What Every American Should Know About Iraq
Some people think that anyone who disagrees with the American invasion and occupation of Iraq is either a bleeding-heart liberal appeaser, a George W. Bush hater, a blame America firster, an underminer of the troops, a traitor, or a geopolitical naif.
To those who see opponents of the war as fitting into one, several, or all of these categories, I say read this page. I will make no arguments herein, nor even commentary. I will twist no data nor spin any tales. I will even include some of the comments and arguments made by the administration and its supporters.
Instead of arguing against the war, I will try to offer a fairly complete account of the relevant facts one might wish to consider when evaluating America’s policy in Iraq. Especially for those who continually claim that they, more than others, have the best interests of the troops at heart - but actually for all citizens in a democracy - it is incumbent upon us to educate ourselves about this most important of national policies.
Those troops are being maimed and are dying on our behalf every day. The very least we can do is spend a brief amount of our time learning about this question so that we can decide whether their continued sacrifices are justified.
So, in that spirit - and as the Founders themselves said - “let Facts be submitted to a candid world”.
* Mesopotamia has long been a playground for great powers. The British invaded the area in 1917, causing a widespread revolt of the Iraqi people. Britain later ruled under a League of Nations mandate that produced the artificial creation of the country Iraq (and Kuwait), and continued to control oil production in the region. Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour said at the time, “I do not care under what system we keep this oil, but I am quite clear it is all-important for us that this oil should be available”.
* Saddam Hussein started his career as a political thug, on the payroll of the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s, torturing and murdering Iraqi leftists whose names were provided by American intelligence, and participating in an armed coup against the Iraqi government.
* In 1972, the United States conspired with Iran and Israel to support a revolt of the Kurdish people within Iraq against their government.
* In 1980, the United States provided encouragement, weapons, intelligence, satellite data and funding for Saddam’s Iraq to invade Iran, launching an eight year war - the longest and probably the bloodiest of the post-WWII era.
* During this war, Ronald Reagan dispatched Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to improve relations with Saddam. The United States then restored full diplomatic relations with Iraq, despite the administration’s clear awareness that Saddam was using chemical weapons at the time.
* The Reagan administration also knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds rising up again against Baghdad (this was the incident George W. Bush would later repeatedly invoke, saying of Saddam, “He gassed his own people”), but nevertheless authorized expanded sales to Iraq of highly sophisticated equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons, only two months after the Halabja incident.
* George H. W. Bush equated Saddam to Hitler. But, in the wake of the 1990-91 Gulf War, after the elder Bush had encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rise up against the regime, he abandoned them, leaving them to be slaughtered by Saddam’s military, in many cases right before the eyes of US forces who were ordered not to intervene.
* The senior Bush had a chance after that war to occupy Iraq and topple Saddam. He chose not to because, in his own words and those of his National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, “Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq … would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. … We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. …furthermore, we had been self‑consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post‑cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.’s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.”
* The younger Bush, George W., never asked his father for advice on Iraq. Instead, he said: “You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.” Bush has also stated, “I’m driven with a mission from God. …God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq…’ And I did.”
* George W. Bush gave twenty interviews in 1999 to Mickey Herskowitz, a friend of the Bush family contracted at the time to ghostwrite his autobiography. Bush was thinking about invading Iraq at that time, saying “‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander‑in‑chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Herskowitz said that Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were shaped by Dick Cheney’s ideas, based on the power and glory Margaret Thatcher earned from her Falklands War: “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” Herskowitz also reports this interesting note from his interviews with Bush: “He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake. That was one of the keys to being a leader.”
* During the presidential campaign of 2000, candidate Bush said very little about Iraq, and certainly never suggested the need for urgent action. Somehow, though, in just two years time - during which, if anything, Iraq actually got weaker, not stronger - Saddam and his country became a perilous and imminent threat that had to be addressed immediately.
* Former members of his own cabinet have revealed that Bush planned to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his administration, well before 9/11. All discussions were about the how of doing it, never about the why, the justification, the costs or the wisdom.
* Bush claims he is fighting a war on terror in response to 9/11. But in the first eight months of his administration, his own top terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, could not get a meeting of cabinet-level security officials to discuss terrorism. They finally met, one week before 9/11, and then the meeting was ‘hijacked’ into discussing Iraq instead. In 2004, Clarke said “Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re‑election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.” Clarke is a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, and also served in the administrations of Bush’s father, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
* Right after 9/11, according to Clarke, “The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ He came back at me and said, ‘Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection’. And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again’.”
* Iraq was not in league with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, whom the administration blamed for the 9/11 attacks. As Richard Clarke put it, “There’s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever”. Indeed, the opposite is true. Al Qaeda is a Muslim fundamentalist organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the secular regimes ruling Islamic countries, precisely what Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was. Indeed, even the highly religious Saudi Arabia (from which 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers came, none of them being Iraqis) is under violent pressure from al Qaeda for not being theocratic enough.
* Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even George Bush has now admitted this. However, over the last six years, and still to this day, Bush constantly conflates the two in almost every speech he gives, to the point where in 2003 sixty-nine percent of Americans came to believe that Saddam had been behind the 9/11 attacks. There can be little doubt that the administration used 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq, though they had nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
* According to the internal top secret documents later leaked as the Downing Street Memos, we know that the administration itself realized that “the case was thin” for war against Iraq, because “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
* Nevertheless, the administration made an internal decision that the war would be marketed around the supposed WMD threat, despite knowing it was false. The allusions to mushroom clouds, centrifuge tubes and all the rest were gross exaggerations and outright lies, and were known to be at the time by the people making them. As the Downing Street Memos reveal, a decision for war had already been made, and the public case for it was fabricated afterwards: “The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.
* The president claimed in a state of the union speech that Saddam had gone to Africa to get uranium, seriously alarming the American public. Before the speech, the CIA had told the White House to remove that comment because it was transparently false, based as it was on a crude forged letter. Ultimately, the ‘mistake’ of including this lie was blamed on Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, who was later punished for this grave ‘error’ by being promoted to National Security Advisor. His former boss, Condoleeza Rice, was punished by being promoted to Secretary of State.
* When Joseph Wilson came home from a trip to Niger and told the truth about the forged letter, the administration revealed the identity of his wife, undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, thus potentially jeopardizing the lives of all her contacts overseas. Eight witnesses recalled nine conversations with Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, in which Libby blew Plame’s cover - an act of treason - in order to punish a political ‘enemy’ for telling the truth. Libby claimed not to remember these nine conversations. Both the jury and the judge in the case thought Libby was unquestionably lying and convicted him of obstructing justice, with jurors commenting that they felt sorry for him because he was obviously taking a fall for Cheney.
* The case regarding Saddam’s chemical weapons capability was similarly trumped up. It was based on the rantings of a single source, code-named “Curveball”, whose handlers in the German intelligence service had repeatedly warned the administration that he was a drunk and a liar.
* The administration continually relied upon Iraqi exiles, many of whom had not set foot in the country for decades, as sources for information about Iraq and as mouthpieces to justify the invasion. But it is unclear who was using whom. Ahmad Chalabi, the most prominent of these, intended to use the US military as a vehicle to become leader of Iraq. Despite being wanted for massive bank fraud in Jordan, Chalabi convinced neoconservatives that he was the “George Washington of Iraq”. His Iraqi National Congress was the primary source for Bush administration claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda, neither of which was true. Chalabi gloated about how his influence led the Bush administration to war, and the Pentagon immediately flew him into Iraq following the invasion. The army of followers that he had promised would rally around him never materialized, and his party won zero parliamentary seats in the December 2005 elections. Ultimately, the United States accused him of providing intelligence secrets to the Iranian government and raided his offices.
* Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council sealed the deal for most Americans regarding the case for war. It later became apparent that almost everything Powell said that day was false, and he has described this episode as the low point in his career.
* The Downing Street Memos reveal that the purpose of authorizing UN weapons inspectors to go to Iraq was never actually to assess the threat and destroy any weapons found. Instead, the purpose was to “wrongfoot” Saddam by getting him to reject the inspectors, thus giving the American and British governments a pretext for war. Tony Blair said “It would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. If the political context were right, people would support regime change.”
* To this day Bush claims that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That had been true five years previously, but not before the war. Hans Blix, the head of the 2002-03 weapons inspection team reported that they were getting good cooperation from the Iraqis, despite the fact that - as revealed by one of the former team members - the US had inserted American spies into prior international weapons inspection teams in Iraq.
* At the time of the invasion in 2003, the weapons inspectors were nearly done with their work, and only asked for a month or two more to finish. The Bush administration claimed that the threat of Saddam and his WMD was too grave and too urgent to wait. Bush’s claim that Saddam kicked out the inspectors is not only false, but masks the actual truth, which is that the administration told the inspectors to leave because of the looming attack, before they could finish their work and by so doing remove the rationale for that attack.
* As war loomed, Iraq made broad overtures to the United States to prevent an invasion, offering to allow full, on-the-ground, American weapons inspections, anti-terrorism cooperation, oil concessions, and even backing for the US position in an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan. The only thing Saddam balked at was regime change, but even then he offered to hold elections within two years’ time. The Americans were also informed by the Iraqis at the time that there were no existing WMD. The Iraqi representatives “could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists”. The Bush administration rejected their offer, despite that it met every demand that Bush was publicly making.
* Saddam had never attacked the United States, nor even threatened to do so.
* In March of 2003, when the invasion was launched, Iraq was a gravely weakened military and economic power which could not seriously threaten its neighbors, let alone the United States. International sanctions had seriously damaged its economy and killed vast numbers of its citizens, including about 500,000 children. It had no serious weapons capability. It had lost control over two-thirds of its own airspace to American and British flyers.
* In November of 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441, requiring that Iraq declare its WMD, disarm, and allow inspections to verify that this has occurred. One week later Iraq announced that it would accept the resolution, and the weapons inspectors were simultaneously deployed.
* Iraq submitted a report to the UN, as required, indicating that it possessed no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration immediately and definitively asserted that Saddam was lying. In fact, since Iraq had no WMD, and since Bush claimed that Saddam was unquestionably lying in saying so, it was Bush who lied, not Saddam.
* Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said of the supposed Iraqi WMD, “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat”. But the United States government had never informed the UN weapons inspectors - a team that Bush had demanded be sent - of where to find those weapons.
* Two subsequent reports from teams sent to Iraq by the Bush administration itself revealed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, though some people continue to this day to say there were some found there. Moreover, these teams scientifically confirmed that such weapons are neither missing nor hidden nor deported, but never existed after the mandated weapons destruction which followed the Gulf War.
* At one point Bush claimed that two small trailers found in the desert were mobile “biological laboratories” and thus declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction”, seemingly vindicating his decision to go to war. But even before he spoke, it was known by the Pentagon that these trailers had nothing to do with WMD production, and that fact was reported to Washington two days before the president’s statement. Bush and other administration officials continued to make the claim for nearly a year, despite an unequivocal report filed from the field stating that the trailers were not, and could not be, weapons labs. Scientists and engineers on the investigating team referred to the trailers as “”the biggest sand toilets in the world”.
* Added all together, what emerges from the above-listed facts is that all the carnage and destruction that has ensued was based on the case that Iraq was so imminent a threat - despite in fact being a very weak military power - that America could not wait four to six more weeks for the weapons inspectors to finish their work and reveal that it was no threat whatsoever.
* All the world, including the Bush administration, clearly understood that Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize an invasion of Iraq. Thus, in March 2003, the US drafted a second resolution which would explicitly do so. It needed nine out of fifteen votes, with no permanent member vetoes, to pass. In a press conference, Bush was asked whether he would call for a vote regardless of anticipated outcome. He responded, “No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.” But after extensive American pressure, lobbying and even spying on Security Council members, only four countries were prepared to vote in favor of the resolution, with three of the five permanent members opposing. The president quietly withdrew the resolution he had promised “no matter what”.
* To this day Bush says in his speeches that Saddam did not comply with the UN, that Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and that Bush had Security Council authorization to invade. None of those statements are true.
* In 2004, after saying that the Iraqi threat of WMD was urgent, Bush was asked by a reporter whether he had concerns about North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program, which - unlike Iraq’s - was quite real. In response, the president just opened his palms and shrugged. North Korea has since actually tested a nuclear warhead. Yet there is little expressed concern, the president almost never mentions it, there is no invasion being planned and no war drums being beaten.
* For that matter, there never was when the Soviet Union had more than 20,000 nuclear warheads mounted on ballistic missiles targeted on the US and set to a hair trigger. Bush never explained why nuclear deterrence worked against the Soviets with all their weapons for forty years, but couldn’t have had the same effect against Iraq today.
* Bush also never explained why Iraq had to be invaded, even though more than thirty countries had greater WMD capability at the time.
* When the WMD and al Qaeda link rationales for the war were exploded, the administration began arguing that its central purpose in invading Iraq was to bring democracy to the country and to the Middle East. At the same time, however, it has done next to nothing about Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been murdered in a clear case of ongoing genocide. Since the first requisite for being able to vote is to be alive, it is unclear how invading Iraq in the name of democracy could be so urgent, yet saving lives in Darfur of little concern and no action.
* The administration was told in advance by American intelligence agencies that there was a very high danger that Iraq could explode into ethnic chaos following an invasion. It chose to attack anyhow.
* According to former US diplomat Peter Galbraith, Bush was startled to learn - in January 2003 - that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Responding to the three Iraqi exiles whom he had invited as guests to the Super Bowl, Bush looked at them and said, “You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?” As Bush often likes to brag, he governs based on gut feelings, not on intelligence or analysis. Those who know him state that he doesn’t read books, and he himself admitted he doesn’t read newspapers.
* Before the war, General Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to govern this country of 25 million people during a post-war occupation. But since the administration was insisting that the war could be handled with far fewer troops and at far less expense, General Shinseki and at least one other general who made the same argument were publicly humiliated and had their long and prestigious military careers terminated for political reasons. Four years later, Bush is now ‘surging’ in Iraq by adding troops to the 140,000 or so that were already there, in addition to the 80,000 or so highly expensive mercenaries the taxpayers are funding. With the total now nearing 250,000 soldiers occupying the country, it is still transparently not enough to keep the peace.
* To say that there was never a plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq is technically incorrect. There was an extensive plan which the State Department had put together, working with experts and Iraqi exiles. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld didn’t want the State Department to have the credit and control for the occupation, so he and Bush threw State’s document in the garbage. Then there was no plan.
* Most of the Americans sent to staff the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) had no technical or professional training or experience in the work to which they were assigned. Rather, they were chosen because they were Republican Party loyalists.
* One of the most significant blunders the United States committed during the occupation was to dismiss the entire Iraqi Army, sending them home unemployed and armed, along with anyone associated with the Ba’ath Party, despite the fact that everyone who wanted to work at a professional level anywhere in Iraqi society had been forced under Saddam to join the Party. The first Chief Executive of the CPA, General Jay Garner, refused to purge all Ba’athists from Iraqi governing institutions, and instead sought to maximize Iraqi control of the post-war government as much as possible. He was quickly fired.
* As a result of this war, over 3,500 Americans are dead, and perhaps 20,000 or so are gravely wounded. Americans have not been allowed to see the caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base.
* The best, most scientific, and least politicized estimate of Iraqi dead suggests that probably close to one million have now perished in the country’s post-war chaos, out of a population of 25 million.
* Nearly four million Iraqis have been forced to leave their homes as refugees from the violence, flooding Jordan and Syria, especially. The United States allowed all of 202 refugees - many thousands of whom have been targeted for death for having cooperated with the US occupation - to settle in America in 2006. America’s major ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, is building a wall to keep them out.
* The United States has spent half a trillion dollars on the war, so far. Estimates suggest that the number could rise to two trillion dollars before the war is over and the continuing costs of medical care and economic displacement are fully accounted for.
* America’s army has been described by Colin Powell as “broken”. Almost all our land forces are deployed in Iraq - a war of choice - leaving none for use in a real foreign crisis.
* Similarly, our National Guard and Reserve troops have been used in ways that were never intended to fight this war - along with about 80,000 highly expensive mercenaries - so that the president could avoid an unpopular draft. This means that Guard and Reserve troops and their equipment are unavailable for use in national emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina.
* As a result of the war, America is far more hated today throughout much of the world, especially the Mid-East, and is seen as a imperialist power. The Iraq invasion thus played directly into the hands of Islamic radicals like Osama bin Laden.
* America’s own intelligence agencies concede that Iraq has become a giant factory for the minting of new terrorists, where almost none existed prior to the invasion.
* Terrorist incidents worldwide have gone up seven-fold since, and largely because of, the invasion of Iraq.
* Iran, a country whose government truly does despise the United States, has been an enormous beneficiary of the war. Prior to 2003, Iran was a natural check on Iraq among Middle East powers, and vice versa. Now Iran is enormously influential in Iraq and throughout the region, its growth in power alarming its neighbors.
* A very real possibility exists that the civil war now raging within Iraq will become a regional war, perhaps drawing in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Israel and others.
* Gas prices have doubled since the war began. The potential also exists for a global depression should further conflict limit the flow of oil to industrialized countries, just as these economies were damaged by OPEC doing the same thing in the 1970s.
* To this day, American troops in Iraq do not have sufficient body or vehicle armor, leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths. Communities across America have literally held bake sales to raise funds for purchasing armor for their own kids. When confronted by a soldier about this, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied, “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time”.
* Companies like Halliburton, meanwhile, in which the Vice President still maintains financial interests, have received multi-billion dollar contracts for work in Iraq, without having to competitively bid for them, and with the internal influence of Cheney’s office in winning the assignments. Numerous scandals have emerged from these contracts, including billing for work never completed. Eight billion dollars in cash, entrusted to the Coalition Provisional Authority, has gone missing in one incident alone.
* Before the war, when they were marketing it to the public and Congress, administration officials hinted that it would be quick, easy and cheap. After the invasion, George Bush declared, under a “Mission accomplished” banner, that fighting had ceased before the war had really even begun. It has now lasted longer than America’s involvement in World War Two, and the administration has begun to talk about Iraq using the Korean model of a fifty-year occupation.
* The invasion of Iraq was supposedly part of an American ‘war on terrorism’. But, today, the United States is protecting Luis Posada from extradition to Venezuela or Cuba, despite that Posada has bragged about blowing up an airliner and killing seventy-three people on board, as well as a string of other bombings of Cuban hotels and nightclubs. The government claims that Posada cannot be extradited to Venezuela because he might be tortured, even though Venezuela has no such reputation - but after Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and the Attorney General’s renouncing of the Geneva Conventions, the United States now does.
* None of the principals who decided to go to war in Iraq had ever seen combat themselves. George W. Bush used his father’s influence to avoid service in Vietnam. John Ashcroft got seven draft deferments. Dick Cheney got five deferments, and later said “I had better things to do in the Sixties than fight in Vietnam”. Neither Paul Wolfowitz nor Richard Perle nor Condoleeza Rice ever served, and Donald Rumsfeld never fought in a war. The only senior member of the administration who had was Colin Powell. Powell advised Bush to be cautious about invading Iraq, and was thus sidelined from discussions leading up to the war. George Bush’s Secretary of State was not informed of the decision to invade Iraq until after Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, had been told by the president.
While many can imagine political leaders making mistakes, most Americans find it inconceivable that an American president could actually put personal or political interests ahead of the national interest or the welfare of the troops, especially on so grave an issue as war and peace.
But such individuals would do well to remember that there is a long history of this sort of behavior, and that it is an unfortunate part of human nature. The Europeans used to have an expression for this, which was all too well earned from their own experiences. They noted that “War is the sport of kings”.
This is precisely why America’s Founders so feared the concentration of political power that they created a system devoted to spreading that power out, through checks and balances, through federalism, and through guaranteed civil liberties. Often those institutional obstacles have been successful at preventing presidents from acting like kings, but sometimes not. During the George W. Bush presidency, Congress has been a side-show, and many of America’s Bill of Rights-provided civil liberties have been shredded.
Some Americans may believe that, while Europeans have been unfortunate enough to have suffered under warring governments, that could never happen here. The truth, alas, is that it already has, many times. We know today that the stories we were told by our government to justify US involvement in the Mexican war, the Spanish-American War and the Vietnam War, for instance, were complete and knowing fabrications, as the secret internal history of the latter war - the Pentagon Papers - definitively proved in that case.
Today, Americans will have to decide for themselves whether George Bush’s invasion of Iraq to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism was legitimate, or yet another example of a president sporting like a king, at the expense of the American people, the troops, the Iraqis, and the world.
Personally, I think the evidence above does exactly what I had intended it would do in assembling it for this article. On the question of the motivation and justification for George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, it speaks for itself.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at
You certainly have done your homework Professor Green. But the fact that your stated evidence is out there and available is what frightens me. The majority of Americans know that what you say is true. And they voiced this very clearly in the November election. But for 9 months the government hasn’t been listening to the American people. It’s quite obvious as the war in Iraq is escalating. If our government were actually listening to and responding to what the people want we would at least be on our way out of Iraq. So who is our government listening to instead of the people?
Hoa binh
This is the best short summary I have seen of the history of US involvement. It deserves the widest distribution.
Let us not forget:
* As of March 20 2007: A poll of Iraqis commissioned by USA Today has found that 83% of Shiites and 97% of Sunni Arabs oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Iraqis say the presence of U.S. forces is making the security situation worse.
(source: Democracy Now!)
I already knew most of the stuff in the article. It’s always good to refresh the memory though. Bush wanted to invade Iraq and was looking for an excuse. In the debates with Al Gore he said he didn’t believe in nation building. That has proven to be a flat lie. He needed an event as an excuse to invade and that was 9/11. He lied about everything else, he’s lying about 9/11. We got to back track a bit and get a real investigation into 9/11. It all fits together and it all points to an inside job.
ya know we elected some one who had it not been for his parents, would be a cellphone sales man in and out of rehab.
Now our country needs serious rehab
RE: REASONED ARGUMENT & U.S. RIGHT
Regrettably, Mr. Green, the right wing target of your resume of Cheney shadow government lies is most likely prone on a water tower, waiting to target traitors to the cause.
Excellent summary! Thank you for attempting to lay all the cards on the table. I’ll be saving this one as a handout.
This is a great article and one that every American should read. Let me just say that the current state of affairs in the United States Government has really hurt that country in every way imaginable. You all were duped! Some Americans, hopefully a minority of them, believe that they were not, but you were nonetheless. The truth hurts huh? Well I hear that there is going to be a huge rally the first weekend of July (July 4th - Independence Day for the United States) in which hopefully every American says in one voice enough is enough. Leave Iraq! You are making most of the world angry - including the Russians. Let’s not do that for all of our sakes.
Could it really be true that most Americans want a Revolution? It’s fitting for the first weekend of July I think. Today is a different time period than say when the Russians had their revolution in 1917 and when the Cubans had theirs in 1959. Most Americans did not honor either one of these Revolutions at the time and BOTH Revolutions were just! Both of them - especially the Cuban Revolution.
Now Americans know how it feels to live in tyranny! Most Americans now realize that their voices don’t mean anything for the most part even though they live in a Democracy nation. You know what Americans? The Russians and the Cubans felt the same way once upon a time. After their respective revolts against their respective nations - both cultures felt that as long as their leader took care of them and put their needs above all else than everything would be ok. Generally speaking, “voting” was not important to either the Russians or the Cubans? In a sense, voting is not important to most Americans either as many feel that their vote does not count. And they are absolutely right! The Cubans, the Russians, the Iranians all revolted because their respective Governments at the time did not take care of them adequately. Did the United States honor their revolts? No! The United States did not honor ANY of these Revolutions. There is no need to “vote” post-Revolution of a society because, again, the society’s basic needs were being take care of via this new rule with public backing. Yes you were not allowed to criticize your Government or vote under this new form of Government - but why would you want to criticize or vote if your Government was taking care of your basic needs anyhow?
The United States wants to spread Democracy although not practice it. “Democracy” is inconvenient there. Evidently, counting votes is too much work. Besides, the United States Government does not really put their citizens first. They haven’t for several decades. Indeed, the ideals of the United States has never came into fruition since its inception. Americans supposedly believe in “equality for all” yet avoid Communism like the plague. In fact, they have waged wars against Communism, including their own people in History.
I don’t think most Americans have the guts to revolt against their nation. Quite frankly, I think most Americans are truly afraid to die for what they believe in. If they are not, said Americans would rather die for a lie than die for truth.
I enjoyed reading a particular quote in this piece in which David Michael Green says, “The United Staes has spent half a trillion dollars on the war [in Iraq], so far.” Wow! This means that Americans SPENT money to make their allies turn against them and to oust Saddam Huseein. Which is ultimately what this war against Iraq is truly about right? Saddam hurt the Father of your President’s feelings and your President wanted vengeance. Nice one Christian! A personal vendetta at the finacial and security expense of your own people. You could have at least spent the money on a war of YOUR choosing out of your own pocket and Halliburton’s rather than taxpayers of the nation you represent. Show a little compassion here Christian. Please? After all, you are supposedly a compassionate conservative. Then again, there are still a select few Americans who happen to think George is the best thing since sliced bread. These people are probably CEOs or uneducated Americans I hope. Each day the United States spends in Iraq will increase their chances of both Americans and their Government turning into a Third World country as they will go bust from the choices of their leader George W. Bush. Your President is destroying your nation Americans. I hope you understand this. Again, the truth hurts huh?
