Ayoon wa Azan (Is It True?).

Byline: Jihad el-Khazen

Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." The Washington Post that published the aforementioned statement said that the Bush Administration accused Saddam Hussein's regime of cooperating with Al Qaeda, then backed down when the charge was proven wrong. Now, the candidate for John McCain's VP is repeating it.

William Kristol, a neocon and an advocate of war against Arabs and Muslims, attacked the Washington Post in his Weekly Standard, the mouthpiece of the war gang, describing the news as stupid or malicious. For Palin was evidently saying that American soldiers were going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq.

Is it true? I do not accuse Kristol of being stupid but of being malicious and a warmonger. Palin said that US troops were going to defend "innocents," i.e. Iraqi civilians and not soldiers, and to face enemies who killed thousands of Americans, in reference to the notorious terrorist act of Al Qaeda against the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

More important and much clearer is that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq when the Americans attacked it. They were the ones who brought Al Qaeda and all other terrorist groups to Iraq. Had they not trumped up the reasons for war in Iraq, the Iraqi people would not have been in need of someone to defend them from an enemy alien to their country in the first place. In other words, the Bush Administration is the reason why Al Qaeda operates in Iraq. It shares with the terrorists the responsibility for the blood of innocent Iraqis killed by terrorists or the occupation. These two sides are both accomplices in the ongoing murder.

I would not have given what was mentioned earlier much thought had it been a single incident. On the same day (Friday, August 12), another pro-Israel neocon, Charles Krauthammer, attacked Charlie Gibson, the famous ABC host, and the New York Times, because the newsman had the nerve to unintentionally embarrass Palin and the newspaper was bold enough to publish the news.

I do not understand how a renowned newspaper of the likes of The Washington Post allows an extremist such as Krauthammer to smear its pages (I do not understand why The New York Times allows that same privilege to Sapphire either). Krauthammer wrote under the title "Charlie Gibson's Gaffe" that the New York Times "got it wrong," so had Charlie Gibson. The mistake or sin, according to Karuthammer, is that the show host asked Palin about the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know the answer so he informed her that it meant the right of "anticipatory self-defense."

Krauthammer literally said, "There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different."

He went back with his readers to June 4, 2001 and to something he wrote in The Weekly Standard when he "suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine."

"That notion," as Krauthammer continued, "was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror" and George Bush's "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Krauthammer then added, "A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a [third] doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine." It was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.

First, Krauthammer is wrong - so that I would not say he is lying - when he talks about four doctrines in years. The fourth doctrine appeared in the fourth year of Bush's first term, after it turned out that Iraq had no WMDs in Iraq and no ties to Al Qaeda. At that moment, the Administration embraced democracy and freedom.

Second, Krauthammer is saying that Bush is fickle and changes his principles like he changes his underwear: a principle every year, or underwear every year.

Third, he proves that Palin ignores Bush's doctrines. In fact, she ignores the third doctrine chosen by Gibson and the one that Krauthammer came up with.

I am afraid that the evil gang might fool the US voter once more. It attacked John Kerry, the Vietnam hero, and turned George Bush, who fled war into the safety of Texas, into a hero and a supreme commander. It is trying to deny the accusation of ignorance addressed to an ignorant woman. A woman who served two years ago as Alaska mayor and is now a Governor. Now, they want her to rule the world in case the old and sick McCain dies in the White House.

2008 Media Communications Group

Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company