American Empire, War Politics

Cheney’s Reasons for Invading Iraq – According to Cheney Himself

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.

Visits: 119

Leave a Comment

27 Comments

  • NP. and that was me too. I’m still weighing the few other possibilities (ways I might be wrong) but it sure seems like occupying the world to protect our economy — in the name of freedom and even ‘God’– is just BAD. Jackboots, lol yea…

    suppose it was actually good to set Iraq ‘free’ from Saddam. OK. Great. But we can’t ignore that now they’re going to be ‘allies’ and ‘economic partners’ which means the Iraqis will be feeling the same side effects of Westernization that the west is suffering from. I hope they resist us. I really hope they decide to keep us at a healthy distance, and maybe the US shows its true colors by rejecting the situation and reinstalling another ‘puppet dictator’ within a year. That would sastisfy me for proof that the US is not fighting the good fight.

    But I’m afraid it’s too late… they’ve had their taste and are already feeling the effects of our favorite legal drug: entertainment. Here’s the story:

    http://www.educationnews.org/satellite-television-is-iraq.htm

  • RobCouto, thanks. I forgot to include that one. Where I got clued in to all of this was through Craig Unger’s “House of Bush/House of Saud,” and he did mention that. After posting the above, I finally located the quote (I am four states away from my copy of HBHS). However one wants to interpret the utterly flaccid response of the Administration to 9/11 – and the ample news that it was coming – something is really askew. The more I attend other Christian blogsites, the more I get alarmed about all the locker room smells and jackboots in the House of God, if you will.

  • Oh, good. I’m not the only one pointing to this rather condemning self-documentation. On pages 50-51 of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, released in 2000, mind you, is this juicy little tidbit:

    “A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger policy goals and would trouble American allies.

    Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event­ like a
    new Pearl Harbor.”

    This statement alone can give a great deal of force to “conspiracy theories” that we actually staged the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to say that we did or didn’t; if this administration’s actions are evil, and if they are responding to evil done to us, then all I need to do is remember that evil people on this planet are being manipulated by God’s enemy and it all makes sense.

 
Share
Share
Tweet