Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.


What's wrong with what the U.S. president says here?

That he's been saying it for 6 years?

"Rejoin" and "reintegrate"???

Also, how can the President possibly know that the Iraqis crave freedom? Many people prefer order to freedom.

The use of the word "unattainable" is somewhat out of place too, I think. It's not a question of whether the Iraqis are capable of attaining freedom, but rather whether they are sufficiently desirous of freedom to make it a high enough priority and to pay the steep and necessary price for it.

Bush and the Neocons have a Dream, all right. The key questions are: whether the Iraqis share that dream and crave it badly enough to make the requisite sacrifices, and whether they will place that dream above sectarian ambitions and area/tribal/militia loyalties.

Bush somehow thinks he knows the answer to that question. I think the only way to find out the answer to that question is by observing the Iraqis' actions. So far, my impression is that results do not point encouragingly towards The Dream for Iraq.

this part

since when did democracy = freedom?

I dont see why people think this way

John, this is not only a neocon dream it's been part of U.S. foreign policy prior to the Bush administration. People have short memories I realize but it's unconscienable IMO for the Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, to go spouting off about Iraq and how they had nothing to do with foriegn policy related to Iraq.

Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by William J. Clinton 42nd President of the United States

Iraqi Liberation Act

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

Good point, and I wish someone would tell that to the Administration

IMO two prerequisites for freedom in the Middle East are:

1) A strong Constitution, so oriented as to be compatible with and highly protective of freedom

2) An official REPUDIATION of Shari'a Law and Shari'a-based governance

The first was blown when primary compatibility with the Shari'a was written into the new Iraqi Constitution.

The second just isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, IMO (although I'd love to think or see otherwise).

I agree with you fully after reading that. The excerpt and quote proves your point that democracy for Iraq has been a part of U.S. policy before the Bush administration and that it was not only limited to the Neocons.

Not to mention 'democracy' is something entirely different what US administration would like for Iraq. I'm certain people in the US wouldn't like that kind of 'democracy' in their country.

Not to mention 'freedom' means something entirely different for citizens of probably all countries around the globe than freedom US administration would like for Iraq. I'm sure people in the USA wouldn't like that kind of freedom in their country.

Why more people don't think about it this way?

Good point IMO.

If you look around at the governments in place globally, those that call themselves democracies allow more freedom than those that do not. It is observed that existing democracies reduce freedom less than existing non-democratic states, and it is extrapolated that democracy is freedom.

Way off topic and nothing particularly important here , but I'm not sure if this is true or not, at least in terms of official names of countries (as opposed to designating a country a democracy or not). Here's a cool analysis of "Names of Nations and Their True Democratic Natures."


I think an analysis by flag color would be equally consistent. :P

I wouldn't buy it so easily. One should distinguish in between settling things out in peace and in between sending their own people dying unnecessarily on battlefield.

Please, look again what was that act about. Compare this act with similar acts for other countries (including many eastern european countries; = about help for regime change; money sent to specific parties, etc.). Similar acts had been part of US foreign policy for decades and that's not something to blame too much. After all, probably many other countries with interests did (are doing) the same.

Another thing Adios forgot to mention is that 'The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes'. The other very important thing that should be noted here is that Clinton had refused demands from Neocons for attacking Iraq in nineties.


HERE IS A LINK for more clear view over the situation with timetable (By Matthew B. Robinson, PhD, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University)

- January 1993: Dick Cheney, while Secretary of Defense, releases his “Defense Strategy for the 1990s” which reasserts the case for US global domination. Bill Clinton’s inauguration means the plan is not put into place.

- 1996-1998: When US intelligence was tracking UBL’s satellite phone calls, he made 260 calls to 27 numbers in Britain, more than 200 calls to Yemen, 131 calls to Sudan, 106 calls to Iran, 67 calls to Azerbaijan, 59 calls to Pakistan, 57 calls to Saudi Arabia, 13 calls to a ship in the Indian Ocean, 6 calls to the US, 6 calls to Italy, 4 calls to Malaysia, and 2 calls to Senegal. But he makes ZERO calls to Iraq!

- July 1996: Richard Perle (who later would become chairman of President Bush’s Defense Policy Board), then a member of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), authors a paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” which calls for a hard line Israel headed by Binyamin Netanyahu aimed at a restoration of Zionism. The plan starts with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which would then destabilize the Middle East, including, it is hoped, new governments in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon.

- January 1998: PNAC sends a letter to President Bill Clinton calling for war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a hazard to the world’s oil supplies. It calls for the US to go it alone and says the US should not be crippled by the UN. Ten of the 18 signatories end up in George W. Bush’s first administration (including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowtiz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, Presidential Advisor for the Middle East Elliot Abrams, and Special Iraq Envoy Zalmay Khalizad).

- September 2000: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is published by PNAC. It is commissioned by future VP Dick Cheney, future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, future Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and future Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby. It calls for maintaining US global dominance, a military force in the Middle East, military control of space, regime change in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and other countries, the development of forms of biological warfare that can be used to target specific genotypes, and preparations for multiple theater wars. (worth to read about this report)

- January 30, 2001: First National Security Council meeting is held ten days after Bush’s inauguration. It was focused on Iraq, including finding a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

- February 1, 2001: Second National Security Council meeting in President Bush’s Administration is held and regime change in Iraq is a central topic. Rumsfeld talks in depth about what a post-Saddam Iraq would be like. Memo titled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq” is discussed.

- February 2001: Documents planning regime change for Iraq in the Bush Administration are created, including one titled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq” and another “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Contracts.”

- March 2001 – Palast also reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq … Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose.

- April 30, 2001: First Deputies Meeting on terrorism is finally held in the Bush Administration. The discussion was focused on Iraq, not UBL or al-Qaeda!
etc.
etc.
etc.

Claiming there is no change of US foreign policy seems very unconvincing to me when you know some facts.

"Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

What's wrong is that it's a lie from start to finish.