In
his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003, President Bush stated that the
United States had learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to
acquire uranium from Africa. This assertion was false. Eleven days prior to
giving this address he was informed by the State Department that the information
was based on forgeries. This assertion was true.
Perhaps, the most grievous example of the Bush administration's duplicity during
the run-up to war was the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell
before the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The presentation was an
unmitigated disaster. Powell showed computer-generated images, pictures of
trucks, truck tracks, and obscure brick buildings. I wrote a review of Powell's
performance for my column at the time in a Midwest newspaper. I compared
Powell's demonstrations to Adlai Stevenson's presentation before the Security
Council during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, Stevenson showed photos of the
Soviet missiles and their support apparatus, and that was done with 1960's
technology. I pointed out that it is difficult to prove a negative, but, for all
intents and purposes, Powell had done just that. He proved that Iraq did not
have WMD's. Powell also trotted out the tired and baseless charge that somehow
Saddam Hussein was connected to Al-Qa'ida, despite the obvious fact that the
secular Saddam was not about to allow the presence of any fundamentalist Islamic
terrorist organization in Iraq. Such an organization posed a threat to his
regime. In other words, Powell's assertion was a lie, and he knew it. Powell
later regretted his dismal and fallacious performance. Many regret that it is
possibly true that this distinguished soldier/statesman will never again serve
his country in an official capacity.
Notwithstanding Wolfowitz's bureaucratic, and nonexistent, WMD's, the
war in Iraq was never about WMD's, nor association with Al-Qa'ida, nor possible
connection to 9/11. Nor was it about freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people
after we killed tens of thousands of them.Those were deceptions promulgated by
the Bush administration. The war was about something far more basic, oil and
hegemony over the great oil fields in the entire Middle East.
Michael Klare, writing for The Nation,supports this point of
view, as does any analyst worth his/her salt. "When President George W. Bush
launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, his overarching goals all revolved
around the geopolitics of oil. He and his top officials were intent on replacing
Saddam Hussein's regime with one that would prove friendly to American oil
interests. They also imagined that, greeted as liberators by a grateful
population, they would preside over a radical upgrading of Iraq's petroleum
capacity, thereby ensuring adequate supplies for American consumers at an
affordable price. Finally, by building and manning a constellation of major
military bases in a grateful Iraq, they saw themselves ensuring continued
American dominance over the oil-soaked Persian Gulf region, and so the energy
heartland of the planet."
What other reason did Bush and Cheney have for invading Iraq? Surely, no
one today believes the propaganda of the Bush administration presented to
us 2002 and early 2003. Many knew at the time that the assertions by Bush and
Cheney during this period were just plain wrong, Now one needs to ask oneself a
question. If we knew it, how is it possible that the President and the
Vice-President did not know? Answer: That is impossible. They knew what they
were telling us were fabrications.
Ergo, the President and the Vice-President willfully and with an
enormous amount of forethought lied to the American people and to Congress.
That, folks, in and of itself, is an impeachable offense.
Jason Leopold contributed to this article.
1 | 2
