HOME	Where the World's Views of America Come into Focus

By Abdulwahab Badrakhan

April 4, 2005

Original Article (English)

President George W. Bush may soon need to form a new commission, to investigate political meddling with the intelligence information used to justify the war on Iraq, since the "presidential commission" [that just issued its report] failed to uncover any such meddling.

Yet, the meddling did take place. One such instance of meddling involved former Secretary of State Collin Powell, who did not conceal his subsequent anger and resentment after falling victim. More proof was a 16-word phrase about "uranium yellow cake from Niger" that was added to one of Mr. Bush’s state of the union speeches, a phrase that sparked an intense debate in the media, and which turned out to be nothing but sheer lies.

Tens of books have been written about the decision to go to war, a decision that was taken without regard for accurate information; the latest report on [intelligence] "failures" failed to address the issue of whether the strike against Iraq was already in Bush’s mind before 9/11, and whether he seized on the attacks as an excuse to follow through on his plans.

There is a need for more investigative committees to look into the framework of the President’s decision-making and the information he relies on. Who is helping him? Which advisors are assisting him, and for whose interests do these advisors work: the arms corporations? The Zionist lobby? Israel? Otherwise, how does humanity benefit, after suffering through several years of Bush’s recklessness, if he confesses in a White House press conference, that the criticisms voiced by the committee are "correct?" What does such a confession mean after the war has taken place and Bush, along with his administration, continues to defend it?

This implies quite simply, and in that familiar American rude frankness: Yes, we lied to you, all justifications we presented to you were deliberate lies, however, and the war was the right decision to make. Thank you for understanding, ladies and gentlemen. Now let us turn the page. No apology, no asking for forgiveness and no promise not to repeat such an arbitrary war. 

Bush dealt with the report about intelligence failures as if it were an internal American event, the goal of which is to improve the performance of that intelligence. The committee did not have the jurisdiction to discuss the global dimension of these "failures," although the President is aware of their negative impact on America’s image and reputation, and the fact that they have cost people their lives, both American and otherwise.

Bush has also emphasized the necessity of America having additional information about the armament programs and intentions of his adversaries. Yet, what if other nations had better information, and that is why they did not support the war? And what about the atmosphere of hostility that America has propagated against people who demonstrated against the war, and those who doubted the existence of [Iraq’s] weapons of mass destruction?

Bush uttered nothing about these questions. Where is the "democracy" that is in every speech today?

The more disturbing fact is that the conclusions of the committee didn’t stop Bush from "saluting" the intelligence agents. He is saluting them for the failures they committed, and which led to the glory he is now enjoying.

Erroneous information about Iraq, the failure to foresee the terrorism of 9/11, fabrications about a Libyan "bomb," and ambiguity about Iranian and Korean "bombs" … It seems that the United States is more comfortable with an atmosphere of doubt and ambiguity, because these enable it to exercise its imperial practices. Its military campaigns have become easier than correcting wrong policies.

What follows military campaigns? Who cares? Iraq is a telling example. The important thing is to obtain quick and guaranteed victory. What comes afterwards? The war on terrorism has in fact spread terrorism and intensified its means and motives.

The most recent report about the failure of [U.S.] intelligence will remain incomplete, because it dealt with frameworks and technicalities, and not intentions and policies.

Furthermore, the report dealt with failures committed and new means of operating, but gave no attention to the ramifications of its operations or concern over the future.

Despite alluding to mistaken foreign intelligence sources, the report failed to specify what the misleading intelligence agency was; was it the British, the Israelis … In any case, the American investigation has benefited from the preceding British one; both blamed faulty intelligence, and released the regime from any responsibility. In this way, regimes meet at the point of self-protection, whether they are democratic or dictatorial.