Bush fooled by Hussein
Brian David Smith
To avoid that, Hussein created a ruse.
Hussein created an illusion that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction,
(WMD), and therefore kept Iran from attacking Iraq.
To keep the ruse working, Hussein had to keep the rumor mill going.
He did so by leaking hints there were on going weapons development in Iraq.
In reality, there was none.
Hussein additionally kept the ruse going by tossing the UNSCOM weapons
inspectors out of Iraq in 1998.
Incidentally, George Bush #43, fell for the ruse too.
Bush insisted Hussein needed to let the inspectors back in to Iraq.
Hussein refused because the inspectors would uncover the ruse and invite an
attack from Iran.
Bush grew incensed and raised the stakes. Bush demanded Hussein disarm.
Hussein's refused again because: a) in reality there was nothing to disarm,
b) it would expose the ruse.
With Hussein's refusal, Bush was convinced Hussein was truly hiding
something.
Bush attacks Iraq.
Bush finds no WMD in Iraq. Bush realizes it was a ruse.
Embarrassed, Bush covers his tracks and says, "Knowing what we now know, I
would make the same decision."
Translation: "Knowing what we now know [that there were no WMD], I would
make the same decision."
Translation: "Even if I knew it was all a big ruse, I still would have
attacked!"
Why would Bush still attack if he knew it was all a ruse?
Why would Bush still attack knowing that Iraq was not a threat?
Bush contradiction: a) "The people of the United States and our friends and
allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the
peace with weapons of mass murder." b) "Knowing what we now know, I would
make the same decision."
Translation: a) Bush goes to war because Hussein's regime threatens with
WMD. b) Bush goes to war because Hussein's regime CANNOT threaten with WMD.
According to Bush's own words, he would have attacked Hussein regardless if
Iraq were a threat or not.
What for? If Iraq was not a threat, why attack?
So far, 1,535 U.S. troops have died in Iraq.
So far, 11,442 U.S. troops wounded in Iraq.
Brian David Smith, San Diego, California
A Reagan Republican disappointed in the Bush Administration
http://www.briandsmith.com
True enough, Ronald Reagan stuck to his guns. The difference between him and
other politicians was his choice of guns. --- Brian David Smith, June 12,
2004 ---
- Copyright (c)1995-2005 Brian David Smith, San Diego, CA. - All Rights
Reserved -
Sorackem
news:MuBNPB.A....@sol01.isp.gweep.ca:
> With Hussein's refusal, Bush was convinced Hussein was truly hiding
> something.
I don't buy that.
Bush (Cheney) purposefully staffed his 'intelligence' community with
cronies that were to ignore, manipulate or fabricate data till he ( the
neo-con influential) had what they needed to convince congress that he
was justified in his (their) expidition for Iraqi oil and numerous
lucrative private contracts.
The 'rub' that so many don't seem to see, is every screw-up and fallacy,
every questionable move, domestic and international can be explained with
the most logical and common motivation: GREED.
Why do our politicians have multiple homes, when many hard working people
barely feed or house themselves, or even receive basic health care? When
many are trying to live on minimum wage, or not able to find a job at
all?
The politicians vacation anywhere and anytime they wish, and enjoy lives
of luxury. They distance themselves from the common rabble whom they are
supposed to 'represent'. They have interests in multiple companies that
are often directly tied in with the government in one aspect or another.
Everything from the 2000 election to Social Security reform looks
questionable, but people just love to analyze the hell out of everything.
We could study for decades and centuries, the reasoning for specific
strategies, but the underlying motivation needs no such hyperbole.
It isn't hard to see folks.
Greed: it isn't a new concept, just one of the most common frailties of
humanity.
All this discussion and analysis, merely contributes to the confusion
which is their stock in trade.
-B
Pete
are ultimately after is absolute power. How do you get absolute power,
by the oldest route in history, religion? Just negate everything that
happened since the Enlightenment when church and state began to be
separated. The Neocons (aren't people tired of putting the dash in
there?) have identified an extremist group that is naturally inclined
to monarchy, religious fundamentalists. Following the millenniums old
logic democracy is a false ideology since power comes from the people
who are fallen and therefore can't be the source of power. Power can
only come from God who chooses a ruler to give absolute power over the
people to.
Obviously the religious nuts have already decided that Dubya's God
anointed one. They were screaming for Dubya and Jebya to throw out the
rule of law and use their divinely ordained power to raise Terri
Schiavo from the dead. Not only did they voted for Dubya but I'm sure
they are assuming that he's entitled to absolute authority. Just go ask
your neighborhood religious nut if they think Dubya has the right to
rescind all our rights to insure our "freedom and safety" and enforce
"morality".
Peter ------ "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to
believe it." Joseph Goebbels ------ Women find Peter sexy. Women
find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy. Women
find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy. Women
find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy. Women find Peter sexy.