The Iraq War Was Not A Mistake - It Was A Crime

If there is anything good about another Bush running for president (Jeb Bush this time), it is that it seems to have re-ignited discussion about the Iraq War -- a discussion this country has been avoiding. I think most people now think it was a mistake for Bush/Cheney to have invaded Iraq. They are wrong -- it was a crime. It has long been recognized among civilized nations that invading another country is a criminal act, even if that country poses a danger to your own (and Iraq posed no danger to the U.S.).

This is what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has to say:

Surprise! It turns out that there’s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago.

But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.

Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.

The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.

And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] ...sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.

This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.

Why did they want a war? That’s a harder question to answer. Some of the warmongers believed that deploying shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world. Some saw Iraq as a sort of pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes. And it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that there was a strong element of wagging the dog, of using military triumph to strengthen the Republican brand at home.

Whatever the precise motives, the result was a very dark chapter in American history. Once again: We were lied into war.

Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.

On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting. And it doesn’t get much bigger — indeed, more or less criminal — than lying America into war.

But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that it’s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush’s verbal stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved in concocting a false case for war.

So let’s get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake. But (with apologies to Talleyrand) it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.

(NOTE -- The photo above of the Bush brothers is by Larry Downing for Reuters, and was found at Salon.com.)

A Dying Soldier's Letter To Bush/Cheney

The open letter below was written by Tomas Young. Mr. Young is a patriotic American who joined the U.S. Army two days after the 9/11 tragedy. He is now a paralyzed veteran living out the final days of his life in hospice care. I am reposting his open letter (found at truthdig) to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney because I think it deserves as wide a readership as possible. It is a searing indictment of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young

I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.

I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.

I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.

My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness. 

Tutu Calls Bush/Blair War Criminals

Recently, Archbishop Desmond Tutu (pictured above) refused to share a state with former British prime minister Tony Blair in South Africa (at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit). He defended his action in an article for The Guardian (a British newspaper). He said it was not appropriate to be on stage with Blair at a leadership summit after Blair (and Bush) has demonstrated a failure of leadership in using lies to justify their invasion of Iraq. Here is some of what Mr. Tutu wrote:

The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.

Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us. . .

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.

Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?

Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.

If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?

I have to agree. The United States and Great Britain are quick to condemn leaders of other countries, and demand they be tried for war crimes, or crimes against humanity. But they want a double standard to be applied to their own leaders, who they think should have immunity from their own crimes. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime (and can no more be justified than Hitler's invasion of Poland or Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait). Bush and Blair will never pay the price for their lies leading to the lost lives of many thousands of people, but they should be held accountable.

Public Supports Iraq Withdrawal (Except Republicans)

Recently President Obama announced the real end of the Iraq War is getting near. He said the United States will withdraw all of its soldiers from Iraq by the end of this year, finally ending the unnecessary war that has dragged on for years. Almost immediately, Republican politicians began to complain. They make it sound like the United States is in danger unless the war is permitted to drag on for even longer -- a ridiculous assertion since Iraq has never posed a danger to this country.

And listening to the congressional Republicans and Republican presidential candidates complain about the impending withdrawal, one might think there is some real disagreement among the general public about whether the war should be ended or not. Fortunately, this is simply not true. A substantial majority of the American people support the president's decision to withdraw all the troops.

This is verified by a new poll done by the Gallup organization. The poll was done on October 29th and 30th by surveying a nationwide random sample of adults (and has a margin of error of 4 points). This poll shows that a full 75% of the American people believe the withdrawal is a good thing and they support it. Only 21% disagree.

When the poll is broken down into political groups we see the approval is even higher among both Democrats and Independents. Democrats show a 96% approval of the president's actions, and 77% of all Independents agree with it. The only disagreement comes with the Republicans, of which 52% think the seemingly endless war should be continued.

That is why the Republican politicians continue to preach war. They supported the unnecessary war when Bush started it and they have continued to support it in spite of evidence that it never should have happened. They have supported it so hard and long that they have convinced the majority of their base. Now they have painted themselves into a corner. If they acknowledge the reality that it is time for the war to end, they will lose the support of their base (the people they've convinced that the war is good).

So the Republican politicians will continue to preach war, but that doesn't matter. The war will end on the last day of this year, and the huge majority of Americans support that. They are ready for an end to that ridiculous misadventure.

Now we need to convince the president that it's time to leave Afghanistan too.

Bachmann Is Still trying To Re-Write History

Michele Bachmann, the wild-eyed teabagger queen and Republican presidential candidate, has never been one to care about accuracy -- about facts or history. She knows that telling the Republican teabagger base what they want to hear will get her a lot further than telling them the truth. As we have seen in the past, she just makes up things as she goes along, whether its about American history, the economy, or President Obama.

And she's still doing it. Just a couple of days ago (10/28/11) she was being interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and she made the following completely irrational statement. She said:

"Under Barack Obama's watch, we have expended $805 billion to liberate the people of Iraq and, more importantly, 4400 American lives. . .He's been a disaster on foreign policy."

That's not even remotely near the truth. President Obama didn't start the war in Iraq, George Bush did that. And it was a completely unnecessary war, since Iraq had no weapons of mass destructions, would not allow al-Queda operate in the country, and posed no danger at all to the United States. The Iraq war was a foreign policy disaster, but it was Bush's foreign policy disaster.

The Iraq War Is Ending - Finally

I'm a bit surprised, but it looks like the war in Iraq is finally going to  end. President Obama has announced that the final combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of this year. On January 1st the only troops left in Iraq should be those tasked with guarding the American embassy there (numbering somewhere between 100 and 200). This is some very good news.

President Obama said, "I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." He went on to say, "Over the next two months our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops."

That sounds great doesn't it? We accomplished our mission in Iraq and President Obama kept his promise to get us out by the end of 2011. Except that's not quite what happened. First, we accomplished very little by invading and occupying Iraq -- except to kill a lot of people and pretty much destroy that country (and waste a lot of money). Second, neither the president nor most of the members of both parties in Congress wanted to leave Iraq. We are being forced to leave because the agreement that allowed us to legally stay there expires on December 31st.

We have been trying for months to pressure Iraq into signing another agreement that would allow us to stay for an extended period of time. And for a while it looked like the Iraqi government would do that. But we made a demand they simply could not agree to -- not without starting the civil war back up. We demanded that they give all American troops immunity for any crime they might commit while in Iraq (theft, rape, murder, etc.). But the Iraqis finally grew a spine and refused to agree to that ridiculous demand. So it will end.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad it's finally ending (especially since we should have never invaded Iraq in the first place). I'm just not buying all the happy talk about "mission accomplished" and "promise kept". In fact, I seem to remember that the promise Obama made on the campaign trail was to end both the Iraq and Afghan wars by the end of 2011 -- and now it looks like we'll be stuck in Afghanistan for another three years (or longer).

It's good that at least one of these ridiculous wars is finally ending, but I'll save my celebrating until the United States gets all of its troops out of Afghanistan too. Until then, American troops will still be in harm's way for little or no good reason.

Courtesy of Think Progress, here are some relevant numbers regarding the Iraq War:

8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program

8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq

8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln

4,479 U.S. military fatalities

30,182 U.S. military injuries

468 contractor fatalities

103,142 – 112,708 documented civilian deaths

2.8 million internally displaced Iraqis

$806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011

$3 – $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes

$60 billion in U.S. expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

0 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Americans Want Troops Out Of Iraq

A couple of weeks ago the United States withdrew what it said were the last "combat troops" from Iraq. But there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq and it's hard to believe they are all there for "training" purposes. President Obama has said these 50,000 will all leave Iraq by the end of 2011, but both the American military and the Iraqi military don't see that timetable as an achievable goal. They believe more time will be needed before American troops are needed.

But they may not have any more time. A recent Gallup poll shows a majority of the American people (55%) think the Iraqi war was a mistake (see chart above), and a majority (53%) believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure for the United States. An even larger majority (63%) would oppose American troops once again taking part in combat operations there, and a majority (53%) want the U.S. to stick to the current timetable -- even if it turns out the Iraqi troops can't handle the job they've been handed (and 61% believe they won't be able to handle the job).

