No bears here. It’s all bull. But don’t all rush in at once. There’s more than enough bull to go around. So before you do any heavy speculating elsewhere, give Iraq serious consideration. You may not break any bank, but you’ll find out where the biggest bull market is, and that’s sometimes better than cash.

You want bull? Starting on that fateful September 11th, Bush said that the CIA told somebody that told him that the culprit was a guy named Osama bin Laden, and his nefarious hangout was in Afghanistan. So Bush conveniently ignored that and targeted Saddam Hussein as the principle evildoer. As such, it was imperative that we invade Iraq immediately. Uh huh.

You want bull? We were told, over and over again, that now with Saddam toppled, the true, honest-Injun reason we invaded Iraq was because it was loaded with weapons of mass destruction and lots of other diabolical stuff. It was just a matter of time until we found it. Yeah, sure.

You want bull? Bush made it clear that Saddam Hussein, being a cold-blooded dictator, his fall would make the American soldiers a bunch of welcome travelers. So we declared the war officially over, hung out our U.S. military shingle, had Shiite and Sunni block parties, and no more soldiers would become casualties. Well, maybe just a few.

You want bull?  The vast majority of the fatalities and the wounded are American soldiers, according to the news. But that can’t be. Because we’re consistently reminded that we are conducting this operation with “coalition forces”, which implies that other countries are as deeply involved in the Iraqi war as we are, and suffering the same casualty count as us. They are?

You want bull?  The administration led our troops to believe that once we avenged the 9/11 tragedy they would be getting out of that desert sweatbox and coming home. In which case, that last dispatch from headquarters saying that the “continued presence” of U.S. forces would be needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future, must be wrong, right? Right, wrong.

You want bull? At one time or another, Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al, have personally assured us that with Saddam Hussein out of business, the world--- meaning Iraq, America, and other terrorist-challenged communities--- is safer and more secure than it was before. You’re laughing.

You want bull? When al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric, was declared an “outlaw” by the U.S. administrators, and a warrant was issued for his arrest, Paul Bremer, our administrative honcho in Iraq at the time, said this: “He (Sadr) is attempting to establish his authority in place of the legitimate authority. We will not tolerate this.” Freedom and self-rule for the Iraqi people, you see, was a Bremer priority.” And now, where’s Bremer?

You want bull? The deadline for transfer of power from the Americans to the Iraqis was set in stone. So the administration told us. That being the case, the Bush people insist that when the reins of government are given to the Iraqis, Americans will no longer influence the new Iraqi government. We will wish them well, wave goodbye, and bring all our soldiers home. Sure we will.

You want bull?  At one time, Condi Rice wanted to “tell the truth” about 9/11, but Bush nixed that, claiming it would set a precedent for presidents revealing important information to Congress. Then he changed his mind and let Rice testify under oath at a congressional hearing. He probably figured that since Congress represents the people, what right did he have keeping secrets from the citizens. Honest, Mr. President?

You want bull?  When both Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke went public that the Bush administration ignored terrorism threats before 9/11, they fired back that these two didn’t know what they were talking about. Of course, O’Neill was only a top official in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and until recently, Treasury Secretary in the present Bush administration. Richard Clarke had only been the National Security Advisor for four presidents, so the Bush bunch must have been right about these guys after all. Besides, would they lie?

You want bull?  If you recall, the Bush administration cut off access to its health care system from approximately 164,000 veterans. But on the same day, at the Walter Reed Hospital, Bush opined: “Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are, should, and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm’s way.” How thoughtful.

You want bull? The administration insists that we are not planning to attack Iran.  Then we put another aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, and are in the process of sending in another 21,000 troops. But, we will, they said, continue to try and settle this through negotiation. Yeah, when bulls wear bloomers.

You want bull?  The war-happy criminals who insisted that we go to war should stop writing their own PR releases and hire professionals to do it. I mean, who but themselves are inspired by hokey slogans like, “Shock and Awe”, “Enduring Freedom”, “Vigilant Resolve?” and “Surge.”

If we insist on going into foreign countries and killing people (also losing our own soldiers), we should give it names that more accurately reflect the mission. Like, Operation Sledge Hammer, Bloodbath, Death Ray, or Butcher Block 101.

We may not know where the bear is hiding, but we sure know where the bull is.

James T. Moore
http://jamestmoore.us/