H. W. Bush Ignored CIA Warnings

"America's "Justice" in Occupied Iraq: Why Tariq Aziz Should Be Released"

by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Sept. 16, 2010

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21071

Quoting from the veteransforcommonsense piece:

In the book, Eddington asserts that detailed satellite-imagery derived intelligence reports on the Iraqi military build up were transmitted daily from the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) to the White House, Pentagon, State Department and elsewhere in Washington, but that the warnings were disregarded in preference for the assurances from King Hussein of Jordan and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt that Saddam was bluffing.

If Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is right, then GHW Bush et al did not believe that Saddam Hussein was bluffing, regardless of what the King of Jordan and Pres. of Egypt believed. Washington "depends" on their cooperation, say, for much, but I believe that Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is right.

According to her very good and important article, GHW Bush et al would've wanted Saddam to send his forces to invade Kuwait. Washington wanted to use this invasion as justification for the US to then viciously attack Iraq's Army and greatly destroy it. And to get Saddam to order this invasion, GHW Bush et al would've used Kuwait to impose economic conditions that were a real and major threat to or for Iraq. Kuwait reported was also stealing from Iraq's oil reserves and I think Washington knew this and exploited it or profited from it.

They wanted Iraq to invade Kuwait and worked on causing this to happen, if Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is right, which I think she probably or surely is. What she describes definitely is credible about Washington.

The US and NATO also lied a lot about the real problems during the conflicts in the Balkans. The worst problems or cause of problems there were the US and NATO, and there are plenty of good articles about this at www.globalresearch.ca, only needing to check the appropriate subject index there. The US, Washington, was determined to commit war of aggression on Kosovo, et cetera, in 1999 and this was again based on lies, deceit. Washington knew there was no truthful justification for the war launched Oct. 2001 on Afghanistan, and Washington knew it was lying about Saddam Hussein having a lot of WMD, being a threat to so-called allies of the US, and having links to Osama bin Ladin and the 9/11 attacks.

We can also consider the criminality of the GHW Bush administration in Haiti, the fact that he had a lot to do with the criminal US actions in the Iran-CONTRA story, and other criminal US foreign policies that we're always lied to about.

Washington and the truth don't get along together. We hardly ever find them together. Washington is enemy of truth and treats the truth as if it's a terrorists' weapon. With the Bush-Cheney-established "doctrine" maintained by Obama et al, if we question Washington's actions and claims, if we do that openly or publicly anyway, then we're with the "enemy". Truth and seeking truth is something Washington treats as work of "enemies".

“Had our warnings been heeded, it’s possible action could have been taken in time to prevent the invasion, and the larger war that followed,” said Eddington.

We know the exact same thing can be said about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and if all of the forewarnings that Washington received in 2001 and prior to 9/11 had been heeded, and if Able Danger had not be incredibly shut down, then it's possible that the attacks of 9/11 wouldn't have happened. But Washington had other plans.

Other revelations from Long Strange Journey:

(snip)

* That Saddam’s intent to invade Saudi Arabia was real and was only averted by President George H.W. Bush’s dispatch of American troops to the desert kingdom, contrary to what journalist Tim Weiner has claimed in his recent book, Legacy of Ashes.

Where's the proof that he intended to invade Saudi Arabia? This, I believe, is related to 1990 or 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. If that is the case, then where's the proof that he had the additional intention of invading Saudi Arabia; while if it's not at that time, then when did he supposedly have this intention? From what I've gathered, he did not truly intend to invade Saudi Arabia and he surely knew of the very strong relationship between Washington elites and the Saudi elites.

Some people have said that the US forces were in Saudi Arabia when Saddam's forces invaded Kuwait only to have them ready to strike when this invasion of Kuwait occurred and not for protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraqi invasion. And this seems credible enough when we learn of some things that Muriel Mirak-Weissbach reveals in her article; f.e., what she quotes from words spoken by James Baker, who was well placed to know what the GHW Bush administration secretly planned.

Plausible denial?:

Perhaps Americans, Europeans, and others, including intelligence services or agencies, were told by the Bush administration that US forces were placed in Saudi Arabia to protect it from invasion by Iraq's Army only for having this to use for plausible denial of having been there not to protect Saudi Arabia, but to be ready to attack the Iraqi Army when it invaded Kuwait. If Muriel Mirak-Weissbach is right, then the Bush administration clearly worked to cause Iraq to invade Kuwait. And the Bush administration wouldn't have wanted to publicly say that it had worked to cause this invasion, that the administration definitely knew it was going to happen, and that US forces were placed in Saudi Arabia to strike against Iraqi forces once they did invade Kuwait. It would've been to admit to this crime, for this was criminal of the Bush administration. So they would've wanted to be able to plausibly deny what they actually did and planned for.

James Baker "let the cat out of the bag" to a considerable extent, so we have this for inside information.

But, it would definitely be of great value and importance to be able to get the whole story as Tariq Aziz knows it. We should be able to learn everything he knows about this and he definitely has the ethical and legal right to inform the world of what he knows about this. Washington wouldn't want this, so it'd work to keep him silent about this.

* How Saddam Hussein’s forces trained for the invasion of Kuwait, how that activity was missed or misinterpreted by the American intelligence community in the year before the attack, and how U.S. intelligence sharing with Iraq may have given Saddam the confidence that he could redeploy forces off his border with his arch enemy Iran and send additional Iraqi forces south to occupy Kuwait.

The CIA surely misses some things and messes up; it surely happens. But the CIA was not President and it's the President who is C-in-C. The CIA analysts can only do their best to properly keep the President informed, but it's the President who is C-in-C. So it's not really appropriate for CIA analysts to take the blame for the wrongs of the President.

The CIA can certainly misinterpret actions by the US. F.e., if US troops, a very strong force of them, were in Saudi Arabia only for being sent to viciously attack and greatly destroy the Iraqi Army after it invaded Kuwait, then GHW Bush et al could have said that the troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect it from Iraqi invasion; saying this in order to try to deceive Americans about why the troops were really there. And US military commanders could be either secretly told the truth and told to keep it secret, or could've been also told the troops were for protecting Saudi Arabia, with or without any mention of Kuwait.

If GHW Bush et al really did work to basically force Iraq into invading Kuwait, then it's not something that the people who knew this in the Administration would've shared with other members of the government, including the CIA. It would have been extremely secret because it's an extreme crime.

And CIA analysts have apparently been in the dark, uninformed about much that's greatly important to know about. Former CIA ops officers or agents John Maxwell, Phil Agee and Ralph McGehee, and a few other former CIA people of CIA ops, have provided very important accounts from their first-hand knowledge of very "black" CIA ops and we apparently never have obtained anything of the extreme like from CIA analysts or former ones.