Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Iraqis have every reason to hate the US occupiers.

By       Message winston       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 4348
- Advertisement -
Why wouldn't they? What people subjugated by foreign invaders didn't hate the
occupiers? What was the American Revolution about? Big bro 43 is infamously
known as being "intellectually incurious", but he has to have heard about it.
Some of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' remarks makes you think he hasn't
been clued in, unless he is just lying.

Regarding Gates' divisive comments Sadr has said "I heard the statement of the
terrorist American defence minister and I feel compelled to give a decent
response to such a terrorist. I have no enemy but you. You are the occupier."

Sadr calls Gates a terrorist and why wouldn't he? This is the shameful state that big bro 43 brought us to. We used to be proud of the US of A, but now we can see the reasoning behind our American Defense Minister being called a terrorist.

The article "US must quit Iraq" at
click here
has Gates looking like an imperialistic lackey as "On Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sadr
was a significant political player due to his large following in Iraqs Shiite
community. Gates also called on Sadr to take part in the political process."

The trouble with Gates' remark is that it is either hypocrisy or stupidity,
which makes you think that big bro 43 originally had the idea to make his minion
utter the statement, which didn't contain a sub-atomic particle of truth, but
was solely propaganda.

The article continues "Radical cleric Muqtada Sadr says he will not enter any
political process that would allow US forces to remain in Iraq. Sadr also
denounces US Defense Secretary Robert Gates as a terrorist and says he will
never work with Iraq's occupiers......
Iraq said Saturday militiamen have sown the streets of Baghdad's Sadr City with
booby traps to impede the advance of the security forces, amid fierce battles in
the sprawling Shiite enclave."

We are making more terrorists than we can kill and are seen as terrorists as "Residents showed an AFP photographer a house in the Jamila sector of
Sadr City which they said had been hit during an air strike. Neighbours said two
small children and their parents were killed and another five family members
wounded in the strike. Hospital officials said women and children were among
those killed and wounded but declined to give a breakdown. An official in the
office of government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told AFP that a two-week vehicle
ban in Sadr City had been eased. The curfew was lifted generally in Sadr City
from this morning, but it still applies in some areas where security measures
are in place, the official said, asking not to be named.
Tensions between the Mahdi Army and the security forces have been further
inflamed by the killing of senior Sadr aide Riyad al-Nuri on Friday in an attack
carried out in broad daylight after the main weekly Muslim prayers in the Shiite
holy city of Najaf."

You might be inclined to give Gates the benefit of the doubt, but it happens too often. The Informed Comment of Monday, April 14, 2008 at
http://www.juancole.com/
puts it clearly as "The Iraqi cabinet prepared a draft of a law forbidding
parties with militias from running in the provincial elections scheduled for
October. The measure is actually in an ironic way a victory for the Sadr
Movement at which it is aimed, since originally Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
had intimated that he could exclude the Sadrists from running by fiat. They
pointed out that only parliament could bar parties from running. The question is
whether, with summer fast approaching, parliament will be able to achieve a
quorum for passing the bill into law, and whether al-Maliki has the votes to put
it through. The bill is the height of hypocrisy, since all major parties in
parliament have paramilitias, especially al-Maliki's current main partner, the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. ISCI denials that Badr any longer exists or has
been wholly incorporated into government security forces are a Big Lie."

The article "Bush Aware of Advisers' Interrogation Talks -- President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods" at
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4635175
is documented evidence that big bro 43 participated in violating the US
Constitution. Why does this pint-sized bully have the audacity to do so?

It states "President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers
discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects
would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an
exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people."
Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware
our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration
officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how
high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were
so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost
choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific
tactic.
These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda
suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or
subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals
Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise
President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney,
former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George
Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft."

None of the top military lawyers would go along with this but big bro 43 hunted through his legal minions to came up with spurious opinions that allowed big bro 43 to say "We had legal
opinions that enabled us to do it," Bush said. "And no, I didn't have any
problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew."
The president said, "I think it's very important for the American people to
understand who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the
suicide attack -- I mean, the 9/11 attacks."

Events caught up to them and they were shown to be evil people as "A year later,
amid the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the
controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA
interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects that was leaked to the press.
A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.
But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA
officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to
continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by
Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad,
sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do
it."

Bush is a criminal and Obama gives a very lawyerly response, but gives hope that
if elected his administration will track him down.

The article "Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes
in Bush White House" at
click here
has this Obama quote "What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department
and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there
and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge
that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by
what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I
think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to
find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at
what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as
opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things
we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing
betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal
activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall
meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue
because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for
exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront,
then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law --
and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

McCain voted for legislation giving the CIA authority to torture detainees. On
February 13, 2008, when the Senate voted on the intelligence bill, which
includes a provision that effectively bans waterboarding from being used as an
interrogation technique by all 16 intelligence agencies, McCain voted against
the bill which passed 51-45, but President Bush promised to veto it.
In a statement, McCain said the measure goes too far in applying military
standards to intelligence agencies and maintained that existing law already
forbids waterboarding. Big bro 43 stated that waterboarding remains a "legal"
tactic that they reserve the right to use if circumstances warrant it. McCain
was a victim of torture and was adamantly against it. Why did he change?

John Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of
the Justice Department-a nobody, from 2001 to 2003 and he was responsible for
all of the tortured logic behind W's torturing of detainees. In a like manner W
hunted around in his military to find someone, Petraeus-another nobody, who
would go along with "stay the course" in Iraq.

If you think that perpetuating torture and the Iraq war appeal to you vote for
McCain.

Senator Joe Biden made this statement about W and his mini-me at
click here
"Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R.
Biden, Jr. (D-DE) delivered a speech entitled, "2008 and the Stakes for
America's Security" today at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall.

But John McCain remains wedded to the Bush Administration's myopic view of a
world defined by terrorism. He would continue to allow a tiny minority to set
the agenda for the overwhelming majority.

It is time for a total change in Washington's world view. That will require more
than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.

Nowhere is this truer than in Iraq. The war dominates our national life. It
stands like a boulder in the road between us and the credibility we need to lead
in the world and the flexibility we require to meet our challenges at home.

When it comes to Iraq, there is no daylight between John McCain and George W.
Bush. They are joined at the hip."

McCain mumbles that we will be in Iraq for a hundred years. He sings "Bomb
Iran". For all of his first-hand experience about the horrors of war he sure is
a warmonger, as is W.

The article "Bush Hypes Threat from Iran in Surge "Success" Speech" at
click here
states "In his speech on Thursday, Bush wasted little time before getting to the
ominous subject of Iran.
Time and time again, he lumped the alleged threat from Iran in the same breadth
as the one from Al Qaeda, once again fusing enemies in the minds of the American
people.
"Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of Al Qaeda to
the destructive influence of Iran," he said, even before declaring that the
surge has "renewed and revived the prospect of success."
A little later, he said, "Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest
threats to America in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran." (Bush has now
elevated Iran over China as the looming threat of the century!)
And in the next paragraph, he said, "If we succeed in Iraq after all that Al
Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global
terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran."
Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran, Al Qaeda-Iran. That is the chant emanating from
the White House.
But Bush was not content to be subtle about his belligerence toward Iran.
Listen to the saber rattle:
"The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make," Bush said. "It can live in
peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties.
Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are
terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the
right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and
Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests,
and our troops, and our Iraqi partners."
By "America will act," Bush is making damn clear that he intends to go ahead and
bomb Iran."

Maybe big bro 43 won't have time to attack Iran, but W is delusional and
believes in his omnipotent "unitary executive" powers, and as the article
continues "We can keep telling ourselves that Bush wouldn't be so foolish as to
widen the war to Iran when the one in Iraq is going so badly. But foolishness
has never stopped him before.
Regard his words.
They put not only Tehran on notice.
They put Congress and the American people on notice.
This man is planning on waging another illegal war, and we need to do all that
we can, nonviolently, to stop him."

mini-me has conflated Iraq and Iran with the best of them and if he wins the
presidency he'll do the old "Tricky Dick" tactic of expeanding the war by
attacking nearby countries without getting Congress' agreement. The above
article even has mini-me's song lyric "bomb Iran."

We attacked Iraq to get the Sunni Baathist Hussein from power. These Baathist
dead-enders were the insurgency, and killed many US soldiers for awhile. Some of
these Suunis worked with the Sunni al-queda in Iraq until al-queda in Iraq,
which remember wasn't a player in Iraq until after "Operation Iraqi Freedom",
began killing too many Muslims too violently and enforcing rules as strict as
the extremist Taliban. Then the Awakening began and the US was paying people who
were recently killing US soldiers to fight al-queda in Iraq. At his last hearing
Petraeus declared that al-queda in Iraq wasn't the main problem in Iraq, but the Shiite special groups were. In the recent Basra violence, Iran
equipped the Shiites fighting against each other for supremacy of the southern
oil fields and negotiated an end to violence.

Even FOX news can't coverup the stupidity of it all.

The article "Petraeus Shifts Focus on Iraq Threat From Al Qaeda to
Iranian-Backed 'Special Groups'" at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350131,00.html
states "The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from Al Qaeda to
Iranian-backed "special groups" as the main threat to a democratic Iraq - a
significant change that reflects both the complexity of the war and its changing
nature.
The shift was articulated this week in Washington by Gen. David Petraeus, who
told Congress that "unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term
threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."
Before, American commanders have called Al Qaeda the greatest threat.
There is little doubt that Shiite extremists fighting U.S. and Iraqi forces have
received Iranian weapons, although Iran's government denies supplying them.
But Petraeus' comments obscure the fact that the United States has waded into a
monumental power struggle within the majority Shiite community - and crucially,
that both sides in that struggle, not just the "special groups," maintain close
ties to Iran.
The power struggle is only the latest stage in a decades-long competition
between the families of the current top Shiite players: anti-American cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr and Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, whose political party in Iraq works
closely with the U.S. despite its links to Iran."

We are losing lives and treasure over this and the enemy keeps changing. It is
like we invaded Europe and for a few years we were fighting the Italians then
switched to fighting the Spanish and Swedish. Wouldn't some people in the US
notice?

The article continues "American lawmakers expressed frustration this week
because Petraeus offered no assurances that an end to the war is near.
In part, that's because the conflict has been ever-evolving - from at first a
Sunni insurgency, next to a Sunni-Shiite sectarian bloodletting, and now a
violent competition for power within the Shiite community."

The article describes the moronic nature of the undefined war and concludes "But
the picture is more clouded.
With all Shiite factions close to the Iranians, it appears that Iran will profit
- at least to some degree - no matter which Shiite groups end up in power and no
matter how America pursues the war."

Remember we equipped and helped Iraq in its war against Iran because we have
always viewed Iran as the bigger threat.

When you think of all of the changes and rapid turns in this you get a headache
or anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise
incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, which is cognitive dissonance-that
is unless you are someone who freely tells the US that he talked with God prior
to "Operation Iraqi Freedom"-which is psychotic.

The article "Bush's Parallel Universe" at
click here
states "No, its not your imagination: The debate about Iraq, and I use the word
loosely, becomes ever more surreal as the occupation drags on.....
Generals and diplomats should do what our elected leaders tell them to do having
covered South America, I can attest that the alternative is not pretty and
George W. Bush is indeed the Decider when it comes to Iraq policy. For now, at
least.
Of course, Bush long ago lost any credibility with Congress and the American
people on Iraq. Its understandable that he hides behind Petraeus' breastplate of
medals and Crocker's thatch of gray hair, sending these loyal and able public
servants to explicate the inexplicable: What realistic goal is the United States
trying to achieve in Iraq? And in what parallel universe is this open-ended
occupation making our nation safer?
Even the most basic question of any war is undefined: Who is the enemy?"

W's forte is "fuzzy math", but he's down to a 28% approval rating so he should
listen to the US people. The article continues "Here's something solid: Early
last year, before the surge, there were 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. In
November, when Americans choose the next president, there are likely to be
140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The White House will blow a lot of smoke about how
there's a pause in the drawdown or some such nonsense. There's no troop
reduction; there's been an increase."

What happened to his phrase "return on success"? Petraeus and Crocker implied we
were being successful but yet are troops are not "standing down as the Iraqi
troops stand up", because the Iraqi troops are still not dependable and many
simply deserted during the Basra fiasco.

The article continues "No one should be surprised that Petraeus and Crocker
asked our elected representatives for more time. That's what George Bush always
wanted, and he wasn't about to be deterred by anything so inconsequential as the
clearly expressed will of the American people. As Dick Cheney said of anti-war opinion polls:
So?"

Another piece of "fuzzy math" that big bro 43 is perpetrating on the US is that
the US must pay for all of Iraq's expenses. Why? They are making money with the
2nd largest oil reserves in the world.

The article "Iraq's financial free ride may end" at
click here
states "Iraq's financial free ride may be over. After five years, Republicans and Democrats seem to have found common ground on at least one aspect of the war. From the fiercest foes of the war to the most steadfast Bush supporters, they are looking at Iraq's surging oil income and saying Baghdad should start picking up more of the tab, particularly for rebuilding hospitals, roads, power lines and the rest of the shattered country.....
A primary cause for the unhappiness in Congress is the high price of oil as the U.S. heads into election season. While Americans are complaining of gasoline prices, officials predict Iraq is headed toward a major windfall because of the soaring price of oil and record-setting production levels.For years after the 2003 invasion, a lack of infrastructure kept Iraq's oil production and exports down. But with rebuilding efforts bearing fruit, including U.S.-aided actions to prevent the illegal tapping of pipelines, production had recovered to an average of about 2.4 million barrels per day by late last year compared with 2 million a day earlier in the year and 1.3 million in early 2003....
Stuart Bowen, who heads the IG office, predicted in a March hearing that Iraq's oil revenue could climb to as high as $60 billion this year, from early estimates of $35 billion.
The U.S. military isn't reaping those benefits. American troops in Iraq are buying fuel on the open market at $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month, according to a recent report by The Associated
Press.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says the Iraqis should cover those costs.
"It's really difficult for Americans who are struggling with the high cost of the energy to see us paying for fuel costs in a country that has the second-largest oil reserves" and a burgeoning budget surplus, she said."


The Iraqis have every reason to hate the US occupiers. The citizens of the US have every reason for being jaded with big bro 43's stories about who are enemies are in Iraq or Iran and terrified that mini-me McCain will keep us bogged down in his GWOT for a hundred years.

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Winston Smith is an ex-Social Worker. I worked in child welfare, and in medical settings and in homeless settings. In the later our facility was geared as a permanent address for people to apply for welfare. Once they received that we could send (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.