Democracies Don't War

President Bush, explaining why democracies such as our own ought to start wars to spread democracy: because "democracies don't war." Visit the 'Christians Against Bush' Discussion Forum. Our President is 'idealistic,' we hear, which in Republican parlance evidently means 'willing to kill people.' According to radio and TV personalities who package the potty-mouthed Mr. Bush as a 'Christian,' we must swallow all this because this individual is willing to address 'To Whom it May Concern' prayers to a no-name "Almighty." Are you buying?

September 12, 2001 dawned to optimism about the military task facing the nation. America had been attacked by a small private army, numbering no more than 5,000 (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 470), staffed mainly by Saudi nationals: "...Saudis comprised the largest portion of the pool of recruits in the al Qaeda training camps...in any given camp, 70 percent of the mujahideen were Saudi, 20 percent were Yemeni, and 10 percent were from elsewhere." (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 232.) Their all-important sources of funding were also from this locale: "Al Qaeda appears to have relied on a core group of financial facilitators who raised money from a variety of donors and other fund-raisers, primarily in the Gulf countries and particularly in Saudi Arabia." (The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 170). Saudi Arabia, while a very wealthy country, is also sparsely populated and militarily insignificant. Yet as fortune or astute planning would have it, the same folks who financed 9/11 had also historically financed the Bush family.

Though the militia which had attacked us was small, albeit rich, Mr. Bush proclaimed the conditions for victory as no less than the complete social transformation of the entire region. . .or at any rate a part of it. The military was given the mission of transforming Iraq, a socialist police state, into a democracy. Although long-standing democracies like Great Britain are by no means immune to the Muslim fundamentalist terror threat, we are expected to imagine a parallel universe in which terrorists are driven to it by low income and lack of opportunity, quite unlike the real world where Saudi Arabia's gilded youth flock into al Qaeda. Iraq is a nation uninvolved in 9/11 attack, but is in the "same part of the world" as those nations which were involved, but which are now "key allies" in the war on terror. We thereupon invaded, though no known prior law of war had made the right of sovereign nations to live secure within their borders contingent upon political ideology.

In the process what would have been an do-able military project was upgraded to a social revolution not achievable by military means. Old-line military invaders like Hernando Cortes and Genghis Khan did not make their plans contingent on the cooperation of conquered peoples, because they knew this was unlikely to be forthcoming. There is just something inescapably bitter about watching one's sons and brothers get blown up as they stand in the trenches that leaves conquered peoples reluctant to embrace an invader. Already, according to opinion polls, the majority of the inhabitants of Baghdad want an immediate American military withdrawal. This public pressure cannot be resisted indefinitely by an formally democratic regime, although one already contracting the sphere of personal liberty. Thus the Iraq end-game is very likely to be a humiliating forced withdrawal at the hands of the government we installed.

Who is George W. Bush? A General Custer who has mindlessly led the nation into needless defeat...and then accused critics of defeatism? Or a Christian patriot? Express your views:

Baghdad Bob

During the 'shock and awe' phase of this military adventure, a public relations hack nick-named 'Baghdad Bob' excited laughter by extreme denial. 'Baghdad Bob' liked to point out that there were entire towns, even regions, of Iraq, where the visitor would see no violence, no bombs, nothing out of the ordinary.

This is always true. As the victorious Allies advanced on Berlin, they passed by out-of-the-way German villages where fat cows munched lazily on the green grass. No doubt many an Aztec villager would have asked, 'Who's Cortes?' of the reporter seeking a reaction. Yet it is also true that those people's lives were about to change in ways they could scarcely imagine.

Mr. Bush's supporters have picked up 'Baghdad Bob's fallen banner, and demand to see on TV only good news about Iraq. But those reporters who want to tell stories about happy villagers working peaceably together might as well go to Botswana; why take on all the risks of travelling in a war zone to tell stories that could be told anywhere? So long as they are there, why not report on the war?

Personal Confession

Since Reagan's second term I have been voting Republican on pro-life grounds. Has ever a political party carried a constituency along for the ride for so many years, without ever delivering the bacon? We are asked to vote Republican because they nominate justices like David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. If you believe him, Mr. Bush never even asked his ill-fated nominee Harriet Miers if she is pro-life. Heaven forbid, that would be a litmus test. Could politicians dream of a more naive, compliant and docile constituency than this, which swoons over a candidate who says he is pro-life, but does nothing about it?

That means I voted once for the President who might well be called the 'Twentieth Hijacker' for all the harm he has done to this country and its ideals. My eyes have been opened to the foibles of single-issue voting as I've watched, horrified, the single-minded pursuit of war by a President for whom I bitterly resent having voted. Given the self-congratulatory tone of the Republican convention, who could doubt that re-electing Mr. Bush will mean Four More Wars? Now this nation is at a cross-roads: we can continue bombing and strafing our way into the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world, or we can remember and return to the ideals upon which this republic was founded.

This unjust war was wildly popular. Yet it will go down in history as a criminal lynching, because an innocent party,--the nation of Iraq,--was punished for a crime it did not commit. Polls show that nearly seven in ten Americans became convinced Iraq was behind 9/11. If there was a case to be made for war, it should never have been based on the publication of a blood libel. There is enough blame to go around; yet there was, it appears, one man who wanted war from the outset, and saw opportunity to settle old scores in others' tears on 9/11. Did he, visiting Ground Zero, perceive in the public mood a lynch mob willingness to punish, not the guilty only, but whomever came to hand, provided only they were Arab and/or Muslim? Justice must start somewhere, unless patriots are willing to give up the ideal that once was America. It is still not too late to do the right thing:

Bush and the Bible

Moses' law criminalizes making an intentional false allegation against another party:

"If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 19:16-19).

Mr. Bush knew on September 12, 2004, that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, because this is when Richard Clarke, his counter-terrorism czar, told him so. Yet from that time to the present Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have sought to convince the public that Iraq was behind the terrorist assault on the twin towers. In the eyes of the Lord, as evidenced in Deuteronomy 19:16-19, this is a great evil.

Impeach Bush

For what should Mr. Bush be impeached? Imagine you're standing on the sidewalk watching as a posse of irate citizens comes stampeding by, looking to corner the culprit who has just moments before committed an horrific crime. Suppose you point to a man standing there and say, 'He's the one, he did it.' Suppose the man you point to did not do it, and suppose you knew that full well...you just happened to hate him. God has said what He thinks of such behavior in Deuteronomy 19:16-19.

We as a nation can agree with God on this or disagree with Him; either way, God is not mocked.

Election 2004

When terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, liberty stood firm, because it was founded on a rock. But then the second wave hit, as internal subversion sought to achieve what burning aviation fuel and twisted metal could not. Fundamental American values were trampled, at home and abroad, at Guantanamo Bay where detainees were held incommunicado in degrading conditions without ever hearing the charges against them, at home where librarians were expected to report what their patrons were reading. Foreign terrorists did not do this to us, we did it to ourselves. We've made a bargain with the devil in bartering away our freedom for security; we will end with neither freedom nor security. People of faith should realize, even if others do not, that however attractive or profitable doing wrong may seem, it's never the course of safety, because it is God who holds the outcomes in His hand.

The American people held the power in their hand to beat back this second wave last November. They did not.

What opportunity was missed? The American people had the opportunity last November to vindicate our character. We could have shown we understand it is wrong to start a war. This is what the Bible teaches: "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:18). But we did not. That portion of the electorate which self-identifies as 'Christian' played a crucial role in this election. These voters reported concerns with 'moral values.' Evidently for this constituency military aggression raises no moral concerns.

To the Lord's way of thinking, Christian values encompass more than 'social issues:'

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’” (Matthew 25:44-45).

The American electorate saw the populace of Fallujah under the gun, and did not minister to them. No doubt this is because they are 'terrorists:' even the little bitty babies. Not only did we not minister to them, we re-elected the terrorist who holds them at gun-point.

The founding fathers worried that America would be dragged into war by monied foreign interests: "...it become of so much consequence to certain nations, to have a friend of a foe at the head of our affairs, that they will interfere with money and with arms." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison on the Bill of Rights, December 20, 1787, p. 84, Jefferson's Letters, edited Willson Whitman.) Strangely enough the American people have chosen three times to be governed by a family which is a case study in conflict of interest. This family's rise to prominence was funded by the same pay-masters who finance international jihad. How can this make anyone feel safe?

Nor does Mr. Bush mind flaunting it. He strolls about in public, openly holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah. Meanwhile I am less and less able to recognize my own country. This same avaricious family has done all in its power to cheapen and degrade political discourse; elections now are mud-slinging contests. What I recall from the debates of my youth about the Vietnam war was the moral earnestness of all involved. There was no one, of any political persuasion, who argued that America should do what was wrong, provided it was in our interest. People then could not have wrapped their minds around the concept, 'America should do what is wrong;' they loved this country too much. One did not hear people suggesting we should deliberately reduce another country to anarchy, so as to afford ourselves a convenient shooting gallery to plink away at the terrorists who would rush in to fill the resultant vacuum. Yet people openly say that today, explaining that their way, you see, if we miss, we only hit natives. The America of Lynndie England,-- the America the Bush family has crafted,-- is not the country I remember as my home.

Repackaging

As of October 2005, the War on Iraq has been freshly repackaged as the war against "Islamo-fascism."

People like to know, not only what they are fighting against, but what they are fighting for. Americans who understood Communism, against which we contended in Vietnam, to be a great evil, nonetheless grew lost in perplexity watching Madame Nhu on TV, wondering, 'just why are we fighting for this bunch, again?'

The same might be said by those listening to the 'Islamo-fascist' present leader of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who advances the standard 'Islamo-fascist' policy goal: instituting Sharia, Islamic law, and discarding Iraq's heretofore secular legal structure. If we are fighting against 'Islamo-fascism,' then why are we also fighting for it? Despite the administration's habit of describing Iraqis as if they were small children and their ancient land a blank slate, Mr. al-Jaafari's 'Islamo-fascist' Dawa party in its past history has engaged in acts of terror against American targets. He is, in short, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist...and we handed him Iraq.

Had the United States wanted a secular Iraq, we could have refrained from invading that country, because that was the status quo prior to our invasion. Although past administration rhetoric has proved incapable of differentiating between the secular Arab nationalism of the Baath party and 'Islamo-fascism,' in fact their principles are diametrically opposed. So to portray our invasion of Iraq as a foray against 'Islamo-fascism' has it exactly backwards. While in Afghanistan, U.S. forces toppled a hostile Islamic fundamentalist regime and installed a secular government, in Iraq it's just the other way around: we overthrew a secular regime and established a nascent Islamic fundamentalist state. If one of these approaches is the correct recipe for confronting Islamist terror, it's unclear how the inverse could also be.

So, far from fighting against 'Islamo-fascism' in Iraq, we are fighting for it against all enemies, including secular Arab nationalists nostalgic for the old regime as well as 'Islamo-fascists' of a rival sectarian stripe from those we favor.

A glance at neighboring Iran, an 'Islamo-fascist' terrorist state of the Shia persuasion, leaves one unconvinced that Shia 'Islamo-fascism' is more benign than the rival Sunni brand. Indeed it was theocratic Iran who originally sponsored such 'Islamo-fascist' terrorist groups as the Badr Brigades, whose ascendancy in southern Iraq was not won on the battlefield but handed to them by the Bush administration. The divide between these sects began with a dispute about succession to Mohammad, founder and first conqueror on the road to the Muslim world empire. It has hardened into irreconcilable cultural differences. While Sunnis respect private judgment, Shi'ites expect each individual believer to subordinate his judgment to a 'source of emulation' like Ayatollah al-Sistani. This ayatollah graciously tells his followers for whom they may vote. Thus this one individual, an Iranian national who cannot vote in Iraq, nevertheless casts many ballots, through the purple-stained fingers of the many who do as he tells them. This is democracy in form, one-man rule in substance.

It may be objected that the current 'Islamo-fascist' leadership was voted into office by the electorate and thus the U.S. military has no choice but to uphold its tenuous hold on power. But elections held under foreign military occupation are rarely fair or free, and this was no exception. In a free election all parties are allowed to compete. During the height of the cold war, when America was locked in a death struggle with Communism, those few Americans who wished to do so were perfectly free to vote for Gus Hall, the perennial Communist standard-bearer. No one could have prevented them, because the first amendment to the U.S. constitution protects freedom of association, including the right to form political parties. When politicians commit crimes, a free society prosecutes the criminals, it does not outlaw their political parties. Thus if Republican Tom DeLay did indeed funnel illegal political contributions, who would suggest banning the Republican party as a fair and enlightened response? Yet Viceroy L. Paul Bremer, whose claim to rule rested not upon the consent of the governed but the right of conquest, banned the Baath party, a popular socialist party some of whose members had committed crimes against humanity. That portion of the electorate which would prefer to vote for this secular program was effectively disenfranchised. The foreseeable result was the triumph of the religious parties.

It is unclear why American blood should be spilled or American tax dollars expended to entrench the 'Islamo-fascist' regime of Ibrahim al-Jaafari. If we are fighting against 'Islamo-fascism,' why do we cry 'victory' upon installing 'Islamo-fascism' in power? A 'War Against Terror' that grants the terrorists exultant possession of the State cannot be counted a success.

One of the more lunatic notes struck by al Qaeda rhetoric is their pretension to world domination: a restoration of the universal Islamic caliphate. Sane observers cannot perceive a group whose only demonstrated military capability revolves around the indiscriminate murder of unarmed persons as poised on the brink of world domination. Yet our President assures us that, not only is al Qaeda poised on the brink of world domination, the only thing that staved it off was America's toppling of the prior secular government of Iraq. Left unexplained is how al Qaeda, previously described by our President as shattered, crippled and beaten, came to be poised on the brink of world domination. But this otherwise unstoppable outcome was staved off only for the moment; American must continue propping up Mr. al-Jaafari's Islamist government...or the world will come to be dominated by like-minded persons.

Unlike past insurgencies the U.S. has confronted, the Iraqi insurgency lacks a 'National Liberation Front,' a political umbrella under which various groups can unite to achieve stated war aims. Likewise it lacks a functioning provisional government. Failing any sense on the part of the public as to what an insurgent victory would mean, an essential ingredient for military success is missing. Never fear, our President, and the compliant media following him, have nominated the foreigner Zarqawi for the role of 'leader of the insurgency.' Some Iraqis reportedly believe the man himself to be a fiction devised by the United States, yet he really does exist, and does in fact lead a small al Qaeda-affiliated faction specializing in mosque bombings and the like. The aim of these atrocities is reportedly to start a sectarian civil war. This group does not aim at civil war in the belief that civil war is good for Iraq. How can further blood-letting heal this blood-drenched and blood-drained land? Rather, they aim at civil war in the belief it is bad for America. The hatred for humanity and contempt for human life displayed by this faction yield the same disgust in Iraq as in America. Thus it is difficult to understand the President's conviction that the only thing preventing this faction's triumph, indeed global conquest by al Qaeda, are the American troops who have been unable to stop these attacks on 'soft' targets.

According to objective sources, these indiscriminate enemies of humanity represent a small part of the anti-American insurgency: "One U.S. intelligence official said just 2 percent to 5 percent of attacks, generally those involving suicide bombers, can be directly blamed on al-Zarqawi." (Portland Press Herald, October 23, 2005, AP 'Terror Plotter "A Daily Threat"'.) Yet Mr. Bush reports that 100 percent of the insurgency arises from this source. Why the discrepancy?

Perhaps Mr. Bush is really more afraid of factions within the insurgency with more of a claim to the public's sympathy. Or rather it seems that this administration tosses around ideological terms as if they were confetti, land where they will. However Mr. Bush's war to unseat the Baath party's secular socialism can plausibly be described, the 'war against Islamo-fascism' is not it.

Stay the Course?

On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by Muslim fundamentalists. In March of 2003, the Bush administration 'counter-attacked' -- not against a Muslim fundamentalist regime, but against a secular socialist regime, in Iraq. That nation's dictator had acquired his reputation as a butcher by, in part, slaughtering Muslim extremists at a scale to scandalize the human rights community. A glance back at history shows that Republicans have always had difficulty discerning the threat Muslim fundamentalism presents to America, and have repeatedly 'switched' enemies on a sleepy public.

President Jimmy Carter, a sincere Christian, took care to provide for this country's security by encouraging energy independence. But then Reagan came along, it was 'Morning in America,' and that effort was abandoned. Mr. Reagan preferred to let the free market work its magic. How much further would this country be advanced on the road to energy independence had that effort been diligently pursued from President Carter's time to this day!

Caring only to harm the Communists, President Reagan bankrolled Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan. The jihad business was booming; this infusion of cash put jihadist cells in business. Lubricated with American dollars, the fundamentalist juggernaut began to roll over Coptic Christians and other non-Muslims who were owed our sympathy.

But the Republicans cared only for the almighty dollar. The first Bush administration sent our troops to fight and die for the Saudi royal family and their Islamist state, careful only that they not wear a cross nor anything else to give offense as they bled out. It is, you see, a crime in the Kingdom to practice any religion other than Islam. The first President Bush, observing the offense Christianity gave the Saudis, forbade American soldiers from practicing their religion. The royal family, delighted by his perspicacity, richly rewarded him with 'consultant fees' ever afterward. This should have come as no surprise; the Reagan administration had sold arms to Iran, a hostile Muslim theocracy, to raise cash for the anti-communist contras. The Clint Eastwood, tough guy lingo they employed delighted many in the electorate, even while their inability to distinguish friend from foe endangered American security.

We as Christians do not have to continue voting for people who harm our country.

When George W. took office, as a politician without national stature or experience, he hired from the talent pool of his father's administration. They continued down the same blind alley. Then the American homeland was attacked by Muslim fundamentalists. The Muslim fundamentalist Frankenstein which had been awakened with electric bolts of American dollars had turned on its creator. After first dispatching a small force to seek, without success, the terrorist commander, a veteran of the Reagan jihad, we ultimately 'counter-attacked' -- not against Muslim fundamentalists, but against an old-line leftist state, Iraq. This secular socialist state had not attacked us, nor threatened to do so. It was just some folks' favorite enemy, and public rage over 9/11 had handed them a 'free' war.

There are still Republican apologists who, even at this late date, don't 'get' what is wrong with Muslim fundamentalism: "Yes, separation of church and state has worked reasonably well in America, but it is not a universal principle...So why can’t Muslim countries make a democratic choice to govern themselves according to Islamic principles, even if those principles include the 'holy law'?" ('Making Room for Faith,' To the Source, by Dinesh D'Souza, February 25, 2005.) But the world has seen enough of the Islamic Revolution's bloody trail of murdered Bahai's and other non-conformists, to understand this form of government is oppressive. Nor is it prudent to respond to aggression by rewarding the movement with a big, fat plum: Iraq, not heretofore an Islamic republic, has seen the triumph of the Islamic Revolution, bought with the blood and treasure of the American people.

This administration accuses its critics of wishing to appease terrorists: "With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?" (Donald Rumsfeld, Salt Lake Tribune, 9/4/2006). What they accuse others, they nonchalantly do. Recall that Osama bin Laden's foremost demand was the withdrawal of American troops from 'sacred' Saudi soil. The Bush administration, naively believing it is possible to appease terrorists, has met bin Laden's demand, with a smile:

Giving Islamic extremists what they want does not make us safer, it only emboldens them. Giving them Iraq does not make us safer. The Republicans haven't learned, and they will not learn. We must turn them out of office.

The Republican temptation to appease stems from the illusion which underlies Mr. Bush's faith based initiative. Mr. Bush believes that religion does a body good. Not this religion or that religion; it doesn't matter which one,-- if the Mormons or the Nation of Islam sponsor worthwhile after-school programs, by all means fund them with tax-payer dollars. As Dwight D. Eisenhower phrased the Republican philosophy, "Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply held religious belief — and I don't care what it is." No Bible-believer agrees that religion as such is beneficial to the public. Is it Baal's religion, or God's? Mr. Bush cannot see his Saudi friends as bad people, and I'm sure they are not in many ways. Yet they sponsor not only the Bush family, but international jihad.

On November 2, 2004, the American people got the opportunity the German people never had. Having had occasion to observe Mr. Bush's fondness for starting 'preventive' wars, we could have voted him out of office. This they chose not to do, making the upcoming four years' worth of newspaper photos of burned babies a choice, not fate.

WWJD

Some update this to WWJB: 'What Would Jesus Bomb?,' or WWJT: 'Who Would Jesus Torture?,' but I like the old way better.

It makes me heartsick to realize the role the Christian community has played in this war. Well-meaning people wonder why so many evangelicals continue to believe Iraq was behind 9/11 when that has been shown to be false, and take it for 'ignorance.' Would that it were 'ignorance!' To the everlasting disgrace of American 'Christianity,' people are deliberately spreading this blood libel:

"Overwhelming evidence from western intelligence agencies points to Iraq as the primary nation behind the terrorist attacks against American by bin Laden's al Qaeda group." (Grant R. Jeffrey, War on Terror, p. 51);

"Israeli intelligence actually linked the terrorist plot to Afghanistan-based terrorist Osama bin Laden. They also revealed their sources provided 'strong grounds' for suspecting the involvement of Iraq as the nation supporting this threatened bin Laden attack...Unfortunately, no amount of after-the-fact analysis of Iraq's attack will change the situation that allowed a devastating terrorist attack to destroy the lives of more than three thousand innocent Americans." (Grant R. Jeffrey, War on Terror, p. 21).

Reminiscent of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' there is a publishing industry devoted to teaching Christians that 9/11 was "Iraq's attack." History will not judge the Christian community kindly, because tens of thousands of people have already died on the strength of this false accusation, with more to come.

Links

Here are some interesting links that I've googled up:

Reflections on the Fourth of July

We are embroiled, we are told, in a "battle between democracy and terror." One must logically conclude the nation of Iraq was invaded by 'democracy,' not by a hostile foreign power. Certainly had Iraq been assaulted, not by 'democracy,' but by a hostile foreign power, that would have been the patriot's call to arms. What ideals did the Japanese imagine themselves to embody when they bombed Pearl Harbor? 'Goodness?' 'Truth?' In that case, our counter-attack must have represented an assault upon goodness and truth. Fortunately, the victors write history, so we do not have to justify our past aversion to goodness and truth.

Mr. Bush has convinced his constituency that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and is thus deservedly punished for that crime...an allegation which just isn't so:

For a very long time Mr. Bush "connect[ed]' Iraq to the war on terror" by alleging, falsely, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. What else does the "counter" in "counter-attack" mean? Even as late as election eve 2004 Mr. Bush's supporters continued to believe this false allegation:

"Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided “substantial support” to al Qaeda, according to a new survey released here Thursday.

"Moreover, as many or more Bush supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago, before the publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports that debunked both notions.

"Those are among the most striking findings of the survey, which was conducted in mid-October by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm." (Jim Lobe, OneWorld US, October 22, 2004, 'Three of Four Bush Supporters Still Believe in Iraqi WMD, al Qaeda Ties')

The law of Moses requires a "diligent inquisition" (Deuteronomy 19:18) in judging guilt: that is, due process. The Christian community has fallen woefully short of this requirement of God, showing eager willingness to punish Iraq for 9/11, a crime for which that nation bore no responsibility.

The cost in human life has been staggering. Our military cannot be bothered to count corpses not our own; independent estimates range from tens of thousands, based on news reporting, to one hundred thousand, based upon polling data:

"One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion."
('100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq,' by Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 29, 2004)

Furthering the Islamic Revolution

On September 11, 2001, the American mainland was attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Displaying a contempt for the safety of his fellow-citizens that borders on treason, Mr. Bush placed the formerly secular socialist nation of Iraq into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists:

War Against Iraq

The Wrong War

In March of 2003 the American people broke faith with their forefathers and set their tanks rolling across an international frontier into a sovereign nation which had not attacked us nor our allies. In November of 2004 patriots relished the opportunity to return this nation to its fundamental values. But the patriots lost.

War is mass death. As such it is an irremediable evil, not the solution to the world's problems as Mr. Bush and the neoconservatives would have it. Because war is mass death, moral people must do all in their power to avoid it, not rush into it as if it were the answer to their dark prayers.

Liberation of Iraq

As the stated justifications for this war: purported links between Iraq and al Qaeda, and weapons of mass destruction, prove fictitious, public enthusiasm wanes only slightly. Watching the stated reasons collapse without weakening public ardor, observers must wonder, what are the real reasons? The joy of a lynch mob in punishing somebody, whether the guilty party or only someone similarly complexioned? Mr. Bush's own public praises him for 'kicking butt.'

Lyndon Johnson, another 'war president,' used to admit a fondness for conspiratorial thinking; he found the shortest distance between two points a tunnel. One likely outcome of our misadventure in Iraq is an Iran-facing government favoring a Shiite theocracy. Whose interests does that serve, other than Iran's ayatollahs? Ahmed Chalabi, once the darling of the neoconservatives, has at times acted to advance their interests; was he their agent all along? Did they see opportunity in a U.S. President who is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier?

Return to Answering Islam...