A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Richard A. Stitt

So many of the men, women, and children killed in Iraq today, whether Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd, are routinely counted by the Bush-controlled media as Al Qaeda in Iraq. That's an important distinction and one that differs from past reports that used the terms "Saddam dead-enders," which segued to the term, "Insurgents" and has now morphed into the ubiquitous, all-inclusive designation, "Al Qaeda in Iraq."

This term has evolved to the point where it is now accepted without question by the mainstream media that the internecine religious violence and sectarian killings have been put on a lower rung of the Bush media-minders' propaganda ladder, even though practically all of the daily deaths throughout Iraq's cities are home grown. Most of the deaths in Iraq, U.S. military commanders believe, are still caused by disaffected Sunnis who perceive that they are being left out of any reconciliation plan in a central Baghdad government.

In late 2006, several generals testified before Congress that most of the violence and bloodshed in Iraq were the result of homegrown insurgents. They are on record stating that only about 5% were considered Al Qaeda. Also, official reports estimated that over half of the foreign fighters coming across Iraq's borders were from Saudi Arabia, one of Bush's close allies and one which last year, he larded up with arms sales over $20 billion [1] in F-16 fighter planes and missile technology.

Funny, if they were such great allies, why didn't they participate in Bush's "coalition of the willing?" How does Bush justify giving so much modern technology to a repressive country such as Saudi Arabia while he bloviated, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?"

Further undermining the Bush claim of WMD as a reason to put 700,000 Iraqi citizens in early graves and nearly 4,000 U.S. military in body bags, is the damning report that was just released confirmed the fact that there was not a shred of evidence of the presence of WMD in Iraq before or after Bush booted out the UN weapons inspectors.

Bush's own chief arms inspector, David Kay, stated in congressional testimony regarding the non-existent WMD, "We were all wrong." Yet the powerful Bush right-wing propaganda machine prior to the 2004 election convinced nearly 50% of Americans into believing Iraq possessed and used WMD in the March 2003 invasion and convinced an equal number of American citizens and U.S. military that Iraqis were among the 19 hijacker-bombers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. A Zogby poll [2] taken as late as 2006 shows just how effective the Bush media blitz was before and after the election.

With Pakistan dictator Pervez Musharraf weakened to the point where he is unable to lead, mainly because he has virtually no credibility among the 165 million population, I wonder how John McCain or any other president can justify the $7 billion in American taxpayer money that has been spent to support a government that can no longer control its own borders?

As a matter of fact, the Taliban are resurgent and even control cities inside Pakistan's porous western border with Afghanistan, where drug lords and warlords have gained more power and influence. Also Afghanistan once again hit a new high in bumper crops of opium-producing poppies, which now account for 93% of the entire world's opium trade.

John McCain's talking points, however, stubbornly focuses on Al Qaeda in Iraq as the linchpin of the Republicans' propaganda machine to retain the White House in November. Why is this so? Very clearly, it is an inbred Republican racehorse mentality that knows only one direction -- straight ahead, no compromise, no flexibility, "stay-on-message" War Forever -- or at least for another 100 years, as John McCain has proclaimed.

The most powerful military that the world has ever known has been bogged down in Iraq for five years, but it is clear, based on the terrorist violence that has occurred in countries all over the world, that G.W. Bush is not only responsible for the spread of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but also of Al Qaeda in the World.

If, either on Meet The Press or during a national debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, the question is asked, presumably by Tim Russert, "Are you willing to take the pledge right now, that if you pull U.S. troops out of Iraq will you increase our military strength to 15 million ground troops, the number that the Pentagon has determined will be required to take on such a gargantuan effort, to fight Al Qaeda in the World?"

Barack Obama may answer, "Of course there was never such a thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until after the Bush-McCain bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq. In order to fight Al Qaeda in the World, however, we will need the support and cooperation of all the countries who were once our allies and friends to join us, the same ones who G.W. Bush spat in their faces when he decided he wanted all the glory of defeating Iraq for himself."

A typical John McCain answer: "Of course, we can do this but only once we can get rid of Al Qaeda in Iraq first. As I've said before, that will take another 100 years."

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Richard A. Stitt
Austin, TX

Technorati Tags: Reader Contribution [8] Richard A. Stitt [9] Iraq [10] Al Qaeda [11] Al Qaeda in Iraq [12] George W. Bush [13] John McCain [14] 2008 race [15] Barack Obama [16]