XPost: uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.america, alt.conspira   
   y.america-at-war   
   XPost: us.politics   
   From: oO@oO.com   
      
   September 23, 2003   
      
   Lies and More Lies   
      
   By John Pilger   
      
   EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons   
   of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.   
      
   "The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction   
   programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."   
      
   Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in   
   Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to   
   hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for   
   attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst   
   told me.   
      
   An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking   
   The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and   
   senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that   
   Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.   
      
   Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President   
   Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam   
   Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.   
      
   In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not   
   developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass   
   destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his   
   neighbours."   
      
   This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.   
      
   Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had   
   effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what   
   Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that   
   Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to   
   develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he   
   said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".   
      
   Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and   
   militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of   
   the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military   
   forces have not been rebuilt."   
      
   So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their   
   own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently   
   provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The   
   result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people,   
   civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and   
   American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.   
      
   In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and   
   during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines.   
   In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an   
   "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of   
   these new opportunities."   
      
   Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first   
   such opportunity.   
      
   At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his   
   aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit"   
   Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had   
   anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive,"   
   the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and   
   not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack   
   Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the   
   American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from   
   Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an   
   obsession in both Washington and London.   
      
   An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole   
   purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US   
   policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the   
   "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.   
      
   CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set   
   in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York   
   and Washington.   
      
   On that day, Bush signed a top-secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to   
   begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002,   
   Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about   
   invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."   
      
   The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself   
   only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed   
   Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not   
   seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."   
      
   It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By   
   setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David   
   Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into   
   the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made   
   that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures   
   in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive   
   tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's   
   misdeeds.   
      
   The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic   
   cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in   
   the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told   
   of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.   
      
   Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why   
   has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair   
   not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in   
   Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most   
   conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray   
   McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush   
   senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They   
   were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the   
   top policy levels as 'the crazies'."   
      
   "Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.   
      
   "All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is   
   plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for   
   a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass   
   destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al   
   Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something   
   often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be   
   all worried about fascism (in the United States)."   
      
   The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)