President Bush Invaded Iraq ... to Prevent the Apocalypse?

Incredibly, we read that President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Apparently it isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”

After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal. Dr. Romer explained that the Old Testament book of Ezekiel contains two chapters (38 and 39) in which God rages against Gog and Magog, sinister and mysterious forces menacing Israel. Jehovah vows to smite them savagely, to “turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,” and slaughter them ruthlessly. In the New Testament, the mystical book of Revelation envisions Gog and Magog gathering nations for battle, “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.

Subsequently, ex-President Chirac confirmed the nutty event in a long interview with French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, who tells the tale in his new book, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny), released in March by the publisher Plon.

Oddly, mainstream media are ignoring this alarming revelation that Bush may have been half-cracked when he started his Iraq war. The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, is the only U.S. newspaper to report it so far. Canada’s Toronto Star recounted the story, calling it a “stranger-than-fiction disclosure … which suggests that apocalyptic fervor may have held sway within the walls of the White House.” Fortunately, online commentary sites are spreading the news, filling the press void.

The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”

Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”

It’s awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who “got saved.” He never should have been entrusted with the power to start wars.

For six years, Americans really haven’t known why he launched the unnecessary Iraq attack. Official pretexts turned out to be baseless. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after all, and wasn’t in league with terrorists, as the White House alleged. Collapse of his asserted reasons led to speculation about hidden motives: Was the invasion loosed to gain control of Iraq’s oil—or to protect Israel—or to complete Bush’s father’s vendetta against the late dictator Saddam Hussein? Nobody ever found an answer.

Now, added to the other suspicions, comes the goofy possibility that abstruse, supernatural, idiotic, laughable Bible prophecies were a factor. This casts an ominous pall over the needless war that has killed more than four thousand young Americans and cost U.S. taxpayers perhaps $1 trillion.

Let's look at those scores again:

WMDs Found: 0

Americans Dead: 4,000

Was it worth it?

KBR "Burn Pits" on US Bases in Iraq Cause Serious Illness

Josh Eller, a military contractor stationed in Iraq in 2006, was driving through Balad Air Base when he spotted the wild dog. He wasn't sure what was in its mouth—but when Eller saw two bones, he knew he was looking at a human arm. The dog had pulled the limb from an open-air "burn pit" on the base used to incinerate waste. Eller says it's "one of the worst things I have seen."

Since hearing Eller's story, lawyer Elizabeth Burke has signed on 190 additional clients with complaints about burn pits at 18 military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. By now, she says, all pits should have been replaced by pollution-controlled incinerators. She's filed suits in 17 states against KBR, the company contracted to provide waste-disposal services at these bases, accusing it of negligence and harm. Burke was shocked to learn what her clients saw incinerated: Humvees, batteries, unexploded ordnance, gas cans, mattresses, rocket pods, and plastic and medical waste (including body parts, which may explain the arm). Fumes containing carcinogenic dioxins, heavy metals, and particulates, according to an Army–Air Force risk assessment, waft freely across bases.

KBR is accused of allowing thick, noxious smoke – coming off of flames sometimes colored blue or green by burning chemicals – to hang over U.S. bases and camps across Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. It’s alleged that round-the-clock hazardous emissions from the burn pits caused serious respiratory illnesses, tumors and cancers in the Plaintiffs. It’s alleged in the lawsuit:

U.S. soldiers and other residents of the military bases and camps have become seriously ill, been diagnosed with serious and potentially fatal diseases and in some cases have died from the physical injuries and diseases caused by the exposure to hazardous smoke and fumes. KBR promised to minimize the environmental effects of the burn sites they operated in Iraq and Afghanistan and to minimize smoke exposure to people in and near the bases and camps. Instead, by forsaking safety for money, KBR willfully endangered these men and women who honorably served their country in military service or in support of the military.

Conservatives Criticize the Pullback that Republicans Stipulated

Say what??? A number of conservatives have criticized the U.S. pullback, seeming to forget that the date was stipulated in an agreement hammered out by the Bush administration (and hailed at the time by the war's supporters as a victory for President Bush's Iraq policy). Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute called the pullback a "projection of weakness," and warned that the day "will likely mark another milestone: the end of the surge and the relative peace it brought to Iraq." Vice President Cheney -- who assured Americans in May 2005 that the insurgency was in its "last throes" -- used the occasion as another opportunity to cast the Obama administration as irresponsible, warning that he "would not want to see the US waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point." Responding to Cheney's attacks, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke said on MSNBC's Countdown this week, "He's trying to predict disasters -- another al Qaeda attack, more violence in Iraq; and say, in advance of these things happening, if they happen, it will be because of something Obama did. Even though in this case, it's something that Bush did.

Beer & Football For The Troops

For one night, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are getting a "taste of home: football and beer." On Wednesday, Gen. Ray Odierno issued a waiver, allowing troops to have two alcoholic drinks on Super Bowl night, marking "the first time all American service members in Iraq will be allowed to break the ban on liquor in combat zones without risking being court-martialed."

America's Torture Disgrace. Destroyed US Reputation, Did Not garner Intel.

Finally, the incompetent, disingenuous leadership of the Bush administration is being called to account for its abysmal record on Human Rights.

These Human Rights abuses have not only damaged the US reputation around the world, the methods employed did not yield good intelligence.



In a recent interview with ABC News, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed that, in the period after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration embraced a policy of torturing suspected al Qaeda detainees. Cheney did not refer to the Bush administration's practices as "torture." In fact, he insisted that "we don't do torture. We never have." He did admit, however, that he had supported the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. Waterboarding -- a technique in which water is poured over a prisoner's face to simulate drowning -- is considered torture under international law and has been prosecuted as a war crime by the United States. According to Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism expert and former instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school, waterboarding "is torture, without doubt."

Torture Doesn't Work: In a recent story in Vanity Fair, journalist David Rose reports that the conclusion of numerous counterterrorist officials he spoke to is "unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts."

The use of torture has made Americans less safe. Former Air Force interrogator and author of How to Break a Terrorist Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) recently wrote that "the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked [to Iraq] to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Alexander, who used non-violent methods of interrogation to obtain information on the whereabouts of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, argued, "Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda. ... Torture and abuse cost American lives."

Torture Is A Violation Of Our Laws And Values: Arguments about the practical utility of torture distract from the more important point that torture is a violation of U.S. law, and its use represents a significant abdication of the U.S. commitment to human rights. The U.S. federal anti-torture statute, formally known as Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code, "defines the crime of torture and prescribes harsh punishments for anyone who commits an act of torture outside of the United States." Alexander wrote "there's no doubt in my mind" that the tactics allowed by the Bush administration "are illegal." The U.N. Committee Against Torture has been very clear in demanding that the U.S. "should rescind any interrogation technique...that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in all places of detention under its de facto effective control, in order to comply with its obligations" under the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Holding Perpetrators Accountable: The Bush administration's embrace of torture marks a significant reversal of decades of U.S. policy. Back in 2006, then-senator Barack Obama said that torture "is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism," and declared the use of torture to be "a betrayal of American values." While Vice President-elect Biden didn't rule out future prosecution of Bush administration officials involved in torture, he made clear yesterday that "President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We're focusing on the future." Whatever legal course is chosen by the new administration to deal with recent abuses, the damage done to America's reputation by the use of torture -- making a mockery of U.S. claims to uphold human rights -- has been incalculable.

President Bush Dodges Shoes, Not Questions

I have to say I was pretty impressed with President Bush's cat-like reflexes when he dodged the shoes hurled at him by a journalist in Iraq (a sign of the utmost disrespect in that country as we know). That said, I was utterly unimpressed by his answers to questions relating to Al Qaeda in Iraq. It is now common knowledge, and a fact accepted by the Pentagon that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq until after the US invasion in 2003.



In an interview in Iraq yesterday, President Bush defended the war in Iraq, saying it was "where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand." Raddatz interrupted to point out that al Qaeda was not present in Iraq until after the United States invaded, to which Bush replied dismissively, "Yeah, that's right. So what?"

He continued, "The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand." In the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush repeatedly and insistently cited a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. When it turned out those links never existed -- and that the Bush administration may have willingly distorted information to suggest that they did exist -- Bush continued to tie Iraq to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, even as late as 2007.

