October 23, 2002
W. Bush wants Americans to believe that his one month old
call to arms against Saddam Hussein is based on newfound connections
to terrorists and recently discovered confirmations of weapons
of mass destruction. We are told that the evidence, although
never revealed to either the American public or the world
community, compels, nay, demands that the United States
intervene in a "pre-emptive strike" to protect itself from
this huge and growing threat.
If this is true, then Mr. Bush is indeed a prophet and visionary
with spooky preternatural abilities. For two years ago, even
before he had won the White House, he was laying out in some
detail the need to overthrow the Iraqi dictator.
Questioned at a presidential primary debate in December 2000,
Bush said, '''If I found in any way, shape or form that he
was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out.
I'm surprised he's still there.''
Brit Hume, one of the two journalists questioning Mr. Bush
and the other five candidates for the Republican presidential
nomination, asked, ''Take him out?''
Mr. Bush answered, ''The weapons of mass destruction.'''
(New York Times, 4 Dec. 2000).
Despite his "clarification," a lot of listeners believed-and
still believe-Mr. Bush was referring as much to "him" as to
"them." Ultimately, it makes little difference, as Mr. Bush
well knows-our military can't take out the weapons without
controlling the man who controls the weapons.
On other occasions the Bush campaign was even blunter. Then
lead foreign-policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice declared in
June of 2000: "Regime change is necessary." Other Bush campaigners
who are now major players in drafting Iraqi policy had already
mapped out plans on how Saddam Hussein could be overthrown.
"Both Mr. [Richard] Perle [now chairman of the Defense Policy
Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon] and Robert Zoellick,
a former top aide to Gov. Bush's father, advocate specific
steps to oust Saddam." (The Wall Street Journal, 28
June 2000) They recommended carving out chunks of Iraq militarily
which would humiliate Saddam Hussein and provide a base for
operations. Such a plan would force him to attack, and his
massed forces could then be annihilated.
Even as far back as 1998, Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary
of Defense, and fellow Bush campaign advisers Richard Armitage
now Deputy Secretary of State, Dov S. Zakheim and the aforementioned
Mr. Perle wrote an open letter to former President Clinton
"urging the administration to recognize a provisional government
of Iraq headed by the INC," the opposition group, the Iraqi
National Conference. (The Washington Post, 3 June 2000)
"Among other measures, the letter called on Clinton to 'help
expand liberated areas' in southern and northern Iraq 'by
assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam
Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.'"
What this all means is the Bush camp has wanted war with
Iraq since before Bush had even won the primary. What truly
motivates this war remains a mystery. Perhaps it's a need
to finish the job his father left undone when Mr. Bush, Sr.
refused to topple the Iraqi dictator, especially after the
elder Bush had demonized Saddam by calling him another Hitler
and citing any number of Iraqi "atrocities," many of which
proved to be pure propaganda.
More likely, it's the huge payday big energy companies will
glean once the vast oil fields are "liberated." Remember,
this is the man whose father and grandfather worked in the
oil industry, who himself worked for three oil companies,
whose vice-president worked for an oil company, and whose
security advisor worked for an oil company. His secretary
of the army worked for the ill-fated Enron, an energy company
which before it bilked its shareholders made a lot of money
His big energy donors and even his father, the elder George
Bush, stand to gain immense profits once the vast oil revenues
start flowing to U.S. corporations instead of U.N. food banks.
Former President Bush works for the Carlyle Group, a consulting
firm for, among other concerns, oil companies. In a bizarre
twist, the Carlyle Group counts among its clients the Bin
Laden family, whose most famous son heads the Al Qaeda terrorist
organization (Judicial Watch, 28 September 2001). As for the
French and Russian firms that already have pending contracts
for future Iraqi oil, well . . . to the winner goes the spoils.
Americans are supposed to believe that we now face a clear
and present danger from Iraq that is so compelling that an
immediate pre-emptive strike remains our only real option.
We're asked to believe this despite the obvious fact that
Bush and his team have discussed their desire to overthrow
Saddam Hussein for some four years, at least.
On a recent Sunday morning news show, Rep. Jim McDermott
(D-Wash) was interviewed while touring Baghdad. Asked if he
thought Mr. Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein's threat to
the U.S., the congressman cited the lies of previous administrations
during wartime, such as the Vietnam War in which he-unlike
the president and the vice-president-had served. When pressed,
he replied, "It would not surprise me if they [the Bush administration]
came up with some information that is not provable. I think
the president would mislead the American people."
Unless George W. Bush has psychic powers, it seems that he
not only would mislead us, but has.