THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Re, al-Sadr and Iran, see the Summer 2003 issue of the Middle East Review, "The Worldly Roots of Religiosity in Post-Saddam Iraq," by Faleh Jabar. pp 16-18.

hobitbob,

Is this journal not available online to non-subscribers? If not, can you summarize those 3 pages for us?

Thanks.

Essentially, it states that Muqtada al-Sadr, who by the way is not seen as the legitimate successor to his father, established clandestine ties to Iran in the late 1990s. He became part of a struggle in the immediate aftermath of Hussein's downfall among Shia leasders to determine who had supermacy. His popularity had been primarily with the sort of "angry young men" who make up the nucleus of any paramilitary movement.
With the death of al-Kohei on 10 Aril, 2003, which some hold Sadr responsible for, the struggle became one between Sistani, who is more moderate than Sadr (for that matter, Attilla the Hun is more moderate than Sadr), but by no means the "friendly face" the US seems to think he is, and Sadr, who perhaps sees himself as a young Khomeini.
Sadr is seen as a young hothead by the senior Shia leadership, indeed there is some speculation that he is in fact only 22, not 32, but he and his followers have led an effective war of rhetoric and sub rosa violence against other Shia leaders. The article concludes with speculation that if the US does not successfully correct problems in infrastructure by the end of the year (2003), that Sadr's militant rhetoric is likley to prove more appealing to the average Iraqi, and that he could lead an effective resistance that may lead to the US haeving to pull out, and either the attemtpted annexation of Iraq by Iran, with war as a result, or the establishment of Iraq as a puppet state of Iran under Sadr.

Sumac, I don't think the journal is online at all. It is an academic journal, and should be at most good librairies. Usually Borders will carry current issues.

This doesn't really belong here, so apologies - but it is interesting, I think - from ABC Australia:

Govt asked me to lie: sacked defence adviser
A senior Defence Department adviser says she lost her job because she refused to write a briefing paper, which she says would have lied about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons programs.

Jane Errey was a senior adviser with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation until she was sacked last week.

She has previously stood as a candidate for the Australian Democrats in the ACT.

Ms Errey says the Defence Department asked her to write a briefing paper claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but that was not backed up by intelligence material she had seen.

"I believe I was being asked, as was the rest of the department at that time, to perpetuate the lie that the Government was putting forward in so far as the weapons of mass destruction existed and that they were a grave threat to the rest of the world," Ms Errey said.

But the acting secretary of the Defence Department, Alan Henderson, says Ms Errey was sacked because she did not return to work after taking leave.

Mr Henderson rejects her claim that she lost her job because of her views on the Iraq war.

"It is a coincidence," he said.

"We have shown consideration towards her position in relation to Iraq but at the end of the day you have to turn up and do a day's work or account for the reasons why you won't turn up."

Yesterday, Defence Minister Robert Hill has rejected the claims.
"Basically it's a management issue, it's got nothing to do with any briefs that she may have written or was going to write in the past," Senator Hill said.
Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett says it is a very serious claim and he is calling for an investigation.
"It does raise concerns, it does unfortunately have a ring of truth about it and those allegations should be certainly be properly investigated and publicly investigated," he said.

"I don't think it's good enough to say it's an internal matter when it's now become public and Ms Errey has made the decision to make a public allegation that she was sacked because of her refusal to be part of dismissing serious internal concerns that were attempted to be communicated to the Government."

That's one down; how many more to go before the administration of Bush falls?

Incompetence
"Bush administration officials said the strength of al-Sadr's rag-tag al-Mahdi militia took U.S. military commanders by surprise"

That seems to be the story of Bushco. Greedy, indept, shallow and uncaring for anything but grubbing wealth. This Regime is dispicable!!!

On TV when asked who the handover was going to go to, Bremmer replied, "Good question." He had no answer for it. Seems that he is as clueless as Dimson, the Pres. select.

I previously posted, on this thread I think, a suspicion I harboured about whether the 9-11 attacks were allowed to take place, by the American administration, so as to swing public opinion behind a military takeover of Iraq and its oilfields.
This conspiracy, still a theory, is given a further airing here:

Re: 9/11?-Bush-Cheney-Rice…

What they Knew, and When they Knew It…



Bush, Cheney, and Rice knew 9/11 was imminent; they had intelligence warnings describing al Qaeda's plan to use our commercial jets to attack the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. The highest levels of the Bush administration repeatedly and intentionally lied about what they knew and when they knew it. The Bush administration failed to take appropriate action on numerous actionable intelligence reports and briefings, including a highly classified presidential daily briefing memo (PDB) dated August 6, 2001 entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the U.S. That PDB contained much "actionable intelligence," including information about active al Qaeda cells in the U.S. and the training of prospective terrorists at military and commercial flight schools?-high-level U.S. State Department permission is required for civilian pilot training at military flight schools. Why was such permission granted to the terrorists?

Bush, Cheney, and Rice chose to ignore the al Qaeda threat warnings; they failed to task and follow-up with the FBI and the CIA; and it is uncontested that they intentionally failed to warn and protect the American people. Prior to 9/11, only privileged government personnel like Attorney General Ashcroft were warned to avoid air travel; the AG cancelled his air travel plans; but the American people were not alerted; the American people were left fully exposed to the al Qaeda attack and 3,000 people were murdered.

The post-9/11 evidentiary record clearly shows presidential gross negligence, and perhaps even complicity in 9/11. The slowly unfolding tale of what really happened on and before 9/11 is an overwhelming tale of governmental dysfunction or worse. Why did Bush, Cheney, and Rice deliberately and repeatedly lie to us saying they had received no warnings that a 9/11-type attack was imminent? Why have they spent 2 ½ years deliberately covering up what really happened on and before 9/11? Was it because high-level Bush policy formulators had previously prepared the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) policy initiative suggesting that America needed another Pearl Harbor before it could launch a War of Terror on the world?

The Bush-Cheney-Rice cover-up of what really happened on 9/11 is steadily unraveling. The American people are intent on learning precisely what Bush, Cheney, and Rice knew about 9/11, and when they knew it. Yet for over two-years the Bush administration stalled every inquiry. Bush and Cheney opted for strict secrecy. They refused to testify and refused to let Rice testify before the official 9/11 investigating commission. Why were Bush and Cheney afraid to let Rice testify under oath? Why do Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Why has Bush refused to release nearly 70 documents that promise to shed even more light on what really happened on and before 9/11? Why did it take over two years of begging by the wives of the victims of 9/11 before Bush acceded to an official investigating commission? Why is Bush afraid to testify before the commission without Cheney holding his hand? Why, knowing that 9/11 was imminent, did the highest levels of the Bush administration do nothing to alert and protect us? Was the Bush administration complicit in the attack? If so, many in the Bush administration, including Bush, Cheney, and Rice deserve long prison sentences.



We now know:

The PNAC makes clear that certain Bush war and foreign policy formulators were eager for another Pearl Harbor-type attack on the U.S.
Spending over $30 billion a year bought us much "actionable intelligence" regarding the imminent 9/11 terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Bush administration chose to ignore that intelligence. On and before 9/11 our government should have been at the highest state of defense readiness.
Rice lied under oath when she said there was no "silver bullet" that could have prevented 9/11. The relatively simple task of hardening the cockpit doors would have prevented 9/11. A credentialed national security advisor and others in the Bush administration could and should have prevented 9/11.
Bush, Cheney, and Rice repeatedly lied about what they knew about al Qaeda's determination to strike within the U.S.
Unlike most of the rest of us, Bush, Cheney, and Rice knew more than enough about al Qaeda's plans to know that the first plane to strike the WTC was the work of the al Qaeda terrorists.
Rice was intentionally deceptive under oath when she said that "most of the intelligence chatter" regarding 9/11 was vague and did not specify time, place, and manner. She did not say that all such chatter was vague.
The Bush administration failed to alert not only the American people but also the FAA, NORAD, and the commercial airlines that the 9/11 attack was planned and imminent.
Well before 9/11 Florida governor Jeb Bush authorized the drafting of an Executive Order 01-261 authorizing him to place the Florida National Guard under his command if warranted by a terrorist attack?-the functional equivalent of martial law. That executive order was signed by Jeb Bush on September7, 2001. What prompted Bush's brother to draft and sign that order?
Bush went on an extended vacation to his ranch in Crawford, Texas knowing the 9/11 al Qaeda attack was imminent. On or about 9/10 Bush flew to Florida to visit with his brother Governor Jeb Bush. On 9/11, while the al Qaeda attack was in progress our Commander-In-Chief was busily engaged in a goat story with second-graders at the Emma E. Booker School in Sarasota, Florida.
According to Gwen Rigell, principal of the Booker School, Verizon installed 49 telephone lines at the school just prior to Bush's supposedly routine visit.
At a press conference held at the Booker School on the morning of 9/11, Bush lied about when and how he learned about the terrorist attack on the WTC.
Rice lied when she said no one could have imagined that commercial airplanes could be used as guided missiles. The potential use of airplanes as missiles is exceedingly well documented. In fact, Bush had been threatened with a Kamikaze-type attack while attending a G-8 summit in Italy in July, 2001, and counter-terrorist chief Richard Clarke created detailed measures to prevent an 9/11-type attack at the summer Olympic games in Atlanta, Georgia.
Bush and the highest levels of his administration have gone to great lengths to cover-up what really happened on and before 9/11.
Bush said he launched the War on Terror because he was "tired of swatting flies," another blatant lie when you consider the fact that his administration ignored the al Qaeda threat and its previous attacks, including that on the USS Cole.
CIA Director George Tenet and the FBI knew al Qaeda terrorists were enrolled in U.S. flight training schools and did nothing to stop them; they also knew of wire transfers of funds to finance the terrorists and still did nothing.
Bush, Cheney, Rice, the CIA, and the FBI knew there were active al Qaeda cells in the U.S.
Rice lied under oath when she attributed the failure to prevent 9/11 to certain long-standing "structural problems" between the CIA and the FBI." It is now clear that the FBI and the CIA were talking to each other.
Rice lied under oath when she said that following up with the FBI about al Qaeda was not her job. Helping to make America secure was her only job.
Rice lied under oath when she said she could not recall whether she had informed Bush that al Qaeda was operating in the U.S. It is simply not possible for people as bright as Rice to forget such conversations.
Yet unconfirmed by Bush, Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in Stratesec, Inc, formerly Securacom. From 1995 to 2001, that firm provided security services at the World Trade Center and to United Airlines. Securacom was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment company with ties to the Bush family.
World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7 collapsed in exactly the same way as WTC buildings 1 and 2 even though it was not hit by an airliner.
The collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 looks to many more like professional demolition than the result of the al Qaeda attack.
Five hours after the collapse of buildings 1 and 2, one of the owners of the WTC says he had Building 7 "pulled down."
Building 7 could not have been ordered pulled down by its owner unless it had been previously wired for demolition, a task that requires far more than five hours.
Perhaps the commercial airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania had been targeted for Building 7 and Building 7 was "pulled down" out of fear that the minor fires in Building 7 would set off the explosives or that the explosives would be found.
NORAD, America's first line of domestic air defense, was not alerted in time to thwart the 9/11terrorist attack.
Coincidentally, just three months prior to 9/11 responsibility for ordering NORAD into defensive action shifted to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
See June 1, 2001 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction revision (CJCS3610.01A).

The Bush administration knew al Qaeda favored the WTC and buildings in Washington, D.C. as targets and knew of their predilection for revisiting targets.
Shortly after 9/11, and at a time when all U.S. commercial airliners were grounded, the Bush administration secretly spirited members of Osama bin Laden's family and many Saudis who may have helped fund the 9/11 attacks out of the U.S.
We now know that the Bush family and Bush friends and supporters are pocketing staggering profits from Bush's War on Terror.
After failing to protect us from the 9/11 attack, Bush had the audacity to launch his 2004 presidential campaign with a doctored TV ad that portrays him as the nations' protector against terrorism when, as the facts clearly show, it was his administration's inept leadership and his heavy vacation schedule that failed the American people on 9/11.
Former Republican governor of New Jersey and co-chair of the official 9/11 investigating commission Thomas Kean said that with real leadership, 9/11 would have been prevented. He said, "This was not something that had to happen." Kean closed the interview promising additional revelations in the near future but, the next day, in a follow-up interview on ABC's Nightline, he appeared far more cautious; if you looked closely, you could almost see Karl Rove's and Dick Cheney's heel prints on his face.
Conclusion: Many Americans and most of the world now view the Bush War on Terror as a War of Terror, an evolving global nightmare for everyone except for the few who personally reap vast profits from perpetual pre-emptive war. Bush's former director of counter-terrorism, Richard Clarke, has testified under oath and said that Bush failed to take speedy action against al Qaeda, and that Bush's invasion of Iraq has increased America's risk of future terrorist attacks, making the world far less safe. There are now more than enough connected dots to warrant either immediate indictments or the commencement of impeachment proceedings. Concerned Americans and the Congress should demand nothing less.

The crucial question is: Will the official 9/11 investigating commission continue the cover-up and merely accuse the Bush administration of gross negligence, or will their findings lead to official charges of treason?



# # # # #



by Bob Zimmerman, author of,

The American Challenge

Twenty-One Winning Strategies for the 21st Century



Contact: Bobbi Pallas at 415-383-8481.

Closing in
The pieces are starting to fit in the puzzle. I feel that at the least, Bushco ignored the oncoming 911 Attacks. Perhaps the rest of the pieces will be uncovered before the election.

I heard on the early morning TV news (NBC affiliate) that the coalition troops found a bomb-making factory in Fallujah, complete with suicide bombers' vests/belts and uniforms of the 82nd Airborne. I will look for a substantiating link later. Right now, thunderstorms are approaching so have to go out and plant and scatter seeds.

dlowan, that piece does indeed belong here. Thanks for posting.

Should we not have LAWS... LAWS with teeth in them...

that no member of federal government in charge of decision making, may profit ONE dollar from ANY action in the USA, that cost a human life?
I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD.

War, if honest defense, should be NON PROFIT to all but the people who SERVE and especially those injured and dying from it.

It makes me so sick... really--- If I read Bush said: 'we are so grateful to those sacrificing (in Iraq) for the security of our nation'---one more time,
I may either throw up beyond my capacity of bearing it... or just 'shut off my mind" and 'sit out' the rest of my life, hearing NO news.

So companies like Haliburton should send in their people to reconstuct Iraq for free? They should risk their lives for minimum wage? How do you think the world works? Should we have the Boy Scouts go in and clean up?

Mc, every dollar destined to go Cheney or other investors,
WHO HAVE DECIDED they will serve their nation by being an 'elected' or appointed official with salary,

should be split among the soldiers actually fighting the war, or at least the ones family who die, and the ones sustaining injury.

THEY DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT PROFIT---

While there is no mention of found uniforms from the 82nd Airborne, bomb-making factories and suicide bomb vests were found in Fallujah:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3527-2004Apr11_2.html

But there was a quote from a Naval chaplain who stopped by to conduct a brief Easter service for the troops in Fallujah which gave me considerable pause, as it sounds too much like what Muslim clerics might say:

There used to be a group of Iraqi tribal leaders who worked, quite cordially, with an American officer on various projects. Not now though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4142-2004Apr11_3.html

"When coalition forces came to Iraq they came as liberations, not occupiers," said a man in a billowing robe. "But our people have two guides: One is religion and religious leaders, the other is the tribe. You talk so much about developing the country, rehabilitating the country, but you have made so many mistakes. You opened the borders to saboteurs and mercenaries.

"It's all your fault."

And finally, additional information about al Sadr:

Who Is Moqtada Sadr?

No, McGentrix, not the Boy Scouts. We should have a reconstruction division of the armed forces. It could fill multiple roles in peacetime, and in case we attack a country, (which looks like something that might happen often if George Bush is re-elected,) this department would step in as administrators and reconstruction experts; they would be trained in cultural sensitivity, as well as other skills useful in a global economy. In time, this division could become as experienced as Halliburton, which is the reason Halliburton is so useful: they can do large jobs and multiple jobs and do them efficiently. The profit motive is what renders them suspect.

Kara, I like the cut of your jib. That is an excellent idea and should be given some definite thought.

However, the original thought is based on the secious notion that the current administration is somehow getting kickbacks from starting a war in Iraq.

That's a convenient mistatement of a complex, and largely invisible, issue. The question is...to what degree, if any, are the policies of this administration influenced by the desires of the petroleum (and related) industries?