Bush’s Invasion of Iraq was Criminal: Obama’s About to Do the Same Thing In Syria
Post Categories: Israel
The Washington’s Blog | Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 21:52 Beijing
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites More Sharing Services
Bush Launched the Iraq War For Oil … Obama Is Launching the Syrian War for Natural Gas
The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest ranking military officer in the United States – said that the Iraq war was “based on a series of lies”.
Many high-ranking military officials, top Republican leaders and key architects of the Iraq war said that the war was really about oil. And yet the American people haven’t seen any benefit … top oil economists have said that the Iraq war substantially raised the price of oil.
The American government sold the Iraq war under false pretenses.
Indeed, the American government planned the Iraq war long before 9/11. Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. In 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.” And see this and this. Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change in Iraq 20 years ago.National security experts – including both hawks and doves – agree that waging war against Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries has weakened America’s national security and increased terrorism risks. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
Similarly, neoconservatives planned regime change in Syria 20 years ago.
And carrying out acts of violence and blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change – i.e. false flag terror – was discussed over 50 years ago by British and American leaders.And Western governments want regime change in Syria because of gas:
Syria is an integral partof the proposed 1,200km Arab Gas Pipeline:
Here are some additional graphics courtesy of Adam Curry:
Syria’s central role in the Arab gas pipeline is … a key to why it is now being targeted.
Just as the Taliban was scheduled for removal after they demanded too much in return for the Unocal pipeline, Syria’s Assad is being targeted because he is not a reliable “player”.
Specifically, Turkey, Israel and their ally the U.S. want an assured flow of gas through Syria, and don’t want a Syrian regime which is not unquestionably loyal to those 3 countries to stand in the way of the pipeline … or which demands too big a cut of the profits.
A deal has also been inked to run a natural gas pipeline from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria (with a possible extension to Lebanon).
And a deal to run petroleum from Iraq’s Kirkuk oil field to the Syrian port of Banias has also been approved:
Turkey and Israel would be cut out of these competing pipelines.
On the other hand, Russia’s giant natural gas industry would be threatened if Syria’s current regime is toppled … no wonder Israel and Russia are getting into it over Syria.
And the monarchies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia would also benefit as competitors in the gas market if Syria’s regime is taken out … so they’re backing the “rebels” as well.
And the U.S. is heavily backing backed Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria. (even the New York Times reports that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.)
And the U.S. is now considering imposing a no-fly zone over Syria … which was also the opening move in the wars against Iraq and Libya.
Bush launched the Iraq war under false pretenses … similarly, the war in Syria is really being launched by Obama and natural gas players in the region who want to cut Syria and Russia out of the game.
Postscript: If the corporate media were reporting more accurately on Syria than they did on Iraq, the American people would realize that there is grave doubt about who is most responsible for the violence, and who really used chemical weapons in Syria.
Not that Assad is a saint, but he poses no danger to the United States, and shouldn’t be demonized and turned into a threat to American national security man any more than Saddam Hussein.
The Iraq war will end up with a final price tag of between $5-6 trillion dollars. We simply can’t afford to get involved in another war … especially with Russia and Iran actively aligned against us.
A related article from The Washington’s Blog
Obama Makes More Empty Promises: Lays Groundwork for Expanded WarfareObama Is a Skilled Speaker … But He Doesn’t Fulfill His Promises
After many liberals – and constitutional experts – started saying that Obama is even worse than Nixon, Obama made a speech on foreign policy filled with soothing promises to try to reassure the country.
But as Glenn Greenwald notes:
McClatchy’s Leslie Clark and Jonathan Landay astutely noted that Obama’s formulation for when drone strikes should be used was broader than past government statements, which meant he “appeared to be laying groundwork for an expansion of the controversial targeted killings“.
The Brookings Institution’s Benjamin Wittes similarly observed that Obama’s speech seemed written to align the president “as publicly as possible with the critics of the positions his administration is taking without undermining his administration’s operational flexibility in actual fact.” In other words, said Wittes (summarizing the vintage Obama rhetorical device), “the president sought to rebuke his own administration for taking the positions it has — but also to make sure that it could continue to do so.” Slate’s national security writer Fred Kaplan observed this morning that “the speech heralded nothing new when it comes to drone strikes.” In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Jeremy Scahill argued this about the Obama speech:
[I]t really is sort of just a rebranding of the Bush era policies with some legalese that is very articulately delivered from our constitutional law professor, Nobel Peace Prize-winning president. But effectively, Obama has declared the world a battlefield and reserves the right to drone bomb countries in pursuit of people against whom we have no direct evidence or who we’re not seeking any indictment against.”
The national security reporter Michael Hastings said much the same thing on MSNBC over the weekend (“That speech to me was essentially agreeing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney that we’re in this neo-conservative paradigm, that we’re at war with a jihadist threat that actually is not a nuisance but the most important threat we’re facing today”), while Carnegie Mellon Professor Kiron Skinner on the same show said that “there was a lot of George W. Bush in that speech“, as Obama spoke as though we are in a “long-term ideological struggle in a way that he’s not talked about radical Islam before . .. where he’s going will take him away from his liberal base.”
Where’s the change?.
Until die-hard Obama supporters (I voted for Obama in 2008, but quickly became disillusioned as soon as he appointed cabinet members who were firmly in the status quo) realize that Obama is just are packaged Bush, war – no matter what it’s called – will go on and on.
Tags: Bush Iraq Natural Gas Obama