The Zarqawi Invitation

THE ZARQAWI INVITATION

By Greg Palast (BBC)

They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi ... who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.

The General had arrives in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."


But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements -- copyright and tax code changes -- was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country ... their oil."

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections -- within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days -- at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.

But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, "privatizations," would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. "That's just one fight you don't want to take on right now."

But that's just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld's replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

The insurgency had begun. But Bremer's job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued "Order Number One: De-Ba'athification." In effect, this became "De-Sunni-fication."

Saddam's generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, "U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders," who stopped Iraq's army from firing on U.S. troops.

Aljibury's main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba'athist big shots was a gift "to the Wahabis," by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying "Shia snakes."

And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:

"Insurgents," he said, "and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, 'Look, you're losing your country. You're losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.' And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on -- built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming."

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.

412. Zarqawi hoax (6/10/06)

1. Zarqawi was dead two years ago.

He was revived by Pentagon and intelligence because they need an excuse to remain in Iraq. They need a puppet enemy image for Iraq war like they have Bin Laden for the "war on terror".

Quote, "«Iraq militants claim al-Zarqawi is dead»
AP 3/4/2004

«Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in the Sulaimaniyah mountains of northern Iraq, during the American bombing there, according to a statement circulated in Fallujah this week and signed by the Leadership of the Allahu Akbar Mujahedeen. ....

«It said al-Zarqawi was unable to escape the bombing because of his artificial leg.»

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4446084/

2. the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date."

The insurgence in Iraq are mostly the work done by special force of intelligence and Pentagon. The victim of suicide bombing were Iraqi civilians.The target used to be religious shrines. The purpose is to provoke the conflict between Sunni and Shiitte. The insurgence gave US Army an excuse to stay in Iraq: for more wars in Mid-east.

Quote, "Pentagon PSYOP Zarqawi Program

In an unusual twist, the Washington Post in a recent article, has acknowledged that the role of Zarqawi had been deliberately "magnified" by the Pentagon with a view to galvanizing public support for the US-UK led "war on terrorism":

"The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: "Media operations," "Special Ops (626)" (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and "PSYOP," the U.S. military term for propaganda work..." (WP. 10 April 2006)

An internal document produced by U.S. military headquarters in Iraq, states that "the Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." (WP, op cit).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO2
0060418&articleId=2275

3. Prepare for the mid-term election

In the "strategy office" of the Feds, when there is a scandal of their own, they used to create a positive event to offset the negative influence, to cover up and distract.

It was a power struggle not for the purpose of Justice when Feds released the Abu Ghurayb torture pictures. But a damage was done on the image of US Army. So within days there was a "beheading case" let out to offset the negative influence and to distract

The "kill Zarqawi" was a distract when the world set their eye on a war crime of massacre in Al Hadithah and other civilian killing cases.

Be noticed the time. The air bombing was on 6/7. Next day after 6/6 Primary election ended. Now it's time for the Mid-term election. The inside group still wants GOP to control the White House. They start to give Bush some achievements. So they can justify why Bush's party can still win the coming election. Another psychological operation to control public's mind is starting. What they did is to sacrifice a fake image: Al Zarqawi. More "good news" will come. The strategy office of the fox is preparing new show for the chickens.

413. Bombs do strange things. Zarqawi hoax (2) (6/15/06)

1. If US Army had the trace of Al Zarqawi, the most important thing was to capture him alive. Zarqawi is said the head of Al Qaida in Iraq. It would be a great information resource if Zarqawi was captured alive. Just see how CIA was accused of smuggling Al Qaida suspects from Europe to some other country to torture them for the information. How could they give up such an important information source?

Because this man was only a fake idol kept by the Pentagon and intelligence. He was of no value of intelligence. So they just finished the story with two 500 pound bomb.

2. There were six people died in this air strike: Al Zarqawi, his spiritual adviser, a girl, two women and an unidentified man. It was more a quiet civilian's residence than a terrorist head office when Zarqawi was described the mastermind of so many terror attacks.

3. Timing accuracy is very important in military action. So is their camera. There was a big flaw in the timing of "kill Zarqawi".

According to Mercury News (6/9): "The commanders ordered the planes to attack. It was 6;15.......two minutes later, according to the time stamp on a photo that American officials displayed on Thursday, US officials photographed Zarqawi's lifeless head..... The time of 6:17 p.m. was stamped in red ink in the bottom corner of the photo. " (By Nancy A. Youssef and Drew Brown, Knight Ridder)

Of course, things couldn't be done in two minutes. It took time for the two bombs attack; it took time for troops to enter the site, search and call ambulance, and there was even the story of Zarqawi's last moment struggle.

So where did that 6:17 pm come from? It was prepared in advance. The original story was Zargqwi died instantly in bombing. On the day of News releasing - 6/8 - in AOL message board, I saw threads saying it was a hoax that Zarqawi's body was put there in advance. Then there was the new story that Zarqawi was still alive after bombing. A story to eliminate the doubt of pre-plant. But the time stamp on photo exposed the truth. (the newest story was Zarqawi died 54 minutes after the bombing)

4. The biggest flaw is how could Zarqawi survive from the bombing? From the photo we saw the two story house was flatted to the ground. Concrete became rubble and debris. Iron bars twisted. Yet Zarqawi only had a little scratch on his face. His body was complete. He was said died of internal wound of lung. His bone seemed stronger than the iron bar. His flesh seemed harder than concrete.

"Bombs do strange things," said an Iraq soldier at the site, who did not want to be identified. (Mercury News 6/11)

If you think in other way, you won't feel strange. It was another PSYOP of government. On the purpose to justify the GOP victory in coming mid-term election. They left the body of the fake Zarqawi complete so the picture could ensure public that Zarqawi was dead. Because a limb or a body part was harder convincible than an intact face, from the angle of visional propaganda.(That face was still fresh because they just have shown you a tape that Zarqawi shooting the machine gun weeks ago) US seems have high tech. weapon which can blew the concrete into pieces while preserve the human body. And they have the story of struggling Zarqawi, the first arrived was Iraqi troop, even the story of "US troop beat Zarqawi to death"..... when you drop in the argument, you drop into the trap of "believe the story".

In my experience, in all framed case, Feds always prepared support group, "reliable witness". (Muhammad and Malvo were such a support team, unfortunately, they finally were picked as scapegoat) So they even can change the initial story. The story you have had were all came from the military mouth. But for me, I had another reason. I have alleged Nickberg was an informant of the Feds and the beheading tape was done inside the Abu Ghurayb. Now they said Zarqawi was the one who beheaded Nick Berg. Nothing strange. The beheading tape was used to tarnish the Islam as savage. Samething as the victims in Zarqawi's suicide bombing were mostly Iraqis. Zarqawi worked for the interest of Zionism and the Inside group.

I add one more sentence to my conclusion in message 407. From Moussaoui, Nick Berg to Zarqawi, there was a bridge linked them together.

Moussaoui was in OKC. He knew Nick Berg. He was the only "witness" of 911 attack.
Nick Berg was in OKC. He knew Moussaoui. He was in a beheading tape to vilify Muslim.
Zarqawi was in beheading tape to vilify Muslim. He was behind many suicide bombings each of which used to kill dozens of Iraqis.

The spy world is big. Feds infiltrates every corner in the country.
The spy world is also small. The big cases are that much. Where agents and informants met.

Zarqawi behaves more an American than an Islamic in the document government show you.

It's a typical disinformation, another psyop.

Quote, "Most Main Stream Zarkawi Stories Are Fabricated, Spun

From David Cohen Australia 6-16-6

The Pentagon spin masters and screen play writers never rest...it seems almost every piece of mainstream news is propaganda now...

1. First, they expect us to believe that Zarkawi is behind all the explosions/bombings in Iraq.

2. Now they expect us to believe that he is an intellectual (who just happened to think and write just like a Zionist Phd propagandist, with Harvard-style logic).

3. They used him, even after they killed him, with this 'letter' to glorify themselves and create the impression that they have 'won.' They haven't 'won' anything, of course.

4. They are trying to create the impression that they are on the right track in their Iraq war machinations.

5. They forgot to make 'Zarkawi's' writings sound like they were written by a MOSLEM. It is more than obvious the 'letter' was written by an American.

6. This 'letter' consistently compliments the Americans...as if Zarkawi had nothing else to do.

It is all beyond ridiculous...


Text Of A Document Found In al-Zarqawi's Safe House

BAGHDAD (AP) - The text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout. The document was provided in English Thursday by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centres and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to intangle the American forces into another war against another
country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between America and Iran or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following
benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the
resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on
it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will
weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will
cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war
that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow
the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image
of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great
benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans
and the army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this
trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be
accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad
'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and
his people.

5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iran. We have noticed that the
best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans
and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favour of the Sunni
and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 per cent) of the
population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of
their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side,
either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need
for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.