This war in Iraq is all very confusing. The war between Saddam’s Iraq and America was over many months ago. What we have now is the occupation of Iraq and the repercussions. As a result, the American military has become the target of a guerrilla war. As an added kicker, we now have a full-blown "civil war" within the country between the two competing sects of Islam. Atrocities are being committed by both sides on a daily basis. How in the world can the U.S. Army deal with that? It obviously can't.

The U.S. Army is not the problem. The problem is the politicians back in Washington, who have been taking their cues from Tel Aviv for decades. There was no civil war in Iraq, no chaos, no terrorism, no internecine religious war, and no training ground for terrorists prior to the Sharon/Cheney/Bush decision to invade Iraq. Check out below what Dick Cheney was saying about Iraq in 2002. He thought he knew what he was talking about then. He still thinks he knows what he is talking about now. And Cheney is still telling Bush what to do. A case of the blind leading the blind is an understatement.

What, really, does anybody in America know about Iraq? Next to nothing. The average person probably cannot find Iraq on a map of the world. Only a handful of Middle East experts knows anything. Ex-CIA agent and Middle East aficionado, Robert Baer, tried to give some helpful guidance to America prior to the launching of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in his interview with the Sunday Observer, London, in March of 2002: "If the U.S. is to bomb Saddam and his army until there is no army, what comes after that? No one is discussing the ethnic composition of Iraq or what Iran is likely to do.... The U.S. is in no position to rejigger this because we don't understand anything about the country."

Baer overlooked the obvious: there was no interest in understanding Iraq, only in destroying it as a nation-state so it could no longer be a potential threat to Israel at some unknown, unforeseen, and undetermined point in time. This mission on behalf of Israel has now been accomplished. The secondary mission to acquire more oil reserves for the West under the direct control of Washington is yet to be achieved.

Aside from a dedicated, single-minded pressure group, known as the "Israel Lobby", Americans have zero to say about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East--or anywhere else for that matter. The hijacking of Washington is no joke. It is a reality. Let's face it, Americans are ignorant and out of it. Their representatives on Capitol Hill have abdicated all power, all checks, and all balances to the Cheney/Bush Co-Presidency to conduct its so-called "war on terror". That is the way the "Israel Lobby" wants it; accordingly, that is the way it is. Sycophants, surrogates, dupes and spies.

Tel Aviv is free to perform any outrage, and Washington dutifully provides the financing, the munitions, and the diplomatic cover, as exemplified most recently in Lebanon. American foreign policy in the Middle East is determined by the Zionist agenda and the American Jewish establishment. The next item on the agenda is Iran and Syria. As a potential third force to bring a modicum of balance and sanity to the table, the EU has turned out to be a big disappointment. The EU is actually enabling the madness. Chancellor Angela Merkel leads the way in this department. Move over Tony Blair.

=============================================================
Cheney's August of 2002 speech

[Rawstory.com || September 2nd, 2006]

In August of 2002, seven months before "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was launched, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a widely covered speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' 103rd National Convention in Nashville, Tennessee which argued that critics were wrong to suggest that deposing Saddam Hussein might spark more unrest across the Middle East region or prove counterproductive to the "war against terror."

"Another argument holds that opposing Saddam Hussein would cause even greater troubles in that part of the world, and interfere with the larger war against terror," Vice President Cheney had said. "I believe the opposite is true."

"Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region," Cheney had contended. "When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace."

In the same speech, the vice president had also predicted that Iraqis would "erupt in joy" after Saddam's regime was overthrown." As for the reaction of the Arab 'street,' the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are 'sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans," Cheney had said.

"Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad," added Cheney. "Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991," claimed Cheney back in August of 2002.

[Comment: Ah yes, the "peace process". At bottom, that was the point of the exercise for Cheney and his neocons: demonstrate to the Palestinians that resistance was hopeless and to accept subjugation. Tel Aviv and its front men were prepared to destroy an entire country, Iraq, if need be. How could the stateless Palestinians believe that they could survive or prevail under such circumstances? Tel Aviv delivered the same message with its bombardment of Lebanon. Resistance is futile.]