The israeli traitors in the bush administration appointed zionists or shabbat goys to run the iraqi imperial administration. (See also ‘The Israeli Traitors Running America’s Invasion of Iraq’).

The bush administration originally decided to appoint jay garner, an israeli zionist, as pro-consul of iraq. "The retired general tapped by the Bush administration to oversee rebuilding of post-war Iraq was, until just a few weeks ago, an executive at a leading defense contractor working on missile systems that would be used to bomb Baghdad. Although a Pentagon official said Jay Garner's new role as head of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance does not constitute a conflict of interest, ethics experts say the appointment raises troubling questions. Why, they ask, would the White House pick a man from a company directly concerned with attacking Iraq to spearhead the country's aid and restoration? The division was a Southern California missile-defense contractor, SY Technology, until L-3 acquired it last year for $48 million. Garner, with virtually no private-sector experience, was named president of that firm in 1997 after retiring as assistant vice chief of staff of the Army. His 34-year military career included a stint as commanding general of the Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command - part of the Star Wars program begun by President Ronald Reagan and more recently embraced by President Bush. David Kirp, a professor at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy who focuses on ethics, said the Bush administration is sending a profound message to Iraqis by placing a man with Garner's background in charge of reconstruction and humanitarian aid. "This is a lovely example of our indifference to the people of Iraq," he said. "It truly bespeaks a lack of serious thinking on the administration's part." Of course, there's a long history of military figures overseeing a nation's reconstruction once fighting ends. Gen. Douglas MacArthur's rule of occupied Japan is only one example. But it may be unprecedented for someone from a defense contractor partly responsible for the destruction to be handed the mandate for rebuilding and humanitarian aid. .. the general's past roles as one of the key leaders of JINSA and longtime advocate of using the U.S. military to support Zionism has been removed from the JINSA site. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a cabal of Jewish American military officers who have long advocated putting Israel's security needs before those of the United States, has removed most all links to JINSA positions which may embarass the Bush administrations drive to appoint General Garner as the U.S. installed dictator of "liberated" Iraq. Despite the Zionist's attempt to put General Garner's past down the memory hole, many Arab sources including Al-Quds al-Arabi and Washington Report on Middle East have revealed General Garner's close ties to the Israeli Likud party. The established media should realize that they may purge and censor their news to constantly rewrite history, but the truth lives forever on the Internet." (‘Bush Selects Zionist U.S. General To Run Iraq’ khilafah.com http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=6390&TagID=2 Feb 28 2003); "The man who symbolizes this victory is General Jay Garner, who has just been appointed chief of the civilian administration in Iraq. He is no anonymous general who has been picked accidentally. Garner is the ideological partner of Paul Wolfowitz and the neo-cons." (Uri Avnery ‘The Night After: The Easier the Victory, the Harder the Peace’ Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html April 10, 2003); "This name came back to me with the impending instalment of General Jay Garner as Viceroy of Iraq. Garner received his credentials from the bloody hands of Ariel Sharon: he supported the killing of the Palestinians by signing, in October 2000, a letter that began: "We believe that the Israel Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority."[1] The letter was launched by JINSA,[2] "the major link of the Israel lobby, the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs", as defined by Michael Lind of the New Statesman, or "another thinly disguised Israeli espionage and recruiting front", according to Washington observer Jeffrey Steinberg of EIR.[3] Signing the letter was a good move on General Garner's part: it will give him the rule of Iraq. As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay Garner's task is to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel." (Israel Shamir ‘The Shadow of Zog’ http://www.israelshamir.net/english/shadowofzog.html c.2004). It is difficult to imagine anything more likely to provoke hostility amongst iraqis than putting a zionist in charge of the occupation given the hatred that many iraqis have for the damage that the zionist state has inflicted on iraq in the past.

