Bush, Rumsfeld and Iraq: Is the Real Reason for the Invasion Finally Emerging?

In Donald Rumsfeld’s new book, Known and Unknown, out February 8, Rumsfeld offers an account of George W. Bush’s early interest in Iraq.  This was just days after the 9/11 attacks.  There were no apparent reasons for Bush to focus on Iraq, instead of on the actual perpetrators of the attacks.

Here’s the Rumsfeld version as reported in an advance peek from The New York Times,

Just 15 days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush invited his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, to meet with him alone in the Oval Office. According to Mr. Rumsfeld’s new memoir, the president leaned back in his leather chair and ordered a review and revision of war plans — but not for Afghanistan, where the Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington had been planned and where American retaliation was imminent.

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.

“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq.

What Rumsfeld seems to be saying, without saying it explicitly, is hugely important: that Bush’s rush to war with Iraq seemed to make no sense. More than that, it was downright fishy.

Rumsfeld suggests that Bush had some kind of prior agenda that had nothing to do with any role Iraq might have had (and in any case did not) in the events of 9/11. Bush simply wanted to invade that country.

If so, why? Rumsfeld apparently doesn’t speculate. But he doesn’t need to.

In my book, Family of Secrets, I recount interviews with Mickey Herskowitz, a Texas journalist who was George W. Bush’s co-author on a preliminary version of the latter’s 2000 book A Charge to Keep. Bush admitted, Herskowitz told me, that he was actually hoping to find an excuse to invade Iraq. Here’s an excerpt from Family of Secrets:

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” Herskowitz told me in our 2004 interview, leaning in a little to make sure I could hear him properly. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I’m going to have a successful presidency.’ ”

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow.

That opportunity, of course, would come in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at ninety- one percent in the polls,” Herskowitz said, “and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.” Just four days before, according to a Gallup poll, his approval rating was 51 percent.

Herskowitz said that George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House, and ascribed in part to Dick Cheney, who was then a powerful congressman. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”

Bush’s circle of preelection advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had amassed from the Falklands War with Argentina. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.” It was a masterpiece of “perception management”—a lesson in how to maneuver the media and public into supporting a war, irrespective of the actual merits.

What’s remarkable is that after all this time, news outlets such as the Times, and almost every other major corporate-owned news outfit, has simply ignored what is now a matter of public record. Herskowitz is no duffer. He is a longtime Texas newspaper columnist who has ghostwritten or co-authored several dozen books on major figures in politics and sports.  He went on to write the authorized biography of Bush’s grandfather, at the invitation of Bush’s father.  The family obviously trusted him.

As far as I can tell, these news organizations have never been pressed to explain why they ignore this missing link into one of America’s biggest misadventures. So these news organizations have never pressed Bush to respond. And so he hasn’t. And there we are.

Image Credit:  (gstatic.com)

Speak Truth to Power

We are 100% reader funded. Your tax-deductible contribution enables our next investigation. Make an impact now.
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Bush, Rumsfeld and Iraq: Is the Real Reason for the Invasion Finally Emerging? -- Topsy.com()

  • http://random-knut.blogspot.com Joshua Carpenter

    Whether or not W. was planning to go to Iraq before he was elected, there was an obvious effort to sway public support. And history only supports the fact that many presidents can and have both created and played off of public opinion. But I do not think that the issue exists with the morality of a president manufacturing nationalism, nor is it with whether or not there was a predetermined agenda.

    The real answer to be sought here has very little to do with the Bush dynasty and much more to do with finding out why the American public continues to accept simplistic and shoddy explanations from their government.

    The ignorance of the American citizenry lies in their proclivity to not believe in well-researched rebuttals. It is as if they cannot accept anything that portrays their government as “Un-American.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/ThePreambleProject Bill Wilt

      David Ray Griffen has a nice speech on this “I can’t believe ‘our’ government would do something like this,” on YouTube:


      In it Griffin distinguishes between myth as tenet of faith (where no connection to fact is required), and myth as mendacity (a lie), and subject to rational analysis.

      When you have a lie to cover, you want to aim for Myth As Tenet of Faith–no proof required. This is the realm of propaganda, “brain-washing,” “mind control,” etc. See Falsehood In War Time, by Sir Arthur Ponsonby (WWI propaganda–crude, but effective), Propaganda, by Edward Bernays (Freud’s self-promoting nephew), said to be father of, or co-father of “modern day advertising, brainwashing, etc., with Ivy Ledbetter Lee). And Politics and the English Language, and 1984–esp the appendix on NewSpeak, by Eric Blair/George Orwell. Also, reports on MKULTRA and other CIA/NSA/DIA programs/research in mind control (it’s really more mind manipulation and perception manipulation than actual “control,” in the joystick/videogame controller sense–and hypnotism, post hypnotic suggestion, all of that stuff.

      Joe Goebbels, said to have studied Edward Bernays’ works, has the line “if you tell a lie big enough and long enough, it becomes reality” (or something like it) attributed to him.

      And it’s not surprising that Americans are so fat, dumb and happy–although now it’s more like “fat, dumb and UNhappy”. We’ve been systematically misled since before the country’s inception. See the late Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of America: 1492 to the Present.”

      Starting with Columbus: He didn’t discover America first–just the rich folks’ warm winter playground, the Caribbean. In his quest for gold to pay off his Sailing Ships & Spices & Silks Non Discovery (Default) Swaps, Columbus and his men exterminated the Arawak indians–“indigenous peoples” of Hispaniola and other Caribbean islands. There are various estimates, from 2 to 8 million people killed, between 1492 and 1508. So our nation’s so-called “discoverer” was actually our first genocidalist.

      We (the European Ancestored “We”) darn near annihilated (that’s “destroy utterly, obliterate”) the North American Indians (“indigenous peoples”). Genocide is the proper adjective. Spain took care of the South American continent. Britain took care of the Canadian “indigenous peoples.”

      In 1830, Congress passed Andrew Jackson’s “Indian Removal Act” (they were much more candid in their legislative titles back then), which force-marched the Cherokee, etc., out of Georgia, etc., and into the barren Oklahoma territory–on the Trail of Tears. More genocide.

      There’s some evidence that a gang of “American” thugs went through the British barracks on the night before “The Boston Massacre” and bludgeoned the bejesus out of the Red Coats–so when a large, menacing crowd moved towards them the next morning, they moved into self-defense mode.

      Polk prevailed upon (hmm, was it Andrew Jackson?) our military to cross into Mexican territory and stir up a shoot-out, then claim it was the Mexicans who had attacked, and on US territory. Both were lies. Congressman Abe Lincoln tried to force the truth out of Polk, but failed. But that so-called “attack” gave the excuse for the Mexican war, and the theft of, what, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, California, from the Mexicans.

      The litany of US government perfidy, genocide, murder is really, really long. Remember the Maine (excuse to attack Cuba, Spanish islands); deposed Queen L? of Hawaii, in a bloodless coup; the Lusitania (UK and US conspired to give her to the German U-boats); US attack on the Philippines, Indonesia, etc., fomented by the US, blamed on “commies”; Gulf of Tonkin “attack”–a lie–never happened–but was the excuse for escalating Vietnam war & attacking North Vietnam. We lose 55,000 or so; Vietnamese lose 2 to 3 MILLION people.

      I haven’t looked into the launch of the Korean “police action”.

      Same pattern has been followed for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

      This history of America is definitely not taught in our schools. You won’t find it in elementary and high school text books. What you’ll find is American Mythology–faith-based mythology. America The Good, Peace-loving America. Etc.

      So, without completely re-educating Americans, what would one expect, other than what you describe:

      “… the American public continues to accept simplistic and shoddy explanations from their government.:

      And it is not, as you suggest, that “The ignorance of the American citizenry lies in their proclivity to not believe in well-researched rebuttals. It is as if they cannot accept anything that portrays their government as ‘Un-American.’ ”

      It is, rather, that starting in pre-school, Americans are taught The American Myths. Over and Over and Over. Thanksgiving? Macy•s Thanksgiving Parade? No mention of genocide there. Columbus Day? It’s a national “day of celebration,” a holiday. No mention of the Arawak Indian genocide there. Indian wars? No mention of theft of land by the White Man, (this should remind you of Israel and the Palestinians), murders, Indian Removal Act (and so on.)

      Do take a look at the David Ray Griffin presentation I noted above. Griffin is a theologian, and looks at the 9/11/2001 “attacks” and the official conspiracy myth as of a piece with other religious mythologies. And we all know how fiercely people hang on to their religious myths.


