Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Bush is to Blame for Destroying Iraq

By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com. Posted February 24, 2006.


Americans, Iraqis and the international community must hold Bush and Cheney responsible for the destruction of Iraq.
Advertisement

With Iraq perched at the very precipice of an ethnic and sectarian holocaust, the utter failure of the Bush administration's policy is revealed with starkest clarity. Iraq may or may not fall into the abyss in the next few days and weeks, but what is no longer in doubt is who is to blame: If Iraq is engulfed in civil war then Americans, Iraqis and the international community must hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney responsible for the destruction of Iraq.

The CIA, the State Department, members of Congress and countless Middle East experts warned Bush and Cheney -- to no avail -- that toppling Saddam could unleash the demons of civil war. They said so before, during and in the aftermath of the war, and each time the warnings were dismissed. Those warnings came from people like Paul Pillar, the CIA veteran who served as the U.S. intelligence community's chief Middle East analyst; from Wayne White, the State Department's chief intelligence analyst on Iraq; and from two CIA Baghdad station chiefs who were purged for their analysis. Pillar, who wrote this month in Foreign Affairs that prewar intelligence on Iraq was distorted by the Bush-Cheney team, is being excoriated by the right.

For the most radical-right neoconservative Jacobins amongst the Bush-Cheney team, the possibility that Iraq might fall apart wasn't even alarming: They just didn't care, and in their obsessive zeal to overthrow Saddam Hussein they were more than willing to take the risk. David Wurmser, who migrated from the Israeli-connected Washington Institute on Near East Policy to the American Enterprise Institute to the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans to John Bolton's arms control shop at the State Department to Dick Cheney's shadow National Security Council in the office of the vice president from 2001 to 2006, wrote during the 1990s that Iraq after Saddam was likely to descend into violent tribal, ethnic and sectarian war.

In a paper for an Israeli think tank, the same think tank for which Wurmser, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith prepared the famous "Clean Break" paper in 1996, Wurmser wrote in 1997: "The residual unity of the nation is an illusion projected by the extreme repression of the state." After Saddam, Iraq would "be ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects and key families," he wrote. "Underneath facades of unity enforced by state repression, [Iraq's] politics is defined primarily by tribalism, sectarianism and gang/clan-like competition." Yet Wurmser explicitly urged the United States and Israel to "expedite" such a collapse. "The issue here is whether the West and Israel can construct a strategy for limiting and expediting the chaotic collapse that will ensue in order to move on to the task of creating a better circumstance."

Such black neoconservative fantasies -- which view the Middle East as a chessboard on which they can move the pieces at will -- have now come home to roost. For the many hundreds of thousands who might die in an Iraqi civil war, the consequences are all too real.

The bankruptcy of the Bush-Cheney Iraq policy is revealed in the fact that the United States has succeeded in pitting itself now against two major "resistance" groups in Iraq. The first is the Sunni-led, mostly Baathist and military resistance, which has battled U.S. forces in Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle to the north and west. The second, which is growing in the ferocity of its anti-Americanism, is the Shiite religious force led by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Moqtada Al Sadr's Mahdi Army and their allies, who have begun routinely to denounce the United States for its opposition to their plans to create a Shiite-dominated, Iranian-allied Islamic Republic of Iraq. Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, SCIRI's chieftain and former commander of its Badr Brigade paramilitary force, has all but declared war on the United States, blaming Ambassador Khalilzad for giving a "green light" to the bombers by insisting that Shiite militias be disarmed. Proclaimed Hakim:


Digg!

