In recent days, President Bush has gained ground building a
coalition and convincing the world that Saddam Hussein must be
ousted because he has broken U.N. Resolutions for too long. He
even helped to redefine the mission of the U.N.; to play an
active role in policing the world or else face irrelevancy. Even
though the Democrats and cautious members of the past Bush administration
the impetus for Bush�s turn around in policy, he still is not
willing to listen to the world.
Make no mistake about it, Bush will invade Iraq. It is what
his father did, and like a good ol� boy, he will follow in his
father�s footsteps. Now, don�t believe for one moment that
this war is for the good of humanity, and the security of the
free world. Bush the Senior did not go to war for the Kurds and
Kuwait, and Bush the Lesser is not going to war because of the
threat of nuclear or biological annihilation. Both scenarios seem largely
absurd when you consider that there are people being persecuted
much worse than were the Kurds in 1991, and that there are
bigger threats to our national security including Al Qaida,
Iran, North Korea, and China. It leads us to question what is
the real motive behind the Bush administration�s obsession
Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves in the world and it
is largely untapped because of Hussein�s attempts to evade
U.N. sanctions, and because of the nation�s poverty and
Now consider this: America consumes more
than one-quarter of the world�s oil, a number that has risen
in recent years.
Everyone always wonders why we cater and tolerate Saudi Arabia�s
dictators, and it is because of our need to regulate the oil
supply and prices that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) controls. Now, Bush understand (or at least
some in his administration) that oil fields, like stock
portfolios, are best secured when you diversify. After defeats
from environmentalists and the American people in Florida and
Alaska, Iraq is Bush�s idea for oil portfolio diversification.
To actually think that Hussein�s WMD program is the reason
for this war is ridiculous, and the whole world, except for the
hawks in Washington, seem to know this.
Recently, Air Force
General Richard Myers has said on ABC�s "This Week"
that the U.S. consensus is Hussein "does not have a nuclear
weapon." The CIA has also claimed it would be at least five
years (not just one year like Rumsfield would have us believe)
before they have a nuclear program. Without any new evidence of
Iraqi military operations, it is absurd that our country would
change focus away from the "War on Terror" and go to
war with a country that is no threat to our national security,
and will not be for many years. It is obvious that we are taking
advantage of this "War on Terrorism" in order to
continue our goal of world dominion by dominating the world�s
Now that moderate Powell is leading U.S. policy we can begin
to ease worries about a President who feels more comfortable
with a gun in his hand, than with a thought in his head.
the Democrats have had a continuing influence on the
administration, but caution that has been echoed from every
leader in the world, and the past Bush administration has had a
more lasting impact. For now, we will see if Bush sticks to his
word to "work with the U.N. Security Council for the
necessary resolution" before military action, as he
promised in his speech at the U.N. annual summit. And the world
can rest a little bit easier knowing that it has its world
leaders, Powell, the Democratic Party, and the American people
are not willing to put up with Bush�s unilateralist views.
Dirty Political Tricks
Scan your PC for viruses now!
Magazine of the Month
: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson
by Kenneth R. Timmerman
Sale (30 to 50% off)
Shop for Your Princess at DisneyStore.com
by Ann Coulter
DVD's Under $10 at buy.com!