lies and iraq

Posted on June 3, 2007


It’s amazing that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his personal life when it really affected no one outside of his family, while Bush goes on free to wreak more havoc, even as close to 4,000 Americans lives have been lost, over half a million Iraqis had perished, and billions of dollars flushed down the drain, due to the ill-conceived, meaningless war in Iraq predicated on lies.

The Washington Post today published a report of how the CIA had given the worst case scenarios of an invasion of Iraq back in 2002.The soothsayers at CIA had predicted an outcome that has become chillingly true – anarchy and territorial breakup in Iraq, a rise in global terrorism, and a rise in Islamic feelings against the US.

Assuming that the idiots at the White House can read, they obviously ignored any of the warnings in the prescient report and cherry-picked the information they wanted to make a case for going to war with Iraq, even though all evidence point against the action and public opinion, from experts in the Middle East, to generals, opposing the move.

It once again confirms what we have known and suspected all along – the Bush administration was always going to invade Iraq, it was just a matter of when. 9/11 came along as a bonanza for them to exploit the nation’s raw emotions and con the American people into believing the Iraqi invasion was part of the war on terror.

The worst thing is that they have been forewarned that the US would lose and be stuck in a quagmire that has no easy solutions, with less help from allies. And yet, they proceeded with the invasion.

The CIA report had also warned of lessening European support for US leadership, Afghanistan slipping into more strife with less attention and resources – again things that have come to pass.

So despite reports of attacks on US troops getting more sophisticated and even lethal, the Bush administration is exploring the idea of stationing US troops in Iraq for the long-term, like in South Korea.

Put a aside the vast differences in the circumstances between the Korean and Iraqi scenarios – the US being in Korea with the country’s and the UN’s blessings; the large splintered factions in Iraq versus the more homogeneous and united South Koreans; and the kind of tyrannical and iron-fisted government needed in Iraq under Saddam to hold a multi-ethnic nation together – the only party to welcome long-term US presence in the region is likely only to be Israel. Arab nations, which might initially be happy to see a counterweight to a rising Iran, might in the long term be extremely uncomfortable or even against a long term US buildup in their backyard.

So never mind that these long term bases will make the perfect target for insurgents, underline their rallying call that the country has being occupied by the US and act as an even more effective recruitment tool for fighters against the US. Never mind that more US blood will be needlessly spilled on this senseless adventure. Iraq will never become Korea, the circumstances between the two cases are just so vastly different.

Deep down, the Bush administration must know this, but again, have chosen to ignore the realities of the situation to impose their beliefs, which they arrogantly think will come to pass if they believed it enough or pushed it hard enough.

But ultimately, the administration’s top priority is made clear by the revelation of their wanting to stay there in the long haul — the protection of US oil interests by the permanent bases in Iraq. The other logical conclusion is that the US wants a launch pad into their next target, Iran.

Congress had better wake up and stop being weak-spined. It is time to force a pull out before it becomes entrenched, and the time to do it is now, as Bush loses traction with his base due to the immigration issue. And the American people too, should realize the dire consequences of a long-term stay in Iraq and make sure to vote in a new government that will prevent the Bush vision from being fulfilled.