Is it possible that the Were here to
establish democracy rationale being used to justify
the continued occupation of Iraq is just as false and
deceptive as the rationale that Iraqs weapons
of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the
United States?
After all, think about it: When was the last time you
heard President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Powell, or any of their minions pressure such countries
as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, or Egypt about the need
to establish democracy? If democracy
is supposed to be so important to U.S. officials as to
justify an invasion of a country an invasion that
was sure to cost the lives of thousands of innocent
people wouldnt you think that those federal
officials would be fervently promoting democracy
elsewhere in the region, especially among friendly
regimes?
Yet, hardly a peep on democracy to the nondemocratic regimes
in the surrounding area! Not even in Kuwait, where U.S.
officials intervened for freedom more than a decade ago
in the Persian Gulf War!
Also, think about this: If democracy is so important as
to justify a deadly and destructive invasion, why has the
U.S. government continually furnished millions of dollars
in foreign aid to nondemocratic governments, including
those in the Middle East? Wouldnt you think that if
democracy is as important to U.S. officials as they say
it is, they would have terminated the giving of U.S.
taxpayer monies to nondemocratic regimes a long time ago?
Is it not possible that one primary objective in Iraq was
to establish a puppet regime, democratic or not
that is, a regime that would do the bidding of the U.S.
government, including the granting of important
concessions to U.S. companies with long-established ties
to U.S. officials? Is it not possible that that was an
important part of Operation Iraqi Liberation? Isnt
it possible that thats the reason the Iraqi
Governing Council consists of U.S. appointees rather than
people elected by the Iraqi people? Isnt that the
real reason that federal officials have banned elections in Iraq, even at the local
level?
After all, lets not forget that during the 1980s
the U.S. government was once an ardent supporter of
Saddam Hussein, knowing full well that he was not
democratically elected (at least not in legitimate elections). In fact, lets also not
forget that it was the cozy relationship between U.S.
officials and Saddam that caused the United States
to furnish Saddam with his chemical and
biological weapons the same weapons that later
became the primary rationale for invading Iraq (before it
was later replaced by the love-of-democracy rationale).
If U.S. officials had no reservations about supporting
Saddam when he was their man in Baghdad,
doesnt that make their professed love of democracy
in Iraq somewhat suspicious? Indeed, given that they also
supported the nondemocratically-elected shah of Iran (the
cruel and brutal dictator of that country) and,
for that matter, still ardently embrace the nondemocratic and tyrannical military regime currently ruling in
Pakistan (which harbored the Taliban) why should
we believe that U.S. officials have, all of sudden,
acquired a born-again fervor for democracy in Iraq?
Indeed, why shouldn't we believe that the newly found U.S.
government love for democracy in Iraq is just one more
part of the falsehood and deception that infects the
entire Iraqi adventure?
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|