Dick Cheney doinks history

toles03262013 Dick Cheney doinks history

dick cheney Dick Cheney doinks history

On August 26th, 2002, Vice President Cheney addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville. After the customary remarks about increasing veteran’s health care spending by 8 percent (“although we are holding most discretionary spending to 2 percent increases…”) Cheney launched his verbal missiles at the ostensible enemy. The gist of his speech, as it related to future military activity, concerned weapons of mass of destruction.

The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country,requires a candid appraisal of the facts…He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and his biological weapons. He further agreed to admit U.N. inspection teams into his country, to insure that he was in fact complying with these terms. In the past decade Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements. The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago…These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses in his own region or beyond… Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

No one in the Bush administration ever described a delivery system whereby WMDs would actually threaten US.

Here are the irrefutable facts about the neo-Con (Jewish lobby) decision to invade Iraq.

Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin

The dust is not about to settle over the intelligence failure in Iraq. But it has already blurred our vision about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

There is still time to remind ourselves WMDs were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; they were the pretext. And that’s why irrefutable evidence was not the standard. Axis of evil regime change was the lodestar.

When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of “if” but “when,” the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power.

President Bush made clear Sunday the U.S. was justified in toppling Saddam irrespective of elusive WMDs.

The liberation of Iraq, in the neocon scenario, would be followed by a democratic Iraq that would quickly recognize Israel. This, in turn, would “snowball” — the analogy only works in the Cedar Mountains of Lebanon — through the region, bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikhdoms, emirates and monarchies of the Gulf.

All these new democracies would then embrace Israel and hitch their backward economies to the Jewish state’s advanced technology. And Israel could at long last lower its guard and look forward to a generation of peace. That was the vision.

WMDs were weapons of mass deception that became the pretext for the grand design. As was a much ballyhooed, and later discredited, park bench meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed Atta, the September 11, 2001, Saudi kamikaze.

The amateur strategists in the neo-con camp knew a lot more about Israel and its need for peace than they did about the law of unintended consequences, writ large in Iraq, and in the Arab world beyond.

The neocons were not alone in misreading the state of play in Saddam’s Baghdad. The dictator was so detached from reality that he was writing heartthrob romance novels and sending them to Deputy Premier Tariq Aziz, the only sophisticated literary person in his entourage, for editorial comment.

As for WMDs, his scientists lied to him about the lack of progress in their laboratories and then got more funding for nonexistent programs. In a part of the world where telling the truth is considered the height of stupidity, even Republican Guard commanders were successfully disinformed about mythical WMDs capability being in other units than their own. We owe an apology to U.N. inspectors under Hans Blix — they got it right.

The principal intelligence failure was in not understanding the state of decay in the Ba’ath Party regime that most probably would have fallen of its own accord with another year of anywhere-anytime-intrusive-inspections throughout the country.

A cursory study of Iraqi history would have demonstrated that democracy in Iraq without a strong hand at the helm is a recipe for civil war. One-person-one-vote would quickly give the dominant (60 percent) Shi’ites the majority and a license to run the country in close partnership with the clerical regime that runs neighboring Iran. But this is clearly unacceptable to the Sunnis (20 percent) and the Kurds (20 percent).

The Shi’ites control the oil of the south and the Kurds can easily take possession of the oil of the north. The three Kurdish provinces moved a step closer to a unilateral declaration of independence when twin suicide bombers killed 72 last Sunday at the headquarters of the two main political parties.

Kurdish independence would leave the Sunnis high and dry in the center sans oil. Dominant for 85 years, the Sunnis are not about to roll over and accept a state of their own in the middle of the country. And the Shi’ite clergy has told U.S. authorities it is not interested in a secular, Westernized Iraq.

The U.S. plan to rescue a unitary state in Iraq with Iowa-type caucuses in 18 provinces was also doomed to failure — if only because Iraq is not Iowa. It also demonstrated one-person-one-vote elections are not the sine qua non of democracy the way they are in India, Western Europe and North America.

President Bush says, “I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts” about what happened to WMDs in Iraq. Apparently, the president, too, was disinformed about WMDs being the reason he ordered U.S. troops into harm’s way. Because this was no more the provocation given by the war’s architects than the one put forward by the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that led to escalation of the Vietnam War — and 58,000 American servicemen killed in action.

North Vietnamese gunboats did not attack U.S. warships in the Gulf of Tonkin, anymore than Saddam threatened to attack us with his nonexistent WMDs.

So the leitmotif for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not WMDs, but the freedom of Iraq in the larger context of long-range security for Israel. Mr. Bush is right to change the rationale for war to isn’t-the-world-a-better-place-without-Saddam? Of course it is. Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn’t. But hasn’t the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al Qaeda? Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq.

The armchair strategists who pushed the war envelope in early 2002 dismissed any possibility of an insurgency after the liberation of Iraq. The entire population, according to this improvised conventional wisdom, couldn’t wait to join forces with the U.S. Now, two or three U.S. soldiers are killed every day in Iraq; some $200 billion in unbudgeted Iraqi and Afghan costs have been added to the national debt; a resurgent Taliban, fueled by the opium/heroin trade, is spreading its tentacles again in Afghanistan — all persuasive talking points for Democratic candidates on the stump.

The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption is now badly frayed at the seams. Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have stretched deployable U.S. forces, including the guards and reserves, to the point where another pre-emption campaign would break the system — and bring back the draft.

A steady stream of would-be jihadis, or Islamist holy warriors, is making its way into Iraq across the unmarked, mostly desert, borders of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Camel caravans trekking from the Saudi kingdom all look the same, whether they are carrying dates or detonators. It was also the very same terrain Desert Storm troopers used to turn Saddam’s flank with a historic Hail Mary pass.

Saudi Arabia’s 150,000-strong army could patrol more aggressively some 400 miles of a desert border that is largely unguarded. But the Saudis now worry more about internal threats to the regime than anything happening on their far-flung borders in the Arabian Peninsula.

Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs were never a threat to anyone. But they have already struck a devastating blow to the credibility of the Bush White House. The Doctrine of pre-emption becomes inoperable without unimpeachable intelligence accepted by all as the coin of the realm.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/9/20040209-090308-2252r/

978 1 4276 3137 4 Dick Cheney doinks history

On the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attack, President Bush addressed the American nation:

“On September the 11th, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores, whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states. I’m often asked why we’re in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat [to whom?]. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat — and after 9/11, Saddam’s regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December [2005].”

58. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html; George Bush thought about invading Iraq when he was governor of Texas. According to Houston journalist Mickey Hesrhkowitz: “‘It was on his mind. He said to me:’ One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief. ‘And he said,’ My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and he wasted it. ‘He said,’ If I have a chance to invade…if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” Russ Baker, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America, (Bloomsbury Press: New York, 2009), 423. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

With regard to the assumption that the Baathist regime possessed weapons of mass of destruction, Gen. James “Spider” Marks, who was tasked with the mission of finding the 946 identified sites and disposing of the weapons, offered these trenchant remarks concerning the priority the Bush administration placed on his role and the presumptive reason for war.

“‘No one in Rumsfeld’s general chain of command seemed to know who I was. I mean, I was a senior general officer, but…I’m sure I was below their noise level’…Pointedly, he added, ‘I was taught when I made general officer that I didn’t have a noise level. Everything was mine. I had to give a shit about every issue, because if I didn’t, something critical would slip through.’ Let me get this straight, I [Jeff Stein] said to Marks: After all the talk about Saddam Hussein over the previous two years, the officials responsible for planning the actual war no longer cared about WMD? ‘Well,’ he said, continuing to put it like a soldier, ‘they ostensibly cared, but their give-a-shit level was really low.’”

62. http://public.cq.com/public/20061020_homeland.html; “‘Noise level’ in this case I think is in reference to ‘place in the military food chain’…IE-so low that you may not really be heard/listened to, etc. Hope this helps.” The preceding was e-mailed to the author from a serving officer. “…WMDs were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; they were the pretext.” Arnaud deBorchgrave, The Washington Times, February 10, 2004; David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, delivered a briefing that included Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and presidential chief of staff Andrew Card about the lack of progress in locating WMDs in Iraq. Kay encountered indifference. The president, in particular, “seemed disengaged. ‘I’m not sure I’ve spoken to anyone at that level who seemed less inquisitive,’ Kay recalled.” Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, (New York: Crown
Publishers, 2006), 310. See also Woodward, State of Denial, 184, 185.

108 – 109

On August 22nd 2007, President Bush addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City. His rhetoric, calculated and cynical, was a ploy to prepare the political battle space against the “Defeatocrats” in anticipation of the September report on Iraq. As testimony to the frat boy White House staff, Requaglicans conjured up the pejorative term to characterize their chief’s opponents. After comparing the ambitions of imperial Japan to the ideological designs of al-Qaeda, the President trotted out his limp and simplistic analogy about imposing democracy on a defeated, prostrate empire, and Iraq. “In the aftermath of Japan’s surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit for freedom. Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman’s Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that — and I quote – ‘democracy in Japan would never work.’ He wasn’t alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that — and so did the Japanese — a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn’t work.”


www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html

George Bush continued to refuse to acknowledge the stark difference between secular Iraq and militaristic Japan. Tokyo’s bureaucracy survived while government continued functioning in rural villages and townships. Social cohesion remained intact. No ethnic or religious fault lines emerged in Japan following the formal surrender in Tokyo Bay.

Dick Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfled, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, especially Karl Rove, were/are evil men who damaged our country. In this life, there is no punishment commensurate with the crime perpertrated upon the American people for invading Iraq by these principals and others.

George Bush — synonymous with dupe and dumb ass.

bushkarzaimusharraf1 Dick Cheney doinks history

Dick Cheney doinks history

Posts


About Jerry Frey

Born 1953. Vietnam Veteran. Graduated Ohio State 1980. Have 5 published books. In the Woods Before Dawn; Grandpa's Gone; Longstreet's Assault; Pioneer of Salvation; Three Quarter Cadillac
This entry was posted in What I Think and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


+ 1 = ten

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>