portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Kissinger, Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Baker... the "voices of reason"??

Don't be surprised if a major "terrorist attack" occurs, exactly when warmongers need it the most.
The media have been running extensive coverage on what appears to be a major policy split within the Bush
Administration and the Republican establishment over the decision-making on going to war against Iraq. Big
names associated with the first Gulf War have issued public statements expressing rather moderate concerns
about diplomatic and strategic risks of rushing to war with Iraq, seemingly in opposition to the aggressive
faction centered around Perle and Wolfowitz.

Is this a real split? Or is it a coordinated phony debate of the type that has been practiced so many times over in
the past? If there really was a deep factional war going on, would the dirty laundry really be aired so visibly in
public by this secrecy-obsessed administration? Are we to believe that someone like Brent Scowcroft, who is
so close to Bush Sr. as to be described as a virtual Bush family member, would air his supposed policy
disagreements with the President in the media, if this was not intended for the public's consumption in the first
place? So what is really going on? Some argue that what is really going on is that a show is being put on to
reassure the public and US allies that the obvious aggressive war preparations are not really serious, and that
the seeming restraint and skepticism of the current war "doubters" will allow them to come forward as even
more powerful and credible advocates for an all-out attack on Iraq once a suitable provocation has been
fabricated.

Only an insider would know the answers for certain. What is immediately obvious, however, is the degree to
which perception of the middle ground has been skewed to a degree that is surreal. The very players who were
at the center of a murky game of intrigue and backstage deceptions which led to the first Gulf War are now
being lauded as "voices of reason" even by many Leftist antiwar pundits!

Scowcroft and Eagleburger were both involved with the notorious Kissinger Associates, the central player in
the BNL scandal ("Iraqgate") uncovered just before the Gulf War, in which it was discovered that the BNL
bank made $4 billion in illegal loans to Iraq while it was a client of Kissinger's company. This was the
centerpiece of a network of illicit support for Saddam which continued until just months before Iraq's invasion
of Kuwait, which included critical technology transfers that strenthened Iraq's armed forces. This scandal has
been described as even bigger and more significant than Iran-Contra, but the political shock waves never made
it very far, thanks to effective spin and coverup. The following summary is lengthy but worth reading for the
discussion of how the scandal was diverted by the media (compare the techniques used to the way that 9/11
prior knowledge and coverup have been handled).

IRAQGATE: The Big One That (Almost) Got Away. Who Chased it and Who Didn't (Russ W. Baker,
Columbia Journalism Review. March / April 1993)

Findings of Rep. Henry Gonzalez, Chairman of the House Banking committe at the time of the BNL
investigation and the Gulf War:
 http://www.webcom.com/%7epinknoiz/covert/iraqgate04.html

more on Iraqgate:
 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/hidden/iraqgate.htm

TIMELINE OF THE GULF WAR
 http://www.wakefieldcam.freeserve.co.uk/iraqchronology.htm
The above is a collection of the key info points on the leadup to the Gulf War which point unmistakeably to a
deliberate US effort to manufacture that conflict in accordance with a hidden agenda. Note the names involved
at the heart of this machiavellian affair the very insiders who are now being posed as the "moderates".

Does this whole situation not deserve some very severe skepticism? With the history shared by
Kissinger, Scowcroft, Eagleburger, and Baker, is it rational or safe to take their statements at face value,
before we really know what is happening?

All the more so because the actual military mobilization is moving ahead full bore:

Deployments May Be Too Far Advanced to Stop Iraqi Invasion:
250,000 U.S. Troops Either Already There or Ready to Go Possible Battle Strategy
(Michael C. Ruppert, FTW. 21 August 2002)

Behind the official debate, US builds up forces for attack on Iraq
(Patrick Martin, WSWS. 24 August 2002)

final word: The Sunday Times has recently described Colin Powell as "dovish". Indeed.

The Powell Doctrine: Baghdad / Jenin / My Lai (Heather Wokush, 22 August 2002)


Brian Salter, questionsquestions.net