Debate with President George W. Bush

By Mike Green
Ashland Daily Tidings

Is it against the law yet to call the president a liar?

I'm just checking on my rights, given the state of affairs in America. While we live under the spotlight of a continuous "national emergency," the executive branch has grown exponentially under each presidential administration. The numbers of Executive Orders are so voluminous that few Americans living today truly have a grasp of the enormous amount of rules that constrain our freedoms, nor the expanse of power the presidents have taken at the expense of the constitution.

Since I will likely never have an opportunity to speak directly to the president, I have taken to the liberty of responding directly to his statements made during his weekly radio address to the American people.

President's radio address on Sept. 30, 2006.

"The National Intelligence Estimate confirms that we are up against a determined and capable enemy. The NIE lists four underlying factors that are fueling the extremist movement: first, long-standing grievances such as corruption, injustice, and a fear of Western domination;"

The individuals identified by the president's term "extremist" are Muslims residing in countries that have been undermined and invaded by Western powers on a continual basis dating back to the early part of the 20th century.

In the case of U.S. corruption, injustice and domination in the Middle East, Americans need look no further than Iran, where the CIA conducted its very first successful overthrow of a peaceful foreign democratic government and installed a dictator as a puppet for U.S. control of Iranian oil. The struggle by Muslims in Iran to regain control over their own nation took 26 years. Less than a year after the Iranian Revolution the U.S. encouraged and assisted Saddam Hussein in an invasion of Iran. Ironically, today it is the U.S. that is the presiding authority over the trial of Hussein, despite having been complicit in the acts of which he is accused.

This "grievance" by Muslims regarding western powers using terrorism to take over and control Muslim lands is a legitimate one. Since the time Iran specifically requested an apology from the U.S. for America's covert intervention in Iranian affairs, requests have been made by Muslims for the United States government to remove its political and military forces from the Middle East. One can only hope that no country attempts to do to the U.S. what the U.S. has done to Iran and other Muslim nations.

"second, the jihad in Iraq;"

The word "jihad" is being misused and mischaracterized by a president who has no true understanding of what jihad is within the Muslim world.

Jihad, according to the Qu'ran, is an inner struggle against evil. Accordingly, many devout Muslims who have watched their lands pillaged and plundered by western political and military forces, have bound together in what they call an external jihad, or Holy War, in a struggle against the evil that has invaded their lands. Christians, Jews and Muslims all consider secular powers evil. The U.S. is a secular power exercising an offensive military invasion that has been countered by an external defensive struggle by Muslims against foreign invaders.

The Muslim inner struggle is similar to the inner struggles American Christians have resisting the evil that exists within our own hearts and society. And it is also similar to the external struggle many Americans engage in outwardly to defend this nation against those we consider evil enemies. If we believe we are justified in fighting against potential invading forces of this nation, certainly we must agree that Muslims are justified in fighting against actual invading forces within their lands.

In Iraq, the U.S. is clearly an invading force that has no rational, legal, or moral basis for being there. Furthermore, despite the overwhelming public opposition to the war, the U.S. government's goal is simply to win at all costs because of the strategic military, political and economic stakes.

"third, the slow pace of reform in Muslim nations;"

The president makes no sense with this kitchen sink remark. After quickly running out of factors fueling the insurgency against U.S. military control of Iraq, Bush has now began the process of tossing everything into the argument hoping to bolster his claims against the Muslims by including illegitimate claims alongside legitimate ones.

The Muslims surely have the sordid history of western intervention in their countries on their side of the argument for a vigorous defense of Iraq. Certainly, we can agree that if the Muslim Brotherhood was legitimate and right in calling for reinforcements from throughout the Pan-Arab region to defend Afghanistan against the Soviets from 1979 to 1989, then certainly the Muslim Brotherhood is justified in making the same call to defend Iraq from the control of the United States beginning in 1991 to this very day.

But the president wants us to believe that the "slow pace of reform" is an additional factor fueling an "extremist" agenda. To what reform is Bush referring? Iraq is a Muslim nation. The reform that is currently attempting to take place in Iraq is quite radical. Bush is attempting to forcibly install a selected government that will do the bidding of the United States, while ruling over a Muslim nation from a secular set of laws and ideology. Meanwhile, the underlying reform Bush fails to discuss is the complete reformation of the natural resources of Iraq, namely oil.

