I'm afraid I wasn't able to make much sense out of your post.
On the article you posted that is making current headlines about the propaganda leading to the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the fact the Bush Crime Family knew it was bogus, anyone who has done the research already knows it was bogus. It really is old news. If the US media had acted even remotely responsible, it would have been old news before 9/11.
What the Baker Report outlines, amounts to nothing more and nothing less than a strategy to price fix oil. Considering the think tank was made up of the who's who of the oil industry, that's hardly surprising. The melt down of oil prices in 1997 was largely blamed on Hussein, although virtually everyone in OPEC was cheating at the time. Never the less, Iraq's ability to produce oil at a fraction of the cost of the big oil companies, and Hussein's unwillingness to play ball with big oil, made him a threat. The Report comes right out and called it his "oil weapon".
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out it would have been a hard sell to the American public that we needed to attack Iraq in order to manipulate oil prices to record levels.
If anything, the timing of the "leaked" memos is rather interesting. It comes at a time when issues surrounding 9/11 have risen above the surface to a point were aspects of the attacks are being nibbled at by certain areas of the press. While I doubt Hustler could quite be considered as being a "respectable" publication, it does have a fairly large base of subscribers.
It looks like the usual strategy for criminals to plead to a lesser charge. Let's say Bush were to be impeached for lying about WMDs. What would be the outcome? It would make Cheney, who's basically been running the show all along, President. Not only would that leave the Crime Family intact, it would open the door to keeping it intact well beyond Bush's second term. |