Robert Dreyfuss is a contributing editor at The Nation and a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone. His book, "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam," will be published by Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books in the fall.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
turn out as planned
Posted by: daa4 on Feb 24, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has to be taken into consideration that President Bush and VP Cheney did not ignore that going into Iraq will unleash a potential Civial War. They could very well have been thinking, ...hey if we create a civil war in Iraq they will start attacking each other and not the US. Heck, they may just wipe each other out. Save us the hassle.... This is a very skeptical and insensitive view point on the administration's motives. However, it cannot be ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: turn out as planned Posted by: Wacre
Isreali Influence
Posted by: JSquercia on Feb 24, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this story reminds us of how dangerous it is to Doug Feith and Paul Woflwitz making poilcy for the US .
I wonder how many dual citizen people we have formulating Foriegn Policy .
The Bible got it right in saying No man can serve TWO Masters .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isreali Influence Posted by: brunowe
» Another non-sequitur Posted by: brunowe
» Bios Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Isreali Influence Posted by: stickmn95
» RE: Isreali Influence Posted by: mythbuster
» Uh...anti-semitism? Posted by: JessB
» RE: Brunowe: huh?! Posted by: EY
» RE: Isreali Influence Posted by: forster
» RE: Isreali Influence Posted by: JessB
We made the mess,we have to fix it.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 24, 2006 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq is the tipping point of US Mideast policy. Through many crooked deals spanning many decades,we've created the
enemy that occupies the minds of the people and most of us are too young to remember it. The civil war looming in Iraq serves the Administration in two ways. It keeps the need for our troops to be there constantly piped down our throatsand the destruction the civil unrest brings creates damage we don't have to pay for,but will.
The Govt we wanted to see get in did'nt. So you have to ask yourself;'If the folks I wanted did'nt make it,how can I get them in faster?". Civil War works pretty well. We did it in Central America in the 70's and 80's, it should work here.
We need to make a gesture to the Muslim world that says we're giving up our antagonist ways and be willing to deal with anyone their particular group designates as their Leader.
We must admit to the inequitable treatment of arab/muslim
nations in favor of isreal. There was a time when our govt was considered an upstart,rogue,terrorist nation so we can't say our hands are clean on the way to being recognized as a Nation. We need to do the same with respect to Hamas and other 'elected' leaders and give them the same respect we demanded from the World in our rise to Nation status.
Who the 'insurgents' are pretty much depends on what side of the invasion you're on. We illegally invaded this Nation and installed a governance. When given a choice,the people of Iraq chose different. Old wounds are opened and new ones aide the unrest. This was the forseeable outcome the Bush Administration knew would happen and welcome it. Just like the hundreds of billions that the war costs is for the good of the administration,so is a civil war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Focus on preventing new wars
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 24, 2006 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless we tighten the rules under which a U.S. president can order troops to war, there will be more unnecessary conflicts like Iraq.

Americans should demand that the War Powers Act be modified to require a clear and present danger to U.S. national security before substantial troop deployments. No more "preventive wars."

The law should impose tough new performance criteria on all deployments lasting two months or longer to ensure progress is being made. No more "Trust us, it will turn out OK."

As a Vietnam veteran, it was very disturbing for me to watch the U.S. making the very same mistakes in Iraq. Politicians learn nothing from history, so it's up to the people to demand tough laws to protect our troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Focus on Peace
Posted by: activatenow87 on Feb 24, 2006 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is essential that Americans begin to revision their foreign policy; additionally, Americans need to become aware of their nation's foreign actions. American militarism must end -- there is no such thing as a "good war" -- or America will die as a nation.

As an American, I think that coming from a place of peace is essential. We need to:

1) Cut the Pentagon Budget
2) Reduce and Eliminate Our Nuclear Weapons
3) Work to Reduce and Eliminate international nukes
4) Create a Department of Peace (DoP) to counter the Pentagon; the DoP could act as an independent watchdog.
5) Declare a new policy of peaceful co-existence

First, however, we must impeach Bush. We must also create an alternative to the pro-war democrats in Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen Posted by: O.B.Server
» RE: Focus on Peace Posted by: ernesto58
» RE: Focus on Peace Posted by: outsidea
Civil War is profitable for oil.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Feb 24, 2006 3:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bombing of the Golden Dome in Samarra ought not to be seen as a conspiratorial effort to provoke civil war" ... hmmm.

The article makes some interesting points, but it's clear that US and british forces have been caught commiting terrorist acts in disguise before.

Civil war, it seems ot me, works best for the Occupation Forces, or that is... thier bosses and benefactors. Soon, the oil fields and pipe-lines will be military fortresses (payed for in US tax $) while there is no government to oppose ownership. No real threat to the oil comes from chaotic civil war. This frees the Occupation Forces to consentrate on that and, bonus, the US doesn't have to put out billions to rebuild an entire national structure (which it destroyed for the most part).

Why do you suppose the US left all thoughs ammo dumps unguarded for months, letting tons of bombs and guns be trucked out (drive right up to Ali's IED depo... where the lowest price is a war)?

Speculation, sure, but in the big picture you have to wonder if that doesn't make more sense than the fundementalist Wahabi reasons for civil war scenario. Considering the importance of the Golden Dome in Samarra makes me wonder if any Mulim would do such a thing for so sectarian a reason.

Hmmm. ;p

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War on Iran next
Posted by: riley on Feb 25, 2006 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must have a reason to keep those good old Republicans in power. Unfortunately, I don't think the Democrats can or will change anything if they do win the 06 elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War on Iran next Posted by: Lincoln fan
And don't forget that little creep that is Australia's current prime minister!
Posted by: robert_hoogenboom on Feb 25, 2006 4:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little Johnny Howard, a sneaky little man, puts his shabby little policies over people when they are in no position to stop him. He is part of the oh-so-willing. He too should be indicted for being an accessory to the death of thousands of Iraqis and to causing the impending civil war. The little arse-licker considers himself one of Bush's best friends. As though he rates. As though George Bush will help him if Muslim Indonesia decides it wants Australia, they way they wanted, and got, New Guinea.

Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BadgerSouth
Posted by: BadgerSouth on Feb 25, 2006 5:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Failed War of Choice: Iraq Imploding

"The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday." [CNN, 2/24/06]

The very foundation of the vaunted, "They Stand-Up, We Stand-Down" strategy of the Bush-Cheney Administration is literally unraveling before our eyes.

Thanks to the Bush-Cheney Administration’s "War of Choice", Iraq is imploding.

All of the President’s horses and all of the President’s men will not be able to put Iraq back together again.

Under the Bush-Cheney Administration, the United States of America has bequeathed to future generations a debt of more than $500 billion to wage a war that will leave America and Americans less safe and secure than we were before the war.

Please transform your anger about this colossal failure of leadership into political action. Send Letters to the Editor. Write your Congressperson and Senators. Get involved in this Fall's elections. Do whatever you can to bring this insane war to a screeching halt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Again with the tinfoil hats! Posted by: brunowe
» You're the name caller... Posted by: brunowe
» RE: BadgerSouth Posted by: outsidea
Who will do it.???
Posted by: Scott on Feb 25, 2006 5:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main problem here is that there is no one ready, capable or willing to do the "world court" or "world Criminal" thing on these two men and their followers..... the american people cannot do it, plus they have no taste in their mouths for blood. IT will take a group of world leaders or nations who care not one hoot about their relationship to this nation. THEY and only they can call for and galavanize the world into hauling Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice into the dockets at the World Court...... BUT IF YOU believe that will happen now or ever then I have a "rabbit hole" where Alice lives that I need to sell to you! The Republican Right-Wing religious nuts who believe that their god is the only god and that their King James Bible (done by a homo loving king) is the only bible have now unleshed onto the world stage the final countdown to the coming destruction of the world with the USA leading the charge! We may not live to see it, but your children or certainly your grandchildren will see a "nuked" world bathed in blood, billions dead and IT all started under the reign of the first dictator of the American People.... G. W. BUSH>>> Have no fear, with or without this "port deal" a nuke will go off before 2008 and we will be living under our first dictator, G.W. Bush before the year 2008 finishes it's course!!!!!!!!! The die is cast, nothing can be done to stop it..............

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: outsidea
» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: starvinmarvy
» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: marymad
» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: hwolters
» RE: Who will do it.??? Posted by: hwolters
The Dialectic Marches on!
Posted by: Citizendeane on Feb 25, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dialectic marches on.There will be no world court to hold America responsible for America is the only world power. What will China and Russia make out of this? I assure you they will not be passive! The political price of this war has been paid by the the American state and the American people.The state is no longer a republic, the government is no longer democratic and the people are no longer sovereign. The United States is now ruled by a nationalist dictatorship that pursues a policy of world supremacy. Americans live in a world of incomprehension about state matters. The last authoritarian nationalist dictatorship to pursue world supremacy was that of Adolf Hitler. Welcome to the exclusive club, America. The sign above the door reads "only fascists may enter". Alternet writers are very sophisticated observers and reporters, dedicated liberals and a few socialists. They know virtually knowing about the state, for that is a matter of theory, not merely observation of what is before your nose. Much is the pity. The great nation-states of the world are not so ignorant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try Them For War Crimes
Posted by: Tom Degan on Feb 25, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here I go again: They broke international law by invading Iraq in the first place.
They defied the United Nations.
They violated the Geneva Convention.
They lied about the motive for invading the country.
They targeted civilians. Scores of thousands of them are dead.
They have created a virtual holocaust.

George W. Bush should be tried as a war criminal. The hideous little bastard should be hog-tied and handed over to the Hague. Dick Cheney, no doubt, deserves the same fate but will probably avoid it. Mercifully for all of us, that fatal heart attack we've been waiting for for the last five-plus years has got to come any day now.

What are we waiting for? Would someone please anwer that question for me? What are we waiting for? These murderous half-wits have hurled more destruction on the planet than any other human being since Adolf Hitler. What the fuck are we waiting for? The first time I ever saw George W. Bush was in 1988 when he was managing his father's primary campaign in South Carolina. He was interviewed on NBC News and I remember thinking, "Goodness gracious, this is one stupid son of a bitch"! If you had told me then and there that within thirteen years this idiot would be sitting in the oval office calling the shots, so to speak, I would have packed my bags and moved to Canada.

The joke is over, folks. This guy is no longer just a convenient target for well deserved jokes. He's a dangerous criminal and we have to stop him.

Impeach, try, convict and imprison him. That's our only option. Our ONLY option.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Try Them For War Crimes Posted by: cottontail
» Hey there Cottontail! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Try Them For War Crimes Posted by: ConnecttheDots
Who left the infrastructure destroyed
Posted by: bookwoman on Feb 25, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This past week, during a speech to a veteran's group, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein and his followers had left a cultural void and a damaged infrastructure when they left Bagdad. I'm sorry - who did this damage to the country? I believe that the blame for destroying the underlying support structure which keeps a country and culture operating should be laid at the door of the Bush appointees such as Paul Bremer, etc. who didn't have the foresight to keep the Iraqi security forces in places and, instead, sent them home, unemployed, with their guns or who didn't ask that our own soldiers be used to guard vital infrastructure sights at the beginning of this mess.

U. S. Armed forces would have done an excellent job of protecting these places if they had been given the job. As for not using former security forces - that didn't bother the Allies after World War II in Europe where German army officers and politicians who were as "clean" as possible were used to keep things in order because they knew the territory and the people. Duh!!! If you don't have the foresight to do any independent thinking, you can, at least, use the lessons of past history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COMBAT VETERAN WEIGHS IN...........
Posted by: kc10ken on Feb 25, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a combat Veteran who served honorably for over thirteen years in the military. I volunteered for and served three combat tours in the middle east.

I refused to reenlist when my last 6 year enlistment was up because I absolutely want no part in what this lunatic in the White House is doing not only to our military but to the rest of the world.

This quagmire, and yes indeed it certainly IS a quagmire, is an abomination against humanity. It was ill conceived and not thought out at all. Lack of planning and forsight runs rampant in our government these days but it really is obvious in our operations in Iraq.

I ABHOR the old curmudgeon chickenhawks who sent us to Iraq. They are all draft dodging scum who, if they ever served, would have thought twice about committing 2300 19 year old kids to their graves. So far, 16,500 of my fellow soldiers are PERMANENTLY disabled. No arms, no legs, horribly burned and disfigured and condemned to wheelchairs for the rest of their lives. Over 300,000 have ALREADY filed for some form of disability. As a Veterans rights advocate, I currently volunteer my time at my local VA hospital and I can tell you with all honesty that the tide of military opinion is quickly turning against this corrupt human shitwave of an adminstration that sent us into combat ill equipped and without thinking of the consequences of their actions.

Rumsfeld should be FIRED for GROSS INCOMPETENCE and prosecuted. His actions (or lack thereof) are directly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of US Soldiers in Iraq. Ask ANY Army basic trainee and he will tell you that the top priority of an invading US Army is to secure ALL enemy military installations and ammo dumps. This is done to deny your enemy the means to continue killing you. What did Rumsfeld direct our Army to do?

SECURE THE OIL FIELDS FIRST.

That was our TOP priority and is one of the main reasons we invaded Iraq......OIL.

Because of this MAJOR strategic military blunder, besides invading with only 150,000 troops instead of over 350,000 as all of Rumsfelds experienced military Generals told him to do, the insurgents in Iraq have looted well over 280,000 tons of military high grade explosives. That's enough to kill Americans for the next 250 years at a rate of over 150 attacks per day.

Guys like me tried to warn the administration and the American public in the fall of 2002 that Iraq could not possibly posess WMD's. It didn't make sense. In military intelligence, if we can't positively identify a target, it's not a target. It's that simple. Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest of the Chickenhawks cherry picked what few intelligence reports cast doubt on Iraq's posession of WMD's. ALL the other intel, and there were mountains of it, stated flat out that Iraq did NOT have WMD's. DOZENS of Iraqi defectors in the mid to late 90's all said the same thing when interrogated by our CIA...."Saddam destroyed his WMD's". These interviews were suppressed and not considered in the run up to war.

We have made a terrible mistake in Iraq.

God help us and the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The War On "Terror"
Posted by: LouisFallert on Feb 25, 2006 1:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I now realize that I have been mishearing Bush all this time.
It's not "The War on Terror,"
It's "The War On Terra" !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The War On "Terror" Posted by: robert_hoogenboom
Talk is cheap . . .
Posted by: Moonray on Feb 25, 2006 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this criticism is well and good, but the bottom line is, real reforms are unlikely. The Establishment uses its enormous wealth to buy TV spots to mislead voters, who are apathetic anyway.

So, even in a best case scenario, the most we can hope for is someone like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden winning the presidency, and a few slightly more liberal folks in Congress.

Our "democracy" -- actually a plutocracy based on wealth and political influence -- is designed to make change very difficult, and the process becomes more calcified every year. Sometimes those European parliaments look pretty good from here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Talk is cheap . . . Posted by: Lincoln fan
So much for all that oil. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 25, 2006 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .that we thought the Iraqis would just let us steal after we privatized all of their infrastructure. Now it appears that we may not be able to control, let alone exploit, ANY of their infrastructure – IF there is any of it left after the civil war that seems to be inevitable.

At a time when the 2nd largest known oil reserves could come in handy to a world on the verge of going thirsty for the precious stuff, the Bush "geniuses" may have set conditions for Iraq to degenerate back to the Stone Age. Just try to set up a petroleum supply system under THOSE conditions.

The one law that seems to be incontrovertable in the supposedly modern world is the Law of Unintended Consequences – and the Bush neocons have commited a "capital" offense against this law as well as many others. They really stepped in it this time, and it ain't comin' off their shoes.

Who will bring them to task for their crimes? Seemingly no one in this country: the media is now afraid of its own shadow, the Supremes are part of Bush's club, and Congress is likewise scared of its own shadow and up to its collective armpits in scandal as well (my guess is that Bush and Co. know where all the skeletons are hanging in the capital's closets. . .).

So, don't look homeward for justice; that will have to come from the World Court, after these criminals leave office. We can only hope that the World Court will do what we are afraid to do, and that we will learn the hard lessons of our latest brush with fascism and not make same blunders again. Considering the mindset of the general population in America today, I don't hold out much hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still Not Getting It
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 25, 2006 6:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The misperception that Bush invaded Iraq out of "obsessive zeal to overthrow Saddam Hussein" only shows that author Robert Dreyfuss still isn't getting it. The person in power in Iraq on the eve of the US invasion could have been Saddam Hussein, or Elmer Fudd, or Queen Nefertiti, and it still wouldn't have made a single iota of difference in the plan to invade Iraq.

We invaded to take their oil. We secured the oilfields on Day 1 and kept them pumping. A civil war in Iraq just makes it easier to extract Iraqi oil without having to deal with a potentially resistant civilian government.

Mission Accomplished

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still Not Getting It Posted by: Rod from Canada
» Rescued by the Brits? Posted by: Rod from Canada
Australian public opinion
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Feb 25, 2006 8:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am curious how the Australian public regards the war in Iraq and support (at the political level) for US foreign policy in general. I was living in Britain when the decision was made to go to war, and there there was overwhelming public opposition before that decision was even made. My impression is that Australians in general don't think about international politics as much as the British do, but more than people in the States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pathetic! Posted by: The Butcher
» RE: Yes, pathetic! We think we are safe! Posted by: robert_hoogenboom
The US is replacing its nuclear arsenal!
Posted by: robert_hoogenboom on Feb 26, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SBS, the Australian broadcaster that gave you the suppressed pictures from Abu Ghraib recently, is about to broadcast how the US is secretly replacing its nuclear arsenal. That should be interesting watching next Wednesday night!

The sad fact remains that, evil as the American government is at the moment, I wouldn't like to live in a country occupied by the Chinese, come here to take our oil and gas.

Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Throw the Bums Out!
Posted by: BadgerSouth on Feb 26, 2006 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An article in today’s New York Times, "Younger Clerics Showing Power in Iraq’s Unrest," portrays what is currently happening within Iraq’s Shiite community more objectively than does the Pablum being spoon fed to Americans and the media by the Bush-Cheney Administration.

The article also reveals how inept the Bush-Cheney Administration has been in understanding the dynamics occurring within the Iraqi Shiite community.

Because of their gross ineptness, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be impeached and removed from office post haste.

If you share this assessment, please convey your thoughts to your Member of Congress and to your state’s two US Senators.

Also, work you butts off to "Throw the Bums* Out" in this year's Congressional elections.

*Any Republican or Democrat Congressperson that supports the Iraq War being conducted by the Bush-Cheney Administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's The Economy.....
Posted by: realist1 on Feb 26, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All hail the Commander-in-Chief, Brave Warrior and Defender of the Empire.

Bush & Co have grossly overstepped their powers as permitted by the Constitution, however we the people have allowed them to. Just as in Nazi Germany there was no public debate over the human tragedy, in the US there is no public debate over the 100,000-plus civilian lives the Iraq war has claimed. (Iraqui:Jew: Subhuman) The Constitution provides for means to remove the executive head for high crimes and midemeanors but we have not exercised the power given to us through the Congress. Congress has refused to act. We are living in a default one-party state. But why is all of this happening?

When Nixon abandoned the gold standard he had to find a workable alternative. Up until 1971, the US government promised to pay 1/36 an ounce of gold for every dollar redeemed. When reserve holders (France, for instance) challenged the US to make good on its promise, our leaders had no option. Of course the paper money is worthless unless it can be exchanged for something of real value. Nixon & Co. were brilliant in coming up with the dollars-for-oil scheme of '72-'73, in place by '75. In exchange for territorial protection, Saudi Arabia and the OPEC agreed to receive dollars only for their oil. Now we had a new standard for dollars and a system that perpetuated "dollar hegmony": i.e. the world maintaining the dollar as their reserve currency, and accepting the dollar as payment for goods. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, all of Europe, all accepted the dollar as payment for their manufactures, which still hinges on the dollar's convertibility to oil.

The burgeoning US trade deficit ($731 billion in '05) is made possible by this system. We print the money that the world accepts as payment for thier finished goods. Iraq, in December 2000, announced their departure from this system. The Iraq war is a direct result of this threat to dollar hegemony. Iran has now announced the opening of a new Oil Bourse that is to open in March, with oil to be traded in--you guessed it--Euros. New war on Iran.

Of course the cost (in dollars) of the Iraq war pales in comparison to the US trade deficit, let alone the cost of a severe depression of the US economy that would likely be the result of the oil producers' abandonment of the Dollar as the primary oil currency. Sadly, in the administration's cold calculation, the Iraq war, the coming Iran war, and possibly others, are all cheaper than the alternative.

But what about the human cost? What about the environmental cost? What about the threat to the entire US system of Constitutional government? If there is an "axis of evil" then Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Nixco and Bushco are all on the list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on Feb 27, 2006 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can dream can't we? The Bush/Cheney Gang won't be held responsible for anything. Ideally, a trial and conviction before the World Court for war crimes and terrorism would be quite satisfactory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

iraq, war, and everything
Posted by: commonsense on Mar 2, 2006 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
horse poopy. The whole middle east as we know it today was rendered prosperous through petroleum sales by the actions of Standard Oil, mainly, and america by proxy. What was once a degenerate wasteland populated by warring tribes now has cell phones. They also have hellacious social problems, which america probably can't solve for them.
The future for the region, for Iraq, the innumerable 'stans etc. will evolve from the intentions of their people, islamists, whatever...if they destroy themselves, which is somewhat likely, the american taxpayer will be asked once again to pay for another rebuilding, and another, and another...I think if america's participation in iraq were to be put to a public vote,
it'd be over with, in the spirit of not throwing good money after bad ideas.

People keep talking more and more about impeachment, and solving problems at home before running all over the world to solve everyone else's, and I agree with that idea. We still have show-stoppers like gang violence, mexico/drugs/gangs,
and a ballooning national debt that will put paid to our national future if they remain unchecked. Those, in my view, are more important than Iraq.

On the other hand, Bush got her pregnant, so to speak, now we're stuck with child support. One can only hope for massive, simultaneous cranio-rectal extraction and a wholesale return to common sense.
Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]