      (I apologize for the ads–first time I’ve seen “commercial interruptions” on YouTube. And the cuts are just blasted in automatically, it seems–but you can back up a couple of seconds to hear what you missed.)

  • Thomas


    Give the American people a break. The level of brainwashing in the US is unbelievable.

    • http://random-knut.blogspot.com Joshua Carpenter

      Hi Thomas,

      I apologize if it seemed that I was being disrespectful and I acknowledge that it does look that way. It was only an attempt to point out that unless the citizens of a country are able to discriminate between what is true and what is hyperbole there is very little progress to be made in debating the moral fortitude of its leaders.

  • Carl Sewall


    One detail that trips me up here is the 15 day time frame. We already know that Rumsfeld was focused on hitting Iraq on the Day Of 9/11. Plus it was all that Condi would talk about during the transition.

    Oh well,
    Carl Sewall
    Bemidji, MN

  • Chris Michie

    “There were no apparent reasons for Bush to focus on Iraq, instead of on the actual perpetrators of the attacks.”

    The implicit assumption here is that the perps had been correctly identified. This is called begging the question. The official story — 19 crazy Arabs with boxcutters — doesn’t stand up to any kind of forensic analysis. Whereas there is abundant verifiable evidence for the active involvement of elements within the US defense and intelligence agencies in not only the cover up but the actual events. Who else has access to nanothermite? Who else could obstruct and derail the federally mandated NTSB investigations that would have confirmed the identity of the “hijacked” aircraft? Not to mention the question of foreknowledge demonstrated by the widely reported insider trading. And who or what burned out the engine blocks of 1200 cars and trucks in Manhattan?

    Support the official narrative if you must, but at least demonstrate that you have examined the contradictory evidence. Just parroting the official myth that OBL and his merry men pulled off 9/11, as the neocons would have us believe, is not good enough.

    • http://whowhatwhy.org Russ Baker

      I think you’re conflating separate issues. The point here is not who was behind the 9/11 attacks–it is that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before there ever was a 9/11.

  • Planck

    Rumsfeld has to create an alibi to clean up his act for the history books. He is more part of this Neo-Con Great American Century Order than Bush. He along with Cheney are the tools planted behind the scenes in the government who had to make it happen for the oil men who really own this country. They were selected decades ago by their betters to make this control of Central Asia happen when Carter Doctrine was first initiated. Don’t read too much meaning into his words. He is a sociopath. His cancer causing sugar substitutes from Searle and the way he got them approved for use in USA is evidence of that!

    Of course Bush has to take the arrows for the oil men. And this little book is one more arrow in that quiver. It looks like that is the real role of these Pols. To cover everything up for the backers who “made” them in the Five Families sense of the word! It even increasingly looks that way about Hitler. He’s the one history skewers. He’s the one full of evil incarnate, while his makers and betters shuffle off to Argentina (or the US) to implant another generation just in time to play the Fascist anti-human game with their North American counterparts in the 1970s!!!

    • imaspamar

      On Sept 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfield reported that $2 trillion was missing from the Pentagon budget. Donald Rumsfield in Ocotober 2001 confirmed that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on 911. A cruise missile. Rolls Royce the manufacturer of the aircraft engines confirmed that the engine part at the Pentagon was not a Rolls Royce part on the airliner. In other words folks, it was the propulsion engine of the cruise missile. The auditor responsible for overseeing the missing funds investigation was killed in the airliner, whereever it went. The rest of the audit team was killed by the cruise missile. Check the passenger list and the victims list. It is all there. The size of the missing money is 8 years of DoD budget under Clinton, so the missing money happened during the Cllinton years.

  • Charlotte Dennett

    With due respect, Russ, I have always believed that Herkowitz’s explanation — that Bush wanted to emerge from the shadows as a wartime president — is only a tiny part of the equation. This explanation completely overlooks the oil angle, which I explain in detail in my book, The People v Bush — including the neo-cons plan with Israel to reopen the Iraqi oil pipeline to Haifa — something they plotted for to the point that Netanyahu boasted in APril, 2003, “Soon you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa.” Regime change removed the big obstacle (Saddam Hussein) to this scheme and Chalabi was deemed the pro-pipeline successor. Unfortunately for him, and the neo-cons, his WMD hoax caught up with him

    The powers that be — including Rummy — always conceal the oil angle. They’ve been doing it for a century.
    Charlotte Dennett

    • http://whowhatwhy.org Russ Baker

      Different people may have different principal motives. And they may also see multiple justifications. This is about Bush’s own stated primary one.

      • http://www.911blogger.com Ted

        Yeah. That’s a good point. As far as Bush goes.. he was probably playing out some psychological drama with his family and his dad. He is so simple minded and easily manipulated that he was just going along for the ride laid out by the power brokers that put him in power through Florida and all that. Karl Rove, PNAC, Cheney.. He was really not much more than a Pet Goat for these evil people if you ask me. Good point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ThePreambleProject Bill Wilt

      Methinks that the deceit about the Iraq & Afghanistan cassi belli was a Bush II thing. The nation’s “leaders” have been pretty open about Mideast Oil being a strategic reserve for the US.

      I think it was James Baker who mentioned that “of course we’re doing it for the oil,” (or words to that effect). Oil has always been a strategic thingy for the military-industrial-legislative-intel plutocracy. Baker pointed out that the Carter Doctrine was almost exclusively, and expressly, based on oil.

      It’s not that folks have been hiding it (before Bush II, at any rate); it’s that Americans have not been paying attention.

      If we had gasoline prices like Europeans pay ($8 and more per gallon, imperial gallon, or liter, whatever), we’d be taking to the streets in protest. And they probably will rise to that level, now that Hedge Casinos and the Wall Street Casino are getting regulated out of housing Ponzi schemes. We will see all-wheel-drive oilfield service contract gambling vehicles, securitized oil well depletion allowance legislation bets, off-setting gas fumes evaporation swaps, and then similar gambling in the petro-chemical industry(s) (plastics, drugs, explosives for war and other hobbies.

      We’ve been royally done for a long time, but just haven’t noticed it. But the Global Casino Meltdown (The Great Repression–not quite depression, much worse than recession–so why not Repression–as that’s been the effect on our citizenry and peoples around the globe) has begun to wake some people up. Lost jobs, lost manufacturing, powerless unions, the percussive sublimation of middle class wealth into the pockets of the richest 1%, the rapid rise in the “volatile” areas of food and fuel, higher education–and, oh yeah, sickness care) will tend to do that, especially when you’re on the short end of the stück.

      (A note on “volatile” food and fuel prices: Isn’t it interesting that “our” government does not include food and fuel in its calculation of the Cost of Living, upon which so many federal benefit programs are based, when next to oxygen, they’re perhaps the most important part of everyone’s budget?

      (And so what that the prices are “volatile”; does it mean that we can stop eating, or driving to work (or looking for work) if the prices go up? Seems to me that if we have to pay for food and fuel to keep alive, then certainly the Commerce Department can work a little harder and count the damned prices, even if they have to report the Cost of Living index every week. Don’t we have computers, telephones, cell phones, the internet to help in this matter?

      (We could bring home all of our troops and give them jobs reporting gasoline, heating fuel, aviation kerosene, and food prices. )

      But I digress. On the topic of “invisible lust for oil,” see whatever source you wish, but Wikipedia quotes from Carter’s 1980 State of the Union speech:

      “The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world’s exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world’s oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

      This situation demands careful thought, steady nerves, and resolute action, not only for this year but for many years to come. It demands collective efforts to meet this new threat to security in the Persian Gulf and in Southwest Asia.

      It demands the participation of all those who rely on oil from the Middle East and who are concerned with global peace and stability. And it demands consultation and close cooperation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

      Meeting this challenge will take national will, diplomatic and political wisdom, economic sacrifice, and, of course, military capability. We must call on the best that is in us to preserve the security of this crucial region.

      Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

      “This last, key sentence of the Carter Doctrine, was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Adviser. Brzezinski modeled the wording of the Carter Doctrine on the Truman Doctrine,[1]…”

  • Pingback: Bush, Rumsfeld and Iraq: Is the Real Reason for the Invasion Finally Emerging? « Yahyasheikho786's Blog()

  • APR

    The main reason Iraq was attacked was that Saddam Hussein was alternately flooding, then starving the market with his oil, causing the worldwide price to fluctuate. This pissed off the Saudis (the Bush family’s best friends), and the rest of OPEC to no end.

    “The answer was that Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, the man with the moustache suddenly announces he’s going to ‘support the Palestinian intifada’ and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump up. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-for-Food program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.”
    – “Armed Madhouse” by Greg Palast, page 121.

    A “must read.”

    • http://whowhatwhy.org Russ Baker

      I dont know how you can make that assertion with such certitude. Because you read it in another book? This is about Bush’s personal motivations, as confided to an associate. This is, as they say, an “exclusive.”

  • Pingback: THE CONSPIRIST » Bush, Rumsfeld and Iraq: Is the Real Reason for the Invasion Finally Emerging?()

  • http://www.911blogger.com Ted

    I think you are forgetting PNAC and Dick Cheney’s interest in dividing up the oil fields??

    By the way. Have you looked into any conflicts of interest in the 9/11 Commission or motives in the Anthrax attacks?

    • http://whowhatwhy.org Russ Baker

      Read the article again. It didnt say, “what reason did ANYONE have for wanting an invasion of Iraq?” This is regarding Bush’s stated personal motivations.

      • http://www.911blogger.com Ted

        Yeah. After reading your response to another comment I realized I kind of jumped the gun on that. Thanks for clarifying. You are exactly right about Bush’s own psychology and motivations. I can’t think of anything else besides him being a complete patsy boy for the powers surrounding him and them playing off his own personal ideology of redemption and outdoing his father. Nice work. True.

      • Trevor

        ok Herskowitz is a first hand witness to the truth that GW was looking for an opportunity to go to war in Iraq so that he could become extremely powerful here in the US

        wat did GW accomplish as a result of his power grab, and is someone like Obama interested in undoing any of it?

        Obama has kept alive many of GW’s policies, and even some of the people who made those policies possible

        maybe i’ve just forgotten how bad it really was with GW and his peeps in office – i’m so distracted by the economy

    • admin2war

      Right on – I was wondering when someone would bring up PNAC. For anyone who wants a refresher:



      Can you believe we’re about to mark the 10 years since 9/11? Damn these bastards to hell (via The Hague)

  • Jackie Marshall

    This just bolsters my already low opinion of this smarmy little creep. He had capital alright, the capital that is gone forever at the expense of future generations. His arrogance and ignorance is mind blowing. How can we lure him to visit Vermont or Switzerland?

  • http://thextrememoderate.blogspot.com/ Chris Doyle

    While I’m sure that the rabbit hole goes every bit as deep as the preceding comments would indicate; I always wonder why the issue of immensely porky funding programs being approved by gov. officials with clear conflicts of interest is not more deeply emphasized. While the oil Issue is a clear example of this, it only proves one side of the bigger issue. Oil is a privately traded commodity that was obviously tied to the presiding administration, there were also contracts to all the privatized mercenaries, construction crews, and civil engineers, as well as the well documented “Haliburton” in support of the troop logistics. These funding programs were pro-rated to a degree that MANY individuals could take a big chunk of the appropriations as it moved it’s way down the opulent food chain. Maybe my perception of the size of oil -relative to the size of a war budget is skewed, but I would say that the total cost of war when all the checks are tallied has got to be greater than any group of stockholders in an oil cartel… but I could be wrong.

    • Bob

      The war cost the US $3 trillion.  Iraq has about $30 trillion in oil reserves.  According to the US imposed Iraqi Oil Law, Exxon and BP now own 70% of that.  Do the math.

  • Pingback: Is the Real Reason for the Iraq War Finally Emerging? | White Rose Institute()

  • zack

    Everybody knew that Bush Jr had “little man” syndrome, however, the idea that Rumsfield was somehow not involved in a MAJOR way is little defence, and the premise of the article “is the real reason emerging” is constructed in his favor. The title should be “Rumsfield tries to rewrite his involvement in Iraq war, why now?”

    The man is treasonous against the American people. This is no longer a laughing matter, or something to scoff at many trillions of dollars have been spent in this games – and these guys are thick in the middle of it – remember September 10, 2001 Rumsfield told us $2.3 trillion is missing. Hundreds of Billions have gone to the Bush slushfund Pilgrim Investments.

  • http://ozymoron.blogspot.com/ John Scrivener

    I don’t doubt Bush wanted to invade Iraq for reasons of personal aggrandizement, but I think he was little more than a useful idiot in terms of realizing a goal that had many more powerful advocates behind the scenes … namely, US oil and war industrialists.

  • Guy Fox

    When society believes that money is power it only seems obvious that a few super wealthy families could easily manipulate the puppets which manage to scam and murder their way into positions to serve them. To this mixture add a room full of underachieving indoctrinated idiots with delusions of self grandeur, and the results are lies, and death since that is the way the puppets became puppets in the first place. Bush is a clown in the lucky sperm club, and his simple little mind has been filled with ideological nonsense.

    Out of all the brilliant graduates of the Ivy league why would they choose a complete failure like W? The answer is just as simple as the mind they chose as their “Puppet in Chief”.

    Despite his simple minded outlook, W should be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions. Further I would like to see Neil and Jebs activities scrutinized a little bit closer, and we may find a criminal family with no scruples or morals.

  • Rick Robertson

    I truly believe America will go down as the most manipulated society in the history of the world to date!

  • jeff bunkers

    Russ: It would be nice to see you and your book on Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and especially on Bill Maher. Family of Secrets is a great story and it is so correct about our history. It would be nice if your story were more widely exposed and Americans would wake up to the threat of the plutocracy, especially the Koch Brothers.

    • http://whowhatwhy.org Russ Baker

      Well, yes, it would be nice. Unfortunately, most national television shows, even the ones that seem edgier, have trouble handling deeper, more complex (and ultimately more disturbing) material.

  • Pingback: Iraq and Poll Ratings | Mystic Scholar()

  • Pingback: Iraq Invasion Revelations, Part II: The Payoff()

  • Pingback: Bush, Rumsfeld and Iraq:Is the Real Reason for the Invasion Finally Emerging? « archersofokcular()

  • M3rdpower12005

    Another RED HERRING……try jenningsmystery.com…or missinglinks.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002877777112 Matt Murgatroyd Miller

    May Rummy, Tenent and Bush burn in hell for 10,000 years for the stain they left on America. May they be waterboarded by Satan for fun. 

  • Mysterious One

    Only an idiot could believe that middle eastern terrorists are capable of not only flying, but steering passenger planes into buildings with such skill and precision that seasoned pilots were baffled. The US economy is under threat from the Euro. OPEC  nations are slowly converting their assets to the European currency and the Iraq war was a military effort to put a stop to it. With Iraq as a puppet nation of America, the dollar could be reestablished as the currency for trading oil. Also, other OPEC nations would get the hint to not make a switch. Stupid imbred rednecks and yankees actually believe the war is about spreading democracy in the East, LMFAO! Yeah powerful rich, white, rulers really give a dick about brown people and their democracy. Grow some brains people, FFS. 

  • Pingback: U.S. Troops In Jordan: Not New And Certainly No Surprise : Personal Liberty Digest™()

  • Pingback: SURPRISE: U.S. sends military forces to Jordan... - ALIPAC()

  • http://www.facebook.com/diane.marino.3 Diane Marino

    Why would you believe what Rumsfeld or Cheney say? Just because it is in print? Don’t be deceived. Who is the father of lies? This info is pointing you in the direction of believing Bush had this idea/agenda about Iraq. Look in the opposite direction and see who these Neo-cons really work for and what is “their” agendas! Smoke and Mirrors ladies and gentlemen…smoke and mirrors. Who rules this world? Who wants total world control? What evil lies in the heart of “men”?

  • Pingback: Morning Feature: Reprise – Conspiracy Theory 103 | BPI Campus()

  • arizona jack

    Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz,Rice,Ashcroft,Perle/All war criminals Cheney is also a war profiteer. No bid contracts for his own company,profiting off the deat of thousands. Vengence was the reason for that war,nothing else. No WMDs,Not oil. He did not give a damn for freedom for the Iraqi people. It was a personal vendetta,for the alleged plot to kill papa,no more,no less

  • Pingback: Meanwhile, Back in the Middle East… | WhoWhatWhy()

  • Pingback: Connecting the dots on Syria: Fooling Enough of the People Enough of the Time… | WhoWhatWhy()

  • https://medium.com/@charlielmo Charlie Accetta

    I always thought, right up to the time when we were massed at the Kuwaiti border, that this was a family feud playing out globally. Word was that the Secret Service had rebuffed an attempt on Senior and that they all thought Sadaam was behind it. This would be payback.

  • Pingback: ccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb()

  • Pingback: xcmwnv54ec8tnv5cev5jfdcnv5()