Thursday, January 24, 2008

Mission Accomplished: The Neo-Con Legacy

The moment I began fighting against in October, 2000 has come. I have often said over the past six years that I never thought I would see my country sink to this level, but it has, and the major proof of the pudding is in progress as I write these words. That proof is that BushCo has already begun negotiations with PART of the Iraqi government to make a pact for the long term (read permanent) placement of American troops in Iraq.

In several blogs, letters to the editor and Voices columns in the local paper over the years, I have written about the Neo-Con paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that was presented to the G. W. Bush campaign’s foreign affairs committee in – take note of this date - September, 2000 – a full year before 9-11 by The Project for A New American Century. Those who may not have heard about this paper need to know that it was underwritten by such luminaries as William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and a bunch of other Neo-Cons. (NOTE: I tried to publish these letters and columns in several national publications over the years, too, but none accepted them. The News-Leader should be praised for their willingness to do so.)

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was a grand scale layout of the military agenda that has since become, nearly word for word, our written national security policy. What stood out for me was this line from page 14: “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Question: If the desire to base American troops in Iraq transcended the regime of Saddam Hussein, why, during the rush-up to the war, didn’t we hear about that instead of what bad guy Hussein was?
Answer: The American people wouldn’t have found it a compelling enough reason to attack a sovereign nation.

Now, having already notified the Congress that they would not pass this new document (They won’t call it a treaty because treaties must by Constitutional law be ratified by the Senate.) through them for ratification, BushCo has begun speechifying about an “enduring” relationship with Iraq while – without saying anything to the American people about it – negotiating the non-treaty with members of the Iraqi cabinet dependent upon U.S. forces for their personal safety; notably not with Iraq’s Parliament which has already stated that they want us out of there within two years. It is notable, though, that one of those cabinet members has already made a public statement calling the document a “treaty”, but he’ll probably never make that mistake again!

So what does this treaty call for? It calls for the U.S. to respond militarily to threats to the Iraqi government whether internal or external in perpetuity. What’s so bad about that? 1.) The U.S. has never entered into an agreement that bound us to fight in a civil war before, and this document does that; 2.) refusing to allow the Senate to ratify is another un-Constitutional end run indicative of this administration’s willingness – no eagerness – to ignore the laws of our land and do it their way in any case; 3.) this agreement goes against the will of both the Iraqi people and the American people who have both said at the 70% level that they want the U.S. out of Iraq; 4.) it also goes against the will of the Iraqi Parliament; 5.) it is the bald-faced revelation of the real reasons why this administration twisted intelligence reports and misled the nation into a pre-emptive war by spreading disinformation and hiding their true motives from the people, and; 6.) it is an underhanded attempt by BushCo to tie the hands of the next administration – most likely Democratic -- by signing an agreement that binds them to staying in Iraq when they are coming into office with the intent of extricating us from that morass, Thus forcing a Democratic administration to further the goals of the Neo-Cons who created the entire mess we are in.

I have said since Bush came into office that he was the puppet of Neo-Cons who have as their aim the economic and militaristic domination of the world, not because I knew those individuals but because of that paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. I had hoped and prayed for the past seven years that they wouldn’t get away with their plan for Iraq, but today my heart is heavy with the high probability that they will.

If the rest of their plans are also realized, you can kiss your freedoms goodbye.

The only glimmer of hope I can see at this point is that Congressman William Delahunt of Massachusetts has announced that he is going to launch a series of Congressional investigations to determine whether or not the document being negotiated fits the definition of a treaty. If it can be found to do so, the Senate can (and probably would) refuse to ratify it and thus kill it.

Please let Mr. Delahunt know that you support his efforts and why. Let’s also notify all of our Senators and Congressmen about our opposition to this TREATY. In doing so, please mention “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and insist that they block this effort to illegally bind us to a permanent presence in Iraq.

Neither our nation nor the world at large can afford to have this Neo-Con goal met.


Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR

The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls -

No comments: