Tunisia has Joined the Democracy Club

The Arab Spring Revolution has begun to bear fruits in Tunisia. The Tunisian people began to cast their votes last Sunday (10/23/11) in a democratic way for the first time in their modern history. International organizations have reflected positively on the Tunisian election and have recognized its transparency and straightforward achievement of succeeding in removing the country from dictatorship and creating a democratic setting in a short period.

However, it was also reported that the popular political party headed by Mr. Hamdi, who is linked to the previous regime, has violated election rules. The seats they have won were canceled by the election commission due to financial irregularities used in Sidi Bouzed City.

Mouhammad bou-Azizi set himself on fire (12/2010) to protest the corrupt authoritarian regime of Zein Al Abideen, which led to the collapse of his regime. This has paid off for the Tunisian population. The Tunisian electoral commission said that the Islamic Ennahda political party emerged as the winner in the election and they will end up getting between 40%-45% of the votes for the assembly, which will consist of 90 seats out of the 217 seats.

The party’s leader Mr. Rashid Ghannouchi has said publicly that he will not form an Islamic state and he will invite other secular political parties to join his government. The reported news noted that Mr. Ghannouchi has already contacted two centers, left secularist groups, the Congress for the Republic and Ettakatol as possible partners in the proposed future government that will be formed when the voting counts end.

Tunisia, which led the Arab Spring Revolution, also initiated the first real and free secular democratic voting in an organized and peaceful manner in the modern history of the Arab world.

It was reported that more than 90% of the eligible Tunisian voters have participated in the election. The Tunisian people have set an example to the rest of the Arab world as a model to follow the path toward democracy.

The Tunisian people deserve the credit for the smooth transition that took place during the past nine months after the collapse of the previous regime. They have developed a sound political strategy by starting with the creation of a civilian commission who supervised the direction of the transitional period, which at the end led to the election of its parliament. Despite the fact that the Egyptian revolution took place one month later, the transitional period reflects many problems due to the fact that the Egyptian Higher Military Council has been the source of authority and not the civilian government. In Tunisia, the military stayed out of the way of the civilian transitional authority.

Furthermore, the Tunisian people traditionally have lived in a more socially and culturally liberal environment, even under the previous authoritarian regime of Zein al Abideen. For example, Tunisian women enjoyed more equality than their counterparts in Egypt. Also, the illiteracy rate in Tunisia is less than 15% while in Egypt it is about 34% for the society at large. The illiteracy rates among Egyptian women are much higher than among the men.

Since its independence, the Tunisian government has put more emphasis on education and healthcare, even before Zein al-Abideen assumed power 24 years ago. The Egyptian situation has been deteriorating rapidly during the more than three decades of Hosni Mubarak’s rule.

One additional remark to be made is that the Tunisian Islamic Ennahda political party is more liberal in its views of Islamic interpretation than any organized Islamic political group in the Arab world. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood could learn a great deal from their Tunisian brothers.

Finally, we can say without hesitation, so far, that Tunisia is marching on the right path towards the creation of a democratic society and that it is setting an example for the rest of the Arab world to follow.

End of Gadhafi's Era

Moammar Gadhafi, the ousted head of Libya, was found hiding in an underground drainage pipe in Misrata, his birthplace. He was arrested but was killed in crossfire, according to reports. He ended up getting what he deserved. Also, his son Mutassim was arrested and killed as well. Saif il-Islam, the second son of Gadhafi, was reported killed but later reports revealed he is still alive and there are no updates on where he is.

Nevertheless, the Gadhafi era is over. He ruled Libya with an iron fist for 42 years and killed many young Libyans who rebelled against his rule. More than 70,000 civilians were killed.

Gadhafi ruled and viewed Libya as his own ranch and the people as his own sheep. His lawless political and personal manner and behavior reflected on his abnormal personality. Gadhafi came to power as a result of a military coup in 1969. During the past 42 years of his rule, he wasted large portions of Libya’s wealth on unproductive economic projects that were of no benefit economically to the country as a whole. Due to the absence of transparency and a lack of accountability, nobody dared to challenge his political strategy and actions for 42 years. He was a corrupt political leader. His hidden family wealth has been estimated to be between $131 and $150 billion.

Despite the fact that Libya is rich in oil resources, the income from its sales was not directed to meaningful economic development, which kept the country underdeveloped. Nearly 20% of the Libyan population of 6.5 million is classified as poor. Its GNI is $12,000 per capital. In addition, Libya is one of the largest Arab countries area-wise. Most of the land is classified as desert. Nevertheless, the country’s oil and natural resources remain partially underdeveloped.

However, the Gadhafi era ended and the young people’s revolution turned out to be among the most violent and bloody among the spring revolutions in the Arab world.

The New Libyan political leadership has a major political, economic and social responsibility. It should begin by establishing a free democratic society with equal rights to all of its citizens, irrespective of their tribal, ethnic or religious beliefs. The new political rulers should eliminate the barriers and the regional tribal conflicts that Gadhafi created during the past four decades. Unity among the Libyan people is a must and a prerequisite for progress and economic development.

The era of a man who inflicted so much suffering and agony and torture on his people has finally come to an end. A new future is now available to the Libyan people and I hope they will use it wisely.

What will the impact of Gadhafi’s death be on the leadership of hot spots in the Arab world, especially Syria and Yemen? Those corrupt political regimes have failed so far to get the message. However, at the end, the will of the people and their fight for freedom will prevail.

Withdrawal of US Troops from Iraq

During the past few months, several high-ranking U.S. officials, from Vice President Biden to Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chief of Staff of the military forces, visited Iraq. The main objective of such visits was to prolong the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Previous President George W. Bush signed an agreement in 2008 with the Iraqi government to pull all American troops out by the end of 2011. Also, in a speech at a meeting of the American Veterans of Foreign Wars (8/2/2011) President Obama announced that American soldiers’ combat missions in Iraq would come to an end by August 31^st, 2011 and that the troops would leave by the end of 2011.

The puzzling question that needs to be asked is why President Obama is trying to reverse his decision by pressuring the Iraqi government to agree to keep a residual force as large as 18,000 (nearly half of the 44,500 troops) in the country? The American rationale is that Iraq is not ready to assume the responsibility of defending its borders. Furthermore, the rationale maintains these troops will be needed to train the Iraqi military forces on the new weapons purchased from the U.S. The Iraqi government has been reluctant to accept that number, which has dropped to 5,000 troops. Also, the Iraqi government stipulated that the American soldiers who will be left in Iraq would also be subjected to Iraqi law. As of 10/18/2011, the U.S. government has rejected the Iraqi proposal since it will not provide immunity to U.S. soldiers from prosecution in Iraq.

The Iraqi government does not want to see another irresponsible group like the Blackwater security forces that opened fire on Iraqi civilians that led to the killing of 17 people in 2007. It was reported that the U.S. government is planning to send 16,000 civilian employees who will be connected to the Secretary of State Department under the supervision of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Nearly 80% of that number are American contractors and not officially employed by the State Department. The U.S. Embassy staff in Iraq has already been estimated at 1,750 employees. In addition to the military forces that will be kept if the Iraq government agrees, the U.S. is also planning to contract from the American private sector around 5,000 security guards to protect Americans who are connected with the U.S. Embassy.

The U.S. military forces have already closed 484 bases and there are still 20 active military bases. Leaving even a small military force in Iraq after December 20^th 2011 would prolong the problem. It seems to be that American politicians have failed to see beyond their noses.

First, the majority of the American public has demanded that all U.S. troops should be pulled out not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan.

Second, as Professor J. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner and economist at Columbia University, pointed out, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the first war in U.S. history paid for entirely on credit. The direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion or $17,000 for every U.S. household, with bills yet to be received that will increase this amount by more than 50%.

Third, the members of the American Congress, in particular the Republicans, are ignoring the American public’s call to pull out American troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fourth, members of the Republican Party in Congress keep talking about the budget deficit and ignoring that the two wars that they have supported are a major contributing factor to the budget deficit.

Fifth, what has their aggressive military adventure has achieved so far? Close to 6,000 American soldiers have been killed in both wars and more than 35,000 have been injured. There is no end in sight, at least for the war in Afghanistan. I would say that at the end, the U.S. will withdraw from both wars and the only winners will be the American Military Industrial Complex and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.

Recent Protesters Clashes

While watching the news on Arab TV networks, I was disappointed and dismayed by the clashes that were taking place between the protestors and the Egyptian military at Maspero Square in front of the Egyptian TV building (10/9/2011). The protestors were young Egyptian Copts who were demanding political reforms as a result of the burning of an Egyptian Coptic church in Aswan governate a few days earlier.

The protestors accused the Higher Military council of being too soft on Islamic fanatics whose influence has been increasing against Egyptian Copts since the January 25^th Revolution. Several churches have been attacked and burned during the past seven months and the government has failed to prevent such violent acts.

The protestors were demanding the removal of the Aswan governor, who has failed to interfere and stop the attacks on Coptic churches. An Egyptian law from the nineteenth century, which is no longer applied by the government, prevented the construction of churches in Egypt. According to that law, the president of Egypt is the only authority that can permit the construction of a Coptic church. The protestors demanded that this law be replaced. The protestors were demanding the passage of a new common law that will apply equally to the construction of churches and mosques.

The issue of religious discrimination is the most serious problem for Egypt, because it tampers with its natural unity and security. It is a very puzzling question to ask – why has the Egyptian Higher Military Council failed to remove the outdated law, which they have already discussed and which led to past Coptic demonstrations? The Military Council has the power to do so and it would be a politically constructive act that would prevent the enemy of the revolution (at both the national and international level) from interfering in Egypt’s national security and unity.

Furthermore, the recent protest movement has caused the deaths of 25 people and the injuries of another 329, according to the reported news. It should be repeated that Muslim and Christians stood together in support of the January 25^th Revolution, which led to its success. Also, it is understandable that the Egyptian public, who has been living for many decades under authoritarian rule, especially during the Mubarak regime, wants an immediate and quick positive result. Reform is a slow process, especially in certain sensitive areas that require more time to accomplish it. However, the slow changes, especially in regards to sensitive areas such as religious discrimination, should not wait. Reforms should be implemented immediately to maintain unity among the Egyptian population. To illustrate the urgency of the political reforms, some people within the Egyptian Coptic community called for international protection, which means that their own government has failed to protect them. The Coptic Christians of Egypt are an important part of the Egyptian political and social structure and should be treated equally and should not be viewed differently from their Muslim brothers. The elimination of the law that focuses on the delay or prevention of the construction of churches is urgent. It should be replaced by a new law that gives equal treatment to the construction of churches and mosques in Egypt. Until this happens, the conflict will continue to threaten Egypt’s unity and national security.

The rector of al-Azhar, Dr. Al-Tayeb, and other high ranking religious leaders from both sides have issued an official request (10/11/2011) asking the government to expedite the passage of the new law to replace the old one in order to avoid any further conflicts. The January 25^th Revolution has been tarnished by what occurred at Maspero Square.

Environmental Considerations

This is posted with the permission of the author Dr. Mahmoud Roushdy.
Comments are welcomed.

                                                  

الأستاذ الدكتور محمود رشدى

المستشار بالإكاديمية

الحديثة بالمعادى

تأملات فى البيئة

تتعرض القاهرة الكبرى هذه الأيام لما اعتدنا أن نطلق عليه السحابة السوداء والتى تعودنا أن نستقبلها فى المساء وتستمر طوال الليل حتى مطلع الصباح فتزكم الأنوف وتسبب لنا ضيقاً شديداً فى التنفس.

ويشاهد المسافر بالقطار من القاهرة إلى الإسكندرية ألسنة النيران ترتفع فى حقول الأرز للتخلص من قش الأرز الذى حولته دولاً كثيرة فى العالم إلى منتجات ذات فائدة لمواطنيهم مثل الأسمدة واستخلاص السليلوز الذى يدخل فى صناعة الورق والأعلاف الحيوانية بل تصنيع قوالب للبناء ذات درجة صلابة عالية، ولكننا فى مصر نضيق ذرعاً بهذا القش ونناصبه العداء فنلجأ إلى إبادته حرقاً.

