[Vision2020] Why are we there?

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Dick,

I thought to myself when I first asked you the question, "He's not going to 
play word games, is he?  Are we going to end up hearing about the definition 
of 'Is?'"  And here we are, with you claiming the inspectors were not 
allowed full access.  But you did answer, and I thank you for that.

Let's set that aside their access for now.  That's not what Bush has been 
saying.  He says 'They weren't allowed in.'  That's a lie, one he's told at 
least three times.  Surely he knows the difference between full access and 
entry.  How can he keep telling this whopper?  Has he convinced it's true?  
If so, being delusional strikes me as a problem when one is the 'decider.'  
I honestly can't understand how he's been able to repeat this.  I don't 
think his handlers care if he does, because apparently it doesn't matter 
what he says.

OK, back to access.  My recollection is that they were allowed access, on 
terms no one thought the Iraqis would accept.  I'll check on this.

Why do I think we're there?  I think Paul Wolfowitz told us back in May, 
2003, in the Vanity Fair interview.  Here's the pertinant quote:

'There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by 
almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement 
between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of 
our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years 
has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's 
been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin 
Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called 
crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting 
that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other 
positive things.'

I lifted it from here: 
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

I think that different groups within the administration had different 
reasons, or saw different benefits to this war, but the underlying reason 
was to build permanent bases in Iraq and then move our troops out of Saudi 
Arabia.  The government wants troops there (and it was the same when Clinton 
was in office) but Saudi Arabia wasn't working.

That's why there is no withdrawal strategy, because they never intended to 
withdraw the troops, not all of them, anyway.  They thought they'd establish 
a friendly government with Chalabi in charge, or one of his buddies, and we 
would be invited to stay.  That plan hasn't quite worked.

But we're building the bases, though the Senate's recent appropriations bill 
said that funds were not to be used to build permanent bases.  The 
administration seems to like the word 'enduring' instead of 'permanent.'  
What does 'is' mean again?

And yes, I do think they will lie to us about this.  I also think all of us, 
whether we agree with the war or not, should be asking questions about how 
we're going to fund these bases and the war.  How can we cut taxes while 
spending billions a day in Iraq?

We want the bases because in the end it's about access to oil.  This should 
have been debated in Congress before the war.  It should be debated now; 
better late than never.  I don't think Bush will do it, and I think Congress 
is cowardly enough not to either.  They won't approach the discussion until 
they think it's safe to do so, much as the media has done.

Let me be clear, Dick, I do think that Saddam was an evil man and a butcher. 
  But I can't join in all the attacks on him, because we simply didn't care 
about that back when he was our boy.  We assisted him in his war with Iran.  
I think it's hypocritical to suddenly condemn him.  The times he used poison 
gas?  That was when we supported him, and we didn't care a whole lot about 
it then.

Sunil


>From: "rvrcowboy" <rvrcowboy at clearwire.net>
>To: "Vision2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>,        "Sunil Ramalingam" 
><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] When good men do nothing...
>Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:31:01 -0700
>
>Sunil,
>
>I have read the cite you gave about the U.N. Inspectors.  I have also read
>many others, some agreeing with you and some not.  The point being that
>having inspectors in Iraq is not the same as those inspectors being allowed
>to inspect.  It is easy to pick just one cite and base your whole opinion
>set on it without taking into account that nearly all news sources today 
>are
>not fair and balanced on any topic.  Picking one that supports your own
>personal views without researching others that do not just isn't honest.  
>To
>be honest with you, I do not, at this time, believe the inspectors were
>being allowed to do their job, even though they were allowed to be in
>country.
>
>As for why we went to Iraq in the first place.  You know, as well as I, we
>could argue that forever.  I do believe there was intelligence, right or
>wrong, indicating Saddam had WMD.  Even Saddam appeared to give the
>impression he did, perhaps just to keep his enemies at bay, who knows?  I 
>do
>believe Iraq, under Saddam, was a state sponsor of terrorism.  I also
>believe that because of our involvement in Iraq, we most likely have not
>experienced another 9/11 situation here in our own country.
>
>I believe we are still there because the Iraqi military is not yet ready to
>defend the new government and its people.  Again, this is a topic we could
>argue for a long time but that is what I believe to be the main reason.  
>Why
>do you think we are?
>
>I do not know if we were 100% justified in the Iraqi invasion or not.
>Perhaps no one will ever know.  I do not, however, believe there were 
>secret
>agendas and hidden motives behind it.  For example, all the libs were
>screaming it was just for oil, well, where the hell is the oil?  We could
>certainly use some of it.
>
>Bottom line is that I do not feel guilty because we invaded Iraq.  I 
>believe
>Saddam could have prevented it if he had chosen too do so.  I also do not
>discount all the human suffering and torture under his regime.  When we add
>up the Iraqi death tolls, we should ask ourselves who is inflicting them 
>and
>how many people were dying annually under Saddam's regime.
>
>Sometimes good men are compelled to do the right thing.  Also, good men,
>like all men, sometimes make mistakes.  Still, all in all, I believe we are
>on the right track despite all the hatred from the left trying to spread
>quilt on Americans for trying to do the right thing.
>
>That is my opinion.  You are welcome to yours but I will never understand
>why people hate their own President more than the henious dictators of
>countries who kill their own people without remorse.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dick S.