WHY IRAQ?

There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

Years of effort - and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession or close to possessing nuclear weapons. And the "weapons of mass destruction" obfuscation, designed to allow liars in the Bush administration to talk about poison gas in one sentence and mushroom clouds in the next, didn't even save them. No stockpiles of nerve gas were ever found; no weaponized infectious agents were ever discovered. That hasn't stopped right wingers from continuing to spew lies like "The nerve gas was hidden in Syria!" But sane people realize that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.

Years of effort -and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al Qaeda attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who remained in power only by intimidation and violence. He was a ruthless murderer, and although that is not a technical disqualification from being a religious zealot these days, he was not, in fact, connected with any religious movements. For him to be working with Al Qaeda would be like Ralph Reed to be working with Jack Abramoff - oops, bad example. But, despite the vicious and criminal efforts of the Bush administration to manufacture evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, there has been nothing added to the false claims that were being made many years ago. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.

Well, there is a connection, now. The tragic attacks of 9/11 have been used - cynically and falsely - as an excuse by the Bush administration to pursue their own fascist agenda and to expand executive powers far beyond all legal and Constitutional limits. It is worth asking whether the utter failure of the Bush administration to protect our nation from these attacks was the result of incompetence - certainly supported by an abundance of other examples - or treason - if warnings were ignored so that greater powers could be seized in a crisis.

So what was the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

It wasn't retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

It wasn't protection of our national interest from a rogue state. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and that there was no cooperation between the atheistic dictator and the religious mujadeen.

The answer can be found, finally, now http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html

Here is another Bush administration attempt to subvert the Constitution, this time by writing a treaty that isn't a treaty, that somehow binds our country to an agreement with Iraq that will never be ratified by Congress.

What does it say?

Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations.

That's what it was all about.

First, relocation of American military forces out of Europe where they are no longer needed and out of Saudi Arabia where they are endangering a friendly Saudi government. Second, as always with the corporate whores of the Bush administration, protection of the economic interests of their corporate sponsors.

Blood for oil; government of, by, and for people who have sold themselves out to Halliburton or Blackwater or other corporate criminals.

That's what is was all about. That's what it has always been about.

Disgrace is too mild a word.