Back to the top

Iraq War

America’s Imperial Misadventure in Iraq

I have nothing more to say about the war in Iraq that I haven’t said many times over the years. On the eve of the invasion I wrote a piece comparing the invasion to past imperial misadventures by the very powers who sought to divide and conquer the nation.

Now that the US occupation of Iraq is kind of, sort of, almost over, what is there to cheer about? Nothing. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

This BBC piece sums it up pretty well.

BBC: Assessing America’s ‘imperial adventure’ in Iraq

“This,” a leading American supporter of President George W Bush wrote in a British newspaper back in February 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, “is our imperial moment”.

He went on to argue that the British had no right to criticise America for doing what they themselves had done so enthusiastically a century before.

But America’s imperial moment did not last long. And now, seven years later, the US is criticised for just about everything that happens here.

Opinion is evenly divided between those who are glad to see the Americans go, and those who criticise them for leaving too soon and potentially laying Iraq open to fresh sectarian violence.

It is a pattern that every occupying power becomes used to. America, it seems, cannot do anything right – not even getting out.

Read the full article HERE

Investigate Bush War Crimes Next

NOW PLAYING:

Nadir & Rev – Is That What You Wanted?!
DJ Butterface Casio Funk Radio Edit

With the International Criminal Court’s unprecedented warrant for sitting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the stage is set for the indictment of George W. Bush for war crimes.  The Bush administration is unapologetic about their violations of US and international laws.   But according to the Associated Press:

The prospect of the court ever trying Bush is considered extremely remote, however.

The US Government does not recognise the court and the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member.  – AP

Senator Patrick Leahy has called for a Truth & Reconciliation Commission so we can learn exactly what happened during the eight years of Bush’s presidency.

I couldn’t agree more.  The president has admitted to spying on U.S. citizens, and torturing prisoners who are being held without charge.  If those are the crimes they will confess, can you imagine what they AREN’T telling us about?

Continue reading

Investigate Bush War Crimes Next

NOW PLAYING:

Nadir & Rev – Is That What You Wanted?!
DJ Butterface Casio Funk Radio Edit

With the International Criminal Court’s unprecedented warrant for sitting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, the stage is set for the indictment of George W. Bush for war crimes.  The Bush administration is unapologetic about their violations of US and international laws.   But according to the Associated Press:

The prospect of the court ever trying Bush is considered extremely remote, however.

The US Government does not recognise the court and the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member.  – AP

Senator Patrick Leahy has called for a Truth & Reconciliation Commission so we can learn exactly what happened during the eight years of Bush’s presidency.

I couldn’t agree more.  The president has admitted to spying on U.S. citizens, and torturing prisoners who are being held without charge.  If those are the crimes they will confess, can you imagine what they AREN’T telling us about?

Continue reading

Is The Surge Working?

From Huffington Post:

The statement is made in the U.S. media, over and over again, as if it is as factual as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening: “The surge is working.”

But just because the media has parroted the talking points of the Bush administration and John McCain’s campaign in making such an assertion, it does not make it true. And a report released by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) yesterday does something that McCain and the White House probably wish would not be done: actually evaluating progress in Iraq against the goals the administration laid out in January 2007 when undertaking the surge.

Guess what? In many material ways, the surge isn’t working. Sorry to rain on the parade of CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, etc. with the facts.

Click HERE to read more

Is The Surge Working?

From Huffington Post:

The statement is made in the U.S. media, over and over again, as if it is as factual as the sun rising in the morning and setting in the evening: “The surge is working.”

But just because the media has parroted the talking points of the Bush administration and John McCain’s campaign in making such an assertion, it does not make it true. And a report released by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) yesterday does something that McCain and the White House probably wish would not be done: actually evaluating progress in Iraq against the goals the administration laid out in January 2007 when undertaking the surge.

Guess what? In many material ways, the surge isn’t working. Sorry to rain on the parade of CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, etc. with the facts.

Click HERE to read more

FLASHBACK: The Cancer Called Imperialism

Written March 19, 2003

As I begin this writing, the United States government and its allies are beginning a new phase in the 12-year war against the people of Iraq. This is not a new conflict, for U.S. and British warplanes have been patrolling and bombing that nation for over a decade. The first assault in 1991 severely weakened the Iraqi military. 12-years of sanctions have all but crippled the Iraqi people, and now the second Bush regime is going in for the kill. The goal – to create another colony in Southwest Asia which will provide both an important economic jewel and a crucial strategic outpost for the continued growth of the American empire.

I am deeply saddened by the escalation of this conflict, but I am not surprised. This is merely the growth of the parasitic cancer called Western Imperialism that has been running rampant on this planet for over 600 years. The four nations who lead this fight – Portugal, Spain, Britain and the United States – are the most successful Imperialist powers of the last millennium. This Transatlantic Alliance, as they have dubbed themselves, were not only key figures in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but between them they have attempted to colonize nearly every corner of every continent. Indigenous people all over the globe have been at war with these empires off and on for nearly 1000 years. Continue reading

FLASHBACK: The Cancer Called Imperialism

Written March 19, 2003

As I begin this writing, the United States government and its allies are beginning a new phase in the 12-year war against the people of Iraq. This is not a new conflict, for U.S. and British warplanes have been patrolling and bombing that nation for over a decade. The first assault in 1991 severely weakened the Iraqi military. 12-years of sanctions have all but crippled the Iraqi people, and now the second Bush regime is going in for the kill. The goal — to create another colony in Southwest Asia which will provide both an important economic jewel and a crucial strategic outpost for the continued growth of the American empire.

I am deeply saddened by the escalation of this conflict, but I am not surprised. This is merely the growth of the parasitic cancer called Western Imperialism that has been running rampant on this planet for over 600 years. The four nations who lead this fight — Portugal, Spain, Britain and the United States — are the most successful Imperialist powers of the last millennium. This Transatlantic Alliance, as they have dubbed themselves, were not only key figures in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but between them they have attempted to colonize nearly every corner of every continent. Indigenous people all over the globe have been at war with these empires off and on for nearly 1000 years. Continue reading

The New York Times’ Redemption Song?

Originally posted by Nadir at LastChocolateCity.com

The nation’s most influential newspaper, The New York Times, has made news once again by calling for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

This is a dramatic turn of events for two reasons. The first is because the Times wields a great deal of influence among mainstream US news organizations and thus among the public. As journalist Michael Massing observed in Bill Moyers’ documentary Buying The War,

The New York Times is just remains immensely influential. People in the TV world read it every morning, and it’s amazing how often you’ll see a story go from the front page of the day’s paper in the morning to the evening news cast at night. People in government of course read it, think tanks, and so on.

The second reason this is a critical development is because The New York Times was one of the mainstream media outlets that helped sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. In fact, The New York Times was a significant supporting player if not a leading character in the tragic melodrama that led this nation to war.

The Times published Judith Miller’s favorable and uncritical articles about Ahmed Chalabi and the dissident Iraqi National Congress. The Iraqi defector’s misleading statements about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction were named often as a threat to US national security.

The New York Times also ran William Saffire’s op-ed Mr. Atta Goes to Prague. It was in this column that Saffire said,

A misdirection play is under way in the C.I.A.’s all-out attempt to discredit an account of a suspicious meeting in Prague a year ago. Mohamed Atta, destined to be the leading Sept. 11 suicide hijacker, was reported last fall by Czech intelligence to have met at least once with Saddam Hussein’s espionage chief in the Iraqi Embassy — Ahmed al-Ani, a spymaster whom the Czechs were keeping under tight surveillance.

If the report proves accurate, a connection would exist between Al Qaeda’s murder of 3,000 Americans and Iraq’s Saddam. That would clearly be a casus belli, calling for our immediate military response, separate from the need to stop a demonstrated mass killer from acquiring nuclear and germ weapons. Accordingly, high C.I.A. and Justice officials — worried about exposure of the agency’s inability to conduct covert operations — desperately want Atta’s Saddam connection to be disbelieved.

As the CIA said, this meeting never happened. But it was in The New York Times. It must be true.

There were the famous aluminum tubes, which were supposed to be used by Saddam Hussein as the housing of atomic bombs. Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and quoted a New York Times article, which had in turn quoted “anonymous administration officials” claiming that these tubes were proof that Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons. This was also false.

Now, of course, after the invasion had begun, The Times published Joe Wilson’s op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa“, which asked if the administration had manipulated the intelligence that led us to war. Columnist Robert Novak then outed Wilson’s wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, in the nation’s second most influential paper, The Washington Post, attacking the ambassador’s credibility. The Times’ Judith Miller also discussed that information and later went to jail for contempt of court after refusing to name the sources that divulged this illegal leak.

