The Merits of a Steak and Jam Sandwich Blogger has been pissing me off today. It won’t let me post pictures, and it has deleted two posts I’ve attempted to put up already today. But, I’m at work and have nothing else to do so I’m trying again. (and yes, I’ve heard the definition of insanity)
I really tried to be late to work today. I got up late, read Playboy while I pooped, showered, ate, watched Sportscenter (more than half of those I do at work on a regular basis- regular meaning everyday) and I was still on time (roughly). If trees are silent when no one is around to hear them fall, can I be late when no one is here to notice?
A quick question on the my favorite topic- the Iraq war. Charles and J. Morgan (I can't link since he has no blog...) have been staunch believers in the theory that the war had nothing to do with WMD’s and that the administration knew that WMD’s did not exist when we invaded. I’ll quote J. Morgan here in reference to what I just said and also to make the overall post a little longer (ie well-written). “We invaded Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Since that was - and was, even before the war effort, almost certainly known to be – untrue.” Excluding utilitarian claims on the legitimacy of the Iraq war (unless really, really necessary), what was the motivation for Bush to lie to enter a war under pretenses he knew to be wrong where ultimately he would be exposed?
On one hand, looking from this angle seems to logically confirm the failure of the intelligence community. It is unlikely that Bush (Sieg Heil!) and other party members would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the war in the absence of some strong ulterior motive. Basically, Bush either believed the same reports as everyone else OR he is an extremely principled (in the sense that he is willing to lie and ruin his legacy for some principle) leader who deliberately lied to advance some hidden agenda. If you feel that the latter is true- what is this agenda? (I will accept guesses, hypotheses, and/or theories on this agenda. However, if the theory is of the conspiracy nature, the standard of proof is that much higher.)
posted by Justin at 12:04 PM 
5 Comments:
The font work is not of my doing... stupid blogger.
I think that for the Bush administration, the existence or non-existence of WMDs was mostly irrelevant to the war. What they did know was that constant WMD talk, based on faulty or mistaken intelligence, plus hints or even overt statements about an Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, would be enough to get the American people on board. Intelligence was a means to an end: Bush and Powell, it seems to me, were largely unconcerneds as to its accuracy,
For them I think the war had multiple purposes, all of them useful: taking out Saddam, a threat to some, though not the US; finishing George HW Bush's work in the region; reshaping the Middle East; increasing American control in the Middle East with a military presence and future military bases; stabilizing the region for economic growth; and providing continuing justification and prospects for enormous American defense and engineering contractors.
So as I see it there are at least 6 purposes to the war, from the administration's perspective. There's no deep conspiracy here; it's not about oil; and there are no earth-shattering revelations waiting in the wings. (One of the big revelations during Vietnam was that the US had faked the reports surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin, and it took the Washington Post and the NY Times's defiance of a William Rehnquist court order to get that out to the American people. Well, now we have Powell's staff telling us just two years later that the intelligence was BS and at least some people knew it at the time. That makes me think that the intelligence wasn't all that important.) It was a political action undertaken by a powerful group of people who knew that (1) they could get away with it and (2) in almost any case it would accomplish things they wanted accomplished.
are you going all liberal on me?
gnome, if by liberal you mean totally sweet, then yes, yes I am. If by liberal you mean Ted Kennedy, then no, no I'm not.
No one wants any of this? No one wants to challenge my cool, rational, insightful outline of the Iraq war? That's because you know how hard I roll.
Word verification: dpulikn, who I believe was a 19th century Russian painter.
Post a Comment
<< Home