Cheney, CIA, The Darkside

[Boetie]

Milton Bradley posts: I just reread the thread, and you never specifically said what you wanted us to report back on, so, questions?

I wasn't able to watch the show, I just wanted someones comment on it. Your summary is excellent. I went to pbs site and saw the chart of Cheney's organization that he used to sidestep the CIA.

When I looked at the chart it made me want to puke, because that whole chart screams policy.

The chart matches the downing street memo, which is to say, fix the facts to fit the policy.

And these guys can actually sleep at nights.

It begs the question, what was imminent about going to war?

[Osborn F Enready]

Boetie said: It begs the question, what was imminent about going to war?

I say:
Well, it could only be oil security, or financial intrests of one and the same. (oil) It could have been to divert troops from catching Bin Laden, since many think he is STILL operating on orders from the U.S. government, and was during 9-11. It could be both, and more?

All I know, is the official story is whack beyond believability, and there are no forthcoming answers from those in the know, except those that resigned or are attempting to whistle-blow.

I still think there is much more we aren't seeing yet.

I think they are about to sacrifice many bi-partisan officials, in an attempt to make the CIA look innocent and honorable in the matter, in hopes of saving public opinion about the CIA role in government.

[Boetie]

Osborn,

What you gave was more of an insiders rational for the war. What I was getting at was more along the line of what was the hurry to go to war if intelligence said Iraq was no threat.

There is a post I made, earlier in this thread, about two journalists that are facing charges in Denmark. The classified information they published says Iraq was not a threat.

The governments that leaned toward the right at the time of the lead up to the war have all lied to their own people, Britain, Spain, Denmark, Australia, Italy. They all were given the same classified information that Iraq was no threat and they all lied to their own people.

Of all the right wing governments that knew Iraq was no threat, not a single one of them exposed the truth. Not a single one.

[Osborn F Enready]

Boetie said: What I was getting at was more along the line of what was the hurry to go to war if intelligence said Iraq was no threat

.

I say:
I don't think I can answer that from what I have seen.

I don't think any evidence exists to show Iraq was a legitimate threat.

To me, that makes the motives for war, whatever their urgency, seem illegitimate since there is no presiding story that makes sense of it all.

Do you have any theories on this?

[Boetie]

Osborn posts: Do you have any theories on this?

There was an experiment that was done by psychologists. What they found was that people are willing to carry out a dubious action at the request of an authority figure.

Cheney was going to micro manage until he got the one thing he wanted, which is war against Iraq, even if the evidence didn't warrant it.

The most stupid thing Bush Jr did was to place two close friends ie Cheney and Rumsfeld in powerful positions. That was stupid, never, never, put buddies together in high places.

If Bush Jr had a brain he should know by now that this Cheney, Rumsfeld arrangement is in large part responsible for the Iraq fiasco and yet he(Bush Jr) pretty much told the public to fuck off, the liars are going to stay.

My theory? Buddies is what's running the govermnent, not professionalism. Translation: Stupidity is running the government

[Sonart]

.

I watched last night and, as always, Frontline makes a compelling case. What struck me, however, is that they added very little new to the series of 3 major stories I've been flogging here, and on other boards, since the fall of 2003.

The Stovepipe, Seymour Hersh, New Yorker Magazine, Oct. 27, 2003

Weapons of Mass Disappearance, Michael Duffy, TIME Magazine, Jun. 01, 2003

Where are Iraq's WMDs?, Evan Thomas, Richard Wolffe and Michael Isikoff, NEWSWEEK June 9, 2003

In other words, this isn't anything that hasn't been public knowledge for 3 years now. It simply ties it all together and puts high level faces, some of them new, behind the testimony. Nice to see it all confirmed, though.

.

[PatrickHenry]

It exposed the Satanic face of Cheny/Rumsfeld, professional liars who have ulterior purposes for their public agenda.

Sure, they thought they might get lucky and actually find WMD. But they are so secure in their positions that it doesn't actually matter now does it?

The Frontline episode doesn't speculate as to the meta-agenda. It makes clear that the policy was to sieze Iraq. But to what purpose?

It's clear that the high level war mongers had no real fear of Saddam. That was but a charade to enhance public support.

Various proposals as to the actual rationale for Cheney/Rumsfeld's war policy?

• Peak Oil- to control a huge pool of scarce petroleum
• Anti-OPEC- to bust Saudi Arabia's lock on oil prices
• Geo-strategery- Imperialism in Central Asia
• Greed- Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. hogging down
• The Rape of Iraq-selling off the banks, the oil, the industries
• Orwellian Endless War- leading to the rise of Big Brother
• Babying Israel's tender butt- taking care of Junior or dancing on her string

or combinations, permutations and stuff my "paranoid" mind hasn't thought of yet...