Do you need another sign? Let's re-consider this; Ronald Reagan hand-picked for his Vice President, George H.W. Bush, a man who had once been the head of the CIA – and moreover, Ronald Reagan also hand-picked William Casey as head of the CIA, a man who is suspected of personally arranging the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran... If Ronald Reagan new that William Casey was despicable enough to make secret deal with the enemy, and still be willing to name him head of the CIA; then Ronald Reagan wasn't concerned about the skeletons in Bush's closet either.
Allow me to remind you what George H.W. Bush “once headed the CIA” actually means. It means he probably worked there before he got the job as boss. There are documents that show George H.W. Bush was working within the CIA as far back as 1963, (and was in Dallas along with Nixon when President Kennedy was assassinated.) So, if George H.W. Bush actually was career CIA (which of course the CIA won't tell us), it also means is that everything George H.W. Bush was associated with should also be associated with the CIA – including his time as member of the U.S. House of Representatives, his time as Ambassador to the United Nations, his time as head of the Republican National Committee, his time as Vice President to Ronald Reagan. His time as President of the United States. And even his son W's time as Governor and President and his son Jeb's time as Governor of Florida.
When you think Bush, think CIA.
Example: the invasion of Panama in 1989
Most Americans still believe that the United States invaded Panama to bring Manuel Noriega to justice. The mass media called him a dictator, a drug dealer, and a terrorist. But apparently that was just the cover story, and Manuel Noriega actually only played a minor role compared to the re-taking of the Panama Canal in the invasion of Panama.
Manuel Noriega wasn't always an enemy of the U.S.. Manuel Noriega didn't just suddenly become an evil dictator. He had been who he was for years – and the CIA not only put up with it, they paid him – they may have even helped him become dictator so that he could help the U.S. crush the “communist” Sandinistas in Nicaragua. However, Manuel Noriega may have started to talk a little too uppity – much like his predecessor, Omar Torrijos.
General Torrijos had signed a treaty with President Jimmy Carter to pass ownership of the Panama Canal to Panama by the year 2000. Personally, I don't really see this as all that big of a deal. Panama wasn't going to close the Canal or charge high rates. And if the U.S. ever felt the need to protect the Panama Canal, we could always send bombers or troops. Besides, even if someone were to nuke the Panama Canal, it would only make it bigger. (Nonetheless, for years, the right wing-nut followers of Rush Limbaugh couldn't stand it. It was as if they wanted to say; “We took it, it's ours, and we're not giving anything back to the Indians.”)
Apparently, Omar Torrijos was looking into an agreement with Japan to make the Panama Canal bigger. It would have been a huge project. And it would not have benefited American companies. (George Shultz was the U.S. Secretary of State and had been the president of Bechtel Corporation and Casper Weinberger was the U.S. Secretary of Defense and had been the chief counsel for Bechtel.)
The next thing we know, Omar Torrijos gets killed in a suspicious airplane crash. Many have blamed the CIA. (Ecuador's President, Jamie Roldós Aguilera was also killed in an unrelated airplane crash that the CIA is suspected of being involved in.)
And then along came Manuel Noriega, with the U.S.'s blessings, of course. Was he involved with drug trafficking? Probably, but that didn't initially matter to the CIA. (And interestingly, a U.S. GAO study reported that drug trafficking actually doubled after Manuel Noriega was gone.) Was he a dictator. Yes, but that never seemed to bother the CIA anywhere else. Was he a terrorist? Only if one considers terrorism his support of the sabotage of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua – at the insistence of the United States.
Like Saddam Hussein would later would find out; America's secret government could turn on you in a heartbeat if they want something you have – or maybe even if it just helps them politically at home. Remember, (the former head of the CIA) President George H.W. Bush was the man in charge in both invasions. Both countries had leaders who were once the darlings of the U.S. intelligence community. Both countries were invaded under pretenses that their leaders were unfit to rule. (But Panama was first – and a cold, calculating fiend might have considered Panama enough of a success to consider trying it again.)
In what was another attack on a tiny little country of poor people, two to four thousand Panamanians died in “Operation Just Cause.” Likely most of them were civilians. Apparently, “collateral damage” is acceptable if America has a “just cause.” (George Orwell himself couldn't have come up with more Orwellian terms.) And apparently, the primary purpose of the invasion of Panama wasn't to capture Manuel Noriega. It was to destroy the Panamanian army. Because when Panama no longer had a military to protect the Panama Canal, the U.S. had an excuse to stay in Panama – to protect the Panama Canal.
