Why Iraq
(Apr. 2007)

As a combat veteran I am adamantly opposed to war and violence. Even though some are unavoidable in most cases no good comes from them especially not a war fought strictly for political or economic purposes as is this one in Iraq we’re now in. Long before we invaded Iraq I was fairly sure they had few if any weapons of mass destruction. They did at one time because we sold them to them in the 1980’s. They were not connected to 9/11 or bin Laden and his group. Saddam had no terrorist groups that threatened us and was well contained. We installed a no fly zone to the north and south of the country even though they had no Air Force. The United States and Britain were the only one’s to fly into this zone. We now know without a doubt that all the reasons given for invading were knowingly false and contrary to most intelligence reports.

Anyone who disagreed was moved out of their position, forced to retire or publicly demonized by this Administration. The reason of our being there has changed almost daily with the exposure of the falsehoods as they are disclosed. And their disclosure is fought tooth and nail by the White House and its staff. So why are we there? Why did we invade?

While Vice President Cheney has refused to tell who helped him create his energy policy, fought subpoenas to disclose who was there and President Bush has classified the visitors log to Cheney’s office as secret stating the reasons as national security concerns, a broad term he uses to hide his misdeeds or errors in hid judgments. A report from the Wall Street Journal was more telling and this was published prior to the war.

On 1/16/03 The Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally and in secret with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco and Conoco-Phillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization). This would indicate the intent to invade had already been decided. The Journal story has of course since been denied by Administration officials; but, as The Guardian noted on 1/27/03, "It stretches credulity somewhat to imagine that the subject has never been broached.”

Cheney even stated when he issued his own national energy plan that it declared "The [Persian] Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy."

Further in sight came when the Neo Conservative report The Strategic Energy Policy challenges for the 21st Century was dusted off when Bush took office and put to use. It states, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilizing influence: "The influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle-East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political-diplomatic assessments." Notice no weapons of mass destruction were not mention and also no links to his involvement in 9/11 or links to bin Laden.

But the telling statement came from Anthony H. Cordesman, senior analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies: "Regardless of whether we say so publicly, we will go to war, because Saddam sits at the center of a region with more than 60 percent of all the world's oil reserves." This was before the war so the reason for this illegal invasion should be clear.

It was not for any of the reasons given before the invasion or the reasons that have been repeatedly changed since the truth has emerged about all the deliberate untruths we were told. So why did we invade a country that had not invaded us? The statement by Anthony H. Cordesman above and those reported by the Wall Street Journal of the informal but secret meetings with officials from the White House, State Department and Department of Defense prior to the war should speak for themselves.

We were misled into invading a non-threatening country which posed no danger to us other than the corporate interest it denied American companies such as Halliburton, Dressler and other oil giants. To this I ask, at what cost to the American people who have no interest in the economic demands of these companies and nothing to gain except high debt, instability in the region and death for our young

Many of you may see this as old news and I must agree it is. But the obvious facts never die. If Al Gore had been given his rightful place as President in 2000 than Bush would not have been there to put unqualified people who kiss his a*ss in positions of power. The threat from terrorist would not have been put on the back burner so he could devote his time, our time, to giving the Rich tax breaks and throwing lavish parties for his wealthy donors. The Neo-Cons from the PNAC would not have become his driving influence and he would not have demoted Richard Clark, the best in the world at counter terrorist activity to a non-essential post and taken as Cheney said "out of the loop".

Some will say thank God Bush was in instead of Gore when 9/11 happened. This is crap. Gore would have handled it with much more dignity than Bush and we would not now be in a needless war with Iraq that was planned well before the actual invasion. Our civil Liberties would not have been destroyed, torture would not be the norm for our Bastille of freedom and the King we have now would be back in Texas getting drunk and drilling dry holes. May God and our future generations forgive us for the damage we have allowed to occur in the last seven years and please let us hope we never hear the horrible words President Cheney for then we would surely fall.

Inside the minds of:

President Bush} :!:
Dick Cheany :?:
My thoughts on the Bush Administratioin :wtf: