This is getting hairy. Last night, the Prime Minister declared that HE would decide what country we invaded, and the circumstances in which we invaded it.
“In the end, I have to take decisions that I believe in my heart are in the best interests of Australia.” 7.30 Report
This is the standard answer from prime ministers when they want to do something that’s against public opinion. And it’s perfectly acceptable, in most cases, to take that line – we elect Prime Ministers to take hard, tough decisions in our long term interest.
But not here. No way. If John Howard believes it is in the national interest to invade another country, it is his job, indeed his duty, to persuade the majority of Australians to that view. This is because it is manifestly NOT in the national interest to send our troops to a war we don’t want them to go to. It is a recipe for bitter division, chronic insecurity and instability at home, and could lead to a debilitating collapse in trust in our leaders. It is also a totally unacceptable dampener on the morale of our troops.
War is blood sacrifice, after all.
Many Australians have questions they want the Prime Minister to answer. When reporters ask him some of those questions, he plays a dead bat, as does his increasingly irritating defence minister Robert Hill, whose delphic smile as he evades every question asked is insulting to Australians, to say the least.
Last night Howard appeared to admit he had no guarantee from the US that it would not use nuclear weapons in the war! Asked if he could rule out their use, he said: “Well, if I thought there were going to be nuclear weapons used, I would not allow Australian forces to be involved, full stop.” But have you asked Bush for a guarantee? Unfortunately, the interview was over.
Howard’s obfuscation and failure to be open and honest with the Australian people is reprehensible. Last year he committed Australia to joining a US invasion, even offering to send an armoured brigade. After months of backtracking from that, he now claims with a straight face that the question of whether Australia would join a US unilateral strike is “hypothetical”. The duplicity of this answer is obvious to everyone.
We need to know why Iraq is so threatening to Australia that we need to invade it. We need to know what the terms of engagement are for our participation, including whether the US plans to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. We need to know how the US intends to effect regime change, and its timetable to establish democracy. We need to know the possible implications of our participation for our security in our region. Most of all, we need to know whether Australia accepts such a drastic change in international law norms, why, and the terms under which we agree.
The United States is rapidly implementing its new national security strategy – under which it rules the world according to its own interests – using international law and the UN to justify its actions when it can bulldoze agreement but refusing to itself be subject to international law. Clearly the Australian government has accepted that strategy, without saying so, of course. (The strategy is in Manifesto for world dictatorship.)
We need to know the details of this massive change in our foreign policy stance, this turning our backs on the UN as the international body charged with protecting world peace. We need to know the implications of this for us, and what guarantees the US has given that it will deal with the consequences for us of the dangerous stance we have taken at their request.
It is obvious that part of the reason for Australians’ ambivalence to this war is deep distrust of the United States government, due to its past actions, particularly in Iraq and the middle east, and the disagreement with US tactics within its senior political, intelligence and military circles. Surely the Prime Minister should address these concerns, not just pretend they don’t exist.
My guess about why most westerners outside the US are deeply concerned about an invasion of Iraq is that the US has no intention of sorting out the cancer in the Middle-East, the Israeli-Palestinian war. This war constantly threatens to ignite the region, so you’d think its resolution would be top priority before invading an Arab country. The world knows too that the US has the power to stop this war. Imagine the likely result if the time, energy and threats put into the Iraq saga had instead gone into forcing a peace accord, or at the very least a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force charged with separating the warring parties and imposing a forced peace while the parties sorted out a longer-term solution. It is impossible for the United States to prove its good faith on Iraq while this war goes on. It is a greater danger to world peace than Iraq, and many argue that the failure of the US to intervene in what has become a grotesque David and Goliath struggle is a central reason for the rise of extremist Muslim terrorists. Yet while Britain and other European countries try to get the parties talking, the US stands aside and Australia says nothing.
George Bush yesterday repeated his frightening declaration that if you weren’t with his country, you were its enemy. A nation’s past loyalty is irrelevant. September 11, as we know, was the beginning of history for the US president. George Bush’s brutal comments raises the question of whether the sudden US enthusiasm for a free trade deal is conditional on Australia backing a unilateral strike if the UN doesn’t play ball. Are we under duress?
Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday, in dismissing the opposition of France and Germany to a war, they they were “old Europe”, and that power was shifting to the east. He also claimed that many countries had privately offered support to a US invasion. What bribes and blackmail are they being subjected to? And what fate would befall France and Germany if they maintained their defiance of the world’s rogue state superpower?
Trading citizen’s lives for cash and favour is a big step.
Australians have the right to know what is going on. Tony Blair has faced his Parliament and answered MPs questions in detail. He’s argued his case hard and long. John Howard, in contrast, didn’t front the last debate parliament had on Iraq, leaving it to Alexander Downer.
He seems to think he can spin his way through this world crisis by emotional appeals to nationalism via paid mouthpieces like morning TV show host Steve Liebmann. Mr Liebmann is a front man. When he asks questions of guests, they’re given to him by a producer speaking into a microphone connected to his earpiece. He is paid by the government to read the script it gives him. Where is the credibility, where is the authority, in that?
Those TV ads on terrorism should have been fronted by a person of substance who the people of Australia trust. Someone who is prepared to be held accountable if a terrorist attack hits Australia. Someone who can answer our questions.
Australians, perhaps alone of all western Countries, are debating this war in the absence of input from its government. It’s a gross failure of leadership, and carries the risk that Australians will refuse to believe the truth of or the spin around what the government does say when it finally says something. The people of Australia and the troops sworn to defend them deserve better than that.
So many people wanted to read the Howard transcript today that it was inaccessible for a while due to volume of traffic. So many people who wanted their questions answered, and to get some idea of what all this means, were bitterly disappointed. KylieAnn Scott of Haberfield in Sydney watched the farce last night.
Watching Kerry O’Brien interview John Howard last night was absolutely pointless. Howard has become so seasoned in his dodgy avoidance of answering questions, whilst appearing to make the questions in themselves appear too hypothetical, absurd, and not worthy of contemplation or response.
Yet he has committed our troops on exactly that, on Unknowns. He will not answer hypothetical questions to Kerry O’Brien but he will commit our troops on yet-to-happen scenarios. He hopes that we will believe this quandary. I am not so sure.
Howard said he was pre-deploying troops as “an element in the diplomatic push”, but since there is already one hundred and twenty six thousand troops over there, what significant difference would our Australian contingent make to Saddam’s resolve to comply or not?
Why is our Prime Minister able to dodge around the truth and not be drawn on is real intentions? Surely the timing of this deployment is of the essence, yet he is able to skirt around all this on his favourite avoidance device: “I will not speculate”, “I will not answer questions on hypotheticals”.
Please, can someone find a way to catch Our Seasoned Avoider off guard and for once draw him on the truth? And if he won’t be drawn on them in words then all we have left are his actions, and if the old adage about “words and actions” is true, then I like my fellow Australians should hold grave concerns.
Martin Williams is unimpressed, and angry.
And what is the most reliable indicator of when the invasion will begin?
When the weapons inspectors are suddenly and without explanation pulled from Iraq. Because Hans Blix knows that if his team is still in Iraq when the US cross their Rubicon they will be captured, tortured and killed – possibly in the same way that Mark Wahlberg was tortured in the film “Three Kings”: electric shocks to the skull and gallons of oil straight down the throat.
And what is the signal that Australian defence forces are being misused and endangered?
When John Howard and his parade of sycophants refuse to explain what “national interest” actually is, and sprout neologisms such as “pre-deployment” to mislead Australians into thinking that this is all a carefully prepared diplomatic manoeuvre.
The most recent targets of such sophistry were refugees/illegal immigrants/asylum seekers. This time it will be Australia’s own servicemen and servicewomen.
Let’s see how the Australian people react when their children and parents and siblings start coming home in body bags at the pleasure of an unqualified and secretive “national interest”.
In twenty-five words or less, what will they have died for? Answer the question NOW, John Howard, before it is too late, or risk the stain of their blood on your hands.
Scott Burchill, a lecturer in international relations at Deakin University and regular Webdiary commentator on the war, summarises the implications of Howard’s latest attitude to the authority of the UN as expounded in last night’s interview:
(1) The process whereby international law is made – via the passing of UN Security Council Resolutions – can be disregarded if the outcome isn’t welcome. The veto powers of the permanent five members don’t count if the desired result doesn’t eventuate. It’s an interesting approach to ‘due process’ and displays extraordinary contempt for the UN Charter which specifies the respective powers of UN Security Council members.
(2) If the UN Security Council decides not to authorise an attack against Iraq, the use of force against Baghdad would constitute a crime of aggression. The international community doesn’t only speak when it passes UN Security Council Resolutions. It is speaking just as loudly when it rejects them.
(3) If Canberra opposes the current process which allows the permanent five members of the Security Council to veto resolutions, what steps has it taken to alter this power through reform of the UN?
(4) What are the implications of this new policy for relations with Israel? Since the early 1970s, the US has vetoed 22 draft Security Council resolutions on Palestine alone – this figure doesn’t include 7 vetoes relating to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the 1980s. The US has normally been outvoted 14-1 on these resolutions, though I cannot recall Mr Howard condemning Washington’s “capricious” use of its veto in these cases. According to the principle Mr Howard has just articulated, 14-1 resolutions in favour of actions can be regarded as constituting Security Council endorsement for, not against, the resolution.
The Howard Government has stated that one reason Israel’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions cannot be compared with Iraq’s is because the resolutions Israel ignores are not Chapter 7 enforcement resolutions (as Iraq’s are). The reason for this is because Washington routinely and capriciously vetos all enforcement resolutions against Tel Aviv. Presumably these vetos can be dismissed in the future? Or according to Mr Howard’s new principle, from now on member states of the UN shouldn’t allow Washington’s “capricious” use of its veto power to “hold them back” in bringing Israel to account for its breaches of international law.
(5) Canberra’s new policy echoes both the ALP’s and the British Government’s positions. According to the Leader of the Opposition, “the exception to this position [of only supporting UN authorised action against Iraq] might occur in the case of overwhelming UN Security Council support for military action, but where support for such action was subject to veto”. (The Australian Financial Review, 15 January, 2003).
Prime Minister Blair has said that if one country on the Security Council imposed an “unreasonable or unilateral” block “we can’t be in a position where we are confined in that way” (The Age, 15 January, 2003).
Crean, Blair and now Howard are saying that the moral authority of the UN depends on whether it does the bidding of Washington and its allies. If it reflects a different view, it’s very legitimacy is in question and therefore the process by which it has been passing Security Council resolutions since the 1940s can be disregarded.
You can see what they mean when they say that the future of the UN is at stake over the question of Iraq.
***
I’ve been inundated with emails on Iraq. Here’s a selection. And check out Polly Bush’s 2003 debut column, on a very strange Australia Day, at We are Australian, and we don’t quite understand what’s going on here.
David Spratt recommends this pic of an anti-war protest in Antarctica, vicpeace.
A reader recommends ‘Scenarios for Australian Military Contributions to the Probable War in Iraq’, by Alex Tewes and Kelly Kavanaugh in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group of the federal parliament house library. We’re now at CODE BLUE. aph
Australian filmaker John Weiley has organised an Australia Day ceremony in Byron Bay to protest the war, and the idea has spread. He writes: ” This proposal grew out of discussions within our family and with friends. If, like us, you feel appalled and shamed by the proposed attack on Iraq you will have been wondering if there is anything you can do to stop it. We are calling on everyone who is opposed to Australia’s involvement in Bush’s attack on Iraq to gather at their local war memorial at 5pm on Sunday 26 January – Australia Day. It will be a chance to recall the thousands of Australian lives ruined by pointless wars – the millions of people who have been slaughtered for the greed and ambition of a few. The crying need to put a stop to it. It will be a time to revive our determination to make Australia the decent country that our forebears dreamed it would be. There may be a couple of short speeches and a song or performance piece – perhaps the reading of a poem or two. A draft message should be agreed by each meeting and a delegation appointed to take the message to their local federal member of parliament. There should be a show of hands to move support for the message and the delegation. We don’t plan to do any shouting or marching. We hope that other Australians will support this movement by getting together at war memorials in every town and city in Australia – on Australia Day at 5pm. As individuals we are powerless but together we decide what is best for our country.” For more information call 02-66875544 or email weiley@helio.com.au
Catherine Marciniak says concerned Australians in the entertainment industry have put together an electronic petition at onevoiceforpeace, which includes links to other sites.
James Tedder (jtedder@midcoast.com.au) says there’s a Coff’s Harbour walk for peace, rain, hail or shine, at 11am Sunday, February 2, to show that Australians, who are a ‘friendly, decent, democratic people’ see no just reason to send troops to kill civilians in a war of dubious intent. It will start at 11am at Fitzroy Oval, next to the Coffs Harbour Swimming Pool, left into Gordon Street, left into High Street, then left into Hardacre Street, finishing at the Botanic Garden with a byo picnic lunch.