ليس هذا وحسب، لكن تلجأ جهات مسئولة بالدولة إلى عمليات حرق مكشوف للقمامة التى تنتج منها القاهرة الكبرى يومياً ما يزيد عن 12 ألف طن، وكم سمعنا عن عمليات تدوير القمامة وتحويلها إلى سماد عضوى كما هو متبع فى جميع بلاد العالم بل ولا يوجد فى العالم بلد واحد يعانى من مشاكل القمامة أو بلد فى العالم يضم بين جنباته قرية للزبالين ومع هذا حين ظهر وباء حمى الخنازير سارعنا بقرار عشوائى متسرع بإبادة مزارع الخنازير عن آخرها دون مراعاة إلى أنها كانت وسيلة للتخلص من نسبة كبير من القمامة كما أنها كانت مصدر الزرق الوحيد للعاملين بها ولمالكيها.

وعجباً تقوم الدولة بتحصيل رسم للنظافة قسراً وتعسفاً مع فاتورة الكهرباء ندفعه ونحن صاغرين لا نملك من الأمر شيئاً فهو فرمان ملوكى غير قابل للمناقشة فأين تذهب حصيلة هذا الرسم الغامض؟

وقبلها 2% نظافة منذ عشرات السنين.

لقد طالعتنا الصحف الأسبوع الماضى بخبر هام استبشرنا به خيراً مفادة القبض على بعض المجرمين الخارجين على القانون وهم فى حكم الإرهابيين وتحويلهم للنيابة وإخطار وزير البيئة بالواقعة المؤسفة التى تتمثل فى اصطياد هؤلاء المجرمين لصقر صغير من إحدى المحميات الصحراوية التى تعيش فيها هذه الصقور البرئية وهى من الأنواع النادرة التى نخشى عليها من الأنقراض وقامت وزارة البيئة باتخاذ الإجراءات الفورية اللامة لردع هؤلاء المجرمين – عجبى!!

وبالمناسبة يوجد لدينا شرطة للبيئة ومندوبين من جهاز شئون البيئة لهم سلطة الضبطية القضائية ولدينا قانون البيئة رقم 4 لسنه 94 لكنه مصاب بالشلل والعياذ بالله بل ربما قد أصيب بالسكتة القلبية.

إن هواء القاهرة الكبرى الآن على الخريطة الصحية العالمية به أعلى نسبة من الملوثات من أكاسيد كربون وأكاسيد كبريت ونتروجين ورصاص وشوائب عالقة تفوق المعدلات المسموح بها عالميا، وهناك ألاف المركبات تجرى فى شوارع القاهرة تنفث سمومها دون أن تعترضها شرطة المرور أو شرطة البيئة التى لا ندرى الواجب المنوط بها تنفيذه، وهذه المركبات جميعها قد أجازت صلاحية السير بالفحص فى إدارات المرور والحصول على صلاحية السير مقابل رسم مالى.

ويجب ألا ننسى شباب ثورة 25 يناير المباركة حين شمروا عن سواعدهم الفتية وقاموا بحملة تنظيف وتجميل للشوارع والميادين، وفى المقابل ورداً للجميل يقوم المواطنون بنشر تلال القمامة فى مختلف أنحاء المدينة لتكون مرتعاً للحشرات الناقلة للأمراض والكلاب الضالة.

ودون أن تتحرك الإجهزة المسئولة للتخلص من هذا العار؟ ألا نخشى على شباب الثورة من أن يصيبه الإحباط واليأس؟

أخيراً وليس أخراً يحسب لوزارة البيئة أنها تحتفل سنوياً باليوم العالمى للبيئة وتقام الندوات والليالى الملاح ويلقى الوزير خطابا بالإنجازات والمنجزات فهل لنا علاقة من قريب أو بعيد بأنظمة البيئة فى دول العالم بل وما نتائج مشروع تحسين هواء القاهرة الكبرى  الذى مولته هيئة المعونة الأمريكية سابقاً بما يقرب من 36 مليون دولار تضمن خمسة بنود رئيسية أحدها بند (الوعى البيئى) وذلك عن طريق برامج دعائية فى وسائل الإعلام المسموعة والمقروءة والمرئية ومع هذا لم نشاهد برنامجاً واحداً فى التليفزيون يدعو لتوعية المواطنين بأهمية الحفاظ على البيئة وهى أولاً وأخيراً مسئولية مشتركة بين المواطنين ووزارة البيئة بالمقام الأول ثم الإعلام والصحة والسياحة، وبالمناسبة ما أكثر برامج التوك شو والفيديو كليب التى يبثها التليفزيون.

