CounterPunch's
Scorching New Book on a Decade of War
Order Now / Available in April
Today's
Stories
March 29, 2004
Kathy Kelly
Crossing Lines
March 27 / 28, 2004
Jennifer Loewenstein
A
Journey to Rafah
Jeffrey St. Clair
Empire of the Locusts
Gary Leupp
The Yassin Assassination: Prelude to an Attack on Syria
William A. Cook
The Yassin Assassination: a Monstrous Insanity Blessed by the
US
Faheem Hussain
Some Thoughts on Waziristan: Once and Always a Colonial Army
Elaine Cassel
Is Playing Paintball Terrorism?
Larry Birns / Jessica
Leight
Disturbing Signals: Kerry and Latin America
John Ross
Bush Tells the World: "Drop Dead"
John Eskow
A Memo to Karl Rove from the Hollywood Caucus
Alan Maass
Who Are the Real Terrorists?
Dave Lindorff
Spineless of US Journalists
Joe Bageant
Howling in the Belly of the Confederacy
Dave Zirin
Reasonable Doubt: Why Barry Bonds is Not on Steroids
Craig Waggoner
Who Would Mel's Jesus Nuke?
The Kerry Quandry
Joel Wendland
Marxists
for Kerry
Josh Frank
Scary,
Scary John Kerry
Matt Vidal
Spoilers, Electability and the Poverty of American Democracy
Poets' Basement
LaMorticella, Hamod, Guthrie, Davies and Albert
Website of the Weekend
Say a Little Prayer
March 26, 2004
Christopher Brauchli
There's
a Chill Over the Country
Robert Fisk
The Man Who Knew Too Much: the Ordeal
of Mordechai Vanunu
Joe DeRaymond
Democracy in El Salvador? Think Again
Mike Whitney
Lessons on Apartheid from Ariel Sharon
Mickey Z.
Somalia and Iraq: Looking Back and Ahead
Chris Floyd
The Pentagon Archipelago
CounterPunch Photo Wire
Cheney's Close Shave?
John Breneman
Bush's Comic Bomb
Website of the Day
Dick
is a Killer
March 25, 2004
Lee Sustar
Who
is to Blame for Lost Jobs?
Standard Schaefer
An
Interview with Michael Hudson on Offshore Banking Centers
Roger Burbach
Lula vs. the IMF: Brazil Begins
to Throw Off the Austerity Planners
Jimmer Endres
Elections Without Politics: The Military Budget Is Not an "Issue"
Larry Tuttle
Acting in Your Name: Identity Theft and Public Interest Groups
Toni Solo
Misreporting Venezuela
Dan Bacher
A Memorial Wall for Iraq War's Dead and Wounded
Saul Landau
Is
Venezuela Next?
Website of the Day
The Spiral Railway
March 24, 2004
Gary Leupp
General
Musharraf's IOU
Richard Oxman
Shakespeare
for Kerry
William Lind
The Beginning
of Phase Three: 4G Warfare Hits Iraq
Rep. Ron Paul
Iraq One Year Later
Michael Dempsey
Killing Rachel Corrie Again
Alan Farago
The Bad Math of Mercury: Bush's War on the Unborn
Benjamin Dangl
and April Howard
Media
in Cuba
John L. Hess
No Lie Left Behind: Judy Miller Does Dick Clarke
Greg Weiher
Two Cheers for Dems: "We're Not as Bad as George"
Eva Golinger
An Open Letter to John Kerry on Venezuela
Grayson Childs
Where's Cynthia McKinney?
Steve Niva
Israel's Assassinations will Only
Fuel More Suicide Bombings
Website of the Day
The Bushiad and the Idiossey
March 23, 2004
Phillip Cryan
The
Drug War's Next Casualty: Colombia's National Parks
Ron Jacobs
They Shoot Men in Wheelchairs, Too?
