The need to create Iraq as a villain Scoundrels come in many shapes and forms. Saddam Hussein is certainly no Simon Bolivar. But what politician really seeks policies that liberates their own people? In Saddam’s case we have a dictator who often masters surprising political skills. He is another one of those infamous survivors. Since we have heard the unending drum beat that this one man is the Pol Pot of the middle east, it should not surprise anyone that any efforts that attempt to defuse the looming hostilities to remove this tyrant, will encounter domestic criticism. We all know the routine. It's only time before he has operational weapons of mass destruction. Defining explicit details and evidence is usually short on specifics and long of hype. There is no doubt that a despot can be an Iranian shah or an Iraqi butcher. But what makes one acceptable to do business with, and another to be targeted for destruction? Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and admit that an ally is a friend, only as long as they serve the policy objectives of U.S. foreign policy? As we rapidly approach the year anniversary of 911, what has been realistically achieved in eliminating the undistorted dangers that threaten our country? While we have all been subjected to months of emotional manulipation, what has changed in official policy that gives substance to genuine national security? Recently the New York Times published an account of proposed invasion plans called CetCom Courses of Action . Leaking such information usually means the disinformation machine is in full gear. News of this report came on the same day the United Nations failed to reach an agreement with Iraq which would allow U.N. weapons inspectors to re-enter the country. The Bush administration publically wants to play down this story, but it serves a purpose that keeps fanning the fire for hostilities. In another report from in the The Observer , we read that Jordan will be the 'jumping-off' point for an attack that could involve up to 250,000 American troops and forces from Britain and other key US allies. Although Marwan Moasher, the Jordanian Foreign Minister, denied the presence of any American troops in his country, government sources confirmed that major manoeuvres involving the American and Jordanian forces took place in March. Moasher issued denials after the Lebanese daily Al Safir reported that 2,000 American forces in Jordan are preparing to carry out military operations against Iraq. Whatever the tactics or strategy being considered, no one should underestimate the danger of escalation in perpetual war for virtual peace. Enter into this equation, the current mission of Minister Louis Farrakhan's visit to Baghdad. Calypso Louie, to his distracters has invariably been maligned for his activism. Could it be that he possesses a threat to the forces supporting current foreign policy? Contemplate this assessment from BlackElectorate.com - Understanding Minister Farrakhan's Middle East and African Peace Mission In the event that a Black voting bloc could be melded with an Arab/immigrant voting bloc there is a enough in terms of voting power (at present supplied more by Blacks) and campaign finance(at present supplied more by the Arab and Immigrant Muslim community) and public opinion, to grow the currently close to 70 member - "Palestinian sympathetic" delegation in Congress to the lower 3-digits in size. Include a Latino/Hispanic contingent that will increasingly be demonized in the "war on terrorism" and sufficient power has been cobbled together to virtually guarantee a more even-handed U.S. policy in the Middle East. Now consider Farrakhan's own words: "Secondly, and equally important, it is our desire to help our own government to see the danger in the course that our government is on in preparing a war to unseat Saddam Hussein from power and giving instructions to the CIA that he should be overthrown and possibly murdered. While on the surface this may seem to the American people to be the right thing to do, as Saddam Hussein has been and is being portrayed in the American media as a man worthy to be unseated because he allegedly is developing weapons of mass destruction, he has gassed his own people and he has kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq to keep them from seeing his cache of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, a man like this must be overthrown, from the administration's perspective and from the perspective of Senator (John) McCain of Arizona and many of America's congresspersons; he's (Hussein) considered a clear and present danger and therefore is justified in being eliminated. But I ask, what is the truth of these allegations? Is it a fact that he is this, or is this propaganda to whip the American people into a war frenzy and to stir up the passion of the American military for war? What is this? Can truth be found on the battlefield, or should truth be found in deliberate legislative bodies in lawfully constituted judicial processes. We totally disagree with the policy of murder and war, which runs counter to all civilized judicial processes. In a speech made by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, he said, "Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic in this country, to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man." What is our mission today? I would ask President Bush, before any order is given to assassinate Saddam Hussein or overthrow his government, that we need to ascertain the truth or the falsity of the charges." Is there a meaningful message in these words, for traditional conservatives that seek a balanced foreign policy? Reflect upon those in the Bush administration, who eagerly promote necessary collision with Hussein. Diplomatic efforts don't serve their interests, they WANT WAR. Ask yourself, who benefits from this impending conflict? When patriotic Americans surrender their fidelity to an impetuous psyche, based upon deceitful policies, the nation is endangered. Going to war against Saddam Hussein only serves Zionism. The state of Israel has very different goals than ours. America's interests are not the same as theirs. Isn't is more important that we pursue unfeigned security for our own country? When American troops are unleashed against Iraq, what benefit will we gain? SARTRE - July 7, 2002