Alternative Insight
Conspirators Against Iraq
Those who approved the invasion of Iraq still don't realize their faulty reasoning and the enormous consequences of their error. Their comments indicate a lack of empathy for the Iraqi people that borders on racism.
REPRESENTATIVE WALTER JONES (R), North Carolina, was one of 17 Republicans who voted for the non-binding anti- Iraq war resolution. The reason - Congressman Jones had an awakening after meeting a woman whose husband had been killed in Iraq. The soldier left a wife and three children, two of whom were twins born only two weeks after his deployment. At the funeral, which Jones attended, the wife read her husband's last letter.Congressman Jones related that, "She cried, and I cried, too, by God. Driving home back 72 miles back to my home in North Carolina, I had such a rush of emotion of the fact that, you know, when you send somebody to give their life to this country, you better be sure that it is necessary, there is no other option."
Representative Jones didn't consider other options when he voted for the 2002 Resolution that granted war powers to President Bush. His thoughts and regrets have never considered the severe damage his vote brought to the Iraqi people
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON (D) in response to questions during her campaign trail asserted (paraphrased): "If I had known in 2002 what I know now about Iraqi weaponry, I would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force....If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to chose from."
Senator Clinton's detractors have given another spin to her comments: If she knew that her 2002 vote would have affected her 2008 presidential chances, would she have changed her vote? Considering that critical observers alerted the public that the reasons for granting the war powers were obviously twisted and deficient and could lead to catastrophe, hasn't Hillary Clinton showed the electorate that she lacks intelligence for the exalted position. Her thoughts and regrets have never considered the severe damage her vote brought to the Iraqi people.
SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZA RICE has been quoted that Iraq is "worth the investment in American lives and dollars....I don't think it's a matter of money. Along the way there have been plenty of markers that show this is a country (Iraq) that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country that is a stabilizing factor, you will have a different kind of Middle East." The U.S. Secretary of State evidently considers the nation of Iraq as nothing more than a commodity or a speculative stock market play in the international futures market. She unabashedly equates American lives with dollars.
Ms. Rice never consulted the Iraq people to learn if they want to be destroyed so they can emerge as a stabilizing factor for the Middle East. Her thoughts and regrets have never considered the severe damage her actions brought to the Iraqi people.
WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST RICHARD COHEN, admitted, in a column, that he certainly thought Bush, armed with a congressional resolution, would hurry to war. "It was about the only thing I got right about the war, which, the record will show, I supported....I thought the war would do wonders for the Middle East..."
Columnist Cohen never interviewed the Iraq people to learn if they wanted to be attacked so they could do wonders for his vision of the Middle East. His thoughts and regrets have never considered the severe damage that the influence of his writings brought to the Iraqi people.
FORMER UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY, DOUGLAS J. FEITH, in rambling and meant to be confusing editorials and appearances, has tried to justify his critique of the CIA's work on the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship. The CIA found no relationship between Hussein's Iraq government and bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorists. How could it? Hussein's secular government was anathema to bin Laden's Radical Islam and bin Laden's Radical Islam was viewed by Hussein as worse then Israel. Hussein was hardly likely to tolerate a subversive organization in his "subversive free" country.
The CIA findings and obvious animosity between Hussein's Iraq and bin Laden's al-Qaeda did not satisfy Douglas Feith, who had no intelligence agencies other than the CIA, to assist him and evidently never cared to consider the obvious facts of the situation. He declared the CIA conclusions to be wrong and set out to "prove" with no intelligence and verifiable facts that al-Qaeda was welcome in Hussein's Iraq. He submitted his "conclusions," that contained unproven rumors of a relationship between Iraq intelligence and al-Qaeda, to a Defense Department that welcomed rumors of a relationship.
Feith has tried to convince the public that he was right to ask tough questions of the CIA. He was right to ask tough questions, but not of CIA conclusions that could not be contested but of CIA conclusions, such as Iraq harboring weapons of mass destruction, that had no basis in fact. Feith showed he had an agenda and not an inquiring mind. His agenda solicited anything to support a declaration of war with Iraq and subvert any facts that contradicted reasons for the war. His thoughts and regrets have never considered the severe damage his policy recommendations caused the Iraqi people.
The engineers of the attack on Iraq still have no realization that their support for the attack developed in the destruction of Iraq and massive violence to the Iraqi people. White House spokesman Tony Fratto has warned that a pullout of U.S. troops could bring chaos to Iraq. "We're operating under a mandate," he said.
"Could bring chaos?" Isn't the sectarian warfare, killings of up to 100,000 Iraqis, maimings of many more, creation of 2-3 million refugees, entrance of al-Qaeda terrorists into the country, rise of radical Islam elements into government, torture in prison camps, violence against women, subjugation of women, atmosphere of fear, daily killings, burning of sacred institutions, severe attacks on Turkeman and Christian minorities, and the fragmentation of an aged civilization, sufficient chaos? History will record the 2003 invasion of Iraq as one of the most criminal acts in modern international relations. Can those who participated in this atrocity easily discard their complicity, especially when they continue to regard the invasion as only a failure of U.S. foreign policy and don't display any cognizance or remorse for how their actions affected the innocent Iraqi people?
Why is:
Walter Jones still in Congress?
Why is Hillary Clinton considered to be a presidential candidate?
Why is Condoleeza Rice in control of U.S. foreign policy?
Why is Richard Cohen still a columnist?
Why is Douglas Feith allowed a court of public opinion to excuse himself rather than a court of law to judge his behavior?alternativeinsight
march 1, 2007HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
alternativeinsight@earthlink.net
