Questions for Bush on Iraq

Dear President Bush:

I have read your address to the nation on “The New Way Forward in Iraq” and wish to share some observations.

You say “where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.” You then quickly change the subject. Whoa now, what does it mean when you say the responsibility for mistakes rest with you?

Responsibility for “mistakes” that led to the invasion-which other prominent officials and former officials say were based on inaccurate information, deceptions, and cover-ups?

Responsibility for the condoning of torture, even after the notorious events at abu-Gharib prison were disclosed?

Responsibility for months and months of inability to equip our soldiers with body armor and vehicle armor that resulted in over 1,000 lost American lives and many disabilities?

Responsibility for the gross mismanagement over outsourcing both service and military tasks to corporations such as Haliburton that have wasted tens of billions of dollars, including billions that simply disappeared without account?

Responsibility for serious undercounting of official U.S. injuries in Iraq-because the injuries were not incurred in direct combat-so as to keep down political opposition to the war in this country?

Over and over again, during your political campaigns you called for consequences to attach to bad or failing behavior. Responsibility means consequences, you said.

Well just how does that belief apply to you, as a failed and disastrous commander-in-chief and caretaker of both American soldiers, American tax dollars and, under international law, the safety of Iraqi civilians?

You said, “I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister… that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.” But you have stated on many prior occasions that a U.S. retreat from Iraq would be catastrophic. Now you imply that if the Iraqi government does not deliver, the U.S. commitment will end. Which is it?

And the Iraq war has lost the support of the American people some time ago.

What are the people to believe “not open-ended” means? Especially since your new Secretary of Defense told the Congress that within two months it will be known whether your troop escalation strategy is working or not.

You said that your Administration will “partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.” Why do you continue to use misleading euphemisms? They are not “coalition brigades”-they are U.S. soldier brigades. Even the British want to draw down their small number of troops.

You said that a discovered al Qaeda document describes “the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of [Anbar Province].” “This would bring al Qaeda,” you asserted, “closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.” Since your field commanders’ estimate a total of 1300 al Qaeda, mostly foreign fighters, widely disliked and increasingly opposed by the local people and their tribal leaders, why are you continuing to engage in this preposterous sequence of doom, this politics of mega fear ala your neo-conservative advisors? Why indeed, do you do this when your own intelligence officials, including your former Director of the CIA, Porter J. Goss, and military leaders in Iraq, have said publicly that the U.S. military occupation has been a magnet for the attraction and training of more and more terrorists, including those from other countries who will acquire demolition and other skills before leaving Iraq.

Your comment that victory in Iraq will bring a “functioning democracy that upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people,” invites the response, “Have you done this in our country?”

Given your serial civil liberties’ violations, frequent mockery of the rule of law and our Constitution, and your ignoring the judgment of last November’s election (not to mention the desire by 70 percent of U.S. soldiers polled last January in Iraq wanting you to leave within 6 to 12 months), there is a pronounced lack of consistency here.

Finally, you conclude that “We mourn the loss of every fallen American-and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.”

Why not some exemplary sacrifice from the Bush family? What is keeping those bright, capable daughters-Jenna and Barbara-from showing that the family is not expecting everybody but the Bush family to sacrifice? Why are they not demonstrating their sacrifice and resolve for your Iraq democracy war by enlisting into the armed forces?

Could it be that they disagree with your policies? Or could it be that they do not consider your war-quagmire “worthy of their sacrifice?”



More articles by:

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! 

Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
Farzana Versey
What Religion is Your Nationalism?
Clark T. Scott
The Focus on Trump Reveals the Democrat Model
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Do Bernie’s Supporters Know What “Not Me, Us” Means? Does Bernie?
Peter Harley
Aldo Leopold, Revisited
Winslow Myers
A Presidential Speech the World Needs to Hear
Christopher Brauchli
The Chosen One
Jim Britell
Misconceptions About Lobbying Representatives and Agencies
Ted Rall
Trump Gets Away with Stuff Because He Does
Mel Gurtov
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the Insecurity of China’s Leadership
Nicky Reid
Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion
Tom H. Hastings
Cross-Generational Power to Change
John Kendall Hawkins
1619: The Mighty Whitey Arrives
Julian Rose
Why I Don’t Have a Mobile Phone
David Yearsley
Parasitic Sounds
Elliot Sperber
Class War is Chemical War
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides