In his recently published memoir “Decision Points,” former president George W. Bush devotes a chapter to defending his deeply controversial Iraq policies. He dismisses the argument that he intended to establish Iraq as part of an imagined American empire or to gain control of the country’s oil. Were Bush’s Iraq policy opponents off target?
Manipulation of Pre-War Intelligence?
We now know that a significant and probably decisive part of the body of evidence against Saddam Hussein – particularly related to his alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs and operational relationship with al-Qaeda – was fabricated by Iraqi defectors connected to Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC). While intelligence community analysts had serious doubts about the reliability of INC-connected sources, administration officials disregarded analysts’ concerns.
We also know that the intelligence community was pressured by hawks in the administration – most prominently Vice President Dick Cheney – to find what was needed to secure Congress’s vote for war. When the intelligence community refused to vet pieces of evidence that could not be verified or were derived from sources of dubious reliability, Douglas Feith’s office, operating outside normal intelligence channels with Paul Wolfowitz’s approval, allegedly cherry-picked evidence to strengthen the case. Feith’s team then briefed their case to Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as to members of Dick Cheney’s and Condoleeza Rice’s staff.
Former president Bush writes that he appointed the Robb-Silberman Commission to learn why the Iraq pre-war intelligence he received was wrong and how such mistakes could be precluded in the future. The commission, however, never examined the intelligence activities of Feith’s office; neither did it investigate communications between Bush policymakers and INC members.
The Republican-controlled Senate Select Intelligence Committee stridently refused to investigate these questions. And, despite their criticism of the Republicans, when Democrats gained control of the committee after the 2006 elections, they also decided to drop these issues from their oversight agenda.
The committee’s bipartisan reluctance to dig deeper indicates that neither party ultimately wanted to know the complete set of facts or, in the Democrats’ case perhaps, risk political retaliation.
If former President Bush is serious about understanding the ostensible Iraq intelligence failure, he should publicly request that Attorney General Eric Holder appoint an independent counsel to investigate the US and Iraqi officials in question.
War for Oil and Empire?
Former President Bush also notes in his memoir that some critics “alleged that America’s real intent was to control Iraq’s oil.” (p. 253) He continues: “[W]e were criticized harshly by the left and some in the international community for wanting to build an empire in Iraq. We never sought that.” (p. 268)
Greg Palast reported for the BBC in 2005, however, that “neo-conservatives at the Pentagon” were pushing for “the sell-off of all of Iraq’s oil fields.”
According to Palast’s report, “The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London … shortly after the US entered Baghdad.”
Naomi Klein wrote for Harper’s in 2004 that Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul Bremer issued a directive allowing foreign investors to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets without any requirement to reinvest profits in the Iraqi economy.
Joshua Gallu reported for Spiegel in 2006 that “Iraqi authorities found it necessary to promise the IMF a draft petroleum law by the end of this year – this in the same letter that says ‘we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the program remains on track.'”
“The IMF sets the conditions for Iraq’s debt relief from the so-called Paris Club countries,” wrote Gallu. “Eighty percent of that debt has been wiped clean, and the final 20 percent depends on certain economic reforms.”
The above-mentioned petroleum law, shepherded along by US government officials, contains no parliamentary oversight measures to safeguard the nation’s strategic economic assets – a serious threat to the sovereignty of a country that depends on oil for over 90 percent of its national budget.
If former President Bush is serious about setting the historical record straight and securing his legacy, he should request that President Obama declassify all official documents on US economic policies in Iraq, including policies on diplomatic support for investment in Iraq’s oil fields, from 2002-2008. The families of more than 4,400 American troops and 100,000 Iraqis have a right to know the fully declassified truth about how the former president’s senior cabinet members shaped US policies on Iraq, and what their intentions were in doing so.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.