Christmas is past, today is my 80th birthday, then new year is fast approaching. I'm reminded of an old movie short titled-"The March of Time". Back then time seemed to march very slowly, nowadays it goes by in a blur of speed. Today time is overfilled with events and the confusion of profusion.

For Christmas I received a book titled-"Assassin's Gate", by George Packer. I looked forward to reading this book and it has proved to be all that I had hoped for. The author has written an objective, non-polemic, background of the Iraq war. What I've read so far has been very enlightening regarding the many players that have had a part in developing the current scenario. Packer says that the '30s leftists who were concerned with the world class-stuggle later turned realist and then when the Cold War was over and the U.S. was the uncontested super power decided that they could accomplish their modified aims through the projection of military power- they are today's neo-cons.

The Iraqis in exile were urging a variety of initiatives. Wolfowitz had already made known his idea to preempt the Middle East to protect our oil interests. Enter David Perle, Kanan Makiya, and Ahmad Chilabi. These people, Makiya and Chilabi were the Iraqis, insinuated themselves into the policy making programs at the time. Chilabi was the most overtly aggressive suggesting that he would lead an insurgency against Saddam by enlisting the Shiites and Kurds provided he was backed up by U.S. military assistance and cash.

The Iraqis were urged to rebel but Cheney, Secretary of Defense, under Bush l, quashed the use of U.S. troops to support them stating that "we don't have a dog in the fight and shouldn't get into that quagmire." After the Gulf War, for whatever reason, Saddam was allowed to use helicopters. He used them to bomb and strafe the Shiites and Kurds unmercifully. This went on
until the "no fly" zones were imposed in North and South Iraq. Chilabi stayed safely in Washington, D.C. He is now a major player in the new Iraqi government as Oil Minister.

Now it is taking three years to train Iraqi soldiers sufficiently to protect Iraqi citizens. The Bremer lead provisional government scorned the use of the defeated Iraqi Army to maintain order and allowed chaos to run rampant. The remaining infrastructure was allowed to be destroyed also completely devastating an already severely depleted land.

The positive aspect of the Iraq War is the grandious notion that only through mlitary might can the snake pit of totalitarian governments in the Middle East be reformulated in the democratic mode and thus provide a stable, viable, environment for the Arabic populace. This is a noble motive and the goal could possibly be achieved by a more adroit, coalition building, U.N. led consortium involving most major countries of the world. Obviously the current, in your face, my way or the highway, you are either for us or against us, non-diplomatic, policy is counterproductive.

Now we know the Shiites will form a coalition with the Kurds. That will set the tone for the constitution formulation. If the Sunnis feel they are getting a bum deal they will make things tough. As Sens. Joe Biden and Linsey Graham have said, "the next six months will tell the story".They urge the Administration to exert heavy influence on the deliberators to come up with an equitable formula for sharing the wealth among all factions.

Back here at home the legislators are hurrying to adjourn for the holidays. In a deft manuever Sen. Stevens of AL attached an amendment, to drill in the ANWR, to the Defence Appropriations bill. Hopefully the Senate will reject it as it has in the past. Here is one of those controversial items that stirs up much debate. One "know it all" commentator, George Will chooses to demean the environmentalists for opposing this measure. Via his own contorted logic he equates environmentalism with "collectivism" which he then extrapolates to "communism". Such stupidity marks a lot of the, so called, discussion of current matters. I am much concerned about our environment. If there were no governmental oversight, as lax as it is, our water would be as bad as it is in Russia or China. The same for air pollution. These people who decry "regulation" would be the first to complain if their quality of life were affected. Not controlling pollution is simply "fouling our nest". Duh!
The President has again acted the cowboy, disregarding laws because he is the Commander in Chief and is above the law of mere mortals. His excuse is that he needs speed to react to the terrorists. The laws that exist allow him just that as long as he gets the necessary authorization within 72 hours. He doesn't want to do that. He's too busy defending the nation. Duh!!!!

It appears things are coming to a head in Iraq. At least there is an election. Much hope is riding on the event. My feeling is that Bush, as he has in the past, is engaging in wishful thinking in projecting a rosy outcome for the Middle East. That is greatly to be desired by us all., of course. We want resolution to this vexing problem. It remains to be seen what effect the election, with Sunni participation, will have on the insurgency.
The problematical fact is, however, that the various factions will find it difficult to reach a satisfactory compromise on the devisive elements. We see the ill effects of partisan politics here in our country and we've been at it now two hundred years. Tribal and religious affiliations have a far greater influence in Iraq than what divided our Founding Fathers. Then there is the recent history of domination of the majority Shiites by the minority Sunnis and the dual problem of revenge coupled with desire for restoration to power. A volitile mix in a terribly unstable country.
Bit by bit Bush is acknowledging the fallacy of his reasons for pre-emptive war but insists we are better off now than we were. This rationale itself is fallacious. Saddam was never a credible threat to the U.S. Iraq was a hollow shell of a country. Saddam spent his fortunes on his palaces and let the country go to hell. Obviously he stockpiled tremendous caches of armaments, which likely, we sold him. But his feeble attempts to acquire a nuclear capability was more for show and bluster than any serious intent to attack the U.S. It would be akin to a mouse attacking a German Shepard. Being a secular dictator, Saddam was more a target of binLaden than a co-conspiritor.
The real reasons behind Bush's rabid rush to war will eventually come out and we will all be surprised, to some degree, by what motivated it. There are many people who conjecture about it but a lot of them are pushing an agenda of their own liking, not necessarily being objective. Our elections next year will be a referendom on the war to a large degree and we'll see what people think about it.

The current flap about torture is so typical of this administration. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. "We have laws against torture but we want to be able to resort to it if, in our judgment it is neccesary". This in the face of the Senate and House voting overwhelmingly to pass McCain's amendment.

This is another point that I feel is important to make. Very little coverage is given to it in the press.

Stumbling block to Middle East peace.

In January 1970 there was a best seller book titled: “The Late Great Planet Earth“, by Hal Lindsey. This book laid out a scenario for the end of the world according to a literal interpretation of Bible prophecies.

There have been many doomsday books and many predictions of when the Earth will be transformed in some cataclysmic manner. Some are nonreligious but a large number of them are based on biblical prophecy. What seems to have escaped much attention (at least by the press) is a movement, springing primarily from Hal Lindsey’s book, called the Christian Zionists.

Zionism, by a definition in the Oxford American Dictionary and Language Guide, is “a movement were the reestablishment and development of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel”.

The Christian Zionists and associated evangelical Christians, mostly in the U.S., but also from others around the world, over the past two decades, have poured millions of dollars in donations into Israel and formed a tight alliance with the Likud and other Israeli politicians seeking an expanded “Greater Israel”.

That sort of “reaching out” would be eminently commendable were it not for the motivation behind It. The rationale behind this movement is the literal interpretation of the “end of days” prophecy. The Christian Zionists are acting on the belief that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham, the second coming of Christ and the final battle of Armageddon, when the Antichrist will be defeated.

What the Christian Zionists are doing is positioning themselves. They want to be on the right side when the time comes. In order to ensure that they have this advantage they have been “pressuring the U.S. government away from peace negotiations and toward an annexationist policy that has a direct negative impact on the potential for change in the Middle East”, says Gershon Greenberg, a senior editor at the Jerusalem Report newsmagazine.

Not all Christians in the holy land agree with the Christian Zionists. They say that “Christian Zionism transforms faith into a political ideology and one that needs an enemy” says Rev. Rafik Khoury of the Catholic Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem.

It is the political activism of the Christian Zionist movement that bothers me, and I’m certain will bother others if they are made aware of it. Certainly people are entitled to their religious beliefs and undoubtedly those beliefs influenced their political choices. Where the dirt hits the fan is when the religious beliefs become fanaticism and allow no compromise.

Fortunately concern is growing, including that of some Evangelicals, about the ultimate serious, even disastrous, consequences attendant upon the Christian Zionist’s influence on U.S. and Israeli policy.

This current Republican administration is rife with adherents to the Christian Zionists cause. Ralph Reed, an ardent religious rightist, and Republican Party strategist, has formed “Stand for Israel”, a project to build grass-roots advocacy for Israel among U.S. Christians. Christians Israeli Public Action Committee (CIPAC) lobbies Congress to oppose any limitation on Israel’s action. This group effectively blocked President Bush’s peace proposal, “the roadmap”. We have heard very little about that. This in spite of the fact that many consider the Israeli - Palestinian problem a key to settling much of the Middle East unrest.