Rather than take responsibility for the intelligence failures before the war, earlier this month Bush said cynically, "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." He has also repeatedly insisted that Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror," using the claim as justification for the war. Yet, as Raddatz points out, al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq until the U.S. invasion. The Bush administration has finally admitted "privately" that "Afghanistan is now the single most pressing security threat in the war on terror."

Blackwater Guards Called To Account

Blackwater employees, who - unlike US troops - had hitherto enjoyed total unaccountability in their actions, are now being called to account.

US guards indicted over the 2007 fatal shooting of 17 Iraqis used machine guns and grenade launchers against unarmed civilians, prosecutors have said. The guards, from the US security firm Blackwater, were contracted to defend US diplomats. The firm says its guards acted in self-defence.



The five men are charged with 14 counts of manslaughter, as well as weapons violations and attempted manslaughter. A sixth guard has pleaded guilty to killing at least one Iraqi.

The Iraqi government has welcomed the move to hold "criminals accountable".

The killings, which took place in Nisoor Square, Baghdad, have become a central issue in Iraq's relationship with the US and raised questions about the oversight of US contractors operating in war zones.

Witnesses and family members maintain that the shooting on 16 September 2007 was unprovoked.

Shinseki Gets the Call

Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama named ret. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki as his Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), promising "the kind of VA that will serve our veterans as well as they have served us." Shinseki will face one of the country's most daunting tasks: managing an institution already plagued by backlogs, scandals, and inadequate resources, and is increasingly taxed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the press conference, Shinseki spoke directly to veterans: "If confirmed, I will work each and every day to ensure that we are serving you as well as you have served us. We will pursue a 21st-century VA that serves your needs." The nomination of the first Asian-American to the post -- Shinseki, a Japanese-American, grew up in Hawaii -- carried extra poignancy coming on the 67th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Military officials and some veterans organizations immediately praised Obama's announcement. Former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell called Shinseki "an inspired selection." "He is a man that has always put patriotism ahead of politics, and is held in high regard by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan," read a statement by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.



Shinseki is most famous for publicly contradicting Bush administration officials' overly optimistic predictions about the war in Iraq. In 2003, then serving as the Army's chief of staff, he told Congress that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to secure Iraq. The Bush administration's failure to heed Shinseki's warnings led to a decimation of the U.S. military -- underequipped forces, an over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserves, a dangerous stop-loss policy, and an increasing number troops coming home with mental and physical problems. As University of Michigan professor Juan Cole told the Washington Post, "If Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and [former undersecretary for defense Douglas J.] Feith had listened to Shinseki, there wouldn't be as many wounded veterans to take care of." Shinseki served two combat tours in Vietnam, receiving two Purple Hearts and four Bronze Stars. He has frequently worked with wounded veterans and visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center, referring to it as a "members-only section" since he, too, is an amputee.

Downtrodden by Bush administration. In 2002 and 2003, Bush administration officials tried to sell the public on an Iraq invasion by arguing that the costs to the United States would be almost nonexistent. "Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits," said then-White House adviser Lawrence Lindsey. Bush administration officials not only completely miscalculated the billions the United States would have to spend on combat and reconstruction but also failed to plan for the cost of caring for wounded troops after the war. The Iraq war has seen an unprecedented number of troops who "have been wounded or injured and survived," according to economists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes. The ratio for Iraq and Afghanistan has been seven injuries for every fatality -- by far the largest in U.S. history -- compared to 2.6 and 2.8 for the Vietnam and Korean wars, respectively. The result of this lack of preparation has been a badly neglected VA, with the appalling conditions at Walter Reed as only the tip of the iceberg. In July 2007, Jim Nicholson resigned as VA Secretary in disgrace, leaving a tenure during which he stood by and even supported the Bush administration's slashing of the agency. President Bush has, in fact, repeatedly objected to large increases in the budget for veterans' medical care. However, Nicholson's departure hasn't cleared up all the problems. Under new secretary James Peake, VA officials have been trying to cover up data on the troubling rise in suicides among veterans.

Challenges. Veterans are suffering the consequences of the Bush administration's neglect. Last year, a Harvard Medical School study found that one in eight veterans younger than 65 is uninsured. Military retirees who are insured are often paying more for medical care than other retirees. Despite the Bush administration's promises to reform the veterans' care system after the Walter Reed scandal, a Government Accountability Office report last year found that delays for disability payments "still average 177 days -- nearly six months -- with no indication that dramatic improvement is in the offing." One of Shinseki's most pressing challenges will be modernizing the VA to deal with the increasing number of mental health troubles faced by soldiers coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 20 percent of returning veterans have post-traumatic stress disorder, but only about half of them seek treatment. Another area where the VA has fallen short is in its treatment of women veterans. As the AP has reported, "Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma." Roughly 180,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and last year, the VA) "treated more than 255,000 female veterans. The number is expected to double within five years."

KBR Gave Troops ice tainted with "Body Fluids and Tainted Remains"

A former technician who worked in Iraq for scandal-ridden contracting company KBR in Iraq has filed a class-action lawsuit saying the company "exposed everyone at Joint Base Balad in Iraq to unsafe water, food and hazardous fumes from the burn pit there." Joshua Eller's suit includes particularly disturbing charges about KBR's indifference to proper sanitization and the disposal of human remain. "



The lawsuit also accuses KBR of shipping ice in mortuary trucks that 'still had traces of body fluids and putrefied remains in them when they were loaded with ice. This ice was served to U.S. forces,'" the Army Times reported. Eller also accused KBR of failing to maintain a medical incinerator, meaning that "medical waste, such as needles, amputated body parts and bloody bandages were burned" in an open-air pit.

Earlier this week, several Indiana National Guard soldiers also filed suit against KBR saying they were "exposed to a carcinogen while protecting an Iraqi water pumping plant shortly after the U.S. invasion in 2003."

Bush Cabinet Plays Down Significance of Iraq Pullout

Over the weekend, Iraq's cabinet "overwhelmingly approved a proposed security agreement that calls for a full withdrawal of American forces from the country by the end of 2011." Yesterday, however, the Bush administration attempted to play down the significance of the agreement. Press Secretary Dana Perino claimed that the deadline for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq included in the security agreement is only "aspirational". Similarly, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said in a press conference yesterday that he still supports "conditions-based" withdrawal only, and suggested that the agreement might change long before 2011. "Three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time," Mullen said. In reality, there is nothing "aspirational" or "conditions-based" about the withdrawal deadline. Members of the Iraqi government are referring to the pact as a "withdrawal agreement." A spokesperson for the Iraqi government explained that "total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground." In negotiating the agreement, the Iraqi government required that the U.S. "scrap the language that would have allowed the American troops to stay beyond 2011 if Iraq requested."

2007 The Deadliest Year in Iraq

The US military leadership announced a steep drop in the rate of American deaths in October. That month, 38 American service members died in Iraq, the lowest monthly tally since March 2006, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (icasualties.org), an independent Web site that tracks military deaths. November’s total, if the current pace continues, would be higher, but still below the war’s average of 69 American military deaths per month.



Despite the decline, American commanders acknowledged that 2007 would be far deadlier than the second-worst year, 2004, when 849 Americans died, many of them in major battles for control of insurgent strongholds like Falluja.

Military officials attribute the increase this year to an expanded troop presence during the so-called surge, which swelled the American force to more than 165,000 troops in Iraq, and sent units out of large bases and into more dangerous communities.

Commanders contend that despite the cost in terms of lives lost, the strategy has improved security in the country and created a “tactical momentum” that could stabilize Iraq permanently.

I truly hope so.

Dirty Sanchez and the Nightmare With No End...

I read yesterday in the New York Times that General Ricardo Sanchez made "a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq. The former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration’s handling of the war “incompetent” and said the result was “a nightmare with no end in sight."



“After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” General Sanchez said at a gathering of military reporters and editors in Arlington, Va.

He is the most senior war commander of a string of retired officers who have harshly criticized the administration’s conduct of the war. While much of the previous condemnation has been focused on the role of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, General Sanchez’s was an unusually broad attack on the overall course of the war.

General Sanchez said he was convinced that the American effort in Iraq was failing the day after he took command, in June 2003. Asked why he waited until nearly a year after his retirement to voice his concerns publicly, he responded that it was not the place of active-duty officers to challenge lawful orders from the civilian authorities.