Bush is down and on the way out with his administration. Bush-bashing is as easy as beating around the bush. The need is to read the headlines such as “Fresh bombing in Falluja,” “Fierce fighting continues in Ramadi” and “Thirteen Killed in fresh US attack” and try to find out what is it that does not add with the official stories. And why, most probably, the situation will get even worse after Bush and his team’s departure.
Many agree that the US “war on terrorism” did not achieve the stated objectives. However, very few question the continued US aggression and occupation that does not make any sense at a time when “Blair admits Iraq intelligence was flawed,” “Powell admits Iraq intelligence was ‘flawed’,” the US senators admit that “the CIA assessments were wrong,” and when even Bush admits “error” in Iraq’s intelligence.
The lies about Weapons of mass destruction and the worst justifications than Saddam’s argument for his occupation of Kuwait have long been exposed.
Saddam Hussain, behind whom Bush and Blair still love to hide their crimes against humanity, is dethroned and in captivity. What else do the US and UK want to achieve with continued occupation, daily bombings and subsequent carnage?
"Listen, we thought there was going to be stockpiles of weapons," Bush said in Kutztown, Pennsylvania a week ago. "I thought so. The Congress thought so. The UN thought so. I’ll tell you what we do know: Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons."
Even if that capacity was there, it has gone now. Blair, nevertheless, still repeats the same logic without giving any valid justification for the continued stay of 138,000  occupation troops. If the new justification is to defeat the insurgents, they will never be able to do so. The insurgency is in response to the occupation, facilitated through lies, and to only true power in Iraq that for the foreseeable future will remain in the hands of occupiers.
The occupation will continue to breed “terrorists” and inflame “insurgency.” If eliminating such “insurgents” and “terrorists” is an honorable achievement,” let the US and UK invade their allies in the war on commonsense and they will find many such “terrorists” to kill, capture and torture.
9/11 and the post 9/11 events are just symptoms of the US arrogance and urge to dominate and the rest of the Western world’s appeasement in this regard. Bush did not do anything extra-ordinary. Things were coming to this end anyway and any US president would have acted the same way.
Didn’t Clinton continue the genocidal sanctions for 10 long years during his presidency? Would Kerry not continue the same policies set forth by Bush? Putting all the blame on Bush’s shoulders is naÃ¯ve. What we witness are consequences of: a) promoting Islamophobia and b) the years long policies of forcing the whole world and the UN into accepting what only the US and Israel believes is right.
The only difference now is the US now acts openly what it used to plan and implement covertly. Similarly, the rest of the Western world adopts Islamophobia as a policy without any fear of being labelled as racists and fascists.
It is not Bush who travelled to Norway to promote banning Islam. It is Norwegian politicians, central figures in Kristians and Progress party, who believe Islam “is a threat against [their] social system and way of life.” They demand “the practice of this [religion], illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism” because it is not a fringe that believes so: “this is an opinion that is well established in Scandinavian countries.” 
Bush was fully supported by Blair, but Bush did not campaigned in Britain which resulted in members of the British National Party believing: "That’s the way that this wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it’s now sweeping country after country." one BNP member expressing a wish to blow up mosques with a rocket launcher and to machine-gun worshippers with "about a million bullets." 
There is something very deep which all of us are ignoring at our peril. This is not something what Jeremy Seabrook considers an desperation of the “poor white man” when he finds himself as a “white trash” due to rising immigrants population, globalization and his subsequent decline from “working class to under class.” 
This line of thinking white washes history about Institutional Islamophobia entering the British Isles during the Norman Crusade of 1066 and moving on to North America as well as surviving right into the 21st century. 
Bush-bashing without a broader outlook is a recipe for disaster. It does not allow us to see that the “war on terrorism” is the product of the same Islamophobia that entered British Isles in 1066. Many Muslims were not outright stupid to believe that the US war on terrorism is a war on Islam. The world has now the opportunity to see how the 9/11 commission has clearly stepped back to redefine the nature of the “war on terrorism.”
Summary of the report in the words of David Brooks of the New York Times is: “We’re not in the middle of a war on terror, they note. We’re not facing an axis of evil. Instead, we are in the midst of an ideological conflict.”  How else could they now justify the war, if not telling the truth?
Now the war lords are coming out of their closets, telling the world about their real intentions. Brooks clearly concedes that “emphasizing ideology instead of terror makes all the difference, because if you don’t define your problem correctly, you can’t contemplate a strategy for victory.”
So the victory is not intended against terror, as the world has long been duped to fight against. It is to overcome an ideology, which the Norwegian politicians have further clarified as Islam “the way it was practiced when it was established in year 600.”  A person has to accept Islam as it was taught and presented as a model based on the Qur’an by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) 1400 years ago to become a Muslims. If that is unacceptable, many other shades could be described as Islam to please modern Islamophobes but that would not be Islam.
The discussion boils down to the fact that what was paraded as “a war on terrorism” has now admittedly become “a war on an ideology.” In fact, it is the war on commonsense of all those who are not aware about Islam. Islam can never be defeated with military, media or “moderates” and money. What can be defeated is the commonsense of Muslims and non-Muslims.
The war on commonsense dictates us to:
Â§ – Accept, despite all the admissions by political, military and media figures, that it is still not a war on Islam.
Â§ – Accept the nonsense -” without digging the reality -” from leading politicians in the West that “the prophet Muhammad urged them [Muslims] to kill everyone infidel.” 
Â§ – Accept sweeping statements which make unaware people believe that all Islamic movement and the Muslim struggle for self-rule are based in a “hostile belief system that can’t be reasoned with but can only be ‘destroyed or utterly isolated.’" 
Â§ – Promote a) the idea that we are in “the fight against Islamic extremism now where we were in the fight against communism in 1880″  and b) promoters of this idea -” “modernist Muslims”  -” so that ultimately everyone come to believe what the Norwegian politicians believe that the way Islam was practiced 600 years ago was “extremism” (equivalent to Nazism) and does not suit the present day realities.
Â§ – Believe that Islamophobia is limited to “poor white man” and is the product of industrial revolution of the past, globalization of today and the on going Muslim migration to the West. 
Â§ – Ignore the difference between the theory and practice of sovereignty, liberation and democracy. Iraq and Afghanistan are the role models for the new models of these concepts. Democracy is now that what the US wants us to accept as democracy -” see Pakistan, or the will of 6 against 150 in the UN General Assembly.
Â§ – Accept CIA puppets in Kabul  and Baghdad  as legitimate representatives of the “liberated” nations.
Â§ – Believe that all those Congressional and White House people and the mainstream media, with all their money and staff resources, didn’t know what all the web bloggers, running web sites on spare change, knew; that the claims of Iraq’s WMDs were lies.
Â§ – Believe the 9/11 commission’s logic for switching the “war on terrorism” to a never ending “war on ideology” so that allies do not withdraw the support they have extended to a war based on lies and deception.
Â§ – Believe that the intensifying Iran-bashing in the media is not based on exactly the same blame for 9-11 and the same objective to defeat Islamic ideology that we witnessed in planning to invade Iraq and Afghanistan -” doesn’t matter if as a rule there is no word about the failure to finding any evidence that either one had anything to do with 9/11.
Â§ – Take Israel’s renewed over-flying their neighbors airspace as a routine so that the mere fact of a flight across Israel’s borders will not in and of itself constitute a warning. So Israel’s planes will be well on their way to Iran’s nuclear facilities before anyone realizes the difference between these flights and the acts of war Israel carry out against Iran as a part of the overall “war on ideology.”
Â§ – Ignore the US giving Israel the use of two refueling tanker planes that gives Israeli warplanes the range to reach all over the Mideast.
Â§ – Support and enjoy when the war spreads to Sudan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere because we must win this war on an ideology just as we won the war against Communism.
Â§ – Don’t give up on America. “We’ve got a long struggle ahead, but at least we’re beginning to understand it,” concludes David Brooks. Bush and Kerry and anyone after them are irrelevant.
The indefinite US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan now proves that Saddam Hussain,  weapons of mass destruction and the Taliban  were not the issue. The issue was and will remain Islam that is being wrapped in all-the-while-changing-wrappers: extremist Islam, terrorism, political Islam and now “an ideology.”
Instead of believing liars of the century, Muslims and non-Muslim better safe-guard their commonsense and dig out the reality and find out for themselves that Islam as practiced 600 years ago is not a threat except to the unjust oppressors, the lying tyrants and the status quo they want to sustain.
. John L Esposito, History Lessons, Weekly Al-Ahram, 22 – 28 July 2004, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/700/op63.htm. Muqtedar Khan, “How George Bush changed America,” Daily Times, July 20, 2004
. Yaukey, John. U.S. to cede authority but retain troops with power transfer. Gannett News Service. USA Today. June 24, 2004. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-24-iraq-trasfer-qanda_x.htm
. Carin Pettersson, “Rightwing politicians want to ban Islam,” TV2.net 19.07.04 12:00 http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article254421.ece
. TV Film exposes Islamophobia in UK. July 15, 2004. A BBC documentary http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66EB1FAE-E44A-4FC0-82DA-D12AD5085041.htm
 Jeremy Seabrook, “The BNP is now riding a broader wave of respectable Islamophobia,” The Guardian, Friday July 23, 2004. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1267508,00.html
. For details see: Yaseen Ahmed , “1066 : How Islamophobia came to the British Isles,” http://www.universalbookshops.com/viewproduct.asp?ProductID=28
. David Brooks, “War of Ideology,” The New York Times, July 25, 2004.
. Ibid. Carin Pettersson.
. Ibid. Carin Pettersson.
. Ibid. David Brooks.
. Ibid. David Brooks.
. Ibid. David Brooks.
. Ibid. Jeremy Seabrook,
. Harmid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant. During the Reagan administration he was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George H. W. Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Dr. Kosmotar J. Katzspliff, “Who’s on first? Who’s on second? Who’s really the terrorist? Just a glimpse down the rabbit hole” See http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/062504Katzspliff/062504katzspliff.html
. The Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2004. A Big Man To Watch In Baghdad. By David Ignatius. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23-2004Jan30.html
. This author presented a case long before the US invasion of Iraq that Saddam is not the issue: Read a September 22, 2002 article: “Saddam is not the issue” at http://www.ilaam.net/Opinions/SaddamNotIssue.html
. Also read “Issue is Islam, not the Taliban,” dated September 200 at http://www.icssa.org/Taliban_not_an_issue.htm