September 07, 2003

Meacher Sparks Fury Over Claims on September 11 and Iraq War

His name will be scrawled on the John O'Neill Wall of
Heroes...Now we are getting down to business...Next
week, Santa Cruz, California will become the first
local government in the US to call for the _resident's
impeachment over Iraq. Of course, 180+ local
governments passed resolutions against initiating the
foolish military adventure (a fact IGNORED in the "US
mainstream news media" effort to create the false
impression that the country was behind the disasterous
move...Now, of course, at least for a time, barring
the cashing in of another Trifecta ticket, the public
disapproval of the _resident cannot be so easily
covered up...

Published on Saturday, September 6, 2003 by the
Meacher Sparks Fury Over Claims on September 11 and Iraq War
Fury over Meacher claims

by Ewen MacAskill

Michael Meacher, who served as a minister for six
years until three months ago, today goes further than
any other mainstream British politician in blaming the
Iraq war on a US desire for domination of the Gulf and
the world.

Also See:
This War on Terrorism is Bogus
by Michael Meacher

MP Michael Meacher
UK Environment Minister from 5/97-6/2003

Mr Meacher, a leftwinger who is close to the green
lobby, also claims in an article in today's Guardian
that the war on terrorism is a smokescreen and that
the US knew in advance about the September 11 attack
on New York but, for strategic reasons, chose not to
act on the warnings.

He says the US goal is "world hegemony, built around
securing by force command over the oil supplies" and
that this Pax Americana "provides a much better
explanation of what actually happened before, during
and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism

Mr Meacher adds that the US has made "no serious
attempt" to catch the al-Qaida leader, Osama bin

He also criticizes the British government, claiming it
is motivated, as is the US, by a desire for oil.

The US government last night expressed abhorrence at
Mr Meacher's views. An embassy spokesman in London
said: "Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations - especially
his assertion that the US government knowingly stood
by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New
York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous,
and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone
serious or credible.

"My nation remains grateful for the steadfast
friendship of the British people and Her Majesty's
government as we face, together, the serious
challenges that have arisen since September 11 2001."

Downing Street also distanced itself from the views of
an MP who only a few months ago was in the government.
"The prime minister has responded to those who argue
it was about oil," a spokeswoman said, adding that oil
profits from Iraq are to be fed back into the
country's development.

Former ministers such as Robin Cook and Clare Short
have criticized the British government for misleading
the public over the reasons for going to war. But Mr
Meacher has gone much further in his analysis of US
and British motives.

He says that the plans of the neo-conservatives in
Washington for action against Afghanistan and Iraq
were well in hand before September 11. He questions
why the US failed to heed intelligence about al-Qaida
operatives in the US and the apparent slow reaction of
the US authorities on the day, as well as the
subsequent inability to lay hands on Bin Laden.

He argues that the explanation makes sense when seen
against the background of the neo-conservative plan.

"From this it seems that the so-called 'war on
terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for
achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives."

He adds: "Given this, it is not surprising that some
have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as
creating an invaluable pretext for attacking
Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been
well planned in advance."

Mr Meacher, who was environment minister, says: "The
overriding motivation for this political smokescreen
is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of
secure hydrocarbon energy supplies."

He is critical of Britain for allegedly colluding in
propagating the myth of a global war of terrorism. He
asks: "Is collusion in this myth and junior
participation in this project really a proper
aspiration for British foreign policy?"

Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003


Posted by richard at September 7, 2003 01:48 PM