They Led The President Astray

On October 28, 1984, our fifteen-year old son Frank was listening with me to the debate between incumbent President Ronald Reagan and challenger Walter Mondale. "I think Whitey Herzog would be a great president," Frank commented. "Why the manager of the St. Louis cardinals?" I asked. "Don't you see," he answered, "he knows how to pick best players for his team?" "Good thought," I replied. "You ought to major in politics."

Indeed, all Americans ought to ask more questions about the key advisers who are likely to guide a president in his policies. George W. Bush, for example, could have avoided many of his mistakes in foreign affairs if had not leaned so heavily on neoconservative ideologues and incompetent sycophants.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Frum, and numerous other neocons impressed upon Mr. Bush early on that the destruction of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction should be his highest priority because it would decisively increase the power of the United States and Israel in the Mideast. In a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997, the neoconservative "Project for the New American Century," urged that "It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge;" to "promote freedom abroad;" and pursue the "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

In line with this call for a more aggressive course, Cheney convinced the President that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Cheney also insisted that we had to break up Hussein's close ties to Osama bin Laden, even though the CIA had no proof they existed.

It was Ahmed Chalabi, the founder of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, who conned the President's gullible neocons with those false claims. To this day, Charles Duelfer, the President's handpicked arms inspector, has been asserting there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intention to do so."

Already in February 2002, General Franks confided to U.S. Senator Bob Graham: "… we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan. … Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq. The Predators are being relocated."

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who lacks expertise on both nuclear physics and the Middle East, convinced the President that high-strength aluminum tubes in Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs. … We don't want the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud." Yet, the administration's top scientists judged the tubes unsuitable for weapons production.

The testimony by General Shinseki that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops angered Secretary Rumsfeld so much that he forced him into retirement. Cheney chimed in that the American soldiers "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators;" and the President himself assured televangelist Pat Robertson that "we're not going to have any casualties."

Today, the unexpected insurgency remains largely uncontrolled because Rumsfeld bull-headedly refuses to provide sufficient troop strength. By now, over a thousand of the "liberators" and some 100,000 Iraqis have become the victims of the neocons' miscalculations.

In their recent book, "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror," David Frum (who gave the President the silly slogan "axis of evil") and Richard Perle are calling for immediate steps to bring about regime change in Iran and Syria, treating Saudi Arabia and France as "enemies," decreasing American involvement in the United Nations, and instituting universal biometric fingerprinting.

Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle are zealously supporting Israel's Sharon regime--to a degree that Washington insiders view them as Americans with dual loyalty. The neocons' primary interest is not Middle East peace but the destruction of the imaginary "Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis."

Ever since last summer, it should have been apparent to the President that the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department did not have a clue how to win the "battle to dominate and redefine Iraq." A year ago, experts in modern warfare and diplomacy with a thorough understanding of the Arab peoples should have replaced these channel-visioned ideologues.

Yet, the President continues to believe they are "good" men because they fight "evil."

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	10-31-04
They Led The President Astray
On October 28, 1984, our fifteen-year old son Frank was listening with me to the debate between incumbent President Ronald Reagan and challenger Walter Mondale. "I think Whitey Herzog would be a great president," Frank commented. "Why the manager of the St. Louis cardinals?" I asked. "Don't you see," he answered, "he knows how to pick best players for his team?" "Good thought," I replied. "You ought to major in politics." Indeed, all Americans ought to ask more questions about the key advisers who are likely to guide a president in his policies. George W. Bush, for example, could have avoided many of his mistakes in foreign affairs if had not leaned so heavily on neoconservative ideologues and incompetent sycophants. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Frum, and numerous other neocons impressed upon Mr. Bush early on that the destruction of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction should be his highest priority because it would decisively increase the power of the United States and Israel in the Mideast. In a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997, the neoconservative "Project for the New American Century," urged that "It is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge;" to "promote freedom abroad;" and pursue the "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." In line with this call for a more aggressive course, Cheney convinced the President that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Cheney also insisted that we had to break up Hussein's close ties to Osama bin Laden, even though the CIA had no proof they existed. It was Ahmed Chalabi, the founder of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, who conned the President's gullible neocons with those false claims. To this day, Charles Duelfer, the President's handpicked arms inspector, has been asserting there is "no evidence that Hussein had passed illicit weapons material to al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or had any intention to do so." Already in February 2002, General Franks confided to U.S. Senator Bob Graham: "… we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan. … Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq. The Predators are being relocated." National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who lacks expertise on both nuclear physics and the Middle East, convinced the President that high-strength aluminum tubes in Iraq were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs. … We don't want the smoking gun of a mushroom cloud." Yet, the administration's top scientists judged the tubes unsuitable for weapons production. The testimony by General Shinseki that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would require several hundred thousand troops angered Secretary Rumsfeld so much that he forced him into retirement. Cheney chimed in that the American soldiers "will, in fact, be greeted as liberators;" and the President himself assured televangelist Pat Robertson that "we're not going to have any casualties." Today, the unexpected insurgency remains largely uncontrolled because Rumsfeld bull-headedly refuses to provide sufficient troop strength. By now, over a thousand of the "liberators" and some 100,000 Iraqis have become the victims of the neocons' miscalculations. In their recent book, "An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror," David Frum (who gave the President the silly slogan "axis of evil") and Richard Perle are calling for immediate steps to bring about regime change in Iran and Syria, treating Saudi Arabia and France as "enemies," decreasing American involvement in the United Nations, and instituting universal biometric fingerprinting. Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle are zealously supporting Israel's Sharon regime--to a degree that Washington insiders view them as Americans with dual loyalty. The neocons' primary interest is not Middle East peace but the destruction of the imaginary "Saudi-Iraqi-Syrian-Iranian-PLO axis." Ever since last summer, it should have been apparent to the President that the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith Defense Department did not have a clue how to win the "battle to dominate and redefine Iraq." A year ago, experts in modern warfare and diplomacy with a thorough understanding of the Arab peoples should have replaced these channel-visioned ideologues. Yet, the President continues to believe they are "good" men because they fight "evil."

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

10-31-04

They Led The President Astray