Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just another liberal voice calling Bush a tool of the neo-cons, right?


"On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.

On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."

On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (9-11) attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."

While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.

And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.

Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.

Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to Al Qaeda. An American city could be incinerated.

Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.

The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?

Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.

Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.

Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."

But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?

To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.

But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him? "


http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=1981
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
301 Posts
Your little chuckle sailed over everyones head

dr hoo said:
Just another liberal voice calling Bush a tool of the neo-cons, right?


Maybe they didn't click the link because this sounded like a tired recap of left wing attacks on the war. It's interesting how fierce the real right wing (as opposed to the bogus right wing neo-cons) can be against this war.
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,584 Posts
at the risk of steam and boytroy labelling me anti-semitic. this question needs to be answered. unfortunately, no one will be able to have a constructive discussion about this issue without being labelled an anti-semite by those with a vested interest on the other side.

is it just a coincidence that so many of those who called for this iraq campaign are jewish? this whole iraq thing is about making israel safer from possible iraqi threats, not america. richard perle has spent decades enriching himself consulting for the israeli government. one must ask the question: are these people's first loyalty to the united states, or israel?
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top