I thought that was just cognitive dissonance - torture is wrong, we’re Americans so we’re in the right, so what we’re doing isn’t torture, it’s – what was that word again, Alberto and Uncle Dick? – “enhanced interrogation”, that’s it. Some still engage in that particular bit of lying to oneself.
Doesn’t make sense. America had plenty of oil in American soil. It would have been far cheaper and easier to expand drilling at home.
Doesn’t make sense. There was already a war in Afghanistan.
Doesn’t make sense. There was already a war in Afghanistan.
I said those were the reasons. Not that they had to make sense.
Waterboarding, one of the methods employed by the US on terrorists/suspected terrorists is torture. Being educated and aware of US law and international law and still calling it something else is purposely being deceptive, so George W. Bush doesn’t count as being one of the most honest presidents. If waterboarding had been used on American soldiers by our enemies we would consider it torture.
Obviously the Bush administration knew that admitting to torture would be incredibly problematic so they resorted to this doublespeak to justify their actions.
I don’t know too much about how exactly oil production works and its effects on the world economy. However, Christopher Hitchens, a support of the Iraq War makes an argument as to why Saddam Hussein should not be in control of the oil production in Iraq, and why going to war over oil is not necessarily a bad thing.
Good point. If it was just about proving his machismo he could have already claimed his Afghanistan as his own “Gulf War”.
I would be curious to know if there were any hawks in Washington during the Clinton Administration who wanted to invade Iraq or remove Saddam and if they had any influence with the subsequent Bush Administration.
I’d be curious to know how much of a role people like Paul Wolfowitz played in getting the Bush Administration to invade Iraq.
Yeah, the “CPAC bunch” wanting to jeopardize the economy, our resources, and our standing in the international community just so they could claim they were part of not one, but two wars sounds ridiculous.
It was about proving it* to his father*, at least that’s how he explained it to himself. That meant, again in his own mind, winning his father’s war, the one his father stopped undone, and clearing some of the demons from his drunken wastrel 20’s and 30’s and all the comparisons to his father’s life that he got told about constantly. Again, it doesn’t have to make sense to be a reason.
None of any influence.
Since they had taken a strong position in urging Clinton to do it, even before 9/11, and came up with most of the lies told to support it, hell yes.
They thought it would be over in weeks and would pay for itself. They really did. What really happened was never considered possible, and those, like Shinseki, who warned them otherwise got expelled from school for it.
Except that if your reasons don’t make sense, then they have as little basis as someone saying, “Obama pushed for the ACA because he wanted to see a piece of legislation he knew would be nicknamed ‘Obamacare.’”
The world is not always a rational place.
If anyone wishes to debate the Iraq War for the hundredth time, open a new thread to do it.
It is a hijack that is now closed in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]