Who Created That Mess In the Middle East, Anyway?

It wouldn't be us, would it?

Prophetic. Prescient

On this day, September 25

1990 - Saddam Hussein warns that US will repeat Vietnam experience.

Saddam Hussein asks a great question

A former GOP staffer writes on the current GOP: Where they--and we--are now

"Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson's strong showing in the 1988 Iowa Caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. The results are all around us: if the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution versus creationism, scriptural inerrancy, the existence of angels and demons, and so forth, that result is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary or quaint beliefs. Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science; it is this group that defines "low-information voter" - or, perhaps, "misinformation voter." The Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, there is now a de facto religious test for the presidency: major candidates are encouraged (or coerced) to "share their feelings" about their "faith" in a revelatory speech; or, some televangelist like Rick Warren dragoons the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to debate the finer points of Christology, with Warren himself, of course, as the arbiter. Politicized religion is also the sheet anchor of the culture wars. But how did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs - economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism - come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism? It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes - at least in the minds of followers - all three of the GOP's main tenets. Televangelists have long espoused the health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim it gospel. If you are wealthy, it is a sign of God's favor. If not, too bad! But don't forget to tithe in any case. This rationale may explain why some economically downscale whites defend the prerogatives of billionaires. The GOP's fascination with war is also connected with the fundamentalist mindset. The Old Testament abounds in tales of slaughter - God ordering the killing of the Midianite male infants and enslavement of the balance of the population, the divinely-inspired genocide of the Canaanites, the slaying of various miscreants with the jawbone of an ass - and since American religious fundamentalist seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New (particularly that portion of the New Testament known as the Sermon on the Mount), it is but a short step to approving war as a divinely inspired mission. This sort of thinking has led, inexorably, to such phenomena as Jerry Falwell once writing that God is Pro-War. It is the apocalyptic frame of reference of fundamentalists, their belief in an imminent Armageddon, that psychologically conditions them to steer this country into conflict, not only on foreign fields (some evangelicals thought Saddam was the Antichrist and therefore a suitable target for cruise missiles), but also in the realm of domestic political controversy. It is hardly surprising that the most adamant proponent of the view that there was no debt ceiling problem was Michele Bachmann, the darling of the fundamentalist right. What does it matter, anyway, if the country defaults? - we shall presently abide in the bosom of the Lord." -- Mike Lofgren, writer, member of the Republican Party and former staff member of the US Congress. Links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/mike-lofgren; https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=ExReM5_dSQ1A97X7NzYPcw&cp=8&gs_id=w&xhr=t&q=mike+lofgren&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&pbx=1&oq=mike+lof&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=1&biw=1249&bih=560&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&cad=b

Good on you, Mr. ElBaradei

From the news today:

ElBaradei suggests war crimes probe of Bush team     

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

NEW YORK – Former chief U.N. nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei suggests in a new memoir that Bush administration officials should face international criminal investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq.

Freer to speak now than he was as an international civil servant, the Nobel-winning Egyptian accuses U.S. leaders of "grotesque distortion" in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, when then-President George W. Bush and his lieutenants claimed Iraq possessed doomsday weapons despite contrary evidence collected by ElBaradei's and other arms inspectors inside the country.

The Iraq war taught him that "deliberate deception was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators," ElBaradei writes in "The Age of Deception," being published Tuesday by Henry Holt and Company.

And I'll tell you, I'm all for this investigation--an impartial one--not for retribution or vengeance or any other reason but that this way, hopefully, we would make certain that history doesn't repeat.

As Mr. ElBaradei states:  "Do we, as a community of nations, have the wisdom and courage to take the corrective measures needed, to ensure that such a tragedy will never happen again?"

That said, an investigation will never happen, sadly, as no one has the "guts" or chutzpah or fortitude, whatever you want to call it, to even begin it, let alone see it through.  The American people aren't calling for it and don't have the will for it.  In spite of how illegal attacking Iraq was and is both nationally, internally, here in the US and the fact that it's quite against international law, George W. Bush and Co. will get away with this travesty and travesty of justice.  

They will have told many lies, broken laws, been responsible for thousands of needless deaths and hundreds of thousands of wounded people and gotten away with it all, scott-free.

Links:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_elbaradei_memoir
http://us.macmillan.com/theageofdeception
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Deception-Nuclear-Diplomacy-Treacherous/dp/0805093508

More proof of George W Bush's lies to get us into war in Iraq

Lest you question my source for the following, please note that it's from and by Iraq Veterans Against the War:

General Accuses Bush Officials of "Deception"

On October 13, Thomas Ricks in Foreign Policy quoted former Joint Chiefs Chairman General Hugh Shelton from his book Without Hesitation:  The Odyssey of an American Warrior:

"President Bush and his team got us enmeshed in Iraq based on extraordinarily poor intelligence and a series of lies purporting that we had to protect America from Saddam's evil empire because it posed such a threat to our national security.

Spinning the possible possession of WMDs as a threat to the United States in the way they did is, in my opinion, tantamount to intentionally deceiving the American people."

So just so we're clear on this, Iraq Veterans against the Iraq War are quoting one of their own--a general in our own military and on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for that matter--as saying this president--President George W. Bush and his administration (because I'm not leaving out Former Vice President Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney on this, for sure), et. al--mislead us at minimum, if they didn't outright lie to us in order to get our country into war with and in Iraq, for which we have paid and are paying, dearly.

But here, to me, is the beauty of their experience and of their writing now and what they ask:

Every American citizen at this point has access to enough evidence to substantiate allegations of a deliberate effort to deceive members of Congress into authorizing military force against Iraq.  The only thing lacking is an Attorney General with the moral courage to do what is right no matter how many of President Obama's political opponents or fellow party members pressure him not to.  Everyone who has worn the uniform or seen a family member off to war deserves to know the truth about how and why we got into Iraq.


The only thing lacking, other than the will of the American people.

Link to original post:  http://www.ivaw.org/blog/general-accuses-bush-officials-deception

Yes, folks, we were lied to--big time--about going into Iraq

It's absolutely no consolation at all, being able to say "We told you so", to be clear.

More brilliance from the Iraq War

I was just given more reasons to bang my head against a wall when I saw this: After destroying Iraq's army, US retrains former foe by Jacques Clement; Ten years ago the military machinations of Saddam Hussein were a security obsession for the United States, but American forces in Iraq now aim to make the army of their former foe stronger than ever. The US army has the right to self-defence and has already used it, despite Washington's declaration that "combat operations" are officially over, but the bulk of America's military might is now focused on a training mission. US money has paid for hundreds of workshops at Iraqi military bases, in the wake of the American-led invasion that ousted Saddam from power in 2003, part of the estimated trillion dollars that has been spent on operations here. Just one example of the stupidity of the George W. Bush's administration, in handling this war they chose and created: US training of local forces started in 2004, just months after the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the post-invasion governing body headed by American diplomat Paul Bremer and charged with running the country, disbanded the Iraqi army. Although the army was suspected as a refuge for Saddam's allies, its break-up is seen as one of the CPA's biggest mistakes as it made tens of thousands of armed men unemployed and left Iraq's borders unguarded, allowing insurgents to pour in and wreak havoc in subsequent years. Then, Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, the deputy commander for Operation New Dawn said this: "In December 2011, I am convinced the ISF will be fully capable of internal security," Barbero said, noting that the Iraqi navy will protect coastlines and oil platforms. "But they will not have the capability to provide air sovereignty, to fully protect the skies over Iraq, because they will lack a multi-role fighter," he added. Now, it also sounds like we've set ourselves up to be the supplier (read: salesperson) of the Iraqis for the fighter jets our corporations can supply. Hopefully they'll never use them on us, right? Once again, I'd like to take a moment to thank Former President George W. Bush and Former Vice President Dick Cheney and that administration for the ignorance, tragedy and waste that is and was this Iraq War. It can't be said enough. I will never forget. Link to original post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100909/wl_mideast_afp/iraqusmilitarytraining/print

Quote of the day--on the Iraq War

Those who brought this disaster down on us must be called to account for the fabrications, the embarrassment to our honor, and the waste of so many lives and resources. Until then, the conclusion to this sad chapter in Iraq will not have been written. --James Zogby, From "Lies and the War That Has Not Ended", President of the Arab American Institute, Author of Arab Voices (Palgrave Macmillan 10/10) Link to original post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/lies-and-the-war-that-has_b_705742.html

Another, new reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq

We're coming up on the 6th anniversary of invading Iraq and fighting and dying there ever since.

And the reasons we shouldn't have invaded have been spelled out before:

--It's against our own national law;

--It's against international law;

--The UN inspectors weren't finding any WMD's;

--Saddam Hussein was cooperating;

--Our invasion of Iraq was totally, completely and utterly unprovoked;

--Our own intelligence agencies--13 of them--advised against the invasion and attack;

--Former President George H. W. Bush himself was against attacking Iraq;

--We had to do it unilaterally and without the world community which made it both costly--in terms of soldiers and materiel--and we didn't have world opinion on our side so it cost us our image, which is not to be dismissed;

--We were all for Saddam Hussein earlier in his career and we traded with him, no problem, while he was gassing his people. We didn't have any problem with it then. It was only later, with George W. Bush and Dick "Lemme at 'em" Cheney that we arbitrarily decided we should attack them without provocation.

And the list goes on.

But here's the real, new beauty today.

Did you hear on NPR this morning that there is a common feeling and thought of Iraqis actually missing Saddam Hussein and the days of his rule in Iraq?

Yeah, and here's why:

--they don't have any jobs

--they can't count on basic services like electricity (ever since we blew them up)

--there's less safety and security

--in Anbar Province, they're disillusioned with "the current Shiite-led government and the local Sunni provincial council"

and more.

Some quotes from Iraqis:

"It is only now that we have discovered how valuable Saddam was to us. People have compared the situation before to the situation now. And then was better."

"Saddam's popularity is back because Saddam gave Iraqis dignity. Now, Iraqis have no dignity whatsoever."

"At the mobile phone shop in Ramadi, owner Abu Mohammed says at least when Saddam was in power, people knew what to expect."

Again, this is another case of the Americans absolutely not being "greeted in the streets with flowers, as liberators", as the Bush Administration promised.

In the meantime, let me mention two statistics, not including what the war is costing us in materiel and dollars:

--The US has suffered 4375 casualties in American Soldiers, men and women and

--We have suffered 31,639 wounded American Soldiers, total, to date

And for what?

So the Iraqis could lament the days they had their own leader, however brutal and barbaric, and we hadn't yet blown them up, put our own soldiers lives at risk and spent trillions of dollars to do all the above.

Do you suppose there are still people out there who think George W. Bush and his administration are going to be thought of in a positive light one day, in retrospect, in the history books?

More proof they lied

Okay, before we had the Downing Street memo, remember? It proved that the Bush White House was "cooking the books" about intelligence in and about Iraq, so they could take us all to war.

Now, here comes a book from Pulitzer Prize winning author Ron Suskind, saying that the Bushies lied to us further and that he has proof.

In his new book, '“The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday,' Mr. Suskind 'claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.'

See the entire, original story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308

But wait, there's more!

Indications are that Mr. Suskind's information may, in fact be valid and not dreamed up, as the White House, Republicans, the neocons and Fox "News" would have us believe:

'The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”'

The original article has a great deal more information to it, too, than I will relate here. Suffice it to say, it's pretty condemning and indicting of this administration.

So bury your head in the sand if you wish, but this seems to be further, strong proof that y'all were duped into this high human and financial cost war. Check it out, by all means.

If anything, this should embolden Senator Kucinich, in his quest to impeach the current occupant.

Stay tuned.

Those hateful Liberals and Democrats said this in, what? 2003, I think...

Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed
By ROBERT WELLER

DENVER (AP) — A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the Army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

President George W. Bush's statement on May 1, 2003, that major combat operations were over reinforced that view, the study said.

It was written by Donald P. Wright and Col. Timothy R. Reese of the Combat Operations Study Team at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who said that planners who requested more troops were ignored and that commanders in Baghdad were replaced without enough of a transition and lacked enough staff.

Gen. William S. Wallace, commanding general of U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, said in a foreword that it's no surprise that a report with these conclusions was written.

"One of the great and least understood qualities of the United States Army is its culture of introspection and self-examination," he wrote.

The report said that the civilian and military planning for a post-Saddam Iraq was inadequate, and that the Army should have pushed the Joint Chiefs of Staff for better planning and preparation.

Retired military leaders, members of Congress, think tanks and others have already concluded that the occupation was understaffed.

At least 4,113 U.S. military members have died in Iraq, according to a count by The Associated Press.

Hundreds of commanders and other soldiers and officials were interviewed for the report released Sunday. The Army ordered the study to review what happened in the 18 months after the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. A report on the invasion was released earlier.

The report said that after Saddam's regime was removed from power, most commanders and units expected to transition to stability and support operations, similar to what was seen in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Commanders with the mindset that victory had already been achieved believed that a post-combat Iraq would require "only a limited commitment by the U.S. military and would be relatively peaceful and short as Iraqis quickly assumed responsibility," the study said.

"Few commanders foresaw that full spectrum operations in Iraq would entail the simultaneous employment of offense, defense, stability, and support operations by units at all echelons of command to defeat new, vicious, and effective enemies," it added.

The report said the first Bush administration and its advisers had assumed incorrectly that the Saddam regime would collapse after the first Gulf War.

When Saddam was so quickly defeated in 2003, there was an absence of authority that led to widespread looting and violence, the report said. Soldiers initially had no plan to deal with that. The administration's decision to remove Saddam's followers entirely from power caused governmental services to collapse, "fostering a huge unemployment problem," it said.

Planners in the Iraq headquarters said 300,000 troops would be needed for the occupation. Even before the invasion, some planners had called for 300,000 troops to be sent for the invasion and occupation.

During an April 16, 2003, visit to Baghdad, coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks told his subordinate leaders to prepare to move most of their forces out of Iraq by September of that year, the report noted.

"In line with the prewar planning and general euphoria at the rapid crumbling of the Saddam regime, Franks continued to plan for a very limited role for U.S. ground forces in Iraq," the report said.

The report said it wasn't until July 16, 2003, that Franks' successor, Gen. John Abizaid, said coalition forces were facing a classic guerrilla insurgency.

Even so, the coalition made some progress, only to have its optimism dashed after the insurgency boiled over in April 2004, when Sunni Arab insurgents and Shiite militias launched violent assaults in many parts of Iraq, the report said.

The authors said the Army had considerable experience and training for guerrilla wars but had not been in one like Iraq since 1992 in Somalia. They said former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Franks "that he thought too few troops were envisioned in the (invasion) plan."

Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.

The "post-war situation in Iraq was severely out of line with the suppositions made at nearly every level before the war," the report said.

Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded. The report covered the period from May 2003 to January 2005.

On the Net:
Army report: http://tinyurl.com/56dyob
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Just received this

As I said, I just got this from a friend, Preston, and had to put it up:

Maybe if we read and thought a little more before we acted?

The following is from an essay written in 1998 by John Basil Utley.

More starvation and disease or bombers and cruise missiles--these are the only actual choices Washington offers Iraq. No wonder Saddam will risk being bombed to end the economic blockade.... Also Washington demands "proving a negative," that Iraq has nothing hidden and will not in the future rebuild its weapons of mass destruction. At other times it says the blockade must remain until the starvation ridden Iraqis succeed in overthrowing their dictator.

Yet Iraq has only refused the continuation of inspections until the lifting of the blockade, one of the most severe in modern history, according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The blockade prohibits almost all imports except food and medicine and then leaves Iraq with barely half the proceeds of its limited oil export revenue, and the money is allocated by a United Nations' bureaucracy (slowly while the people starve)....

Washington keeps moving the goal posts demanding an interminable blockade for the nation where already in the last 8 years 1,200,000 have died from starvation and disease. This after the American bombing of the sanitation, electric, and economic infrastructure of the nation in l990. Even now Washington prevents Iraq from obtaining repair parts for its oil production so it can sell some oil for food imports and to repair its irrigation and sanitation systems....

Bombing will generate more hatred for America in the Moslem world and badly weaken our moral authority in the world as we are seen mainly as hypocrites. Also it will cause other nations' terrorists to claim justification for killing American civilians anywhere and cause them to try to develop biological and chemical weapons as the only way to be able to fight back against us, possibly by bringing the battle to the American homeland.

One of the first casualties will be our own freedoms, as the government chases threats of terrorism here. Already the FBI was just legislated "emergency" warrantless wiretap authority to cover whole regions. Two years ago the Clinton Crime Bill (supported by the Republican leadership) proposed gutting the 4th Amendment which prohibits warrantless searches of private homes.

Iraq never harmed America and is no threat to America. As far as the defense of Israel, that nation has atom bombs and the most modern weapons in the Middle East. It has often proven that it can well defend itself.

Yet it is above all a moral question for Americans. Never before have we put such a blockade to leave millions of innocent people in starvation and misery for years on end. Publicly Washington calls on the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator, Saddam Hussein, as the price of relieving sanctions. But they obviously can't.

Yet America's Secretary of State explained that "yes, we think the price is worth it" when asked on CBS 60 Minutes program (5/11/96) if maintaining the blockade was worth the death of half a million children.

It is high time to question the cost of what we are doing to the Iraqi people....

George H. W. Bush: In sharp contrast to Junior

The first President Bush was no intellectual--and said as much--but give him credit for some smart things, like these two quotes, at minimum:

"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. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. 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 those circumstances, 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."

"I can tell you this: If I'm ever in a position to call the shots, I'm not going to rush to send somebody else's kids into a war."


But that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what happened, years later, with his knucklehead son and that is why we are still there now, why the first President Bush was right and why we are still expending soldiers and materiel to and in Iraq, half a world away.

The insanity.

If only Junior had consulted Senior.