*Ø* Why Iraq? God instructed Bush, that's why
Chris Keeley, a Net mate of mine from USA (Daily Dreamtime blog) has been sending some interesting stuff lately. His father, retired US diplomat Robert Keeley, is associated with Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change which is making quite a splash:
He also sent me the following fine article but no headline or URL (I googled a phrase in it and a teaser showed up at AlterMedia but the full story required a log-in so I will take a liberty and reprint what Chris sent me in full):
By James A. Haught
The Charleston Gazette - 6/15/04
Millions of words are being written about the Iraq war, but hardly anyone asks the fundamental, underlying, unanswered question: Why did the Bush administration start it?
As Americans watch the sickening daily events, we really don't know why we got into this mess.
All the official reasons for the war turned out to be phony. Iraq didn't possess horror weapons, wasn't in league with terrorists, wasn't a menace to America and wasn't eager to welcome U.S. troops as liberators. So why did President Bush order the attack? This should be the number-one question of 2004, yet it isn't heard in the election campaign.
About half of Americans still support Bush's war. Maybe they don't even wonder about the cause. If asked, many of them probably would say the war was necessary because of the 9/11 suicide assault. But that's irrational. No Iraqis were among the self-destroying "holy warriors" of Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly all of them were Saudis – yet the White House wouldn't have dreamed of attacking Saudi Arabia.
Early in the war, some cynical Americans speculated that Bush's secret motive was to gain control over Iraq's oil – or to finish his father's old vendetta against Saddam Hussein – or to establish U.S. global military sway, as advocated by far-right hawks in the Project for a New American Century. But those allegations seem largely forgotten now. Nobody seriously thinks it was started to give fat contracts to Halliburton.
A couple of weeks ago, longtime U.S. Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., challenged his colleagues to explain why America is at war – but he got no comprehendible answer.
Hollings had stirred up a hornets' nest by contending that President Bush ordered the invasion partly to serve interests of Israel and "to take the Jewish vote from the Democrats." In a commentary published by several southern newspapers last month, Hollings noted that all of Bush's purported reasons for the war were false.
"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?" the senator wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."
Hollings pointed out that Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and other key hawks in Bush's clique spent many years demanding a U.S. attack on Iraq, partly "to guarantee Israel's security." Because of their influence, he said, Bush came into office looking for an excuse to invade – and the 9/11 tragedy provided it.
"You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq," the senator said, so other pretexts were given for the war.
Ironically, he said, Bush's war actually is creating more terrorism, thus worsening danger to Israel.
Immediately after the commentary was published, Hollings was denounced as anti-Semitic, even by fellow senators. In response, he gave a long, extemporaneous, May 20 floor speech denying any prejudice, and asking:
"I challenge any one of the other 99 senators to tell us why we are in Iraq?... Everybody knows it is because we want to secure our friend, Israel."
Hollings said he mistakenly supported the 2002 resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When Bush began talking about Iraq's secret nuclear program, he said, he assumed that Israeli agents had detected evidence of such weaponry and had asked the White House to "knock it out for them. That is why I voted for it. I got misled."
Last month, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni made similar allegations on "60 Minutes." He said "everybody I talk to in Washington" knows that Bush's far-right advisors wanted to invade Iraq to strengthen Israel's position in the Mideast. Gen. Zinni said that, likewise, "I was called anti-Semitic."
The Village Voice says White House aides meet with leaders of a Pentecostal (talking in tongues) lobby that wants Israel to reign over biblical territory, to fulfill prophecies for the return of Jesus.
Meanwhile, some observers think President Bush's simplistic religion, which brands opponents as "evil," was a factor in his war. In his news conference last month, he declared that "freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in the world, and as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help spread that freedom." In other words, he thinks he carried out God's will by ending dictatorship in Iraq.
Earlier, Bush told biographer Bob Woodward that he didn't consult his earthly father about launching the war – "there's a higher father that I appeal to." Fringe candidate Ralph Nader calls Bush a "Messianic militarist" – a holy warrior.
Last year, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas met with Bush, and said afterward that the American president told him: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida, and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." The White House later denied this statement. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen feigned disappointment about the denial, saying "the purported instructions from God remain about the only explanation for some of what Bush has done."
From all of this, can anyone fathom the real reason why 826 young Americans and thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and a chaotic mess has been created? If you can see a logical explanation, I wish you'd spell it out for me.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Chris Keeley, a Net mate of mine from USA (Daily Dreamtime blog) has been sending some interesting stuff lately. His father, retired US diplomat Robert Keeley, is associated with Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change which is making quite a splash:
"An unprecedented bipartisan coalition of 27 career chiefs of mission and retired four-star military leaders will launch a nationwide campaign to press for the need for change in U.S. foreign and defense policy because they are deeply concerned by the damage the Bush Administration has caused to our national and international interests."
He also sent me the following fine article but no headline or URL (I googled a phrase in it and a teaser showed up at AlterMedia but the full story required a log-in so I will take a liberty and reprint what Chris sent me in full):
By James A. Haught
The Charleston Gazette - 6/15/04
Millions of words are being written about the Iraq war, but hardly anyone asks the fundamental, underlying, unanswered question: Why did the Bush administration start it?
As Americans watch the sickening daily events, we really don't know why we got into this mess.
All the official reasons for the war turned out to be phony. Iraq didn't possess horror weapons, wasn't in league with terrorists, wasn't a menace to America and wasn't eager to welcome U.S. troops as liberators. So why did President Bush order the attack? This should be the number-one question of 2004, yet it isn't heard in the election campaign.
About half of Americans still support Bush's war. Maybe they don't even wonder about the cause. If asked, many of them probably would say the war was necessary because of the 9/11 suicide assault. But that's irrational. No Iraqis were among the self-destroying "holy warriors" of Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly all of them were Saudis – yet the White House wouldn't have dreamed of attacking Saudi Arabia.
Early in the war, some cynical Americans speculated that Bush's secret motive was to gain control over Iraq's oil – or to finish his father's old vendetta against Saddam Hussein – or to establish U.S. global military sway, as advocated by far-right hawks in the Project for a New American Century. But those allegations seem largely forgotten now. Nobody seriously thinks it was started to give fat contracts to Halliburton.
A couple of weeks ago, longtime U.S. Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., challenged his colleagues to explain why America is at war – but he got no comprehendible answer.
Hollings had stirred up a hornets' nest by contending that President Bush ordered the invasion partly to serve interests of Israel and "to take the Jewish vote from the Democrats." In a commentary published by several southern newspapers last month, Hollings noted that all of Bush's purported reasons for the war were false.
"With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country?" the senator wrote. "The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel."
Hollings pointed out that Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and other key hawks in Bush's clique spent many years demanding a U.S. attack on Iraq, partly "to guarantee Israel's security." Because of their influence, he said, Bush came into office looking for an excuse to invade – and the 9/11 tragedy provided it.
"You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq," the senator said, so other pretexts were given for the war.
Ironically, he said, Bush's war actually is creating more terrorism, thus worsening danger to Israel.
Immediately after the commentary was published, Hollings was denounced as anti-Semitic, even by fellow senators. In response, he gave a long, extemporaneous, May 20 floor speech denying any prejudice, and asking:
"I challenge any one of the other 99 senators to tell us why we are in Iraq?... Everybody knows it is because we want to secure our friend, Israel."
Hollings said he mistakenly supported the 2002 resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When Bush began talking about Iraq's secret nuclear program, he said, he assumed that Israeli agents had detected evidence of such weaponry and had asked the White House to "knock it out for them. That is why I voted for it. I got misled."
Last month, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni made similar allegations on "60 Minutes." He said "everybody I talk to in Washington" knows that Bush's far-right advisors wanted to invade Iraq to strengthen Israel's position in the Mideast. Gen. Zinni said that, likewise, "I was called anti-Semitic."
The Village Voice says White House aides meet with leaders of a Pentecostal (talking in tongues) lobby that wants Israel to reign over biblical territory, to fulfill prophecies for the return of Jesus.
Meanwhile, some observers think President Bush's simplistic religion, which brands opponents as "evil," was a factor in his war. In his news conference last month, he declared that "freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in the world, and as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help spread that freedom." In other words, he thinks he carried out God's will by ending dictatorship in Iraq.
Earlier, Bush told biographer Bob Woodward that he didn't consult his earthly father about launching the war – "there's a higher father that I appeal to." Fringe candidate Ralph Nader calls Bush a "Messianic militarist" – a holy warrior.
Last year, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas met with Bush, and said afterward that the American president told him: "God told me to strike at al-Qaida, and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." The White House later denied this statement. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen feigned disappointment about the denial, saying "the purported instructions from God remain about the only explanation for some of what Bush has done."
From all of this, can anyone fathom the real reason why 826 young Americans and thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and a chaotic mess has been created? If you can see a logical explanation, I wish you'd spell it out for me.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Pip Wilson posted item above at 2:20 PM | Permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home