Gareth Smith: “Why don’t we get our Christmas lights out (ours are still out!) and bedeck our house fronts with NO WAR messages. It would be great if we could coordinate the switch on for Australia Day (Jan 26) and put out press releases. Let there be light not blight!”
Meaghan Phillipson reports on yesterday’s send-off of our troops.
At short notice I decided to go down to Cowpers Wharf to cover the departure of the HMAS Kanimbla for 2SER Community Radio. There were about a hundred or so protestors congregated along the fence line of the Navy dockyards, with about twenty or so journalists joining them while the police and navy keeping a vigilant eye over the entire scene.
My initial reaction was that the protestors shouldn’t be there intruding on the pain of friends and families as their loved ones sailed off to uncertain futures. It didn’t seem right, almost insulting to those ordered to go off and fight in our name.
Watching the ship readied for departure, small groups of families boarded then disembarked after final goodbyes. Women huddled together crying, young children played on the docks happily oblivious to the gravity of the situation, and parents supported each others weight as they waved their children off.
The scene struck home to me the seriousness of war in a way I had not expected it to. I had never seen a navy ship up close, let alone the heartbreaking scene of a ship full of people my age pulling out of dock and into the eye of a quickly advancing political storm.
Out of these scenes of grief, it struck me why the protestors presence was not only valid but also necessary. They were not there to criticise the troops onboard, they were there to protest their deployment. I’m not sure many of the protestors there were prepared for the palpable rawness of emotion witnessed as families were torn apart by a looming war.
But I think such an experience only strengthens the resolve of the anti-war movement, as I doubt nobody there (myself included) would wish to see this scene repeat itself ever again.
As the ship was readied to leave, the strains of The Seekers ‘I am Australian’ floated through across the dock and into the crowd of protestors. As someone who grapples to understand her Australian identity, this moment was perhaps the lowest point of connection Ive felt to the Australian nature entailed within popular culture. I imagined Prime Minister John Howard on the other side of the fence, singing along as he welled with national pride over what these troops are prepared to do for this country upon his orders.
Yet having people willing to risk their lives on behalf of a nation and its agenda is not something that should be wrapped up in a sense of nationalistic pride. It should be acknowledged as a serious pledge that should be respected in diplomatic actions aimed at avoiding the use of this promise by exploring and re-exploring non-combative alternatives.
Considering the circumstances of the deployment, a more appropriate feeling for the Prime Minister would have been one of sadness over his own governments inability to continue to patiently seek diplomatic solutions. In the case of Iraq, I don’t believe every avenue has been exhausted in order to prevent the path to war and so, in the truest sense of the word, war has become the ultimate failure of diplomacy.
As I watched the HMAS Kinimbla pull out of Cowpers Wharf, I couldn’t help but think that what I was witnessing was the first concrete proof of that failure. Perhaps more depressingly though for troops and their loved ones, today felt by no means like the last proof we will see but rather just the beginning.
***
Roger Diercks
As an American, I found your opening paragraphs of Always willing, we’re off to war again to be quite descriptive of public sentiment here in the US. Public resistance to a unilateral strike on Iraq is growing here. With thousands of military reservists being called up to active duty, the reality of war is starting to set in in everyday life in many places around the country. This has resulted in what was previously a fairly quiet reluctance growing louder and more widespread across the entire political spectrum.
Even many well-known conservative pundits have been quite outspoken against a war, and public opinion polls are currently showing that approximately 80% of Americans oppose any action against Iraq without a UN sanction.
Mr Bush has not made a clear case to the American people. His treatment of the crisis with North Korea through diplomatic channels only adds to the questioning of his motives in Iraq. I think that he will be committing political suicide if he leads the US into a war that will inevitably be followed by a long U.S. military presence in Iraq.
***
Tina Burge
I’m living in London and I haven’t read, seen or heard anything in the media regarding Australian troops being sent to the Middle East for this ridiculous folly. Before I left Oz, Correspondents’ Report on Radio National had a piece on the American coverage of the Bali bombing (I think in November) and cited the dearth of coverage in the US media. The media in the UK view an attack on Iraq very much in Bush/Blair terms – never any mention of Howard or Australia.. If Australian troops die in Iraq it will certainly be in vain, and our ‘allies’ won’t care and their media probably won’t even report their deaths – unless the dead once played cricket or tennis.
***
Mary Gardiner: At the risk of ditties getting out of hand, the local version of the “If you’re happy and you know it” lyrics Merrill Pye sent (Always willing, we’re off to war again) would be something like:
When the refugees stop arriving, bomb Iraq
While Canberra is surviving, bomb Iraq
When Uncle Sam comes calling,
And the UN are all bawling,
Then Australia goes a-brawling,
Bomb Iraq
*
When the housing industry’s dying, bomb Iraq
When the sheep farms are all drying, bomb Iraq
When ANZUS needs preserving,
Then Australia is deserving,
Our commitment is unswerving,
Bomb Iraq.
***
Phil Drayson in Perth: What can I say but quote Bob Dylan again:
There’s been rumors of war and wars that have been
The meaning of the life has been lost in the wind
And some people thinkin’ that the end is close by
‘Stead of learnin’ to live they are learning to die
(Let Me Die In My Footsteps, The Bootleg Series Volumes 1-3, 1991)
***
Peter Woodforde in Canberra
As HMAS Kanimbla steams for Iraq, essentially under the command of a corrupt White House clique which armed and sustained Saddam Hussein for many years, it will bypass Australian servicemen in East Timor now reportedly under sustained threat from militias assembled by brutal US-trained and armed Kopassus forces. This is treachery, pure and bloody simple.
***
Peter Kelly
I like Darren Urquhart’s idea of boycotting American goods and services provided by 5 brands – Mobil-Exxon, Ford, Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Nike (Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush). I just think we should think further than these five corporations and adopt a broader context than simply the war. To spend dollars in the direction of multinational corporations is to bankroll imperialism. By boycotting corporate imperialism you can directly affect the power to wage imperial war.
Maybe other readers have ideas on how to substitute corporate products for non corporate ones. Other things that can be done is fronting schools about corporate “partnerships” and other subtle forms of colonising childrens’ minds with corporate propaganda. Parents can pressure schools and parliamentary representatives to find non corporate solutions to needs in schools. We need not need soft drink “partnerships” as happens in the USA nor for oil companies to be writing global warming curriculums pieces.
There are three ways to respond to the corporate noise crowding out of public space. One is to shout back and try to be louder. Second is to dim the noise through any way possible like “culture jamming”. The third is simply not to listen. If a corporate tree falls in a corporate jungle where there is no one to hear it does the sound exist? Boycotting multinational corporations is a way to simply not listen.
***
Paul Grant
I have no problems with this government’s user pay ideology. Indeed, hands up all those that wish our troops to go off to the Gulf before a UN War is even sanctioned?? Now divide the cost of such a troop exercise, by the number of hands up, and send each raised hand owner their full proportion of the bill!! Any hands still raised?
Ahh!!! democracy!!!!!
***
Chris Murphy
The question is: Given Saddam Hussein’s atrocious human rights record, why do Leftists (and liberals) oppose “regime change”? (See Jim Nolan’s piece in Take a risk for human rights: Back Bush.)
What a shame it is only the Left that is debating the issue. The Right – largely lead, supported and funded by the United States arms and oil industries – is happy to use the excuses that (1) Iraq presents a threat to the world because of its weaponry, and (2) Saddam Hussein is a human rights violator.
What the Right will not concede is that (1) they fully supported the arming of Hussein in the 1980s, and (2) they have continually supported many other dictators with similar human rights records.
What the Right really wants is for the West to (1) re-stamp its “authority” on the world, and (2) regain control of Middle East oil.
In fifty years time, when the textbooks are written about the “First War on Terror”, students will learn that, a century after the Great War, many young men and women were again sent to their deaths on a false pretence, ostensibly in the name of “freedom and democracy”, but in reality for land and money.
***
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED :
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: GEORGE WALKER BUSH
202.456.1414 / 202.456.1111
FAX: 202.456.2461
DEAR SIR / MADAM,
I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.
I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.
MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST, THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER’S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.
MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS NEW VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 100 BILLION TO 200 BILLION DOLLARS ($100,000,000,000 – $200,000,000,000), BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT.
WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY, WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER.
I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL.
I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER.
I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL. PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE TO THE CONTACT NUMBERS BELOW.
SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS,
GEORGE WALKER BUSH
Switchboard: 202.456.1414
Comments: 202.456.1111
Fax: 202.456.2461
Email: