�We are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to take money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there.��Sen. Richard Lugar, Hearing July 31- August 1, 2002, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"If they turn on the radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs (surface-to-air missiles). They know we own their country. We own their airspace . . . We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."�U.S. Brig. General William Looney (Interview Washington Post, August 30, 1999)

�You left me to suffer for four months in that damn Iraqi prison,� exclaimed actor Richard Dean Anderson�s character Jack O�Neill of the TV-series Stargate SG-1 at one of his former comrades. Of course, Jack O�Neill told a fabricated story that the authors of the show put in his mouth. Critically, it is not relevant whether the story of O�Neill has roots in events experienced by a real or imaginary character. What was relevant, however, is that the writers and producers of SG-1 inserted it intentionally to communicate two messages through fiction.

The first, aimed at portraying O�Neill as a victim of that �damn Iraqi prison,� at a time when U.S. forces were massacring tens of thousands of Iraqis. The SG-1 episode is reminiscent of other Hollywood movies depicting Native Indians abducting female settlers at a time when the cavalry was killing and removing the Natives from their villages. (During the 1980s Hollywood inundated the entertainment market with movies depicting tortured American POWs in Vietnam, at a time, when the U.S. killed over 3 million Vietnamese, and contaminated their soil with dioxin, a carcinogenic chemical defoliant).

The second, aimed at inductive indoctrination where the viewers could empathize with O�Neill, expand with their imagination on his ordeal, and interpret his imprisonment as an event based on unqualified reality.

It is reasonable to conclude that SG-1 producers had a motive�to raise the mental apprehension of viewers susceptible to psychological manipulation in reaction to unreality. If this were to happen, that reaction might lead to developing a strong aversion towards Iraq and Iraqis, thus justifying the ongoing violence against them. This is especially true, knowing that empire-building think tanks, politically controlled media, and most politicians have transformed Iraq from a small developing country into a fearsome superpower, and Saddam from a local tyrant into a galactic villain capable of destroying the world at whim.

Why did the politically motivated producers of SG-1 make the O�Neill character tell a fabrication inessential for the plot? For starters, in fiction, the license to fabricate a story is permissible. However, we are not dealing with filmic fiction as in romantic classics, but with fiction injected with a precise ideological message. Second, O�Neill was clearly not alluding to imprisonment during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, where after three weeks of American bombardment and land invasion, there was no regime or prison left to imprison any invader. (Excluding Jessica Lynch�s story that media manipulation transformed into a soap opera dramatizing the perils that U.S. soldiers faced in Iraq.)

Was O�Neill alluding to the Gulf War-Aggression of 1991? Most certainly, Iraq indeed captured a few Americans soldiers during that war. The real picture of the Iraqi situation at the end of war was catastrophic, but to Iraq only. After 42 days of intense bombardment where American bombers dropped over 85 million tons of bombs, or what was equivalent to all bombs dropped by all combatants in WWII, and after 100 hours of ground war, the Iraqi regime capitulated. Saddam�s generals signed the cease-fire agreement under a tent installed in the Iraqi city of Safwan near the Iraqi-Kuwaiti borders.

One of the 102 articles of the agreement that shackled Iraq for over 13 years was a condition requiring Iraq to free American prisoners of war immediately. Saddam, the �Hero of the Arab nation,� as he narcissistically liked to call himself, agreed. Consequently, Iraq freed U.S. prisoners that same hour. Logically, then, the maximum period of detention of U.S. POW�s, should have been 47�49 days (the duration of military operations, and assuming that O�Neill fell prisoner during the first day of hostilities) and not 120 days as O�Neil claimed.

How many POW�s did Iraq hold in that war anyway? U.S. papers reported 17 prisoners; but I bet that Jack O�Neill was not one of them. According to his fictional biography, O�Neill �was trained in the skills of wilderness survival, special weapons and tactics, assassination, demolition, chemical weapons, the manufacture and detonation of explosives, and is a field expedience specialist.� A super man like that could never fail in the hands of flabbergasted Iraqi soldiers; and if Iraqis really took him as a POW, surely he could have found an easy escape from his improvised prison.

Moreover, even if SG-1 producers loosely based the character of O�Neill on a true former prisoner of war in Iraq, they modified his fictional biography to fit an indoctrination pattern. Thus, the ultimate purpose of O�Neill�s ordeal was to create drama, empathy, anger, and a false version of history.

Needless to say that I used �Jack O�Neill�s fabricated tale of imprisonment,� as a metaphor for Colin Powell�s fabrication on Saddam�s readiness to incinerate America with his nuclear bombs or to launch chemical attacks against American shores with drone aircrafts. After the invasion, Powell went beyond the fabrication of deceptive stories to fashion theories on America ruling a conquered country that ceased to exist as a sovereign state.

To frame those theories around a dynamic Iraqi situation where American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism [AMAH] has surpassed all milestones of barbaric Nazism, it is imperative to state that while Nazism did not hide its ideological rationales, the executioners of AMAH have only one rationale left�the extermination of countless Iraqis to implement the expansionist objectives of hyper-imperialism. The daily indiscriminate killing of hundreds of people in all Iraqi cities from Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf, Al-Sadr, Baghdad, Samarra, Baaquba, Kut, Talaafar, Qaim, to Basrah, etc., leaves no doubts on the changing nature and scope of the U.S. invasion, and the psychopathic determination to inflict irreparable damage on people who tenaciously refuse to succumb to Zionist-American colonialism.

We shall begin examining Powell�s theories on Iraq by asking a rhetorical question, �What is the basic similarity between Colin Powell and National Public Radio [NPR] in relation to Iraq and the Middle East?� Answer: both represent and propagate the ideas and positions of hyper-imperialism. There is a difference though; while Powell is dexterous at confounding the fundamental issues before him, NPR is an expert at passing them un-debated through subtle dialogues.

NPR that boasts huge audiences who swear by its excellence takes its reputation from the unsubstantiated assumption that it is an unbiased public organization formed to give balanced information. NPR supposedly accomplishes this balance by presenting two opposing views on a subject. This could be true for certain domestic matters, but when dealing with foreign policy affairs the supposition of balance does not apply.

However, because of its presumed balanced debate, NPR is as insidious as the establishment that created it. The reason being, most of its opposing views are structurally similar and lack critical or constructive antagonism. In short, they coincide in principle, elaboration, objectives, and tone of argument. This is not accidental; because NPR is a controlled medium, it follows a direction and path of thinking in line with its controllers. Among the methods of preemptive control, is the selection of debaters. For example, did you ever see NPR invite Noam Chomsky to debate Colin Powell on the invasion of Iraq, or Al Sharpton to debate Donald Rumsfeld on the same issue?

At this point, who controls NPR?

In terms of strategic conquest, NPR, and extending that to its TV counterpart PBS, is the most ambitious conquest that Zionism has ever achieved on American soil. I can attest this by noting that most of NPR programs on Iraq and the Middle East, as well as most of its anchors and debate managers (with long careers inside the organization) rotate on Zionist ideology and perspectives.

Why did I say strategic conquest? Answer: NPR is the most shrewd and active medium serving the long-term objectives of hyper-imperialism in shaping perceptions and debates. Its influence on the audience even surpasses that of commercial stations, because the inclusion of the word �public� in its name projects trust and invokes sincerity. In a sense, the conquest of NPR as well as PBS is even more important than the conquest of the Congress and political apparatuses of the United States�who controls the mood, perception, political direction, and thought of the American people, can control all the rest.

What makes NPR�s conquest important is that it subsists on donations from large corporations tied intrinsically to the imperialist project, on individual contributions, and most importantly on public money. NPR, indeed, chews over one billion dollars a year from American tax dollars. Where else can a special interest group find such a bonanza to divulge controlled information!

On September 10, 2004, NPR discussed Iraq, again, by citing the case of Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense for Policy) who is under criticism for mishandling the post-invasion situation in Iraq. NPR hypocritically attempted to present an evenhanded appraisal of Feith�s case by giving two viewpoints.

The first view by Frank Gaffney, president of the neo-conservative think tank, Center for Security Policy, lasted over 80 seconds. Gaffney asserted that the attack against Feith is partisan, because Feith is �very effective� in doing his job. He then added that those who attack Feith �want to diminish his effectiveness� [sic]. Gaffney, as expected, did not miss the occasion to mention his scheming theory on the cosmic failure of the American occupation. He insinuated that the occupation has become difficult �because of 30 years of dictatorship�!

A person who spoke for all but 10 seconds, and managed to say that Feith failed in his job as seen by the continuing insurgency, therefore he has to leave, presented the second viewpoint. I cannot appraise the political views of the second person, because his name was inaudible, and my attempt to get his name by contacting NPR gave no result. However, he did not sound as an opponent of Iraq�s occupation, but only vaguely critical of Feith�s performance.

It does not require extreme intuition to conclude that both personalities, whom NPR interviewed, were decidedly two thinkers of U.S. marauding imperialism theatrically bickering on a trivial issue of colonialist management. In any case, before NPR finished its well-presented indoctrination session on Feith and Iraq, it made sure that we heard Feith himself come forward in his own defense. Feith, in Powell-esque lingo, commented without discussing his personal situation, that 9/11 provided the rationale for invading Iraq. That is it; and with just a few words, NPR effortlessly transmitted its indoctrinating message, thus ending the debate on the occupation of Iraq.

The road from NPR debates to Powell�s theories is short. Both share similar ideological patterns and political motivation. Regardless of this similarity, there is a slight methodical difference. While NPR depends on solid experience when dealing with issues that require systematic indoctrination, Powell, proceeds from the assumption that his �aura,� would compensate for his theoretical incoherence. Powell�s views on Iraq are such, that when he elucidates on them, he leaves a trail of confusion. It is as if his brain�s dendrites cannot multiply fast enough to accommodate his delirium of empire. The following is a synopsis of Powell�s theories arranged without importance or dated sequence.

Powell�s Theory on How Long the U.S. Intends to Stay in Iraq

In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] on 9/14/2004, Powell made a statement that requires we harness all of our logical means to dissect the meaning of his chatter. �Thus spoke Powell�: �The U.S. does not want to stay in Iraq a day longer than necessary, but will not leave until an Iraqi constitution and administration are properly in place.� [Emphasis added]

Powell, waiting for a definition of the U.S.�s Iraqi stay from higher quarters in Washington and Tel Aviv, chose to condition that function and expanded the time required to accomplish it. By casting his intentions in such terminology, he intentionally convoluted his thought to avoid falling in the trap of making undesired statements, which could expose the true intent of the Bush administration.

He could have simply said, �Whether you like it or not, we invaded and occupied Iraq, but we will leave according to the following schedule; then he would proceed to disclose the time-table. Instead of clarity, Powell opted to navigate on the ripples of nonsense. If Powell would repeat his interview with the BBC today, and taking into consideration the fierce anti-occupation resistance, Powell would probably say that the U.S. is committed to leave Iraq, but not before killing the last resistance fighter in the country . . .

The question is, �Why does the U.S. insist that Iraqis have a constitution?� Did the U.S. invade Iraq so Iraqis can have a constitution? What would happen if the Iraqis refuse to adopt an American-written constitution, or decide to change it? How is it important for Iraqis to have a constitution while being massacred by F-16�s and Apache helicopters? Who set the relation between freedom from occupation and constitution, and according to what standards of logic?

Of course, Powell could not have postulated such questions or attempted to answer them; and that is because any person conversant with current international laws can demolish his thesis on the spot. Eventually, the dissolved Iraqi Governing Council appointed by the U.S. did pass an interim constitution, and eventually the U.S. did install an interim Iraqi government, so why is the U.S. not leaving?

It is instructive in this regard to discuss the U.S. practice of encroaching imperialism. Once the U.S. dominates a place, its rulers immediately project long-term presence by inventing all ruses possible. Briefly, the United States has refined its mechanism at the game of stretching time to fit the objectives of exploiting colonialism and imperialism.

For example, it took the U.S. 52 years to leave the Philippines, but not before leaving military bases in the country. As for the U.S. intrusion in the world in relation to expanding time, the Palestinian example is powerful. Fifty-five years after the U.N illegally partitioned Palestine into two states, Jewish, with non-Palestinian inhabitants from diverse national ancestries, and Palestinian, with all original inhabitants, George Bush appears on the scene to design an endless �roadmap� for the Palestinians to have a state on what is left of their ancestral land. (The U.N. planned Palestinian state never materialized, primarily because of Arab complicity and USA-Europe-USSR collusion.)

Another example of American determination at expanding time is the economic sanctions against Iraq consequent to its invasion of Kuwait. Once the U.S. applied the sanctions, they remained in place for over 13 years. The U.S. did not want to lift them until Iraq is free of WMD. Once the U.N. disarmed Iraq from its modest WMD, the U.S. still did not want to lift them under the pretext that Saddam was cheating. After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 and could not find any WMD, clairvoyant Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed that Saddam transferred them to Syria. When after a year and half from the invasion, the U.S. still cannot find a trace of these imaginary weapons, Tony Blair, the farting sphincter of Britain, sternly warned, �We will find them one day.�

The search for an Iraq �constitution, democracy, and peaceful existence� therefore, follows the same pattern of time- elasticity as invented by U.S. imperialists. Interestingly, since the U.S. propagandistically insists that Iraq have a constitution, is it reasonable to assume that after the U.S. forced the U.N. to designate it as the occupying power, has now moved to force the Iraqis to legalize their own occupation? In this respect, a constitution written by the U.S. and adopted by Iraq should provide an Iraqi cover to U.S. objectives including a permanent U.S. presence in the country. In addition to this twisted legalization, said constitution should also pave the way for the conversion of Iraqi state-economy to predatory and outdated 19th century laissez-faire capitalism thus facilitating U.S. control of Iraqi oil, rights to own military bases on Iraqi soil, oil to Israel and diplomatic relations with it.

As for the idea of a federal Iraq in the interim constitution, this is a strategic Israeli idea with incalculable regional and world consequences that yet to be seen. Pointedly, the U.S. is not interested in a federal Iraq, nor did it invade it to make it federal. The final project is to dismember Iraq. In a sense, federation based on ethnic or sectarian lines, is a scheme to redesign the world in small cantons to implement imperialist control. A careful study of the interim constitution provides many clues on U.S. objectives, and we shall study that in the upcoming parts of this series.

Incidentally, what is this new paradigm, �The U.S. does not want to stay in Iraq a day longer than necessary, but will not leave until . . ." that Powell catapulted in our direction? If illogic were an orphan seeking a parent, it should have no problem adopting Powell. Is Powell suggesting that a simple function such as writing a constitution should expand endlessly in time and space?

It is evident that Powell was temporizing to give U.S. imperialism a chance to implement its design, while the task of writing the so-called �permanent Iraqi Constitution� and the building of �Iraqi democracy� could proceed endlessly.

Much before Powell theorized on converting Iraq to an American colony through elaborate pre-conditions for sovereignty, Joseph Nye, Jr., a former State Department official and author provided a precedent. Nye criticized European powers for giving independence to their colonies after WWII, the emergence of the USSR as a superpower, and the relentless struggle of colonial people. Curiously, what was Nye�s rationale? Nye stated in racist terms that the people of the colonies were not yet fit to rule themselves. Nye overlooked one important fact though. Europeans did not relinquish profitable colonies voluntarily; occupied nations fought to gain their independence.

As for an Iraqi administration, what did Powell have in mind? Answer: the U.S. installed Ayad Allawi, a fascist Iraqi with a criminal record and strong ties to the CIA and the British intelligence.

Powell was shopping for more time. Time to subdue the anti-colonialist Iraqi revolution, time to make pro-American Iraqi lackeys acceptable to the people, time to make the American people accept the death of their sons and daughters for false patriotism, and time to make the world adapt to the Zionist Pax Americana.

Before ending this discussion, I find it important to quote Enver Masud, founder of the Wisdom Fund, an interfaith organization based in Washington, DC. In a competent article entitled, �New Iraq Constitution a Pretext for Exploitation� Masud writes, �Israel does not have a written constitution. The British do not have a written constitution. The U.S. constitution provided few benefits for the majority of Americans for over 150 years. So why must the Iraqis wait for a new constitution before the U.S. occupation force transfers power to them?�

Although Powell is a man of many theories, he is a remarkable paradox. He talks about freedom, while he is an occupier. He talks about democracy, while impeding it. He talks about sovereignty, while denying it. He talks about the human rights of Iraqis, while stampeding over them. He calls the Iraqis resisting occupation �foreign fighters,� while he is a foreign invader. He talks against terrorism, while doing it. He talks about Saddam using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people, while he used radioactive depleted uranium against them. He talks about Saddam�s mass graves, while he transformed all of Iraq into a massive grave.

To conclude, Powell is the most Machiavellian character in the Bush administration�he is reconstituting violent colonialist slavery, while standing on a pulpit preaching freedom.

Next: Part 20: Colin Powell, the missionary of colonialist slavery