Genesis of Bush's obsession with Iraq
By GITAU WARIGI
Recently, a fellow called David Frum, who was employed as a speechwriter for George W. Bush when he came to power, published a book on his recollections when at the White House.

An interesting thing he remembers is that when it came to drafting Bush's first State of the Union speech, a superior instructed Frum quite shamelessly to write into it "a justification for attacking Iraq." The fellow wracked his brains, but could come up with nothing better than a phrase about Iraq becoming an "axis of hatred" towards the United States. The phrase was reworked by higher-ups to read "axis of evil" (so as to sound more "theological," Frum was told). Beside Iraq, Iran and North Korea were also added to the list.

The snippet shows the extent of the Bush administration's morbid obsession with Saddam Hussein. The obsession is such that the Bush administration theologians have been working frantically to implicate the Saddam regime with Al-Qaeda, never mind that America's own CIA reportedly isn't convinced there is much of a connection. Undeterred, Bush's gung-ho defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, decided to set up a rival intelligence-analysis unit with the apparent intention of trashing the CIA's picture of events.

In short, war against Iraq is inevitable, unless a pure miracle happens. Chances of a miracle happening, however, are as remote as the possibility of Bush figuring out where and what the heck Mt Kilimanjaro is, or what in the Lord's name is Jupiter or Pluto. He might think it is a new weapons system developed by a military contractor, in which case he would instruct Rumsfeld to buy the stuff and target it against those damned Islamic terrorists.

Make no mistake, there are going to be no winners from this showdown. The fate of poor Iraq goes without saying. Eerily, the sheer tragedy awaiting thousands upon thousands of hapless Iraqis who are going to die in the hail of bombs Uncle Sam will soon unleash is getting buried in the impersonal debates about weapons inspections and whether or not a fresh anti-Saddam vote in the UN Security Council is necessary.

The other big loser will be the UN. America has made it abundantly plain that it doesn't give a hoot which way opinion there goes. Saddam must be hit. Even if the Security Council, which is supposed to authorise military action, balks, and even if France, Russia and China cast their vetoes in the Council, America has said loud and clear that it is going to war, damn the rest of the world.

The long and short of it all is that the UN is destined to become worthless. The charter paper the UN was written on - ironically under the direction of the Americans - will not be worth the spit the White House is throwing at it once Bush is through with his war.

One might as well ask what's the point of having the Security Council? Why not simply abolish the shop and let America be the sole entity on the earth with the power of veto? Since France and Russia and China (or anybody else for that matter) cannot stop America despite their veto-wielding status, what's the use of having these so-called "Big Powers" sitting in the Council?

Britain is going to be a big loser too, much as Tony Blair is waxing enthusiastic for the privilege of being designated America's sidekick in the coming conflict. Sidekick is a rather generous description of British involvement, whose inconsequence was illuminated in a recent revelation that American military planners had yet to come up with a precise and formal role for the British contingent. Clearly, the Brits are being tolerated simply for show, to deflect criticism of America acting solo.

Last week, Britain was hugely humiliated when Rumsfeld casually remarked that the US did not need British help to fight the war. Humiliating as this was, it is nonetheless perfectly true. If the Brits retained any pride, they would have pulled out their troops, or at the very least demanded an apology. But sidekicks have no power, and so they suffer their indignity in silence.

The only beneficiary out of this war is going to be America, and not just by pummelling Iraq, which everybody expects will be over in a matter of days. People who imagine America is going into this thing in a bumbling and blind way as has been its norm are mistaken. There is an ambitious plan in place to impose total American dominance over the Middle East, and from there the rest of the world is expected to get the message. The era of Pax Americana is set to be given a radically new imprint by Bush the Second.

The icing on the cake is Iraqi oil. The country has the second largest reserves after Saudi Arabia, which is tightly in America's sphere of influence. Saudi Arabia is also Osama bin Laden's birthplace, though I have heard people say Bush imagines Osama is Afghani.

France has displayed rare courage in standing up to America's war-mongering. But the effort is futile. Still, the Americans don't have to be petty and crude in the manner they have taken to demonising the French. Last week, some American lawmakers in the House of Representatives ordered that the reference to "french fries" be erased from the menus in the House cafeterias. The name was changed to "freedom fries," a rather silly term if you ever heard one.

If anything, the episode indicated that the phenomenon we have come to know as George W. Bush has many replicas in that country, especially among politicians. It was totally lost to the esteemed Congressmen that "french fries" are actually not French. Their origin is Belgian.

Saddam is only the first victim in Bush's designs. The next target - and mark this - will be North Korea. It is not going to be a full-scale invasion, a la Iraq, not with China lying next door. But don't rule out a devastating air strike against that country's nuclear facilities, or even a scheme to eliminate the North Korean leadership.

In a recent interview with Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame), Bush reportedly got horribly agitated when the discussion turned to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. The startled journalist thought the President might jump up from his seat, frothing in the mouth.

.
http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/
i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.