Tom DeLay the House majority leader, is quoted as “seeing no occupied territory, I see Israel”. Former Rep. Dick Armey, ( R ) of Texas, proclaimed his support for “transporting the Palestinians to other countries”.

Some point to a coalition that is tilting the Bush administration toward Israeli supremacy. The neo-conservatives, the Jewish lobby, and the Christian Zionists, who provide the grass-roots political punch as a prime Bush constituency.


There is a group of 15 Christian denominations in Jerusalem, from Greek Orthodox to Quakers, that formed an ecumenical movement called Sabeel (“the Way”, in Arabic) which works to counter extremism on both sides. Sabeel held a conference called “Challenging Christian Zionism”. Some 500 Christians from 31 countries came to Jerusalem to discuss ways to check the growing influence of Christian Zionism.

Jews also are concerned, and they should be. Ironically the ultimate goal of the Christian Zionists is the conversion of Jews to Christianity.

While our media is commandeered by the momentous matters of the Peterson, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, trials there are significant issues not being brought to the public’s attention. I feel the Christian Zionist movement demands to be aired much more publicly. Something that has so much political influence and, to my way of thinking, is so negative and obstructionist to a just peace for Israel and Palestine, deserves to be more generally discussed.

Footnote: The material for this piece is primarily from an article in the Christian Science Monitor of July 7, 2004. It was also aired earlier on the Bill Moyer program on PBS .

I finally got the procedure right to post a photo. It may not be confusing to others but I am eminently confusable.
Expanding on previous comments it is satisfying to see mentioned more frequently recently that the initial impetous for our going into Iraq was OIL. Since we are seriously addicted to oil and have been on a binge (Detroit is finally choking on the SUV glut) of over consuming our share of the world's energy supply it is understandable that oil is considered a "national interest". Apparently we are aware of that, and also ashamed of it, because Bush never admitted that it was the prime rationale for the war. To honestly state that the Middle East was in danger of being confiscated by some power not of our liking and therefore we must act preemptively to protect our national interest was beyond the imagination of the mental midgets of this administration. 9/11 was the fortuitous occasion to grab the flag and rally the nation to a bogus threat of immanent disaster and mushroom clouds if we did not defang Hussein.

Token gestures were made to the obviously dysfunctioal United Nations. This den of thieves was heavily in cahoots with Hussein over the oil for food program. The administration was aware of it but didn't make a fuss because too many of our own people were in the game also.
The French and Germans were equally culpable plus more interested in protecting their contracts and assets than going along with Bush's reckless regime change scheme. There was nothing in it for them.

Here we are today, the flag tarnished, the subterfuge revealed,billions upon billions squandered, and 2100+ brave souls lost as well as untold thousands mutilated by wounds. The havoc and mayhem perpetrated on the Iraqis will probably never be accounted for. In less than two weeks the Iraqis will vote on a government. Bush will tout this as a major accomplishment. What happens next is not a positive prognosis. The likelyhood of civil war is great. The involvement of neighboring counties is a real possibility. Where that leads is difficult to imagine. The net result of all this is far from the optimistic picture painted three years ago. Iraq is far from a democratic beacon, more like the vortex of a severely unsettled Middle East.

Meanwhile back in our own baliwick we have daily headlines of graft, corruption, duplicity, and ever widening scandals concerning politicians. Washington has always been thus. It goes back to the earliest Congresses. The only explanation is that it must be human nature. The founding father were well aware of that fact and it is to their credit that they devised a system that functions in spite of it. More or less. Winston Churchill is credited with saying-"You can count on the Americans to do the right thing-- after they have tried everything else".

On a lofty peak 

 

 

On another blog I found a link to the talk given by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.
I was able to print out the transcript (26 pages) and found it extremely interesting.
The Col. served as Asst.Sec'y of State under Colin Powell for four years. That means he had the inside track on what was happpening during that time. His candid remarks and answers to questions pretty much confirmed my own conclusions about how things are done in the Bush administration. Very narrow input of ideas and very uninformed as to reality. Mostly wishful thinking.
Also he answered my question about an objective book covering the Iraq war. It is by George Packer, titled "Assassin's Gate". I hope to read it soon. I'll let you know how I viewed it.