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.
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?"
Their interviews on 60 minutes can be viewed at www.cbsnews.com
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.
|
