The
Real Reason For Bush’s Invasion Of Iraq Is A National Security
Secret
By Paul Craig Roberts
09 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
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 Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and 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 was 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:
(1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its
control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company
cronies. (2) 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. (3) Neoconservative ideology:
Neocons’ believe in “American exceptionalism” and
claim that America’s virtue gives the US government the right
and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world, especially
in the Middle East where independent Muslim states object to Israel’s
theft of Palestine. (4) 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 US Supreme Court. (5) 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, no connections to al Qaeda, and Bush has installed a puppet
Iraqi government that cannot venture outside the heavily fortified and
US 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.
Are we experiencing the privatization of the US government by police
agencies, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby?
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 non-proliferation treaty, to which
Iran is a signatory (unlike nuclear-armed Israel, India, and US 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 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 one-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 event of an American attack. Russia has developed new multi-warhead
ICBMs, which can penetrate any known missile defense, and new cruise
missiles that Putin says will be targeted on Europe if the US 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.
Paul Craig Roberts
wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was assistant secretary of the Treasury
in the Reagan administration. He was associate editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review. He
is author or co-author of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution
(Harvard University Press).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.