Scott SoCal said:
I quite honestly do not see how you leap from that to Bush being a lying murderer.
Is it at all possible that, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Bush actully believed Iraq to be a grave threat? Many elected reps thought so.
"But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong."
So Bush has what he thinks is volumes of credible intel going back a few decades and suddenly something pops up (your story) a month or so before the war starts and he is supposed to do what exactly? My guess is the info was evaluated and likely didn't outweigh what they thought they knew.
So this makes him a lying murderer...
How do you live in such confusion? It really is incredible the type of misinformation that has shaped your world view, and which you rather exchage as fact.
Anyone who is familiar with the New American Century of the 90's, the neocon manifesto, understands the strategic considerations that were already laid-out for the Middle East before the second Iraq War. The ideology of so called preventive war, a new organization of mideast states to favor US oil interests, and hence to maintain US global hegemony, were all laid out in the document. Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Cheney, et al, were merely cynically realizing that which had already been planned, in theory, in this document.
The entire affair post 9-11 was a way toward its realization. Iraq the means for it. It is
a fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, in its supposed connection with Al Qaeda, but Saudi Arabia. It is
a fact that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, nor where there any legitimate proofs that he could have had them any time soon. Hence the entire neocon prefabricated and propagandistic basis for why America went to war in Iraq was a big sham, a colossal falacy fed to the ignorant American masses. It is
a fact that the neocon orchestrators of the war had no true regard for the Iraqi state, nor the Iraqi people, when Saddam's regime fell, as was evidenced by the US military's close monitoring and repairing of the oil wells, but zero effort to protect Iraq's culture: the Babalonian Museum in Bagdad, with all its priceless artifacts, was looted savagely. This, together with the all too keen interests in saving the oil supply, becomes a grotesque symbol that sums up many other bad actions and explains why America had in fact shown little regard for the Mesopotamians and their civilization at large after setting the region on fire, no more than Saddam. This is one reason why the Iraqi people could not see such a happy change post-Saddam as you claim they had, and thus why the US failed to be viewed as a real liberating force as in Europe during the WWII era, where a cultural basis did exist, as well as the Europeans having requested US intervention. Whereas no US intervention was requested by the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. Since there was nothing really cultural about the second Iraq War, in the sense of bringing democracy to the region as an underlying basis for the conflict given that everything was cynically founded upon economic interests, no more, even the American propaganda that tried to demonstrate otherwise failed among the Iraqis. Evidently the Iraqi people aren't so stupid and this is why they have never been accomodating. Then there would be the arrival of Islamic terrorists in the territory, and therefore their murderous car bombs to disrupt the democratic process and to attempt to shape new Iraq as they saw fit in the power void left in the wake by Saddam's fall, Al Qaeda supporters who of course previously hadn't ever been there under Saddam. The Iraqi people were thus caught between two opposing views of the future of their nation: one US, the other Jihadist. Caught in the middle of a chess game of death, violence and destruction in which they had never asked to be willing participants, the Iraqis have had to bear the overwhelmingly heavy sacrifices for the game's outcome in the blood they have spilt for the interests of others. This in addition to the blood they had spilt during 30 years of Saddam, though most of it in the 80's with US support to the Iraqi dictator. All of which of course is morally disgusting. Add in a few stray US missles on Iraqi schools and apartment complexes, and the hypocritical insult to their suffering increases ten fold. The Iraqi people's fate was tragically sealed by powers and a set of strategic circumstances that had overwhelmed them, had never considered them, but only
their own power-crazed and greedy interests. Though not having had to personally experence the tragedy, Scott SoCal, it ultimately remains an abstraction to you and allows you to misinterpret the evidence and to try to excuse the unexcusable, though
the totally explainable, in all of its nefarious shadows and criminal actions.
The entire affair was thus destined to have been mismanaged as horribly as it was by the Bush adminsitration, because based on a criminal hypocrisy which tried to pass-off vulgar economic and political interests as a just democratic cause in removing a bloody dictator. America was able to begin to realize the neocon plans for the region by capitalizing on the "shock" of 9-11 as a base exuse and "justification" for military aggression and acted so precipitously, because they, the neocons, knew that they could only have gotten away with their dirty plans for so long; that is in the still remaining time that America is the world's only superpower, and therefore would be able to permit itself such war mongering without too much international resistance. At the same time a lack of real international consensus, an indication of the superpower's incombant decline, demonstrates how the neocons knew they were treading on thin ice and so had to organize everything in a mad, brainless rush. Which they did, and the disastrous consequences have been plainly seen since.
As I have stated before since America had once fed the same bloody dictator Saddam in the 80's by supplying him with arms, because the cynical strategic and economic interests in the region made that the convenient thing to do: the entire Bush war propaganda of bringing democracy to the region in 2003 was not credible. Especially because the trigger point that started it all, 9-11, had nothing to do with Iraq and Saddam, who were completely estranged form Bin Laden and Al Qaeda at the time. The US neocons in government then were just a bunch of rouge criminals who have the murders of hundreds of thousands of Mesopotamians on their consciences, first when they armed Saddam against Iran, then when they went about their mad, precipitous rush to invade Iraq so that Hallibuton and its like affiliates would be gauranteed a few more decades of further profits. That's the truth.
I can't see, therefore, Scott SoCal, as you seem to do, any truth in all that crap you write about in regards to the so called real intentions and so called real culpability, which is of course pathetic.
In regards to my sense of humor, or lack of it. I do not write here to be humorous, but to inform about very important issues. The crimes of the Bush administration, which go even beyond Iraq when one considers the economic downfall of financial market capitalism (which I despise) at Wall Street - which the goverment then did nothing to prevent or at least impose new regulations while there was still time to limit the incredible damage that was done
and indeed had even permited the financial sharks to speculate on the downfall for profit! - have caused a great, colossal mess, which the Obama adminsitration is now having to deal with. While I may not be in agreement with each of Obama's measures to clean up the great, colossal mess left in the wake of Bush, I recognize what a daunting task the former has been given as the heir of an ugly presidential inheritance in all that the latter's administration did wrong and for the unpunished crimes they have commited.
I therefore reserve my sense of humor for my family and friends, not when discussing crimes against humanity with folks like yourself. You see, Scott SoCal, war is never to be treated lightly, especially when it is seen as a frivolous move on the chess board of international strategic interests by a nation state who believes that its ends always justify the means. This is the greatest sin of the American neocons who were in power when the second Iraq War broke out, for the gravity of actually going to war and the real consequense for going to war, which are always devestating to the local population, meant nothing to them. To them they were merely annoying trifles that had to simply be overcome to in order go to war, which is all they cared about, Scott SoCal. The neocon world view as elucidated in the neocon political writings, had, since the 90's, informed the world of their belicose intentions to maintain US global hegmony and so the Iraq debacle was not an extemporaneous reaction in the aftermath of 9-11, as they claimed it was, but something which they had been actually planning to do for years and were only waiting for the right opportunity. Within this political-military-historical construct is the neocon propaganda to sell the war best explained, which to them was always Machiavelian in its sinister
realpolitik underpinnings, that became ultimately expressed as a perverse game to "shock and awe" a defenseless people in the pursuit of their strategic intensions in the region, which basically means oil. A defenseless people who have been made to pay a hefty price by those who only were playing a cruel game, indifferent to the human tragedy that their game has caused.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram