Re: [OT] Why Bush?

From: C (cc-news_at_hermes.mirlex.com)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:01:28 GMT

John Lovchik: 'Terrorism — a tool for whose agenda?'

By John Lovchik

"My message was stark: al Qaeda is at war with us, it is a highly
capable organization, probably with sleeper cells in the U.S., and it is
clearly planning a major series of attacks against us; we must act
decisively and quickly."

This is the way Richard A. Clarke described the briefings he gave Condi
Rice, *** Cheney, and Colin Powell in January 2001.

Richard A. Clarke, chairman of the Counterterrorism Security Group of
the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, was kept on
in that position when Bush took over on January 20, 2001. Over the
years, Clarke had learned a lot about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and
he knew that they were a serious threat to the security of the U.S. that
could not be overlooked in the transition to a new administration.
President Clinton also discussed this threat with President Bush during
the transition.

On January 31, 2001, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on National
Security/21st Century, headed by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, delivered
its report to President Bush. This commission had spent 21/2 years
reviewing the entire range of U.S. national security polices and
processes in light of external changes that had occurred over the years,
including geopolitical, technological, social, and intellectual changes.

Their report noted that technological advances such as the Internet made
it possible for small groups or even individuals to inflict massive
damage on those they considered to be their enemies. It included the
specific warning: "A direct attack against American citizens on American
soil is likely over the next quarter century."

Congress was prepared to act immediately on the recommendations of the
commission. In March, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, introduced the
National Homeland Security Agency Act., and on April 3 Hart appeared
before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Technology where he noted that "the prospect of mass casualty terrorism
on American soil is growing sharply."

In May, however, President Bush asked Congress to wait. As Hart put it:
"The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the
vice president.'"

Why would President Bush turn over the task of homeland security and the
threat of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to the vice president? The answer
lies in a National Security Council directive, dated February 2001,
instructing NSC staff to co-operate fully with the National Energy
Policy Development Group, generally referred to as the Cheney Energy
Task Force.

According to Linda McQuaig, a columnist for the Toronto Star, the NSC
document "noted that the task force would be considering the 'melding'
of two policy areas: 'the review of operational policies towards rogue
states' and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and
gas fields.'" The issue of homeland security would be considered in
terms of "rogue states" rather than individual terrorist groups, and
that would be combined with the consideration of capturing new and
existing oil and gas fields.

As a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial
Watch, documents used by the Cheney Energy Task Force have been released
to the public. Among those documents are the following items, dated
March 2001: a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and
terminals and two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects.

Cheney's interest in Iraq and Iraqi oil goes back a long way. Speaking
to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999 Cheney had focused on the
difficulty of finding the 50 million extra barrels of oil per day that
he said the world would need by 2010. Linda McQuaig describes his
comments in this way: "'Where is it going to come from?' He asked, and
then noted that 'the Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and
the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.'"

Others in the Bush administration also had an interest in regime change
in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, was a participant
in the Project for the New American Century report titled "REBUILDING
AMERICA'S DEFENSES Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century"
which was prepared in September 2000. That report says "The United
States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the
immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Richard Clarke says that, at his initial briefings with Cheney and
Wolfowitz, both were more interested in Iraq than in bin Laden. Paul
O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury, told Ron Suskind, author of
the book The Price of Loyalty, about the first meeting of the National
Security Council held on January 30, 2001. Most of that meeting was
devoted to the subject of Iraq. O'Neill also said that prior to
September 11, 2001, the Pentagon had been working for months on a
military plan for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Clarke describes his frustrations during the year 2001 as the
threatening intelligence reports became better and more frequent but he
was unable to convince the administration to pay attention to the
threat. In describing his thoughts on September 11, after the attacks,
he says "I had not been allowed to brief the President on terrorism in
January or since, not until today, September 11. It had taken since
January to get the Cabinet-level meeting that I had requested 'urgently'
within days of the inauguration to approve an aggressive plan to go
after al Qaeda. The meeting had finally happened exactly one week
earlier, on September 4." Clarke mentions that during the meeting on
September 4, Rumsfeld again wanted to talk about Iraq rather than the
threat of al Qaeda.

The fact that the Bush administration had been formulating plans for the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein, starting before they even came into office,
should be a cause for concern. The fact that the threat of terrorism was
seen as a means to accomplish the overthrow is an even greater cause for
concern. But worse by far is the fact that their preoccupation with
gaining control over Iraq clearly prevented them from applying the
resources needed to prevent Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda from executing
their attacks on September 11.

President Bush would like people to believe that they did not have
enough information to prevent the attack, but the evidence is
overwhelming that he had no interest in dealing with the issue of
terrorism except as a means to secure control over the oil fields of
Iraq. That lack of interest in the safety of the American people is the
single most important reason why bin Laden was successful in causing the
deaths of nearly 3,000 people.

But the outrage does not end there. The day after the September 11
attacks, while rescue workers were desperately searching through the
rubble of the World Trade Center for any survivors, while grieving
families were posting signs and searching hospitals for their loved
ones, and while Clarke and a few others were urgently trying to ensure
that no further attacks were imminent, Rumsfeld was already pushing to
use these attacks as a reason to attack Iraq.

By then it had been confirmed that bin Laden and al Qaeda were
responsible for these devastating attacks on U.S. soil and the risk of
additional attacks had not been ruled out. But instead of addressing the
safety of the American people, Rumsfeld already had his eyes again on
the oil fields of Iraq.

By the evening of September 12, Bush had also set aside concerns about
the safety of the American people and began looking for a reason to
attack Iraq. Clarke describes Bush's instructions to him in this way:

     "See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way..." I was
once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President,
al Qaeda did this." "I know, I know, but... see if Saddam was involved.
Just look. I want to know any shred..." "Absolutely, we will
look...again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive.
"But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al
Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as
does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen." "Look into Iraq, Saddam," the
President said testily and left us.

Secretary of State Powell felt that the immediate focus should be on
al-Qaeda. He is quoted as saying, "Public opinion has to be prepared
before a move against Iraq is possible." By March 2002 Bush was already
busy preparing that public opinion.

During a press conference held March 13, 2002, Bush said "I am deeply
concerned about Iraq. And so should the American people be concerned
about Iraq. ... This is a nation run by a man who is willing to kill his
own people by using chemical weapons; a man who won't let inspectors
into the country; a man who's obviously got something to hide. And he is
a problem, and we're going to deal with him."

About Osama bin Laden, Bush said this: "Terror is bigger than one
person. And he's just - he's a person who's now been marginalized. ... I
don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on
him. ... And the idea of focusing on one person is - really indicates to
me people don't understand the scope of the mission."

One year later, a year filled with talk of fear and weapons of mass
destruction, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz finally got their war
with Iraq. The United States invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003.

Bush likes to say that everything changed on September 11, 2001, as if
we have a whole new way of looking at, and dealing with, the world and
our security. Nothing changed that day except that, because of the Bush
administration's conscious decision to use terrorism as a tool for their
pursuit of oil rather than as a warning, bin Laden and al Qaeda were
successful in their attack on the U.S. which killed almost 3,000 people.
And because the administration then used that tragedy as a tool to
convince the American people that we needed to invade Iraq, over 12,000
Iraqis and 1,000 more Americans have died. Both numbers continue to
rise. bin Laden is still free and al Qaeda is rebuilding itself and
prepares for its next attack.

Are we better prepared to prevent an attack than we were before
September 11, 2001? We now have a Department of Homeland Security, but
at the end of September 2004, the department still had not combined 12
federal agencies terrorist watch lists into one database. And the FBI,
which took much of the blame for failing to act on information received
prior to the attack, still has not translated several hundred thousand
hours of wiretap recordings from terrorism and counterterrorism
investigations.

The Bush administration has, however, found the time and the funding to
construct at least a dozen permanent military bases in Iraq. Because the
administration talks constantly about terrorism to justify their actions
in Iraq, a significant number of Americans feel confident that Bush is
protecting us from terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Loading