February 21, 2008
by Anok Kropotkin

The Plague of Revisionist History.

It seems to me that there are more - or simply still - people in the American population who are greatly confused by the actions of our president and administration. More specifically, there is a younger generation, the future, who are using the same techniques of cherry picking and flip-flopping of information to achieve the desired results so that they can sleep better at night, thinking they made the right choice in supporting a wholly corrupt government.

Or is it that simple?

I am always shocked when I see or hear a person from an older generation fall for lies and deceit. Although some do so simply because they lack the ability to change, so they go along with whatever their party or president of choice does, because they can't do anything else, even if they disagree with policies and actions. The younger crowd has always seemed to be the crowd most ready for change, and easily question the actions of authority figures. The youngest of us - those just graduating high school - have always been the hope of the aforementioned generation, hoping they would join in and not just help initiate change, but be the generation to make the changes last.

Lately, I have noticed a swarm of this youngest generation behave in the same corrupt manners as our current leaders. Could this be the ultimate backlash of poor role models taking leadership positions? I fully understand the passion and exuberance of youth; I understand the almost desperate need not to just be right, but to defend their parent's beliefs (believe it or not). But what I can't understand is the lack of independence, the lack of questioning of authority, the lack of "punk" so to speak.

However, indeed I felt it would be prudent to look, really look, at the events that led up to, and influenced the invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr. Even compared to many of the folks that I read or speak to on a daily basis I found that once you start putting everything together from the multitude of sources that we all use and reference it all makes more sense, so much more sense than it ever did before. From domestic policies, attempted wars, international intervention, UN sanctions and "spies" - the end result is a damning amount of information that does everything but put the president and vice president behind bars.

Still yet, some of the information calls into question whether or not we should retroactively hold previous presidents accountable as well, for the parts they played in creating the international quagmire that has resulted in such political negligence. More than just lost lives, world-wide rebukes, and mounting deficit woes - this action, the most current war our country has waged - has left a gaping hole in international policy that may harm countries and foreign relations for generations to come.

The time has come for individuals to understand the greater ramifications of unchecked national pride, ignorance and indifference towards the policies set forth by united councils - as well as heed the deafening sound of voices world wide, echoing against the now vacant halls of responsible, ethical politicians. The best place to start would be at the beginning. To fully understand what has happened, why it has happened and what the underlying purpose is, it isn't good enough to look back over one or two presidential terms - one must go back farther, to the root of the problem. The premise, as it were, is to take a look and un-revise the history that much of America seems not to remember, or even know. Our youth needs to know the whole, uncovered truth if they are to eventually lead this country.

In the "Beginning."

In 1990, George H. W. Bush and his cabinet decided, (partially) in concert with the previous Reagan administration to intervene in the invasion of Kuwait by then Dictator Saddam Hussein. This served several purposes, one, the U.S. was looking for a way to help Americans get over the opposition to military intervention, an American sentiment since Vietnam, two Bush needed to boost his popularity as the '92 elections were fast approaching (what better way than ousting a dictator?), as well as gaining more influence over OPEC than any other country has ever had.

Much like the current war in Iraq, Bush and the CIA went after the war in secret. Although the U.N. had placed sanctions against Hussein - sanctions that were working - Bush brought the troop numbers in Iraq up to half a million right after Democrats had gains in congress from the November elections. Much like this time around, the U.S. also sought American popular support by playing up the aspect of "Liberating Kuwait" even though (like this time) the U.S. showed no signs of concern or need to liberate any other country being occupied by a military force, or oppression by a dictator.

Again the U.S. brought forth claims of Iraq's ability to build a nuclear bomb, although once again all intelligence said otherwise. Not only did Iraq need years to build a bomb, they had no delivery method to boot. On August 29th 1990, there had been an opportunity to negotiate Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, but war-bent-Bush said "No negations."

In January of '91, Bush convinced Congress to let the U.S. go to war with Iraq. The U.S. gave Hussein an ultimatum, he defied it, and we invaded. Eventually the U.N.'s sanctions brought a ceasefire from Hussein, and he withdrew from Kuwait. UNSCR 687 (1991) left a laundry list of "things to do " for Iraq, such as respecting borders for Kuwait, and disarming any potential nuclear weapons, claiming any and all weapons or files etc. Yet the U.S. continued to follow Hussein straight into Iraq - then for some odd reason stopped short in Baghdad.

Bush never did unseat the brutal dictator, even though he had every chance to do so.

Iraq Invasion, Take Two. Enter in the Clinton Administration.

Bush, despite his last ditch attempt to win popularity by invading Iraq lost the election because quite frankly, people didn't want a war for oil. The population went for the "candidate of change", a Democrat something new in the Whitehouse. I firmly believe that the hope was for economic surplus, and peace. Granted, Bush did bring the economy back from the depths of the Reagan administration (if you are one to go by GDP's), but it still wasn't good enough - not for many people. Even still - the election was lack luster, with an underwhelming amount of voter turnout to support Clinton (or Bush and even fewer voting for Perot).

The fact remains that however hopeful the American populace was, the Clinton administration just seemed better at keeping its misdeeds under wraps. For the purpose of this essay, and without getting too far into the Clinton administration's doings, even Clinton sought to go after the Middle East In fact, both the Bush administration's invasion and the Clinton administration's decision to go into Iraq after sanction violations seem to be the reoccurring nightmare playing over and over again in American history.

(Article Continues Below)

Have we lost the ability to learn from past mistakes? Apparently not, as Clinton decided to bomb Baghdad for four days following sanction violations. At least however, Clinton didn't opt to send ground troops and occupy Iraq. He also at the very least, called back American planes after U.N. Secretary - General Annan had made last minute negotiations with Hussein. The other theory that is floating around is that the bombings were also linked to Hussein's clumsy attempt at assassinating president Bush.

The rhetoric comes into play when you listen to Clinton's speeches about Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. It is so similar to the rhetoric we hear now that the mention of September 11th is the only way to tell the difference. (Well, that and the ability to articulate coherent thoughts.)

The Axis of Evil, and the War on Terror.

After Bush Jr. was appointed the presidency, and sworn into office the inevitable happened. The backlash of previous years, and systematic invasions of the Middle East had finally come to a head, and exactly eleven years to the very date his father swore to create a New World Order, and invade the Middle East in the same breath, they took their revenge.

Coincidence? Again, I'll say I think not.

That not withstanding however, Our government saw the perfect opportunity to take what they have coveted for so many years. The Middle East has been seen as the "Key to the World" by many nations, throughout centuries, for a variety of reasons. This has not changed, and the US has long been aiming for a greater presence in OPEC, to line Big Oil's profit pockets, and to guarantee that oil production will bend to our needs, above others.

This attack, with the world's sympathy as our strongest ally, opened up the possibility of attacking Iraq, and then moving forward to other countries under the guise of altruistic attempts to rid the world of its "Axis of Evil". The debate as to whether or not our government allowed, caused, or encouraged the September 11th attacks is immaterial here, because it happened, and no amount of theorizing will change that fact.

One can speculate, but the end results remain the same.

There is a reason we, the US have been so far unsuccessful in the invasion of Iraq, prior to the terrorist attacks. In fact, there are several. One big reason is that we, the US no matter how badly Hussein behaved, counted on his political alliance throughout many decades, for a variety of politically and financially motivated reasons.

We, the US, also had no real, tangible way to get in, stay in, and move forward to other parts of the Middle East without stirring up too many questions. Therefore, Islamic based terror attacks became the perfect justification for the US to invade, and occupy the Middle East. Bush and his administration immediately undertook the task of compiling several justifications for invading.

One justification, and still considered the biggest one, was the need to hunt down terrorists. Hence, our invasion into Afghanistan, which until recently barely hit the main stream media as major news, many people didn't even realize we, or Al-Queda were there. The US also used the rumor of terrorist cells, and terrorist sympathizers hiding in Iraq as excuse number one, for invasion into Iraq.

Because the UN and several major hurdles in the US throughout the departments and the country doubted the validity of the US's accusation that Hussein was harboring Bin Laden and/or his affiliates, they fell back on previous reports and less than cooperative behavior by Hussein with regards to weapons of varying sorts. Most notably, the "weapons of mass destruction" that never were.

When Clinton was in office, and indeed long before that Hussein had used biological and chemical weapons against his neighboring countries, including Iran. Hussein had also defied the UN's sanctions against him, and repeatedly refused access to the UN inspectors. This became a leverage point for the Bush administration, and they used it for all it was worth. The third, and increasingly more desperate emotive reason, was that Hussein was a heinous dictator, known for torture and other abhorrent, inhumane acts.

This was never a real reason, was hardly ever mentioned in UN meetings or briefings, and lived in the realm of news programs, public speeches, and presidential press releases to gain momentum, and support at home. The UN, US, and a great deal of Sanctions.

In 2002 after the attacks, the US began pressuring the UN to allow an invasion into Iraq, as a means to destroy the world of terrorists. The UN, and all but four countries (including the US) made it clear that violence was not to be used. The UN allows the use of force for only two reasons; Article 42, or the authorized use of force Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. And article 51, or the use of self defense in a time of immediate, and impending danger. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. With that in mind, the US tried as hard as it could to convince the members of the UN that "preemptive self defense was appropriate, and should be allowed. The US was largely outvoted, and the UN began anew with sanctions issuances to Hussein. Hussein began cooperating.

On December 30th 2002, the UN issued another sanction, stating that they requested 180 days to look over the new documentation from Hussein, and the inspectors and requested that all members of the UN abide by their request. Most members felt that the sanctions were working, and the UN wanted enough time to make a thorough determination. Instead of abiding by that sanction, the US began deploying ships to Iraq, fully equipped for war on January 6th, 2003, just seven days into the requested time.

The US understood that it lacked the international support to go to war, and so decided to use force without UN approval. It has since come to the surface that the majority, if not all, of the information used to convince the world that this war was justified was either a shameless lie, "bad information", lack of proper intelligence and interdepartmental communication, ignored reports, and political slight of hand. And yet, the much of the American public is still in the dark.

Sources:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ http://www.lcnp.org/global/iraqstatement3.htm http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active:

Click Here for the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Anok Kropotkin [send email] is a freelance writer and novice investigator. He's a self-described political junkie, who feels that the voices of average Americans need to be heard. So he rants, raves, and writes. Visit his website at http://identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com