Editor: Douglas Drenkow

V A L U E S   &   I S S U E S


Legal Notices

Links of Interest

PEACE: Foreign Policy & Terrorism | May 19, 2005


A Posting in "GordonTalk"

When it comes to re-writing history, the Bush Administration would put Big Brother to shame.

First, we were told that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11. Although Cheney still repeats that whopper now and again, even Bush had to eventually 'fess up that it wasn't true.

Then, we were told that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of our mass destruction...based in large part on the unsubstantiated testimony of a notorious liar related by blood to the darling of the Neo-Cons, Dr. Ahmad Chalabi, previously convicted of swindling millions in Jordan and recently appointed Oil Minister in the new government of Iraq (who says crime doesn't pay?).

Then, we were told that we had to invade Iraq because if we liberated the Iraqi people we would spread democracy and peace throughout the region. What region was that again?

Now, I just read the latest reason why we had to invade Iraq, stated almost off-handedly -- the very best way to re-write history is to simply throw in your revision as a given, in support of another point, more in the spotlight (I think we can pretty much count on this fabrication being repeated, more and more overtly, in the days and weeks ahead, until it becomes "the conventional wisdom").

The article containing the new party line, Official: Al-Zarqawi Ordered Iraq Attacks, by Paul Garwood, Associated Press Writer, indeed does deal with a vitally important topic; it begins:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's top al-Qaida terrorist, angered by a postelection lull in violence, ordered insurgents a month ago to intensify attacks, and his lieutenants began plotting their deadly mission during a secret meeting in Syria, a top U.S. military official said Wednesday.

Well, the article doesn't indicate whether the Bush Administration is now considering going into Syria and other "foreign countries" in which al-Zarqawi and his leaders have met (notably excluding Iran, "a Shiite theocracy"), to flush out terrorists re-entering Iraq, as the Nixon Administration had gone into Cambodia, to flush out North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces re-entering South Vietnam; but quite ominously (and undoubtedly correctly), the article does go on to say:

A chilling, rambling Internet audiotape purportedly by al-Zarqawi denounced Iraq's Shiites as U.S. collaborators and said killing them is justified.

...the senior U.S. military official, who briefed reporters on condition he not be named...said that U.S. forces were constantly disrupting insurgent activities, but success was not guaranteed and could take "many years."

OK, that sucks (although it's not really new news, is it?)...but in the wake of that potentially demoralizing statement, here comes the new rallying cry:

"If we fail, the different groups would be at each other's throats and warfare would continue for some time," he [the senior U.S. military official] said. "If we take our foot off their throats, this country could be back into civil war and chaos."

WHOA!!! "Back into civil war and chaos"?

Say what you will about ol' Saddam; but like Marshall Tito, whose "iron fist" suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in Yugoslavia for decades, Saddam Hussein ruthlessly, yet effectively suppressed ethnic and religious warfare in Iraq (another artificial creation out of the old Ottoman Empire).

Sorry, kids; if Iraq continues to descend into civil war and chaos -- happily helped along by the likes of that murderous bastard al-Zarqawi -- it's not a return to the "good ol' bad ol' days" of Saddam.


It'll be George Dubya's little gift to the Middle East. Tied up in a ribbon as red as all the blood that's been shed.

No matter how the story is written, or re-written.

Return to Archive of PEACE: Foreign Policy & Terrorism


Home | Editor | Values & Issues | Feedback | Legal | Links