Bush Administration Fueling/Funding Iraqi Civil War

Has anyone stopped to ask, "What if Bush doesn't want to win in Iraq"? I think it's a pretty solid question to ask.

It seems to me we're spending so much time expecting some sort of exit strategy from Iraq that we're missing the overall picture. That being that the Bush Administration is funding the Iraqi Civil War and trying to start World War III.

This sounds insane to the logical person but hear me out.

We're already in Iraq and Afghanistan creating chaos without any sort of plan. We refuse to pull out even if timelines and benchmarks are not reached. Why? What's in this for us? Oil?

Well the region is loaded with oil. So taking out various countries in the regions strengthens our grip on what's out there and available to US oil companies. It also makes certain friends of the corporations and their shareholders very rich when they determine the eaxct supply amount that is put on the market.

This however is something bigger. The Neo-Cons see this as a game of Risk. Taking one major region out is a means to strike and control another. They have been notably upset since the end of the Cold War and this certainly will stoke a new cold war (or possibly World War) with both Russia and China who most certainly would have their interests hurt by us controlling Iranian and Middle Eastern oil.

Consider this: The Bush Administration is now pushing for a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. You know, the host country for the majority of the 9/11 hijackers? Not to mention the home country of Osama Bin Laden. So he's arming the Saudis who are Sunnis and whom American officials contend are already playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

But wait, they're using our troops to protect the Shia government. Not to mention this is after the Pentagon helped Prime Minister al-Maliki train Shia death squads to slaughter Sunnis. This new deal arms both groups and puts our troops in the middle of a civil war.

Then you take a look at Iran. Hawks are pressing for war with Iran and the Administration already put out a release stating that they have a right to go to war with "rogue states" and "islamic terrorists" in 2002.

Their two main points in pressing this case are the same ones they tried unsuccessfully to make with Iraq. 1) They have or are trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction and 2) they are funding terrorists that are doing harm to the U.S. (or in this case our soldiers and Iraqi stabilization).

On the first issue we'd probably have been able to stop the Iranian nuclear program or at least know way more about it had they not outed the CIA's covert nuclear counter-profiliferation agent who was working on Iran, Valerie Plame. Of course we all heard how it was for "political" reasons because they wanted to get back at her husband, Joe Wilson, for exposing their lies on yellowcake uranium coming from Niger and being sought by Iraq.

The more logical explanation was that it shut down the CIA's undercover nuclear investigations in Iran and now with incomplete intelligence it makes the case for war that much easier to make. After all we have no idea just how far along their nuclear program is or what they have tried to obtain at this point.

Also we've been advising terrorists inside Iran to cause havoc there and inflame tensions with Ahmenijhad.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo that detailed plans to invade seven countries after 9/11, which General Wesley Clark brought up in this interview. It mentioned, "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran".

That sounds like a pretty big swath of countries in the ever growing in reality version of Neo-Con Risk.

And the tensions in Iraq only get worse. al-Maliki HATES Gen. Petraeus and is threatening to arm Shia Militias (in response to our arming the Sunnis) if we don't take him and his Bush-ordained view of Iraq out of there.

The funniest part is we already know what Petraeus will say in September because he follows Bush's orders (contrary to that BS line Bush gives about listening to his generals and not legislating what they do from Capitol Hill) and the White House has made sure to send them to RW shills like Fox and Hugh Hewitt to get their message out early.

Here he's causing more problems with Iraqi leadership, has pushed the Bush view on Iraq down their throats and is going to come back here and feed the same crap to us and we're supposed to take him at face value?

Of course at this point why should we take anybody in this Administration at face value on the tensions in the Middle East? It seems to me they'd rather fund terrorists, arm everybody and start a world war to take the entire region and create another century's worth of cold war with Russia and China.

If we fight them there, we don't have to fight them here. Riggghhhttt....

-Rp