ولابد من ضرورة تجريم إلقاء المواطنين للقمامة بالشوارع وتغليظ عقوبة ذلك والاستعانة (بشرطة البيئة) فى التنفيذ.

ولكن وبالتوازى ما هى الوسيلة العصرية والمقبولة لتداول القمامة بدءاً من باب المسكن حتى مكان التجميع وأن تكون داخل أكياس خاصة تصرف للمواطنين من حصيلة رسم النظافة على فاتورة الكهرباء وهو لازال بنداً غامضاً حتى الآن.

انتبهوا أيها السادة.

مصر الثورة تناديكم

Code Name Troy – The Killing of A. Al-Awlaki

The American news networks focused their attention nearly all day (9/30/2011) on the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen by a drone strike.

It was reported that both the Saudi and Yemeni intelligence helped in locating al-Awlaki and the information was passed to the Americans.

Al-Awlaki is an American born citizen and graduated from the College of Engineering at Colorado University.

Al-Awlaki abandoned his engineering profession and became an Islamic cleric preaching his new political-religious doctrine with emphasis on America’s aggressive foreign policy against Muslims in general and the Arab population in particular. He emphasized the one sided American support of Israel, which continues to kill Palestinians and confiscate Palestinian land to build Jewish settlements in the West Bank, demolishing thousands of homes to implement their ethnic cleansing policy. When the Palestinians resist, then they are labeled as terrorists. Furthermore, when the issue of aggression is taken to the Security Council, the outcome can be predicted in advance. The U.S. representative is there to cast their “veto” to protect Israel and give the Israelis the green light to continue their aggressive policy against the Palestinians.

The American support of Israel has been consistent since its creation in 1948. President Obama’s recent speech at the U.N. General Assembly (September 2011) turned many people off, especially those who are knowledgeable on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even Prime Minister B. Netanyahu couldn’t have written a better speech in support of Israel.

Such types of one sided American foreign policy is nothing but an invitation to some young people to join organized terrorist groups with an intention of attacking the U.S.

In my judgment, Mr. A. al-Awlaki, who was born in the U.S., is a typical example of someone who joined al-Qaeda to retaliate against and fight the one sided American foreign policy in the Middle East.

The American born al-Qaeda cleric was also critical of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which led to the killings of more than one million Iraqi civilians.

The American military strategy to fight terrorism has produced a counter reaction by contributing to an increase in terrorist activities worldwide since the 9/11 attack.

The remarks made by President Obama about the killing of the al-Qaeda cleric al-Awlaki, who threatened to use WMD against the U.S., include that the killing was justified and that it was a major “blow” to al-Qaeda.

Some writers and judicial organizations, such as the ACLU, have questioned the killing of an American born citizen without an investigation and the due judicial process.

For those who are well versed in the issue of terrorism, it is a fact that violence produces more violence. There are two terrorist ideologies, the al-Qaeda one and the American governmental one, which are being used by both to justify the war on “terrorism”.

The killing of some top leaders of terrorist organizations, such as bin Laden, A. al-Awlaki and others, will not stop their aggression. Leaders are always replaced by others from their ranks. The terrorism that has been taking place reflects a struggle between two ideologies: an American one and al-Qaeda’s.

The American political policy, which has been in use and is based on the domination of the Arab world through their support of corrupt political regimes, has been consistent since the end of World War II. The two main objectives behind the American political ideology are the control of oil production and the protection of Israel. Bin Laden made it clear and stated publicly during the 1980s that the U.S. should stop supporting Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. The U.S. should play an evenhanded role in this conflict. According to bin Laden, if the U.S. complied with his request, then there would be no conflict between al-Qaeda and the U.S.

