Why a War,
- Originally Unnecessary, & Thereafter Poorly Started & Conducted
- Must Now Be Brought to Honorable Withdrawal
                                                                                                                              

Questions and Answers are cited below as

"Q" and "A"

1. Q: Has Plain Talk dealt with this subject before?

A: Yes, in several ways:

(1) Recommending that the U.S. - led coalition must first either destroy or substantially restrict terrorist, Osama bin Laden's 60-base Al Quaeda while disposing of the less dangerous Iraq monster, Saddam Hussein.

(2) Plain Talk also recommended that we not proceed for the second time (indeed not even the first time) in a generation in a repetition of trying to conduct the war at 10,000 or more miles distance from the U.S. for very dubious claimed causes, beyond the point where, as in Viet Nam, there would be no victory for anyone - just human losses, including our own.

Plain Talk does not accept the suggestion of Appendix A of "The Iraq-Al Quaeda Connection" from Richard Miniter's New York Times bestseller, "Losing Bin Laden." Plain Talk does not equate the President and his administration's plain "fib" to Congress and the world that he was by his war against Iraq, retorting for Iraq's attack on the U.S.A.'s Twin Tower, Pentagon, etc.

The fact is that Iraq had nothing to do with the Twin Tower attack.

2. Q: Is there a history which reveals the "why" for the foregoing recipe, as applied in the present war?

A: Yes. Saddam Hussein of Iraq was in fact, developing the atomic weapon. That was proven by the Israelis. In about April 1980 Saddam stated publicly his intention to destroy Israel. Instead of letting Saddam complete his atomic weapon and carry out his stated intention with regard to Israel, the Israelis, - on June 7, 1981 (see annexed description of the event) over flew a good portion of the Middle East and Asia to implement one of the most effective bombings in history. The small group of Israeli bombers flying directly over Saddam's Osirak Atomic Reactor, essentially blew it apart, without any loss of life, civilian or otherwise.

3. Q: Did the U.S. and the world it leads show its appreciation for Israel's rescuing the world from a real source of terror?

A: In no way. Instead, the U.S. and UN, led the chorus of criticism for Israel for alleged violation of international law.

4. Q: Was that justified?

A: No. About 10 years later, the allied coalition led by President George W. Bush's father as then President (George H.W. Bush) in responding to Saddam's attempted seizure of Kuwait found solid proof that even after the destruction of the Osirak Reactor, he was again advanced in atomic weaponry sufficient to enable him to produce weapons of mass destruction in approximately one year.

5. Q: Did the American public appreciate President George H.W. Bush's leadership in overcoming Saddam Hussein on Kuwait?

A: No. The public felt that Bush's father, (George H.W. Bush) failed to finish what he started so victoriously. He let his Saudi friends induce him not to insist on Hussein to surrender, - or surrender of his Republican Guard troops.

6. Q: Was there any further consequence to the foregoing?

A: Yes. If Bush's father's coalition had demanded Hussein's surrender, he would have had no choice but to surrender. The present war in Iraq would not have been necessary.

7. Q: Is there a remaining conclusion from the foregoing?

A: Yes. We know that there was a legitimate original reason for warring against Hussein's atomic warfare preparation. But the critical error was leaving him in control of Iraq, where the preparation had been carried on.

That is why Saddam was able to forestall any usefulness of United Nations checking on the actual situation in Iraq. This is because by that time Hussein had removed any evidence of his previous preparations for atomic war.

8. Q: Is there any other element of this history, essential to the evaluation of present events?

A: Yes. Saddam Hussein is essentially secular, rather than religious. That was clear to the Islamic world when the Persian (Iran) fanatic religious forces of Islam grabbed control of Iran in 1980. Hussein regarded victory of the Persian Islamist forces in Iran as an ultimate threat to Iraq-Arab forces run by Hussein.

He therefore undertook a war of approximately a million casualties (on both sides) against Iran, in which elements of the Islamic world took sides in this warfare by intelligence, supplies and manpower.

Indeed, the U.S. participated on Hussein's side (Iraq) by supplying him with intelligence, weapons, and more. It will be remembered that those Iran Islamists were also the people who seized the American Embassy in Tehran and greatly embarrassed the United States in resolving that situation.

9. Q: What is the main lesson from these historical events?

A: It is that President Bush misrepresented to the American public and the world that he would lead an immediate war against the Islamic forces who hit the Twin Towers, etc. on September 11, 2001.

Indeed, he named the Bin Laden terrorist group as the probable principal attackers.

10. Q: But, did he in fact retaliate with immediate war against the criminals of the Twin Tower destruction?

A: No. Indeed, he commenced immediately to push for war against Iraq, without alerting the American people that Iraq had not been involved at all in the Twin Tower, etc. action, and was regarded by such forces as Bin Laden as anathema because of their secular rather than religious views and actions.

11. Q: Was there a special oil connection with the foregoing?

A: Yes. At the time the President was drumming up war against Iraq to counter for the Twin Tower and related, his main attention was the building of an oil and gas pipeline to provide especially Asiatic oil through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean tanker and other destinations, of enormous oil value to the U.S.

12. Q: Why do we support the title of this Plain Talk?

A: Because, the public statement in the Ad taken out in the New York Times, Tuesday, June 28, 2005 by MoveOn PAC is absolutely correct: "IT'S TIME TO COME HOME." Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska is quoted: "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

The New York Times ad states:

"We went in the wrong way. . . in the real world, it's clear that Bush's war on Iraq was doomed from the very beginning."

"Let's get out the right way. . . " so that a "rightly skeptical world" can "begin to believe, once again, that what America says is the truth. . . with honest leadership we can bring out troops home safely. And soon."

* * *

cc: George W. Bush, President
George H.W. Bush, Former President
Richard Cheney, Vice President
John Kerry, Senator
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Colonel Oliver North
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General
Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain
Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary
Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives
Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel
His Excellency Daniel Ayalon Ambassador of Israel
Benjamin Netanyahu, Economy Minister for the Israeli Government
Israel's "Women In Green"
National Unity Coalition for Israel
Arianna Huffington, Syndicated Columnist
Yohanan Ramati, Chairman, Jerusalem
Institute for Western Defense
Gerardo Joffe, FLAME (Facts & Logic About the Middle East)
Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor in Chief - US News and World Report
Time Magazine
Washington Post - Attn: Bob Woodward
International Jerusalem Post
The Weekly Standard - Bill Kristol, Editor
The Wall Street Journal - Editorial and Op-Ed Department
The New York Times, Op-Ed Department
Los Angeles Times, Op-Ed Department
Dr. and Mrs. Jordan Phillips, Medical Books for China International
MoveOn PAC/www.MoveonPac.Org.
Richard Miniter, Author: Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror