Book (by ex-Rep. Hostettler): Iraq was invaded to help secure Israel

[Newsjock]

Source: Indianapolis Star

WASHINGTON -- Former U.S. Rep. John Hostettler argues in a new, little-noticed, self-published book that the United States invaded Iraq to avenge an assassination attempt on then-President George H.W. Bush and to help Israel.

"It cannot be debated that toppling Saddam was accomplished by means of a 'private compact' with political appointees and their underlings in the Pentagon 'to support' the ideals of 'partisans . . . dedicated to another cause,' " the Wadesville Republican writes in "Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq."

That other cause, he writes, was securing Israel.

Hostettler, who lost his bid for a seventh term last year, was one of only six House Republicans to vote in 2002 against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

... Asked for comment, a White House spokesman said the administration isn't "in the business of reviewing books."

Read more: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080713/NEWS05/807130365/1304/LOCAL

[Adsos Letter]

1. ...

"... Asked for comment, a White House spokesman said the administration isn't "in the business of reviewing books."

Apparently no one in the WH reads any, either...

[Night_Nurse]

5. Aw, man... that's was going to be my witty comment...

you beat me to it! :toast:

[newmajority]

2. And in other shocking news, water is wet.

Are so many in Congress REALLY completely unware that Perle, Feith, Wuermser and other future PNAC'ers wrote a manifesto for the Likud Netanyahu regime in Israel in the mid 90's which targeted all the same countries that the PNAC manifesto itself later did, starting with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

If I can find that in 30 seconds online, why the Hell can't they?

[harun]

40. Hehe, beat me to it

Congress knows it. They just have nothing to gain politically by doing anything about it, hence inaction.

[Kaleko]

49. For those researching the PNAC - Zionist Israeli-war-hawk connections,

this video should be interesting.

It is based on Ryan Dawson's research, "911, Iraq, PNAC - All Roads Lead to Israel."

War By Way Of Deception

You've probably seen it, I guess.

[DesertFlower]

3. i don't believe it. saddam hated israel

but i don't think he would have attacked them. well actually he did in '91 during the 1st gulf war. israel was told by daddy bush not to retaliate. i remember the news showing sirens going off and israeli's putting on gas masks.

i think part of going into iraq was to make daddy proud and of course, the oil which we didn't get.

[atreides1]

11. It wasn't about making daddy proud

It was about showing up the old man, and saying "see, I did what you didn't have the guts to do."

By the way those attacks on Israel caused 1 dead and 78 injured, property damage, and demoralized the population, we lost 28 American troops to a SCUD.

There was never any intention of "us" getting the oil, the plan was to give oil companies access to Iraqi oil fields for there own profit not for the benefit of the American people. And judging from the talks going on with the Iraqi government, it looks like the plan has worked and the oil companies will get access to those oil fields!



MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

[Myrina]

12. 75% agree ...

... there's also that little Clinton/Gore Budget Surplus that George and Co were just itchin' to give away to their war-profiteer pals at Halliburton, Dynagen, GE, etc etc ...

I really think that was the base motivator - the big, fat, Treasury Cookie Jar that the 'little people' just don't "deserve" to have a piece of.

[yardwork]

51. I think that's the real reason, and the rest of this is misdirection.

I also think that Saudi Arabia wanted us to invade Iraq and eliminate a pesky rival. Now the Saudis want us to invade Iran and take care of them, too. The Saudis don't want to do anything for themselves. They sit on their fat asses enjoying their trillions while treating their people about as badly as any nation on earth. Bushco doesn't care - they're raking in the dough.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Absolutely...

'Look Saddam! I've got a bigger penis than my Daddy!'

And as well as the oil, the profits for Halliburton etc.

Ugh, what a bunch of crooks!

And then our darling Tony seeing a chance to pursue his imperialist dreams vicariously, having been born 60 years too late to do so directly.

[Lance_Boyle]

45. "we lost 28 American troops to a SCUD"

in Saudi Arabia, not Israel.

[Doctor_J]

15. Saddam wasn't going to attack anyone. But having bases in Iraq

helps the US secure Israel.

[lark]

21. Oil in Iraq wasn't about pumping additional supplies

It was about destroying the oilfields so American companies could come in rebuild and control them. It was about pushing up the price of oil by reducing the international supply. After prices were jacked up, we were supposed to get control. Iraq however (unlike Congress) is starting to have a spine and hasn't approved the very favorable to US terms we wrote for them for their oil fields.

[Hardrada]

4. Thanks for the heads-up.

I've ordered the book. It will answer some questions I have had for some time now, I am fairly sure.

[aquart]

6. And you, of course, believe it.

Because the homeland of the (oil-less)Jews really matters to Prescott's grandson.

And the idea of capturing and holding the oil rich Caspian Basin wasn't the teeniest tiniest factor. Nuh uh. Yep, oil had nothing to do with it. It was all the fault of the Jews.

I'll bet they smile so wide when they see you coming.

[comtec]

7. NOT the Jews...Israel

a subtle but fine and important difference.
Israel does NOT represent all jews, etc.
Most of the people living in Israel would just as soon make peace with the Palestinians and be done with it already.


However we do seem to do a lot in the defense of Israel when we don't have to,

However I don't believe for an instant that we invaded to "secure" Israel's safety. If anything we made it 1000x worse for Israel's sense of safety. After all, as long as Saddam was in power, all the ME countries were looking at him, and not (as much) at Israel. Now.. they have TIME to look at Israel in unpleasant ways. The US can't really do anything, our military is all but destroyed, and I doubt the mercenary armies can actually project force like a real military can. They can just thug about and kill civilians.

There is a very real difference between jews and Israel. One is a beautiful, long , and rich culture, the other is a power-grabbing country that makes OUR conservatives look...um... less right-wing-insane...sometimes.

[Jefferson23]

23. Perfectly stated comtec!

[ingac70]

38. Israel has bigger fruitcakes running it than the US does. n/t

[comtec]

39. that is depressingly true

ever since they had (I'm so sorry I forgot his name) assassinated, its been one RW whack job after another!

[ima_sinnic]

10. oh get off it already

sorry, your essentially "you must be anti-semitic" whaa-whaa boo-hoo BULLSHIT just doesn't cut it. The idea that the U.S. will do just about anything for Israel is no secret.

[THale2]

8. I remember watching

GW Bush we he said.."He tried to kill my daddy"...and I was thinking to myself then...uuhh I hope we are not going to war for that...

[hlthe2b]

9. I believe that the premise that SH "tried to kill his Daddy"

was disproven-- some time ago. :shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

32. Yes. While the rest of the world knows this fact, it will take 2-3 decades for Americans

to learn it.

Myths die very long slow deaths in America. 30% still think Iraq did 911; 40% still think "a million American lives were saved" by our war-crime of nuking Japan; and 48% still think pro-peacers spat on returning Vietnam vets.

It really takes a very long time for the truths to reach the majority of Americans.

[yardwork]

52. Even if it were true, why would the chimp care? He doesn't give a damn about his father.

The chimp and darth cheney care only about themselves. Lining their pockets and reveling in their power - that's what floats their little boats.

[Javaman]

13. If you believe this pile of bullshit, then you also have to believe that

Iraq had WMD's.

this sorry excuse doesn't cut it for me. just another attempt at a former moron* friend trying his best to be clever.

[susanna]

14. Revisionist history, anyone? n/t

[Kolesar]

16. Did Saddam support any terrorist groups attacking Israel?

A surrogate war? I lost track.

[Zynx]

20. He encouraged Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but so did the Saudis.

[Kolesar]

33. Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad ...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html
By Warren Strobel

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.

According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html


Bush twisted this story to make it sound like Saddam supported Osama and Al Qaida

[LeftishBrit]

18. Well, I'm sure we all believe a self-published book by a defeated Republican congressman...

wanting to put the blame for his government's misdeeds on another country. How very Republican of him!

Isn't Hostettler one of the pieces of crap who tried to spread the theory that having an abortion is a major cause of breast cancer?

[Behind the Aegis]

22. It will be gobbled up by some here.

Israel is listed as the enemy and one of the reasons for the Iraq fiasco, therefore, it must be true and worth reading. Dontcha know? It's "truth2power" when Israel is painted as the enemy, even if from a discredited asshole Republican. Hell, people here like to post articles from Paul Craig Roberts, an anti-Semite, racist, and xenophobe, as long as it fits their narrative.

[Jefferson23]

24. Oh really, then tell me why Norman Finkelstein was banned from Israel

for the next 10 years. He is an anti-Semite too?

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Which has what to do with my post?

Oh that's right....NOT A FUCKING THING!

BTW...Jews can be anti-Semites...look it up.

[Jefferson23]

26. It shows you can't support that this book is garbage which seemed

to be your claim and even suggesting that Finkelstein is anti-semitic is absurd.

[LeftishBrit]

27. Would you agree that Hostettler is a fucking idiot?

He's a RW Republican and, whether antisemitic or not, is most certainly anti-woman from his previous actions. I wouldn't trust him further than I could throw him on ANYTHING!

If Rick Santorum wrote a book, would you take it seriously? I don't think there's too much difference between him and Hostettler! Fortunately, both were booted out by huge majorities in 2006, but neither seems to have totally crawled back under his rock.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Wrong.

I said, very clearly, that some will gobble this up because it paints Israel as the "bad guy." It doesn't even register to some a Republican with a horrible record wrote it.

"...even suggesting that Finkelstein is anti-semitic is absurd."

Nice strawman there. I never suggested any such thing. I am guessing you didn't look the meaning of the word "anti-Semite."

[Jefferson23]

29. I don't have to look up the meaning, I am Jewish. Discounting a book

because he is a Republican seems legitimate to you, not to me. He also voted against Bush on Iraq.
The neocon influence from Norman Podhoertz is nothing to discount on this administration and the influence of AIPAC on many in the DLC. His book seems to speak to that influence and considering that neither of us has read it, you seem to be accusing him unjustly and that he must be wrong because he has a terrible record on other issues. I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot, but I don't discredit him on everything he says because of those differences.

There is this too from the above, Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., was criticized by House Democratic leaders and Jewish groups for saying influential Jewish groups pushed for the war.

Guess he is wacko too?

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Perhaps you do need to look up the meaning.

You seem to keep making strawmen. I haven't discounted the book; I haven't read it. I said it would be gobbled up because it paints Israel in a bad light.

Moran is a wacko for many things, including saying Jewish groups pushed for war. Perhaps, even if you are a Jew, you don't fully understand what anti-Semitism and isn't.

[Jefferson23]

31. I haven't made any strawmen, you are saying people will gobble

up the book because it paints Israel in a bad light,how do you make that judgment if you are not discounting the book? So you discredit anyone who recognizes the neocon influence and AIPAC on our foreign policy and you think that makes them a wacko I guess. I fully understand about anti-Semitism and I also know that you don't own the understanding of it, as much as you would like to think you do.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Follow the logic.

I did say "people will gobble this up" because it paints Israel in a negative light.

"...how do you make that judgment if you are not discounting the book"

Very simple, I am talking about the people who will "gobble it up" as 'truth.' It doesn't imply anything about the truthfulness of the book, but rather, the fact that some will take anything negative about Israel as gospel. I am speaking to those who will hail the book as factual, especially those who haven't read it.

"So you discredit anyone who recognizes the neocon influence and AIPAC on our foreign policy and you think that makes them a wacko I guess. "

Yet another strawman, and speaking for me. You don't me or know what I know, so don't presume to speak for me. There is a difference between understanding the influence of neo-cons and AIPAC and declaring that AIPAC "controls" US foreign policy. Even that doesn't make the poster/person wacko, it is when they start in about the JEWS are responsible. Those are the wackos.

"I fully understand about anti-Semitism and I also know that you don't own the understanding of it, as much as you would like to think you do."

No, sadly, it seems, you don't fully understand anti-Semitism, or you wouldn't have led with the stupid response to my initial post. Your post implies that Jews can't be anti-Semites. This shows you don't know what anti-Semitism is (really, get a dictionary and look up the definition). I have never made any claim to 'owning the understanding' of it (another one of your stupid strawmen) nor I do I think so (another one of your stupid strawmen).

[Jefferson23]

41. You are the expert on anti-semitism, yea, I know we all heard you.

No one else, but you. Consider your response each time,you consistently cry strawman and that once again your proof that I don't know the meaning of anti- Semitism because what you think my post implies..more nonsense from you.

"There is a difference between understanding the influence of neo-cons and AIPAC and declaring that AIPAC "controls" US foreign policy. Even that doesn't make the poster/person wacko, it is when they start in about the JEWS are responsible. Those are the wackos."

Too bad you don't mention what that influence is and how you imagine it differs from what the author may be addressing, instead you are defensive and contradict yourself with this,

"Very simple, I am talking about the people who will "gobble it up" as 'truth.' It doesn't imply anything about the truthfulness of the book, but rather, the fact that some will take anything negative about Israel as gospel. I am speaking to those who will hail the book as factual, especially those who haven't read it.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion without a lot of preconceived notions about the book.


You keep trying to use those labels, strawman and anti-Semitism to defend yourself, it may shut up some other Jew, just not this one.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. Clearly, you have even more straw than you know what to with.

It isn't a matter of being an expert on anti-Semitism, it is a matter of being factual. Your idiotic response about FINKlestien is where I got my notion that you really don't have a clue. So, let me help you....Jews can be and sometimes are anti-Semites. It really isn't a difficult concept to understand if you know what anti-Semitism is...discrimination/extreme bias against Jews. Just being a Jew doesn't exempt one from being an anti-Semite.

"Too bad you don't mention what that influence is and how you imagine it differs from what the author may be addressing, instead you are defensive and contradict yourself with this"

That doesn't make a lick of sense, but I am not surprised. Are you saying Jews are behind it all? Because if you are, then that notion is anti-Semitic.

"I don't see how you come to that conclusion without a lot of preconceived notions about the book."

The article mentions the basics of the book. My conclusions were about those who will see it as gospel because it paints Israel as responsible for the debacle in Iraq. It really couldn't be more simple.

"You keep trying to use those labels, strawman and anti-Semitism to defend yourself, it may shut up some other Jew, just not this one."

The only one here slinging straw is you! I have no need to defend myself from you or any other person, Jew or not. I won't be bullied.

[Jefferson23]

46. All you have done is scream strawman and anti-semitism, you keep

making my point for me..thanks.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. I would say thank you, but I don't like to think I have encouraged you to post more stupid things...

...and think they are significant.

[fascisthunter]

44. Thank you for telling it like it is

and yes, we get accused of being anti-semitic for pointing out the obvious.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Typical.

Half a conversation and you "know" what has happened. Thank you for proving my overall point!

[LeftishBrit]

55. It's not just because he's a Republican...

it's not the party label. It's that he is a very *right-wing* Republican and that he has been involved in promoting unreliable rubbish before; e.g. practically everything sponsored by the Christian Right.

And I *do* discredit Ron Paul on everything he says! I welcome his being one more vote against the war, and I welcome the fact that he helps to split the Republican party - but he isn't doing either of these things for a good or liberal reason. I was against the war from day one, but not for any reason that Ron Paul would use.

[AlienGirl]

53. That sounds so much like my kids arguing, "But Mom! He MADE me do it!"

[Blue_Tires]

19. i thought the assassination attempt on bush senior was fiction?

[provis99]

34. FYI, Hostettler is a sociopath

He was my Congress-critter for six years, and he was definitely the looniest nut in the House. I would've matched him against Bob Dornan, Dan Burton, or Craig Heywood for title of most dangerous nut in Congress.

He's the congressman who got caught trying to smuggle a loaded handgun onto a plane, arguing it was his 2nd Amendment rights. He also told me that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to own nuclear weapons.

Discount everything this nutcase has to say or write.

[Jefferson23]

35. He voted against the invasion of Iraq too, or do we have to discount that as well.

[LeftishBrit]

54. Every vote against the war was a good thing...

I only wish there were more such votes.

However, although voting against the war was a good *action*, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was for a good *reason*. Some right-wingers were and are against the war, not on humanitarian or legal grounds, but because they are isolationist xenophobes. For example, the British National Party, Le Pen, Pat Buchanan and David Duke are all against the war, but that doesn't mean one should accept their overall agendas. We can oppose the war *without* accepting any right-wing agendas!

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Megahurtz]

42. And some people

wonder why many people resent them. :eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

50. Floor Speech Text

Floor Speech Text
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 -- (House of Representatives - October 08, 2002)

Hon. John N. Hostettler of Indiana
Floor Statement
Congressional Record



(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding me this time.

Today the question before this body, Mr. Speaker, is not ``How shall we respond to the unprovoked attack by a foreign nation upon the United States or its fielded military forces abroad?''

We are not debating ``How will we respond to the menace of a political and/or cultural movement that is enveloping nations across the globe and is knocking on the door 90 miles off the coast of Florida?''

Nor, Mr. Speaker, are we discussing a response to an act of aggression by a dictator who has invaded his neighbor and has his sights on 40 percent of the world's oil reserves, an act that could plunge the American economy, so dependent on energy, into a deep spiral.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this point must be made very clear, we are not discussing how America should respond to the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001. That debate and vote was held over a year ago; and our men and women in uniform, led by our Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of Defense, are winning the war on terrorism. It is with their blood, sweat, and tears that they are winning, for



every one of us who will lay our heads down in peace this night, the right to wake up tomorrow, free.

No, Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is ``Will the House of Representatives vote to initiate war on another sovereign nation?''

Article I, Section 8 of the governing document of this Republic, the United States Constitution, gives to Congress the power to provide for the common defense. It follows that Congress's power to declare war must be in keeping with the notion of providing for the common defense.

Today, a novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the Framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression? Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that they did not.

As I was preparing these remarks, I was reminded of an entry on my desk calendar of April 19. It is an excerpt of the Boston Globe, Bicentennial Edition, March 9, 1975. It reads, ``At dawn on this morning, April 19, 1775, some 70 Minutemen were assembled on Lexington's green. All eyes kept returning to where the road from Boston opened onto the green; all ears strained to hear the drums and double-march of the approaching British Grenadiers. Waving to the drummer boy to cease his beat, the Minuteman Captain, John Parker, gave his fateful command: `Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here.''

``Don't fire unless fired upon.'' It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the Minutemen and Framers of the Constitution.

We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be.

We are told that Saddam Hussein might have a nuclear weapon; he might use a weapon of mass destruction against the United States or our interests overseas; or he might give such weapons to al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. But based on the best of our intelligence information, none of these things have happened. The evidence supporting what might be is tenuous, at best.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a preemptive military strike at this time.

Voting for this resolution not only would set an ominous precedent for using the administration's parameters to justify war against the remaining partners in the ``Axis of Evil,'' but such a vote for preemption would also set a standard which the rest of the world would seek to hold America to and which the rest of the world could justifiably follow.

War should be waged by necessity, and I do not believe that such necessity is at hand at this time. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please vote ``no'' on the resolution to approve force at this time.

Source citation: 107th Congress, 2nd Session, October 8, 2002, Congressional Record, pp. H7286-H7287.