Support BuzzFlash Get a copy of click image BuzzFlash Content Interviews P.M. Carpenter Maureen Farrell World Media Watch Barbara's Daily Buzz Eric Harrison Thomas Burns Steven C. Day The Angry Liberal Southern Style Editorials Contributors Mailbag Perspectives Analysis News Alerts Link Archives Search About FAQ

If Bush's Motives in Iraq Were Pure, Why The Deception?

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

Dear Buzz,

You linked to the AP article quoted on the website of a TV station in Portland, ME, which says:

"Bush says he inherited a policy of "regime change" in Iraq from the Clinton administration and adopted it as his own. He says the administration was working out its policy when Nine-Eleven hit."

There are no words in the English language to describe the trickiness and duplicity of this man and his henchmen. He is, of course, talking about the PNAC mission. This harkens back to PNAC's letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 demanding that the U.S. make it a stated policy goal to find a way to oust Saddam Hussein.

So Bush is coyly attributing the policy to Clinton when it was no less than the CURRENT MEMBERS OF HIS OWN CABINET AND THEIR ASSOCIATES that authored that letter and made that demand.

Although this little act of trickery is annoying enough, it is not really the issue. The issue is that Bush and his cabinet made the case for going to war DECEPTIVELY. And the question is, why?

One has to ask, if their motives were so pure and all they wanted to do was "liberate" the poor Iraqi people from a terrible tyrant -- which in itself is a desirable goal, but one that should be undertaken only after all the pros and cons are evaluated! -- why all the pretence? (And by the way, I'll bet I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of minutes per year that these people actually worry about the oppressed peoples of the earth.)

What was the necessity of undermining the UN and alienating allies? What was the rush to do it? Did it have something to do with the election cycle? Ya think?! Some countries were actively trying to get an agreement between the US and the other Security Council nations on a timetable for approving the invasion. People may forget, but Canada and Chile suggested another month or two of inspections. There were even hints that France would go along if inspections went longer. The breech between France and Germany, on one hand, and the U.S. on the other, was embarrassing to all three countries. I think a case could be made that the U.S. could have gotten another UN resolution passed if they had waited a little longer especially if they had allowed inspections to continue for a finite period of time.

But, they did not want the help of other countries. Why?

Why go to the trouble of making the case for WMD and a connection to Al Qaeda, month-after-month? We know that ordinary citizens from other countries never believed in the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection; furthermore, the vast majority of people from outside the U.S. wanted to continue the U.N. inspections process and to find an answer within the U.N. framework. [I think it's important to point out that a majority of Americans -- approximately 67% -- consistently wanted UN approval. That desire for UN approval dropped only after the Bush Administration and the media started their "Us vs Them" campaign.]

Clearly, the Bush Administration cared about making the case for the WMD/Al Qaeda connection domestically, but not internationally.

Why go that much trouble if your motives are honest and pure? They MUST HAVE FELT THAT THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING POLITICALLY OBJECTIONABLE TO THE AMERICAN ELECTORATE ABOUT GOING AFTER SADDAM OPENLY. Even though they are all unrepentant grandiose sociopaths, someone amongst them thought they had better PRETEND it was related to 9/11, and make this invasion appear to be absolutely necessary.

To the extent that they can, they feel guilty about something. Or at least, they feel VERY WORRIED THAT SOMETHING UNDERMINING TO BUSH'S RE-ELECTION WILL BE REVEALED ABOUT THIS ADVENTURE.

I think the answers are to be found in the following suppressed documents:

1) Cheney's Enron energy meeting notes, which include the map of the Iraqi oil fields and the document with the list of companies interested in investing in Iraq;

2) the specific PDB on security issues given to Bush by Condoleezza Rice in August of 2001; and

3) the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission's Report that deal with Saudi Arabia. That, and the fabulous sums of money to be made in the buildup to the war, the prosecution of the war, and the aftermath of the war.

Sincerely,

A Buzzflash Reader

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY