portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

Will Bush 'score' for his war-plan at the SuperBowl?

"I am VERY concerned about a staged terror incident tomorrow (SuperBowl Sunday), because Bush needs one so badly right now. Without a staged terror attack, Bush has no reason he can use to start the war. Without a staged terror attack, Bush will have little he can say during the State of the Union ..."
From:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

1/25/03 U.S. - IRAQ INVASION LIKELY TO BEGIN WITH STATE of the UNION, As I stated yesterday, Bush cannot wait any longer. Support for the war is collapsing. Frankly, I don't think he can even wait until after the UN inspectors report because it will weaken the case for war even further. I think the war will begin Sunday night or Monday morning. I am getting emails from military people that report being told to expect a full alert late Sunday. I am VERY concerned about a staged terror incident tomorrow, because Bush needs one so badly right now. Without a staged terror attack, Bush has no reason he can use to start the war. Without a staged terror attack, Bush will have little he can say during the State of the Union because it will be obvious he is NOT talking about the sinking economy, bankrupt airlines, a discredited stock market, vast and unpayable government debt, and a billion and half a day trade deficit that is driving the dollar down and the foreign-held debt up. Bush has reached the point where he almost cannot survive without a staged terror event, and the only thing that will stop one from happening is if the US Government starts to doubt that the people will believe the official story when one happens. The doubts raised over 9-11 have to be giving the spooks pause right now. Too many Americans know something is wrong with the official story.

Reactions 25.Jan.2003 11:57

Metal Pan

If all of this clap-trap turns out to be true, ie. if bush does press the tricky button and stage another terrorist act and go to war against the will of the world there will need to be (and I bet there most assuredly will be) major uprisings, riots, etc. The amped up homeland security and police forces will be read for it. It is going to get ugly. We need to get these guys out of our government but they're untouchable because they're protected by the armies that we fund. So we have to kill ourselves to get to them. The government has too much power and it is time to change that permanently, somehow. This is what intelligent people are talking about in the (temporary) safety of their homes.

Never underestimate A Desperate Dictator 25.Jan.2003 12:31


"Never underestimate a desperate president"

The Weapons Inspectors report is due Jan. 27, with no great revelations expected.The State of the Union address is due Jan. 28, with domestic and international opinion of the Bush "agenda" starting to look like a revolt. Articles of Impeachment are drawn up and being circulated, building momentum as members of Bush's own party are grousing about being excluded from policy decisions.

Jan. 26 is Super Bowl Sunday, the eyes of the world will be on San Diego. Almost every TV in America, as well as every military installation and naval vessel on the globe, will be tuned in for the big game.What better time for an attack? Or even a near miss, thwarted by vigilant federal authorities,to sway public opinion back toward war and boost those sagging approval ratings? Consider the presence of 29 storage tanks, filled with 700,000 barrels of petroleum products, near the stadium.Consider the proximity to the Mexican border, easing the problems associated with smuggling and transporting people and materials. Consider that one of the purported 9/11 hijackers was living in San Diego at some point just prior to his crimes. Was he alone, might he have had handlers and co-conspirators?

Super Bowl 37 may pass and be remembered for football, friends, and food. But never underestimate a desperate president.

Let's Roll! 25.Jan.2003 13:59

Bush Admirer

Krauthammer does a good job of sorting through the issues (on when to attack Iraq. His Washington Post article is pasted in below). He thinks we should go ahead right away.

My own opinion is that we should wait for the left wing radical community to move a higher percentage of it's population over there into 'human shield' positions. Then we should let the bombs fly. By doing that we can wipe out quite a few 'Taliban Johnny' types. The lesson from history is that we should have waited until Jane Fonda was there before bombing Hanoi.



The window of legitimacy -- that interval during which the United States could mass its forces around Iraq and prepare for war, ostensibly in the name of the United Nations -- is now officially closed. In November we obtained, at a price, a unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Iraqi disarmament. Now Germany, France, Russia and China have declared themselves opposed to war so long as Hans Blix can run around Iraq merely "containing" Saddam Hussein.

The lull is over. Germany, which has declared its opposition to war, assumes the presidency of the Security Council next month. France has threatened to veto any resolution authorizing the use of force. The Security Council break with the United States is now open. Colin Powell, architect of the administration's U.N. strategy, is described as "caught off guard" by this utterly predictable turn of events. The president now faces his moment of truth.

The one advantage of Resolution 1441 was that it gave us a window of legitimacy during which to mobilize, position equipment, launch carriers, line up bases -- in short, create the infrastructure for disarming Hussein. However, now that the "world community" has shown that it never seriously intended to disarm Iraq, we are back on our own. This is the moment. There is no turning back.

The president cannot logically turn back. He says repeatedly, and rightly, that inspectors can only verify a voluntary disarmament. They are utterly powerless to force disarmament on a regime that lies, cheats and hides. And having said, again correctly, that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Hussein is an intolerable threat to the security of the United States, there is no logical way to rationalize walking away from Iraq -- even if the president wanted to.

Nor can the president turn back politically. He began the march on Iraq with his State of the Union address a year ago. He identified the axis of evil as the single greatest threat to America and the world. To now admit that he can and will do nothing to meet that very threat would not just leave him without a foreign policy, it would destroy his credibility as a leader.

Most important, there is no turning back geopolitically. After the liberation of Afghanistan, the United States made disarming Iraq the paramount American security objective in the post-9/11 world. To now pass off Iraq to hapless Hans for "containment" 1990s-style would shatter the credibility of post-9/11 American resolve that was achieved by the demonstration of American power and will in Afghanistan.

Credibility matters deeply in a world of enemies -- and of fence-sitters who must decide which side to choose. Particularly after the collapse of our position on North Korea, which can only be explained away as a temporary necessity while we gird ourselves for Iraq, the entire Bush Doctrine, which sees the conjunction of rogue states, terrorists and weapons of mass destruction as the great existential challenge of our age, would collapse. You cannot march up this hill and then march back down empty-handed without undermining American deterrence everywhere.

Because there is no turning back, and because the president is in any event committed to act, it is critical to act quickly. Delay will cost us every day. Part of the reason is military. You cannot forever keep troops on alert, carriers on station, regional allies committed.

Part is geopolitical. Our distraction and delay on Iraq have emboldened enemies elsewhere. The North Koreans have grown so brazen during this year of American hesitation that they have kicked out weapons inspectors, withdrawn from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threatened to resume missile testing and reopened their plutonium reprocessing plant at Yongbyon.

And there is a price to be paid at home. The country is in malaise, a combination of economic slowdown and psychic apprehension, a state of phony-war suspension as we await the inevitable conflict.

The window of legitimacy having closed, delay has no upside. There will be no talking our way out of the opposition of France, Germany and the others. The only tonic for that opposition will be an American victory that changes the landscape of the region.

France will be speaking very differently of the United States when a decent, democratizing, pro-American government in liberated Baghdad begins its rule -- and opens bids for oil contracts. Our cynical sometime-friends will astonish us with their, um, flexibility as they accommodate themselves to the reality of a Middle East without Saddam Hussein, without his weapons of mass destruction and with its first chance since decolonization for a real birth of freedom.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Bring Some Munchies 25.Jan.2003 14:56

Constitution Admirer

Bush Admirer - I hope you will join Mr. Bush in having a nice big bowl of pretzels as you watch the big game. (Remember to wash it down with an icy cold bottle of St. Pauli Girl).

I will admit 25.Jan.2003 16:22

Bush Admirer

I will admit, Constitution Admirer, that you do have good taste in beer.

St. Pauli Girl is outstanding!

Though I do tend to be a proud American, and a staunch Capitalist, I am very disappointed to see that our American corporations are completely unable and ill equipped to make:

- Good beer

- Good automobiles

- Good bread

Mexico can make good beer, why not America? Germany and Japan both make great cars, why not America? And you have to buy a bread machine if you want good bread in America -- it's impossible to buy edible bread at the grocery store.

But, on the other hand, we make the best computers by far (can you say Macintosh?). We lead the world in software too. Some things we do really well.

Kill a Conservative 25.Jan.2003 17:32

Bush Killer

The comments by Bush Admirer and adoration of Neocon Nazi ideologists like Charles Krauthammer show what these AmeriNazis are all about: death, destruction, and capitalist bloodsucking disguised behind a lot of lies about Democracy, Freedom, and the Con-stitution.

The only thing these bastards deserve is to get a taste of their own medicine. Kill these cocksuckers with one of their bullets and bombs.

grow up, *bush killer* 25.Jan.2003 18:01


If your father was a conservative just as BA, would you kill him?

Your message is more agitprop than anything else.

Sweetie Pie 25.Jan.2003 18:35

Bush Admirer

If you disagree with Krauthammer, then why not spell out the points he's made that you disagree with, and why?

If you disagree with me, then why not make a counterpoint and debate me?

Could it be that you're ill equipped, and over your head, for such debate?

Sorry for asking a rhetorical question. The answer is pretty obvious :-)

question for 'Bush Admirer' 25.Jan.2003 19:27

dumb ass

I'm really sorry, Mr. Bush Admirer. I must be a total dumbass. The Krauthammer article is a little over my head, and I haven't been understanding your comments clearly.

Would you please explain to me WHY we have to go war and attack Iraq right now?

and why aren't we supposed to go to war with Osama bin Laden?

or are we really at war with both of them, at the same time?

does that mean, Osama bin Laden is on the same side as the Iraqis?

I'm really confused, Mr. Bush Admirer. Please, oh please, help me out of my dilemma.

Dumb Ass 25.Jan.2003 20:05

Bush Admirer

Dumb Ass - You're right about one thing -- you are confused.

I'll try to explain it to you (on your level).

There are two kinds of people in the world, the good guys and the bad guys.

GW Bush is a good guy. Colin Powell is a good guy. Tony Blair is a good guy.

Saddam is a bad guy. Osama is a bad guy.

Now listen carefully. The bad guys were holed up in
Afghanistan where they had weapons, training facility, and barracks. They used those facilities to plan and mount attacks on our good friends and citizens in NYC.

We therefore attacked Afghanistan and shut down their operations there. We did this despite the objections of left wing peaceniks like yourself.

Now we have the benefit of hindsight, and we're really really glad we did it. Not only have we reduced the threat of terrorism, we've coincidentally helped out the people who live in Afghanistan and we've given them hope. They've got a leader they can respect now in Hamid Karzai. It's been a very good deal for everyone except Osama and his minions.

I hope that's not over your head, and that you're with me so far.

Our intelligence services (aka: CIA) know considerably more about what's been happening in Iraq than we do. They know more than the left leaning American media like CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. They even know more than our radical left wing propoganda geniuses like Amy Goodman at Pacifica Disinformation Radio.

Our leaders -- the best leaders we've had in over 8 years -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and George Bush -- will take the intelligence information provided by the CIA and make a reasoned decision. If the intelligence info indicates that Iraq is a threat, then we'll attack and remove Saddam from power.

I'm not privvy to that classified intelligence info, and neither are you or Amy Goodman. Therefore, we don't really know all the facts.

However, I have great confidence in our leaders to make the right decision. They're such a breath of fresh air after their predecessors.

good job 25.Jan.2003 21:17


They trained you well Bush Admirer. You're a good puppy.

"GW Bush is a good guy"

"we've coincidentally helped out the people who live in Afghanistan"

I think you are delusional.

bush admirer talks talk... 25.Jan.2003 21:21

bush whacker markhoss00@yahoo.com

wow, bush lover- you've been reading and watching lots of propaganda, and it's obviously gone to your head. do you really admire a man who intends to send unknown thousands on all sides to their deaths against overwhelming resistance here at home and from all over the world? did you notice several million people in this country alone come out last saturday and to say NO to war? in the long run, do you really believe that our security as a nation, and the wellfare of humanity at large, is enhanced by expending our precious resources to destroy other peoples' lives and land? the earth might get scorched, but the admirable people leading our country will be sure to swiftly suck dry the precious substance below, and profit from its consumption in our hyper-capitalistic economy. once that limited resource dwindles the world's children will starve while admirable men eat steak and swill their victory gin. keep on talking the party talk, and if you want an able debating partner i'm a busy person but your mind needs to be wrenched back open after such an overdose of smoke and mirrors. sleep well, but if you should wake up anytime soon, just e me.

'Bush Admirer'-- you're confusing me 25.Jan.2003 23:45

dumb ass

Mr. Bush Admirer, you said:
"Our intelligence services (aka: CIA) know considerably more about what's been happening in Iraq than we do . . . Our leaders . . . will take the intelligence information provided by the CIA and make a reasoned decision. If the intelligence info indicates that Iraq is a threat, then we'll attack and remove Saddam from power."

This the exact opposite of what I've heard.

It seems that the Administration has been in strong disagreement with the 'intelligence information' for some time--also disagrees with the Joint Chiefs of Staff---and is accusing all of them of being traitors unless they do exactly what it wants.

That doesn't sound like a "reasoned decision". It sounds more like the railroading of a fascist dictatorship.

Bush wants war, Pentagon urges caution
Senior Pentagon officials are quietly urging President George W. Bush to slow down his headlong rush to war with Iraq, complaining the administration's course of action represents too much of a shift of America's longstanding "no first strike" policy and that the move could well result in conflicts with other Arab nations.

"We have a dangerous role reversal here," one Pentagon source tells Capitol Hill Blue. "The civilians are urging war and the uniformed officers are urging caution."