Neither our government nor national media exposes the fate of the Iraqi Oil Constitution. Yet, when it comes to reform, this is the most radical political effort currently taking place in Iraq, with the nation losing control of the greater majority of its own natural resource. If the president is referring to this reform as a factor fueling the insurgents, then such a reason seems plausible, and yet another completely legitimate reason for Muslims to defend Iraq at all costs.

"and fourth, pervasive anti-Americanism. It concludes that terrorists are exploiting all these factors to further their movement."

"Anti-Americanism" is a propagandist term used to garner support from those who think that America can do no wrong, and therefore anyone who has a beef with our nation must simply hate us based upon the fact that we are American citizens. However, when the American public is clued in to the horrific atrocities conducted by our government, we understand the rage that people must feel toward our leaders and the frustration they have toward American citizens who live daily under a cloud of propaganda, oblivious to the injury inflicted around the globe by our government and the power we have to stop it. Anti-Americanism is the term that has no other meaning than to convince the ill-informed public that people around the globe despise Americans (you and me) for simply breathing. Such a notion is preposterous.

"Some in Washington have selectively quoted from this document to make the case that by fighting the terrorists in Iraq, we are making our people less secure here at home."

That case is being made daily by the ever-increasing power rising in defense of Iraq. That power knows it cannot succeed by merely fighting in defense of Iraq within Iraq itself. That power knows it must reach the American people and convince us to rise up politically and persuade our government leaders to remove the U.S. military from the Middle East. Unfortunately, the veil of propaganda within the U.S. is not easily penetrated. And the method that seems to work to gain the attention of the American people is violence here at home. Of course, that same understanding is evident within our own leaders, who have restructured our government in a most extreme and radical fashion in the aftermath of a multi-faceted attack that, to this day, suspiciously bears the hallmarks of an inside conspiracy.

"This argument buys into the enemy's propaganda that the terrorists attack us because we are provoking them. Here is what Prime Minister Tony Blair said this week about that argument: 'This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy.' Prime Minister Blair is right."

Never offer the American people the pathetic words of a defunct, failed British leader, or any other leader outside of this nation in an effort to convince us that the decisions our presidents made to invade a nation that held no threat to the U.S. are legitimate. The chosen individual and his words are absolutely worthless. The British Empire was the catalyst for much of the chaos in the Middle East, given its penchant for conquering lands and carving them up without regard to the demography of the region. Thus, wars have broken out, not due to religious differences, but rather due to property rights and authority. There is much for which the British are to blame in the Mideast. And the very presence of Great Britain in any sovereign nation in which it was not invited gives rise to hostilities.

"We do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism."

No. We create terrorism by initiating covert ops, undermining governments, conducting economic warfare and illegally invading nations. We create enemies by financing brutal dictators, establishing friendships and providing chemical and biological weapons to known tyrants. And once having been found wrong, our refusal to leave areas where we have caused many atrocities due to our alliances with and financing of evil regimes fuels the fanaticism that runs rampant throughout the Middle East where we have pillaged and plundered for decades.

"The terrorists are at war against us because they hate everything America stands for, and because they know we stand in the way of their ambitions to take over the Middle East."

Mr. President, you will have to stop making stuff up. By claiming you know what "the terrorists" think, you stand as the official "terrorist" interpreter, since you produce no documented evidence to support the notion that The Muslim Brotherhood has gone on record as hating all Americans. Additionally, who are these "terrorists" that seek to take over all of the Middle East? I thought this was a fight for Iraq.

Now, you tell me this is a fight for the entire Middle East, and it is either these invisible "terrorist" Muslims who will own it, or the U.S. government? Didn't president Jimmy Carter annex the entire Middle East in his State of the Union address in 1980 and pledge that we would use military force to control it? Are you, your dad, Carter, Reagan and Clinton some sort of mini cabal that ignores the constitution, and the will of the American people in order to advance some secret economic agenda that requires stealing oil that doesn't belong to us?

It stands to reason that those who live in the Middle East have more of a legitimate ownership of the land than those western powers that invaded it. Unless, of course, the plan is to treat them in like manner to the Native Americans who lost the battle for their homeland. In that case, I fully expect in roughly 200 years Iraq will be completely converted to a detached state similar to Alaska and Hawaii. The indigenous population will likely be quarantined in a "sovereign" territory (reservation) within Iraq, governed by the U.S., far away from valuable land resources. Americans and Europeans will populate the coastal areas in waterfront homes within "modern" cities.

