Bush gives new reason for Iraq war (AP-8/31/05)
President answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq:
protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.
The president said terrorists would be denied their goal of making Iraq a base from which to recruit followers, train them, and finance attacks.
''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."
''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi."
''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said.
''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging.
'Well, mi smo se samo salili kad smo rekli da imaju WMD, mi smo u stvari zeljeli da...hm...Dick, sto sam ono trebao reci?...'
Da se malo vratimo u susjedstvo Irana u istom 'nukularnom' kontekstu.
Kad je lani otkriveno da je pakistanski 'top nuclear' znanstvenik (i otac pakistanskog nuklearnog programa) Abdul Qadeer Khan 15 godina tajno prodavao nacrte i opremu za izradu atomske bombe izmedju ostalih i Sj. Koreji i Iranu, bilo je logicno ocekivati nekakvu reakciju bushokracije prema pakistanskom predsjedniku Musharaffu. U krajnju ruku, proveli su cijeli prvi i drugi mandat do sad pricajuci o drzavama i diktatorima koji imaju WMD, a pogotovo o pojedincima koji podrzavaju teroriste i 'Axis of Evil' drzave u izgradnji WMD.
Pakistan i Musharaff su bili bas idealni za taj okvir. Ali....
It was sort of a surprise when Bush, upon finding out about Khan’s proliferation of nuclear technology, let Pakistan off with a slap on the wrist. But it was all an act. In fact, it was actually a cover-up designed to shield Cheney because he knew about the proliferation for more than a decade and did nothing to stop it.
Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan’s sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S. -nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq- but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen.
In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then working as Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism.
But Barlow’s findings were “politically inconvenient.” Why? A finding that Pakistan possessed a nuclear bomb would have triggered a congressionally mandated cutoff of aid to the country, a key ally in the CIA's efforts to support Afghan rebels fighting a pro-Soviet government.
It also would have killed a $1.4-billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad.
Cheney dismissed Barlow’s report because he desperately wanted to sell Pakistan the F-16 fighter planes. Several months later, a Pentagon official was told by Cheney to downplay Pakistan ’s nuclear capabilities when he testified on the threat before Congress. Barlow complained to his bosses at the Pentagon and was fired.
“Three years later, in 1992, a high-ranking Pakistani official admitted that the country had developed the ability to assemble a nuclear weapon by 1987,” Mother Jones reported. “In 1998, Islamabad detonated its first bomb.”
Cheney went to great lengths to cover-up Pakistan ’s nuclear weaponry. In a New Yorker article published on March 29, 1993 investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quoted Barlow as saying that some high-ranking members inside the CIA and the Pentagon lied to Congress about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal so as not to sacrifice the sale of the F-16 fighter planes to Islamabad, which was secretly equipped to deliver nuclear weapons.
Hersh explained that reasons behind the cover-up “revolves around the fact… that the Reagan Administration had dramatically aided Pakistan in its pursuit of the bomb.” “President Reagan and his national-security aides saw the generals who ran Pakistan as loyal allies in the American proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan : driving the Russians out of Afghanistan was considered far more important than nagging Pakistan about its building of bombs.
“The government’s ability to keep the Pakistani nuclear-arms purchases in America secret is the more remarkable because (since 1989) the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Department (under Cheney) have been strling with an internal account of illegal Pakistani procurement activities, given by a former C.I.A. intelligence officer named Richard M. Barlow,” Hersh reported. “Barlow… was dismayed to learn, at first hand, that State Department and agency officials were engaged in what he concluded was a pattern of lying to and misleading Congress about Pakistan ’s nuclear-purchasing activities.”
The description by Hersh of what took place in mid-1990 is eerily reminiscent of what’s taking place today in terms of the current Bush administration’s foreign policy objectives.
In January 2005, Hersh revealed that the USA was conducting covert operations in Iran to identify targets for possible strikes. This was dismissed by both US government as well as the Government of Iran. However, US government has not categorically denied that US troops have been on the ground in Iran.
Hersh also claimed that Pakistan and USA have struck a "Khan-for-Iran" deal in which Washington will look the other way at Pakistan's nuclear transgressions and not demand handing over of its nuclear proliferator AQ Khan, in return for Islamabad's cooperation in neutralising Iran's nuclear plans. This was also denied by officials of the governments of the US and Pakistan.
Pakistan was let off the hook last month so the U.S. could use its borders to hunt for al-Qaeda leader and 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden...
Da se mi nakon kraceg izleta u 'proslost' vratimo svakodnevnim i buducim dogadjanjima. Kako smo vec vidjeli da je trenutno Iran najveca knedla koju treba progutati evo da se opet malo podsjetimo zasto... (vrlo kratko jer se ponavljam!)
Slijedece godine Iran planira pokrenuti tzv. "oil bourse", ili stock exchange za energiju. 'Problem' koji imaju s tim je to sto je planiraju bazirati na Euru, ne na US dolaru, sto naravno dovodi u rizik americku Petrodollar politiku.
Today, most oil trading takes place on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the London-based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE).
Since the 1970s, the OPEC countries have all agreed to sell oil for US dollars only.
This means every country that wants to buy oil must first acquire enough US dollars to buy what it needs.
Year after year, America imports much more than it exports.
It must pay out that difference (its current accounts deficit) in dollars.
Last year, the US ran a current accounts deficit of over $600 billion USD; this year, it's expected to increase to $700 billion.
If there were no good reason for other countries to buy all those American dollars, then the dollar would decline in value until the US economy could no longer afford to import goods from abroad (that happens when other countries run large current accounts deficits over long periods). However, the deal with OPEC means other countries have no choice but to buy all those excess American dollars, which props up the value of the dollar and allows the American "import economy" to go on year after year.
Effectively, America's main export is US dollars, and it is absolutely imperative to preserve a captive market for those dollars among oil-consuming countries.
The continued viability of the US economy depends on it.
Americans can still afford to consume because their economy is suffused with cheap imports; a falling dollar will raise the prices of imported goods. At the same time, Americans enjoy some of the lowest oil prices in the world, largely due to the petrodollar arrangement. This has skewed the American vehicle market toward gas-guzzling but profitable SUVs and light trucks.
Selling Oil for Euros
One of the major unstated reasons the United States invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from trading oil for euros, which he had begun in 2000. Hussein actually made more money selling oil for euros, as the euro appreciated 17 percent against the dollar between 2000 and 2003. Other countries in the region, particulary Iran and Syria, began public musing about switching from dollars to euros around the same time. All three countries were subject to a barrage of threats from the United States government, but only Iraq went through with the switch, and it was summarily invaded. One of the US government's first acts in Iraq was to switch oil sales back to dollars.
Now, Iran plans not just to sell oil for euros, but to create an exchange market for parties to trade oil for euros. The oil bourse will provide a euro-based price standard, the way West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) and North Sea Brent crude do today. To the extent that the balance of reserve holdings starts to shift from dollars to euros, that's very bad news for America's system of dollar hegemony.
Iran is taking a calculated risk that enough countries have an interest in a petro-euro market to contain American aggression.
Many central banks are already quietly shedding their dollar reserves, nervous that America's economic fundamentals
=$500 billion federal deficit,
=$700 billion current accounts deficit,
=$4.5 billion federal debt,
=record business and personal debts,
cannot be sustained for long, and hoping to insulate themselves from what they see as an inevitable recession.
The US dollar has declined by a third against the euro since 2000, despite the petrodollar arrangement.
At the same time, Europe is eager to enjoy more of the "virtuous circle" that comes from supplying a major reserve currency: a ready market for its currency and guaranteed reinvestment as euro-holders plant their money in European markets.
Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has also expressed interest in switching from dollars to euros. Russia would benefit from getting paid in a stronger currency, and it would represent a political victory over America after fifteen years of watching its clients and assets in the oil-rich Caspian region co-opted by American expansion.
Iran may, indeed, be attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. However, Iran's presumed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is only the politically acceptable excuse for America's threats. The real danger is that Iran will lay down the foundation for a post-hegemonic international energy industry in which America is merely one of many players.
If Iran is, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, it is doing so to acquire a deterrent against exactly this kind of American encroachment. Indeed, recent world events have only enforced the notion that a nation's successful efforts to acquire nuclear weapons confer respect and status, not the opprobrium it deserves. India, a growing economic power that possesses a nuclear arsenal and refuses to sign either the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), has just been rewarded for its efforts by US President Bush, who has agreed to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." This is a straightforward violation of the NPT, which forbids signatories from exchanging nuclear materials or support with non-signatories.
If Iran really is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, is it any wonder why?
Look at the advantages that having nuclear arsenals have given to US allies India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of which have benefitted immensely from a playing field tilted in their favour by their ability to project devastating power. As official hysteria about Iran's intentions escalates in volume and intensity, remember the real force undermining the moral authority of the NPT: the big nuclear-'have' countries that still refuse either to apply the ban consistently or to take any meaningful steps of their own toward "general and complete disarmament" - ostensibly the NPT's ultimate goal.
Ironically, America originally invaded Iraq - a poor, defenseless country - partly to send a message to other oil producing countries not to rock the petrodollar system, but the real message for small countries is that they need to present a credible deterrent threat or risk being ignored and/or invaded.
Nakon sto smo recimo ‘pronasli’ motiv za 9/11 conspiracy evo i kako je uopce omoguceno da dodje do takvog spleta koincidencija (nikad prije I nikad poslije vidjenog) tzv. ‘Perfect Match’.
Tocnije, moglo bi se reci da je u ovoj situaciji ‘conspiracy theory’ koja po defaultu zahtjeva proporcionalnu umijesanost broja ljudi I slozenosti operacije, uspjesno svedena na vrlo uski krug ljudi te je tako smanjena mogucnost curenja informacija. Opet napominjem da se radi o mind teaseru zasnovanom na prikupljenim cinjenicama, a na srecu svatko je vlasnik svog mozga I upotrebljava ga na nacin na koji mu odgovara - uglavnom tako da ga ne preopterecuje suvisnim teorijama konspiracije I slicnim 'pricama'…
• OPPORTUNITY: 9/11 War Games - a perfect "match"
On May 8, 2001 - four months prior to 9/11 - the president placed Dick Cheney in charge of "federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" This included all "training and planning" which needed to be "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" in order to "maximize effectiveness." This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the seamless integration of all training exercises throughout the entire federal government and all military agencies. On 9/11 Cheney oversaw multiple war games and terror drills, including several exercises of NORAD, the Air Force agency whose mandate is to "watch the sky."
The evening before September 11th, 2001, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta. The communication stated, "The match is about to begin." Were they "matching" their activities to the war games? Was the attack a rigged "match" between the defenders on one side, and the attackers with their accomplices on the other? The Whitehouse was so infuriated when this communication leaked from the Senate Intelligence Committee that they threatened Senators with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information. This leak struck a nerve within the Whitehouse.
Multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press. What Crossing the Rubicon has documented conclusively is that there was a live-fly drill taking place on 9/11 titled Vigilant Warrior. Richard Clarke disclosed the name of this drill but it was Major Don Arias of NORAD who confirmed the definition of the title "Warrior" to Mike Ruppert via email. (Warrior = JCS/HQ NORAD sponsored field training exercise or live-fly). That means that the Vigilant Warrior drill conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff involved at least one real commercial aircraft in the skies, intended to simulate exactly the kind of airliner hijack emergency presented on 9/11. Coincidence?
Additional war games on 9/11 included Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. All of those fighters were rendered useless as the 9/11 plot unfolded - too far away to respond.
One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were live-fly military exercises?
In Air War Over America it is documented that General Arnold of NORAD didn't pull out of the war game titled Vigilant Guardian until reports of flight 93 being hijacked were coming in. That was at 9:16, a total of 54 minutes after it was known that flight 11 was a hijacking. What took so long? Were there still "false blips" on FAA radar screens at this time?
There were likely false blips on screen even after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." "Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.
Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in Air War Over America.
There were more 9/11 war games including Northern Guardian, Northern Denial and an unnamed National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) drill for a plane crashing into NRO headquarters at precisely the time of an actual crash in New York.
War games, terror drills and exercises are run by the military quite frequently. In this case, they mirrored the real attacks of 9/11 with such shocking congruence as to be beyond the realm of coincidence. This is made clear when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001.
With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended?
The man in charge of managing all such programs was Dick Cheney. Among the central decision-makers for the scheduling of so many simultaneous exercises would be Dick Cheney and Ralph Eberhart, head of NORAD. It certainly was a perfect "match."
The most important revelation made about the 9/11 war games comes again from Major Don Arias of NORAD. With multiple war games running, there had to be someone coordinating them.
"Yes, there is an exercise maestro," said Don Arias in a phone interview.
So who was the maestro?
Mike Ruppert called every relevant military and government office looking for an answer to this question and received no response. At the final 9/11 Commission hearing on June 17, 2004, I asked General Ralph Eberhart - the man in charge of NORAD on 9/11 - who was in charge of coordinating the war games that day. His only response was, "No comment." None of the commissioners, including Chairman Kean, could answer this question. FTW's research has concluded the maestro was either Dick Cheney, Ralph "Ed" Eberhart, or both. Whoever the maestro was, he was certainly under Cheney's management as per the May 2001 presidential mandate.
Additionally, Tripod II was a bio-terror exercise being set-up on the west side of lower Manhattan, reportedly scheduled to begin the next day. This exercise was being coordinated with FEMA and the Department of Justice - two of the agencies placed directly under Cheney's control in May of 2001 by presidential mandate.
There is no question that Cheney would be responsible for managing this exercise. The Tripod II drill became the command & control emergency response center on 9/11. The command center in WTC 7 was reportedly evacuated by 9:30 on 9/11, but Tripod II provided a new command center organized just as the original was.
Well, how convenient! The Air Force war games ensured the air attack would be successful and Tripod II assured Cheney would have control of the response to the crisis of his making.
Matching the war games with hijackings (or hijacking the war games) was the opportunity for Cheney to help ensure the 9/11 attacks would be successful, justifying what he calls, "The war that will not end in our lifetimes."
... to be continued
Dakle, svaki zlocin treba i motiv, pa tako i ovaj. Motiv je naravno vec sire opisivan u ranijim postovima, a evo analize ex-LAPD detektiva...(ujedno je i skracena analiza Hubbert Peak-a)
• MOTIVE: Peak Oil
By definition, world hydrocarbon (oil and gas) production peaks when half the planet's reserves have been used up. After that point, every barrel of oil will be harder to find, more expensive to obtain, and more valuable to whoever controls it.
Many of the world's foremost experts place that peak between 2000 and 2007. We live in a global economic system based on endless growth, and that growth is only possible with endless hydrocarbons to burn.
Demand for oil and gas is increasing at staggering rates; after peak, there will be demand that simply cannot be met, and energy prices will rise inexorably. The resulting economic catastrophe may see oil hit $100 per barrel before the end of this decade.
Oil not only keeps us warm and moves our cars, it is used to make all plastics and is, together with natural gas, the most important ingredient keeping modern agriculture afloat.
It is a little known fact that for every 1 calorie of food energy produced, 10 calories of hydrocarbons are consumed. We eat oil. Without cheap oil, billions of people will freeze or starve and unfortunately, there is no combination of renewable energy sources that can replace oil and gas consumption without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight.
Cheney knew about this. There are no national plans for conservation in America. As Dick Cheney has stated, "The American way of life is not negotiable." Over-consumption is as American as apple pie.
Many industry experts have been speaking to the reality of Peak Oil for some time.
One of those experts - perhaps the most prominent in the world - was in Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). Just four days after Dick Cheney became Vice President he convened the NEPDG. Among the experts whose opinion Cheney paid for (with taxpayer dollars) was Matthew Simmons, one of the most respected energy investment bankers in the world. Simmons has been speaking out about Peak Oil for years, and there is no question that the urgent story of Peak Oil is what he told Cheney's NEPDG.
The content of the NEPDG documentation has been illegally withheld from the American public with a rubber stamp of approval from the Supreme Court.
Cheney knew about Peak Oil in 1999 as CEO of Halliburton, long before was Vice President. A speech he gave at the London Institute of Petroleum demonstrates this clearly.
As stated in Crossing the Rubicon, "By way of confirmation, people in and close to the oil industry are reporting that increased drilling is not resulting as yet in significantly increased supply."
A crisis of this magnitude required a crisis plan, something the Neo-Liberals didn't have.
The Neo-Conservatives, including Dick Cheney, had such a plan: manufacture a crisis - one that had long been imagined as necessary by elite planners inside the national security state and use it to maintain permanent war to steal the world's last remaining hydrocarbons and temporarily stave off the Peak Oil crisis.
...to be continued
Kako vidim da rasprava o 'teroristima' i 'kontrateroristima' (ili obrnuto kako se kome svidja) jos uvijek izaziva dosta komentara evo da i ja (u svojoj staroj dobroj copy-paste maniri) nabacim nekoliko vidjenja ljudi koji su se detaljnije bavili temom 9/11 napada (a samim tim i tko je tu terorista, a tko je kontraterorista). Jedan od njih je Michael Ruppert u knjizi istog naslova kao i ovaj post detaljno istrazio 'case' na nacin LAPD policajca (sto je i bio). Prigodno sam pastirao neke dijelove knjige pa mislim da nije lose za raspravu 'conspiracy theory vs. theory of conspiracies'. Unaprijed se ogradjujem od bilokakvih implikacija vezano na konspirativne teorije i slicno, ovo je samo mind teaser...
Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney ( by Michael Kane)
Crossing the Rubicon makes the case for official complicity within the U.S. government and names Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the crimes of 9/11.
Since the publication of this book many people have asked to hear the case against Cheney argued "short & sweet."
I will make it as short as possible, but it can never be sweet.
There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.
1. Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service, assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11
2. Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."
3. Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.
• MEANS: Dick Cheney and the Secret Service
As the 9/11 plot unfolded, it has been reported that Secret Service whisked Dick Cheney into an underground presidential bunker at 9:03. This establishes that the Secret Service was in the loop giving orders by at least 9:03, and almost certainly much earlier. Former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "Secret Service had a system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing." The Kean Commission (AKA the 9/11 Commission) would have us believe that the chain of command on 9/11 was a complex web, but in reality the Secret Service had the authority to communicate presidential and vice presidential orders directly to fighter pilots in the air. In Air War Over America, a book commissioned by the Air Force documenting the morning of 9/11, it is stated that the FAA contacted Otis Air Force base informing them Flight 11 was headed to Manhattan and had lost its identification signal by 8:30. This indicates Secret Service was in the loop by the same time, or shortly thereafter, since they are able to see FAA radar screens in real time and FAA is reaching out to the military. There is no question that by 8:45 at the absolute latest, likely much earlier, Secret Service is in the decision-making loop. They were most likely in the loop after 8:15 when flight 11 turned its transponder off.
National Special Security Event
It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events." The Atlanta Olympic Games and the Republican & Democratic National Conventions are notable examples of NSSE's. In preparation, the Secret Service runs training initiatives of simulated attacks and field exercises for such events. The Secret Service works with state and local authorities as well as the military to coordinate security efforts; it has the best communication system of any agency in the country; and its personnel are always present with both the President and Vice President - making it the perfect agency to take supreme command in case of a major emergency on American soil.
When 9/11 occurred, the legal framework was in place to allow the Secret Service to take supreme command over any and all American agencies, including the Air Force. Richard Clarke writes in Against All Enemies: "I was amazed at the speed of the decisions coming from Cheney and, through him, from Bush." This is to be expected. Everything was in place for the Commander in Chief to be calling all the shots as the 9/11 plot unfolded, but Bush was in an elementary school reading about goats with Secret Service agents right beside him.
Bush's Secret Service detail was in real-time communication not only with the FAA, but also the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center), into which Dick Cheney had reportedly been whisked by the Secret Service. While Bush continued his elementary school photo-op after being told, "America is under attack," Ari Fleischer - according to the Washington Times, 10/7/02 - caught the president's eye and held up a handwritten sign that said "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." Bush was intentionally being kept out of the decision-making loop during the critical moments of 9/11. The Vice President has no place in the official military chain of command.
Thus far we have established that:
1. Secret Service was the supreme command on 9/11.
2. Bush was not in the role of Commander in Chief at critical times on 9/11.
3. The acting Commander in Chief as the 9/11 plot unfolded was Dick Cheney.
....to be continued
Osnova zadnjih poteza USA/EU u iranskoj situaciji je (ipak) neocekivani izbor Ahmedinejada za predsjednika Irana te nelagodnost koju 'zapadnjaci' osjecaju tim povodom. Ukoliko se 'nuklearno pitanje' ne rijesi skoro, ta nelagoda ce samo rasti, a samim tim i ulozi u pokerskoj igri koju su US zaigrali, koristeci EU-3 (GB, FR, D) u pokusaju prebacivanja problema na UN Security Council (navodno ocekujuci sankcije protiv Irana zbog nuklearnog programa).
Tako su npr. EU-3 trazili produzetak roka suspenzije nuklearnog programa (Paris Agreement-dogovoren lani u studenom do kraja srpnja o.g.) za nekoliko dana (!?)...Rok od nekoliko dana je vjerovatno trazen kako bi se cekalo obracanje novog predsjednika (nastupio na duznost jucer!) i njegovo misljenje o nuklearnom programu. S druge strane, lako je moguce da su prijedlozi EU-3 bili bazirani na pretpostavci da ce Rafsanjani (kao umjereniji kandidat!?) dobiti izbore pa su sad bili u situaciji da mijenjaju vec slozene prijedloge (da ih ne bi Iran mozda i prihvatio)...
Iran has made a clean, physical separation between two components of its 18-year-old nuclear enrichment program, which it had kept secret. Its enrichment plant is located at Natanz. But the factory that is supposed to feed it is located in Isfahan and is designed to convert solid uranium oxides into hexafluoride gas. At the moment, Iran is only threatening to begin operating the Isfahan factory –one clean step away from enrichment itself. In any case, Iran says it wants to enrich uranium to a low level for use in nuclear power reactors. Normally, power reactors burn 2 to 4 percent enriched uranium, in which the proportion of its fissile isotope U-235 has been raised to that percentage up from the naturally occurring 0.7 percent. Iran has consistently affirmed that it has a right to acquire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses and that it will never pursue weapons of mass destruction.
However, the US suspects that Iran, with huge oil and petroleum reserves, wants to enrich uranium only to make nuclear weapons. It is another matter that the US is not a state with merely suspected nuclear activity and a weapons program, but a declared nuclear weapons state, and that it developed nuclear power despite its petroleum reserves. The EU-3 have been trying to mediate between the U.S. and Iran, but their efforts could fail if the US takes a tough, unhelpful stand to isolate Iran, driving it to harden its own posture. That could bring two years of difficult EU-Iran negotiations to a sorry end.
Iran's case has been further burdened by the agreement the US signed with India just two weeks ago. Under it, Washington has recognized India as a "responsible state with advance nuclear technology," agreed to resume civilian nuclear trade with it, and also to help "adjust" the international nuclear control regime to enable wide-ranging civilian transactions with India.
Iran responded to this deal by accusing the Bush administration of double standards and undermining the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ). Iran says "the U.S. signed this agreement despite the fact that India, unlike Iran, has not signed the NPT." Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) permits the pursuit of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes like generating power, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision.
Kao i obicno, US se ponasa kao 'slon u staklarni' podrzavajuci EU-3 pregovore i inzistirajuci s druge strane na potpunom i kompletnom prestanku obogacivanja urana pa je tako prostor za kompromis prilicno skucen. Dodatno se s trece strane dogovara nuklearna kooperacija s Indijom.
Dakle, Indija (koja nije potpisnik NPT) ima pravo brinuti o svom nacionalnom interesu, i nitko ih ne osudjuje zbog toga (cak je i US podupire), ali Iran koji je potpisnik NPT nema pravo na tako nesto, prema tumacenju Bush administracije.
Tesko je vjerovati da ce ovakvi dvostruki standardi postici 'zeljeni' (proklamirani) ucinak tj. odvratiti Iran od procesa obogacivanja urana...
Naprotiv, tesko da ce US/EU-3 moci dobiti ovu partiju Nuke Pokera posebno kad se ukljuce i druga dva igraca u Vijecu Sigurnosti-Rusija i Kina...Naime, prema 'preporuci' US, EU-3 je ranije ove godine zaprijetio prijaviti Iran Vijecu Sigurnosti ako nastavi 'uranium enrichment activities'.
Hm, sto ne valja u toj slici?
Pa, jedini koji moze prijaviti Iran je IAEA, a bez definitivnog dokaza o WMD u Iranu tesko ce to biti progurati kroz IAEA (pogotovo nakon irackih "dokaza"). Tvrdnje Bush administracije da "enrichment activities are "forbidden" kao i tvrdnje Tony Blaira da ce Iran prekrsiti "obligations and undertakings" ako prekine voluntary suspension su naravno pravne besmislice.
Ali, puno bitnije od svega toga (jer sve je to ipak provedivo kroz sustav, kao sto smo vidjeli iz irackog slucaja), tesko ce biti nagovoriti Rusiju i Kinu na odluku o sankcijama iz jednostavnog razloga investicija koje su imale i imaju u Iranu. Npr. Rusija trenutno gradi Bushehr light-water nuclear power plant, a Kina je, uvijek gladna energije prosle godine sklopila $70 billion oil&gas deal s Teheranom.
Sad kljucno pitanje da li bas US gubi u tom pokeru? I kamo nas to vodi?
Vjerovatno u pat poziciju koja ce biti idealna za US da dobije background za hitni napad na nuklearna postrojenja u Iranu (zasto hitni?...nekidan procijenise da Iran ne moze napravit bombu u slijedecih 10 godina, sve i da hoce, gdje je zurba? PetroEuro od slijedece godine? Probably...)
A 'motiv' ili 'konkretni razlog' cemo tek vidjeti gdje ce 'pronaci' i s kolikim brojem zrtava...ukoliko jos uvijek i to trebaju...Uh, zvucim zlokobno sam sebi...
p.s. namjerno u ovom kontekstu ne spominjem Izrael i njihovu A-production jer mislim da je rijec o sasvim razlicitoj ligi
A recent poll shows six in ten Americans think a new world war is coming: the same poll says about 50 percent approve of the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. Somewhat inexplicably, about two-thirds say nuking those two cities was "unavoidable." One can only wonder, then, what their reaction will be to this ominous news, revealed in a recent issue of The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi:
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."
Two points leap out quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran.
The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. We'll wipe out the entire population of Iran's capital city because, as Paul Wolfowitz said in another context, "it's doable."
The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment?
What aren't they telling us? And where is the "mainstream" media on this?
Surely the New York Times and the Washington Post can find a lede here: 'US has plan to nuke Tehran if another 9/11.' "Can we get at least a bloody story out of this?"
They are nowhere to be found, and for a very good reason.
The MSM has been a weapon in the hands of the War Party at every step on the road to World War IV. After all, it's an American tradition. As William Randolph Hearst famously put it to an employee in the run-up to the Spanish-American conflict of 1898: "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."
Any objective examination of the Anglo-American media's role as a megaphone for this administration's "talking points" would have to conclude that the Hearst school of journalism has been dominant since well before the invasion of Iraq.
Aside from the post-9/11 hysteria that effectively swept away all pretenses of a critical stance, the MSM was well acclimated to simply reiterating the U.S. government line on matters of war and peace all through the Clinton era, when friendly media coverage of the Balkans and numerous other Clintonian interventions habituated the press corps to a certain mindset. By the time the Bush administration set out on a campaign of deception designed to lie us into invading and occupying Iraq, the MSM was largely reconciled to playing the role of the government's amen corner.
With the U.S. and British media in the pocket of the Powers That Be, what hope is there that the American people who don't believe anything if they don't see it on television will awaken to the danger in time?
But there is hope: Internet is a mighty weapon that might defeat them in the end. A recent Pew study shows that this is not just a technophilic fantasy:
"The Internet continues to grow as a source of news for Americans. One-in-four (24%) list the internet as a main source of news. Roughly the same number (23%) say they go online for news every day, up from 15% in 2000; the percentage checking the Web for news at least once a week has grown from 33% to 44% over the same time period.
"While online news consumption is highest among young people (those under age 30), it is not an activity that is limited to the very young. Three-in-ten Americans ages 30-49 cite the Internet as a main source of news.
"The importance of the Web for people in their working years is even more apparent when the frequency of use is taken into account. One-third of people in their 30s say they get news online every day, as do 27% of people in their 40s. Nearly a quarter of people in their 50s get news online daily, about the same rate as among people ages 18-29."
...just stay connected as far as we are allowed to stay connected...
CNOOC Withdraws $18.5B Bid for Unocal
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - China's government-controlled CNOOC withdrew its $18.4 billion bid for Unocal on Tuesday, ending a politically charged takeover battle that highlighted the United States' growing apprehension about the economic rise of the world's largest country. CNOOC's retreat clears the way for Chevron to complete its acquisition of Unocal next week, even though its cash-and-stock offer is currently worth nearly $1 billion less. But Chevron had several factors working in its favor - regulatory clearance, the support of Unocal's board and the backing of U.S. lawmakers, who questioned whether economic and national security interests would be threatened if a company backed by China's Communist government were to buy a major U.S. oil company.
Those misgivings virtually ensured CNOOC's bid would have to undergo a rigorous - and possibly tempestuous - review that would have prevented Unocal from being sold for at least another six to nine months, with no guarantee that the deal would ever be completed. In a strongly worded statement, Hong Kong-based CNOOC said it might have raised its bid even higher, if not for the political backlash. Chevron spokesman Don Campbell declined to comment on CNOOC's remarks, saying the company is focused on assuring a smooth transition after its Unocal acquisition is complete. The marriage is expected to be consummated Aug. 10 when Unocal shareholders are scheduled to formally vote on the offer. CNOOC's withdrawal from the bidding is expected to turn the vote into a mere formality.
Washington Politics Shock Chinese
Chengyu Fu, chief executive of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. is shocked-shocked to find there is politics going on in Washington, and that it can derail takeover bids. The oil company, which is 70% owned by the Chinese government, has said it is dropping its $18.5 billion bid for California-based Unocal because of "the political environment in the U.S." Critics of the bid contend the acquisition might imperil U.S. energy security, and a raft of legislation intended to derail it has been batted around both houses of the U.S. Congress.
CNOOC's withdrawal clears the way for Chevron to buy Unocal with a bid it raised last week to $17.4 billion from its original $16.7 billion. Free of a potentially six-to-nine month long and bruising regulatory review, that bid has been backed by the Unocal board ahead of a shareholder vote due Aug. 10. But if to the winners go the spoils, then to the losers come a lot of questions. And China's attempts to expand its global corporate footprint through a series of high-profile, cross-border mergers and acquisitions has seen more losers in recent months than Beijing will have liked.
The big question they raise goes way beyond politics, even though there is no doubt that China is a sensitive nerve among the American public and politicians alike these days.
That question is this: Just how good are Chinese companies at the global M&A game and especially when they run up, as they invariably must, against competing foreign bidders for whom this isn't the first time in the rodeo?
Consider the recent record:
- Last month, Haier Group, China's leading white-goods manufacturer, dropped out of the bidding for Maytag the U.S. appliance maker, in the face of stronger offers from Whirlpool and Ripplewood Holdings, an investor-led group.
- The same month, Beijing-based CITIC Resources dropped a bid for a controlling interest in Thai Petrochemical Industry, the country's largest corporate defaulter.
- In June, a consortium including state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. lost out to Japan's Mitsui in the bidding for the Thai oil and gas assets of Pogo Producing, a U.S. energy firm, that sold for $820 million.
- In March, state-owned China National Metals and Minerals Corp. (China Minmetals) dropped a multibillion-dollar plan to take over leading Canadian copper and zinc miner Noranda, which outmaneuvered it with a proposed shuffling of corporate assets with Falconbridge.
- In January, China's state-owned Sinochem failed in its $669 million bid to buy South Korea's oil refiner Inchon.
- Last year, PetroChina was among losing bidders for a stake in Medco, Indonesia's largest listed oil and gas producer.
On the success side, there is computer maker Lenovo's $1.75 billion purchase of IBM's personal computer business last December and Nanjing Automobile's successful, if much smaller, bid last month for the rump of bankrupt U.K. carmaker MG Rover Group.
What were the key differences between success and failure?
Most of the losses came in knock-down takeover battles that attracted bigger and more experienced foreign rivals to make counterbids. Chevron, for example, is not just the world's second-largest oil company after Exxon Mobil, it is also about 20 times larger than CNOOC, which is only the third-largest oil company in China.
While Nanjing Automobile did beat out a rival, that was Shanghai Automotive Industries Corp. The biggest successful deal, Lenovo's, was not a takeover battle at all, but a private negotiation.
China's companies will learn the rules of the game they are now staring to play-and Western investment banks are lining up to relieve them of hefty fees in return for teaching them. The companies' government-often their their senior shareholder as well-wants them to acquire foreign assets, notably the natural resources and consumer brands and expertise that they cannot grow rapidly at home.
China's national interest is its imperative, and cross-border M&A is the way to fulfill it. China's largest companies-the ones most likely to be doing the big deals-may be mostly state-funded and have managers largely hand-picked in Beijing. But they will have to learn how to win at this most capitalist of games, M&A. The way to do that is not, as CNOOC did, by launching big, high-profile bids in politically sensitive industries, but to do a bunch of smaller deals that can actually get done. Small wins lead to larger victories.
mozda, ali "...dug je put do vjecnosti, i mi ga prelazimo sutke i u miru,...." (B. Stulic)