It was unfortunate that there was no communication at that time between al-Qaeda and the U.S., which could have stopped the tragic attack of 9/11. It is unfortunate to say that the war on terrorism between the U.S. and al-Qaeda will continue until wise political leaders on both sides begin verbal communication, which might lead to an end to terrorism.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 prompted some politicians, writers, journalists and scholars to raise many questions about the legality of the war. Some even called for the investigation of crimes committed during the Bush era. In his book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Vincent Bugliosi stated that, “On the evidence collected, George W. Bush should b put on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq”. Mr. Bugliosi has built a popular reputation as a public prosecutor at the L.A. County District Attorney’s office.

There are still many supporters of President Obama who are raising questions about the Bush era and the crimes committed and so far there have been no attempts to investigate members of the previous administration.

In an article written by Andrew King of the Justice Integrity Project, “Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crimes”, he stated, “The transitional advisors team led by Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean of Law School at the University of California Berkeley, have advised Obama’s ‘Look Forward’ policy on Bush-era law breaking that the president elect announced on a TV talk show in January 2009.” Edley’s rationale implies that “Obama and his team fear the military/national security forces that he is supposed to be commanding. It suggests also that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency, even though voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history.”

I am of the opinion that Obama made the wrong decision by following the transitional committee’s recommendation for the following reasons. The first reason is that the majority of the American voters, especially the younger generation, cast their votes for the first time, hoping that the president elect would introduce massive political and economic reforms badly needed to put the U.S government back on its correct track.

It is unfortunate that President Obama did not learn quickly that the Republican members of Congress are not going to cooperate with him. They have made it public that he is a one-term president. During the first two years of his administration, Democrats dominated Congress, the Senate and the House. Obama was not even influential enough to control the members of his own party due to the influences of lobbyists on them. Second, one of the major promises that Obama made during the campaign was to curtail the influence of lobbyists in Washington on members of Congress and he failed to do that.

It was reported that there are more than 16,000 registered lobbyists in Washington and another equal number who are not officially registered, but still play an influential role in shaping political decisions for the benefit of companies that they represent.

Third, the National Healthcare Bill that Obama introduced was not accepted in its totality. The public sector, which was the major component, was removed from the bill, which still left the private healthcare companies as usual without the competition needed to control the healthcare cost.

Fourth, another major blunder of Obama’s policy was his tax bill, in which he proposed to tax those who are earning more than $250,000 per year. These people, who are not subject to taxes, constitute the vast majority of the American people. Unfortunately, he caved to the demands of the Republican majority in the House. It has been said that Obama’s breaths are shorter than the Republicans’ breaths, and that they knew he would cave to their demands in the end.

Fifth, U.S. society from its beginning more than two hundred years ago has been developed on the basis of democracy, which the founding fathers created. The constitution of the U.S. has set the guidelines for politicians and the public at large to follow in order of preserving democracy. No person is above the law.

Crimes and violations of human rights were committed during the Bush era, which should have been investigated. Some members of the Justice Integrity Project and other activists are still demanding the investigation of the crimes committed by George W. Bush and his vice president and the secretary of defense. Some activists’ members are organizing to replace Obama on the Democratic 2012 Ticket. This is reflected by Swanon Publications, “Insider Tells Why Obama Chose Not To Prosecute Torture” (www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/424-national-security/7367_focus_obama_te, 9/10/2011).

Those activists were strong supporters of Obama and were a force behind his election in 2008. It is unfortunate that President Obama lacks the courage to implement the promises he made during his campaign. There is overwhelming evidence to support the prosecution of George W. Bush by lying to the nation, using fabricated and false reports to justify his policy of the Iraqi invasion. That reckless move has produced great harm to the nation economically, politically and physically. Accountability of politicians for their actions is the basis for a healthy democracy.

Continuous Lies and Deception

During the past year (2010-2011) three autobiographies were published by the leaders of the Iraq invasion: George W. Bush’s book Discussion Points, Dick Cheney’s book In My Life and Donald Rumsfeld’s book Known and Unknown. The three criminals, including Paul Wolfowitz, have played the major leading roles in misleading the American Public to justify the Iraq invasion (2003). All three of them have defended their roles in supporting the Iraq war, despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The three of them shared a similar view, which is that Iraq is better of without Saddam Hussein.

Furthermore, none of the three terrorists have admitted the negative economic and human loss on both the American and Iraqi sides. The three of them, instead of apologizing to the American people for the blunders that they committed, insisted that the invasion was justified. The three of them have left two wars that are still going on, and, in the end, the world has accomplished nothing. Furthermore, both wars doubled the American foreign debts from nearly $5 trillion to nearly $10 trillion. George W. Bush started his presidency with a federal budget surplus of more than $250 billion and left with the longest federal deficit ever and national debts exceeding $10 trillion.

When George W. Bush’s book was published and some of the mass media publicized it, I had no desire whatsoever to even look at it for one simple reason: George W. Bush is a habitual liar and I was sure that he would continue to do so in his book, just like the other two criminals, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Nevertheless, after a few remarks made to me by some friends about Bush’s autobiography, I checked the book out from the library. The autobiography consists of 497 pages, which are divided into 14 sections. I admit that I only read the section on Iraq, and as I thought, Bush continued his lines of deception and lying to the readers, claiming that the decision to go to war and remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified by all means and that the Iraqi people are free at last (p. 226). According to Mr. Bush, Saddam Hussein massacred thousands of innocent Shiaa and Kurds following the Gulf War (p. 225). The irony of this rationale is the fact that George W. Bush did not refer to the more than one million Iraqi civilians who have been killed during the war, in addition to the more than 4,000 American soldiers who have died in vain as a result of the invasion.

George W. Bush was under the illusion that the decision he made in order to protect the U.S. was accomplished after he asked his “heavenly father” for guidance, irrespective of what other people thought. The interesting fact is that Bush did not admit in his book that even before the 9/11 tragedy occurred, he was looking for an excuse to justify the invasion of Iraq. Former White House National securityAdvisor Richard Clark has confirmed in his book Against All Enemies that Mr. Bush was determined to find evidence of cooperation between al-Qaeda and the late Saddam Hussein’s regime, which he wanted to use to support his rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

It seems that Bush was not aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein was a strong opponent of all Islamic militant groups, including al-Qaeda. He went to the extreme to slaughter many of them. For that reason, bin Laden publicly stated that Saddam Hussein’s regime was more dangerous to their cause than the U.S. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, bin Laden offered his help to join the invading forces to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

George W. Bush was very ill informed about Iraq before and even after the invasion he admitted that he felt “blindsided” over some of the blunders that were committed in Iraq, such as the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prisons, which were a violation of human rights. Not only was he not aware of that, but also other issues such as the financial crisis, which was increasing with the cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As the Nobel Laureate recipient, economist Joseph Stiglitz, put it, “The subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to Al-Qaeda – as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive – orders of magnitude beyond the $60 billion claimed at the beginning, as colossal incompetence met dishonest misrepresentation. He continued to say that Bush’s Iraq war was based on false pretenses and it was the first war in the history of the U.S. to be paid for entirely on credit. (Project Syndicate, 2011).

It is unfortunate to point out that since the election of President Obama, no attempts have been made to investigate the rationale behind the Iraq invasion in 2003, which was based on false reports. The legality of Bush’s administrative war actions has been viewed as suspected criminal acts under U.S. and international law.

The Politically Naive American Public

At the CNN sponsored Republican Presidential debate (9/13/2011), candidates’ discussions focused on a variety of topics, especially the U.S. economy and unemployment. However, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas made some remarks about the economy and he criticized U.S. foreign policy as a contributing negative factor to the U.S. Economy. He said that, “The U.S. is under a great threat because we occupy so many countries. We are in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We are going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11. But we are there, occupying their lands. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we are kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

After he made these remarks, Congressman Ron Paul drew boos from the crowd and rebuke from other candidates because he criticized U.S. foreign policy. It is regrettable to say that the majority of the American public is politically illiterate and in many cases, are even not aware of what is going on in neighboring states and don’t take the extra steps to be informed about American foreign policy. For that reason, American politicians in general are more influenced by lobbyists than their constituents.

Another important factor that lets American foreign policy makers get away with everything, including genocide, is “American national interest”. That slogan gives politicians the justification to do whatever their lobbyists want.

Based on the U.S. government’s foreign policy since the end of World War II, the national interest was used as a pretext to dismantle freely elected foreign governments. This happened in the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. American politicians in general think they are entitled to control the wealth and natural resources of other countries, especially developing ones. A classic example is the oil resources in the Middle East. It is the only, and in some countries the main, source of income, and they have to sell it in order to survive. The issue here is the fact that American oil companies do not only want to buy oil, they want to control its production and distribution and even its prices. Such a strategy is demanded by the pressure these oil companies put on politicians through their lobbyists who use their political financial contributions as a means to shape policy in favor of their interests and not the American consumers.

Congressman Ron Paul was telling the American people the truth. American foreign policy for many decades has been influenced and shaped by lobbyist and interest groups and not by the American voters.

Another classic example reflecting the dishonesty of some leading American politicians are those who misled the nation to go to war by choice in 2003. They have manufactured false reports to present to the American people that claimed Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. It was claimed that Saddam Hussein’s WMD posed a threat to the security of the U.S., despite the fact that there was not a single piece of evidence to support President Bush’s war strategy. He started an unnecessary war that led to many negative consequences, in the U.S. and in Iraq.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate in Economics, pointed out that, “The invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to al-Qaeda – as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive. This war was the first war in history paid for entirely on credit.” He further stated that government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion, or $17,000 for every U.S. household. For more information, read Stiglitz and Bilms’ book, “The Three Trillion Dollars War”.

I wonder how many people in the crowd who booed Congressman Ron Paul were aware that their household share of that unnecessary war is around $17,000? Most probably none of them were aware of that fact.

An enlightened person would demand the prosecution of George W. Bush and his criminal associates. More than 4,000 American solders have died in vain during the Iraqi war.

The Iraqi War and Its Cost to the American Public

The American public will remember those who perished on September 11, 2001 as a result of the tragic terrorist attack at the World Trade Center that was committed by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda.

It took ten years for the U.S. to catch and kill bin Laden. It is regrettable to say that bin Laden’s attack provided President George W. Bush and his neocon supporters with the pretext for their invasion of Iraq in 2003, despite the well known fact that planning for that invasion preceded the 9/11 attack.

Furthermore, the president and his terrorist associates (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) began to manufacture false reports about Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, which they claimed posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and should be stopped. Despite the warning from CIA director George Tenet that the Nuclear Uranium Secret Report was false. That warning was ignored and the president and his terrorist associates supported the invasion of Iraq.

No weapons of mass destruction were found after the invasion. The tragedy of Bush’s policy of intentionally lying and misleading the nation led to the killings of more than 4,000 American soldiers and the injuries of more than 30,000. The American public should also hold a candle light vigil nationwide in memory of the soldiers who died in vain.

Furthermore, the terrorists who were responsible for the war should be tried as war criminals. It is unfortunate to report that the majority leader of the Senate said that this congress is the most corrupt in the history of the U.S. The majority of the members of the U.S. congress supported the invasion of Iraq to satisfy lobbyists who foot the bill for their elections.

Bin Laden’s strategy, as he put it after 9/11, is that while al-Qaeda can’t defeat the U.S. militarily, they can ruin it economically. Unfortunately, he was right. Dr. Joseph Stigiltz pointed out in his article “The Price of 9/11” that “President George W. Bush’s response to the attacks compromised America’s basic principles, undermined the economy and weakened its security. The attack on Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks was understandable, but the subsequent invasion of Iraq was entirely unconnected to al-Qaeda, as much as Bush tried to establish a link. That war of choice quickly became very expensive.”

Dr. Stigiltz continued to explain that three years ago, he and Dr. Linda Bilms estimated America’s war cost to be around $3 – 5 trillion, but since then the cost has mounted further. He also pointed out that the invasion of Iraq was the first war in U.S. history paid for entirely on credit. The direct government spending on those wars so far amount to roughly $2 trillion, or $17,000 for every U.S. household, with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50%, according to Dr. Stigiltz.

I am sure that bin Laden probably never thought that the economic cost to the U.S. would reach that magnitude. It is also unfortunate that those who were responsible for undermining U.S. security and its economic disasters are still free and busy writing their own biographies of their roles in the Iraq war to earn more dollars and continue to mislead the American public.