"We are fighting to stop them from taking over Iraq and turning that country into a safe haven that would be even more valuable than the one they lost in Afghanistan."

Well, it's interesting to note that the president has admitted Iraq is more valuable than Afghanistan. At least now we know why we have concentrated our forces and efforts in taking over Iraq while Afghanistan is a lost cause that garners little concern. But what is interesting as well is that Bush's argument is that Iraq should not become a safe haven for terrorists (people we cannot identify).

In essence, Bush has proclaimed that Iraq ought to be a nation whose citizenry is comprised of only those approved of by the United States. After all, we know according to the new Military Order (Martial Law) created by the White House, that only the president shall determine who is or is not a terrorist. And once having been determined to be a "terrorist," that person has no redress through any court on the planet outside of a U.S. military tribunal.

Among many problems with such an ideology is the problem of adjacent Muslim countries that surround Iraq (Syria, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) subscribing to the notion that Muslims who have a disdain for the U.S. government's intervention in the Middle East have a right to live, regardless of their opposition to western policies. Will the U.S. invade and control the citizens of all Muslim nations in the Middle East or create a fortress in Iraq from which it pumps oil to ships in the Persian Gulf? Or will it simply continue to threaten every nation in the Middle East with invasion (either you are with us or against us; handing over "terrorists" or harboring "terrorists") until the entire region submits to us out of abject fear?

"Iraq is not the reason the terrorists are at war against us."

Oh really? Then pray tell us why the "terrorists" are at war with us in Iraq. And please keep in mind that we have not always been engaged in this war, so it must have had a beginning. Can you shed some light on the cause?

"Our troops were not in Iraq when terrorists first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, or when terrorists blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, or when they bombed the USS Cole, or when they killed nearly 3,000 people on September the 11th, 2001."

Mr. President, with whatever respect you are due, the statement above is a bold-faced lie.

In the summer of 1990, your father sent more than 200,000 troops to Saudi Arabia under the pretext of defending the Islamic Kingdom. By the time January 1991 came around, your father had augmented that force to more than a half-million troops. The new pretext was to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. But the true reason was to invade Iraq, which your father did.

And after invading Iraq using an aerial assault, your father took control of 2/3 of the skies over Iraq, which was never relinquished. That constitutes an invasion, sir. Additionally, from 1991 to the present day, your father, along with President Bill Clinton and yourself, have bombed Iraq every year with the exceptions of years 1994 and '95.

Now, unless my history is wrong, I'm guessing that from 1991 to 2001 is an entire decade of U.S. military presence in Iraq with a rain of terror falling from the skies. And since 1991 precedes 1993, that makes your unbelievable statement not just false, but rather a bold-faced lie.

"Five years after the 9/11 attacks, some people in Washington still do not understand the nature of the enemy."

Unfortunately, that's true. It appears that there are enemies of the American people within this nation itself in positions of authority, even at the highest echelon.

"The only way to protect our citizens at home is to go on the offense against the enemy across the world. When terrorists spend their days working to avoid capture, they are less able to plot, plan, and execute new attacks on our people. So we will remain on the offense until the terrorists are defeated and this fight is won."

Mr. President, your argument is full of holes and unsubstantiated hyperbole. In the end, you tell me "the only way" is your way. And sir, that is not true. The American people are the true rulers of this nation. And the majority of registered American voters, voting senior citizens, Christian voters, African American voters, and various other voting blocs have spoken out against this war and the continuing sacrifice of U.S. troops in the Middle East. You are wrong. You are in opposition to the American people.

You have placed yourself as the arbiter of truth and the lone authority of what this nation ought to do. And you alone have ordered the military to go places and kill people while authorizing the numerous secret organizations under your power to ignore the law, ignore human rights, and work in secret to achieve covert goals through covert means that you alone have stated the American people have no right, authority or power to know about, much less prevent.

You, sir, have issued an edict to our congressional representatives that essentially neuters both them and the citizenry at large. In short, you have indirectly declared yourself dictator of the United States. And within that context, I should remind you that the constitution considers enemies who are both foreign and domestic. It recognizes that even the president can become a tyrant ... and it offers the people provisions for such an occasion.

____________

Mike Green is the author of "The WHOLE Truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask"

http://theTruthAboutTerror.com