The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] This is an automated compilation of submissions to email@example.com Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include a full reference to the source of the article. Today's Topics: 1. Bush, Oil & Iraq: Some Truth at Last - Alexander Cockburn (cafe-uni) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "cafe-uni" <cafe-uni@DELETETHISfreeuk.com> To: "Casi News" <email@example.com> Subject: Bush, Oil & Iraq: Some Truth at Last - Alexander Cockburn Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:00:12 -0000 > January 14, 2004 > The O'Neill / Suskind Bombshells > Bush, Oil & Iraq: Some Truth at Last > By ALEXANDER COCKBURN > http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01142004.html > > Here we have former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill disclosing that > George Bush came into office planning to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and MSNBC > polls its audience with the question, Did O'Neill Betray Bush? > > Is that really the big question? The White House had a sharper nose for the > real meat of Leslie Stahl's 60 Minutes interview with O'Neill and Ron > Suskind, the reporter who based much of his expose of the Bush White House, > The Price of Loyalty, on 19,000 government documents O'Neill provided him. > > What bothers the White House is one particular National Security Council > document shown in the 60 Minutes interview, clearly drafted in the early > weeks of the new administration, which showed plans for the post-invasion > dispersal of Iraq's oil assets among the world's great powers, starting with > the major oil companies. > > For the brief moment it was on the tv screen one could see that this bit of > paper, stamped Secret, was undoubtedly one of the most explosive documents > in the history of imperial conspiracy. Here, dead center in the camera's > lense, was the refutation of every single rationalization for the attack on > Iraq ever offered by George W. Bush and his co-conspirators, including Tony > Blair > > That NSC document told 60 Minutes' vast audience the attack on Iraq was not > about national security in the wake of 9/ll. It was not about weapons of > mass destruction. It was not about Saddam Hussein's possible ties to Osama > bin Laden. It was about stealing Iraq's oil, same way the British stole it > three quarter of a century earlier. The major oil companies drew up the map, > handed it to their man George, helped him (through such trusties as James > Baker) steal the 2000 election and then told him to get on with the attack. > > O'Neill says that the Treasury Department's lawyers okayed release of the > document to him. The White House, which took 78 days to launch an > investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA officer, clearly > regards the disclosure of what Big Oil wanted as truly reprehensible, as > opposed to endangering the life of Ms Plame. It's going after O'Neill for > this supposed security breach. > > Forget about O'Neill "betraying" Bush. How about Bush lying to the American > people? It's obvious from that document that Bush, on the campaign trail in > 2000, was as intent on regime change in Iraq as was Clinton in his second > term and as Gore was publicly declaring himself to be. > > Here's Bush in debate with Gore, October 3, 2000: > > "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in > nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming > down the road. I'm going to prevent that." > > The second quote is from a joint press conference with Tony Blair on January > 31, 2003. Bush rationalizes: > > "Actually, prior to September 11, we were discussing smart sanctions. We > were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to > be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein. After September 11, the > doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water. The strategic vision of > our country shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no > longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack. And the worst form of > attack could come from somebody acquiring weapons of mass destruction and > using them on the American people. I now realize the stakes. I realize the > world has changed. My most important obligation is to protect the American > people from further harm, and I will do that." > > In his cabinet meetings before 9/11 Bush may, in O'Neill's words, have been > like a blind man in a room full of deaf people. But, as O'Neill also says, > in those early strategy meetings Bush did say the plan from the start was to > attack Iraq, using any pretext. Bush's language about "smart sanctions" from > the press conference at the start of last year was as brazen and far more > momentous a lie as any of those that earned Bill Clinton the Republicans' > impeachment charges. > > > > End of casi-news Digest _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk