Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply
sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
"I understand it's controversial and I understand people are skeptical, and I understand there's pessimism here." -- Bush in NPR interview 1/29/07
One of Bush's many curious tendencies is to gin up fear among Americans about countries which haven't threatened us at all. But, he's been thoroughly exposed as a duplicitous liar, and there's no reason to believe any of the accusations from the Bush regime, past or present.
Before Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq, he told a shell-shocked nation which was reeling from the 9-11 attacks and anxious because the alleged perps were still at-large, that Saddam posed a threat to the U.S. because he was hiding WMDs and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. But the remarkable thing about his accusations is that Saddam Hussein had never actually threatened the U.S. before Bush's invasion; not with weapons or anything else. Now, Bush wants Americans to accept that he has "proof" of Iran aiding those who are resisting his swaggering militarism in Iraq.
Congress and most Americans decided to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when he said he had "evidence" against Saddam in 2003, because the 'decider' was a mostly unknown quantity who promised everything he could in the way of retaliation and consequences for the 9-11 attacks. "Bin-Laden wanted: Dead or alive," was the phrase he used to reassure the country that he intended to be relentless in his pursuit of the terror suspects.Yet, Bush failed in that hunt for the original terrorists suspected in the attacks, and diverted the bulk of our nation's active defenses from Afghanistan to attack Iraq; a country who's government had never threatened the U.S. with harm.
Our soldiers' mission in Iraq has been steadily reduced from Bush's high-flying, lying accusations about confronting a threat from Saddam to a cynical defense of of their own vulnerable lives as they hunker down in the 'green zone' protecting their embattled junta, or patrol the Iraqi streets as an improbable wedge to separate the warring factions. There is no democracy in Iraq for our soldiers to defend, but their every action has been described by Bush as a critical defense of the very liberty and freedom that his militarism threatens to take from the Iraqis and others caught in his conquering way.
The entire time Bush was building up forces to invade Iraq, he harped on the threat to America he said would occur if we left Saddam in power with the WMDs he was accusing them of hiding. Uday gone; Kusay gone; Saddam gone; but the rhetoric about some threat to America from the Iraqis continued as Bush directed our attention to some upstarts who decided to call their resistance groups, al-Qaeda. But, these resistance groups are not just some abstract manifestation of 'evil', as Bush likes to portray them. They are mostly Iraqis struggling for position and power in the wake of the U.S. coup of Saddam's regime. In his self-serving demonizing of these resistance groups as they exercise their right to exist in their own country, Bush regularly dismisses the Iraqis' own instincts toward liberty and self-determination as threats to his consolidation of power.
Now Bush wants Americans to believe that he's found 'evidence' of Iran aiding in attacks on our soldiers in Iraq. I don't believe there has ever been a more duplicitous excuse for muckraking against a sovereign nation with our nation's military than to justify aggression against those factions who are defending themselves against that aggression. It is Bush who has repeatedly and openly threatened to disrupt Iran's democracy without even a breath of any threat by the Iranian government toward the U.S.. It is Iran who has been the main beneficiary of Bush's bloody coup as Iran's nemesis, Saddam, is no longer in place to provide the U.S. assisted wedge against their expansion.
Iran has absolutely no reason to wage a campaign, military or otherwise, against the new Iraqi government which is headed by a sympathetic Shiite-dominated leadership. Iran is, though, actively engaged in trying to influence the Maliki regime into a military and economic alliance which runs counter to Bush's scheme to isolate the Ahmadinejad government and use them as a scapegoat for the Iraqi's increasing attacks on the U.S. troops Bush has placed in the middle of their civil war. In an NPR interview Monday, Bush ramped up his rhetoric against Iran in an attempt to make it appear that they are the reason and instigation for the Iraqi resistance which has taken the lives of American soldiers deployed in the middle of the warring factions.
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly," Bush told NPR. "We it makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops," he said.
It's not enough for Bush to accept that Iraqis have enough resources and reason to wage their own withering campaign of resistance to Bush's increasing occupation of their country. Bush wants us to believe that Iran, who has never directly threatened our nation or our forces in Iraq, is more determined than he is to escalate the violence in Iraq. Bush's 'plan' to add even more U.S. enforcers to re-enter Iraqi neighborhoods and intimidate Iraqis into accepting the authority his cabal has chosen to lord over them, is in direct contrast to the efforts and actions of the Iranian government who, this week, is moving aggressively to strengthen the ties between the Maliki regime and their own objectionable leadership.
The NYT is reporting today that Iran intends to "greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq - including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital," which the U.S. promised in 2003, but has yet to deliver. Iran's ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, also told the NYT that Iran is prepared to aid Iraq in its reconstruction in the wake of the Bush administration's decision to draw down and end their mostly ineffectual, and unaccountable efforts to repair the damage from their initial campaign of 'shock and awe'.
The Iranian ambassador also indicated to the NYT that Iran would provide the training, equipping, and advising of the Iraqi military and police forces which Bush has been promising, but has not been able to effect. The offer is made even more stark in the face of Bush's disregard of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and others in recent weeks that he should increase the training of Iraqi forces by introducing a contingent of advisers instead of the combat troops Bush has chosen instead to lead his new escalation.
The initiatives by Iran underscore the absurdity of Bush's insistence that his invading and occupying forces are more amenable and enabling of Iraq's new government than its neighbor Iran, and undercut their claims that Iran, somehow, poses a threat to the further establishment of the new Iraqi regime. It is becoming increasingly evident that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is the most dangerous obstacle to the country's stability, and to the progress of their new regime; not Iran, who Bush is trying to saddle with his bloody failure.
No amount of "secret" evidence produced by his discredited administration against Iran can obscure the fact that it is the Bush regime who has been the most pernicious aggressor against Iraq, and now, against the sovereign government of Iran. It's not enough for them to continue to insist that Iran is producing a nuclear weapon without any proof outside of their own duplicitous accusations. Now we are supposed to accept that the fearmongering liars in the White House who deliberately led America into war by lying about WMDs and terrorist ties to Saddam are, all of the sudden, amazingly credible in their accusations of "evidence" against Iran, who hasn't threatened us at all.
Bush and his muckraking militarism is the greatest threat abroad to U.S. security. There's absolutely no reason to believe that our nation would be any less secure if Bush stood down from his 'plan' to escalate his "long war" on terror which he insists on waging in Iraq against Iran. These countries are challenged to overcome the false influence of the U.S. military forces Bush is imposing on the fractured region. Bush and his muckraking militarism is the danger abroad which must be stopped in Iraq if there is to be any hope of normalizing the relations in the Mideast he has deliberately strained with his imperious invasion and his escalating occupation.