Tuesday, April 18, 2006

comments, without comment

* from the comments:

damien:
Greg Palast confirms that Iraq was always about the oil. Gen.Jay Garner was fired before he even got started in Iraq because he wanted the Iraqis to have a real democracy and for them to control their own assets. (We knew already, but nice to have it confirmed.)

rimone:
the comments (mostly in fibonacci poetry form) at Gregory K's are just wonderful.

miguel:
This is the way I see the whole sordid mess. It's not a case of the "good guys" vs. the "bad guys", but of 2 different factions of "bad guys". It appears Grossman, Scowcroft and Wilson are "realists", and although they apparently have no qualms about the underground activities of the American Turkish Council and other groups in funneling arms illegally to U.S. allies, these "realists" all thought the idea of invading Iraq was ridiculous. Perhaps the realists were also representing the views of Turkey and Turkish organized crime when they 'opposed' the Iraq War.

The other group is, of course, the Neocons led by Perle and Feith. The Neocons are also big supporters of Turkey activities such as heroin trafficking, but they have a 'larger' agenda to 'remake' the Middle East, an idea that Scowcroft, Grossman and Wilson find crazy. Instead of bowing to Turkish interests, Perle and Feith use their influence with the Turkish government to "buy off" the Turks in return for their support for the war. Of course, the whole thing goes awry when the Turkish parliament rises up and says "No" to the Bush attempt at wholesale bribery.

So if Grossman, Wilson and company are not by any means "good", they have at least a bit of rationality that makes them preferable over the Neocons. Unfortunately, it appears from some of Sibel's remarks that it is not a good idea to embrace these men as true "antiwar" heroes, until they can explain to the public exactly what is their role in the whole sordid ATC/Turkey mess.

Sibel has all but pointed to Grossman as someone guilty of highly unethical conduct (to say the least). She's been more coy about Wilson and Scowcroft, but their silence on her case may tell us all we need to know.

thnx everyone

2 comments:

Track said...

Palast's column is spot on. It drives me crazy to see the Bush administration throw out the excuse of incompetence (and for some reason much of the public buys this BS)...ie..."Who could have guessed that disbanding the Iraqi army and privatizing Iraqi industry would lead to domestic unrest?"

Miguel, that is an interesting theory. I like it. I still wonder about Tenet. He is a key figure that seems to be excluded from these events for some reason. I wouldn't be surpised if Tenet was intimately involved in Wilson's visit. Tenet had already betrayed the country twice. Why would another act of betrayal be beyond him?

Getting back to Wilson. Somebody correct me if I'm off base but a former ambassador is not an expert on intelligence/uranium. I don't care how good his contacts were in the region, he doesn't have the background for such a mission.

lukery said...

gday noise

did i see you calling me a disinformation agent somewhere??? lol