The Real Reason for Bush's Invasion of Iraq Is a National Security Secret
American soldiers have been fighting and dying in Iraq since 2003, and Americans do not know why.
All the reasons President Bush gave us for his war are false. Bush said he invaded Iraq "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism and to free the Iraqi people."
We now know that these were false claims. Disinformation about Iraq was produced by a special unit within the Pentagon run by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The unit operated outside the normal intelligence channels of the CIA and DIA. Its purpose was to create false intelligence to enable Bush to initiate war with Iraq.
Did President Bush know that the claims put into his speeches by his speechwriters were false?
Who instructed Bush's speechwriters to incorporate known lies into the president's speeches?
Why did Vice President Cheney, the secretary of state, the national security advisor and the secretary of defense all lie to the American people and to the entire world?
What is the real agenda?
Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the reasons for Bush's invasion:
— Oil. The U.S. government wants to hold on to power by expanding its control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company cronies.
— Military-security complex. Police agencies favor war as a means of expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of expanding their profits.
— Neoconservative ideology. Neocons believe in "American exceptionalism" and claim that America's virtue gives the U.S. government the right and the obligation to impose U.S. hegemony on the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East, where independent Muslim states object to Israel's theft of Palestine.
— Karl Rove. Rove used the "war president" role to rescue Bush from attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of the U.S. Supreme Court. — American self-righteousness over 9-11 and lust for revenge.
All of these reasons came together to make a cruel war on an innocent people.
There may be other reasons about which we know not.
As it is now recognized that every reason for the war is false or illegitimate, the question is: Why does Bush insist on persisting with a costly war, the express reasons for which are now known to be mistakes? There were no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to al-Qaida, and Bush has installed a puppet Iraqi government that cannot venture outside the heavily fortified and U.S. protected "green zone." The Iraqi government governs nothing.
War without cause is murder, not war.
That Bush persists with a war for which he can provide no legitimate reason indicates that there is a secret agenda that has not been shared with the American people.
That the American people and their elected representatives continue to tolerate a war that has killed and maimed thousands of their own soldiers, destroyed the infrastructure of a country, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and created 4 million refugees for no known reason raises serious questions about the morals of the American people.
Is the impotence of the peace movement due to the power of the Israel lobby, or have Americans become morally degenerate as commentators increasingly assert?
One indication would be the response of presidential candidates to the gratuitous and failed war. What we saw at the Republican presidential candidates' debate on June 5 is inconsistent with the self-esteem of the American people. All of the leading Republican presidential candidates openly and nonchalantly endorsed using nuclear weapons against Iran unless Iran abandons its right to enrich uranium under the nonproliferation treaty, to which Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India and U.S. puppet Pakistan).
What is moral degeneracy if it is not using nuclear weapons to murder masses of innocent civilians and spread deadly radioactivity over vast areas merely in order to force a country to do as we order? If this isn't barbarism, what is barbarism?
Do the American people realize that the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination are monsters who want to murder people who have done us no harm?
After five years of war that has achieved no noble purpose, no valid aim, indeed no aim at all except perhaps Osama bin Laden's aim of stirring up uncontrollable strife in the Middle East, how can Republicans cheer for candidates who preach a wider war and the use of nuclear weapons against defenseless people?
Is the approval lavished on Republican presidential candidates, who are willing to use nuclear weapons as a means of terrorizing Muslim peoples, an indication that the American people have morphed into inhuman monsters?
If not, what does it indicate? Ignorant fanaticism? Paranoia? Blind hatred? The belief that no one is of any value but Americans?
For six-and-a-half years, the Bush regime has relied on coercion, intimidation, war and threats of war. Diplomacy and good will have been shunned. The regime's blatant warmongering has resurrected the nuclear arms race. China and Russia regard America's drive for world hegemony with great alarm.
China has put nuclear ICBMs on mobile platforms to increase their survivability in the event of an American attack. Russia has developed new multi-warhead ICBMs that can penetrate any known missile defense, and new cruise missiles that Putin says will be targeted on Europe if the United States persists in its aggressive military encirclement of Russia.
An administration that resurrects the threat of nuclear Armageddon so that its cronies in the military-security complex can become still richer is evil beyond compare.
To find out more about Paul Craig Roberts, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.