G. W. Bush: International Racketeer
Ted Lang
G.W. Bush: International Racketeer
Sun Jan 11 19:54:36 2004

G.W. Bush: International Racketeer


By Ted Lang

01/12/04: (ICH) CBS's "60 Minutes" featured former Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill in an exclusive interview with CBS News Correspondent
Lesley Stahl, which aired Sunday, January 11th. The interview confirms
what those who primarily rely on the Internet for up-to-date, accurate
and to-the-point news coverage have known for almost over a year: the
Bush administration had planned the illegal, unconstitutional and
unnecessary invasion of Iraq completely independent of any retaliatory
or preventive military considerations relating to 9-11. In fact, this
interview, motivated to launch a new book authored by Ron Suskind, a
former Wall Street Journal reporter, not only confirms the heavy
evidence concerning the administration's underlying intentions with
regard to Iraq, but raises some scary new ones as well.

Neil Mackay penned one of the earliest sources citing the U.S. plot
against Iraq and Saddam back in September 2002. Entitled "Let's Not
Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President,"
still carried on Information Clearing House's website, Mackay's piece
starts: "A SECRET blue print for US global domination reveals that
President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on
Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January

The article is among many that reveal a document, entitled Rebuilding
America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century,
written by the neoconservative think tank calling itself Project for the
New American Century [PNAC]. Although some references have been made in
the mainstream media to this "neoconservative" clandestine planning,
including some minor references to it ensconced in sarcasm and derision
by the likes of FOXNews icons Brit Hume and Fred Barnes, the revelation
now by mainstream CBS News adds a completely new dimension. PNAC is now
being discovered by mainstream America.

And Information Clearing House also still carries a comprehensive
analysis of PNAC written by William Rivers Pitt on February 25, 2003,
entitled "The Project for the New American Century," Pitt offers: "PNAC
desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American
empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the
United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of
economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the
umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana." But up till now, a
major debate regarding America's real intentions at world domination has
been largely suppressed, and this is due to the failure on the part of
the mainstream media.

These revelations are, at this point in time, nothing new, but they have
the potential of becoming extremely pivotal as regards their
significance in the upcoming presidential elections. CBS News, is now
fully on board as evidenced by their website's January 10th piece
entitled, "Saddam Ouster Planned Early '01?" The article states, "The
Bush Administration began making plans for an invasion of Iraq,
including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's
inauguration in January of 2001 - not eight months after the 9/11
attacks, as has been previously reported." CBS quotes former Secretary
O'Neill: "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam
Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. For me, the notion of
pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we
decide to do is a really huge heap."

The CBS report continues, "O'Neill, fired by the White House for his
disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, 'The
Price of Loyalty,' by Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White
House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the
first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military
operations for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the
aftermath of Saddam's downfall - including post-war contingencies such
as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's
oil." [Emphasis added]

There is no longer any doubt that the Iraqi invasion was in absolutely
no way justified. There have been, and still are, many horrifically
violent and brutal dictators that the US government is not only allied
with, but extremely protective of as well. They consistently violate
human rights and perpetrate mass suffering and the mass murders of their
people. The US government did absolutely nothing to mitigate the
slaughter of over one million African people in Rwanda because it didn't
serve the monetary and political interests of those in power at the

To their credit, FOXNews.com, usually a journalistic shill and apologist
for the Bush administration, also posted an article on January 10th
entitled, "O'Neill: Iraq Plans Began at Start of Bush's Term." In an
article originated by the Associated Press, it is offered that, "The
administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved
in the Sept. 11 attacks but officials have said that they had to
consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even
larger scale strike against the United States."

But then FOX offers that White House spokesman Scott McClellan "would
not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early
in Bush's term. But he said, Saddam 'was a threat to peace and stability
before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11. It
appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to
justify his own opinions than looking at the results we are achieving on
behalf of the American people,' McClellan said in Texas, where the
president is staying at his ranch."

In a feeble effort at damage control, FOX did indeed acknowledge the
administration's early pre-emptive designs against Saddam and Iraq, and
offered also that "In July 2001, after an Iraqi surface-to-air missile
was fired at an American surveillance plane, Bush's national security
advisor put Saddam on notice that the United States intended a more
resolute military policy toward Iraq." FOX also emphasized O'Neill's
promotion of the new book. "CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller reported
Saturday that, as the White House sees it, O'Neill's remarks are those
of a disgruntled former official, and it should not have come as a
surprise to O'Neill that the U.S. advocated Saddam's ouster," states the
CBS article.

