"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome." --George W. Bush, defending Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators, NBC Nightly News interview, Dec. 12, 2005

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

What were the preludes predating the official appearance of the Zarqawi hoax, and most importantly, was there a premonitory prelude before all preludes? I shall discuss the premonitory preludes last -- backtracking is essential to see events in reversed perspective, thus demonstrating that the U.S. prepared, labored, and executed those events according to a long-term methodical plan.

Prelude 1: attack against the Jordanian embassy

On August 7, 2003, a car bomb exploded in front of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad killing a score of people and destroying the fa�ade of the building. Colin Powell described the attack as follows,

The attack against the Jordanian embassy in Iraq strengthens U.S. resolve to unite the world in this campaign against terrorism. The terrorists need to know that we will not be deterred. We are ever more determined to go after them wherever they are until this scourge is dealt with. [Source]

Powell was abstract. For instance, who were those terrorists that he indicated? Of course, he meant the Arabs, since it is now fashionable to exchange the noun �Arab� as a synonym for the noun �terrorist.� Powell�s simplistic, indoctrinatory generalization on the idea of terrorism was intentional. He had to remain inside the abstract world of symbolic language so he could tie his invasion of Iraq to �terrorism,� as in his jingoistic emphasis of the U.S. �resolve to unite the world in this campaign against terrorism.�

Also, Powell appeared to think of himself as an astute political thinker who could mold the world to his deception. For example, while he was well aware that the entire world was against his invasion of Iraq, he, regardless, pretended the fake capacity or leadership to �unite� it in the prosecution of his war of conquest.

Notice two important things. One: the name of Zarqawi was yet to come out, although the deliberation to use it was already in the making. Two: the United States lamely explained its ordered terrorist attack on the Jordanian embassy by insinuating that some Iraqis resented the role of Jordan in the war against Iraq. Andrew England of the imperialist Associated Press externalized the American posturing on the �concept of resentment� with the following words:

While Jordan is a major entry point into Iraq and remains a large trading partner, many Iraqis are resentful that Jordan dropped its support for Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War, and allowed U.S. troops to use its soil as a base during the latest war. [Source]

Let us debate what he said by assuming that neither American nor Israeli agents bombed the embassy. In this case, who, then, did the bombing? England suggested, �Many Iraqis are resentful . . . etc. This has a pertinent implication: England seemed to state that the attack was not a terrorist attack in the American-designated sense; i.e., terrorism with political cause, but an attack of vengeance.

Vengeance, however, is a crime of passion and not terrorism. Consequently, because the attack was not an act of political terrorism, then the implication is that those �resentful Iraqis� were not �terrorists� in the Powell-esque sense. Clearly then, this conclusion contradicts Powell who, like his boss in crime, was determined to debit the attack to a murky notion of �terrorism,� which is the cry of Zionists of all colors against the Arabs

The question remains, did vengeance, as England suggested, motivate the attack against the Jordanian embassy?

The answer is no. For instance, why should Iraqis exact vengeance from Jordan (that undeniably facilitated the invasion by allowing American forces to cross into Iraq from its territory) but not from the American invaders themselves? And, to speculate, if it was that easy to hit the unaware or unprotected embassy, then, logically, it should have been equally easy for the attackers to hit the American forces at that same exact moment, somewhere in Baghdad. On that day, according to my research, no such attacks happened against the American forces.

To refute the idea of vengeance, let us consider this: it is no secret that the entire Arab system was a primary and fundamental accomplice in the U.S. wars against Iraq. However, while America�s most obedient clients: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc., joined the U.S. in the collective punishment and murder of Iraqis, Jordan, albeit ruled by a treasonous, absolutist monarchy (installed by Britain to help with the birth of Israel) was the only port of exit for the Iraqis during the long U.S. blockade of Iraq: 1990- 2003. Not only that, but despite meager resources, the Jordanian people supported all those Iraqis who sought refuge in Jordan.

Then, why the insinuation that resentful Iraqis wanted to punish Jordan? Of course, England did not elaborate on the issue, but his undeclared objective was clear: to deflect attention away from the American involvement in the attack and cause Arab-Arab (Jordanian-Iraqi) hating. Interestingly, did the Jordanian government accuse anyone except unknown �Arab �terrorists�? No. As a U.S. lackey, Jordan accused the �terrorists� for the attack but without specifying their identity.

By way of conclusion, considering the long history of U.S. terrorism, the dire conditions of post-invaded Iraq, and U.S. objectives in the region, indicting the United States for the attack against the Jordanian embassy should be straightforward. Categorically, there was no rational for any Iraqi or even �terrorists� to attack the embassy, mainly because the strategic outcome for such an attack was irrelevant at best: it did not harm the occupying force! On the other hand, it did not decrease the Jordanian support for their American masters.

Then, how could we categorize the attack against the embassy? Answer: it was a part of a detailed American campaign to create chaos in Iraq, thus implicating imaginary elements that imperialist convenience calls, �terrorists.�

Given that I am categorical on this issue, you may ask, why am I so convinced that the United States attacked the Jordanian embassy?

If intuition can help, the answer is to pave the way for the second phase of building Zarqawi�s myth as a �fearless terrorist.� In other words, to create an inconspicuous identity link between the Jordanian embassy and Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi whom the United States and its Jordanian agents said he was Jordanian, and then keep augmenting his (Zarqawi�s) profile with the passing of time. In practice, the American policy for creating �terrorism� in Iraq is the ideological and material conditio non plus ultra to justify the continuing occupation of the country and increase the prospects for confessional war among Iraqi Arab Muslims, partition, and inevitable gradual colonialist conquest.

Prelude 2: attack against the U.N. compound

While the CIA, U.S. occupation force, and Israeli agents designed the attack against the Jordanian embassy to test the procedure for manufacturing terrorism in Iraq, the attack they carried out against the United Nations -- a few months after Bush called the U.N. �irrelevant -- had more ambitious goals.

On August 19, 2003, unknown perpetrators detonated bombs at the U.N. compound in Baghdad killing a score of people, among them U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and special envoy to occupied Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello.

CNN reported the attack as follows, �Sergio Vieira de Mello, a veteran U.N. official appointed to the post in May, was killed when a bomb-laden cement truck exploded beneath the window of his office in the Canal Hotel at about 4:30 p.m. [12:30 p.m. GMT; 8:30 a.m. EDT]."

If you read the report, you will notice that, although CNN�s dispatcher inserted in his article standard propaganda items such as, �Some U.S. officials believe Iraq is becoming a major 'magnet' for al Qaeda terrorists," he (or she) spoke only of �a bomb-laden cement truck exploded beneath the window of his office in the Canal Hotel.� In other words, he did not speak of �suicide-bombers,� which is the daily mantra of Bush and American propaganda in Iraq.

Yet, and as expected, the United States instantly accused �terrorists,� meaning �Islamic Arab terrorists,� for conducting the attack. Nonetheless, the dynamics of bombing and technical aspects of the attack were an exact replica of all attacks conducted by the Israeli Mossad against Palestinians and other Arabs in Lebanon, Tunisia, Syria, and Europe. Accordingly, it is very plausible, if not certain, that the United States -- either by copying Israeli tactics or by collaboration with the Mossad -- executed the attack.

To abandon caution in favor of direct indictment of the U.S. policy of deception, I, would firmly state that the United States that deliberately attacked Iraq while knowing it did not have WMD, also deliberately attacked the U.N. compound because of calculations related to 1) the American Occupation Regime (AOR), and 2) the propagandistic justification for its �war on terror.�

Remember, at the time of the U.N. attack, we were well into the fifth month of the occupation, and a budding uprising was in the making as highlighted by the continuing attacks against the American invaders who, at that point, lost only 50 soldiers since Bush declared �victory� in May 2003. In addition to that, clergyman Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) [sic] who first approved of the invasion and was instrumental in making it happen, turned against the occupation, thus, unavoidably became a nuisance in Bush�s way.

It is self-evident that, from military and political viewpoints of the occupation, implicating invented �terrorists� for attacking visible non-Iraqi targets was crucial (from U.S. perspective) to demonstrate the �long arm of terrorists� who spare no one, hence, the necessity of America�s war on terror� beginning with Afghanistan and ending in Iraq as a �second stage.�

Notice also, that the U.N attack happened only 12 days after the attack against the Jordanian embassy. This means one thing: the United States was (and still is) in a desperate race with time to create terrorism in Iraq in order to tighten its grip on it.

How did Bush, the State Department, the U.N., imperialist media such as CNN, and Zionist academicians react to the attack against the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad?

The President of the United States: �The terrorists have again shown their contempt for the innocent, shown their fear of progress and hatred for peace. . . . The civilized world will not be intimidated," (Full story)

Analysis

President Bush is a national depot of rhetorical garbage -- analysis not required.

The State Department: under the propagandistic title: Leaders around the World condemn terror attack on U.N.; Sergio Vieira de Mello mourned as victim of "barbaric" violence, The International Information Programs of the State Department gave its opinion on the attack. It said, �International organizations and national governments alike condemned the terrorist truck bombing of the United Nations facility in Baghdad on August 19, 2003, and mourned the loss of life of U.N. special envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.�

Analysis

One: with brazen hypocrisy, the statement borrowed the adjective �barbaric� from Romano Prodi (current Italian Prime Minister, and former president of the European Union). Objective: to show that world leaders share U.S. view that the killing was barbaric -- this, of course, was barbaric. However, the universal fact remains that no barbarity can equal invading a country and destroying it without casus belli.

Two: notice the hypocrisy and collusion of European leaders with U.S. imperialism. The State Department quoted Prodi as saying, �the targeting of the civilian U.N. staff and of de Mello is therefore an attack on the future of Iraq and its entire people." Prodi is a shameless charlatan. For the record, Prodi, an exponent of an Italian political system that has been subservient to U.S. imperialism since WW2, considered the attack against the U.N. as an �attack against the future of Iraq . . . etc.

Up until the present time, I have not read that Prodi considered the invasion of Iraq as an attack against the people and future of Iraq. Nor have I ever read that he denounced or described that invasion (which killed over 45,000 Iraqis up to the time in which the attack against the United Nations occurred -- present estimated Iraqi deaths stand at about 250,000 people according to Iraqi sources) as �barbaric.� For the record, after his election as prime minister, Prodi called the most deliberate war in history a �mistake!� Yet, today, he still maintains his occupation force in Iraq intact despite his pre-election promise to withdraw it.

Three: because 1) the U.S. dissolved the Iraqi state, and 2) because independent international organizations to corroborate Iraqi events do not exist, that leaves the U.S. as the sole source of information. It is,therefore, more than expected that the U. S. appraisals on this attack or any other attack would point the arrow in one carefully selected direction: �terrorists� attacked the U.N.�

Four: did any one investigate the case from a criminal viewpoint? Who decided that the attackers were �Arab or Iraqi terrorists?� Further, by what factual evidence did world governments and press decide to line up behind a superpower known for its gross lies?

Five: pay attention to the fact that the State Department did not specify who these �terrorists� were, and why they attacked the U.N. Conceivably, Iraqis and Arabs should have no reason to attack the U.N. because, at least, it did not authorize U.S. aggression on Iraq.

Six: logical reasons, however, dictate that Iraqis have no interests in targeting anyone except the occupiers from all nationalities. Consequently, only the occupying power had interests in hitting the U.N. for three fundamental reasons: 1) to create intense terrorist activities in Iraq, 2) to spread the notion that �terrorists� are �against the world,� therefore, this world must subscribe to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and 3) to prepare for the emergence of Zarqawi on the public scene.

How did the United Nations, imperialist media, and Zionist academia react to the attack against the UN headquarters in Baghdad?