h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Source: ftp://ftp.shout.net/pub/users/bigred/vol11/cn11-75
-----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ?==================== Saddam Hussein:
We SHELL not EXXONerate you for your actions. We will
MOBILize to meet this threat to our vital interests in the
Persian GULF until an AMOCOcable solution is reached. Our
strategy is to BPrepared. Failing that, we ARCOming to
kick your butt, even if it takes =76= years.
(signed) George Bush [1]
Forget the "Wag the Dog" angle. The imminent strike on Iraq has
been in the works for months, and has nothing to do with
Clinton's current "Zippergate" troubles. It has nothing to do
with Saddam Hussein's stalling of UN weapons inspectors either.
Or else why is it that the stalemated UN itself opposes the use
of military force against Iraq? We have a situation now where
the UN being dissed is given as pretext for a US/UK strike
against Iraq, yet the UN gives no approval to the planned attack.
Something does not add up.
Several weeks back, on the PBS program "The McLaughlin Group,"
predictions were made that the situation in Iraq was about to
heat up. And sure enough, an irritated Saddam Hussein shortly
thereafter blocked UN weapons inspectors, leading to an
escalation of the crisis. But how did McLaughlin Group know this
was about to happen?? Do they have inside sources in Iraq? Or
is it that they have inside sources in WASHINGTON??
How is it that McLaughlin Group can know that the situation was
about to heat up? Did they have inside info, from Washington,
that Saddam Hussein was about to be provoked =by US agents= into
reacting negatively to UN inspectors? This scenario is not
far-fetched; we know that, on July 25, 1990, US Ambassador April
Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein a "green light" to invade Kuwait.
Then, eight days later, Iraq invaded Kuwait and suddenly Almighty
Washington DC was acting very outraged. [2]
We know that oil prices have gone down. This evening (1/26/98),
on ABC News, a portion of their broadcast dealt with the good
news of lower gas prices. In Savannah, Georgia, prices shown
were as low as 76-cents per gallon. "It's very simple," noted
one expert interviewed for the broadcast. "It's supply and
demand. Currently there is a large supply of oil on the market."
[3] And ABC also pointed out that the UN has recently given Iraq
the O.K. to sell oil on the world market.
Note that the above "low gas prices/Iraq can sell oil" story was
broadcast by ABC News, which is not owned by "defense"
contractors Westinghouse (CBS) or General Electric (NBC).
At today's White House press briefing, veteran reporter Sara
McClendon =tried= to get White House Press Secretary Mike
"Perfect Hair" McCurry to answer a simple question:
MS. McCLENDON: Mike, is the President going to ask
Congress for permission to send troops to Iraq?
MR. MCCURRY: The President will be discussing with our
allies the correct next steps to take. We have not ruled out...
MS. McCLENDON: No, I'm not talking about the allies, I'm
talking about Congress.
MR. MCCURRY: We have not ruled out military options, and
we would consult very closely with the Congress and have
been consulting very closely with the Congress as we
anticipate our next additional steps with respect to Iraq.
MS. McCLENDON: Doesn't he have to get permission from
Congress to do that?
MR. MCCURRY: He's the Commander-in-Chief and can exercise
his authority as Commander-in-Chief. But in this matter we
have very carefully and in a very disciplined way consulted with Congress.
MS. McCLENDON: Congress declares war...
Ah, but too late, Sara! Nimble Mike McCurry has already pointed
to someone else and is taking =their= question!
And by the way, Mike, what exactly do we know about these
mysterious weapons that Iraq is supposed to have? From the White
House press briefing of 1/26/98, regarding Ambassador Butler's
apparently secret report on alleged Iraqi weaponry:
QUESTION: Do you have confirmation that Iraq is, in fact,
manufacturing at least two more warheads a week for
chemical and biological warfare?
MR. MCCURRY: I don't want to speculate on the nature of
the report that Chairman Butler has given. He has spoken
in very direct terms, reflecting his own scientific and
technological expertise and the scientific and
technological expertise of his team. And making a precise
evaluation of the capacity of that program is something I
think that is right now at the moment a matter of
intelligence that I just can't share.We have1) Lower gas prices;
(2) Iraq given permission by UN to sell oil;(3) A glut of oil on the market;
(4) US "outraged" that UN inspectors not allowed access to sites;
(5) BUT UN is =not= all that outraged, and is against militaryaction;
(6) Nevertheless, US/UK gear up to attack strategic targets in
Iraq, targets that "will hurt Saddam Hussein." Two things to notice:
(1) Whether any of the "strategic targets" have anything to do
with Iraq's ability to sell oil on the world market. For
example, do "strategic targets" include any oil refineries,
railroads, shipping ports, and/or highways?
(2) Whether, subsequent to the planned military action, gas
prices begin to rise.
---------------------------<< Notes >>---------------------------
[1] Populist leaflet distributed in 1990. The attribution of the
statement to George Bush is an exaggeration, meant to convey acore truth.
[2] *Fooling America* by Robert Parry. ISBN: 0-688-10927-6.
[3] Not an exact quote, but this is the gist of what the expert
said during the segment broadcast by ABC News on 1/26/98.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
For related stories, visit:http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
http://www.netcom.com/~feustel

Whoah!!! Do you mean to say that our politicians are actually pawns for rich oil companies? NO!