Bush Is Right to Link 9/11 with Iraq

Bush Is Right to Link 9/11 with Iraq
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0506h.asp

by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 29, 2005

Even though the Iraqi people and their ruler, Saddam Hussein, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, President Bush was correct in once again linking 9/11 to his invasion and occupation of Iraq in his speech to the nation last night. Why? Because the motivation behind the 9/11 attacks was the same as the motivation behind the insurgency in Iraq: U.S. foreign policy.

Contrary to what Bush has long maintained, the 9/11 terrorists, like their predecessors who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, were motivated not by hatred for America’s “freedom and values” but instead by anger arising from the bad things that the U.S. government has done to people overseas, especially in the Middle East, including:

(1) The cruel and brutal sanctions imposed against Iraq for more than a decade, which contributed to the deaths and misery of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, along with the callous indifference of U.S. officials to their horrific consequences. The goal of the sanctions — and therefore the rationale for all the deaths and misery they produced — was nothing more than “regime change” — that is, the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power and his replacement by a U.S.-approved regime, which continued to be the goal as President Bush’s forces invaded Iraq, as the recently disclosed Downing Street Memo implies;

(2) The arrogant stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands in Saudi Arabia, troops that Bush hoped could simply be transferred to permanent bases in Iraq after “regime change” in Iraq was accomplished;

(3) The unconditional U.S.-taxpayer subsidization, both financial and military, of the Israeli government, regardless of its policies.

President Bush’s attack on Iraq was nothing more than part and parcel of the pro-empire, pro-interventionist, pro-militarist foreign policy that has long generated deep anger and hatred among people of the Middle East against the United States. Thus, why should it surprise anyone that an invasion and occupation that have produced not only the deaths of countless more innocent people but also additional misery and devastation for the Iraqi people would generate the deep anger and resistance that similar-type U.S. policies have produced in the past?

For decades, the U.S. government’s pro-empire position has been that it has the right to “maintain a presence” and impose its will in the Middle East, by force if necessary. Those foreigners who resist its presence and its policies are then extinguished by imperial troops for being “bad guys” or “terrorists.”

In Bush’s mind, this is the “freedom” for which sacrifices must continue to be made in Iraq — the “freedom” of the U.S. empire to continue imposing its will on the people of the world, especially those in the Middle East. Make no mistake about it: those sacrifices — both in terms of lives and treasure, not to mention moral principles — are for nothing more than international power politics and not for “democracy and freedom,” as the U.S. government’s ardent support of such cruel and brutal dictators as Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan (and, previously, Saddam Hussein) reflects.

While it is certainly possible that President Bush will yet pull the rabbit out of the hat in Iraq, it increasingly appears that his war will prove to be one of the biggest debacles in U.S. history. If so, both Republicans and Democrats will undoubtedly be encouraging Americans to “stay the course” by simply being more selective with respect to future wars that their Cold War military empire elects to wage.

It is up to us libertarians to continue raising the vision of the American people to a higher level — encouraging them to reject the entire pro-empire, pro-interventionist, pro-militarist, pro-big-government paradigm by which conservatives, neoconservatives, and leftists have guided our nation for the past several decades.

It is up to us libertarians to encourage our fellow Americans to lead the world to a freer, more peaceful and harmonious place through the restoration of the philosophy of individual liberty, free markets, limited government, noninterventionism, nonmilitarism, and republic that guided our forefathers.

What better way to ensure that all the innocent people, both Iraqi and American, who have lost their lives or limbs in Iraq for more than a decade will not have died or been maimed in vain? What greater gift for the American people to give to their children and to the world?

 

Except the two paragraphs beginning with "It is up to us libertarians to". Given the current political climate in US, libertarians could hardly strike a kink in the armor of our two-party system.

That's is not to say, however, there are no libertarians-in-disguise in either of the two major parties. For example, Ron Paul is a known antiwar libertarian. I read somewhere that former Republican House member Bob Barr (one of the managers in Clinton impeachment trial) and Dick Armey (House Majority Leader) were actually civil libertarians, though their positions on the Iraqi War are unknown.

 

We've heard it before...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/01/opinion/edjackson.php

Derrick Z. Jackson The Boston Globe

SATURDAY, JULY 2, 2005

At Fort Bragg, in front of soldiers and their generals, the president of the United States said, "Terrorists can strike and can kill without warning before the forces of order can throw them back. And now he has struck again. At this very hour, a second wave of terrorists is striking the cities. Our forces are ready. I know they will acquit themselves, as they always have, however tough the battle becomes. There has never been a finer fighting force wearing the American uniform than you."

This was not this week. This was not President George W. Bush at Fort Bragg. This was President Lyndon B. Johnson 37 years ago.

For all that the Bush administration pooh-poohs comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, Bush himself keeps running backward to the point where imitation is becoming the sincerest sign of failure.

On the weekend of Feb. 17-18, 1968, Johnson went to Fort Bragg, North Carolina; the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in California, and the flight deck of the USS Constellation. It was the time of the Tet Offensive, the bloody turning point when tens of thousands of North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers and American support for the bloodshed were simultaneously wiped out. Just a month and a half later, Johnson admitted personal defeat by saying he was deescalating the bombing and not running for reelection.

But in January and February, Johnson spoke as Bush did this week, rattling off successes in the face of rising dissent. Bush bragged about restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people, the voting of 8 million people in free and fair elections, and the victories of new Iraqi soldiers. This was virtually no different than when Johnson said in his State of the Union message on Jan. 17, 1968 - again, only two and a half months before his resignation: "Three elections have been held in Vietnam in the midst of war and under the constant threat of violence. A president, a vice president, a House and Senate, and village officials have been chosen by popular, contest ballot. The enemy has been defeated in battle after battle."

Bush's speech has already been blasted by critics for not once mentioning the original pretense for the Iraq invasion, the never-found weapons of mass destruction. Bush escalated his playing of the 9/11 card, the card thrown out of the deck by his own 9/11 Commission, which found no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand."

Just as noteworthy was how Bush tried to correct the image of chaos in Iraq with claims of clarity. "Our mission is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists," he said, even as soldiers grumble that the mission is aimless and Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cannot make up their minds whether we are seeing the last throes of the insurgency or face a decade of massive involvement.

Johnson used the same tactic in his 1968 Fort Bragg speech, saying, "The enemy's answer is clear. Our answer, your answer, must be just as clear: unswerving resolution to resist these ruthless attacks."

Two weeks before his visits to Fort Bragg, El Toro, and the Constellation, Johnson was asked by a reporter if the "present rampage" in South Vietnam gave him any reason to change any assessment about the war. Johnson answered, "So far as changing our basic strategy, the answer would be no."

In his turn at Fort Bragg, Bush said, "The progress in the past year has been significant, and we have a clear path forward." The clear path is so much like Johnson's it betrays how deep we are in the fog of war.