The article continues, "As for the charge that there were early plans to
invade Iraq, Knoller says the official calls that 'laughable.'
Suggesting that O'Neill doesn't know what he's talking about on this
matter, the official told CBS News O'Neill had enough problems in his
own area of expertise, so, 'Why should anyone believe he has a credible
understanding of foreign policy?'"

One cannot help noticing via these cites how the Bush administration and
its "officials" are spinning these revelations to blur the public's
focus on this vital matter. The Bush lies of WMD, their readily
available deployment, their nuclear, biological and chemical capability,
robotic airplanes and drones, and all the other accusations made by Bush
have been refuted. Is this being discussed? Notice how this unjustified
and unconstitutional war has never been justified? Notice how Robert
Mueller, III and George Tenet were never fired for their incompetence
and 9-11 intelligence mismanagement? Notice how the only Bush
administration official that was jettisoned has come back at him with a
"get-even" plan?

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tries to spin this issue as
merely retribution on the part of one, single solitary "disgruntled
employee," and another unidentified "official" offers that O'Neill's
charges are "laughable." Aside form the fact that we should always
dismiss quotes from an "unidentified" official as being "official," what
precisely is so "laughable" about 500 of our military dead? What is so
"laughable" about the thousands wounded and maimed?

What precisely is it that is so humorous concerning over one million
Iraqis that have died because of the ten-year US embargo targeting one
"enemy of the state" of the United States of America, such that all the
Iraqi people have been made to suffer at the hands of "our" government?
McClellan and the White House's spin that O'Neill represents a loony,
lone voice in the wilderness just doesn't rub.

What of the protests of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter who did
everything in his limited power to stop this carnage well before Bush
started it? Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children
have died because of Bush's secret PNAC cabal. And our lust for oil and
our lust for world dominance has indeed expanded PNAC's objectives to
include advancing the state of Israel as the only nuclear power in the
region, the latter exempted from many more UN resolutions than Saddam
had ever violated. And the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has itself
identified PNAC's collaborating members as American traitors.

What we have here is not an issue concerning one individual. Many
Internet writers have written at length about the PNAC cabal. They,
PNAC, are indeed a secret group, and a plotting cabal. And their numbers
are a mere fraction of the large and growing number of Internet writers
and readers who are fully informed of the deliberate lies, fraud and
warmongering propaganda of the Bush administration. Their planning is
NOT in the best interests of the United States and its people.

And where before the people of the world forgave America and its people
for the unjust and threatening incursions of our military, they now no
longer excuse our stupidity in allowing our out-of-control government to
attack any and all sovereign states targeted by a tiny band of political
plotters that represent a growing danger to all people on Earth.

If McClellan and the Bush White House desire to point to O'Neill as a
small source of discontent within the administration, perhaps they ought
to compare the number that comprises PNAC and the Bushies to one billion
angry Muslims and the rest of the world. As writer William Rivers Pitt
offered, "Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea
of being some sort of Neo-Rome."

It has become painfully clear that this horrendous, unnecessary loss of
life, wealth and national security was sacrificed by an action
undertaken to justify the monetary and political advantage of a small
entity on a basis comparatively much smaller than that represented by
former Secretary O'Neill's "disgruntlement."

All law-abiding, decent people the world over have always readily
identified this type of immoral, self-serving behavior characterized by
such reckless abandon for the rights of others. On a smaller scale of
public recognition, O'Neill's revelations compare to the level of public
awareness equating to the recognition of street crime: robberies, rapes,
muggings, burglaries and the like. On a level typified by the crime
generated by street gangs, perhaps the definition becomes "rampant
crime." And on a national basis, it could be described as a combination
of organized petty street criminals, street gangs, all consolidated
within a national crime syndicate; in other words, it takes on what is
commonly referred to as "organized crime" or "racketeering."

Can there be any doubt that as more and more Bush lies surface, as more
and more reports and their confirmation unfold, that the Bush
administration is beginning to resemble the demeanor of an organized
criminal element? Where is the outrage? Where's the media? And when will
we be outraged sufficiently to do something meaningful about it?

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance


Main Page -01/11/04

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)