You are herecontent / Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war


Bush gives new reason for Iraq war
Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists
By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press | August 31, 2005

CORONADO, Calif. -- President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

''We will defeat the terrorists," Bush said. ''We will build a free Iraq that will fight terrorists instead of giving them aid and sanctuary."

Appearing at Naval Air Station North Island to commemorate the anniversary of the Allies' World War II victory over Japan, Bush compared his resolve to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's in the 1940s and said America's mission in Iraq is to turn it into a democratic ally just as the United States did with Japan after its 1945 surrender. Bush's V-J Day ceremony did not fall on the actual anniversary. Japan announced its surrender on Aug. 15, 1945 -- Aug. 14 in the United States because of the time difference.

Democrats said Bush's leadership falls far short of Roosevelt's.

''Democratic Presidents Roosevelt and Truman led America to victory in World War II because they laid out a clear plan for success to the American people, America's allies, and America's troops," said Howard Dean, Democratic Party chairman. ''President Bush has failed to put together a plan, so despite the bravery and sacrifice of our troops, we are not making the progress that we should be in Iraq. The troops, our allies, and the American people deserve better leadership from our commander in chief."

The speech was Bush's third in just over a week defending his Iraq policies, as the White House scrambles to counter growing public concern about the war. But the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast drew attention away; the White House announced during the president's remarks that he was cutting his August vacation short to return to Washington, D.C., to oversee the federal response effort.

After the speech, Bush hurried back to Texas ahead of schedule to prepare to fly back to the nation's capital today. He was to return to the White House on Friday, after spending more than four weeks operating from his ranch in Crawford.

Bush's August break has been marked by problems in Iraq.

It has been an especially deadly month there for US troops, with the number of those who have died since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 now nearing 1,900.

The growing death toll has become a regular feature of the slightly larger protests that Bush now encounters everywhere he goes -- a movement boosted by a vigil set up in a field down the road from the president's ranch by a mother grieving the loss of her soldier son in Iraq.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Crawford only days after Bush did, asking for a meeting so he could explain why her son and others are dying in Iraq. The White House refused, and Sheehan's camp turned into a hub of activity for hundreds of activists around the country demanding that troops be brought home.

This week, the administration also had to defend the proposed constitution produced in Iraq at US urging. Critics fear the impact of its rejection by many Sunnis, and say it fails to protect religious freedom and women's rights.

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure" from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He finally told the truth. It was for OIL!

I strongly suspect that, if he had told the truth at the outset, he'd have had the full support of most Americans. My impression is that there is no great aversion to invasions and occupations of other countries so long as the public are convinced that it's neccessary to sustain the "American way of life" (TM) as they know it.

The cause doesn't have to be "noble", just clearly self-interested.

Arvy, maybe he would have had your support, but NOT mine! I don't know where you get off being so sure he would have had "full support of most Americans"? You really think the world would have stood by if this war was announced as one based on oil??? Hell, millions around the world protested the war as it was!!! Remember, BushCo and BlairCo were developing (i.e. "fixing") the evidence to fit the policy....why?.... for legal justifications! But since Hussein did not bite with military retaliation of the Blair/UN Inspecting Scheme (and therefore making the invasion acceptable and "legal"), BushCo came on like gangbusters declaring the peril of the world within minutes in the shape of a "mushroom cloud" (i.e. "the smoking gun!")

Yes, this war was about the PNAC agenda all the way (which includes oil, but a helluva lot more!). Bush Jr was just merely a hand picked bimbo by the old Reagan/GOP war room headshed (Schultze, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc). Bush Jr is just a sad and foolish characterization of a "leader" put in place by these cronies. PNAC is the real Presidential person, if you will, in this imperial nightmare! For God's sake, not to insult my Missouri neighbors, but there are hillbillies in the Ozarks that could run circles around "the Shrub!" Bush is a joke. Barring two stolen elections (which I personally believe happened), the only thing more frightening is that this dumbshit airhead country voted for him!

You first fill the author's mouth with your own words, and then attack those words. This does not advance your cause.

So we are FINALLY at the TRUTH, where we should have been in March 2003. Bush NOW claims that OIL is the reason for the Iraq War. Any reasonable individual knew that all along. It's time for IMPEACHMENT for the most lying, criminal, President in U.S. history. NOTHING MORE WILL DO. MOREVER, HE SHOULD BE TRIED FOR "CRIMES AGAINST PEACE", "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY" "CRIMES AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION", "CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW" and finally, "VIOLATIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION"---then either executed or confined to prison for the rest of his miserable life.

I AGREE!

on another event. It's all about timing.

So the Far Reich is claiming the resolve of FDR? While at the same time trying to dismantle every economic achievement of FDR?
Although its a horrible engagement, we are not involved in a "War" of nations (WWI, WWII), we are involved in a police action akin to :
1. Barbary Pirates (Early 1800's; read latest books published about
these events which took place during Jefferson's term).
2. Mexican War (1840's; An action which U.S. Grant deemed an unfair
land grab)
3. Indian Wars (mid to late 1800's, Enough be said)
4. Anarchists (late 1800's, e.g. Haymarket Square)

These are "police" actions, and this is not meant to denigrate the sacrifice of those killed in these engagements. None of these events involved the potential take-over of America by a foreign power. Much can be said about Korea and Vietnam, but I have to say that these conflicts were part of the "Cold War" where USSR was indeed a threat.
Spanish-American War? Well, that was just us sweeping out the remnants of a once-powerful nation.

5. Terrorists? Iraq is totally off the mark. We should have followed the history of the action against the Barbary Pirates - hit Afghanistan hard with all our might to eradicate all traces of Bin Laden and his followers. And guess what? - they couldn't run to Iraq because Saddam Hussein wouldn't tolerate them!! Thus, we would have had Bin Laden swinging on a rope while leaving the UN to deal with that Iraqi tinpot dictator who was ready to cave in anyhow.

So - compare to WWII? Forget it, we were attacked by the Japanese nation and Goering (Leader of the German Luftwaffe) had bombing maps created for NYC.

Think if Jefferson decided, instead of sending special naval expeditionary forces to beat the crap out of the Islamic Barbary Pirates, to send our armed forces to occupy Tripoli and, hey, why not Egypt?
We'd probably still be there, and Virginia and southwards would probably be a separate nation since the 1860's.

The U.S.Pledge:>Yes they pledge it all right you know well who order it.,Thats bUSH way of saying bring them on.......all this was sent by the bUSHs who all they do is hate.and pat rob///...,.THE goD of the republicans who hate all poeple back brown they name it they will tell you lets terroris all them fucker killing them it a call thers gOD......

Well if there were were no WMD's, and no actual direct threat to this nation, as we sebsequently have discovered, then it becomes necessary to look for some other underlying rational for the invasion of Iraq.

But in the search for answer's, it's necessary to look further back to 911 and beyond. How far back? To the creation of the PNAC and their principals of, essentially, global domination of the remaining oil reserves in the Mid-East. The major clue's are to be found within their admited desire's and intention's.

Some time ago, Dick Cheney sat in a meetting addressing the issue of oil production peaking which essentially entails the subsequent decline of global oil reserves and the impact on the U S economy.
The continued economic growth of this country is predicated on energy which is the essential element to sustain our industrial capicity. Mr cheney knew that as a result of oil production peaking, other nation's, like the EU but especially developing nation's like China and India will attempt to gain some foothold for control of these remaining reserves to satisfy their needs at a possible cost to the United States in obtaining our needed quantitie's. Economic growth in our economy is predicated by increased needs to these same reserves. Make no mistake about it, oil production peaking essentially means a decline in what remains of global reserves and stiff competition which at the local level results in higher prices to consumer's.

So, in plain english folks, it's like this. Global demand for fossil fuel energy is at record demand. But at the same time the global supplies, of raw crud is sliping into decline. This includes natural gas supplies. (goggle Hupperts peak theory)

Our government, this administration, has decided not to throw in with the rest of the world and work with other nation's in finding the best alternative sources to fossil fuel usage. Going down this path would result in all the consumer nations comming to some mutul aggreement in distribution of the remaining supplie's while through cooperation, a viable alternative is decided upon and developed. And actually there is no assurance that a reliable long term alternative could be developed that would fill the entire void left from the eventual complete decline of fossil fuel energy.

But it is reasonable to assume that nation's working together is certainly disirable to nations acquireing an attitude of "every nation for itself". That would certainly result in major decline in civilization. But that appears exactly the attitude this administration has decided upon. The president has essentially admitted that our millitary is in Iraq to "protect the oil fields"!
The truth is our millitary was sent to Iraq to seize the oil fields because our economy depends on continueing to receive sufficient oil to feed a hungry economy that relies soly on the predication of energy.

But this president could not approach the US congress and the American population, and say, "look! Our oil industry leader's have advised that global oil supply is slipping into a declining state and we gotta go sieze whats left before some other nation gets it all first soooo,,, we want to send the U S Army into Iraq as a first step, and get complete control of saddam's reserves. Then, we'll take what Iran has, and next we'll destabalize Saudi Arabia and get their reserves too! You see then,,,, we'll domminate the whole world, if this all works like Dick and I think it will, so, can we go? Will you support this? Can we have the troops?"

Common sense would arge that the U S Congress and the American population would never support such an endeavor on fiscal and moral issues. It is reasonable to assume the bush administration< comming into power back in 2000, was well aware they could never present this plan in this manner. so, what was their alternative? The answer can be found within the doctrine of the PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY! THEY NEEDED A MAJOR PEARL HARBOR EVENT that would scare every living soul in this country to the extent that support for any major millitary operation anywhere would be possible to go after any group, any nation, they wanted. 911 was that event!

For any of you non beleiver's, goggle "911BUSTERS" and pull up the site produced by the Citizens Independent 911 Commission. Here you will find windows media viewer vidieo's to watch and to listen.
here is what you do after you pull up their home page.
Scroll down till you come to a list of presentations in blue lettering. click on the one that says misc audio/vidieo of evidence exposing the 911 cover up.
The first vidieo to watch is "PAINFULL DECEPTIONS". the WMV stream is the most common format.
Then, go back out to the home page, scroll down further(below the first list) till you bring up a large master list(it'll fill your screen) of different speakers who lectured when the Independent Commission met last fall.
Look for the listing of MIKE RUPPERT! LISTEN CAREFULLY TO EVERYTHING HE SAYS. i reserched him to determine his level of credibility and i assure everyone he is credible indeed. If you feel you want to hear more of mr RUPPERT, go back into the room where PAINFILL DECEPTIONS was located and click on the link there to the Independent 911 commission where you'll find additional lectures and MR RUPPERT further lectures are here too.
At some point, i recomend watching the vidieo called "THE END OF SURBUBIA" to get expert insight on the issue of OIL PRODUCTION PEAKING.

FOR THOSE INTERRESTED, IT IS BEST TO ROAM AROUND WITHIN 911BUSTERS AND FIMILLURIZE YOURSELF WITH NAVIGATING IN THERE SO YOU WONT GET LOST. I've been in there all summer (other 911 sites as well) and i recently finnished. All the information i gained has been thought provoking indeed. I've had manny restless nite these past weeks from the revelations i've learned. I've pretty much made my decision as to what i think. I invite any interrested party to go and learn and independently form your own conclusion, as i did.

Well, thats all i can say. Good luck to all who travel down that same information path i went down. It changed my perspective, for sure. Im sure it will for most who elect to obtain the kowledge.
thank you very much.**HUMPHREY**

Reasons? I highly doubt it, more like another excuse. Oil being the truth for attacking Iraq is also suspect. The truth lies (pun intended) in the agenda writen out, signed (!), sealed, delivered and put into action from the PNAC. Oil is part of the parcle, but the true reasons for our attacking Iraq is to assure the United States the leadership of the world. To put it simply; WORLD DOMINATION! Iraq is only the first step in asserting US influance. Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt are all on the list as well. Also the United Nations - why else did Bush insist on Bolton (a PNAC founding member) as our ambassador to the UN?

If you think I'm making this up, read it from the horses mouth: Project for the New American Century: www.newamericancentury.org (read their Policy Statement and note the list of founding members, it'll scare the shit out of you!) Also read what Information Clearing House: www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html/ -- The Crisis Papers: www.crisispapers.org (article, "How We Got Into This Imperical Pickle: A PNAC Primer) and Project for the OLD American Century: www.oldamericancentury.org. have to say about these 'patriotic' americans. The Christian Science Monitor also has some good information in their archives. You say you've never heard of PNAC? They like to keep a low profile, work behind the scenes... in the dark. And to make matters worse, they RUN the country!

As for Bolton in the United Nations, can I add the Phillis Bennis article posted today at Alternet and TomPaine.com, "A Declaration of War" There is nothing else I can say, just READ IT!

1946

Global domination is predicated on a steady supply of fossil fuel energy, necessary to keep our industrial base functioning. So doesen't oil take on more importance?**HUMPHREY**

I'm really not "so sure", Rev Bray. I just strongly suspect it. My cynicism arises from a long history of U.S. "interventions" in other countries to protect and advance the interests of "America Incorporated" and from observing the "exceptionalism" that seems to be a predominant part of American attitudes, inculcated almost from birth.

Let's face it. "Do unto others" doesn't have much force in U.S. foreign policy today, if it ever did. The unofficial Wall Street motto "Greed is good" seems to have much greater influence and has become widely accepted in the daily life of the nation as well.

I may be wrong, of course, but it appears to me that the prevailing pattern of thought would grant very broad latitude to U.S. governments (of whatever political stripe) to secure the privileged position of a nation that comprises 5% of the world's population and consumes 26% of its oil production.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that those who support George W Bush did not know full well in their heart-of-hearts what his true ageneda was, even despite the rather transparent flim-flam of "liberation" and "freedom" for the Iraqi people.

Personally, I think he could have saved himself a lot of bother. But that doesn't mean that I like my own supposition. I'd much prefer to believe that you're right and I'm wrong about the "American way of life" (TM) and its adherents. It's not too late to change my mind in this particular case at least, but we'll see.

This was intended as a reply to Rev. Bradford Bray's post below. Sorry about the misplacement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.