Bill Sykes' Newsletter
from America.
(April 2004)
An ex-Brit gives his views-(without fear
or favor)---of the American Scene
Last words:
-
“We were all wrong”:
The above headline would appear to sum up why the
reasons that the White House gave for going to war
with Iraq were, (can we say), inaccurate, untruthful,
and far fetched. President Bush and members of his
administration, (according to reports coming from
ex-White House Senior Staff), had a fixation on a
war with Iraq well before the 11th of September, 2001,
terrorist actions on American soil. It would appears
that the White House were determined to protect American
oil interests at all costs, and Iraq had to be dealt
with even though it was never proven that Iraq was
involved in the terrorist actions and had no affiliation
with any Al-Qaeda terrorist group.
According to declassified British government documents
made public on the 1st of January 2004, sources were
reported as saying that the United States Government
seriously contemplated using military force to seize
Middle East oilfields during the Arab embargo some
thirty year ago.
Former chief weapons inspectors, such as Dr. Hans
Blix and Dr. David Kay, stated that no evidence had
been found that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction,
such as chemical, biological, or Nuclear, existed
after Gulf War One.
 Former
Treasury Secretary and member of the Presidents Security
Council, Paul O’Neill, who was fired by George
Bush for apparently disagreeing too many times with
the Presidents policies, had this to say about what
happened at President Bush’s first National
Security Council meeting, ten days after the inauguration—(eight
months before the 11th of September incident). Quote:
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction,
that Saddam Hussein was a bad person, (well President
Bush had that right), and that he needed to go".
So it was apparent from that very first instance that
the meeting was all about Iraq and what could be done
to change the Iraqi regime and not about potential
Al-Qaeda terrorism.
-
Could the 11th of September terrorist incident have
been circumvented?
In the aftermath of the 11th of September terrorist
incident President Bush was said to have ordered his
then senior anti-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke,
to look for a link between Iraq and the terrorist
attacks, despite being told by Clarke that there didn’t
appear to be one. Clarke said that the response to
his urgent pleas, (several months prior to the 11th
of September incident), to discuss what he saw as
a severe threat from Al-Qaeda, were met with a tepid
response from White House Officials.
At a subsequent meeting Clarke went on to say that
he had expected the administration to focus upon attacks
against Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups,
but as early as the next day, Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes
against Iraq. Clarke continued, that in response to
a command from the President, FBI and CIA experts
got together and compiled a situation report, which
was sent to the President. This report apparently
was intercepted by a National Security Advisor, or
deputy, and was returned with the words: "Wrong
answer - do it again". (Or words to that effect).
What an indictment of arrogance. Since the disclosures
by Clarke the White House has brought its big guns
to bear on him, and his testimony has been strongly
disputed.
It will be very interesting, if and when the dust
settles, to determine who is telling the truth.
 The
White House was reported to have refused to allow
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, (A senior advisor to President
Bush),
to appear before the11th of September Committee in
order to be questioned openly under oath, by claiming
executive privilege. Dr. Rice was said to have offered
to be questioned in private by the Committee, but
not under oath.
The committee is currently in session examining whether
the government and the White House Administration
had sufficient intelligence available, prior to the
terrorist action, to forestall the terrible event.
So - Why is the White House blocking the testimony
of a key witness that was obviously privy to important
conversations of the President and his top advisors
in meetings during the period leading up to the 11
September terrorist tragedy? Does the White House
have something to hide? Your guess is as good as mine.
-
Is this another big political gaffe being made by
American politicians?
A United Nations resolution, which condemned Israel
for attacking and killing Sheik Achmid Rashin, (the
Spiritual Leader of the Hamas terrorist group), was
vetoed by the United States on the basis that the
resolution did not fairly condemn both parties. United
States Ambassador to the United Nations said that
the resolution was unbalanced and one sided as it
did not mention terrorist actions committed by Hamas.
OK---fair is fair, but has the United States conveniently
forgotten that they are also guilty of favouring one
of the parties in question for the last fifty+ years.
The attack drew condemnation from governments around
the world and eleven members of the UN approved the
resolution, (which is two more than the number required
to pass the resolution), with the UK, Germany, and
Romania abstaining.
Disclaimer:
Much of the information gathered for this news
letter is gleaned from American and International media
sources, (including the Internet), and as such is quoted
as accurately as possible. I try to obtain confirmation
on each subject from several outlets, so the text is a
mixture of composite news items and personal comments
and therefore the reader must make his/her own judgement
as to the reliability and degree of accuracy of the subjects
discussed.
Eric (Bill) Sykes. (California).
We welcome feedback about any of the contents of these
newsletters. Please send all correspondence to bill_sykes@huddersfield1.co.uk
|
