STRIP TEASE Deep Throat Coughs Up Hairball
The Watergate Hotel
Just like today, everyone in DC knew Nixon was a crook. They knew this before he became President. They knew it during his Presidency and when he left, they rehabilitated him because they didn't get rid of him because he was a crook but because he did a naughty no no.
What was it? What did he do that caused so many to turn on him? Kill students? Hahahaha. Yeah, right.
Kiss Mao? Hell, they saluted that as the greatest diplomatic coup de etat since the First Coming of Christ!
Lose the Vietnam war? Man, that will make me laugh to death. It was victory with honor! Or something.
No. He did the unforgivable: he imposed wage/price controls! As inflation began to seriously bite, the big producers couldn't raise prices! No one could do anything. I even lost a pay raise that was due and it didn't make me very happy, but I know the manufacturers were truly ticked off at him for this action.
We all know that a million deep throats and even chasm deep throats can yell in a chorus and even shed their cover and not one media source will give them voice in public today because Bush is handing out lollypops to the media in the form of tax cuts, open season to form monopolies and other rank goodies.
Now for Deep Throat: maybe, long ago, for a year or two, there was some excuse for him to stay hidden. But as people like myself asked legitimate questions about his veracity and motives and other hidden things, it behooved him to step out into the open.
He did not do this. I decided about around 1977 that "Deep Throat" was a conspiritor working to undermine the Presidency because he was in a conspiracy with "those who really rule America". This is why there was zero interest in tracking him down, for example. I knew he was up at the top of the Shadowlands stucture of either the CIA or FBI or State Department or even Kissinger himself. As the years wore on, my irritation with Deep Throat being alive according to the reporters but mum irritated more and more.
Now this man steps out after he is 90 years old and claims the crown.
I am not celebrating this. He didn't rip aside the curtains of obscurity which shroud our leaders more and more as they beccome hopelessly imperial. He didn't change the culture in DC, perhaps he made it much worse! All following Presidents put a sharp and short leash on everyone to the point now that no one speaks up even when obvious crimes occur such as the illegal invasion of Iraq. But then, no one spoke up concerning the Bay of Pigs or Gulf of Tonkin "attacks"!
How about this!
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLYThis document is a criminal inditement of Bush and Blair. This document floated up to the surface thanks to an anonymous Deep No Shit Sherlock Throat in Britain who is embarrassed, I assume, to be working for a fascistic conspiracy to invade and annex helpless countries.
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
The old Deep Throat can croak as far as I am concerned. He let history slip by while he crouched under his bed hoping no one would see him, he sould have stayed there for all the good he has done with this unnecessary silence. But this new stuff...I want to know who leaked it. This person has witnessed other crimes such as the "offers" Bush made to Blair such as maybe, like Majors, joining in the conspiracy of the Carlyle money laundering/military hyperfunding/derivative hunting group. It would behoove the British people to know exactly who Blair works for and what is his pay. He isn't working for Britain.
Nor is Bush working for America, for that matter. Follow the money. We have the memos.
Oh, and today, war criminals Bush and Blair announce they will put Saddam on trial in two months...for killing Iraqis.
I suppose they intend to make him laugh to death in court!