Some of us in the church have begun to feel like captives on an Alfred Hitchcock movie set — so many fellow believers are putting stock in every word the Bush Administration is saying!

The following can be useful in proving that the reasons given for the Iraq war are lies. There are those who believe that the election of ’04 was a “moral victory.” Here’s my question for them: Is it moral to lust to rule the entire world, and develop the most costly, deadly arsenal in history to do it?

Unfortunately, that question is not overstated, because Dick Cheney satisfies this description and can tell you all about it in his own words. He and other top members of Bush’s administration (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) have publicly posted their ambitions on the internet since 1997 at NewAmericanCentury.org. The purpose of the material on that website is to explain a massive build-up of armaments by the U.S.

The “Statement of Principles” page is the one which bears Cheney’s signature and others. They pull no punches – the goal is that the U.S. should actively seek to rule the world. Interestingly, since it was written in 1997 (long before 9/11), the amount of attention dedicated to defense or terrorism is much less than concerns about economic dominance. This is one very telling article, on account of its date, because what the administration would now have us believe is that all the military build-up is about terrorism. This article confirms that military build-up was the plan long ago.

Further giving the lie to arguments about going to war because of Saddam Hussein is some text in the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document, dated June 3, 2000. Note that this was also published before 9/11. There we read the following concerning Saddam Hussein (emphasis mine):

“… Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. 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.” (page 26 of Acrobat download (right column), which is page 14 in the text of the document)

Why take another’s word for it? Let the architects of the Iraq slaughter tattle on themselves.

This is a sorrowful time, to see so many in the church being duped by lies. As one friend put it, “it’s like they’re all under a spell.” Let’s all pray that some information like this might open a few eyes.