[Editor's Note: The title is not exactly accurate. It's not America that
wants war, but rather the traitors at the helm of the American government
and their stooges who are aching for the profits and spoils of war. Whenever
I hear someone use the expression "we" or "us" when referring to the illicit
conduct wrought by criminals working for the CIA, NSA, etc., that has brought
the hatred of the world down upon the once admired and respected American
citizen, I say "hold on!" We, the People, are not responsible for the
acts of satanic criminals who have seized the ship of state through stealth
and deceit and "we" should always separate the will of the citizens from the
criminals running the empire.
We don't even have a representative form of government any longer. The 535
individuals who make up the American Congress are, with few exceptions, "owned"
body and soul by this criminal element. Most of them have been tempted or
coerced to engage in illlicit conduct that could ruin them if made public
(remember Gary Condit?). Films and videos are taken of these people engaged
in everything from satanic rituals to sex with children. If you think I'm
making this up, read Brice Taylor's book "Thanks for the Memories". Even if
some of them did reacquire a conscience, they wouldn't dare step out of line
for fear of being exposed or snuffed (remember Senator Bluestone's or John
Kennedy Jr's plane 'accidents'?). It plays very well into the hands of the
Illuminati when ordinary Americans, confused by the liability issue, take
on responsibility for the criminal acts of their controllers in Washington.
Don't play the game. Step out of the box and tell every yahoo who's still
talking up the liberal versus conservative gambit that they are suckers,
ignorant Pawns in the Game. The writer of this article makes many good points,
but he plays the Game when he lays the blame for 9-11 at bin Laden's feet.
We know better...Ken Adachi]
By John le Carré (Times Online.co.uk )
January 15, 2003
America has entered one of its periods of historical
madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism,
worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term, potentially more disastrous
than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin
Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times,
the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically
eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests
is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every
town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.
The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden
struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush
junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came
to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the
already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology
and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might
also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing
disregard for UN resolutions.
But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the
carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want
the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another
$60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear
weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war
88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear.
A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost
to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those
88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's
anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations
conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells
us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for
the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not
merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance
and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his
fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse,
they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush,
but I would love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and
not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.
The religious cant that will send American troops
into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be.
Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions.
God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America.
God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy,
and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American,
c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
God also has pretty scary connections. In America,
where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush
family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA,
the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84:
senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90:
senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief
executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000:
senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker
after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects
the integrity of God's work.
In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting
the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating
them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody"
was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy."
But it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still
God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed
To be a member of the team you must also believe in
Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his
friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush
won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake
is not an Axis of Evil - but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's
misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush
wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And
who doesn't, won't.
If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his
citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think
Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to
its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with
the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice.
What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but
the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need
to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia
and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East;
to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.
The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's
part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could
steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth
voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he
can't get out.
It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair
has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition
leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is
America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the
electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance
of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest
and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in
his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy
rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?
Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the
UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically
had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no
more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the
UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and
the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable
retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle
East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.
There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush
dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the
I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head
prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties
about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how
he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault
on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf
of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because,
after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair
has to show up at the altar.
"But will we win, Daddy?"
"Of course, child. It will all be over while you're
still in bed."
"Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly
impatient and may decide not to vote for him."
"But will people be killed, Daddy?"
"Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people."
"Can I watch it on television?"
"Only if Mr Bush says you can."
"And afterwards, will everything be normal again?
Nobody will do anything horrid any more?"
"Hush child, and go to sleep."
Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to
his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: "Peace is also
Patriotic". It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping.
The author has also contributed to an openDemocracy
debate on Iraq at www.openDemocracy.net
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.