You want a solution Americans? Leave Iraq and redeploy all of your military back to your own country! We don’t want them here in Europe or in any other part of the world. Don’t worry, a terrorist attack might be decreased once ALL your military is returned to your nation to defend it from extremists your nation created, as your nation continues to do.
Why don’t we just go ahead and create The Oil Police Department at DoD already? A “coalition” of the “willing” tasked with protecting the world’s dwindling oil supplies Sopranos style: you want some, you play nice and pay the going vig. Then we can “bring the troops home” and let the OPD guard the rapidly dwindling supply “for our children’s security,” which will be repeated again and again until it’s believed.
Once again Professor David Michael Green excellent work….
It speaks for itself, I just wish this gets widely posted….
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”
Josef Stalin
So true. So painfully true.
Not mentioned in the article is the moment I first smelled a rat. As recounted in a Washington Post article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer,
August 26, 2002:
‘Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush’s father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials. ‘
Gonzales was the legal-beagle that came up with that one, why is this not a surprise? The admin was trying to steer the discussion to make it look like it was being ‘generous’ to have Congress consider the war at all. That’s when it first occurred to me that the concept of ’separate but equal powers’ in our democracy was not one the President supported.
Excellent post. Obviously meant for the choir, however.
Perhaps it should be re-written in 2 columns. The column on the left would be a chronology of Bush’s statements and actions, and Bush administration officials’ statements and actions. In other words, it would be a list of Bush’s real motives and the lies he and his minions told. The right hand column would reflect world events as they actually occured.
That would make it a little harder for the Hard Right to say “Oh, here we go again. The left twisting God’s — uh, excuse me — Bush’s words.”
umm…isn’t horse racing the “sport of kings”?
First Step: Repeal the 2002 Iraq War Authorization for Use of Force resolution.
Second Step: Give Bush and the GOP and Joe Lieberman 30 days to draft and pass a replacement AUMF, one setting forth a coherent mission statement for the troops occupying Iraq that the American people and Congress can support. Good luck trying.
Third Step: On day 31, pass a Congressional resolution declaring no soldier can be confined, court martialed, or otherwise disciplined for respectfully refusing to obey an order to deploy to Iraq, a war zone that has been expressly unauthorized by the Congress.
Fourth Step: Stand back, watch, and let each individual member of the Guard, Reserves, the regular Army & Marines vote with their hearts, their minds, and their feet.
What will the Commander in Chief do if he declares a war, and none but the hopelessly warped will march off to Mesopotamia with him?
This is both a social justice measure for those currently in uniform and a supplemental antiwar legislative strategy.
Bill from Saginaw
I’ve long enjoyed David Michael Green’s articles and am happy to see he is posting more often now. The precision and potency of his pieces are astonishing. How I wish I had a professor such as he back in school during Vietnam War days.
As more and more truths are uncovered, revealed, and then stated time and time again, it is astonishing/saddening to me that this administration is still in office. Shame on the officials that we actually elected for not doing their job. For not following the laws that were set by our founding fathers. Shame on this administration for reducing our democracy to a dictatorship.
I wonder what will become of this nation. And I have such contempt for the people that have reduced it to this level. It is our duty as citizens to incite change. Not that that is particularly easy to do at this moment in our history. But when the time is right WE MUST BAND TOGETHER AND FIGHT!!!
I agree with namvet67 (the first comment). it is very scary that even with all this known to everyone, especially our congressmen/women, and the american people appealing to them to get out, we aren’t any closer to getting out. on the contrary, i think we’ll be there through the next presidency, the way it looks. so, WHO IS CONGRESS LISTENING TO? The oil companies/military industrial complex/ double-our-bets-republicans, all of whom can’t see anything good about getting out? Hell, even Hilary is saying she will stay to ‘protect US interests’. Greed and ’super-consumption’ will kill this country, if global warming doesn’t get us first.
As Green mentions, the Bush administration first intended on seeking an explicit authorization to use force in March 2003 and then quickly dropped such plans. The entry made by ubrew is also very important. Behind the scenes the administration was manipulating domestic and international law in order to justify the unilateral and preemptive use of force, which are clearly forbidden by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and other texts which make up international law. As a signatory of the Charter, the United States accepted this body of international law as domestic law. My point is that this administration knew fully well unilateral and preemptive strikes were unlawful and danced around the preeminent document of international law (the UN Charter) to invade Iraq. (Most international law scholars agree on this.) Over the past decade or so, the term “rogue state” has become common vernacular in the US foreign policy establishment. It is intended to describe states which supposedly defy international law and destabilize the international system (e.g., Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc.) but I can think of none who deserve the title more than the US.
Bottom Line Folks . . . .
“Greed and ’Super-Consumption’ will kill this country, if global warming doesn’t get us first.”
Good summary, Prof. Green. Now, how do we get it on the curriculum of every high school and university in North America, given that no one in the MSM exhibits any signs of understanding it, much less broadcasting it? Presently, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s *Second Chance* at consolidating the Empire for a thousand year run is selling like hotcakes, while the MSM ignores Chalmers Johnson and Andrew Bacevich, and can’t get contemptuous enough about Al Gore’s book, whose greatest virtue is that it’s written in a style completely accessible by anyone with an 8th grade education.
What year is this? 2003? What’s that you say? No WMDs? In the meantime none of the liberal pundits who make a career out of rehashing old news actually manage to confront the reality of right now. The leading Democratic contender for President, H.C, thinks torture is OK is you have a really really bad problem, and the President says it’s OK, and you make a secret report to Congress… “The bomb is ticking! Rip his nose off! I’m Hillary Clinton, and you wanna know why Bill never left me? Because he could never never never find a bigger whore than ME!”
Professor Green,
I’m left breathless, angry, stupified. The information is largely not new to me. I have done my own research, as have many of us, and have written out my own thoughts on this nightmare. But to have the entire history of the war, from all angles, summed up so succintly is a wonderful (and sadly, rare) resource.
My only concern is your lack of references. I understand the shape of a Common Dreams essay may not be conducive to footnotes, but it seems necessary to back up each claim in the face of inevitable Conservative attack, particularly in the Internet Age, when everyone clamors for “link, please”.
Still, a remarkable snapshot of a tragic period. Thank you again for your service.
Send this on to your Federal Reps and demand that they start impeachment hearings. I did.
BTW - Am I the only person disturbed by the fact that more and more Federal and State Reps are removing their email address from their websites and replacing it with a web link that forces them to fill out a whole bunch of private info and prevents the ability to forward an article like this or email? As an elected rep, they should have an email address, period. No redirect. If they want to make it an email address that just dumps into some mass email box that is checked by staffers, fine by me. But, we need to be able to send them this info.
Instead of tearing down another party because of their failings, the American people need to stand up and be clearer in there wishes with regards to the vital issue of a “king” seizing power. They clearly voted for change. If you are not getting it, what do you do? Give up? I think not.
As for the sport of these “Kings”, America founded itself on rule of law to avoid being pawns in such games that benefit so few. But even that can be trodden on it seems. What left then? The one thing the average American citizen is forgetting about regarding revolution, is that the powers that be need always to be very afraid (I am sure they are) of the people, because when they act together, they are unstoppable. When the people get fed up enough, and there signs that the American people feel this way and are not immune to it, to finally dump their leaders, as in the past, it may not be as civilized as we in the West have enjoyed in our lifetimes, or as we have come to expect, either, from the once beacon to oppressed, the USA.
And I hate to think that if that should come to pass, what ruins would be left in its wake. I guess, if you somehow don’t take us all out with you as you go down, we’ll reach out a helping hand to assist you in the aftermath.
With all due respect to the author’s erudition, there is one crucial event missing from his otherwise comprehensive list. On July 25th 1990 Saddam Hussein had a meeting with April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq. At that time Saddam had a number of grievances with Kuwait, so he raised the matter with the ambassador. She told him:
“But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60’s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”
So the trap was set by James Baker, and ‘Operation Iraqi Destruction’ was underway.
Fuller transcript to the above meeting here:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
A great piece by the writer. So much truth, yet America still tumbles downwards. What is one to do?
For those of you who would like to read some amazing articles about the state of America, as a complement to this one, I highly recommend those of Manuel Valenzuela, a truly gifted writer, IMHO. Talk about speaking truth to power. “Enter the Empire,” “Operation Iraq Forever” “A Nation in Silent Anger,” and “Of Crazies, Neocons and the Enemy Within” are truly outstanding. Do yourself the favor of reading this material and spreading it virally. As you can tell, I am a huge fan of this man’s work. Maybe you will too??
Link: www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com
And yet in the face of over 3,500 American deaths, 25,000 wounded and disabled, and the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis, all because of lies, Nancy Pelosi still wants to keep impeachment off the table.
Is this a great country or what? (all sarcasm fully intended)
Lobo Gris
And to add a little graphical interest to the original article, here’s a little clip of Ronald Dumsfeld doing a deal with a fellow dark-hearted buddie of his:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3248177088876820839
Hugo Chavez for President! Of the United States!!
Now there’s a man who is working for the people of his country, of course US media is rabidly against him, because as soon as we figure out just how big the boot the rich have on our necks we just might get up off our knees and do something about it. All the people in the streets protesting the shutdown of the white supremist television station are the children of the rich…who want to take THEIR own place as the ones at the top of the heap. Read up on the facts of this particular struggle and see if you would not support a similar situation here. 2% of the population of our country own 98% of the wealth. What we get is the few crumbs that are left.
The evidence in this article is overwhelming that the Bush administration, the majority of the Congress, the military-industrial complex, and the corporate media (most of whom are owned by defense industries) were ALWAYS intent on invading and permanently occupying Iraq.
Those who claim that Bush has made a mistake in Iraq are fooling themselves. Iraq is going PRECISELY on schedule and COMPLETELY according to plan.
Four permanent air bases are in place, scores of Army bases have been established, the world’s largest embassy is close to completion (and which will need permanent defending, of course), and the Iraqi “government” set up by the United States is just about ready to vote those oil resources over to the major oil corporations, of which many of those who perpetrated this “heist of all heists” will financially benefit for the next 100 years.
Iraq was a target of opportunity on many fronts:
1. The time was ripe to steal their vast oil resources before China did. Remember that half the petroleum we consume is done so by our military.
2. Establish a permanent foothold in the Middle East for perpetrate additional invasions, occupations, and resource grabbing. The US government is renowned for double-crossing its friends… Saudi Arabia would be wise to always keep one eye on the US.
3. PURPOSELY generate a whole new batch of “terrorists” to give our government a reason to keep us in a perpetual state of fear and war.
The United States government and worldwide corporate interests have NO INTENT to leave Iraq because it’s making them all HUGE sums of money.
Lastly, let’s not forget that the now estimated cost of this invasion and occupation is nearly $2.5 TRILLION dollars… ALL OF WHICH is payed for with BORROWED MONEY that we the American people will (somehow) have to pay back with INTEREST.
I am ashamed to be an American citizen.
None of this is being done in my name. I do not want anything to do with it.
I understand that the decision to launch the Iran-Iraq War was actually made during a secret meeting between US, Iraqi, British and French intelligence officers in a 5-star Paris hotel room over champagne, caviar and pate.
How many people died in the Iran-Iraq War? One million? Two million?
To “whatever”: Is there something wrong with being a cell phone salesperson? Or is that as far as your imagination would take you?
This is a long and damning list of events. But it’s too long, too easy for Hannity and Limbaugh to blow smoke around, and too “complicated” for the average voter.
Simple slogans like “Iraq has been punished for a crime committed by others - What’s patriotic about that?”, will go a lot further to awaken our slumbering electorate.
We will never get rid of “conservative” voters in this country. We have to show them that this govenment and this war are NOT upholding their conservative ideals.
Any suggestions?
I wish my university ran an echange program with his
Social politics is being used to divide and conquer Americans. I suggest we put the social politics away for now and focus on economic politics. This way we can unite the oppressed majority against the “elites” and achieve change. The conservatives have a sense of independence and it may be argued that the way to increase one’s independence is to disengage from the establishment controlled by and for the “elites”.
Were I an American , or indeed a Westerner ( Western Governments too are complicit as they ‘ve ‘circled the wagons’ around themselves ) I’d be hanging my head in mortification and shame .
Instead of carrying on - being as brazen as ever . Doggedly arguing that the Moral High Ground has been Divinely endowed to ‘us’ . Therefore is ‘ours’ forever .And that ‘our values’ are the very best there is -or ever was.
This creed (that few Westerners do not subscribe to) springs from a very deep-rooted ,atavistic belief that they are ,in fact ,the “Master Race ” .
(Much as it sounds abhorrent to say so ,the Nazis were arguably the only ones with the courage of their convictions to trumpet the notion of “Aryan Superiority” . Something the rest truly believe , but are much more covert and circumspect about it . It ,nontheless,permeates every attitude and every action of theirs .)
From the Western perspective ,everything about it is far superior . Their scientific and technological acheivements are without parallel (indubitably so). Their literary , cultural and artistic achievements can never be surpassed . The very Gods themselves couldn’t have done better than Shakespeare ( and Harry Potter ) . The Bill of Rights is truly sublime -transcending the Bible, the Vedas, the Qu’uran and the works of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates..The list goes on and on.
In short ,most remain unshakably convinced that the West is an ethos that will go from strength to strength .And on which the Sun will never set.
Just when it seemed that nothing could ever stop the relentless ascendancy of the West squarely in its tracks .And that the ‘wretched of the Earth’ were forever condemned to eternal servitude to the West .
Along comes a hubris-drunk Bush, Cheney and Blair . To drive the last nails in . Or so one hopes.
Jacob Freeze — what is the point of your puerile non-sequiturs? Your “ideas” stand out among the literate, well informed arguments in this forum like grotesque graffiti on a freshly painted wall. Do all readers of Common Dreams a favor — concentrate your efforts on the cubicles in public mens’ rooms where such obscenities will have a greater chance of being appreciated.
Time to sing — We’ve only just begun.
“To this day Bush claims that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. That had been true five years previously…”
The claim that the Hussein government kicked out UN inspectors in 1998 is a myth concocted by pundits manufacturing consent for the Iraq invasion in 2002. What actually happened is that the US, under Clinton, warned the inspectors of its imminent “Desert Fox” bombing campaign, and the inspectors left for their own safety.
The true story was reported accurately at the time by the Washington Post and other news outlets, as documented (with dates and quotations) by the media watch-dog group FAIR. See http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-myths.html for details.
But pundits writing for these same news outlets later promoted the mythic version of events.
Once again, as pointed out by others here, the truth is “out there” for discerning readers. So why is our public policy based so much on lies?
All Too Relevant Quote: How is the World Ruled, & and; how do wars start?—
Diplomats tell lies to journalists & then believe what they read.
(Karl Kraus, Austrian Press,1874-1936)
Mr Green : Your excellent perspective on this war is appreciated and needed. However you need to add two pertainent aspects:
1. The real fault for this ill conceived war, environmental destruction, and all disasterous results lie with our legislators for defaulting their duties and the populace for tolerating these unprecedented abuses and sellouts from this theocratic and unlearned administration.
2. The establishment of this renegade mercenary force, whose loyalties lie with their supporters not necdessarily America, (unprecedented in our republic) is only one example of this administration’s efforts to jeopardize or democracy. Given the severity of this threat, the only option left now is for Americans to force congress to seize the war powers from the president, even if this means removal from office; and then pursue a logical conclusion to this horrific misadventure. This would include recognition of the recent advisory commissions recommendations (which were ignored), dismantling the mercenary force even if this means reinstatement of the draft, and curbing and punishing the profiteers.
Even with our limited information on this war, it is all to evident that our legislators tragically erred when they allowed this unlearned and opportunistic administration to embark on and perpetuate this ill conceived war, which has left thousands dead and permanently maimed while a few of their supporters have reaped unprecedented profits. Those who voted for this arrogant and theocratic president , especially those who voted twice must share blame.
The weapons inspectors were there and we had contained Saddam. The resulting “civil war” and chaos had been predicted by many informed experts, and should have been obvious–but their advice was ignored. One can only imagine the extent of disaster if Saddam had unleashed some biological, chemical, or primitive nuclear weapons on our troops during the invasion.
This administrations opposition to energy conservation and global warming mitigation must be reversed in order to reduce our dependance on their oil–and regain some worldwide trust lost from their disastrous policies and arrogance.
The tragedy is that most Americans do not know most of the points made in this article. They voted against the Republicans not because they were informed about Iraq but because their kids were dying and being maimed. Americans have an irrational belief in their own benign goodness, in the main, and those who can read and accept such nasty truths are not the majority. The place to change America is sadly, the pulpit, just as it was a century or more ago in Europe ….. but that is where the most rigid, racist and vindictive attitudes are found …..
