Home

Democrats Partly Responsible for Iraq War
And Similar Wars to Come

Comment by Larry Ross, November 22, 2005

This article documents Democratic responsibility for initiating war policies against Iraq under the Clinton Administration, and voting for a more aggressive and brutal Bush Administration war against Iraq. They tried to justify this by repeating the series of new war lies, initiated by the Bush. Bush's presidential opponent in the 2004 election, John Kerry, wanted more U.S. troops to win Bush's phoney war against Iraq. He did nothing to expose Bush lies and nothing to expose fraudulent voting machines when the results indicated he would have won the 2004 election.

Under the Clinton Administration it was limited to illegal bombing raids, without U.S./U.K. casualties and the air crews enjoying home life after their bombing. Also, the Clinton sanctions against Iraq caused an estimated 500,000 child deaths according to UN estimates.. This type of war was just as lethal as Bush's war, but there was little protest and no U.S. casualties.

However, under Bush it was open invasion and occupation, as well as intensified bombing, justified by a series of very blatant lies. Now there are over 2,000 U.S. casualties, thousands wounded and over 100,000 Iraqis killed. The lies have been exposed both before and after the war started. But this makes no difference to the Bush and Blair Administrations who carry on their intensified war against the people of Iraq.

They use a simple cold war type of formula. Instead of a "war to stop communism" and opponents being categorised as "communist sympathisers", they define their pre-planned war as "a war against terrorism". All opposition is labelled as "terrorist" or "terrorist sympathisers".

That strategy helps silence or intimidate opposition by defining it as "with the terrorists" or " encouraging terrorism by showing sympathy to the terrorists cause" etc. The strategy is re-enforced with Patriot-type laws in the U.S., U.K. and Australia, which further discourages dissent in these countries.

People have short memories and attention spans. The U.S. Democratic Party is heavily compromised by the military/industrial complex. It has been very pro-war for many years.. The mass media relays pro-war propaganda to their readers, so the truth is constantly suppressed or distorted. Few people have made the effort, or even have the time, to find out how they have been fooled and the terrible consequences to the countries and people attacked, and potentially to themselves and families.

The article shows how the U.S. has evolved to become more of a one party state - a Military/Industrial/Fascist type of state. It still masquerades as "the world's greatest Democracy" for the time being, but this pretence is becoming more difficult to maintain.

However more and more Americans are becoming knowledgeable and disillusioned. Bush's popularity has dropped to an all-time low of 37%. There are more calls to withdraw from Iraq now - not maybe, or sometime later - perhaps one day. There are more calls for impeachment of Bush and his cronies for their many war crimes - both against other people and the American people.

Only another terrible event "another Pearl Harbour" can save the Bush Administration, like the attack on the U.S. on Sept 11, 2001. This was used to justify the phoney war on Iraq and transform Bush into an overnight hero.

Something similar would allow the pliant US media to transform the fading Bush into a hero again defending the U.S against terrorism. There would only be a few doubters in the Senate and Congress. They will be drowned out by an overflow of virulent patriotic pronouncements and the clamour for revenge.

That is likely to be followed by Bush and his cronies blaming other nations; then another U.S. war, probably on Iran and/or Syria - like the war on Iraq, with similar deceitful methods of conning the public.

It may look terribly obvious to some of us who have been keenly interested in U.S. policy for many years. But the majority of people are younger and more gullible. They lack the interest or time, so believe or just accept what the mass media tells them.

They will probably believe the lies for a U.S. war on Iran as they previously believed the lies for the U.S. war on Iraq.

A few years ago they believed the lies used to justify the war on Vietnam in the 1960's. That cost billions and many thousands of U.S. dead. It almost resulted in a nuclear war.

They will be flooded with war propaganda, pro-war commentators and pro-war politicians in the mass media.

Most governments of other nations will pretend that they believe the U.S. game of accusing others to justify new wars. They fear U.S. retribution if they express doubt of the U.S. story. For example, remember how the Bush Administration descended on Helen Clark for saying she did not think there would be a U.S. war against Iraq if Al Gore had won the U.S. Presidential election.

However governments don't have to stick their heads in the sand and just wait for it to happen.

Various preparations could be made to frustrate U.S. attempts to justify and start another big war, without necessarily incurring U.S. wrath.

However a war on Iran could become larger than the one on Iraq, with far more domestic repression in the U.S. and other states in the 'coalition of the willing'. As the US. military is now over extended, a new larger war may mean the Bush Administration will justify the use of nuclear weapons.

As the consequences could be far greater for everyone than those of the Iraq war, preventative actions should be taken by governments now, before the event. Afterward may be too late to be of much use.

Larry Ross

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A 'Loyal Opposition' Won't End the War

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet, November 21, 2005

The refrain of the Democrats about being misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq has become really tired. And someone other than the White House smearmongers needs to say it: The Democrats cannot be allowed to use faulty intelligence as a crutch to hold up their unforgivable support for the Iraq invasion. What is DNC Chair Howard Dean's excuse? He wasn't in Congress and didn't have any access to Senate intelligence. Still, on March 9, 2003, just days before the invasion began, Dean told Tim Russet, on NBC's Meet The Press, "I don't want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed."

During the New Hampshire primary in January 2004, which I covered for Democracy Now!, I confronted Dean about that statement. I asked him on what intelligence he based that allegation. "Talks with people who were knowledgeable," Dean told me. "Including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration."

A series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.

How does that jibe with the official Democratic line that they were misled by the Bush administration? Sounds like Howard Dean, head of the Democratic Party, was misled by... the Democrats. Dean's candor offers us a rare glimpse into the painful truth of the matter. As unpopular as this is to say, when President Bush accuses the Democrats of "rewriting history" on Iraq, he is right.

Continue....