:smack:
Of course! If only I’d looked at my keyboard and noted which letter that cryptic “b” abutted.
In my defense, would you accept that it looked vaguely like it might possibly be some sort of Scandinavian word? Or maybe Old English? 
Well, since I’ve already totally screwed up interpreting that bit, why not go even farther out on the cracking limb and offer my own crackpot theory: He’s avenging the untoward consequences of Bush-Pere’s decision not to take out Saddam when he had the chance. Instead of the evil Hussein learning his lesson and crawling to bootlick the USA henceforth, Saddam had the NERVE!! not only to go on shaking his puny fist at America, but to try to actually OFF the very Presidential Papa who’d magnanimously allowed him to retain his tinpot dictatorship. What else could a dutiful son do but punish such insolence?
Did I get that somewhere near right, Red?
Yabbut, AVENGING his father’s decision in this context, seems to make his own father [one of] the bad guy[s], who made an ill-considered choice to leave Saddam in place. To avenge that decision, Shrubby would need to launch an invasion against Kennebunkport, and drive Poppy into a spider hole.
WWP[NAC]D?
I’m pulling muscles in my brain here, Red Fury. C’mon back and help me out here.
Poorly constructed sentence on my part – both motives were going through my mind while I was typing that and I made a messy grilled who-knows-what sandwich of the two.
Should have been the two separate motives as you wrote them – although I think in Bush’s mind there were one and the same in terms of “the calling” to get Saddam.
Or as Bob Woodward so eloquently quotes him in his first book: “Fuck Saddam; we’re takin’ him out!”
Red, dahlin’, does it ever worry you that you seem to be able to think the way Shrubya thinks? Even as a mere intellectual (snerk) exercise? 
Cripes but you’re a mean one, dear! Just the thought is going to leave me sleepless 2nite.
But you have a point…damn it.
Please read the article “Neo Culpa” that appeared in the Jan. issue of Vanity Fair and a portion available online. David Rose interviews some of the neocon’s including members of PNAC.
After reading the article I defy anyone to say “so what”.
They blame Bush for not carrying out their “noble vision” (their words) “for the moral good of the world”, and take no blame in leaving a country as well as it’s people in total destruction.
All of these people were instrumental in developing our failed foreign policy and can only be described as war criminals.
PS-See now you’ve got me worried. I even made-up a new word just like Dear Misleader is wont to do, “aavebging,” which as kaylasdad suggests is a combination of “avenging” and “vindicating.” 
I’m not sure I buy the theory that it was avenging Dad. In a weird way that would be a little more noble than what I think was the real reason. Money. Follow the money. Read what the neocons had to say and there was a sort of colonization aspect to their vision of bringing democracy while making big bucks over there.
While your at the Vanity Fair site read "Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow- The biggest, most powerful of the ‘body shops’-SAIC- which employs 44,000 people and took in $8 billion last year- sells brainpower including a lot of the expertise behind the Iraq war.
On my way out, so allow me to respond to this part of your query first and tackle the Vanity Fair link after I get to read it.
I think we’re talking dual but not equal motivations here. And what I mean by that – without rehashing the Bush/dumb/smart argument all over again – is that I honestly don’t think money was the prime motivator for him. First off, not like he was lacking for it (although I’ll give you that past a certain point, it appears its never enough), the Rangers mafia-like deal left him in very good financial shape, family money withoutstanding. Thus like he clumbsily said shortly after 9/11 the whole thing became some sort of Crusade for him – clearing his Father’s name for the so-called blunder of not marching into Baghdad and revenge for the still quite unclear “plot” by Saddam to off his dad. Whether he thought or not how much it would benefit him materially, honestly, I don’t know. But again, something tells me it wasn’t the main cause for his foreign policy shift – which you might recall happened sometime in May/June at his commencement adress at West Point. Seems pretty clear that by then the Neocons had him ib his pocket, what with such a radical departure from conventional American/international Defense policies. Yet again, I think they got to him through the whole avenge/right Daddy’s legacy. Honorable on his part? You could make the argument that even imbeciles have a sense of honor. And I do, for I think that is what really drove him at first to get on board with the Neocons. Besides, let’s not kid ourselves, it’s been Dick and not George the one who’s been making the most important policy decisions in this Administration. Not like you can call someone like Bush “worldwise.”
On to PNAC. Like I said I’ve no time now to read your link, but even without doing so, I also have little doubt that their motivations had little to do with Bush’s “noble objective” of cleaning his father’s name. Again, one only need to skim their site to note that it all boils down to an out and out power grab. And a global one at that. Which is exactly what I’ve been hammering at in this thread – they (along with the AEI) are not in the least concerned about the “well-being” of America, but rather in becoming an out and out world-ruling messiahs. Imagine the perks that go along with said ambition!
Finally, whether or not, Bush finally got caught in the Imperialistic fever, is not something I have an answer for. But his actions alone (think Iran) lead me to believe that is the legacy he is working on. Even if it wasn’t his original intention – hell, the job was always way to big for him to handle, never mine spending eight years at it.
Away, I must. Promise a response to your VF link ASAP.
Take care.
I’m interested to hear what you have to say when you read the articles.
From the second article-
"There isn’t a politically correct way to put it, but this is what needs to be said: 9/11 was a personal tragedy for thousands of families and a national tragedy for all of America, but it was very, very good for SAIC. In the aftermath of the attacks, the Bush administration launched its Global War on Terror, whose chief consequence has been to channel money by the tens of billions into companies promising they could do something—anything—to help. SAIC was ready. Four years earlier, anticipating the next big source of government revenue, SAIC had established the Center for Counterterrorism Technology and Analysis. According to SAIC, the purpose of the new unit was to take “a comprehensive view of terrorist threats, including the full range of weapons of mass destruction, more traditional high explosives, and cyber-threats to the national infrastructure.” In October of 2006 the company told would-be investors flatly that the war on terror would continue to be a lucrative growth industry.
SAIC executives have been involved at every stage of the life cycle of the war in Iraq. SAIC personnel were instrumental in pressing the case that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the first place, and that war was the only way to get rid of them. Then, as war became inevitable, SAIC secured contracts for a broad range of operations in soon-to-be-occupied Iraq. When no weapons of mass destruction were found, SAIC personnel staffed the commission that was set up to investigate how American intelligence could have been so disastrously wrong."
Link TV had a guy who says he worked on Cheneys staff when the Iraq war started. He claims Cheney walked in and announced ,we have begun an intergenerational war for the last huge oil deposits on the planet.
It was always about the oil.
Did he mention if Cheney was petting a white cat or if he held an extended pinky to his lip while saying it?
No, as I understand it, Cheney was holding a shotgun.
Dick I caught this quail and I have it by the feet.
Ok hold it over your head.
Apologies for the late reply, Caridwen, but life often has a way with interfering with one’s true interests.
Having said that, wow, just wow! If people like myself were called tin-foil hat-wearing “conspiracy theorists” for bringing-up th PNAC, I wonder what that makes of Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele? Padded-wall material no doubt.
To be honest, I’d never heard of SAIC before, thus at least in that respect, I’m as much of a dolt as those who were unaware of the PNAC.
As for “what I have to say” on the matter,would you believe I’m speechless for the time being? Simply too much to digest in one sitting. I will, however quote a couple of paragraphs that left me agape:
From Washington’s $8 Billion Shadow
“Whore” doesn’t even begin to cover what someone like Key is. Or, for that matter, the whole SAIC purpose and structure.
Bur as I said, I need more time to digest this, so perhaps this article I found might serve as a follow-up in the interim:
Eisenhower’s Worst Nightmare Now Harsh Reality For U.S.A
In closing, thank you for the link. Quite an eye-opener. But tell you what, even if I were to find out that Bush is, somehow, on their payroll, for the time-being, I am sticking with my prior assessment of the man himself. I don’t really think he ultimately did it for money – although power certainly enters the equation and they are hard to divide – but rather for the reasons I brought-up before. Somewhere in that tiny brain of his, he thinks of himself as a real leader of humankind. Og help us all.
As for the rest of the gang of misfits who are really in control, well, hopefully Dopers en masse read your link. It might even change a mind or two of the few that are left supporting these atrocities.
Money, power and greed. It’s what fuck-ups this wonderful world of ours.
Thank you for yet another eye-opener.
Note … He said. I was not there nor was I on his staff. Just reporting what I saw so don’t be a snotty pussy.