Indeed, now that the taliban is no longer cracking down on opium cultivation and heroin exports (and the US forces just sorta stay out of those neighbourhoods) those poor terrorists have to be running out of money if nothing else.
I don’t have any real problem with believing that GeeDubya really thought that Saddam and ObL were in cahoots, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Its an American tendency: we are the good guys, and the bad guys are all conspiring against us. Remember how some on the right were convinced that the rift between the Soviets and the Chincoms was a ruse to lull us to sleep?
Personally, I think posing a conspiracy between a secular cynic and a religious fanatic is batshit pizza. It would be like Stalin slipping Rasputin a nuke! Sure, he’ll use it, but against who? If you already believe in a conspiracy, then the absence of evidence is evidence itself!
For my two bits, if Saddam knew that ObL was cooking up 9/11, he would have ratted him out in a New York minute. Trouble like that he did not need!
What’s to like?
Does anybody have the links to the public opinion polls that show that a large percentage of Americans still believe things like: Iraq was connected Al Qaeda and the Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs?
Well, it’s AN argument. I wouldn’t call it an EXCELLENT argument.
To my mind there were far too many variables in 1999 to make it a rational plan for Bush Jr. to pursue effectively or with even any remote hope of success. Sure, we can speculate all day about his desire to prove he is his father’s child but that would only be speculation and arm chair psychology at best.
9/11 sure was an opportune turn of events for Bush and he (and his cabinet) really did capilize on this tragedy. However, I don’t believe they were pre-eptively exploitive of the lives lost. I’m not that big of an anti-Bushist that I believe that he sat idly by waiting for a tragedy of any proportion. Certainly not this one. However, they did make lemonade. Still are.
I think the motivation behind the invasion of Iraq lies elsewhere. I believe it lies in EU busting. Let’s face it… a few thousand hardline terrorists are not a viable threat to US superiority or economic growth. No arab nation in existance is even remotely capable of being a threat to the US on a military scale. Certainly they are no match for the US on and economic scale. But the EU is. On both counts. First, a healthy supply of arab oil to the main players (Germany, France, Russia) is a threat economically. With economic growth comes economic unity and military growth. Either the US nips the EU in the bud now or deals with it years from now when it’s more developed, more united and more organized due to the common currency and highly organized political and military ties. What’s bad for Germany or France or Russia becomes bad for everyone in Europe and there is more justification to fight the US for suprepacy than maintain friendly ties. The UK, never comfortable with their European identity for geo-political and historic reasons, was the perfect and effective wedge to drive into the heart of the EU by having them join the US in the busting of the Iraqi oil contracts of the aformentioned european nations.
Again, just my theory. Perhaps no more excellent than any other.
The views of some people on Bush are just mind boggling. The hatred that so many of you have defies all logic. Bush is ruining the country through his stupidity. But, wait! Also Bush is an evil genious masterminding a political plan to ruin the country. :rolleyes:
The views that some people have towards Bush remind me exactly of how the Stormfr*nters think and act. If hating jews is your passion, then all subjects and problems can turn into a discussion of them evil jews. Thinking need to enter into it. It’s very similar how the Bush bashers can turn all topics into these sorts of bizarre imaginary evils of Bush rants. None of it is at all based in reality. It’s a series of complex fantasies that a group of people is all conjuring up to make themselves feel…something. I really don’t get it.
I know, I know. There were people on the right who did the same thing with Clinton. But, there weren’t nearly as many of them. Or, maybe they just weren’t as visible because the internet wasn’t as big then? In any case, it’s definitely a disorder. Otherwise intelligent people are susceptible to it, and with all the modern communications and Bush bashing books out there feeding it, it’s spreading like wildfire. It’s truly odd that those of you afflicted by it are incabable of seeing it.
In the London Review of Books, there was an article tackling oil and the Iraq war.
Worth reading in full, even if you don’t agree.
Iraq did not attack us. Iraq did not destroy the World Trade Center buildings. During the presidential debates, Bush tried to “hint” (?) that Saddam had attacked us - he hadn’t. Just before invading, Bush tried to convince us that there was a link between Saddam and Al Queda (there was none). Before that, there were the (nonexisting) WMD. Every so often, the excuse (or reason) would change. So, it is understandable for people to ask, what was the real reason.
Pretty much my thought on the OP too. For the life of me I don’t see how folks figure Bush would have gotten a war with Iraq (or anyone else) without the events of 9/11. It wasn’t going to happen. Bush BARELY squeeked by in 2000 and had exactly zero political capital to create a war out of whole clothe. Besides, he was really don’t nothing to prepare the country for a foreign adventure prior to 9/11…he was mostly focused internally. Without 9/11 Bush would have been a one term president ranking up there with Jimmy Carter.
And thats the key…Bush et al basically just capitalized on a oportunity that presented itself. In addition, I have to also say that I think Bush really DOES think he is effectively fighting terrorism with what he’s done. Whether thats true or not is irrelevent…HE thinks its so IMHO. Of course good intentions pave the road to hell, and all that…
-XT
Thats true…Iraq didn’t attack the US. Of course, no where in that speech did Bush specifically say that Iraq attacked us…he said we were attacked. Thats two different things. Of course, its all spin…but that works both ways. You are spinning his words one way, he’s spinning them another.
Afaik Bush or his merry men have never come right out and said that Iraq was involved in 9/11 directly, nor that Iraq attacked us. He’s ‘suggested’ it by spin…but then again, he’s said that Iraq is part of a wider war on terror and Iraq was attacked because it supported terrorists (something that is at least quasi-true if you consider Saddams support of terrorists in Palestine).
I don’t see any deep or sinister reasons for Bush et al to pick Iraq as a target once the opportunity presented itself. No conspiricy needed. Saddam was a perfect target, the US needed to demonstrate its ability to completely destroy any nation with a credible military capability on par with other nations in the region easily and at will (ok, so the aftermath isn’t working out exactly as planned), the US needed a secure presence in the region in a nation completely beholden to us…oh, and did I mention that Saddam and Iraq were the perfect target? It bears repeating. Iraq was already under sanction, they were already conviently in violation of various provisions of the cease fire, Saddam could be counted on to provide the inflamatory rhetoric at need, it was widely believed that he actually DID have WMD (which gave an excuse), the American people at least had already been preped to belive Saddam was a mini-Hitler from the first gulf war…and Iraq is conviently located right were we wanted to be. Location location location.
Conspiricy theories and tin foil need not enter in.
-XT
The first paragraph of yours could be in regard to the hatred for WJC or HRC on the part of some Republicans. As could your second paragraph. Hmm…let’s talk about the “complex fantasy” that Clinton had 40 people killed (or did he do it himself? I keep forgetting).
And there weren’t AS many of them? Where have you been? Bush has been treated with kids gloves compared to the Clintons. The demonizing of the Clintons continues to this day–maybe not in mainstream media, but I certainly hear it from GOP people I know–and I doubt that Limbaugh resists a swipe or two upon occasion.
I’ll admit that conspiracy theories seem a bit far fetched, but so is the “liberal media” cabal that the Right holds so dear.
I ahve thought from the start that Bush et al wanted a power grab unlike anything we’ve ever seen. They have a “vision” for this country that I don’t fully understand and don’t like one bit, but they fully intend to push it thru no matter what. Everything he has done has been to solidify Executive Power, all wrapped up in a touch feely “culture of life” nonsense.
He IS stupid, in that he is neither well read, nor intellectual in outlook. He is not “cultured” --in fact, he has been at great pains to eliminate any “highbrow” taint the Ivy league may have given him. He wants to be seen as a “regular” guy–even a white trash guy made good. He is clever as a fox when it comes to this kind of thing. Would that the Dems had as wiley an opponent.
I know this GD and I do not belong here, but I lay odds that Bush tries to get the 2 term limit overturned. Either that or look for the same puppeteers, and a new neo-con face. Sorry, OT.
Honestly, that’s about as much tortured logic as the OP. The invasion of Afghanistan and the events of 9/11 gave Bush plenty of political capital. In fact, it gave him enough to INVADE IRAQ!! He never would’ve been able to do so otherwise.
I think we can all agree that the Bush Administraion, especially Cheney, played extremely fast and lose with the Iraq/al Qaeda connection. But the fact of the matter is, Bush was riding higher than high after the events of 9/11. He simply didn’t need to roll the dice on Iraq and go for broke.
The reason I brought up Syria and Iran, is that if the OP had any merit, we’d see Bush preparing for another war front right now. If not one of those two, then NK. Bush is slumping in the polls, his SS proposal is all but dead, his nominees are all getting slowed down in Congress. What does he need? Political capital!! So, if his logic is to get that from war, then bring the troops home, declare Iraq a success, and set off on another adventure somewhere else.
Which would mean that Bill Clinton could run against him.
Just sayin’, is all.
Name the bet and I’ll take the odds he doesn’t.
I wonder how Hillary would vote on that amendment. 
Because we don’t have enough troops to invade another country while still occupying Iraq.
See post #32.
I’m not buying the argument that the President is an innocent who sees the world in black and white terms and tribal animosities between the good guys and the bad guys. That may well be his instinct but he is surrounded by a bunch of very sophisticated practioners of Real Politic who know better.
There were any number of factors that drove this administration to war in Iraq and to find pretexts to do so. Oil was surely one. That Saddam had a big mouth was another. The increased prestige and improved position for reelection bestowed by prancing around on a big white horse as a war President was surely another consideration.
The War President thing has always been powerful image. The times we have changed Presidents in the middle of armed conflict have been times when the War President has decided not to seek reelection, as in the case of Truman and LBJ. Of course, the fact that there was a war on has never stopped the opposition from trying to effect a change, as when McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 saying that the war was a failure, and when John Dewey ran against FDR in 1944 saying much the same thing.
Did the President precipitate the war with Iraq in order to climb on his white horse and claim the exalted status of War President? I doubt it. Did he cynically exploit the invasion and occupation to that end? Without a doubt. Otherwise how do you explain the charade in the flight suit on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln?
I can only hope that sooner or later the nation tires of or sees through this feeble impersonation of poor old John Wayne stalking around muttering that a man’s got’ta do what a man’s got’ta do.
Nitpick. It was Thomas E. Dewey.
I don’t much agree with the rest of your post, but that’s just my humble opinion.
There is another name so far unmentioned: Israel.
As through a glass, darkly: Israel. The one nation that gains the most from our intervention, and interminable presence in the ME. Her best and strongest ally, semi-permanently land based, with all the attendant armament and threat. No need to support a fleet at a remove. A fleet with inherent limitations. Viewed from that aspect, Iraq is just an enormous and stable aircraft carrier. An gun platform. And missile platform. And staging area.
Whom does our presence threaten most? Iran and Syria. By an extraordinary coincidence, precisely the enemies most to be feared by Israel.
Are we to imagine that this confluence of interests has entirely escaped the attention of our leaders and those of Israel? Then they are incompetent fools, unfit to organize and lead a Rotary luncheon. I think not.
Now, that said, do I imagine that GeeDubya places Israels interests above our own? Of course not, I imagine the man a scoundrel, and quite possibly a fool but I don’t doubt his patriotism. But I also cannot help but notice that he is surrounded by men who have, in the past, placed great emphasis on the centrality of Israel to ME policy. And I note with suspicion recent revelations regarding a far too cozy relationship in terms of the “sharing of intelligence.”
A bit further afield is the importance of Israel to Christian fundamentalist mythology and symbolism.
I confess that these are questions that trouble me, and that I am not equipped or informed to certainty. Clearly, our presence in the ME is to Israel’s advantage, and I see very little in it for us but risk. We are Israel’s best friend, but are they ours as well? The concern of the Israeli patriot is Israel, and who can fault them for that? Were we not perfectly content to play the French against the English in our own time of need, patriots all of us?
I would be pleased to hear an authoritative counter-argument, even if such reveals me as a complete fool, who has missed some obvious fact that makes this whole notion absurd.
If you have that crucial fact, that irrefutable argument, I would be very relieved to hear it.