Dave Lindorff
A Spanish Parallel: Scare Tactics and Elections
Mike Whitney
Richard Clarke and Teflon George
Brian McKinlay
Bush's Lil' Buddy in Trouble: John Howard Starts to Wobble
JG
Driving Mr. Koon: "Jim Crow Lives Next Door"
Phyllis Pollack
Gettin' Jigga with Metallica: the Battle Over the Double Black
CD
Ahmed Bouzid
Sharon's One-Way Track
Sean Carter
The G-Word Goes to Court: One Nation Under [Your Logo Here]
M. Shahid Alam
World's Greatest Country: Do the Facts Lie
March 22, 2004
Mazin Qumsiyeh
On Extrajudicial
Executions
Uri Avnery
The
Assassination of Sheikh Yassin is Worse Than a Crime
Gilad Atzmon
Sharon's Rampage
Mike Whitney
Guilty Until Proven Innocent: the Story of Captain James Yee
Jason Leopold
Firm With Ties to Cheney Faces Criminal Indictment in Cal Energy
Scam
Greg Moses
Stop
Walling and Stalling: a Report from Houston's Peace March
Phil Gasper
San Francisco: 25,000 March for an End to the Occupation
Lenni Brenner
Report
from NYC: Old and Young Parade for Peace
Julian Borger
The Clarke Revelations
Steve Perry
Karl Rove's Moment
Website of the Day
Enviros Against War
March 20 / 21, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Gay
Marriage: Sidestep on Freedom's Path
Jeffrey St. Clair
Intolerable Opinions in an Age of Shock and Awe: What Would Lilburne
Do?
Ted Honderich
Tony Blair's Moral Responsibility for Atrocities
Saul Landau / Farrah Hassen
The Plot Against Syria: an Irresponsibility Act
Gary Leupp
On Viewing "The Passion of the Christ"
William A. Cook
Fence, Barrier, Wall
Phil Gasper
Bush v. Bush-lite: Chomsky's Lesser Evilism
Ron Jacobs
Fox News and the Masters of War
John Stanton
Which Way John Kerry? The Senator's Inner Nixon
Justin Felux
Kerry and Black America: Just Another Stupid White Man
Mike Whitney
Greenspan's Treason: Swindling Posterity
Augustin Velloso
Avoiding Osama's Abyss
Lawrence Magnuson
Eyes Wide Open: Is Spain Caving in to Terrorism?
Kathy Kelly
Getting Together to Defeat Terrorism
Tracy McLellan
Scalia & Cheney: Happiness is a Warm Gun
Kurt Nimmo
Emma Goldman for President!
Luis J. Rodriguez
The Redemptive Power of Art: It's Not a Frill
Mickey Z
The Michael Moore Diet
Jackie Corr
When Harry Truman Stopped in Butte
Niranjan Ramakrishnan
The Great Trial of 1922: Gandhi's Vision of Responsibility
Poets' Basement
Stew Albert & JD Curtis
Website of the Weekend
Virtual World Election
March 19, 2004
Jeffrey St. Clair
Zapatero
to Kerry: Back Off, Senator, Our Troops are Coming Home
Ann Harrison
So
Protesters, How Well Do You Know Your Rights?
William MacDougall
Fortress Britain's War on "Economic Migrants"
Greg Moses
Sold American: Cowboy Nation Gets Ready to Vote
Cynthia McKinney
Haiti and the Impotence of Black America: Roll Back This Coup,
Mr. Bush
Norman Solomon
Spinning the Past; Threatening the Future
John L. Hess
"Missing" Evidence and the NYTs
Vicente Navarro
The
End of Aznar, Bush's Best Friend
Website of the War
Naming the Dead
March 18, 2004
Gila Svirsky
Rachel
Corrie, One Year Later: She Never Lost Faith in Decency
Christopher Brauchli
Drilling a Hole in the Sanctions: How Halliburton Made $73 Million
from Saddam
William Kulin
Report from Iraq: Just Another Baghdad Car Bombing
Mike Whitney
Resistance: a Moral Imperative
Rep. Ron Paul
Broadcast Indecency Act: an Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
Josh Frank
The Nader Question
Jack Random
They Lied & They Lost: Madrid and the Lessons of Democracy
Greg Bates
What Makes a Nader Voter Tick? A Survey
Sam Hamod / Alfredo Reyes
Contempt of the World: Hastert, Bush and Cheney on Spain
Gary Leupp
The
Madrid Bombings: the Chickens Come Home to Roost
Website of the Day
Privatizing Armageddon: Buy Your Own Doomsday Key
March 17, 2004
Marjorie Cohn
Spain, the EU and the US: War on
Terror or Civil Liberties?
David MacMichael
Untruth
and Consequences
Michael Donnelly
Wear the Green, But Skip the Green Beer
Tom Stephens
"Steady Leadership": Let the Buyer Beware
Wayne Madsen
Sen. Kerry, Let Me Help You Out
Karyn Strickler
Who Owns the Sierra Club? Anonymous Donors and Rigged Elections
Peter Linebaugh
Bush:
Blanc Blanc
March 16, 2004
Lenni Brenner
James
Madison: the Anti-Clerical Father of the Bill of Rights
Scott Boehm
Madrid
Diary: How to Change World Order in Four Days
Alexander Lynch
From Franco to Aznar: the History
Behind the Spanish Elections
Sam Hamod and Alfredo
Reyes
The Truth About the Spanish Elections: Aznar Was Going Down Anyway
Elizabeth Weill-Greenberg
You Wouldn't Do a Dog This Way:
Executing David Clayton Hill
Mike Whitney
The Case for a Nuclear Iran
Robert Fisk
The Bloody Price of the "War
on Terror"
Bill Christison
The
Aftershocks from Madrid
CounterPunch Photo Wire
The Passion of St. Teresa
Website of the Day
Join the War on Art!
March 15, 2004
Harry Browne
Terror Nothing New to Europe
Mike Whitney
Justice
Not Murder: the Tragic Symmetry of Terrorism
Lidice Valenzuela
Haiti: a Coup without Consultation
Greg Moses
Lessons
from the Texas Primaries: Looking for a Coalition with Legs
Mickey Z.
Depraved Indifference: C-Sections, Patriarchy & Women's Health
Asaf Shtull-Trauring
AWOL
in New York: From Refusenik to Organizer
CounterPunch Wire
Gen. Gramajo Executed by Bees!
March 12 / 14, 2004
Gabriel Kolko
The
Coming Elections and the Future of American Global Power
Saul Landau
Oh, Jesus...It's the Movie!
William Blum
Neo-Con(tradictions)
William S. Lind
Why They Throw Rocks
Rahul Mahajan
The Meaning of Madrid: War on "Terrorism" Makes Us
All Less Safe
Neve Gordon
Demographic Wars
Kurt Nimmo
Kerry and the Progressive Interventionists
Mickey Z.
The "New" UN Blames the Poor
Mike Whitney
War Games: the American Media Leads the Charge
Helen Scott and Ashley
Smith
Aristide's Fall: What Led to the Coup?
Justin E.H. Smith
Loïc Wacquant: Against a Sociodicy
of the American Prison
Brandy Baker
Him Again? Al Gore Needs to Move On
Robin Philpot
Nobody Can Call It a "Plane Crash" Now: the Report
on the Assassination of Rwandan President Habyarimana
Mokhiber / Weissman
The Meat Monopoly Takes a Rare Pounding
Dave Zirin
She Turned Her Back on the War: an Interview with Toni Smith
Daniel Wolff
The Lord's Pier
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
March
29, 2004
Candide in the Wilderness
How
Bush Administration Policy Was Made
By DOUG GIEBEL
In this best of all possible political worlds,
might and money triumph over adversity. Until the dramatically
expected appearance of Richard Clarke, Lady Luck was blowing
almost daily on the dice of George W. Bush and the Bushvolk.
How did they work their magic? Was the table rigged? Short of
climbing into the skulls of Bush Administration brainiacs, it
is possible to speculate as follows.
Not "All"
About Oil
It is no secret. Some neo-conservatives
in the Bush Administration pined for the United States to overthrow
Saddam Hussein well before George W. Bush began his first bid
for the White House. The goal: to appropriate Iraq as a major
foothold for U.S. military power and influence in the heart of
the Middle East. In the years following the first Gulf War, Iraq
had succumbed to inspections, sanctions and military strikes.
There was virtually no chance Saddam Hussein would or could attack
the United States. The problem: How to convince U.S. politicians
and the public that an invasion of Iraq was an acceptable course
to follow.
Contrary to conspiracy theorists, there
is no evidence the Bush Administration war-seekers planned the
terrorist crimes of 9/11; nor does it seem likely that those
involved in carrying out the attacks knew (a) of the plans to
take out Saddam Hussein's government; (b) how the administration
would react to their September Surprise.
In the weeks before September 11, 2001,
the Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz group ignored advice from
Clinton Administration insiders. Instead, as Clarke, O'Neill
and the record show, they had their sights on Saddam's Iraq.
Warnings of impending terrorism in briefings given by members
of the Clinton Administration to the incumbent Republicans were
dismissed or ignored because the new kids on the block had a
cocksure sense of their own self worth. They knew Iraq was where
they were going. They weren't quite certain how to get there.
Prior to 9;/11, it seems plausible the
Bush team in fact expected an attack, either at a U.S. installation
overseas or on home ground. The air inside the Beltway was rife
with warnings from many reliable sources. To believe no such
attack could be on the horizon was to believe in the Tooth Fairy,
and these Republicans are realists. There is no Santa Claus because
THEY are Santa Claus. Bush insiders expected an attack, wherever
it occurred, would be similar to earlier assaults on the World
Trade Center or the <U.S.S>. Cole. In other words, the
event would do damage, only not on a massive scale -- merely
sufficient damage to justify pointing a finger at Iraq.
Lady Luck arrived unexpectedly for both
George W. Bush and Usama bin Laden. Just as the terrorists could
not have foreseen the complete collapse of the World Trade Center,
so the Bush White House did not foresee the expected "event"
(in this case, 9/11) would exceed their expectations, giving
them a sensational and emotional excuse for taking on Saddam
Hussein. This is not to suggest the Bush Administration rejoiced
(as bin Laden did) when the twin towers fell and the Pentagon
burned; they simply took advantage of the situation. Unfortunately,
with no link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, it became
necessary to delay invading Iraq until action against bin Laden
and the Taliban had satisfied the national desire for revenge.
Is it cynical to imply the Bush Administration
had so little interest in the loss of human life it would tolerate
a modest loss to terrorists in return for the capture of Iraq?
Not according to the evidence. The Bush Administration has shown
little interest in the loss of non-military lives in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Our government avoids "body counts" of "collateral
damage." Similarly, there have been no major reservations
about putting U.S. troops in harm's way; and the current plan
to permanently keep approximately 100,000 of our troops in Iraq
will result in more losses for years to come. To the Bush team,
such losses are acceptable. On October 17, 2003,Rep. Tom Delay
expressed the administration view, declaring, "We'll pay
any price and bear any burden to advance the cause of human liberty.
After the shock and of awe of major combat the price and burden
of human hope shift from the battlefield to the town hall and
the town market. And that hope Mr. Chairman cannot come in the
form of a promissory note. It's our fight and now it's our job."
Later, when asked if the war was worth
the lives of 564 U.S. soldiers killed, Secretary Rumsfeld said,
"Oh, my goodness, yes. There's just no question ...25 million
people in Iraq are free." (March 14, 2004)
My suggested scenario explains why the
administration did not seem especially concerned about an impending
event of terrorism and why alarms sounded by people in the field
were ignored or under-valued. It also renders more clearly the
possible reasons why President Bush would object to setting up
the 9/11 Commission and why the commission has been stonewalled.
Successful strategists take advantage when the unexpected arrives
unexpectedly.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Pre-invasion, their statements to the
contrary, Bush Administration leaders knew there were few or
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In revving up the siren
to wail that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD capable of killing
"thousands" and "millions" of human beings,
administration officials knew its fear-inducing claims were patently
untrue.
Whatever their failings, those who led
us into war may be risk-takers, but they are not foolhardy. The
everyday behavior of President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz
and others with membership in The Project for the New American
Century demonstrates their collective interest in remaining in
power through the re-election of George W. Bush and beyond. In
politics, very little happens that is not calculated with at
least one hand on the pulse of public opinion. Being there: that's
what politics is all about.
In this context, the often-cited Wolfowitz
statement in Vanity Fair makes sense. He said, "The truth
is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government
bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree
on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [for
invading Iraq]." Still hurting from the criminal acts of
9/11, Americans would be more easily persuaded of Saddam Hussein's
evil designs if he were portrayed as posing the most alarming
threat possible: his possession of weapons of mass destruction
to be used against U.S. cities and other targets. As we know,
the argument, although quite absurd, carried the day. (Why "absurd"?
Because Saddam's nation had been under sanctions, military overflights
and attacks for a dozen years. Iraq had no air force and no navy
capable of reaching the United States. The best our neo-con fear-mongers
could muster was the specter of unmanned drone aircraft that
were in reality incapable of flying from Iraq to the <U.S.A>.)
How much damage were Bushvolk willing
to risk? Facing the potential use by Hussein's forces of tons
of supposedly highly-lethal weapons of mass destruction would
have meant taking extraordinary risks with the lives of U.S.
and "coalition" troops. Invading forces met by such
formidable opposition would likely have resulted in a nightmarish
slaughter of the "liberators" and stain the Bush record
for all time. Would these otherwise-circumspect political creatures
really take that chance? Logically: no, they would not. And they
didn't.
No WMD were used against coalition forces
during the invasion, and they have not surfaced to be used against
those forces during the occupation. Why not? Common sense would
lead one to believe that if the weapons really existed and posed
a threat so immediate that invasion was necessary, Saddam Hussein
would have used those weapons in a heartbeat to repel invasion
and to wipe out the occupiers.
Another major "clue" to the
WMD mystery can be addressed by recalling the Pentagon's unusual
strategy to "embed" reporters with the invading troops.
According to some estimates, approximately 2,700 "embedded"
reporters worked the march to Baghdad and beyond, a staggering
number, especially if there were any real fear of encountering
weapons of mass destruction. Embedded journalists were perhaps
even more likely to be killed or injured than the troops engaged
in actual combat. Their reports of battlefield casualties from
WMD related-causes would have horrified the nation and the world.
It seems certain this army of reporters would never have been
invited along for the ride if invasion had not been viewed by
Pentagon brass and others as the relative "cakewalk"
it turned out to be.
Note also that on February 7, Australia's
newspaper The Age reported, "Australian troops fighting
in Iraq were told in an official briefing days before entering
the country that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to
launch weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours."
The news must have relieved anxiety for Aussie troops. Surely
if Australia knew, the U.S. knew. This reinforces retired State
Department weapons expert Greg Thielmann's statement to 60 Minutes
that Saddam posed no real threat, not even to his immediate neighbors.
After considering those years of bombings,
sanctions and intelligence gathering, the Bush Administration
was quite certain an invasion of Iraq would be successful and
would immeasurably enhance its prospects for a second four-year
stint in the White House. At home, a "war budget" would
block funding of social programs disfavored by the White House.
The semi-secret plan to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq would
move forward following the selection of a "democratically-elected"
group to govern Iraq according to U.S. needs and wishes. Today:
Iraq. Tomorrow: The Middle East and beyond.
The unaccomplished mission went forward;
Iraq was invaded as planned and desired.
Weapons of mass destruction had everything
(and nothing) to do with it.
Protecting Iraq
On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune
ran a short article by foreign correspondent Christine Spolar
in which she revealed the U.S. military is building "an
enhanced system" of fourteen (14) "enduring bases"
that are "designed to last for years.
Experts were correct to believe the U.S.
should have employed a much larger military force when invading
Iraq, especially for maintaining civil order once the occupation
began. On the other hand, chaos has the advantage of demonstrating
to occupation critics the need for a permanent U.S. military
presence. It remains to be seen whether, under U.S. control,
an effective Iraqi army and police force can ever be established.
Although Iraq poses no real danger to the United States as a
nation, a simmering Iraq gives the Bush Pentagon an excuse for
maintaining a significant number of U.S. military bases on Iraqi
soil. Better safe, they might argue, than sorry.
Two redundant questions regarding a "rebuilt"
Iraqi military:
1. Will an Iraqi air force be re-established
capable of repelling threats from outside the country?
2. Will the Iraqi military be independent
and provided with military hardware (tanks, missiles, etc.) capable
not only of repelling attacks from foreign entities and also
capable of launching an invasion of neighboring nations?
Consider. In May 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld
said, "We'll have as many forces in the country as is necessary
to see that there is a secure environment.'' Nearly one year
later Rumsfeld ruminated, "[M]y personal view is that the
Iraqis are going to be better able to provide for their own security,
more likely to make progress with respect to their economic and--and--and
essential service side of the equation if, in fact, there's an
Iraqi face on the government and that they have a voice and some
important role in governing their country."
The Iraqi military will not be revived
to the extent it could pose a "danger" or an "imminent
threat" to anyone outside its borders. In all matters foreign
and domestic, there will be an "Iraqi face" and they
will have "some important role" in the nation's affairs.
Interviewed on ABC's This Week program,
Secretary of State Powell said, "We will continue to have
100,000 troops there, helping them with their security as their
own security forces show greater ability to protect the population.
We'll also have a very large embassy." (March 14, 2004)
In February 2004, General Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seconded Rumsfeld, stating
it is unlikely an Iraqi government will ask the U.S. to leave
Iraq. Then Myers added, "And our help's going to be needed
for some time. If nothing else, think about the external threats
to Iraq. Certainly, the new Iraqi army's not going to be up to
that in terms of size, or their training."
