Sunday, June 11, 2006

Suppose they gave a war and nobody lied?

Cynicism becomes inevitable when an entire war is based on a forgery, and when that war includes staged media extravaganzas such as the "spontaneous" pulling of Saddam's statue and the pseudo-rescue of Jessica Lynch. A deep cynicism surrounds the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, bogeyman extraordinaire.

Editor and Publisher discusses the faked Zarqawi letter from early 2004, which bolstered the Bush administration's propaganda line that Al Qaeda controlled the Iraq insurgency. The letter was leaked to NYT writer Dexter Filkins and to William Safire, who (as I've noted before) told completely different tales about its origiins. E&P notes that the NYT refused to publish any material casting doubt on the letter's authenticity, even after other publications started to poke holes in the story, and even though Filkins himself harbored such doubts.

A couple of months ago, Bush still vouched for the authenticity of this letter on the very same day the Washington Post revealed it to be a propaganda creation.

Question: If that letter was bunk, why should any sane person believe the current official pronouncements about the death of Zarqawi?

For example, what should we make of the stories that his bombed safe house also contained "a woman's leopard skin nightgown and other skimpy women's clothes" as well as a picture of Franklin D. Roosevelt? When one considers the propaganda value of those two props (the FDR thing should play very well in hillbilly-land) -- well, doesn't it all seem rather too convenient?

What if the purpose of the Z-man mythos is not to end the insurgency, but to fuel an Iraqi civil war? From the Atlantic Monthly:
“Even then—and even more so now—Zarqawi was not the main force in the insurgency,” the former Jordanian intelligence official, who has studied al-Zarqawi for a decade, told me. “To establish himself, he carried out the Muhammad Hakim operation, and the attack against the UN. Both of them gained a lot of support for him—with the tribes, with Saddam’s army and other remnants of his regime. They made Zarqawi the symbol of the resistance in Iraq, but not the leader. And he never has been.”

He continued, “The Americans have been patently stupid in all of this. They’ve blown Zarqawi so out of proportion that, of course, his prestige has grown. And as a result, sleeper cells from all over Europe are coming to join him now.” He paused for a moment, then said, “Your government is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
From Baghdad Burning:
Do they really believe it will end the resistance against occupation? As long as foreign troops are in Iraq, resistance or 'insurgency' will continue- why is that SO difficult to understand? How is that concept a foreign one?

"A new day for Iraqis" is the current theme of the Iraqi puppet government and the Americans. Like it was "A New Day for Iraqis" on April 9, 2003 . And it was "A New Day for Iraqis" when they killed Oday and Qusay. Another "New Day for Iraqis" when they caught Saddam. More "New Day" when they drafted the constitution… I'm beginning to think it's like one of those questions they give you on IQ tests: If 'New' is equal to 'More' and 'Day' is equal to 'Suffering', what does "New Day for Iraqis" mean?

How do I feel? To hell with Zarqawi (or Zayrkawi as Bush calls him). He was an American creation- he came along with them- they don't need him anymore, apparently. His influence was greatly exaggerated but he was the justification for every single family they killed through military strikes and troops.


Anonymous said...

such excellent points, joe!

of interest also is the fact that the permanent US bases are back on the table again, the same table with a nukular strike on iran, i suppose.

of particular interest, though, is the irony of this 'war for oil,' which has not produced more oil but less. however - and this is the key point - it HAS produced windfall profits for the oil barons, a la enron's ingenious energy scalping scheme.

so, continued war will insure continued windfall oil profits because it serves as a suppression on access to the product, the same way the enron scheme suppressed access to that product in the 2000 CA energy nightmare.

greg palast made this observation right after kenny boy was officially scapegoated by the jury of his peers: the same way al capone's conviction did not really stop his crime syndicate, instead actually setting it in stone, ken lay's conviction provides anesthesia for the public while the actual crimes continue. with particular thanks to auhnuld and that whole magic show.

i saw yesterday that chalmers johnson has pretty much despaired of hope that our country will recover from this coup (though i don't know if he uses that term). with the criminals in charge of all three branches of government, we have nowhere to turn for correction.

passports in order? except, where to go???

DAG said...

Al Zarqawi and his 72 Virgins
I hate Elvis references, but which Al Zarqawi do the 72 virgins get, the fat one or the thin one? Or maybe they get the bloodied, battered, blown up one....


Anonymous said...

"...of particular interest, though, is the irony of this 'war for oil,' which has not produced more oil but less. however - and this is the key point - it HAS produced windfall profits for the oil barons..."
The price of oilgoes UP on the market, as oil is being taken OUT of the market.
So the value of the diminuishing quantity of oil in some production regions is being preserved or pushed up. or?

Delaney said...

The Chicago Tribune reported the latest allegation raised by AP Television News in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Sunday edition. But the New York Times did not. Or more accurately the version of the story that appeared on the New York Times' web site Sunday morning failed to mention the allegation. A reprinted version of the same story that appeared at the Toronto Star web site, however, did at least indirectly refer to the claim made by Mohammed. ...

I discovered this discrepancy by doing a simple Google News search using the keywords "al-Zarqawi" and "rumours." My reasoning was that by employing the British spelling of the word "rumor" I might find information not being reported in the American press. And that's exactly what I found. The U.S. newspaper of record -- The New York Times -- was censoring the news to its American readership. I guess we should feel fortunate that the Trib decided not to follow suit and play along with the Mighty Wurlitzer. ...


Anonymous said...

If you can only read one book this year, go out and pick up a copy of Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" which features a long chapter on 'Kerry Won: Now Get Over It'.

I heard Greg speak at one of his recent West Coast events--he really is the greatest living investigative reporter still alive.

He gave an incredible talk, blew my mind with the horrible info about the 3.9 million votes that didn't get counted nationwide up from 1.6 million in 2000 and how that will grow to over 5 million in 2006.

He said that bush is considered the most successful president by the oil companies/neocons because oil was only $18 a barrel when he took office and now it is nearly $73 a barrel. He said that the war in iraq was to turn off the spigot of oil, to drive upprices of oil so that is what bush really meant by "mission accomplished" by the oil companies and they just love him for all the profits his bungling in iraq and tax cuts have brought them.

He said that james baker III has an office at the WH and is legal counsel for saudi arabia against the families of 9/11 survivors, the legal counsel for big oil such as mobil/exxon.

go to for more info.

Pretty heavy stuff. Ann coulter of "lets stone the liberals who are terrorists" dogma released her book on the same day as Greg, last week 06-06-06. To me she could easily pass as the granddaughter of Joseph Goebbels and I wouldn't feel safe with her in the same room -- if the lights went out she would be the first to come after a liberal female such as myself. Hitler would be so prooud of her!