Home / War / And the Winner of Bush’s Iraq War Is . . . Iran!
Print Friendly and PDF

And the Winner of Bush’s Iraq War Is . . . Iran!

Written by Gary North on April 1, 2013

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq “not quite a declaration of war, but almost” resolution in 2003. Do you recall how many Republican Congressmen voted “no”? Take a guess.



If the media went to the Congressmen and Senators who voted for this resolution, and asked them to explain why they did so, what would they say? I mean other than “no comment.”

“I was sucked in by Bush?” No. “Because Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction fooled me?” No. Why not? Because they kept voting for the money to fund the war until Obama pulled out the uniformed troops in 2011.

Why did they vote for the resolution in 2003? “They had weapons of mass destruction.” Well, no, they didn’t.

Then why continue to vote to fund it? “Support our troops!” Right. Get them killed. Get their limbs shot off.

Once a President sucks in Congress on backing an invasion — which is 100% of the time — Congress keeps funding the carnage until the next President quietly pulls them out. Always.

Support our troops!

Today, the USA has zero influence in Iraq. Iran runs the show from the shadows. This was published in the Los Angeles Times.

BAGHDAD — Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the geopolitical winner of the war appears to be their common enemy: Iran.

American military forces are long gone, and Iraqi officials say Washington’s political influence in Baghdad is now virtually nonexistent. Hussein is dead. But Iran has become an indispensable broker among Baghdad’s new Shiite elite, and its influence continues to grow. . . .

During a visit to Baghdad on Sunday, however, Secretary of State John F. Kerry was unable to persuade Maliki to stop Iranian flights crossing Iraqi airspace to Syria. The U.S. charges that Iranian weapons shipments are key to propping up Syrian President Bashar Assad; Maliki says there is no proof that Tehran is sending anything besides humanitarian aid. Kerry’s visit was the first by a U.S. Cabinet official in more than a year. . . .

“The Americans have no role. Nobody listens to them. They lost their power in this country,” said Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq, a Sunni, commenting on the disappearance of the Americans as a broker for most of Iraq’s disputes. . . .

“At the moment, Iran has something akin to veto power in Iraq, in that Maliki is careful not to take decisions that might alienate Iran,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. . . .

Maliki turned to Shiite Islamist parties and figures tied to Iran to stay in power after a close election in 2010. He has fended off challenges since then with the support of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who fears the expansion of Sunni power if Syria or Iraq collapses. Maliki has convinced the Iranians that he is the only one who can hold his country together, according to Iraqi politicians.

The neoconservatives gave support to Bush. The Republican faithful were behind Bush 100%. They re-elected him in 2004. “He got us into Iraq. Support our troops. Keep them in Iraq.”

The war cost $3 trillion, if it was half of the Iraq-Afghanistan war cost, which will total around $6 trillion, was used on Iraq. Oh, well. Who cares? Out of sight, out of mind. “Iraq? Never heard of it.”

A decade ago, American flags were flying on car bumpers. America was off to show those Iraqis who was in charge. The fact that hardly any American could find Iraq on a map was irrelevant. Maps are irrelevant to Americans.

In 1983, American supported Iraq in its war with Iran. Rumsfeld — good old Rummy — was there to shake Saddam’s hand.

Thirty years and three wars (Iraq-Iran, Bush I, Bush II) later, Iran has won.

Who’s next to be shown a thing or two by the U.S. government? Who’s next to be pushed around?

The same victim as before: the U.S. taxpayer. He loves it! “Let’s roll!”

Over there. Over there.
Send the word, send the word, over there.
That the banks are coming. The banks are coming.
There’s drum, drum drumming everywhere!

Continue Reading on articles.latimes.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

10 thoughts on “And the Winner of Bush’s Iraq War Is . . . Iran!

  1. If asked and they actually answered, they would probably say because they owned stock in weapons manufacturers. Those were the big winners, like Chaney’s Halliburton. Billions and billions and billions of our money made a whole lot of people filthy stinking rich.I would love to know how much money Chaney got from all of this. Amazing how intentionally ignorant the citizens of this country truly are.

  2. The WMDs were moved to Damascus 6 weeks before we invaded Iraq, that is why they were not found.

  3. Just like the Vietnam conflict, the industrial military complex is owned by Democrats.

  4. Phillip the Bruce says:

    Only in the US are non-nuclear weapons considered WMD's. That's because only the US Government has ever USED nuclear weapons. Iraq had no nuclear weapons. If they had "other WMD's" it's because Rumsfeld (as part of the Reagan administration) gave them to Saddam to use against Iran.
    BTW, Iran has no nuclear weapons either, nor are they close to achieving any. According to "our" NIE, they shut down their program in 2003.

  5. Well, you are right on one thing. Obama is irrelevant on the world stage… and with his support of Islam. they can do anything they want… anywhere. The "food stamp president" can't even clean up Chicago!

  6. awkingsley says:

    Are you sure? Because the IAEA was checking Iraq just like they check Iran, and there are no nukes in either country. Both countries mine uranium and use the uranium for power plants and other purposes. Our interest in Iraq and Iran is in preserving the Petro Dollar (U.S. Dollar) as the World's Reserve Currency. Iran already trades oil for gold and other commodities. China is building oil refineries in Iran. Being the World's Reserve Currency means over 1/2 trillion per year to the U.S. from the oil trade alone. Our wars in the Middle East are essentially for "Blood Money." If the U.S. had not moved to a fiat currency and run the printing presses night and day, we might have a basis for argument, but we debased our own currency, making it less viable for world trade. Now, China, Russia, India, and other countries want a new currency to take the place of the U.S. Dollar as the World's Reserve Currency.

  7. Actually Saddam is on record as telling an American intelligence agent of Arab descent who we used to befriend Saddam in the hopes of getting him to talk that there never were any WMDs, and that it was all a bluff to maintain an illusion of strength with respect to Iran and any other enemies in the Middle East. Saddam made the mistake of deciding to try and open an oil market that traded in oil, but not using dollars. Gaddhafi made same mistake a few years ago. Look where it got the both of them. Iran has decided to do the same, but the demise of the American empire and the petrodollar is too close for the US to succeed a third time. Take a look at what the BRICS countries are doing. Look at how many countries are bypassing the dollar for trade.

  8. Seymour Kleerly says:

    The Right Wing media, Fox News and talk radio used facisim to push the war. Dissenters were UNPATRIOTIC!

  9. TruthWFree says:

    I agree that Iran has considerably benefitted from our ouster of Saddam and become more beligerant, however, I do not believe GW Bush lied. Everyone had the intelligence that Saddam had WMD. Saddam would have grown in power and eventually he would have had to be dealth with…like Hitler. Is the current situation with Iran worse than a Saddam taking over the entire Middle East and the oil resources of Kuwait, Saudi's?…quite possibly so…but that's a judgement call that can't be reversed.
    I was puzzled that GH did not go all the way to Baghdad, and I supported the ouster of Saddam by GW…hindsight tells me that may not have been the best thing to do…but then, hindsight is alway 20/20.

  10. OregonMuse says:

    Iraq had no WMDs? Tell that to the Kurds.