jducoeur: (Default)
[personal profile] jducoeur
Y'know, the thing that annoys me most about the ongoing argument about Iraq is the way that everyone is still letting BushCo define the terms of the argument. I mean, let's get real: WMDs were never the reason we invaded Iraq, they were the excuse. That was perfectly obvious, even at the time.

Cast your minds back a bit. Was the invasion of Iraq a surprise? Did we suddenly find that the 9/11 hijackers had been supported by Baghdad, forcing us to do something about it? Of course not. No one was surprised at all, because everyone had known for years that Bush was obsessed with Saddam. And that was really why we went to war. WMDs were an excuse; terrorists were an excuse. The fundamental reason why we went to war was because the President had always wanted to.

I'm really surprised that no on in the media is loudly calling him on this. I would have expected someone to document his obsession with the subject, which was perfectly well understood even at the time of his election, and body-slam him with it. I mean, the reality that no one in Washington really wants to talk about is that he simply wore everyone down. He'd been beating the Iraq drum for so long that, when he came up with what appeared to be a viable excuse, they all threw up their hands and let him have his damned war.

That was a bad idea at the time, and reflects poorly on everyone involved. But in the final analysis, I think history will find that this war was completely and utterly personal, and the biggest of Bush's big lies is trying to spread the blame around. If things had gone well, he would, with all justification, be hoovering up most of the credit for what was thoroughly his war. It's utterly shameful that he's not willing to accept that blame...

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sjo.livejournal.com
I agree, and actually think the Bush & Co. Defamation Squad has the press running scared. Even honorable veterans like John McCain, John Kerry, and John Murtha (what's with all the Johns, btw?) are subject to these attacks. All the right-wing pundits have to do is cry out "liberal media!" (um, Fox news anyone?) and the attack dogs will dig in. This could ruin a career. And let's not even go into all the other career-detroying mechanisms Bush is willing to use... after all, his daddy did lead the CIA... and the Puppetmaster Cheney was part of the Nixon administration...

We're truly in a quagmire. We can't just pull out of Iraq, but we really can't stay, either. We've gained distrust around the globe.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 06:44 pm (UTC)
ext_104661: (Default)
From: [identity profile] alexx-kay.livejournal.com
For Bush himself, I agree that it's personal, wrapped up with his "daddy issues". But he's got a cabinet full of people who have been arguing for taking on Iraq for decades, so I don't think it's fair to call the entire war thing "personal". "Imperialist" I would totally buy.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 07:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tashabear.livejournal.com
Who selects the cabinet, though?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 08:25 pm (UTC)
ext_104661: (Default)
From: [identity profile] alexx-kay.livejournal.com
OK, good point.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 09:27 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-27 10:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lauradi7.livejournal.com
Before the whole WMD thing got so trumped up but it was obvious that we were preparing to invade Iraq, an anonymous person in the Pentagon remarked on NPR that he thought it was some sort of Oedipal thing, because there was no strategic reason to invade. That accounts for Bush, but what about Cheney? It can't be just to get another job for Haliburton.

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 28293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags