Presidential Pep Talk

Sunday, December 18, 2005 10:12 AM

Earlier this evening, speaking from the Oval Office, G. W. Bush informed his fellow citizens that "we are winning in Iraq". Maybe so, but what does that mean? It all depends on how the word "winning" is  defined. For me, the moment we stepped foot in Iraq, we lost. Why? Because it was all an unnecessary and an extremely costly, dishonest adventure.

I believe that Congressman John Murtha, my newest hero and someone who should be drafted for the Democratic nomination in 2008 instead of that empty pants suit, Hillary Clinton, has stated that once American troops entered Baghdad without encountering an attack by WMD, he knew that he had made a mistake in voting to authorize the invasion. In other words, Murtha then realized that the scenario and rationale for the war which Bush and his operatives had propagated was a complete fabrication, a fraud. If Saddam had WMD, why not use them?

Let's see what Murtha has to say about Bush's performance tonight. Murtha is the only individual on Capital Hill worth listening to on this subject. In the meantime, here are a few off-the-cuff observations by an innocent bystander about the Oval Office pep talk.

Bush: “It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.”

My comment: Big deal. Once again G.W. is reverting to the “limited, modified hang-out” as Nixon did in the days of Watergate. Bush blames the intelligence for being wrong, not himself, and conveniently fails to mention that his neoconservative hatchet men were hard at work--very hard at work--cooking the intelligence, manufacturing the intelligence, and falsifying the intelligence to suit their own private, hidden agenda. In the next breath, Bush takes responsibility for the decision to invade, as a gesture to demonstrate his presumed candor and honesty. What nonsense and what a phony!

Bush: “Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He was given an ultimatum--and he made his choice for war.”

My comment: This is nuts by anyone’s standards. The ultimatum G.W. is talking about is that which G.W. handed to Saddam in the run-up to the war, which said, in effect, “Destroy your weapons of mass destruction, or face invasion.” Saddam and his ambassador at the UN stated emphatically and repeatedly prior to the invasion that Iraq possessed no WMD. As it turns out, this was the truth. Bush's ultimatum was therefore answered correctly on its face; hence, there was no justification for the war which Bush subsequently launched.

Saddam did not choose war; Bush and Cheney did. On the eve of the unprovoked invasion, Bush gave a second, last-minute ultimatum: irrespective of WMD, Saddam and his family and the top members of his regime had to exit Iraq immediately. Bush and his fellow "shock and awe" warmongers wanted to make damn certain that nothing would stop their splendid little war. This final, throwaway Diktat would never be accepted. They knew that. 

To assert that Saddam “made his choice for war” is utterly preposterous and a fantasy. But, I hasten to add, no more preposterous or fantastic than FDR's assertion that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a “surprise” from out of the blue.

Bush: “This war--like other wars in our history--has been difficult. The mission ... has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole Nation--and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving. That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on  terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop  provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

“The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere--they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq ... in Afghanistan, in Southeast Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens--they would be on the offense, and headed our way.”

My comment: Really? What medication is this man on? How does it make sense to stick your hand into a hornet's nest? Why is it a good idea to kick a sleeping dog? By now it must be obvious to almost everyone except Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney and their band of arrogant “neoconservatives” that yes, of course, we are indeed creating more problems than we are solving. When will that paramount realization be applied to American foreign policy as a whole--not just for today, but from 1917 until the present moment?

Bush: “September 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan, but the terrorists attacked us anyway--and killed nearly 3,000 men, women, and children in our own country.”

My Comment: Bush's reasoning begs the most important question: why in the world did Islamic terrorists attack New York and Washington on September 11th, 2001?  Is there something going on here behind the scenes that official Washington would prefer us to ignore, or remain ignorant of? Were these Arab terrorists simply driven insane because they hate our way of life and values? Or, like the hornets and the sleeping dog, was there a course of action pre-9/11 by Washington which proactively provoked, agitated and upset these emerging terrorists? If so, what could that be?

Recall what Patrick J. Buchanan proclaimed soon after the atrocity: “They are over here, because we are over there.” In the first instance “over there” means Palestine under the occupation of fanatical Zionists who are funded and fronted by Washington. In the second instance, it means Saudi Arabia, ruled by the House of Saud, which has turned over the keys of the kingdom to Washington in exchange for a pot of gold. Naturally, there is going to be repercussions.