About This Blog
The reason the United States military invaded and now occupy the nation of Iraq, complete with the construction of multiple military bases and the largest embassy we have in the world, was for the sole purpose of STAYING. George W. Bush didn't send our military to invade and occupy a sovereign nation because that nation was a threat to America. He sent our military, with Congressional consent, so that the U.S. would have a permanent military presence in the region. That was the goal outlined in the Project for the New American Century signed by most of the usual suspect neo-conservatives in 1998.
What George didn't do, you know..... because he is the Decider, was TELL Americans THAT was the objective in the first place. His administration, instead, decided to scare Americans with "mushroom clouds" and "WMD's in the hands of terrorists" and all the rest of the rhetoric cherry-picked and stovepiped by the Dick and his merry band of deception artists. Bush didn't tell us that the reason he was pulling valuable military assets away from the Taliban/Al-Qaeda front in Afghanistan in late 2001, early 2002, was in order to carry out the PNAC, neo-conservative plan of permanent bases in Iraq from which America can project it's power.
Yesterday in his press conference, the Commander Guy started to explain the real reason why so many thousands of American soldiers and Iraqis have died and been wounded.....
I recognize there's a debate here in America as to whether or not failure in Iraq would cause there to be more danger here in America. I strongly believe that's the case. It matters if the United States does not believe in the universality of freedom. It matters to the security of people here at home if we don't work to change the conditions that cause 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens.
Pay close attention to the words chosen by this president.
"...change the conditions..." It matters not to this deceptive leader that NONE of the 9-11 hijackers came from Iraq. It matters not to this deceptive president that Saddam did not tolerate nor have any truck with Islamic extremists. What matters is that we invaded Iraq to "change the conditions" that hadn't created any 9-11 hijackers from Iraq in the first place!!
The Reverend isn't saying it has to make sense.
And what it's going to come down to is whether or not the United States should be in Iraq and in the region in a position to enable societies to begin to embrace liberty for the long-term. This is an ideological struggle.
"...enable societies to begin to embrace liberty..." Correct me if I'm wrong....but this doesn't sound like "we had to disarm a dangerous guy" talk. This sounds like a convenient excuse to stay in Iraq with our military.....and even attack, I mean.."enable societies", "in the region". It is nation building....something George said he was not a fan of in 2000......one of many more lies to follow.
Bush's use of "ideological struggle" is also very misleading. Under Saddam, Iraq offered no solace to Islamic extremists. No madrassah's, no training camps, no al-Qaeda presence. Saddam's rule, though tyrannical, was a secular rule. How then was invading and occupying Iraq a "struggle" over "ideology"? It wasn't.
Now, I recognize some don't view it as an ideological struggle, but I firmly believe it is an ideological struggle. And I believe it's a struggle between the forces of moderation and reasonableness and good, and the forces of murder and intolerance. And what has made the stakes so high is that those forces of murder and intolerance have shown they have the capacity to murder innocent people in our own country. I put that in the context of accountability. Link
The unintended irony in these words could be cut and used for fuel.....it's that thick. Let's ask this very important question, shall we? Who in the hell are "the forces of moderation and reasonableness and good" in this Iraq conflict?? Would that be the "shock and awe" moderation or the goddamned "Abu Ghraib" moderation? Would the torture, oh...did I type torture?....I meant to say "enhanced freaking interrogations"....would the "enhanced interrogations" be part of the "reasonableness and good"?? Just askin'.
And how moderate is it when you order your military to attack and then occupy a sovereign nation who posed no threat to your nation? How moderate would you think the 2-4 million displaced Iraqis consider the Bush led America? How "good" do you think the middle eastern folks think a Bush-led America is?
As I have been writing for over a year now.....our American military presence in Iraq is a PERMANENT presence. No Democratically controlled executive branch, no Congressional actions....nothing.... is going to change that. The Commander Guy was only doing the bidding of the neo-conservative, military-energy-industrial complex when he ordered our troops into Iraq. The Codpiece has made it clear that "leaving is losing".
With yesterday's press conference answers Bush is now telling Americans just a bit of the truth. Will it matter? Will anyone in that MSM corps of very, very serious "reporters" call such answers what they really are......radical, extreme, imperialistic??? Not bloody likely.
But then that same group of Knee Padders probably believe America's hate and blood producing presence in Iraq is just part of America's exceptionalism. You know....part of what's "reasonable, moderate and good".