To be frank, the American people no longer believe we are accomplishing anything in Iraq and are not willing to continue the war past 2011. They want the war over, whether it is won or not, and all the troops to come home. They know that Bush involved this country in a no-win situation in Iraq and Obama has not been able to do any better.

Personally, I don't know why we must spend more than another year in that country. Another year is not going to accomplish anything. The troops should be brought home immediately, and the Iraqis should be left alone to solve their own problems.

Yuppies Steal Home Of Soldier In Iraq

Thirty years ago when I lived near the city of Frisco, it was a small farming town about 30 miles north of Dallas, Texas. It is far from that today. Today it is a booming city filled with Yuppies trying to escape the big city and has thousands of high-dollar middle class homes. It also has that bane of modern existence -- home owner's associations.

Frisco was also the home of Capt. Michael Clauer, who was in the U.S. Army Reserve -- a fact that was known to his neighbors. The $300,000 home that Capt. Clauer and his wife, Mae, lived in was completely paid for -- a gift from Mae's parents. Capt. Clauer was not worried when he was called up by the Army and sent to Iraq, because he had a family to come back to and a home that he owned free and clear.

But after Capt. Clauer went to Iraq, things began to go wrong. His wife fell into a deep depression, and it was all she could do to take care of their children. She began to ignore the mail, including bills, and spent much of the time with her parents. Among the ignored bills were those from their home owner's association, and after several months the HOA sent her another letter saying the Clauers owed $800 in fees to the HOA and they were planning to foreclose on the home (believe it or not, Texas law allows them to do that).

The HOA made good on their threat. They took the home and sold it for $3500 (about 1/10 of its true worth). When Capt. Clauer returned from Iraq, the new owner was already living in the home. And much to Capt. Clauer's consternation, the foreclosure had been legal and Texas law did not allow any way for him to reclaim his home (or be paid for it).

Frankly, I consider this to be nothing more than felony theft. The neighbors (and fellow members of the HOA) all knew Capt. Clauer was a United States soldier serving his country in Iraq. Evidently, they didn't care about that and were unwilling to wait until he got back from Iraq to take care of the fees. Their piddly fees were obviously more important than acting to help a soldier serving in Iraq.

But even though they followed Texas law (which should be changed as soon as possible), they overlooked a federal law. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) is supposed to protect soldiers serving in a war zone from financial problems back home, although law experts say it is routinely ignored (like the HOA did in Frisco).

Navy Lt. Janelle Kuroda, an attorney and expert on SCRA, said there are at least 100 pending cases where a service member's rights had been violated by someone ignoring the SCRA. But the law is on the books, and has a serious purpose. Kuroda said a service member's "number one focus needs to be on the mission, and if their focus is elsewhere at home with ongoing court proceedings, with family issues, or mortgage issues or other issues, then it's going to take away from their readiness and their ability to put everything they have toward the mission."

Capt. Clauer is currently suing the HOA for ignoring the SCRA. He says the neighbors knew he was in Iraq, and should have waited until he returned before taking any action to foreclose. I hope he wins this case and that the HOA is forced to reimburse him for the full value of his home -- which they stole from him. In addition, I believe he should be awarded punitive damages for the HOA breaking federal law.

The HOA believes they had the legal right to take Capt. Clauer's home (although that is doubtful in light of the federal law), but there is no doubt that they did NOT have the moral right. There action was not just wrong, it was inexcusably immoral and unethical. How do they sleep at night?

Army Repeats A Bad Mistake

It looks like the United States Army is incapable of learning from past mistakes. On Tuesday, the Army awarded defense giant KBR (once an affiliate of Halliburton) a new contract for support work in Iraq. The contract could be worth as much as $2.8 billion for the Houston-based company.

KBR was quick to jump on the new contract saying, "The award demonstrates that the government recognizes KBR's ability and expertise in delivering high quality service in challenging contingency environments." Despite their bragging, the record shows that KBR has definitely NOT shown "ability and expertise" in its Iraqi operations. Let me remind you of just a few of KBR's screw-ups in Iraq.

First, consider the death of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a 24 year-old Green Beret. Maseth was electrocuted while taking a shower in 2008. It turned out that his death was due to faulty electrical work done by KBR. An investigation then found 17 other deaths due to faulty electrical work, most of it done by KBR. The company was denied $25 million in awards for this shoddy work.

But this was not all. Earlier, it had been discovered that KBR had been selling the Army contaminated water. The water caused our soldiers to experience skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses. Instead of fixing the problem, KBR covered it up and continued selling the contaminated water to the Army for THREE YEARS (from January 2004 thru December 2006).

And it goes on. In 2005, a young woman named Jamie Leigh Jones was working for KBR in Iraq when she was raped by several male employees of KBR. Did KBR report this to the proper authorities? Of course not! When the young woman tried to go to authorities, they had her kidnapped and held in a shipping container with no food, water or medical help.

Thank goodness for a single KBR employee with a shred of a conscience, who allowed her to use his cell phone. She called her father in the United States, who then called Rep. Ted Poe. Poe contacted the State Department and demanded her release. The State Department sent investigators, who rescued Ms. Jones and got her medical help.

Ms. Jones sued KBR, and instead of doing the right thing, the company is fighting the case tooth-and-nail. They even tried to get the case thrown out of court, claiming that her contract with the company denied her the right to file suit. Fortunately, the court did not buy this feeble argument and ruled she had the right to sue.

These are just some of the more well-known examples of KBR demonstrating its "ability and expertise" in Iraq. I'm sure there are more. KBR has not only not shown a level of excellence, it has not even shown a basic level of competence in Iraq. They have also shown they care little about our soldiers or even their own employees.

But the company did make billions of dollars from the Iraqi war, and now it stands to make billions more. How can the Army reward this incompetence with a new multi-billion dollar contract? Even the dumbest individuals know better than to touch a stove a second time, after being burned the first time. Why can't the Army learn from its past mistakes?

There are those who think our government is broken. Things like this make me think they could be right.

How Are Things In Iraq ?

In March of 2003, the United States (and Great Britain) invaded the country of Iraq. The lame excuse for the invasion was self-defense -- that Iraq supposedly had weapons of mass destruction that made them a threat. Of course, no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered.

Then Bush tried another lie. He told Americans that the invasion was necessary to win the "war on terrorism". But their were no islamic terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam Hussein knew the islamic terrorists were a threat to his power, and made sure they had no foothold in his country. He made sure Iraq had a secular rather than an islamic government.

But the invasion did accomplish two things. It created an anarchic situation that allowed islamic terrorists to come in and begin operations there, and it re-ignited a long simmering hatred between religious factions in the country kicking off a religious civil war. Outside elements (like al-Queda) began killing innocent civilians and the Iraqi religious factions (Sunnis and Shiites) joined in the killing of innocent civilians, each trying to gain the upper hand.

The occupation forces then installed a puppet government -- a government in which only candidates approved by the United States could run for office. After installing this "democratic" government, the occupation forces then set out to quell the violence in Iraq (or as they called it, "defeat the terrorists"). Years passed and the violence continued unabated.

In early 2009, the occupation forces decided the violence had subsided enough that the fight could be turned over to the Iraqi puppet government. In April 2009, Great Britain withdrew all of their forces and while the the United States stayed in Iraq, they stopped most agressive actions and let the Iraqi assume the bulk of peacekeeping efforts.

If one were to go by the newspaper and other media reports, it could be assumed this was a successful tactic. Since there are seldom any media reports about Iraq, the violence must have stopped -- right? Wrong! Even though the American media is no longer interested in Iraq, innocent civilians are still being killed there by the thousands -- over 4,500 in 2009 (or about 13 people killed every single day).

But surely it has gotten better in 2010. Wrong again! Let's look at the numbers for this year. In January, 135 innocent civilians were killed in addition to 61 Iraqi police and soldiers. About 782 people were wounded (620 were innocent civilians). And the violence continues:

February 1st..........56 killed and 160 wounded

February 3rd..........24 killed and 122 wounded

February 10th..........2 killed and 4 wounded (and an oil pipeline destroyed)

February 16th..........4 killed

February 17th..........4 killed

February 18th..........13 killed and 48 wounded

In addition, six Americans have been killed in Iraq this year so far. Is this what the United States government defines as success? While the actions of the United States has been instrumental in kicking off the seemingly perpetual violence in Iraq, the U.S. military is powerless to control or quell that violence even after nearly seven years of occupation.

We destroyed the country rather easily, but we've not been able to fix it at all. This does not mean we should keep our troops there though (or send more troops). Surely after seven years it is clear that the United States cannot fix what it broke. All we can do at this point is withdraw our troops and hope the Iraqis are able to find a solution sooner rather than later.

It does make me wonder though, are we doing the same thing in Afghanistan?

Obama Reiterates Scheduled Iraq Pullout

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met Tuesday with President Obama. Among other things, the two discussed the opportunities for doing business together. President Obama said, "We didn't just talk about military and security issues. What is wonderful about this trip is that it represents a transition in our bilateral relationship so that we are moving now to issues beyond security and we are beginning to talk about economy, trade, commerce."

Well, doesn't it just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over to know that corporations and rich people will be able to get even richer in Iraq? Personally, I don't like it. We still have soldiers dying in that stinking country. Is this why we're leaving them there -- to create a better environment for American businessmen? I can't think of any other reason for staying.

I'm sure the Wall Street capitalists would disagree, but I don't think it's worth a single soldier's life to create a better business climate in Iraq. The current government is not going to survive after we leave anyway (since it has the taint of being American-approved).

We need to leave immediately, so they can get about the business of establishing the government they really want. Only then will the country settle down enough to create real business opportunities. All we are doing now is delaying the inevitable and costing both Iraqi and American lives.

At least President Obama used the occasion to reiterate that all of our forces would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 (more than two years from now). I guess we should be grateful for small favors.

But this was accompanied by some bad news. President Obama urged the Iraqi's to get a new election law passed quickly, so elections could be held in January of 2010. The clear impression given was that if this did not happen, the American troop withdrawal could be delayed -- and not start as scheduled in early 2010.

I hate being a pessimist, but this sounds like the U.S. government is already starting to set up excuses for why the withdrawal may have to be delayed. Why are the American people putting up with this kind of nonsense? Why should we care what kind of government the Iraqi's choose to have?

We should withdraw immediately. No excuses. Waiting until the end of 2011 is inexcusable, and any further delay would be downright criminal.

No Appreciation For Bush In Iraq

When Bush lied to America and the world and invaded Iraq, I think he was so misguided that he really had visions of glory. He was sure he would be praised as a liberator, and probably even have streets and schools named after him in Iraq. But last weekend he found out exactly what the Iraqis really think of him -- and it's not good.

During a news conference in Baghdad, where Bush was once again trying to justify the disaster he'd created in Iraq, a journalist stood up and flung his shoes at the lame duck president. As he did it, the journalist yelled, "This is a farewell kiss, you dog. This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." In the Iraqi culture, the hurling of the shoes at Bush constituted a supreme insult.

The journalist was arrested and jailed, and some say he might be charged with insulting a foreign leader (which could carry a two-year sentence). Bush tried to pass it off as a solitary protest. He is wrong. The journalist was speaking for the majority of the Iraqi people, and I seriously doubt he will be punished -- the Iraqi government has enough problems without further irritating their populace.

On Monday, thousands of Iraqis took to the streets (pictured above) demanding the release of the journalist, Muntadhar al-Zeidi. Overnight, he has become a hero to the Iraqi people for standing up to Bush and publically shaming him. Bush is not viewed in Iraq as a liberator, but as a murderer and a torturer.

Personally, I applaud the actions of the Iraqi journalist. It's time Bush faced the truth.

Gates Should Be Replaced Immediately

I have to admit I don't like the sound of this. Sources within the Obama transition team are saying that Obama will keep Bush appointee, Robert Gates, as his Secretary of Defense -- probably for at least a year. They say this will allow for a smoother transition in a time of war.

It also would fulfill a campaign promise by Obama to include a Republican in his cabinet, and allow Obama to concentrate more fully on the economy. Personally, I think that's a ridiculous idea.