The zionists in the bush administration chose another israeli to be america’s ambassador to iraq, "America’s latest Ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, who is Jewish and therefore eligible for Israeli citizenship." (Mark Green with Wendy Campbell ‘Exit Neo-Conservatives, Enter Neo-Liberals’ http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004
%20opinions/July/10%20o/Exit%20Neo-Conservatives,%20Enter%20Neo-Liberals%20By%20Mark%20
Green%20with%20Wendy%20Campbell.htm August 7th 2004).

Garner had been favoured because he was willing to hand over power to ahmad chalabi, "First he (bush) was going to send Jay Garner. I have it from insiders that in April, 2003, Jay Garner let it slip to some of his staff that his charge was to turn Iraq over to Ahmad Chalabi within six months. The staffers were shocked and some contacted the State Department to see if this was known there. It was not. So they blew the whistle on Bush with Colin Powell. I was told that Powell then made a coalition with Tony Blair and that the two of them went to Bush and got him to change his mind. The plan to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq was frankly idiotic. Chalabi had no grass roots. He was the one who had the bright idea to throw thousands of ex-Baathists into unemployment (which encouraged them to join the guerrilla resistance). This was why, as Kerry noted on Thursday night, Bush had done no real planning for the period after the war. He thought he had everything sewn up because Chalabi would handle it." (Juan Cole ‘Debate and Chalabi’ http://www.juancole.com/ October 01, 2004).

In the end, jay garner was not appointed and the americans did not allow chalabi to become head of the provisional iraqi administration. However he was given an important post within the administration and he used his power to appoint his nephew into another important position of power, "The nephew, it turns out, is even better than his uncle - or worse, depending on where you stand. He teamed up with a well-known Israeli militant hard-line Likud party member called Mark Zell, a leader of the Gush Emunim Israeli colonists' movement. Together, the two formed a company in Iraq to work on reconstruction. For years, Zell has been a driving force behind the "acquisition" of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to build Jewish colonies on them. He is also close friend and former business partner of none other than Douglas Feith, the U.S. undersecretary of Defense for policy who reports directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man with the last word on how money is spent in Iraq. Salem and Zell called their new Iraqi company "Iraq Law International". It describes its mission, according to Al Hayat, as "a boutique investment firm specialized in the new Iraq." Zell, on the other hand, formed an American company in Washington called Goldberg & Co. Its stated goal is "to assist American companies in forming relationships with the American government in the context of projects to rebuild the new Iraq," according to Al Hayat. The newspaper and several Iraqi businessmen interviewed separately say Zell and the young Chalabi have already secured several hundred million dollars worth of projects, thanks to Feith's discreet help, in the new Iraq." (Youssef M. Ibrahim ‘Ali Baba and the Israelis’ The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040706-112131-6976r.htm July 06 2004).

In the early days after the invasion, commentators frequently pointed out that the americans did not seem to have any planning for the post-war political and industrial reconstruction of the country ­ even though bush had mentioned the invasion was to bring freedom and democracy to the iraqi people. As it turns out, the american state department had done the necessary planning ­ it was just ignored by the zionists in the bush administration because they do not want iraq to become industrially advanced and prosperous enough to rebuild its armed forces. These zionists prefer iraq to remain in a state of chaos and disorder than to become a stable, orderly, and civilized country that might one day turn against the zionist state. At the end of the day, they prefer iraqis to fight each other or the americans rather than fight the zionist state.

After the invasion of iraq, the most critical decision feith made was disbanding the iraqi military and police - a decision carried out by the coalition provisional authority. This was almost the cpa’s first act and was one which, more than any other, shaped the course of events to the present time. It was one thing to try and carry out the debaathification of the iraqi military and police ­ it was quite another matter to disband the military and police in their entirety. This decision gave an enormous boost to the iraqi insurgency movement. Firstly, because many of the iraqis with military/police training were then free to use their skills to liberate their country from the zionist- american occupiers. And, secondly, the message that this sent out to every iraqi was that the zionists in the american administration were intent on keeping iraq defenceless against any military threat from its neighbours or the zionist state ­ something which many iraqis found repellant and humiliating and drove them into active or at the very least passive support for the nationalist cause.

The americans disbanded the iraqi police and made no attempt to establish even the semblance of law and order ­ they were much too busy searching for fictitious weapons of mass destruction to be bothered about what was happening to the ordinary iraqis they’d come to liberate. They just allowed looting and crime to run riot, "Dealing with crime, or socially sensitive issues like squatters, was largely avoided by the US occupation, a practice dating back to the failure to control looting in the wake of the invasion." (The Christian Science Monitor http://csmonitor.com/2004/0708/p01s04-woiq.html 08.07.2004). Some american troops were even involved in the looting, "He described how, immediately after the end of the war, American soldiers broke into his hospital's car park and stole a large number of vehicles belonging to the hospital's staff in order to sell them in the market. The soldiers were not able to move one of the cars so they tore off the roof in order to steal all its contents. My uncle later showed me what was left of that vehicle: a charred carcass gutted of all its interiors, wheels and accessories - and with no roof. He also recalled seeing American soldiers break down the doors of government buildings and inviting Iraqis to enter and loot the contents. A number of Americans and other foreigners seem to have made off with a great deal of Iraq's wealth, although some were caught in the act." (Zaid Al-Ali Al Ahram ‘Forgetting Iraq http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/711/feature.htm 7-13 September 2004).

Zionists’ political battle to control, and limit, humanitarian assistance to iraq after the invasion led to the virtual collapse of humanitarian assistance. "Interference by the Pentagon delivered a massive blow to efforts to provide humanitarian relief for Iraq after last year's war, according to two US aid experts who struggled with the conflict's chaotic aftermath. The traditional American response to humanitarian emergencies and natural disasters abroad is carried out by the State Department's US Agency for International Development (USAID) and Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). In the months leading up to the war, these agencies trained up an 80-person team specially for Iraq, many of them with long expertise in emergencies, says the commentary, published by Frederick Burkle and Eric Noji in Saturday's Lancet. But that initiative was hamstrung by the Pentagon which, breaking with tradition, decided to set up its own humanitarian planning team, say the authors. As confusion mounted between the rival State Department and Pentagon relief initiatives, the US government decided to give overall administrative control to the Department of Defense's team - by now named the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA). Meanwhile, the ORHA team that was rushed to Baghdad was mainly staffed by policy wonks, it says. They had little field experience in relief operations, many were ignorant of functions, charter and capabilities of UN agencies, Red Cross organisations or NGOs, and they simply created another unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Many of these (non-governmental) agencies distanced themselves, fearful that their reputation for neutrality would be compromised on the ground if they had to work with occupying troops, say Burkle and Noji. "The situation was further complicated by the fact that the (Pentagon) humanitarian planning team, citing secrecy, refused to disclose crucial information needed for planning not only to international relief organisations but also to other US military, government and civilian agencies working on humanitarian relief," they add." (Pentagon meddling crippled post-war humanitarian aid for Iraq: US experts’ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&ncid=723
&e=10&u=/afp/20041007/wl_afp/iraq_health_us Oct 7 2004).

The chalabis were close allies of the zionists, "In come the new Ali Babas: Israelis teaming up with the Chalabis and the neo-conservative businessmen cabal that runs the Pentagon, holding the purse to reconstruct Iraq. The arrival of the Israelis in Iraq is being orchestrated by one Salem Chalabi, 41, the executive director of the tribunal before which Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz and other former Iraqi regime officials appeared last Thursday. He also happens to be the nephew of the now widely discredited Ahmed Chalabi, once the Pentagon's favorite boy for the leadership of Iraq who has since fallen out of favor but still has his tentacles all over Iraq. The nephew, it turns out, is even better than his uncle - or worse, depending on where you stand. He teamed up with a well-known Israeli militant hard-line Likud party member called Mark Zell, a leader of the Gush Emunim Israeli colonists' movement. Together, the two formed a company in Iraq to work on reconstruction. For years, Zell has been a driving force behind the "acquisition" of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to build Jewish colonies on them. He is also close friend and former business partner of none other than Douglas Feith, the U.S. undersecretary of Defense for policy who reports directly to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man with the last word on how money is spent in Iraq. Salem and Zell called their new Iraqi company "Iraq Law International". It describes its mission, according to Al Hayat, as "a boutique investment firm specialized in the new Iraq." Zell, on the other hand, formed an American company in Washington called Goldberg & Co. Its stated goal is "to assist American companies in forming relationships with the American government in the context of projects to rebuild the new Iraq," according to Al Hayat. The newspaper and several Iraqi businessmen interviewed separately say Zell and the young Chalabi have already secured several hundred million dollars worth of projects, thanks to Feith's discreet help, in the new Iraq." (Youssef M. Ibrahim ‘Ali Baba and the Israelis’ The Washington Times http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040706-112131-6976r.htm July 06 2004).

Pictures of the american military bombing and destroying iraqi homes in an effort to root out so-called international terrorists/moslem fundamentalists are all too reminiscent of zionists’ invasions of palestinian areas. In the latter case, the zionist military does not merely try to exterminate palestinian terrorists, it also aims at destroying palestinian homes, businesses, and infrastructure, to force as many palestinians as possible into poverty. The destruction is aimed at destroying the spirits of the palestinian people so that with nothing left in palestine they are forced into exile. "The strategy of Sharon and his generals is simple and brutal: to destroy the Palestinian Authority, turn life in the occupied territories into hell, disintegrate Palestinian society and drive the survivors from the country, not in one dramatic sweep (as in 1948) but in a slow, continuous, creeping process." (Uri Avnery ‘The Skin of the Bear’ http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/ July 24th, 2004).

It has to be concluded that zionists in the bush administration have no desire to bring about the democratization or reconstruction of iraq. They don’t want iraq to become a strong country again whether politically, industrially, or militarily. They would much rather the country become even poorer than it is now with little modern industrial technology because all technology has some capability for military use. They want the american military to stay in iraq and continue to wage a low intensity war against alleged terrorists in order to maintain the country’s impoverishment and chaos. They have been sabotaging the democratization and reconstruction of the country and the humanitarian relief effort because they want to reduce the iraqi people to the same level as the palestinians in the zionist state. The zionists in the bush administration have been bringing about the palestinianization of iraq not its reconstruction. "For the Strausscons and Likudites, a pluralistic and united Iraq is wholly unacceptable. For the Strausscons, there is but one allowable situation in the Arab and Muslim Middle East - and it consists of ethnic strife, civil war, Islamic fanaticism, all of it preventing Arab nationalism and a collective Arab and Muslim identity. The Likudites in Israel want a splintered, chaotic, ethnically aroused and violent Middle East - sort of like gang warfare on Chicago’s Westside, an endless battle of shifting alliances and skirmishes - not peace and certainly not democracy. If you look beyond Strausscon doublespeak you will realize this is the objective: Israeli and U.S. hegemony over cowed Arabs and Muslims." (Kurt Nimmo Iraqi Elections: It’s all about Civil War, not Democracy’ http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=525 January 31, 2005). This zionist policy is not merely the exact opposite of america’s intended aims of the war but is against american interests.

According to the energy information administration, "Iraq is believed to have the second-largest reserves of high-quality, easily accessible oil in the world - more than 112 billion barrels." (Martin Sieff ‘Analysis: How Bush got Iraq war cost wrong’ http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050126-021958-8636r January 26, 2005). Many supposedly progressive political activists have claimed that america and brutland invaded iraq in order to gain control over iraq's oil. They have put forward many variations on this theme:-

Firstly, to enable america to protect its oil supply otherwise the american economy would ground to a halt.

Secondly, to prevent saddam from refusing to sell oil to america which would also cause the american economy to ground to a halt.

Thirdly, to prevent saddam from selling oil in euros rather than dollars.

Fourthly, to enable american oil companies to profit from the rebuilding or modernization of iraq’s oil infrastructure.

Fifthly, to enable america’s military industrial complex to make huge profits from the war.

Sixthly, to enable america to recoup its war expenditures from the sale of iraqi oil.

Seventhly, to give america a better military opportunity to invade iran and take possession of its oil reserves.

Firstly, america did not have to invade iraq to protect its oil supply because it gets so little oil from that country, "The United States imports about 62 percent of its oil and other petroleum products. Only about 11 percent of domestic usage comes from the Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia, for example, supplies about 7.2 percent of domestic usage. Our main imports by far come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. From January to July 2004, Saudi Arabia was fourth, just ahead of Nigeria and behind Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Iraq was sixth. These figures are from the American Petroleum Institute." (Charley Reese ‘Not What You Think’ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7338.htm November 20th 2004).

Secondly, saddam never had any intention of refusing to sell oil to the americans. On the contrary, he wanted america to buy as much iraqi oil as possible. He was intent on selling oil to boost his military defences so that he could protect his country from attacks by the zionist state. He never refused to put iraqi oil on the market, it was the west which embargoed iraqi oil. The reason that america and brutland imposed this embargo was precisely because they didn’t want iraq to use its oil revenues to rearm itself and pose a threat to zionist hegemony in the middle east. The idea that the allies invaded iraq because they wanted to stop saddam from turning off the oil is absurd given that it was these countries which embargoed iraqi oil.

Thirdly, it is quite true that if saddam sold iraqi oil in euros it would have had a significant economic impact on the dollar. But this was not a justification for the war. It was only an after-the-invasion rationalization. Saddam didn’t threaten to sell oil in euros until after the bush administration had decided to invade the country.

Fourthly, in the 1990s american oil companies were opposed to the invasion of iraq and sought to take advantage of the situation only after zionists in the bush administration took the decision to invade iraq.

Fifthly, the military industrial complex have doubtlessly made vast profits from the war but they could have made even greater profits from selling arms to saddam. It is in the american military’s interests for arab/moslem countries to industrialize; become as prosperous as possible; and buy military weapons in order to defend themselves. (It is also in the interests of america’s consumer industries for arab/moslem countries to industrialize; become as prosperous as possible; and import as many american goods as possible. This would have provided a huge boost to the american economy). However, this is the exact opposite of what the zionist state in palestine wanted. What it fears the most is arab/moslem countries using their oil revenues to industrialize and then increasing their military power.

Sixthly, the costs of the military action against iraq far outweigh any oil revenues that america could steal from iraq. The allies spent huge amounts of money on the 1990 gulf war; the subsequent thirteen years of military attrition against saddam; the invasion of iraq; and then the occupation of the country. The allies’ military costs will be far greater than they could recoup from selling iraqi oil. In other words, there was no economic benefit for america to be derived from invading iraq and acquiring its oil.

Finally, there is no economic sense in a follow-up american invasion of iran, "Attacking Iran doesn't make good economic sense, either. Iran is OPEC's second-largest oil producer and holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest natural gas reserves (after Russia). Oil and gas prices have recently soared in response to rising global demand and heightened security concerns in the Middle East. Iran is unlikely to maintain its current level of oil production in the face of a massive military assault. The loss of just a fraction of Iranian oil production through collateral damage, sabotage, or economic embargo could trigger a severe global recession." (Daniel T. Barkley Preemptive Strikes Will Not Disarm Iran’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/barkley.php?articleid=4009 November 19, 2004).

It has been argued that america’s invasion of iraq had nothing to do with oil but was promoted by israeli traitors in the bush administration for the sake of the jews-only state in palestine. However, although zionists promoted the invasion primarily for their own military purposes they also saw the invasion as an opportunity to boost their oil interests. There were two factors involved.

The reason america invaded iraq was because zionists in the bush administration duped americans into believing that saddam posed a nuclear threat to their survival. Their real goal in instigating this war was to boost the regional hegemony of the zionist state in the middle east. The american and brutish governments would never have launched an illegal, pre-emptive, war against iraq solely for the sake of oil. It was the israeli traitors in and around the american administration who pushed hardest for the war because they wanted to use american military power to eradicate iraq’s military threat to the zionist state in palestine.