An excellent argument explaining Bush's drive to war

This is the most compelling and the most deeply disturbing argument for the real reason George took us to war that I have read. Securing oil? Just a bonus. Avenging Daddy? I don’t really think so. But this is exxtremely logical, and supported by many different things we already know, with more coming out every day.

On the surface, this would seem more deeply evil than we could tolerate contemplating in American men and women acting as our governors (he doesn’t act alone…anything but!), but the evidence is everywhere. The power-madness of this Administration and Congress and even the Supreme Court is inarguable. It grows more brazen with each passing day.

The pieces fit, the evidence is there. And my heart is more broken than ever for my country, never mind the human beings who have been sacrificed for this sickening agenda.

I know some people will simply dimiss this because they can’t even stand to wrap their minds around the possibility that it is exactly as true as it looks, not here, not America! This is movie stuff, right?

If only.

Here’s a major flaw in that argument: Bush didn’t NEED to invade Iraq to become a “war President” or to get tremendous political capital. The tragedy of 9/11 and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan put him in the catbird’s seat. Why didn’t he just use that in the same way his dear ol’ dad used the invasion of Iraq? Or, why stop at Iraq? Why not keep going-- Syria, Iran, there are plenty of other targets.

I think you want there to be an easy, Freudian type answer and this guy had given you one.

The evidence may fit if you’re willing to accept a third party quote as gospel.

And there’s this blatant mistake/fabrication/spin in your linked story:

Bush didn’t make a radio address on 6/19/05; it was on 6/18/05. We’ll call this a mistake.
Neither is there anything in that radio address remotely resembling your author’s claim that Bush said the Saudi’s hijackers were actually Iraqis. This is a fabrication.

Finally, your author is spinning in that last sentence of his I quoted. He’s trying to get you to believe that Bush was speaking of going to war speciically against Iraq, when Bush’s actual statement could be interpreted as either the so-called War on Terror, or our activities in Afghanistan. Spin. (Although Bush is also trying to spin this point in his address.)

Here’s the text of Bush’s 6/18/05 radio address:

I truly believe that what Bush meant by that was that we were attacked by Mideastern terrorists, therefore we must strike back at Mideast terrorists. In Bushworld, this has a certain sort of twisted logic. The very fact that we went into Iraq is proof enough that he was thinking that the terrorists might have been Iraqi for all he cared.

Do you understand the difference between “suggest” and “said” or “claimed outright”? The author did not “claim that bush said” what he said exactly was this:“Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his June 19, 2005 radio address, he ** suggested ** that the Saudis who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. “We went to war because we were attacked,” he said, hoping Americans’ memories are short.”

and he was absolutely right. I listened to the quote moments before I read this piece, and now, thanks to you, I give the quote in complete context:

Where in there is he NOT suggesting that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Where in there is he suggesting, claiming, or declaring that ANY nation EXCEPT Iraq had ANY responsibility, participation, or even citizen involved in 9/11? How many Americans are going to listen to that and not end up hearing: “Terrorists-Iraq-9/11-terrorists-Iraq-war-Iraq-terrorists”

Did you hear him talk about advancing the propaganda? I know you are a relatively bright guy, UncleBeer, are you telling me you don’t know how suggestion works? how propaganda works? That Bush and Co. don’t know? Because if you are, I don’t believe you. I believe you can’t stand the idea so you are scrambling for something more palatable.

Then why did he bother with Afghanistan at all? Why not invade Iraq first?

It’s clear that you think Bush is an idiot, but you do need to actually make an argument in GD, you know.

And another thing: what is completely infuriating is how well, in spite of EVERYTHING, this incredibly transparant bullshit continues to work! The one area in which Americans still feel sorta good about GW is in “protecting us from terrorism” - when he says in this very speech how incredibly inept he has been at that when he says we can all agree that terrorists have now made Iraq a recruiting ground!! Well, yeah…because of you! He has actually exacerbated the problem, actually talks about it, and still is perceived as being effective!

[ doing the Jon Stewart eye rub] wha’???

I may not buy the entire argument, but the invasion of Afghanistan pales in comparison to the war with Iraq. It didn’t get him much political capital when most people thought of thet Taliban as a rag-tag bunch of towelheads who live a backward existence. Iraq, though, that’s a 21st Century country with roads, and cities, and real “stuff” we can blow up and show on TV.

As to why not keep going - Syria and Iran are a much different kettle of fish than was Iraq. I don’t think he would have had the international support (such that he had) or support from the public for any extra-Iraqi activities.

Because he had to. Bypassing Afghanistan entirely would have been impossible, not to mention the fact that the Afghanistan invaions lent credibility to the Iraq war.

Well said! However, it must be noted that the Afghan war may have actually helped. The terrorists still control much of that nation, but their capabilities in Afghanistan are undoubtedly reduced.

Far be it from me to understand the dark and cobweb-filled recesses of Bush’s brain, but my WAG is that it was to pacify an angry and scared public while he prepared for the war he really wanted to wage.

Honestly, it’s not hard to divine what Bush meant by “We went to war because we were attacked.” What war is he talking about? From context, it’s clear he’s talking about Iraq. What does he mean by attacked? The only big attack on American soil in recent history was by Saudi terrorists. Putting these two things together what he said was “We went to war with Iraq because we were attacked by Saudi terrorists.” So he either thinks Saudis and Iraqis are the same people, or he doesn’t care.

Unless, of course, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

I don’t accept the OP’s premise, but the bolded part of your argument doesn’t rule out that Bush might have felt that he needed more ‘political capital’.

Recall that his father’s stratospheric popularity immediately following the war wasn’t sufficient to keep him from being unseated, in part because of a slumping economy.

Bush I didn’t keep that war going long enough to see him through the next election.

I certainly do understand the difference.

Please show me, in Bush’s radio address of 6/18/05 (you still have an incorrect date of 6/19) where it is “suggested” that Iraqi’s were piloting those planes. The portion you have quoted here, makes no distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Would care to address your faith in that third-party quote—the one where Russ Baker is telling us what Mickey Herskowitz claims Bush said; the foundation of Thom Hartmann’s entire thesis relies upon the veracity of Baker’s claim. Baker says quite clearly that Herskowitz told him "presidential candidate George W. Bush was already [before 9/11] talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq. The statements attributed to Bush in that article demonstrate no such thing. The statements attributed to Bush are nothing more than his reflections on Bush, Sr.'s actions in Desert Storm and the political capital he subsequently gained and wasted. Bush, Jr. is only saying that given the same opportunity, he’d try to take advantage of it instead of squandering it. It’s very long reach from there to what Hartmann is telling us is the true story.

On this, I agree with you completely - and honestly hope there’s a day of full reckoning in store for the little weasel.

You guys are sure readly to believe Bush is capable of some very complicated scheming and intricate intrigue. Guess if that’s true he’s not quite the dumbass y’all were telling us during his election campaigns. Really folks, you can’t have it both ways.

Oh, come on. There’s a huge difference between being so dumb you can’t forsee the obvious consequences of bad public policy and so dumb you can’t find your socks at the end of your feet. Obviously Bush has enough of a brain (some call it “Rove”) to be successful in politics.

Yeah, I know. That was supposed to be more an off-hand amusing comment than an actual point of debate. Bush, quite obviously, has some advisors capable of complex backroom machinations and is almost certainly their tool, rather than what he’s probably been led to believe - that they are his.

But the sheer scope for manipulation of events that would be required if Stoid’s author is accurate argues strongly against him.

The thing is, Rove has been the power behind Bush alsmost since the beginning of Bush’s career. And Rove has proven himself to be a Mozart-like genius of political machinations.

Evidently you do NOT understand the distinction, or you would not ask the question. What you are really asking me to do is show you where he said it…the* suggestion * is all over it, plain to the naked eye that understands what suggestion means: "the sequential mental process in which one thought leads to another * by association * " The ** only associations of any kind whatsoever ** that he makes are 100% Iraq-related.

He also makes no distinction between Spain and Iraq, England and Iraq, Turkey and Iraq… I can list every other single country on earth and it would be perfectly true that he makes no distinction between them * because he never refers to them at all. * You will no doubt argue that we did not invade any other countries besides Iraq and Afghanistan, and you might have a point…if he made the same argument. I don’t think he’s uttered the word Afghanistan publicly in months, even years! (I could easily be wrong about this, it’s just my own memory.)

It’s called a preponderance of evidence. This is hardly the only report of this, not by a mile, and you know it.

And your swipe about his ability to “scheme” is a bit disingenuous, dont you think? First, because it isn’t that complex an idea, and second, because we all know who does the scheming for him, and II’ll gladly give him his due: he may just out-Machiavelli Machiavelli himself.

"My Stoid is back, and she’s gonna start some trouble!

Hey-la-hey-la, Natasha’s back!

Yes, she knows that they’ve been scheming! And, now, they’re gonna get a reaming!"

And, gee, Unc do you like anybody?

“A plague oer both yer houses! And yours too! And you! And your little dog, too!”