These revealing statements set forth
Iraq's future, the performance of which will be stage managed
by the United States, not for a year but, in Gen. Jay Garner's
words, "the next few decades. (Congress Daily, February
6, 2004)
If Iraq is threatened from outside, the
U.S. will come to the rescue with our military might including
continued use of National Guard and Reserves. Should those forces
dwindle, re-introduction of the military draft will follow. By
means of this political strategy, employment figures at home
will be boosted, giving President Bush a means of claiming an
improved economy as new workers are hired to fill the shoes of
those sent east in combat boots.
Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure will
drag on for years. The contracts granted to U.S. corporations
will continue as long as our semi-privatized military and our
palatial embassy remain in Iraq. Delaying and prolonging reconstruction
has advantages. Men sitting endlessly in line to fill their cars'
gas tanks will not be making mischief somewhere else. Families
who must wait hours for electricity to come on are tied to their
homes by necessity. Water is necessary for life. Its absence
weakens the healthy and debilitates those who are ill. Unpurified
water may cause sickness among those who are not immune to impurities.
Negatively rationing water leads to restricted activity and cloudy
mental processes. Our model here: the old Hollywood westerns:
He who controls the energy and water supplies controls the territory.
The cowboys are in charge. To borrow
from President Bush, we will be in Iraq "As long as it takes."
Whether a compliant press will ever ask President Bush and John
Kerry for their views on this issue seems doubtful. The cost
of building and maintaining at least 100,000 troops on ground
in Iraq is unknown, as are estimates of the number of lives that
may (surely will) be lost over a period of (say) fifty years.
Will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be wounded or
murdered in Baghdad? Perhaps these matters are not to be discussed
in polite patriotic society. Is "Bring the Troops Home"
already a lost cause?
How does the Bush Administration respond
to the question of lives lost as a result of our good-will efforts
to remake Iraq in our own image? Neo-con Bush booster William
Kristol, Chairman of the Project for the New American Century,
gave what might be the answer when he told the Diane Rehm Show,
"I am very comfortable defending the morality of the current
situation." Kristol's comfortable position is cold comfort
to those who must serve in harms way and those who suffer loss
as the war of occupation drags on for decades, draining money
and blood from Americans.
The Bush Administration was quite aware
no weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to our invading
and occupying forces. The Big Lie was bigger than most folks
realized. Contrary to critics who believe the administration
has no "plan" for post-invasion Iraq, the plan is obvious
to any willing to examine what has happened, what is happening
and what is being said. The years those neo-conservatives spent
dreaming of their golden opportunity to appropriate Iraq were
not spent in idleness. The puzzle fits.
Oh, and one more thing . . .
Oil.
Doug Giebel
is a writer and analyst who lives in Big Sandy, Montana. His
essay "When Professors Cheat" is soon to be published
by Mellen Press. He welcomes comments at dougcatz@ttc-cmc.net.
Weekend
Edition Features for March 20 / 21, 2004
Jennifer Loewenstein
A
Journey to Rafah
Jeffrey St. Clair
Empire of the Locusts
Gary Leupp
The Yassin Assassination: Prelude to an Attack on Syria
William A. Cook
The Yassin Assassination: a Monstrous Insanity Blessed by the
US
Faheem Hussain
Some Thoughts on Waziristan: Once and Always a Colonial Army
Elaine Cassel
Is Playing Paintball Terrorism?
Larry Birns / Jessica
Leight
Disturbing Signals: Kerry and Latin America
John Ross
Bush Tells the World: "Drop Dead"
John Eskow
A Memo to Karl Rove from the Hollywood Caucus
Alan Maass
Who Are the Real Terrorists?
Joe Bageant
Howling in the Belly of the Confederacy
Dave Zirin
Reasonable Doubt: Why Barry Bonds is Not on Steroids
Craig Waggoner
Who Would Mel's Jesus Nuke?
The Kerry Quandry
Joel Wendland
Marxists
for Kerry
Josh Frank
Scary,
Scary John Kerry
Matt Vidal
Spoilers, Electability and the Poverty of American Democracy
Poets' Basement
LaMorticella, Hamod, Guthrie, Davies and Albert
Website of the Weekend
Say a Little Prayer
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|