushed behind the scenes for Turkey into the EU as a U.S. stalking horse. Germany has a substantial population of Turks and Kurds, and the German government still has a real and justifiable fear that open warfare in Iraqi Kurdistan will spill over into the streets of Germany.

To mollify the Kurds, the U.S. had to menace back the Turkish military, and the Kurds softened their language about an independent Kurdistan.

Oh, the tangled web we weave… One could almost hear Ian Malcolm saying, "I'm really getting tired of being right all the time."


Then there is Saudi Arabia.


1 Louis Proyect, "Resistance: In The Eye Of The American Hegemon: The Kurdish Pawn," Swans, Special Issue on Iraq - February 2, 2004. http://www.swans.com/library/art10/iraq/proyect.html

2 "The Kurdish Experience," Middle East Report, July-August 1994.

3 Reckless Disregard, Peacework, November 1999,
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/119 9/119914.htm