Origins Of The War

Feb 2


The Indy Voice

The Indy Voice

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

It has been the case that ... history many people have ... to revise history to suit the needs of their time. In an ... way, many people in power today are trying to revise cont


It has been the case that throughout history many people have attempted to revise history to suit the needs of their time. In an unprecedented way,Origins Of The War Articles many people in power today are trying to revise contemporary history and they seem to be getting away with it (at least 61,000,000 people are buying it). The Indy Voice wanted to re-revise history to represent reality (wow, what a concept).Many have said that George W. Bush's idea for war with Iraq came only after 9/11 and was only for national security reasons. The reality is that many within the administration were pushing for a military strike against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power going back to 1998. In fact, on January 26, 1998 the members of "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) sent a letter to then President Bill Clinton outlining their reasons for removing Hussein from Iraq. Their reasons DID NOT include an imminent threat. Actually the language they used was "we MAY soon face a threat".The present day positions of these PNAC members include the National Security Council, Deputy Secretary of State, George W. Bush’s speechwriter, Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security, Under Secretary of Global Affairs, counsellor to United States Secretary of Defense, Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense, Chairman of the Defense Science Board, Ambassador and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense. They let President Clinton know that they believed that "it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production" and "in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons." How then was this administration so certain that Iraq possessed WMD in 2002?As for the threat posed by Iraq on the mainland they mentioned nothing. They believed that Iraq possessing WMD would have a "seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East." And "if Saddam DOES acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction" he will threaten "the safety of American troops in the region, [sic] our friends and allies like ISRAEL and the moderate Arab states" (like Saudi Arabia?) And they stated another reason why they were concerned. They were worried that Hussein would put at risk "a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil." Interesting?!They also made statements that may have been the origin of the more recent sentiments that have sought to defend unilateralism. They believed that the hanging of our "success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners" was "dangerously inadequate". They proposed that the "aim of American foreign policy" should be "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" through "military action". The most interesting part of the letter is the ending. It seems that the 1st five paragraphs of the letter could have spent a lot more time talking about the threats that Iraq posed directly against our country. Instead they talk about "our interest in the gulf" which as far as they see it, included Israel, the moderate Arab states and oil. If there was in fact legitimate threats against the mainland why wouldn't they tell the President more about them? And what "fundamental national security interests" did they have in mind other than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Why didn't they list those?Maybe all the members that signed this letter had a legitimate change of heart and mind post 9/11? Maybe they truly believed that a new threat existed in Iraq after 9/11 that dictated that we should invade to protect more than the moderate Arab states, Israel and oil? Maybe some new technologies have come about since long ago in 1998 and we are now capable of determining with total certainty that Iraq possessed WMD? Maybe they forgot about our vital interests in the gulf, Israel, the moderate Arab states and the oil they have and decided to protect the U.S. from the new imminent threat posed by Hussein in a post 9/11 world? It’s also possible that the President made the decision to invade Iraq without using the counsel of all these men. Maybe he didn’t listen to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who were telling him to invade Iraq to “protect our vital interests in the gulf?” Maybe the members of the PNAC just forgot to add all the connections to terrorists that Hussein and his regime had? Maybe they forgot to mention the need to liberate the Iraqi people?I don't know. Maybe I'm just a crazy liberal conspiracy nut. I like to think that I’m a rational person and believe that the simplest answer tends to be the correct one. Maybe you can read the letter and make up your own mind Project For The New American Century Letter

Source: Free Guest Posting Articles from