Until Americans are taught about other nations and come to realise that they are not the ‘best’ and certainly do not live the best of lives compared to other developed nations, then there will be no compassion for others and no capacity to force their Governments to behave well.
The myths which underpin America are the seeds not only of its destruction but that of hopes for world peace. Americans in their hearts still believe in their own benign goodness; they still believe their democracy is the best the world has; they still believe that God is on their side and therefore they are right; they still believe that it is their role to lead the world and to have power over other nations and they still believe that they are better than anyone else.
Of course there are exceptions but in the main, these sorts of beliefs underpin and colour how most Americans view others.
This is pretty much the same information I’ve gotten from other sources. As the parent of a soldier that is scheduled to return for his 4th tour in Iraq, I just want to tie him up when he comes home in a few weeks for his sister’s wedding. I do not know how the President and his cronies can continue to thumb their noses at us as if they are invincible. I do not support this war but continue to support our son and all the military–who have more courage and integrity than the crooks who are sending them into harms way—simply because they don’t want to admit they’ve made a mistake.
Here’s a suggestion. No matter who your “Representative” is, tomorrow morning call your Registrar of Voters and get all the particulars about running for office. If necessary go there. If you don’t want to run get together a meeting and find someone you trust who will.
Average Americans need to challenge every member of the House of Representatives in the 2008 election and every Senator who is up for re-election. Even if everyone loses, at least we will have honestly tried.
Prof. Green should run. Certainly if we don’t want to run ourselves we can find talented Progressive history professors and others who are truth telling activists, scholars, writers etc. to run for office.
And we can never trust the computerized voting machines. We need a campaign to get the whole country to vote absentee and to XEROX their ballots.
The MSM has become a rock in the stream. We need to simply go around it and keep going. It’s about getting information out. Seriously. How difficult would it be to find 435 Americans to run for the House and 33 to run for the Senate.
Roughly 500 patriotic college professors (think Paul Wellstone, David Green, Marjorie Cohn (President of the National Lawyers Guild and college professor etc.) shouldn’t be that hard to DRAFT!!!
now does everyone understand why they hate us?
Largely well done, but way too long for most people to read. You may want to check your historical research and review the “Saddam had never attacked the United States…” claim.
In 1987 during the Iran-Iraq War an Iraqi jet launched two Exocet missiles which struck the USS Stark. An attack in which more than thirty U.S. sailors died.
Some mention that Americans chose to end the war with the emergence of a Demcratic majority in the last Congressional vote. I’m not so sure.
First of all it was a slim majority.
Second of all it is no secret that lots of Democrats support the war and are definitely sycophants of the military industrial complex which in many cases financed their election campaigns.
Also I doubt if a single Evangelical (80,000,000 strong and growing!) out there doesn’t beleive that George Bush is doing a great job. They’re joined by a legion of racist rednecks, homophobes, wealthy robber barons and other longtime neoconservative loyalists.
All the evidence presented here by Professor Green will never reach even 10% of the populace. How can such articles expect to replace the ‘real news’ like Paris Hilton’s emotional roller coaster or the latest hyjinx of Britney et al? We have a better chance of starting a revolution over the disputed winner of American Idol rather than any issues of substance.
We have the right to vote for anyone we like… as long as it is someone the MSM supports. Therefore democracy is but an illusion in America today and I for one have no idea of how to change the status quo.
Dear Moother:
As soon as your daughter’s wedding is over, I suggest you do tie up your son. Do some online research about the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the legality of what we are doing in Iraq. Inform your son that he has not only the RIGHT but the DUTY to refuse to take any orders to go back to Iraq, as he would be commiting a war crime.
If he were my son I’d keep him tied up until he swears he’ll join one of many groups of military service men and women who have seen the light and refuse to fight.
“ya know we elected some one who had it not been for his parents, would be a cellphone sales man in and out of rehab.”
No, we did not elect bushit.
The war profiteers in charge of the U.S. government don’t care that we’re ashamed to be Americans because of what they’re doing. The only thing they care about is that they’re in charge and making a fortune for themselves.
Bush says he prays every day; I wonder how many votes he got from religious fanatics for saying that. How easy it is to fool and manipulate dumbed-down, fearful people!
Americans aren’t going to revolt. People who are dumbed-down, passive, content to be distracted by Paris, Britney, TV and sports — and are just plain too afraid — aren’t going to revolt. Compare the American protests to the ones in Germany and Italy, for example. The Europeans aren’t afraid to protest.
“…he himself (Bush) admitted he doesn’t read newspapers.” Well, I don’t really see anything wrong with that. Would you read newspapers if you knew all they’re printing are your own bunch of lies? Trash the media.
The U.S. administration actually had an unstated plan from the outset, and it was and still is to control the oil and the Middle East for the oil companies.
It is obvious that the U.S. Congress knew all along all the fact and lies, otherwise one would think that now that everything is in the open they would all get up in arms and immediately initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Recall all members of Congress, Pelosi first.
Last but not least: The king and its 29% sheeple deserve each other.
A truly comprehensive and peofessional work by Mr Green. Thank you
Professor Green has plainly and incontrovertibly laid it all out.
not saying that we’ll ever ultimately ‘win’ this battle vs. ruling elites, but -
only thing to do now is keep refining/bolstering the list of evidence presented above, along with forwarding it to every possible fellow American (perhaps in a Spanish translation too?) as incremental education and spreading of awareness…
truth is unstoppable.
Mr. Green’s article is a waste of time for Common Dreams readers as they are all aware of the our illegal war that was drafted by a criminal mind. Bush wanted to invade Iraq and from the looks of all of his vetoes and actions, one can realize how easy it is to steal America. He gets his way and just consider this: because of his insane drive to become a military President, he has caused the deaths of millions. This nut seems to have a murderous instinct and will not stop the killing (and that goes for the environment and animal welfare as well). Congress has never come up against such treachery and evil. Maybe that’s why they don’t have him impeached now before many more die.
Now that everyone has vented their anger at having been sold a bill of goods, can I offer a solution that has some teeth that can help us take back our nation?
Consider the method that your jurisdiction uses to process and then tabulate your votes.
If someone in charge can cheat, they will … if they can.
Eliminate that possibility by making sure that the system used in your ‘playground’ is as cheat-proof as possible.
If every vote cast can NOT be audited, it should NOT be allowed to happen. That means that since we can not see electrons, that the only votes that can be audited need to be recorded on paper AND verified by the person creating it prior to being cast.
How is that difficult to understand?
Yet we have a Congress that somehow does not understand this simple concept for some unfathomable reason.
The people who wrote the Help America Vote Act of 2002, who just ,happened to be Republicans, drafted the act in such a way as to assure their concerns would be satisfied by providing money to allow the audit of voter registration systems that will help eliminate multiple votes being cast by living folks, any votes cast by dead ones … or by those who are free guests of the state, as behind bars and such. Fair enough, if that is the will of the people.
Correct vote counts or reasonable registration regulations? Not important, compared to what appears to be a direct attempt to establish a fresh opportunity to fix the vote in their favor … with the assistance of those FoR (Friends of Republicans) who monopolize the voting machine manufacturing and service industry.
They included NO requirement that voting machines be auditable. Was that an oversight? I think not.
When that situation was noted by the Democrats, who offered immediate corrective legislation, their ideas were ignored and buried in the committee system that every Majority Party uses to overwhelm the legislative process. This allowed the checks to be issued to fund the replacement of thousands of vote counting machines that used those pesky cards that could be counted and audited as needed with ‘modern’ electronic ones that can’t be audited … every one of which can be programmed to yield the result needed to elect those selected by those few who own the store that provides the computer code that drives them.
All of the above is also a matter of official record. As the saying goes, ‘you could look it up.’
Is any of this a big surprise to the Democrats who are now in the Majority Party driver’s seat in our current Congress? Not very likely as they noticed the problem and offered solutions when they were in the Minority.
Yet, they have done nothing to correct the problem.
Why don’t you ask them why they have not done so!
Remember, it is YOUR vote that will be at stake next November! Protect it!
judi writes this article was a waste of time for Common Dream readers. Speak for yourself. It certainly was not a waste for one. ME. I was aware of some of the criminal activity, but not all of it. I’ve been angry about what has been ocurring, now I’m ready to fight.
Re: USS STARK
Our government did not consider the Stark incident an attack by Iraq on the US - it was officially a mistake by our friend in the Gulf, Saddam Hussein, so what Prof Green says is true. Thirty-five sailors died, but Reagan didn’t want to look weak, so the attack became an honest mistake. So once again Reagan is at the root of the problem, be it Saddam, unregulated corporatism, oil, cronyism, government incompetence, you name it. In the following excerpt you’ll also see evidence of possible Saudi complicity and failure of USN sophisticated detection systems. Note also the bi-partison lack of complicity of our congress at that time asking for a definition of goals and strategy, something we have never asked of or gotten from Bush.
[The following exerpted from The Eighties Club web page, the second item Google came up with]
—At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq’s Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft…For some reason, the [twin Exocet] sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark’s sophisticated monitoring equipment…Meanwhile, the AWACS crew requested that two airborne Saudi F-15s pursue the Iraqi Mirage [that had launched the Exocets]. But ground controllers at Dhahran airbase said they lacked the authority to embark on such a mission, and the Mirage was safely back in Iraqi airspace before approval could be obtained…Reagan was under fire from Congress and the press for putting American servicemen in harm’s way on a vaguely defined mission. “We need to rethink exactly what we are doing in the Persian Gulf,” said Republican Senator Robert Dole. The Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution, sponsored by Dole and Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, that demanded the president explain to Congress the strategy and goals of the Persian Gulf mission — and the risks involved. The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America’s role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy…Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger [said] “We will not be driven from the gulf.” He described the attack on the Stark as a “horrible error,” and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the “unintentional incident.”—
Referencing the wmd trailers I wrote a blog about it some time ago as I found the first actual pictures (I had seen) online. When I saw them during the invasions first days I was laughing and gaging at the same time.
I am a fan of David and this is his finest Declaration for Revolution Yet.
I think Sir Melvin Cleophus’s observations above are what we the people of our declining Empire needed…We deserve a spanking for letting a bunch of Ivy League stooges for the War Machine and World Banking Loan Sharks to do the evil in public, waging war against nations and humans like it was one of their old fraternity hoax’s recorded on all the world media and I hope that David will appear with me as a witness before the World Court when this War Criminal Family of the Ruling Class gets busted.
So David, You handle Little George and I’ll take on Big George for the JFK cover-up and Then our Little Planet with its billions of good souls will have a shot at bein survivors again.
Keep up the good fight,
Jim glover
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10081&st=0&p=103775&#entry103775
There are some here who advocate a violent overthrow of our government, citing examples such as Cuba and others which were just. Those who write such are wrong. They are terribly wrong. The result could easily be much like what we see occuring in Iraq right now as we read. We could eventually end up with a monstrous dictator like Saddam, Hitler or a Timothy McVey.
We DO NOT need a violent overthrow of our government, our forefathers worded the Constitution and our Bill Of Rights very carefully and preciscely, so a violent overthrow should NEVER be necessary.
We The People have the necessary tools to control OUR governemnt and OUR elected leaders.
We The People have not been using those adequate tools for many years. As a majority, we do not vote, for the most part we do not have town hall meetings in every village, town or city across the nation. We have allowed the corruption and unbelievable actions which have transpired within all of our governments acroos the country and especially the actions of those elected elite who crouch on their asses in DC so they can be in position to kiss the ass of their favorite lobbyists.
If we would petition someone such as Lee Iacocca to run as a progressive or independent candidate, support that person with necessay funding and not just written or verbal words, (like mine) We The People could make significant changes in a short period of time, even if our candidate lost the next election. By that, I mean a viable candidate, one who is highly repected by the majority, would have adequate press coverage and would have a significant impact upon the thinking of not only the majority of our citizens, but upon others who run for that high office, even if he or she shoud lose. There would be the next time.
I personally admire Ralph Nader, but he’s not the type who is perceived by the vast majority of, WE THE PEOPLE, as one they would wish to be our President. Sorry, it’s how I see it and the proof is in the results of his vain efforts. We need to support a person who is highly regarded as a leader, a sane, sober and sensible peson who displays a high degree of good commoon sense. One who could compromise on some thngs, yet stand firmly against those that erode our Constitiution or our Bill of rights.
I “sort of” hate to say it, but I’d prefer Robin Wiliams over most of the front runner candidates who are presently in the race. At least he’s pretty much on our wave lenghts and is actually a very intelligent, usually sensible man. But, he would not win. We The People need a winner, may not get one, but we need one who may have a very good shot at it.
I’m waiting to see what Fred Thompson has to offer, I don’t wish to see another Republican as a president at this time, for we do need a change. But it would be Ok if the Democrats maintain a majority in both houses. With ANY new president, the majority MAY display some guts. For those who don’t, we can start working to peacefully relieve any who do not get off of their asses, stop bull shitting us and act like the people they have professed to be.
Anyone have any decent suggestions or ideas on this, other than dismissing my tirade as that of just another nutcase?
Thank you, Kem Patrick
I can, I am deeply saddened to say, understand all too well how it can be that that there are not massive protests demanding that the Congress end what this war is doing to Iraqis, with those in Congress not responding to the demand voted out of office.
What I truly cannot comprehend is how there can be no such demand in the face of this: “To this day, American troops in Iraq do not have sufficient body or vehicle armor, leading to hundreds of unnecessary deaths. Communities across America have literally held bake sales to raise funds for purchasing armor for their own kids.”
BAKE SALES to purchase armor for their own kids!
Alexnosal & Rosross: You raise compelling points my cynicism agrees with, but my faith fights!
Bush’s administration is basically engaged in “disaster profiteering.” You engineer a disaster if there isn’t a real emergency, than you create an expensive fix that is even more disasterous.
They figure that the country can handle the abuse.
When it’s over, they believe they’ll either triumph totally over the weakened carcass of democracy by installing themselves as permanent tyrants or walk of with enormous spoils and more allies in the infrastructure: enough to come back for another round at a later date.
This has been going on for about 20 something years now, and Americans just don’t have the will to do anything about it.
Such a Great article, and what a shame my printer ran out of ink.
Fact is, I’d probably be hard pressed to get many people to read it. Those that would, would say something like, that’s the way it’s always been, so forget about it anyway and don’t let this spoil your day. You care too much, while I’m still wondering Why they don’t care enough, or at all.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating violence.
To get justice and peace will require a peaceful revolution and nothing but a peaceful one will have a chance to overcome the mess we are all aware of but have not been able to clean up or even come up with a plan on what to do about it.
But if we are afraid of what our forefathers gave us…the right to alter and abolish a system of theft and war profiteering, then that is one thing. But if we want to keep our rights that are being taken away today, call it real change, or revolution, it is the same.
Respecting the revolutions in other countries who had violent change in their past is the first step to having the world respect the USA once again.
Cuba and Russia are not advocating violence or threatening to invade or are bombing people in the world, Bush is doing that. Our job is real change here at Home before any country besides Albania shows us the respect we would like.
Let’s Have a Peaceful Revolution for a change,
Jim
Everyone, here, should consider sending a summarized version of Green’s article to their local newspaper, as a letter to the editor.
Political consciousness of the broader citizenry seems hopelesly bamboozled, even unto this late date — yes.
Bush & Co., enabled by collusive/craven, mega-corporatized national news media, have brought constitutional governace closer-to-ruination than ever before — yes.
Yet, increasing numbers of citizens are acknowledging that they’ve been duped by Bush & Co. — and by the admnistration’s herd-mentality myrmidons in Congresss.
Truth does have power, in the end — even if its illumination is slow and lumbering.
In any case, truth’s sharing is all we have.
But truth needs sharing on direct, local levels than cyber-space websites allow.
Green’s article helps us to do that sharing; in our communities; and among our neighbors.
So, let’s do it!
JA/Missoula,MT
Jim Glover, you are absolutly correct. When I stated that some here advocte violence, I was referring to written comments made by a few on other articles which were similar to this one. However I do stand corrected and apologize for the error.
So many excellent post; where to begin? Except for the exception of one apparent menroom blogger, the question of what to do about BushCo is the unanswered question. Run for office, contact you newspapers, elected officials; why, when you can’t even get your votes counted.
The answer does not reside in politics-politics is the problem. Revolution yes, but not with violence and self-defeating confrontation. The power that be would just slaughter you and call the survivors Terrorists. As the Neopugnants keep saying, this is going to be a long war. So, begin a long, non-violent Revolution by taking control of your own life. Jim Glover is right on the money. The truth is that the medicine for this problem is a bitter pill, but necessary. Turn off the TV (Satellite/cable) and tell them your tired of listening to lies and bullshit (I did and life is much more tolerable.) Plant a garden, bike/walk everywhere you can. Have yardsales to simplify your life and tell your customers why you selling that dumb stuff; seek dialog with others; mention Mr. Greene’s excellent article. Cut the fat out of your life. You/we have the power to pull the rug out from under the powers that treat us like serfs. Begin to live like a Peasant, before you find yourself a Slave.
I just re-read # 8 blog here, that of Sir Melvin Cleophus. He advoctes revolution and clearly gave examples of the Russian revoltion and the Cuban revolution, BOTH of which indeed WERE violent, bloody, kick butt wars. We also have read of such suggestions during this month from a few others, who did advocate such action by we Americans. I believe I apologized to hastily. Furthermore, I do not favor any suggestions for violent revolution, as clearly stated in my comments. I am sorry if I may have offended anyone, there was no intent to do so.
Now I’ll shut up. Thank you, Kem Patrick
jazzara wrote:
“Everyone, here, should consider sending a summarized version of Green’s article to their local newspaper, as a letter to the editor.
Political consciousness of the broader citizenry seems hopelesly bamboozled, even unto this late date — yes.”
JA/Missoula,MT —
Great idea! - Sharing the info in this post with newspapers et. al.
Also, just striking up friendly, interested conversations with fellow humans, while waiting in line, etc.
Chaos, Terrorists, Administrative Failures, Oh My!
“After the invasion, George Bush declared, under a “Mission Accomplished” banner, that fighting had ceased before the war had really even begun. It has now lasted longer than America’s involvement in World War Two, and the administration has begun to talk about Iraq using the Korean model of a fifty-year occupation.”
I’m just sayin’….
What if…..we take a look at all this “through the looking glass?”
What if Young King George was simply speaking truth? That the Actual Mission had, in fact, been accomplished. A 50 year beach-head in the middle east. A formula for chaos and the production of new terrorists. Pain and fear at home and abroad. The dragon of chaos beginning to roar.
Submitted for your consideration — a few words from Duane Elgin (The Sun Magazine, August 2002):
ELGIN: “I believe the human family is about to go through a time of profound initiation and challenge…. This initiation will take the form of a worldwide systems crisis as we hit an ‘ecological wall’ — the physical limits to growth. For example, right now, co2 levels are higher than they have been in 20 million years. We’ve already overshot the boundaries and thresholds of climate stability, and it’s just a matter of time before we start experiencing severe fluctuations in the climate.
“Add to this equation the fact that by the 2020s we’re going to have roughly 8 billion people on the planet. As the climate warms, however, food production is going to decline, because many seeds are up against the limits of their thermal resistance and will have difficulty germinating. Compounding the situation further is the fact that, within a generation, we’ll be running out of the cheap oil that has propped up our high-production agricultural system with its petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers. In this same time frame, it is also estimated that 40 percent of the earth’s population won’t have access to enough water to be self-sufficient in growing our own food.
“Now, if you start putting all of these factors together, it’s clear that within twenty years we could have a crisis that is completely outside anything in our collective experience. Nonetheless, I think this is a very organic and predictable occurrence. We’re moving from our adolescence into our adulthood as a human family, and you don’t make that transition without going through life-changing events.“
Put aside for a moment Elgin’s inexorable optimism. Now imagine, if you will, that Bush and Co. are relatively “low-men” on the totem pole – a silly affable dancing bear and a very clever thug. Inhumane, stubborn Screw Ups? Perhaps not.
What if… folks that are actually in charge know very well what’s likely on its way…what kind of world we’re heading for. In some respects, and certainly in their own minds, they are (and have been) way ahead of the game. Best to get out ahead of that one. Failure to plan would be inexcusable.
How then shall they hold onto their power when everything is falling apart? What kind of government will seem apropos and even necessary to a great many people? When the world faces threats at every turn? When the center doesn’t hold?
You know.
Iraq as step one?
A shell game in progress?
Mission Accomplished.
I’m just sayin….
Everyone, here, should consider sending a summarized version of Green’s article to their local newspaper, as a letter to the editor……
DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……DO IT NOW……
Prof. Green, Thank you for another excellent article.
The evidence is undeniably damning to the Bushies, Hannitys and O’Reillys who still like to put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence.
If this is whats known about Bushs disastrous misuse of the troops (used as a sport!), I shutter to think whats unknown.
Its hard to imagine that anyone, much less an American president especially after Vietnam, can be so devoid of compassion for our own troops.
How do you like compassionate conservatism so far?!!
With all of this proof, how could any rational person not demand an end to this imperialism? But that is just the point, is it not? Americans are no longer thinking rationally. The real problem is that they are enslaved to the “American Dream” living in too large of a house, driving too many SUVs, working too many hours at meaningless jobs, subjecting their children to too many tightly organized activities, and too much in debt to slow down and think. Above all else, they are scared that they will lose all of this. They cannot afford rational thinking, they just want someone in charge who will keep this “American Dream” going long enough to see their children graduate from Harvard or wherever, and allow them to retire to a nice little villa in Costa Rico or wherever. It is all insane. This whole country is insane. Bush is insane but he promises to keep the insanity going. Ditto Guiliani, Romney, O’Bama, etc.
The only solution is to live simply, pay no taxes (or as little as possible) and try to stay clear of the coming train wreck. Try to convince others, but don’t be surprised if they don’t listen.
Many thanks for the summary. I have been asked many times by others if I knew of such an article.
In informing Americans, it is also extremeley significant, in my opinion, that the division of the rights to Iraq’s oil go against the wishes of the Iraquis people. Witness the oil workers’ strike(s) in recent days to protest the proposed plan.
Regarding oil, it is also important to acknowledge the pre-war plan by the oil companies to divy up the area after it was conquered.
And, Osama Bin Laden…Bush strapped on his six-shooter early in declaring that we would get him, only to pull the rug out from underneath the effort in Afghanistan.
I have yet to hear the first protest about our going into Afghanistan. We should have done it, and we should have done it right. We may fail there because Bush pulled the troops out to redeploy them into Iraq.
And what about Alberto’s fudging on what torture was and why it’s OK for us to do it?
If ever Jefferson’s advice about being ready to overthrow a government out of control was applicable, it’s now.
Noun what good does it do to count the votes for Dimocraps if they are an opposition party that does no actual opposing of Bush’s war crime agenda for global dominance? The U.S. empire is in need of far deeper change than electing another slate of Dimocraps. That was tried last year and what has the CON-gress done to stop Bush’s war? Exactly nothing. As a Green/anarchist sympathizer I tried to warn the nicey nice “liberals” it would do no good on various discussion forums, in e-mails, and in person. Now I have to say I told you so. Schadenfreude, it’s what’s for breakfast. Note this is not to say that the votes shouldn’t be counted, of course they should. but to think that is enough is to not live in “the reality based community.”
EvelynSmith you are sooooo naive. Do you know what the very first thing a “liberal” corporate oligarch would do if elected? Repeal the minimum wage, completely, and the second thing? Enact a giant extra strength version of NAFTA/CAFTA/WTO to put even more downward pressure on wages and environmental standards. And the third thing they’d overturn the National Environmental Policy Act that created the EPA and then they’d sell off all the National Parks. Towards the end of the week said president MIGHT end the Iraq war because the empire is being made to look bad bad by president Coo Coo Bananas Bush, not because it’s the right thing to do. In short the last thing we need is a Soros or Iacoca, ugh.
Hi there Crow, how ya doin?
Perhaps you should read Iacooca’s latest book, and or study the history of his life. He is not at all what you have described here. For one thing, he says in so many words, that GWB is a first rate fool. Now I do not agree with everything Mr. Iacooca says, especially his support of atomic power plants. However, on almost every other issue of importance, he is the spittin image of most of the bloggers on this website.
I believe I wrote, I wish we had people LIKE Iacooca running for the presidency. I stated that opinion due to his proven “leadership ability”, his track record of dispaying true “common sense”, his “honesty” and his willingness to “listen”. He reads too.
He would be a fine President, but is wise enough to not run. I’’sd vote for him if he opened a cat house and sold Cuban cigars at the front door.
I wonder why we “at times” have a problem with reading comprehension. Myself included in that critical observation. If you knew me at all Crow, you would find I am not not considered to be a naive person by any who do know me. Quite the contrary.
I respect your right to think as you please Crow, I do not respect your unfounded insult, for the reasons stated above. But you are forgiven, for you obviously don’t always understand written English and so it’s not your fault. You may have had poor teachers. Many of us did.
Well, “Crow”, those are things that a phony liberal might do, but certa