.)
"The president's not getting the job done. So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've laid out in four points. . . or you have the president's plan, which is four words: more of the same." - John Kerry, September 30, 2004
Dear Reader,
Once again, George W. Bush has given a speech. Once again, he used misleading language. Yet again, he continually invoked the terrorist attacks of September 11th to justify invading and occupying a country that had nothing to do with it and posed no threat. And again, he showed blatant hypocrisy.
If you have read my other essays, you will probably see that, in my letter below, I have repeated some points I made earlier. The reasons for this are twofold. First, when writing essays I assume that the reader hasn't read anything I've written before. Second, as George W. Bush continues to repeat the same lies, I must continue to repeat the facts.
"My greatest responsibility as President is to protect the American people."
I have read a number of articles that state unequivocally that, in the months between taking office and the attacks of September 11th, George W. Bush and his administration ignored the threat from Al-Qaeda, despite warnings from the CIA, the FBI, and the outgoing Clinton team.
For instance, on August 6, 2001, the vacationing Bush was briefed on Al-Qaeda; the brief's title was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." The Administration did nothing. (The text that put this best into perspective was, in my opinion, Al Franken's book Lies
Bush also ignored pleadings from people on his own team to take the terrorist threat more seriously. The foremost example was the then-NSA counter
terrorism chief, Richard A. Clarke
Instead, the Bush Administration gave $43 million to the Taliban, the close ally of Al-Qaeda, ostensibly to help them control the opium trade. [Source: The Nation.]
As Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had already tried to bomb the World Trade Center in February 1993, attacked our embassies in Africa in August 1998, and attacked the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in October 2000, how exactly was George W. Bush protecting the American people by funding the Taliban?
You may have seen some of the email petitions going around the internet pointing out the Taliban's atrocious human rights record. We knew exactly what kind of people the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were. We should not have even done business with them, much less given them money.
"The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent."
This is the 1st invocation of September 11th - and the first instance of deliberately misleading language. The facts of the matter are this: we were attacked by members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, trained in Afghanistan, and acting under the orders of Osama Bin Laden - a millionaire who was born in Saudi Arabia, and apparently the father-in-law of Mullah Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were Saudi nationals, and 4 were Egyptian nationals. Zero were Iraqi. To the best of my knowledge, Osama Bin Laden has never even been to Iraq.
What does Al-Qaeda want? They want to spread the rule of the Taliban over the entire Muslim world, from Morocco to Indonesia. On September 20, 2001, George W. Bush eloquently described the tyranny of the people to whom he'd given our tax dollars: "In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough."
According to CIA analyst Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
So this begs the question: why did we invade Iraq, if Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th or Al-Qaeda?
Answer: In the fall of 2000, the Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative think tank with members including George W. Bush's brother Jeb and prominent Bush advisors Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith - published a report detailing how America should use our military might to dominate the world by force.
Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - who recently became head of the World Bank - helped write this report. Buried in there was the call to conquer Iraq in order to control its oil supply.
This was hardly a new idea to the neoconservatives. In January 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and Perle wrote a letter to President Clinton. The letter reads: "...If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction... the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
Sound familiar?
The letter goes on to say: "In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing." They conclude: "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
Two years later, George W. Bush became President. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith were put in charge of our nation's defense, Perle became their advisor, and Bolton was imposed on the State Department. According to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, at the very first meeting of Bush's cabinet in February 2001, the senior members of the Bush Administration had already agreed to conquer Iraq in about 2002.
So what's this about misleading language?
Let's read the President's words again. "The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent."
But the June 28th speech was not about September 11th or Al-Qaeda. It was about Iraq.
Go back and listen to all the speeches made by members of the Bush Administration between the 2002 State of the Union address and the attack on Iraq in March, 2003. In case after case, you will hear George W. Bush and his advisors mention Iraq, September 11th, and terrorism all together in the same sentences. In less than a dozen cases would anyone actually claim that Saddam Hussein's regime was allied with Al-Qaeda or had anything to do with terrorism, but in speech after speech Saddam's dictatorship was mentioned in conjunction with terrorists - even though Iraq had not participated in any international terrorism in a dozen years.
This is misleading language. According to the Bush Administration, Saddam was a terrorist and Iraq was full of terrorists. By their carefully crafted implication, Saddam was responsible for attacking our country on September 11th.
But he wasn't. America invaded Iraq to seize control of their oil supplies. In the name of fighting terrorism, we attacked a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism, and made it into a terrorist threat. The Iraqi people - who may have seen through Saddam's propaganda blaming the United States for all their problems - witnessed American tanks and bombs firsthand, even though Saddam had not threatened our nation in a dozen years. Then the images of torture at Abu Ghraib were burned into the brains of the Iraqi people.
Since we're talking about totalitarian ideology that "hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent," let's see what George W. Bush and his partisans really think about that.
On freedom: "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush while running for President, 2000
Also: "Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief." - Senator Zell Miller condemning the idea of presidential elections while addressing the Republican Convention, September 1, 2004
On tolerance: "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?" - Trent Lott, then Senate Majority Leader, 2001
On dissent: "Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?
"Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." - Karl Rove, Bush's senior political advisor, on June 22, 2005. He's explaining how tolerance and dissent don't extend to critics of the President, and how condemning the U.S. Government's use of torture is actually more dangerous than the torture itself.
"After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom."
This is the 2nd invocation of September 11th. Ironically, Bush's idea of "defending our freedom" involved sending the FBI to infiltrate and harass anti-war protesters. Ironically, a good number of the pacifists who protested against attacking Iraq agreed with the President's war on terror, but thought (gee, what a concept) that we should concentrate on fighting terrorists and not attack countries that don't pose a threat.
As a result of the attack on Iraq - and an occupation tainted by Abu Ghraib - world opinion of the United States fell from a post-September 11th high to an all-time low. Far from taking the fight to the enemy, Bush has swung world opinion to favor Bin Laden's propaganda that the United States is greedy, evil, and hates Islam. Is that what we Americans want?
"Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."
This is the 3rd invocation of September 11th.
George W. Bush has made this claim in multiple speeches, and it is just as wrong now as ever. Afghanistan was the primary battlefield in the war on terror, and still is. The Taliban may have been driven from power, but they are still a coherent force in that troubled country. Iraq is only a battlefield in the war on terror because of Bush's reckless warmongering.
Let me explain. Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies. Although he claimed to be a Muslim and ruled a country populated by Muslims, Saddam also butchered thousands of Muslims in his own country, in Iran, and in Kuwait. Bin Laden thinks that dictators falsely claiming to be Muslim (such as Saddam) are the epitome of evil, and in order to overthrow Saddam, Bin Laden sold arms to Kurdish rebels.
However, it seems that a majority of the American people - a huge country on the other side of the planet - were not aware that Saddam and Bin Laden were trying to kill each other, and bought into Bush Administration lies saying otherwise.
The problem is, the Iraqis themselves know very well that Saddam's cult of personality and Bin Laden's perversion of Islam were diametric opposites. (Saddam Hussein wanted the Iraqi people to worship him; Bin Laden wants to control the way Muslims worship God.)
Thus, although Bush pulled the wool over America's eyes with talk of "taking the battle to the enemy" by invading Iraq and that removing Saddam would be removing "an ally of al-Qaeda," the Iraqi people certainly weren't fooled.
That's why there's an insurgency. The Iraqi people are completely aware that the American invasion and occupation of their country was based from the start upon lies. The Iraqi insurgents don't have a murderous ideology, or any other kind of ideology. As I learned in college - a class that President Bush apparently missed - insurgencies don't have ideologies. The only thing the Iraqi insurgents want is for the Americans to leave.
This is not a war that the United States can win, either by force of arms or by the power of ideas. We invaded and occupied a country based upon false pretenses. As long as the occupation continues, an insurgency will fight it. The Iraqi insurgents have no interest in attacking America. They just want their country back.
"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists."
Again, note the misleading language. The war in Iraq never had anything to do with terror or terrorists - but Bush and his administration insist that it does in order to trick Americans into going along with the conquest of another country. And since the war in Iraq has to be tied in with the war against terrorists, the Iraqi insurgents have to be referred to as terrorists.
Iraq was not a terrorist threat before Bush invaded. Now it is - partially because Bush has labeled the Iraqi insurgents as terrorists. Convincing millions of Arabs and Muslims around the world that the United States is their enemy didn't help, either. [Source: Knight-Ridder.]
"We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
As we have seen, Saddam's Iraq had not been a source of instability since he was defeated in the first Gulf War in 1991. Although Iraq was a source of violence, it had been contained. Saddam's regime was only killing other Iraqis, not Americans nor anyone else.
However, since Bush's conquest and occupation of Iraq, the country is definitely a source of instability - for Bush has persuaded a generation of Iraqis that the United States is a greedy country that wants to steal their oil.
Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam? Probably - although the torture of civilians at Abu Ghraib, 90% of whom had been arrested by mistake, may well have convinced them otherwise. However, is the United States safer with the Iraq that Bush has created? Almost certainly not.
"Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom."
Hmm. . . peace and freedom. Somewhere between 22,000 and 100,000 Iraqis have died since the March 2003 invasion. Is that the advance of peace and freedom? In order to have a democracy, there have to be people to vote.
"They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well."
No. Insurgent movements don't have ideologies. They just want their country back.
By attacking Iraq, George W. Bush strengthened Bin Laden's appeal, not weakened it. Bin Laden's lies claim that the United States is out to destroy Islam - and Bush's conquest of Iraq has strengthened his position.
Bush has no interest in a free Iraq. He only says he does because he wants the American people to think we're fighting for a noble cause.
Bush is only interested in control of Iraq's oil wells. How do we know this? Because Paul Wolfowitz said as much in the 2000 report published by the organization whose members include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
In fact, the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis, the elections, and the drafting of an Iraqi constitution were not part of the Pentagon's original plan for post-war Iraq. The original plan was a vague idea to replace Saddam with a pro-American dictator, probably Ahmed Chalabi.
Chalabi is an Iraqi-born banker who hadn't lived in Iraq since 1956. Even though Chalabi is a convicted embezzler and suspected Iranian spy, he is a personal friend of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
"Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: 'This Third World War is raging' in Iraq. 'The whole world is watching this war.' He says it will end in 'victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.'"
This is the first mention by name of Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire and Al-Qaeda leader who ordered the September 11th attacks. Although (to my knowledge) Bin Laden has never been to Iraq and was actively arming anti-Saddam rebels, the war in Iraq is exactly what Bin Laden wanted.
Why? He wanted to convince millions of Muslims worldwide that America is a hypocritical country, that we care about human rights for Americans but not for anyone else. Bin Laden wanted to convince the world's Muslims that America wants to seize their land and natural resources. He wanted to convince the world that America hates Muslims and that he was right to attack the United States.
How did George W. Bush conquer Bin Laden's lies and propaganda? He didn't. He invaded Iraq, and in the eyes of the world's Muslims proved Bin Laden's case.
"These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists -- both foreign and Iraqi -- failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies."
Their strategic objectives? The International Institute of Strategic Studies had concluded that the conquest of Iraq has brought Al-Qaeda closer to achieving those objectives. [Source: Time Magazine.]
A mass withdrawal by our allies? Hmmm.
A quick web search gave me a list of the coalition countries that have withdrawn their troops from Iraq: the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, and Tonga. Bush's claim about our allies is another lie, just like everything about this whole Iraq War has been a lie.
"And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy."
This isn't what I've been reading. All Bush's claims to this effect have been exaggerated. He claims thousands have signed up, when the total is hundreds. Many of those who do sign up either desert, or never complete their training. [Source: The Nation.]
"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden."
This is the 4th invocation of September 11th and the 2nd invocation of Osama Bin Laden - and another example of misleading language. The Iraqi insurgents aren't terrorists - or, at least, aren't terrorists like Bin Laden's people, who attacked America without provocation. There was never any danger of Iraqi terrorists coming to the United States and murdering people here - until George W. Bush sent our troops to Iraq and made everyone in that nation despise us. I'm not going to debate the lessons of September 11th here, but I'm sure that attacking a country that had nothing to do with it and posed no threat was not the right solution.
George W. Bush believes that we can impose democracy with bombs, and that ignoring the wishes of a populace that overwhelmingly wants us to leave brings them freedom. Does this make sense?
"We would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy."
This statement doesn't reflect the facts either. Two years after the invasion, water and power in Iraq are still inconsistent. Reconstruction projects move at a snail's pace. While Iraqis suffer from 27%-50% unemployment, the jobs are going to foreign contractors, like Halliburton. [Source: the Washington Post.]
"We would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition, and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability."
Now this is going to be difficult, as Bush and his Administration spent the entirety of the time between the fall of the Kabul and the invasion of Iraq trying to bully other countries with phrases like "Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
Bush his colleagues championed the unilateral right of the United States to make pre-emptive strikes against countries that posed no threat based on flimsy intelligence and bogus links to terrorists. Our French allies were ridiculed when they tried to talk sense into us. The United Nations and the NATO alliance were dismissed as ineffective and irrelevant. The United States would proudly act alone.
Bush and his colleagues (such as John Bolton) have said dozens of times that they disdain the United Nations and working with other countries. Bush has burned his bridges. Since he drove away some of our most important allies - Canada, Mexico, France, Germany - none of them would want to help him today. Bush will get no more international support for this. We're on our own - just like he wanted.
"We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder."
Rebuilding a country while at war? But Bush said we're not at war. Remember? On May 1, 2003, he announced that "Major combat operations in Iraq were over."
At that time, 157 Americans had died in Iraq. On July 2, 2003 - almost exactly two years ago - Bush said, "There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."
Today (June 29, 2005) the total is 1,744.
"We're improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we'll help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens."
That's not what I hear. For instance, CNN calls the Baghdad water system "shattered."
"In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some 30 nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance."
Wikipedia has a different total of nations with troops in Iraq: 19.
"Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely, helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf and Samarra, Fallujah and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning, which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties."
Bush's numbers here don't reflect the reality on the ground. According to the Seattle Times, the real number is about a tenth of that.
Funny he should mention Fallujah, where there have been accusations of war crimes.
According to the Nation article I cited earlier, the problem with training the new Iraqi army is that the trainees are reluctant to fire on their countrymen - because they agree with the insurgents that the occupation is wrong. How can we expect Iraqis to shoot insurgents with whom they sympathize? The Iraqis do not equate "defending themselves" with killing other Iraqis.
"To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends."
Unfortunately, it already has, according to the Knight-Ridder article cited above.
"Terrorists and insurgents?" This is more language meant to mislead. By grouping them together, Bush is claiming that Iraqi insurgents would come and attack America if they had the chance, the way Bin Laden and his allies would. The Iraqi insurgents don't want that. They just want foreign troops to leave.
The occupation of Iraq has indeed brought a "transfer of sovereignty" and elections, but it has also brought the closure of Iraqi newspapers, the selling off of Iraqi banks and oil companies to foreign firms, and the tragedy at Abu Ghraib. The fact that $8.8 billion of Iraqi money vanished during Coalition head Paul Bremer's administration of Iraq did not help matters, either. [Source: The Guardian.]
Are there foreign terrorists in Iraq today? Almost certainly. Were there any before the U.S. invasion? I've only heard of one terrorist camp - in territory not controlled by Saddam. Bush's war has not prevented Iraq from becoming another Afghanistan. Bush's invasion has caused that.
"And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Here's the problem. Until very recently, Bush gave every indication that the occupation would continue indefinitely. Donald Rumsfeld said last week that it could continue for the next twelve years.
If Bush plans for the United States to "stand down," why is he building 14 permanent military bases there? [Sources: Mother Jones, the Chicago Tribune, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
But the clincher is that the Iraqi people know that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were enemies, and that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11. They know that Bush lied to justify the invasion. As far as the Iraqis are concerned, the occupying soldiers are the enemy, and they realize Bush's claims that the Americans will eventually leave are just another lie. Because the occupation began under false pretenses, we will not be able to defeat the insurgency.
And as far as pursuing terrorists goes, Bin Laden and his cohorts are still out there, and the trail is cold.
"Iraqi security forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A large number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We're building up Iraqi security forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.
"To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are. . . partnering coalition units with Iraqi units. These coalition
Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.
"...We are embedding coalition "transition teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills, such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques."
This isn't what I've heard. Remember the Nation article showing how the American-trained Iraqi army has refused to fight other Iraqis? The evidence presented in that article debunks all of Bush's above claims. Because the Iraqi people do not want the occupation, the Iraqi soldiers cannot bring themselves to fight insurgents.
"The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of Iraqi security forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward, and are now training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened, and their officers grow more experienced."
At least the ones that are still alive, he means.
"I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I."
Nonsense. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Perle and company deluded themselves into thinking that the Iraqis would sit by and do nothing as the United States - led by the cabal of reactionary neoconservatives from the Project for the New American Century - conquered their country, put a pro-American dictator like Ahmed Chalabi in power, and took control of their oil reserves. Companies like Halliburton would then get rich off contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry.
According to Pulitzer-prize winning Journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, and later the Levin Report and the Downing Street Memos, Bush was handed inconclusive intelligence regarding Saddam's arsenal, but he decided to ignore the facts and believe the worst.
(Hersh's book Chain of Command
Bush and his Administration were completely unprepared for the insurgency. No one paid attention to what the reality of life in Iraq was like. Personal ownership of weapons there is widespread, much like it is here in the United States. Iraq does not have the tradition of rule of law we have here, though. When a family member is hurt or killed, the Iraqi tradition is to take vengeance on the perpetrator, not call the police and work through the courts.
Saddam Hussein was able to stay in power because he had an army of 400,000 with which to rape, torture and murder his opponents. At the beginning of the occupation, Coalition head Paul Bremer dissolved that army, creating 400,000 unemployed men with military training.
The problem is, we should have known. Former President George H.W. Bush - the current president's father - wrote the following in his memoirs
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . .
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. 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 United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Before the occupation, the senior Bush's national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, wrote that the invasion of Iraq would wreck the war on terror. General Wesley Clark cautioned against moving too hastily, testifying that "time was on our side." Both have since been proven right.
There were 10 million antiwar protesters screaming at Bush to listen to his father, listen to Scowcroft and Clark, and focus our efforts on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda instead of invading Iraq. But Bush would not listen. He was consumed with anger at Saddam, and his advisors were determined to carry out the agenda they'd laid out at the Project for the New American Century.
Bush does not care about our soldiers' lives, and he does not care when or if they ever come home. If he did, he would not have ordered the invasion in the first place.
But I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is telling the truth for a change when he says he wants to bring our soldiers home. The problem with this assumption is as follows: he has given our soldiers an impossible task. He expects them to secure Iraq with an army a third the size of Saddam's, when the population (a) wants us to leave and (b) knows perfectly well that Bush lied in order to justify the invasion.
If Bush truly cared about our troops, he would do everything he could to rectify the situation. He would start by apologizing for inflating the intelligence regarding Saddam's arsenal. (The worst of these lies was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This claim is particularly damning because Bush had twice been warned by the CIA that it wasn't true, but he said it anyway.)
He would then apologize for the hundreds of misleading statements he and his Administration made connecting Iraq to September 11th. He would apologize for the 1744 American lives lost because of this needless war, and for the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. And he would set a specific goal as to when we would bring our soldiers home: say, when Iraq has ratified a constitution.
Although this would not be enough to stop the insurgency completely, it would be a step in the right direction. An apology would help to swing Iraqi public opinion away from the insurgents, as a promise that the occupation's end is in sight would make the insurgency unnecessary.
But will Bush do this? How many times does anyone recall Bush ever having admitted a mistake?
"Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer."
Bush refuses to accept the reality of the situation: that the occupation itself is fueling the insurgency and that he has put our soldiers are in a no-win situation.
Technically, the job IS done. Saddam is in prison, the Iraqis have held elections, and there is an elected Iraqi government. (Also, Iraq is 100% WMD-free, but we didn't need the war to accomplish this.)
The only solution is to bring our soldiers home at once. 1744 of them have already died in this conflict - a conflict that was not only unnecessary, but counterproductive. Millions of people worldwide have realized that Bush was lying about Iraq from the start, and are beginning to believe Osama Bin Laden's lying propaganda. Setting a deadline for withdrawal will not be enough to stop the insurgency, but it would serve as a first step - and would hopefully save our soldiers' lives.
"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight."
Really?
Sen. Joseph Biden told ABC this morning: "I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq. There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
The logistics here are very simple: we have enough soldiers to win battles, but not to secure areas. When our troops move on, the insurgents simply move back in. This forces our soldiers to fight battles in the same places over and over again. [Source: Knight-Ridder.]
"And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders."
Nonsense. The Iraqi insurgents already believe the occupation will continue forever, partially because of the Coalition Authority's takeover of Iraqi oil companies and banks and because we are building permanent bases there. The presence of an insurgency shows that a united Iraq could defend itself. The insurgents are trying to defend their country against Bush.
"The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed, and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights, while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power."
"Senior regime officials enjoyed. . . unchecked power?"
Funny Bush should mention how Saddam and his lackeys had absolute power with no checks and balances. There is a faction in this country that wants absolute power, as well.
Former Vice President Al Gore talked about this faction when he described the evils of absolute power in a speech last April. He refers to Senate Republicans' attempt to abolish filibusters.
"A Republican freshman Senator who supports the party-line opposition to the filibuster here at home," Gore said, "recently returned from Iraq with an inspiring story about the formation of multi-ethnic democracy there. Reporting that he asked a Kurdish leader there if he worried that the majority Shiites would 'overrun' the minority Kurds, this Senator said the Kurdish leader responded 'oh no, we have a secret weapon. . . [the] filibuster.'
"This fight,"
"...What makes it so dangerous for our country is their willingness to do serious damage to our American democracy in order to satisfy their lust for total one-party domination of all three branches of government. They seek nothing less than absolute power. Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. They envision a total breakdown of the separation of powers.
"Any who seek to wield the powers of government without the consent of the people, act unjustly."
"We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We're fighting against men with blind hatred -- and armed with lethal weapons -- who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September the 11th, 2001. They will fail."
This is the 5th invocation of September 11th.
Who are these men of blind hatred Bush is talking about? I believe they are the Al-Qaeda fanatics like the 9/11 hijackers, and I pray that those terrorists will fail - although Bush has strengthened the credibility of their anti-American propaganda. As far as the Iraqi insurgents go, my first concern is not what kind of government the Iraqi people have. My first concern is the lives of Americans. 1,744 soldiers have already been lost in this unnecessary war, and the blood is on the President's hands. We needed those men here to protect our nation and their families.
George W. Bush should know blind hatred well. It is such obsession that made him attack Iraq.
"We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."
The only reason that terrorists threaten Iraq is because George W. Bush launched an unprovoked and needless war in that country. That attack made Muslims worldwide sympathetic to the plight of the Iraqi people in a way that neither Saddam nor Bin Laden could, because the world's Muslims understood what many Americans did not - that Bush was lying about Saddam's connection to terrorism. When the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, many Americans wanted to intervene. Many wanted to help the courageous Magyars, Czechs and Slovaks who tried to break away from Soviet control and win their freedom. That is what is happening in the Muslim world and Iraq today. Al-Qaeda attacked the United States, and driving them from power in Afghanistan was the right thing to do; but Bush's conquest of Iraq has convinced many Muslims that America is in the wrong.
The truth is that America does not believe in conquest. We believe in freedom - freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and the right to due process. But Bush has attacked those things at home by executive order, by the so-called PATRIOT Act, and by the torture memos.
"And we know that this great ideal of human freedom entrusted to us in a special way, and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending."
History teaches us that freedom and democracy must grow from within. They cannot be imposed at the point of a gun.
"In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom and did not live to make the journey home. I've met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I've been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission."
I disagree. I believe the best way to honor the fallen is to honor the life and liberty that they fought for. To honor them, we must prevent any more lives from being lost unnecessarily. We must bring our soldiers home from Iraq as quickly as humanly possible.
"I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you."
A good number of them haven't had any say in the matter. Last year, the Pentagon established a "stop-loss" policy to prevent soldiers from retiring from the armed forces. [Source: USA Today.]
"After September the 11th, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult, and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult -- and we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal, but they are no match for the United States of America, and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military."
And that was the 6th invocation of September 11th. I have long suspected that Bush hopes that by talking about 9/11 and Iraq together, he can magically create a connection - but the world doesn't work that way.
America can prevail, if we are fighting the right war. The war against Al-Qaeda is the right war. The war in Iraq is wrong.
I will close with someone else's words - those of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
"As the President noted, it is only one year after the return of sovereignty, but it has been 27 months since the President launched his pre-emptive strike. Iraq is now what it was not when the war began - a magnet for terrorism - because the President invaded Iraq with no idea of what it would take to secure the country after Baghdad fell."
Yours sincerely,
C. Colvin
June 30, 2005