Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16372929/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16 372929/</a> Ford was interviewed by Bob Woodward in 2004 on the war. He requested that the interview not be published or referenced until Woodward wrote a book about him, or until he had passed away. Chris Matthews made the point on Hardball that he believes this war is uniquely the war of Bush. We already know that Clinton could have invaded but didn't - there was zero difference between Saddam under Clinton and Saddam under Bush II. We all know that Bush I had his shot at Saddam and didn't take it for the very reasons we see now. Matthews speculated that Reagan, Carter, and Ford wouldn't have done it, and I think there's plenty of evidence from their lives and Presidency's that he's correct.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Lord knows I've said this before, so let me try and put it another way. This "pre-emptive war" was launched for reasons entirely different than the reasons provided by the bush administration. Yes, they lied. The real reason for the iraq war was to stuff the coffers of the military contractors. And in that regard, the war has been a resounding success. War profiteering has never had such a heyday. But not to worry, because we're not paying for it - it's all deficit spending. Over two trillion dollars of it, so far ... >> A recent study by Nobel Prize wining economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard University's Linda Bilmes ... estima[es] the true cost of the Iraq adventure to U.S taxpayers at a whopping $2.267 trillion, in excess of any cost borne by the Iraqis themselves. << <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/27/EDGOULJ6PK1.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/27/EDGOULJ6PK1.DTL</a> We don't have two trillion dollars. Yet we've already spent it. It's a bill that will have to be paid off for generations, burdening our nation's economy for decades to come. And we've stretched our military to it's breaking point. We've also done incalculable damage to our reputation with our allies around the world, both their governments and the people as well. And for what? To depose saddam? No, but they'll let you think that if you like. Just like portraying it as a valid and justified response to 9/11. They don't even try to make that case anymore, but plenty of people still believe it. The "WMD" became a worldwide punchline. And so did our president. Only it's not funny at all. The good news is that we as a nation have come a long way in the past year, and now have a more realistic view of the situation, both in iraq and in DC. There's no longer much talk of defeating terrorism in iraq, the argument has now shifted to getting out of this "big mistake" as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "The real reason for the iraq war was to stuff the coffers of the military contractors." I'm truly trying to understand this reason of yours. So, tell me how this would benefit Bush.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It was the military industrial complex that put him into the oval office in the first place. Bush was simply fulfilling his purpose. He's a puppet, a "stooge", placed in office to do the bidding of the neo-cons. The primary benefit of the iraq war falls not to bush, but to the defense contractors who bought and paid for him. Some may think it's just a coincidence that the former CEO of halliburton is now our vice president, and that halliburton is also far and away the largest of the war profiteers. The same people who vaulted bush into office are now reaping vast and fabulous amounts of money, amassing wealth and power at an unprecedented scale - from US, the american people. That's what this war is about, consolidation of wealth and power. Aided and abetted of course by a percentage of the american public gullible enough to vote against their own best interests. And a question for you - how would the iraq war ever provide any benefit to the american people? What do you think "the point" is?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "And a question for you - how would the iraq war ever provide any benefit to the american people? What do you think "the point" is?" Nobody can see the benefit of any war until its completion and, for that matter, it is not until many years after a war has ended, in some cases, until we can analyze what possible benefits or negative consequences it had on the American people. I do think it is much too simple a notion that Bush wanted to make his rich buddies richer. I mean really, how two-dimensional a conclusion. It's like when a politician proposes chnages to social security and people who don't like the idea of any changes claim the politician wants old people to die of starvation or no heat in their houses. Your conclusion is too hard for me to acept because is it is simply too simple; it's too easy to come up with, so it is in all likelihood not correct. If Bush and company were that devious, then they would also be clever enough to not make what they are doing so easy for people like you to figure out. Anytime an answer to something of a political nature seems simple to figure out, it is generally not the right answer.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I mean really, how two-dimensional a conclusion. << It's supported by actual evidence. Which puts it in a whole different category than WMD, iraq's nuclear program, saddam's involvement in 9/11, or a host of other things that the administration told us.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Your conclusion is too hard for me to acept because is it is simply too simple; it's too easy to come up with, so it is in all likelihood not correct.<< I agree - even I can't be that cynical to believe that Bush started the war to get people rich. But it sure has worked out that way for Halliburton's record profits and several other companies. If we're going to reject arguments as being too simple (and I think that's a fair thing to do), then Bush ought to be first on the list. He's a simpleton who views the world in black and white terms. There's no complexity to his worldview, and look at the mess it's gotten us into.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The problem with viewing the war as nothing but an elaborate hoax for money is that anyone devious enough to launch such a plan would have surely planted the necessary evidence to show that Iraq had large quantities of WMDs. This is what makes me crazy with the 'Bush lied!" stuff. Was the US wrong about the level of the WMD threat? Clearly. Has the war been a disaster? You bet. Does it call into question the concept of pre-emptive war? Boy howdy. That's plenty to mull over right there without getting all conspiracy theorist about it. There are plenty of questions about no-bid contracts and such that must be looked at. But as the major reason for the war? I don't think so. Look, I hate this war and we're in a hell of a mess. But I think it's more to do with that many were so sure that Saddam had WMDs they were able to go for it, confident that once they were able to turn over the country, they'd find all the WMD vindication they'd need.
Originally Posted By jonvn In lying, maybe they even lied to themselves. They convinced themselves on terrible evidence that something gave them a pre-text to invade. It didn't. Then they went ahead and told the UN all this information that we knew to be true, but wasn't. Same thing with the American public. None of it was true. When you say something that is not the truth, and you know that it's not the truth, that is a lie. When you know there is a chance it might not be true, and you go and are the cause of tens of thousands of deaths, then that also is a lie. They lied.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << That's plenty to mull over right there without getting all conspiracy theorist about it. There are plenty of questions about no-bid contracts and such that must be looked at. But as the major reason for the war? I don't think so. >> I agree. However, since the entire administration is populated with former oil industry and defense industry executives as well as neo-con supply side economists, every action in the past 6 years has been accompanied by policies and execution of policies that favor big business -- particularly in the petroleum and defense industries. They just don't have solutions that work otherwise. The major motivation for the Iraq invasion was the administration's belief that the Afghanistan conflict would amount to an unwinnable quagmire. They assumed that Afghanistan would go the same way it did for the Soviets 20 years earlier -- a major mess against an asymmetrical enemy. The administration had no confidence in the Clinton administration's war plans for Afghanistan which they pretty much enacted without modification in the rush to take action after 9/11. In hindsight, the Clinton administration plan for Afghanistan was executed about as well as anyone might have hoped. Iraq offered an opportunity for the administration to pull of an "easy" victory against a conventional army. They wrongly assumed that Iraq would overshadow any failings in the Afghanistan campaign. The reasoning was entirely faulty, but that is all in hindsight. A consequence of the massive defense expenditures by this administration is the fattening of corporate profits in the petroleum and defense industry. I wouldn't call this an outright "objective," but it has been clearly an outcome of having too many representatives of those industries wielding power in the White House. Even prior to 9/11, the adminstration used words like "transformation" as code for transferring a greater portion of the defense budget out of the hands of the military and civil servants and directly into the hands of civilian contractors. I can cite hundreds of examples where DOD under Rumsfeld has encouraged a move to use contractors in lieu of functions that were once organic to the armed services and peformed efficiently and at low cost to the taxpayer that way. Military budgets are strained beyond belief today due to the war and Iraq but also due to inflexible defense contracts that take away resources from the operating forces that used to perform the exact same functions without the need for paying the private sector and inflated price for services. This doesn't even cover the massive grab of taxpayer dollars by the private sector in the name of the Department of Homeland Securtiy. An audit of HLS expenditures and relationships with private contractors would reveal an enormous amount of profiteering and corruption on par with what is going on in Iraq. The cost to the American taxpayer is enormous and when the debt bubble bursts from these massive expenditures it will be trying times for the U.S. economy -- probably sooner than later. All this being said, I admit to having viewed this adminstration in very simplistic terms back in 2000. I had a very cynical view about their motivations and ties to corporate interests. In December 2000, I loaded up my stock portfolio with the likes of ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and LockheedMartin. It was purely motivated by cynicism, but I am embarrassed to know today how much I have personally profited by making those predictions 6 years ago. It really is sickening.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper The media loves reporting, and re-reporting, Gerald Ford's opinion about the Iraq war. But they also noted this morning, in a separate report, how close Gerald Ford was to Richard Nixon, and that to the end he believed that Nixon wasn't responsible for Watergate ... that it was the fault of his staff. The proof is otherwise. So, awkward as it is to criticize Ford so soon after his death, it seems that he had a tendency to judge people (Nixon) as being more benign than they really were. Ford sought to avoid conflict and controversy. That was his legacy ... to "heal the nation" after Watergate. And that's to his credit ... up to a point. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that he would rather not have confronted Saddam Hussein. Ford was a good man, but not the type of person to stand up to aggression or inhumanity in the way Reagan, Bush or even Kennedy did. On the war, Bush's "lies," etc. It is nauseating to see people demonize Bush and those in his administration. He was in a tough spot after 911. Everyone expected him to take every threat seriously ... EVERY threat ... even the remote ones. If 19 hijackers can kill nearly 3000 people, bring the airline / travel industry to its knees and rattle the economy of the United States, it would have been absolutely stupid to believe a mad dictator, with terrorist connections, a penchant for butchery and an entire army at his disposal would be better left in power. Bush had no choice, unless he wanted to gamble with the lives of millions of innocents. The media has beent trumpeting a survey that puts George W. Bush as #1 on the list of "villians" of 2006. He ranks ABOVE bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. This confirms that, in assessing the events of the past few years, factual revisionism, spin and unbelievable anti-Bush propaganda have succeeded in getting far too many people to view the world through political, ideological glasses, rather than practical ones. It's fine to disagree with the president, but when he is seen as a greater villain than the most notorious butchers of the decade by ANY factual measure, there is something seriously warped with our judgement and ability to distinguish good from evil.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> When you say something that is not the truth, and you know that it's not the truth, that is a lie. When you know there is a chance it might not be true, and you go and are the cause of tens of thousands of deaths, then that also is a lie. Will you please illustrate how Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Blair, Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or any of the other national and world leaders who saw the intelligence and had been saying for YEARS before Bush's election that Saddam Hussein was a threat ... how they knew this was all a lie? By the way, Saddam Hussein could have smuggled WMD into his grandma's wine cellar, and we may not know it. As we learned on 9-11, it doesn't take massive stockpiles of ANYTHING to wreak havoc and slaughter thousands. Saddam Hussein used WMD in the past, and he wanted them in the future. Those are not lies ... they are facts. To say he wasn't a threat is not at all honest.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It is nauseating to see people demonize Bush and those in his administration.<< You can't possibly be serious. Demonizing Bush is the nauseauting thing? Call me wacky, but I think the deaths of 3,000 American soldiers is slightly more nauseauting that people criticizing an entirely inept, incompetent President. >>it would have been absolutely stupid to believe a mad dictator, with terrorist connections, a penchant for butchery and an entire army at his disposal would be better left in power. Bush had no choice, unless he wanted to gamble with the lives of millions of innocents.<< Nonsense. Hussein isn't the only thug out there to fit this description. Or should we invade Syria and Iran next? How about North Korea? Bush wouldn't have been "gambling" if he would have continued working with the U.N. and monitoring the situation, as Clinton had done. Hussein was suddenly turned into the giant threat we were told he was by the conservative spin machine. Hussein did nothing differently under Bush than he had done under Clinton. But suddenly, he's made the flavor of the day by conservatives who can apparently make any pet issue they want an emergency (See Christmas, the War on). >>The media has beent trumpeting a survey that puts George W. Bush as #1 on the list of "villians" of 2006. He ranks ABOVE bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.<< Hmmm... I watch MSNBC pretty regularly and read Time. I read the newspaper everyday. I haven't seen this. Who conducted the survey? What "media" is "trumpeting" the survey? Until you can back up this claim with anything substantial, I think we can assume that "the media" probably isn't trumpeting anything and it's even questionable what "the media" is in this case. I also suspect we'd find the so-called "survey" was deeply flawed. So your claim is a pretty ridiculous stretch made up to try and support your perspective; we all know if we asked Americans if Bush is worse than Hussein or bin Laden, that well over 90% would say no. The rest are just helpless.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Bush had no choice, unless he wanted to gamble with the lives of millions of innocents." Oh please, not this again. He had plenty of choices, most of which he refused to consider.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Will you please illustrate how Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Blair, Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, or any of the other national and world leaders who saw the intelligence and had been saying for YEARS before Bush's election that Saddam Hussein was a threat ... how they knew this was all a lie?" Oh here this is. I could have sworn that KT wrote this, and lost this post for a bit. They all say he was a threat. But none of them went to the UN with incorrect information that they had suspicion to believe was false, and acted as if it was the absolute truth. Which it was not. Lies are of varying degrees. You can lie about certain things to spare someone's feelings. That's not a big deal. You can lie and cause problems. That's a bigger deal. You can also lie by omitting the truth, or in withholding some information to present a picture that may not be entirely accurate. That's what the Bush admin did. That's why they are liars. Perhaps the Clinton Admin knew he was a threat, but then Bush took it to the next level, where not only was he a threat, but he suddenly became an imminent threat. "Saddam Hussein could have smuggled WMD into his grandma's wine cellar," Yes, I'm sure the nuclear bombs are snuggled safely right next to the bordeaux. I hope the radioactivity does not have a deleterious affect on the quality of the wine. That would be the biggest shame of all.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> He ranks ABOVE bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. << I haven't seen this survey either, but I can confidently say that the bush administration is a greater threat to the well being of the american people than bin laden and saddam put together. Neither of those two represent anywhere near the threat posed to us by our own government, which has actual power over us. >> Ford was a good man, but not the type of person to stand up to aggression or inhumanity in the way Reagan, Bush or even Kennedy did. << What aggression? Saddam had no capabilities of attacking us, and he had no involvement with 9/11. What's more, there wasn't any evidence that he did. In the absence of such evidence, our government fabricated it (they "lied") in an effort to trump up justifications for the war. How else to explain powell's presentation to the UN? And if the reasons given were patently false, what were the real reasons? People are quick to pooh-pooh my rationale, but they're still back at square one - if we didn't invade because of WMD, nukes, and 9/11, why did we invade? And one more thing - if bush is such a manly man who "stands up to aggression" (presumably unlike ford or clinton), why is he not vigilantly pursuing bin laden - SIX YEARS after the fact? It might be "political concerns", or it might be because the bin laden's are long-standing family friends of the bushes, incredible as that seems. Either way, he's gone off half cocked against iraq and dropped the ball entirely against the people that are actually responsible for the 9/11 attack. >> It is nauseating to see people demonize Bush and those in his administration. << Unlike bush supporters, some people believe in accountability and responsibility. As chris mathews says, this is bush's war. And it is a complete and abysmal failure. It didn't have to be, but it is - due to incompetence and arrogance. Who's responsibility is that? What's really nauseating are the "stand by your man" bush supporters who will ignore any and all evidence that contradicts their narrow world view. >> EVERY threat ... even the remote ones. << As has been pointed out, bush didn't respond to EVERY threat - he barely responded to the most valid one - al qaeda - and has not responded at all to threats from iran, syria, or north korea - he won't even consider speaking to them. So you're reason is just another pile of bush apologist BS. >> Will you please illustrate how Bush, Cheney, ... how they knew this was all a lie? << There was no tangible evidence to support their claims. That's a pretty good indicator right there. And instead of actually seeking evidence, they pulled the plug on the inspectors that were already in place and operating - and reporting that none of the claims were being substantiated - not the message that the bush administration wanted to hear. How's that? >> Saddam Hussein used WMD in the past, and he wanted them in the future. Those are not lies ... they are facts. To say he wasn't a threat is not at all honest. << Yes it IS "honest" - because it's the TRUTH - saddam was not a threat. He had no capabilities of attacking us. The bush administration said he did. That's "not at all honest". Absorb that.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: As usual, gadzuux duckling, my sisters and I are right behind you in your evaluation of all this American politics. Of course George Bush lied and of course he's a puppet and so on. I suppose it's just too difficult for some ducklings to accept. But the sooner they do, the sooner they'll have a better understanding of what's really happening around them in their corrupt world...
Originally Posted By jonvn I can see why some people don't want to believe that Bush lied. It's a pretty sad situation if true. Except it seems to be true. When we get a new Administration in 2 years, we'll hopefully pull out of Iraq, and the USA will look a little better, and Bush will be the one who just looks bad, not the entire nation.
