Iraq, al-Qaeda, Dick Clarke and when Bush Comes to Shove
I have just finished reading a book by Dick Clarke, who was a senior counterterrorism advisor to Bush Senior, Clinton and Bush Junior, as well as working in the Regan administration. In these book, "Against All Enemies", Clarke outlines the anti-terrorism policies (which is a bit ironic in the US when one talks about Regan and the School of the Americas) of successive US administrations. Clarke is quite complimentary of Clinton's attitude towards terrorism during the 90s, and the actions he took to contain it. However, Clarke is deeply critical of George W. Bush's administration for not taking terrorism seriously before 9/11. Indeed, Clarke is also even more critical of Bush's actions after 9/11. On September 12th 2001, Bush and his senior advisors (such as Paul Wolfowitz) ignored all the logical conclusions and advice, and wanted more than anything to prove that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Despite the mass of evidence against al-Qaeda, Bush with his vendetta, wanted to blame Iraq for the attacks, to give him an excuse to invade and make up for what his father failed to do.
Clarke's book has credibility in my view now because of the findings of the 9/11 bi-partisan commission which reported this week. Pretty much all of Clarke’s allegations have been upheld by the commission’s findings.
It is pretty much apparent now at this stage that Bush defiantly did mislead the American people (and indeed the UN and brought the UK into a war it did not need to fight). An Irish Times article in yesterday's paper by Conor O'Clery, their US correspondent, summaries comments made by the Bush administration over the past couple of years, which linked Iraq with the 9/11 attacks, and Iraq's links with al-Qaeda.
I should point out that it is pretty much common knowledge at this stage that Iraqi officials met Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan for talks, but that was the extent of the links. Bin Laden met many people in an effort to gather support, but Iraq gave him none (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and apparently Iran did).
Despite the known meeting between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, no evidence has been forthcoming of these alleged links. Given the amount of criticism levelled against the Bush administration about the Iraq war and the reasons for going to war, if there was real tangible evidence of links, why wouldn't the administration make public such evidence?
The simple truth is that 9/11 (and this is said with the greatest of respect to the families of those lost during 9/11) was a convenient excuse for the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, which they had already decided to do well before 9/11, and probably even before coming into office.
The US's biggest presence in the oil rich countries of the Middle East was in Saudi Arabia (large military bases; petroleum companies). Despite the regular rhetoric about promoting the American values of democracy and freedom of around the world, these are just convenient excuses in most cases of US actions. Saudi Arabia, whom the US has had a fairly close relationship with the US for quite a few years, is far from being a democracy, and has an appalling human rights record. It's strict version of Islam treats women appealingly. But essentially, because Saudi Arabia was allowing the US to have a significant military presence on its territory, and because of its abundance of oil reserves, much of which is sold to the US, America seems to turn a blind eye to the dark side of that massive nation on the Arabian peninsula.
Because of the instability of Saudi Arabia, the US needed a more stable "friendly" nation in the Middle East (which has oil, which Israel has very little of compared to other countries in the region). Iraq has a massive oil supply, and under US control (or under proxy control, which it will be from the end of June) would give the US an oil buffer in case of future Middle East instability. It also gives the US the ability to build a very large permanent military presence in the Middle East (it is building these at the moment, despite rhetoric which portrays a passive presence in the future).
If these are the real reasons for the US to go to war with Iraq and force regime change, and put in place a US-friendly (read: proxy) government, it's a pity they couldn't come clean about it. The US has been undermining governments around the world for years and inserting more US-favourable governments in their place. I cannot understand how they can come up with the bullshit reasons they go public with.
Even if the real reasons for invading Iraq are for the oil and to have another US-friendly state in the Middle East, a basic expectation should be to uphold the basic principle of human rights. I continue to be appalled at the way the US treats its prisoners, in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, both of which have been well documented. Regular internment also seems to be a characteristic of the way the US takes prisoners. Many hundreds of alleged terrorists have "disappeared" into secret US camps around the world. Just this week, the Red Cross has criticized the US for not reporting prisoners it has captured so it can assess them.
Next Friday, George Bush comes to Ireland as part of the US-EU summit. There seem to be many Irish people who resent him coming to this island, and that he should not be allowed to come. I disagree. As EU President, we should host the summit, and play our part. This comes with our duty as President of the EU. However, Bush in Ireland gives us an excellent opportunity to get a message across to Bush that we do not agree with his policies, and that we have deep reservations about US actions. It gives us a chance to show in numbers what we think of his and his actions. I fully intend to be at the protest march in Dublin next Friday evening, to coincide with the Bush visit. I really really hope that many other Irish people will turn out, and show Bush out numbers, and how strong the Irish people feel about it. I fear however that there has not been o a whole lot of publicity for the protest outside of the Leftist online media, so I am not expecting huge numbers (like there were last year for the anti-war march).
Clarke's book has credibility in my view now because of the findings of the 9/11 bi-partisan commission which reported this week. Pretty much all of Clarke’s allegations have been upheld by the commission’s findings.
It is pretty much apparent now at this stage that Bush defiantly did mislead the American people (and indeed the UN and brought the UK into a war it did not need to fight). An Irish Times article in yesterday's paper by Conor O'Clery, their US correspondent, summaries comments made by the Bush administration over the past couple of years, which linked Iraq with the 9/11 attacks, and Iraq's links with al-Qaeda.
I should point out that it is pretty much common knowledge at this stage that Iraqi officials met Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan for talks, but that was the extent of the links. Bin Laden met many people in an effort to gather support, but Iraq gave him none (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and apparently Iran did).
- In a letter to Congress on March 19th, 2003, the day the Iraq war began, Bush asserted that the war was permitted under legislation authorising force against those who "planned, authorised, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001". Iraq fell into none of these categories (it did fall into a category of massive human rights violations; this I will never dispute, but nothing to do with 9/11).
- On October 7th, 2002 Bush said "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases".
- In his State of the Union on January 28th 2003, Bush declared "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda".
- On February 6th, 2003 Bush said "Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training".
- On January 22nd 2004 Donald Rumsfeld said "there's overwhelming evidence...of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq", and even on Monday of the week just gone Rumsfeld suggested the same links again.
Despite the known meeting between Iraqi officials and Bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, no evidence has been forthcoming of these alleged links. Given the amount of criticism levelled against the Bush administration about the Iraq war and the reasons for going to war, if there was real tangible evidence of links, why wouldn't the administration make public such evidence?
The simple truth is that 9/11 (and this is said with the greatest of respect to the families of those lost during 9/11) was a convenient excuse for the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq, which they had already decided to do well before 9/11, and probably even before coming into office.
The US's biggest presence in the oil rich countries of the Middle East was in Saudi Arabia (large military bases; petroleum companies). Despite the regular rhetoric about promoting the American values of democracy and freedom of around the world, these are just convenient excuses in most cases of US actions. Saudi Arabia, whom the US has had a fairly close relationship with the US for quite a few years, is far from being a democracy, and has an appalling human rights record. It's strict version of Islam treats women appealingly. But essentially, because Saudi Arabia was allowing the US to have a significant military presence on its territory, and because of its abundance of oil reserves, much of which is sold to the US, America seems to turn a blind eye to the dark side of that massive nation on the Arabian peninsula.
Because of the instability of Saudi Arabia, the US needed a more stable "friendly" nation in the Middle East (which has oil, which Israel has very little of compared to other countries in the region). Iraq has a massive oil supply, and under US control (or under proxy control, which it will be from the end of June) would give the US an oil buffer in case of future Middle East instability. It also gives the US the ability to build a very large permanent military presence in the Middle East (it is building these at the moment, despite rhetoric which portrays a passive presence in the future).
If these are the real reasons for the US to go to war with Iraq and force regime change, and put in place a US-friendly (read: proxy) government, it's a pity they couldn't come clean about it. The US has been undermining governments around the world for years and inserting more US-favourable governments in their place. I cannot understand how they can come up with the bullshit reasons they go public with.
Even if the real reasons for invading Iraq are for the oil and to have another US-friendly state in the Middle East, a basic expectation should be to uphold the basic principle of human rights. I continue to be appalled at the way the US treats its prisoners, in Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq, both of which have been well documented. Regular internment also seems to be a characteristic of the way the US takes prisoners. Many hundreds of alleged terrorists have "disappeared" into secret US camps around the world. Just this week, the Red Cross has criticized the US for not reporting prisoners it has captured so it can assess them.
Next Friday, George Bush comes to Ireland as part of the US-EU summit. There seem to be many Irish people who resent him coming to this island, and that he should not be allowed to come. I disagree. As EU President, we should host the summit, and play our part. This comes with our duty as President of the EU. However, Bush in Ireland gives us an excellent opportunity to get a message across to Bush that we do not agree with his policies, and that we have deep reservations about US actions. It gives us a chance to show in numbers what we think of his and his actions. I fully intend to be at the protest march in Dublin next Friday evening, to coincide with the Bush visit. I really really hope that many other Irish people will turn out, and show Bush out numbers, and how strong the Irish people feel about it. I fear however that there has not been o a whole lot of publicity for the protest outside of the Leftist online media, so I am not expecting huge numbers (like there were last year for the anti-war march).