The United Nations condemned the invasion of Panama as “a flagrant violation of international law.” This barely made the press in the United States, however. And as the Bush Sr. administration must have planned; Americans soon forgot about the whole thing. (This condemnation may also explain future U.S. mass media attacks on the U.N. – apparently to discredit the U.N.)
(For more information on the U.S. Invasion of Panama, watch the Academy Award winning The Panama Deception.)
Since the invasion of Panama in 1989, the Torrijos-Carter Treaty was honored (by President Clinton), and the U.S. bases in Panama were closed in 1999. However, since then, construction of five new U.S. bases has begun. There have been more than 700 contracts signed for projects in Panama by the U.S. Department of Defense since 2000.
So, let's try and get this straight:
When Carter was President and Bush was out of power; Panama could have the Canal. When Reagan was President and Bush was Vice President; Panama's leader, Torrijos, who had signed Carter's Treaty, was likely assassinated by the CIA. When Bush Sr. was President; America literally invaded Panama essentially to get the Panama Canal back. When Clinton was President and Bush was out of power; Panama could have the Canal. When Bush Jr. was President; American military returned for the Canal. But now that Obama is President; U.S. militarily presence in Panama is OK, as long as we're there to fight the “drug” war. (Sound confusing? Imagine living in Panama.)
My point of this example is simple; Bush and other Republicans have been the driving force behind some of the worst, most aggressive acts of the CIA and our American military. I can't help but think thousands of Panamanians died over a petty difference of opinion back here in the U.S. over what to do with the Panama Canal... (But this example also points out one more thing; there is no permanent dominant power here in the U.S. – or at least there didn't used to be.)
A significant part of the reason George H.W. Bush lost the 1992 Presidential election to Bill Clinton was that too many Americans just didn't trust George H.W. Bush. Of course, there was that “read my lips, no new taxes” thing. And then there was that pardon of 6 Iran/Contra plotters.
Moreover, many of us had our doubts about the Gulf War. Was it really necessary?
Though the mass media tended to ignore it, the Gulf War had the feel of being set up – contrived – coordinated – even choreographed.
Just a few months before Operation Desert Storm, the Soviet Union had collapsed. The Cold War was over. Americans wanted their peace dividend. And the military/industrial complex was worried. All those taxpayer dollars just might stop flowing.
[Side note: The military/industrial complex, and therefore the CIA, doesn't think like “civilian” America. They have a different set of goals. They want our tax dollars... Just before the collapse of the Soviet Union, I had the privilege of listening to a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) briefing on the Soviet Union. The DIA knew the Soviet Union was going to fall. The DIA told us that Gorbachev had run out of options. I find it very difficult to believe the CIA didn't know the same thing. But right up until the end, the CIA publicly never made any predictions about the fall of the Soviet Union. It was as if the CIA didn't want the Soviet Union to fall. They were the Cold War “enemy.” And without the big bad 'ol boogie man, there wouldn't be nearly the need for the CIA. Consequently, by claiming that the Soviet Union was still a threat; it appears the CIA essentially propped up the Soviet Union right up until the end.]
Without the Soviet Union to scare us, Americans were insisting that our tax dollars be spent on us. This was the biggest financial threat to the militarily/industrial complex since Presidents Kennedy and Nixon made the decision to withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Vietnam.
...And then, almost immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union; the American ambassador to Iraq tells Saddam Hussein; “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.”
...and guess what? Within days, Iraqi troops were amassing on the Kuwaiti border.
Note: Iraq had been in a long drawn out war with Iran from 1980 to 1988. Both countries had neglected their oil fields during the war. This meant there was a lot of untapped oil there.
By America telling Saddam Hussein “we have no opinion” on Kuwait, and then going to war with Iraq over it; the Gulf War had the feeling of being contrived. It may have been we just needed to get rid of a dictator before he became too strong. But it may have been the oil. And then again, it may have just been all about our tax money.
Remember that campaign promise George H.W. Bush made about “no new taxes?” Well, he raised taxes to keep from cutting defense spending.
The first Gulf War was the last time America was actually in a real war. It was amazing to watch how powerful American military might was then. Iraq's army and air force didn't stand a chance. And no country has stood up militarily to the U.S. since.
Which only leaves rag-tag groups of angry civilians to fight us... We like to call them “terrorists.” (More on that later.)
Continue to Part 4