"This is not Desert Storm," one of the Joint Chiefs is reported to have told Rumseld. "We don't have the backing of other Middle Eastern nations. We don't have the backing of any of our allies except Britain and we're advocating a policy that says we will invade another nation that is not currently attacking us or invading any of our allies."

Intelligenced sources say some Arab nations have told US diplomats they may side with Iraq if the U.S. attacks without the backing of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees with his former colleagues at the Pentagon and has told the President he may be pursuing a "dangerous course."

An angry Rumsfeld, who backs Bush without question, is said to have told the Joint Chiefs to get in line or find other jobs. Bush is also said to be "extremely angry" at what he perceives as growing Pentagon opposition to his role as Commander in Chief.

CIA feels heat on Iraq data
Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring CIA analysts to tailor their assessments of the Iraqi threat to help build a case against Saddam Hussein, intelligence and congressional sources said.

In what sources described as an escalating "war," top officials at the Pentagon and elsewhere have bombarded CIA analysts with criticism and calls for revisions on such key questions as whether Iraq has ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network, sources said.

The sources stressed that CIA analysts—who are supposed to be impartial—are fighting to resist the pressure. But they said analysts are increasingly resentful of what they perceive as efforts to contaminate the intelligence process.

The Politicization of Intelligence
The Bush administration's orchestrated campaign to go to war in Iraq now includes manipulating intelligence materials to make the case for war. Dissatisfied with the intelligence assessments of the Central Intelligence Agency, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has established a small intelligence unit at the Pentagon to make the case that there are links between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda organization. In an effort to remain on the policy team, CIA director George Tenet used an unusual letter to the Congress last week to cite unsubstantiated evidence of such links. And with no evidence, Tenet argued "there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build."

US Intelligence seeing what it wants in Iraq
Dissatisfied with what the CIA is telling the White House, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has set up his own unit to analyze reports from the CIA and other agencies. He is relying on this process for justification of his bellicose policy toward Iraq - something he thinks he is not getting from the CIA. Rumsfeld starts with a policy and looks for intelligence to support it. The CIA (most of the time anyway) stays with what it thinks the intelligence shows and leaves it to policymakers to come up with answers on what to do about it.

Burning Bush 26.Jan.2003 03:52

Bush Killer

"If your father was a conservative just as BA, would you kill him?"

I'd rather kill Bush Admirer and you instead. Better yet, how about I put a bullet through both your fathers for producing spawn like yourselves.

As for you Bush Admirer, it would be nice to debate any of the points that you have made except you don't have any except regurgitating the "America Good; Everybody else Bad" propaganda that is provided to you by Neocon Nazis like Herr Krauthammer.

As for Krauthammer himself, he is nothing more than a Pro-Imperialist shill trying to give advice to the Bush Regime on what is the most "opportune" time to launch America's genocidal war.

NO where does this self-styled journalist question the propaganda pretext of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" used to justify this aggression. No where does he address the increasing analysis made outside of America that this war is about stealing Iraqi oil and colonizing the Middle East.

And most importantly, no where does this Pro-America and hence Pro-Nazi shill address all the crimes committed by America past and present (from the genocidial American sanctions against Iraq to America's numerous bloody war from Nicaragua to Afghanistan--crimes which are powerful testimony to the fact that America has NO MORAL OR POLITICAL LEGITIMACY to portray itself as the "Good Guy" as you feebly suggest. Rather, these crimes suggest that your America is the true Evil, and the true Rogue State on this planet.

Nothing would be better than seeing your America break up apart into a thousand tiny pieces, and let you muhfuckers destroy yourselves like you deserve.

Why Why Why? 26.Jan.2003 09:41

made up

Why is it that every time Butt Aspirator chimes in we end up snivelling with him rather than commenting on the original post?? Ignore him already! There's no more empirical proof that we'll 're-educate' him than he will us.

1/25/03 U.S. - IRAQ INVASION LIKELY TO BEGIN 26.Jan.2003 10:40


No The plans have been changed. He's going to wait several more weeks. Don't you read the news? You should try it sometime, it would alleviate the need for at least half of the paraoid speculation that goes on around here.

I love conspiracy theory morons!! 27.Jan.2003 13:48


Wow, look... there was no attack.

BA is hilarious 27.Jan.2003 17:04


"There are two kinds of people in the world, the good guys and the bad guys."

What are you, twelve? Do you ever watch 'news' (even O'Reilly), or is your entire understanding of the world outside your house based on Chuck Norris movies? Do you knw where I could get a Colin Powell action figure?
BA is hilarious
BA is hilarious