Citizens for a Legitimate Government(1) runs a challenging news page with articles from all over the world, having to do with the activities of our current government. This morning I read the following news through CLG:
Bush will continue in the Preemptive War Strategy that he implemented with the current Iraq war.
It has already been demonstrated, again and again that Bush's motivation for going to war WAS NOT to fight Terror, but rather as a bludgeon for the movement of Big Business to secure Iraq's oil fields. Bush even said, in a very rare statement, that we went into Iraq for the oil. He claimed it was to prevent the oil from falling into the hands of terrorists, which would provide financing for their operations.
Here's Bush's quote from the Boston Globe of August 31, 2005(2):
''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."
When you combine that Ill-logic, with the Policy of Preemption, what will prevent our country from choosing to take over ANY lucrative industry, so it doesn't fall into the hands of terrorists? The rest of the world's governments, democratically selected or not, has reason to fear this arrogant stance. Isn't FEAR the primary emotion of Terror? With the policy of Preemption, for economic domination, who has joined the ranks of terrorists?
Bush to Restate Terror Strategy
2002 Doctrine of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirmed
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 16, 2006; Page A01
President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.
.....
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a greater emphasis on working with allies and declares diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."
Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush described an Iran with nuclear arms as a "grave threat to the security of the world."
The rest of the original article and active embedded links, including one to the actual US policy as written:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The realization that Bush and company planned the Iraqi war even before 9/11, seems to have no bearing on the neo-con domination madness. An article from a year ago, tells that story. The author, Greg Palast, is the US journalist who felt he had to leave the US to continue reporting, after his expose' on the massive voter disenfranchisement during the 2000 election in Florida. He continues to investigate the Bush Administration.
Using the Freedom of Information Act, a joint request from Palast, Newsnight and Harper's magazine exposed a plan by oil companies, our government, and Britain, to force a coup d'etate in Iraq. Apparently, this was to take control of Iraq's oil fields, so that OPEC would have competition in the region. Most disturbing is that this planning took place even before September 11, 2001!
http://www.choicechanges.com/...
(1)From Citizens for a Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/
(2)
http://www.boston.com/...
Explore more of Choice Changes:
http://www.choicechanges.com