October 21, 2005

You thought Iraq was dumb?

Here's the full transcript of Col. Wilkerson's speech I mentioned yesterday. Billmon discusses some of it at his place. One of the things that he cites is this startling paragraph:

The other thing that no one ever likes to talk about is SUVs and oil and consumption and, as one little girl said yesterday at the Yoshiyama Awards, do you know that we consume 60 percent of the world’s resources? We do; we consume 60 percent of the world’s resources. Well, we have an economy and we have a society that is built on the consumption of those resources. We better get fast at work changing the foundation – and I don’t see us fast at work on that, by the way, another failure of this administration, in my mind – or we better be ready to take those assets. We had a discussion in policy planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oilfields in the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly. That’s how serious we thought about it.

Think about that. The United States government, in order to keep its SUV-happy citizens in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed, seriously discussed taking over Middle East oilfields. Presumably that includes Saudi Arabian territory as well as Iraqi territory, Iranian territory as well as that of the UAE. Somehow I don't see those countries voluntarily turning over the principal engines of their economies to a U.N. trusteeship, do you?

Our government is being run by lunatics. Go read Billmon for further discussion and better rantage; I'm too boggled to say any more.

Posted by Linkmeister at October 21, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Thanks for the link!!

I was drawn to this passage:

I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. I don’t know – and people say, well, INR dissented. That’s a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That’s all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. Carl Ford and I talked; Tom Finger and I talked, who is now John Negroponte’s deputy, and that was the way INR felt. And, frankly, I wasn’t all that convinced by the evidence I’d seen that he had a nuclear program other than the software. That is to say there are some discs or there were some scientists and so forth but he hadn’t reconstituted it. He was going to wait until the international tension was off of him, until the sanctions were down, and then he was going to go back – certainly go back to all of his programs. I mean, I was convinced of that.

But I saw satellite evidence, and I’ve looked at satellite pictures for much of my career. I saw information that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was spoofing us, was giving us disinformation. When you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical weapons ASP – Ammunition Supply Point – with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the U.N. inspectors wheeling in in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP and everything is changed, everything is clean. None of those signs are there anymore....

The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering – which we had called considerably – we had called it very much – we had thrown whole reams of paper out that the White House had created. But George was convinced, John McLaughlin was convinced that what we were presented was accurate. And contrary to what you were hearing in the papers and other places, one of the best relationships we had in fighting terrorists and in intelligence in general was with guess who? The French. In fact, it was probably the best. And they were right there with us.

The meme that it was all a Dubya plot based upon lies is now firmly established. I wonder, however, what dispassionate historians will write 100 years from now.

Posted by: pixelshim at October 21, 2005 04:21 AM

They'll probably write "how could so many people have been so wrong?"

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 21, 2005 10:33 AM

Oh, and do remember that Condi and Dick were throwing around visions of nuclear weapons, while Wilkerson's talking about "chem-bio" ones. Big difference.

Posted by: Linkmeister at October 21, 2005 11:18 AM

How did our oil get under their sand?

Posted by: NTodd at October 22, 2005 02:27 AM

Most people don't like to talk about it, because they're too busy using their SUVs to commute with no passengers from their house in the city to their job in the city, not to mention stopping at big box retailers to buy more stuff wrapped in oversized hard plastic containers.

Posted by: Chloe at October 22, 2005 03:01 PM

Fred at Making Conservatives Cringe has a good piece on the silencing of the soldiers who speak out against Iraq.

Peace to you!

Posted by: Night Bird at October 22, 2005 04:02 PM