If Obama wants a Republican in his administration (and I am not opposed to that), there are plenty of other jobs to fill and other Republicans to consider. But Gates is a bad choice. He is a friend of the Bush family and has been running this very unpopular war for the last two years. Keeping him on as Secretary of Defense just sends the wrong message.

One of the major reasons Obama was able to overcome the formidible candidacy of Hillary Clinton was his opposition to the war from the very beginning. Leaving Gates in place makes it look like he is now willing to continue Bush's war, rather than end it as the American people want.

Neither the Iraqis nor the American people want the occupation of Iraq to continue. Instead of allowing the war to continue, Obama needs to show the American people he is going to end it. And he needs to do that NOW -- not in 2011. Gates' replacement would signal that change is coming. Allowing him to stay just looks like more of the same, and more useless American deaths.

Obama needs to keep his campaign promise. He needs to replace Gates and end the war.

Progress In Iraq ?

Conservatives would like for all of us to believe that victory is right around the corner in Iraq, but the killing just keeps happening day after day. In addition to the many thousands of Iraqis that have been killed, there have now been 4,201 American soldiers killed. Just in this year, 294 American soldiers have died in Iraq. That's an average of about 28 soldiers a month.

It's not as many as last year, but it's still far too many. But even Bush knows there's no victory just around the corner. That's why he's trying to get the Iraqis to agree to let American troops stay another three years -- until the end of 2011. He wants this so bad, he's willing to agree to withdraw the troops from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, withdraw the right of American troops to enter an Iraqi home without an Iraqi warrant, and subject American soldiers to Iraqi courts for certain crimes.

Bush may even get what he wants. Maliki has agreed to the new deal, and it's looking like a majority of the parliament may also agree. There's only one fly in the ointment -- Moqtada al-Sadr. Moqtada al-Sadr wants the American soldiers out now, and he's threatening to rearm his militia and turn them loose once again if the new agreement is approved.

That would make things a lot more dangerous for American soldiers. The reduction in American deaths had a lot more to do with al-Sadr declaring a truce, than the "surge" of American troops. If he puts his militia back in the field, there will be a sharp rise in American deaths.

None of this makes any sense for Americans. They not only can't do what they need to do by withdrawing from the cities and giving up the right to search Iraqi homes, but staying beyond this year will give them even more enemies to fight. It is ridiculous to stay another three years under these conditions.

Let's bring our soldiers home and let the Iraqis settle their own problems. The agreement is not only a bad one, it is unnecessary.

Bush Manufactured Evidence

There's no doubt any more that Bush and his administration henchmen lied to get us into the Iraq war. They gave way too much credence to weak information, threw away or ignored facts they didn't like, and generally distorted the truth to convince Americans that Saddam was a danger to the United States.

But until recently, we had no idea just how far these war criminals would go to get what they wanted. We now learn that Bush not only lied, he invented and manufactured false information.

In his new book, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind tells us that shortly after the war began, Bush was worried about justifying his actions. So he called George Tenet, head of the CIA, and ordered him to forge a letter.

The letter was supposed to be from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam and was to be back-dated to July 1, 2001. The letter was to say that Mohammed Atta (9/11 ringleader) received his terrorist training in Iraq. Tenet took these orders back to his underlings at the CIA, and they created the fake letter.

The letter was used in 2003 to convince Americans that Saddam was tied to the acts of terrorism at the World Trade Center. The fake letter did its job. Even today, there are some people who think Saddam had ties to the 9/11 terrorists.

Of course, George Tenet says he doesn't remember anything about the letter, but the workers at the CIA under him certainly do. They say he ordered them to forge the letter, and that the request came "from the highest reaches of the White House".

I don't think there's any depth to which George Bush won't sink to get what he wants. If the lies don't work, then manufacture evidence to give them credence. Bush should be impeached, so future presidents will know they cannot do this.

And over 4,000 Americans have died because of Bush's lies.

Sorry, John - It Wasn't The Surge !

The last few days have not been good for John McCain. After casting his lot with an extended war in Iraq and staying until a final victory is achieved, it seems like everyone, even his friends have turned against him.

Obama has been saying for some time that he would withdraw all the troops from Iraq within a general timetable of 16 months. A few days ago, the Iraqi leader (Maliki) also began to press for a timetable for withdrawal. He even went further and said Obama's timetable sounded about right to him. Then George Bush succumbed to pressure from the Iraqis and agreed to "time horizons" -- he couldn't bring himself to call it a timetable.

The American public is further from McCain's position. Over 63% of Americans would like to see the troops withdrawn within a year. This left McCain out in the cold on the withdrawal situation. So for a few days he's just been repeating that the surge was his idea and it worked, and Obama should admit that. But is it the truth?

In the first 6 1/2 months of 2008, over 220 Americans and more than 4,000 Iraqis have been killed. That is a long way from victory, but it does reflect a cut in the number of deaths. McCain would have us believe the troop surge was responsible for the smaller number of deaths. Some of the media are buying his argument.

But the truth is that two other things happened in Iraq about the same time as the troop surge, and both of them probably had more to do with the drop in deaths than the troop surge did. First, many of the Sunni tribal chiefs stopped supporting al-Queda and began to fight them. Second, al-Sadr declared a truce and ordered his Shiite brigades to not attack American troops.

Without those two things happening, it is highly doubtful that the troop surge would have had any effect at all. Also, with the two things occuring, the drop in the number of deaths would have happened even without a troop surge.

I realize that McCain is grasping at straws to try and maintain his credibility regarding the Iraq war, but his argument that the troop surge worked just doesn't hold water.

Iraq Wants A Withdrawal Timetable

It's been obvious for quite a while now that almost everyone would like for the United States to withdraw their troops from Iraq. Nearly 70% of the American people want it. An even larger percentage of the Iraqi people want it. And it goes without saying that the rest of the world would like to see it.

In fact, the only people who don't want U.S. troops to leave Iraq are members of the Bush administration and, of course, the puppet government Bush has installed in Iraq. Now, even that is changing.

The U.N. mandate that gives the United States some legal ground (although shaky) to be in Iraq will expire at the end of December. Bush doesn't want to have to go back to the United Nations, especially now that they know the Bush administration lied to them to get the original mandate. It's very unlikely Bush could get another one.

So instead, Bush has been trying to negotiate an agreement with the puppet government that would allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq. Until now, the sticking point in the agreement has been Bush's demand that "contractors" in Iraq (such as Blackwater) receive full immunity for their actions. Last week, in an effort to get the agreement, Bush dropped the immunity demand.

But now the government of Nouri al-Maliki (pictured above) has come up with a demand of their own. They are asking for the United States government to set a timetable for withdrawal of all troops. It looks like al-Maliki is starting to think his government could survive without Bush's support (I think he's wrong).

This is a slap in the face for Bush (and McCain). Both had hopes of leaving permanent military bases in Iraq so they could control access to Iraqi oil. Now even the government they installed and have been protecting want the troops out.

Doesn't look like Sidney McCain will get those "100-year" military bases now. This can't be good for his presidential campaign either.

No Victory In Iraq - Just Death

With the economy getting worse and the presidential race heating up, it is easier these days to just not think about Iraq. After all, it is not uncommon to watch an hour-long "news" show and never even hear the Iraq War mentioned. The "journalists" are too busy talking about Reverend Wright, political elitism, phony gas tax relief, dodging snipers in Bosnia, and other meaningless stories.

With the media virtually ignoring Iraq, it might be easy to believe Bush, Cheney and McCain as they tell us that things are getting better in Iraq -- that the surge has worked, and now victory is within our reach there. Except, for those willing to look at Iraq, that is just not true. Nothing has been accomplished there, and the killing is still going on.

Since January 1st, another 160 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. This brings the total number of American soldiers killed to 4,071. Also, in the last four months, over a thousand American soldiers have been wounded -- 1,098 to be exact.

Even though the media doesn't seem to want to report it anymore, our soldiers are in an impossible situation in Iraq, and more die and are wounded every day. We must not forget that our brave soldiers are in harm's way.

There is no victory in Iraq -- only more and more death every day.