Where is Iraqi satisfaction with US-installed interim governing council? The Sunni Arabs in Iraq have been “shortchanged” by the Americans, especially with regard to the US-installed interim governing council, Sheikh Ahmed Al Kubaisi, head of the Iraqi Muslim Ulema Front. His quote, “Because most of the armed resistance takes place in Sunni areas, the Americans deprive the Sunnis of their legitimate right to have an equal say in their country’s affairs,” does not sound like the Sunnis are happy. “The US forces were abusing the basic human rights of the Iraqis. “We are being humiliated in our homeland,” he added, “I urge the American to change their behaviour immediately.”
Otherwise, he declared, he and others will call for “an armed resistance” to drive the Americans out. So far, he has refrained from supporting the sporadic armed attacks against the US forces, but said his position may change soon.
“When I first returned to Baghdad, I said the Americans had one year to fix things and leave; however, I don”t see any practical steps in this direction,” he said. “Time is running out.” When asked if he was to declare “war” again the Americans next April, when the one-year ultimatum ends, he said: “Of course, what else can we do to end an occupation that seems to want to last 60 years?”
Where is one intelligence agent that didn’t tell Dubya that he would be going into a quagmire when he occupied Iraq? The most obvious source, Poppy, didn’t want to destabilize the area when he attacked Iraq just 12 years ago, and that was his stated reason for not going after Hussein. Is Dubya so “lacking of intellectual curiosity” that he could not even understand this?
Where is Poppy’s “honor and dignity”; was he unethical in 1991? The first President Bush incited both the Kurds of the northern Iraq and the Shia of the south to revolt against Saddam Hussein at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, but both groups were betrayed when US forces did not support them. Why would Dubya, Poppy’s apple fall far from the tree?
By the way, before any of this buildup to the war, when Rove was beginning his plan to win the 2002 mid-term with his cheerleader Dubya attacking Democrats as being in league with bin laden, there were many articles which suggested that attacking Iraq would become a mess. Gwynne Dyer’s article in that time frame, “What If Iraq's Sunnis Decide to Put Up a Real Fight This Time?”, seemed to be prescient didn’t it?
One quote about the end of the 1991 Gulf War, “The U.S. decision to stop after freeing Kuwait was based largely on the assessment that these mostly Sunni Arab troops, and especially the Republican Guards divisions, would fight for Saddam, and that the American casualties involved in a further campaign to dig the Iraqi leader out of his bunker in central Baghdad would be unacceptably high.”
Where is one sane person who doesn’t think that all 3 segments of Iraq don’t remember 1991, all of the intervening years of economic sanctions, which decimated the majority of the country, and don’t hate the US?
Where is one, among all of our former allies, who sympathized with us over 9-11, who doesn’t loath Dubya?
Where is the respect of the world for the US?
Where is “Honor and dignity in the White House”?
Where is the filter that Dubya says is blocking the positive news from Iraq from reaching the US populace?
Where is one truthful reason behind the scam for allegedly switching control of the Iraq occupation? National security adviser Condoleezza Rice will head the new Iraq Stabilization Group new group. The purpose of this nifty reorganization is to remove a bottleneck in decision-making by identifying and resolving problems aced by the US-led occupation.
This is too stupid to be dignified with a response. In the article, “Rice to Lead Effort To Speed Iraqi Aid”, this quote, “Reaction beyond the White House to the Bush announcement was muted. Skeptics said they welcome added attention to details by Rice, but they wonder how effective the new group will be and how it will change the situation on the ground.”
Where is the use of logic by people? What possibly could be the cause for the percentage of agreement with Dubya’s Iraq travesty, as reflected in his latest improved popularity poll slowly edging up to 56%? His administration’s policies have not improved so that increase is not consistent with an examination of the facts. Are these people just bending because of Dubya’s recent campaign of spinning Iraq positively?
Where is the outrage that Dubya should be exhibiting for at least the following:
the bad intelligence regarding the need for the Iraq war,
the “16 words” in particular,
the lack of planning for the subsequent occupation,
the leaker?
Where are the 28 redacted pages?
Where are the ledger sheets showing Dubya’s cronies’ profits at the price of US and Iraqi bloodshed?
Where is Dubya’s “moral clarity”?
Where is the rationale for attacking Iraq as a segment in the “everlasting war against terrorism”, when Saudi Arabia had 15 of the 19 terrorists who were involved in 9-11?
Where is some truth regarding the abrupt cease of the hunt for bin laden? Remember the “Crusade” to get him “dead or alive”? All of the US resources devoted to tracking down bin laden, the perpetrator of 9-11, ended their duties when Dubya switched from constantly speaking about bin laden to Hussein. What could be the reason to shriek to such a complete reversal to attack Iraq?
The Bush Administration consciously took the decision in “the post September 11 consultations” with Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, Pakistan’s chief spy, to directly “cooperate” with Pakistan’s military intelligence ISI) despite its links to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
In a Times of India/Guardian department article of August 23rd, 2003, “Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has struck a deal with the US not to capture Osama Bin Laden, fearing this could lead to unrest in Pakistan, according to a special investigation by The Guardian. The paper reported that Bin Laden was being protected by three elaborate security rings manned by tribesmen stretching 192 kms in diameter in northern Pakistan”. It is believed an agreement was reached between Musharraf and US authorities shortly after Bin Laden’s flight from his stronghold Tora Bora in Afghanistan in December 2001.
Where is the universal disgust regarding lying about the rationale for war and then seeing Wolfie of Arabia’s comments in the Guardian/UK article, of June 4, 2003, “Wolfowitz: Iraq War Was About Oil”? These PNAC boys are arrogant as well as loose-lipped, but that type of hubris always leads to a huge fall. The Global Free Press section entitled, “ Deception Dollars” including the article, “Warmongering and plots for oil”, among many others, spell out these scams in detail.
Where is one intelligence agent that didn’t tell Dubya that he would be increasing Islamic terrorism by this Iraq War? Two articles of October 15th, 2003, “Al-Qaida may try 'spectacular' attack on U.S. forces, group warns” and “Iraq war swells Al Qaeda's ranks says report” are particularly troubling.
Where is Dubya’s pledge to be an “uniter not divider”? He has two piles, the top 1% and the rest of the world. This is diametrically opposed to that trite uniter remark. His “Ranger” and “Pioneer” campaign contributors get the cream off the top and the remaining 99% get scraps. If you happen to live in a country, such as Iraq, where there is oil, the likelihood of becoming “collateral damage” geometrically increases.
In the US, with no tax revenue for the social service network and domestic policies, due to his tax cut for the top 1% and bloated military and homeland security budgets, our children are being left behind, and our ill, elderly and poor are dying before their time.
If some of these points penetrated the consciousness of our populace how could Dubya continue?
Where is one true word that Dubya has said?
b. connors
