This article is part of the series: Truth Iraq War
[ 1 - 2 ]

Waarheid bij oorlog Irak wordt langzaam duidelijk - deel 1

1. In een artikel van The Guardian met de kop 'Bush 'wanted war in 2002'' is de intro: 'George Bush set the US on the path to war in Iraq with a formal order signed in February 2002, more than a year before the invasion, according to a book published yesterday. [...] The next month [...] the head of central command, General Tommy Franks, conducted a "major Iraq war exercise code-named "Prominent Hammer", and in April he briefed the joint chiefs of staff on the invasion plan.' Het boek Rumsfeld's War waarin dit staat is van de goed-ingevoerde Rowan Scarborough. Nauwelijks vijf uur nadat Vlucht AA77 zich in het Pentagon boorde eiste Rumsfeld van zijn ondergeschikten al aanvalsplannen tegen Irak. Lees er alles over in deze DeepJournal.

2. Onderzoeksjournalist Jim Loeb, schrijft over 'Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC)'. Die zei tegen de Daily Telegraph: '"As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful," he told the newspaper. "That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants." It was an amazing admission, and certain to fuel growing suspicions on Capitol Hill that Chalabi, whose INC received millions of dollars in taxpayer money over the past decade, effectively conspired with his supporters in and around the administration to take the United States to war on pretenses they knew, or had reason to know, were false.'

3. De derde bekentenis tekent Loeb op uit de mond van 'U.S. retired Gen Jay Garner, who was in charge of planning and administering post-war reconstruction from January through May 2002'. Die zegt dat een van de doelen van de oorlog tegen Irak, het bezitten van een basis is in het Midden-Oosten. (Denk ook aan de basis die de VS nu hebben in de voormalige Soviet-republiek Oesbekistan, ook al zegt Rumsfeld die niet permanent nodig te hebben). Loeb: 'Asked how long U.S. troops might remain in Iraq, Garner replied, ''I hope they're there a long time," and then compared U.S. goals in Iraq to U.S. military bases in the Philippines between 1898 and 1992. [...] Garner added, ''Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East."'

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - 3

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.

read more

Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival

​Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.

read more