A War of Choice: President Bush and Iraq
edited: Wednesday, August 25, 2004
By Niki Collins-Queen
Rated "G" by the Author.
Posted: Friday, June 11, 2004
Become a Fan
Richard Clark, President Bush’s former top anti-terrorist advisor, the former National Security Council member Paul O’Neill and General Anthony Zinni, a 4-star general, and one of the most respected military leaders of the past two decades, all think Iraq was a war of choice.
Did the Bush Administration go to war on Iraq because of Saddam’s involvement in terrorism or WMS or for humanitarian reasons? The people from most other countries and many Americans think the we went to war on Iraq because the Bush Administration wanted a U. S. military presence in the Middle East at the site of the second largest oil field in the world. Richard Clark, President Bush’s former top anti-terrorist advisor, the former National Security Council member Paul O’Neill and General Anthony Zinni, a 4-star general, and one of the most respected military leaders of the past two decades all agree. Clark and O’Neill said the Bush Administration intended to get America into war with Iraq eight months before the 9/11 attacks. O’Neill stated it was not a question of "why" but "how."
Clarke says that as early as the day after the 9/11 attacks Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfelt was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq although Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan. He said he was stunned as no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda had been found and there had not been any Iraqi terrorism against the U.S. in eight years.
Zinni and other military leaders such as Former General Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told congress that Saddam was contained and sanctions were imposed on him. They said, "Now is not the time, we have a war on terrorism. We are fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afganistan. We were looking at cells in 60 countries. Gen. Shinseki thought we would need at least 300,000 troops in Iraq." But Donald Rumsfelt thought the job could be done with fewer troops around 180,000 troops and high-tech weapons and did not anticipate continued violence. Zinni said they had no viable plan or strategy for governing post-Saddam Iraq. Their interviews on 60 minutes can be viewed at www.cbsnews.com
Zinni said "Imagine if we put troops in combat with a faulty rifle that is malfunctioning and troops were dying as a result…Well, what’s the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that gets just as many troops killed?"
Many people suspect the Bush administration wants a military base in Iraq as it has become apparent that Saudi Arabia is as deeply implicated in the 9/11 attack as Osama bin-Laden as their government and members of the royal family gave money to charities that funded Al-Qaeda. (Joe Klein, Time, March 22, 2004) Saudi Arabia is a repressive regime and continues to be on the brink of a civil war, which puts the U.S. military base there in jeopardy. Saudi Arabia is the No.1 supplier of oil in the U.S. and a large portion of the American economy is built on Saudi money. There are still unanswered questions about the President Bush’s actions immediately after 9/11. Klein asks in the Time magazine article, "Why did he allow planeloads of Saudi nationals and the bin Laden family out of the U.S.?" Was it at the taxpayer’s expense? "Who asked him to give the Saudis and bin Laden’s special treatment?"
The Bush Administration is rolling back the progress made in the 20th century. They have dismantled our system of environmental protections and our civil rights and liberties. They have destroyed social programs, accumulating a huge national deficit and demolished Iraq and Afghanistan and burdened us with administering to both. They have not addressed our economy, our high unemployment rate and have allowed more children to slip into poverty, ignorance and despair. They have done little to promote peace, justice, freedom and human rights. They have not tried to negotiate settlements or alleviate suffering at home or abroad. They have yet to learn that they cannot beat terrorism by blowing up countries.
Want to review or comment on this article?
Click here to login!
Need a FREE Reader Membership?
Click here for your Membership!
|Reviewed by Hiren Shah
|A well written article. A few days after 9/11, an article appeared which stated that what if the perpetrators of 9/11 had nuclear weapons?. Innocent people in USA got killed for no fault of theirs and there is a possibility of a much greater catastrophy. There are reports to the effect that America meddles on issues where it has no business to be in. One only hopes that in the future, it does not bommerang on innocent people. Practically the whole world was against the Iraq war but the president still went ahead with it- so much for democracy and the leader of the free world. The United nations should be abolished if it is so impotent in such matters. Time magazine had an article which stated that the serial "Friends" was even popular in Pakistan. That is real power- winning hearts. Showing off military might may prove dangerously counterproductive.|
|Reviewed by William Neven
|The only thing you missed perhaps, Niki, was that Saddam Hussein had put out a contract on The Prez's daddy and had made the elder Bush look irresponsible [after George Sr. had pulled US troops out in 1991 even though the UN had supported Hussein's ouster at that time following his invasion of Kuwait] by executing those who had sided with the Americans. [That ill-advised move may or may not have had to do with Reagan using Hussein to attack Iran when Bush, Sr., was The Gipper's VP a few years earlier.] Subsequently, some of those mass graves we hear about today are those which were filled with those Iraquis who were double-crossed by the elder Bush. As for calling on our kids for patriotic duty? Hey, John Ashcroft's son, for example, is in the Navy. What's the matter with Bush's twin daughters? Aren't they 'patriotic' and 'willing to give up their lives for freedom' if necessary as The Bush Administration keeps urging others their age to do? [It's time to also 'walk the walk', George Dubya.] Anyway, I'm still furious after learning only today that he had ignored Nancy Reagan's desperate pleas to possibly help save our late President's mind via stem cell research THREE YEARS AGO so let me wind it up here and say that - though I may not agree with all you say, Niki - I am glad you did your duty and exercised your American right to say it. A well-constructed and emotionally-charged piece.|