Home > Who Took Us To War?

Who Took Us To War?

by Open-Publishing - Sunday 3 December 2006
5 comments

Wars and conflicts USA Peter Fredson

WHO TOOK US TO WAR?

By Peter Fredson

December 3, 2006

Who started the war with Iraq? No, not with Afghanistan, but with Iraq. Did Bush start it, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or a combination of Leo Straussian collegian chicken hawks, corporate billionaires, and televangelists?

Certainly it took some sort of concerted Neocon effort that decided that invading Iraq was good for our country. After Bush was selected as President he did almost nothing but go on vacation. But we know that the Neocons had a plan for world domination, which involved preemption, the 1% rule, and aggressivity to capture scarce resources for their corporate cronies. They sought a pretext and found it in 9/11.

Or, were there other sinister people lurking in the background that pushed the Bushites into the limelight?

Did any one person dominate the drive to conquest? Was there an accidental coalescence of people and institutions urging the destruction of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, or was it a conspiracy? Was it mainly a drive to ensure supremacy of wealthy elite, a compliant religious assembly, or power-hungry militarists? Was it the military-industrial establishment that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about?

How about the avid televangelists, the white supremacists, the ultra-conservative media owners, the gung-ho war profiteers, a political operative, very powerful lobbyist groups or someone else on a mission toward fascism, domination, or some hidden ideology?

There were hundreds of avid zealots like Paul Weyerich, John Rendon, William Kristol, and wealthy people who started mind-dumbing “foundations,” like the Heritage Foundation, with sinister propagandizing intentions on the democracy which bore them.

Perhaps all of the above decided that political action by deceit, stealth, and imposition was the key to dominance, to override any objections of democracy to the imposition of their ideological reconstruction of the Iraq. Newt Gingrich took advantage of the factors, and ex-Nixonians still seething with resentment joined him with gusto.

Perhaps some sycophant, with a bad conscience, may decide to emulate Deep Throat. The Bush administration, for all its shabby grasp of history, learned a lesson from Nixon. Don’t make any recordings, don’t keep notes, and don’t leak information.

The three-fold defense of Bush against the Dark Side of Public opinion is: secrecy, denial and obfuscation. The Bushites consider Lying, stealth, deceit, misinformation, and “spinning the truth” to be legitimate means for governing a diverse populace. It is difficult to “pin them down” on anything and paper shredders may soon work overtime to avoid sentences for war crimes and felonies.

We have a faint idea what was discussed when the fat-cat energy executives met with Dick Cheney to draft legislation about energy? What was discussed or promised when Bush met with fundamentalist leaders before the first election? Who put forth the proposal of the merging of state and church, when, and under what circumstances was it approved?

What was discussed or promised when Bush met with Republican fat-cats before he was approved as a candidate? What did Bush promise the corporations about easing restrictions on environmental and safety hazards? How much did the influence of George’s daddy affect his choice of candidacy and what was promised to the party?

Why were there (until recently) usually 100% of Republican votes for anything Bush proposed, regardless of how unwise or stupid it might be? What sort of pressure or coercion or punishment met the single Republican who dared to criticize the Emperor?

Are cash contributions and assured votes enough to bribe politicians to prostitute themselves, disgrace themselves, in return for their assured votes in Congress, hoping that secrecy and denial will never let their treachery become public? Do they really believe that they must hang together solidly or they will all hang separately?

Several hundred questions like these must legitimately be asked and answered for a viable democracy to succeed, unless dirty tactics turn out to be a good-old American approach toward an open and honest Presidency. Some people believe that the ends do legitimize the means, and others are willing to accept abridgement of their civil rights

Senator McCain, so far, is the only Republican that publicly broke with Bush on the issue of torture and abuse, mainly because of his personal experience in the matter. Even then he was ever-so-delicate in his approach, and still upholds Bush even though he was the object of dirty tactics from the Bush people during elections. He did not howl when Bush issued a “signing” that any legalities concerning torture or secret jails were moot. How can a President who lies, misrepresents, evades, and obfuscates, attract any loyalty? It’s a mystery to me.

WHOSE GOD SAID “GO TO WAR?”

It was intriguing to learn from Bush that he invaded Iraq because his God told him to do it. We have several statements that he talks to his God, but it is rare to hear of any answers he gets. It leads me to wonder if his God really talks to him, or if his vivid imagination supplies the dialog.

Any President that creates legislation on the basis of selected quotes from his favorite sacred book is obviously highly suspect of being under an illusion, mental aberration, or indoctrination of some sort.

Certainly that is not the American way. We tend to follow the Constitution framed by our Founders, not some manuscripts of desert rabbis of a Neolithic minor culture perpetually quarreling with their neighbors. But Bush would alter our Constitution at the drop of a quotation from Jerry Falwell to accommodate his religious beliefs. He sees himself as not subject to man-made law but only to his version of whatever passes for a God among his loyal fundamentalists.

Bush thinks he is above the law, as evinced by specific advice from highly selected Attorneys, like Ashcroft or Gonzales, which had a certain contempt for civil rights and for the efficacy of torture and abuse.

Bush exhibits a fascination for fantasy in his life. He avoids reality. His endless photo-ops are not charity, nor compassion, nor kindness but carefully scripted theater productions intended to improve his image. To that end he struts, swaggers, smiles broadly, shakes every hand in reach, pats little black boys on the head. It’s all fake, all illusion. He might pardon a turkey for Thanksgiving but he didn’t pardon any human from death during his term as Governor of Texas.

His next step logically would be to put to death anyone who masturbates, as they are murdering several hundred thousand sperm with each wallop. Republican Senators spoke fondly of castrating Bill Clinton for getting full-blown relief from an intern, although Bush got his relief from cutting brush and strumming a guitar during Katrina. Matter of choice, I guess.

He showed great compassion toward Terri Schiavo, and even approved special treatment in Congress for her, but he sent 2,800 of his “brave boys” to their compassionate deaths to get oil, land, and a huge embassy from a country he is destroying. He might have to pardon Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice later, and perhaps some Republican Senators, so keep tuned.

As popularity polls for Bush keep slipping downward we can expect a spirited defense from someone with an extraordinary ego, a tight grasp on fantasy, loyal cohorts who will back any lies he invents, and a host of crude or stupid actions ending up with a larger deficit, less support for the aged, sick and poor, more attacks on the environment, and several more billionaires.

Evidently it’s all “worth it” to our imperial leader of the self-chosen elite. We wish Bush would tell us when it is no longer worth more of our dead soldiers, dead Iraqis, destruction of a country, corrupt corporations, Presidential and Vice Presidential lies and misinformation. When is enough?

But, not to stray from my question, who really started the present Invasion of Iraq?

Is Bush a puppet or a puppet-master?

Forum posts

  • to answer your question in a round- about - way, when barbara bush slept with satan and the offspring of george walker was spawned, she did. in other words , i dont agree with hugo chavez, that bush is the devil, but if he said georges mother slept with satan, who could argue that??

    • And how is it with your family, pal? Does your mom "moo" or "bee"? And you dad - does he "oink" or "yee-arr"?

  • The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American political neo-conservative think tank, based in Washington, DC co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting American global leadership. The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The Executive Director and chief operating officer has been Gary J. Schmitt. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1]

    Present and former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the daughter of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Federal Grand Jury Indictee Lewis "Scooter’" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Many of the organization’s ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.

    Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana). Some have argued the American-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.

    Contents [hide]
    1 Core views and beliefs
    1.1 PNAC report: Rebuilding America’s Defenses
    1.2 Chairman and Executive Director
    1.3 Position on Iraq
    2 Controversy
    3 Criticisms of position on Iraq
    4 Bush administration
    5 Other members
    6 See also
    7 References
    8 External links
    8.1 Analysis of PNAC

    [edit] Core views and beliefs
    The PNAC Web site states the group’s "fundamental propositions", which are[2]

    "American leadership is good both for America and for the world"
    "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
    "too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
    The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.[3]

    As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
    The PNAC advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:

    A significant increase of US military spending.
    Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
    Promoting the cause of political and economic freedom outside the US.
    Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles.
    The PNAC and its members had long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. The PNAC also proposes to control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" and pave the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld chaired a bipartisan commission on the US Ballistic Missile Threat toward advancement of these goals. It is unclear how "space control" will affect US adherence to the Outer Space Treaty. President George W. Bush stated in his address to the nation on September 11, 2006 [4] that the war on terror "will set the course for this new century and determine the destiny of millions across the world."

    [edit] PNAC report: Rebuilding America’s Defenses
    In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century,[5] proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.

    The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.

    [edit] Chairman and Executive Director
    William Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In 1985 he went to Washington and later served as chief of staff to Secretary of Education William Bennett under President Ronald Reagan, and Vice President Dan Quayle during the Bush administration.

    Kristol led the Project for the Republican Future, where he helped create the strategy which produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. He started The Weekly Standard in 1995, and now serves as its editor and publisher. He is also a political contributor for the Fox News Channel and serves as a regular contributor to Special Report with Brit Hume.

    Gary J. Schmitt, Executive Director, received his Ph.D. in political science from University of Chicago. He served as a top aide of Senator Daniel Moynihan (D-NY), and as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and later executive director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under President Reagan. His published work includes studies of national security and foreign policy, intelligence policy, and American political and constitutional thought.

    [edit] Position on Iraq
    In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein’s defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.

    The 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

    [edit] Controversy
    The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that American "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC’s harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by America, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States’ international relations take umbrage at the PNAC’s unabashed position of maintaining the nation’s privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of ’superpowers’ and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[6][7] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements. [8]

    Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC’s goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. American conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left. [citation needed]

    A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America’s Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[9] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[10] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.) Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq. [citation needed]

    Critics will often quote an excerpt from the document that states "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool" - to portray the organization as having a violent racist lean; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[11], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[12][13]

    [edit] Criticisms of position on Iraq
    Many critics of the American-led invasion of Iraq claim the US’ "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[14] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld’s, Wolfowitz’s and Richard Perle’s opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States’ ambassadors to the United Nations and Iraq, respectively. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that’s what they want — regime change — and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way."[15] George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[16]

    [edit] Bush administration
    After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC’s members were appointed to key positions within the new President’s administration:

    Name Department Title Remarks
    Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
    Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State Leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to Robert Novak in the Plamegate scandal.
    John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
    Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President
    Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
    Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
    Francis Fukuyama President’s Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
    Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President Former Lockheed Martin VP for Strategy & Planning[17]
    Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
    I. Lewis Libby Bush Administration (2001-2005) Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements, and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
    Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
    Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense (2001-2006) Secretary of Defense Former Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
    Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
    Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
    Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corporation[18]
    Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

    [edit] Other members
    Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
    Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans, member of PNAC, mentored by Leo Strauss.
    William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, co-founder of Empower America, author of the Book of Virtues.
    Ellen Bork, deputy director of PNAC, and wife of failed Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork
    Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
    Jeb Bush, governor of Florida
    Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
    Thomas Donnelly, director of communications, Lockheed Martin
    Steve Forbes, multi-billionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
    Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
    Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
    Reuel Marc Gerecht, director of the Middle East Initiative
    Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Donald Kagan, Yale University professor, conservative columnist with various State Department ties
    Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
    Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
    William Kristol, a PNAC founder and chairman, editor of the Weekly Standard
    Christopher Maletz
    Daniel McKivergan
    Richard Perle, a PNAC founder, formerly of the Defense Policy Board, fellow of the American Enterprise Institute
    Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
    Dan Quayle, former vice-president
    Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
    Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation
    Gary Schmitt
    George Weigel, political commentator
    R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA for Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton
    Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman

  • In answer to your question, it was us who ALLOWED the muderous assholes in charge over here to go to war.

    Stop trying to blame everyone else, if you want the ones responsible for the situation we’re in, look in the goddamn mirror!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Please see another post on bellaciao.org here:

    Real Reasons Why The United States Makes War

    # # #