However, I come not to denounce the Times, but to praise them. It is important that they have seen the error of their ways and hope to help the nation save face by reversing the disastrous course that their paper and other news organizations that follow them have allowed the criminal Bush/Cheney regime to set. A free press should be the conscience of any democracy. It’s good to see that the New York Times still has a conscience of its own.

The New York Times: The Road Home

Bill Moyers Journal: Buying The War

The New York Times’ Redemption Song?

Originally posted by Nadir at LastChocolateCity.com

The nation’s most influential newspaper, The New York Times, has made news once again by calling for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

This is a dramatic turn of events for two reasons. The first is because the Times wields a great deal of influence among mainstream US news organizations and thus among the public. As journalist Michael Massing observed in Bill Moyers’ documentary Buying The War,

The New York Times is just remains immensely influential. People in the TV world read it every morning, and it’s amazing how often you’ll see a story go from the front page of the day’s paper in the morning to the evening news cast at night. People in government of course read it, think tanks, and so on.

The second reason this is a critical development is because The New York Times was one of the mainstream media outlets that helped sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. In fact, The New York Times was a significant supporting player if not a leading character in the tragic melodrama that led this nation to war.

The Times published Judith Miller’s favorable and uncritical articles about Ahmed Chalabi and the dissident Iraqi National Congress. The Iraqi defector’s misleading statements about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction were named often as a threat to US national security.

The New York Times also ran William Saffire’s op-ed Mr. Atta Goes to Prague. It was in this column that Saffire said,

A misdirection play is under way in the C.I.A.’s all-out attempt to discredit an account of a suspicious meeting in Prague a year ago. Mohamed Atta, destined to be the leading Sept. 11 suicide hijacker, was reported last fall by Czech intelligence to have met at least once with Saddam Hussein’s espionage chief in the Iraqi Embassy — Ahmed al-Ani, a spymaster whom the Czechs were keeping under tight surveillance.

If the report proves accurate, a connection would exist between Al Qaeda’s murder of 3,000 Americans and Iraq’s Saddam. That would clearly be a casus belli, calling for our immediate military response, separate from the need to stop a demonstrated mass killer from acquiring nuclear and germ weapons. Accordingly, high C.I.A. and Justice officials — worried about exposure of the agency’s inability to conduct covert operations — desperately want Atta’s Saddam connection to be disbelieved.

As the CIA said, this meeting never happened. But it was in The New York Times. It must be true.

There were the famous aluminum tubes, which were supposed to be used by Saddam Hussein as the housing of atomic bombs. Dick Cheney went on Meet the Press and quoted a New York Times article, which had in turn quoted “anonymous administration officials” claiming that these tubes were proof that Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons. This was also false.

Now, of course, after the invasion had begun, The Times published Joe Wilson’s op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa“, which asked if the administration had manipulated the intelligence that led us to war. Columnist Robert Novak then outed Wilson’s wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, in the nation’s second most influential paper, The Washington Post, attacking the ambassador’s credibility. The Times’ Judith Miller also discussed that information and later went to jail for contempt of court after refusing to name the sources that divulged this illegal leak.

However, I come not to denounce the Times, but to praise them. It is important that they have seen the error of their ways and hope to help the nation save face by reversing the disastrous course that their paper and other news organizations that follow them have allowed the criminal Bush/Cheney regime to set. A free press should be the conscience of any democracy. It’s good to see that the New York Times still has a conscience of its own.

The New York Times: The Road Home

Bill Moyers Journal: Buying The War

PUT THE CRIMINAL IN JAIL!

PUT THE CRIMINAL IN JAIL!

No, I’m not talking about Scooter Libby. I’m talking about George W. Bush. I’m talking about Dick Cheney. Those are the criminals who have laughed in the face of the American people and scoffed at the myth of American justice over and over again.

Who cares that Scooter Libby’s sentence was commuted. Scooter was the fall guy. He took the hit for his crime bosses, and he will be paid handsomely for it. A corporate vice presidency or chief executive job is probably waiting for the publicity to die down. I’m sure there are publishers already lining up to pitch that multi-million dollar book deal so the victors can rewrite history.

The REAL criminals are Cheney and Bush. It was Cheney and Bush who authorized the violation of yet another federal statute by outing Valerie Plame in the first place. It is Cheney and Bush who are guilty of over a half dozen other federal crimes. Continue reading

© Nadir Omowale