Letters to the Editor
-
War for Oil
Truthwithlogic, I'm in agreement with you. Before the war began I was a senior in HS and in my English class it was basically the only thing discussed all semester. My teacher was soon-to-be retired with his head in the sand and anti (his words for Saddam) "So-Damn Insane" and eagerly anticipated war. Every day was a heated debate. In a class room of 30 students there were two people against the war versus 28 for it. One was a boy and one was a girl.
I was the boy. The girl is an intelligent, independent thinker and her name is Amy. I haven't seen her since graduation but for that semester we were bonded by the fact no one else was willing to stop and think rationally or for that matter themselves. The main argument for war was fear; we need to attack Iraq for security, to rid WMD's and to further the war on terrorism. Everyone in the class ate it up; just like most Americans. Steadfastly, we maintained the war was part of an agenda pertaining to money and oil.
(Disclosure: your point of excluding Iraq oil from world market was not one I considered at that time but moreso for the money it would give the US, not to mention the oil)
Since public sentiment turned on the war I never bothered to go the 'I told you so' route or anything such. I was not and am not the only one to feel this way or to see through the smoke and mirrors. Not to mention it isn't anything to gloat about being right. I wish I was wrong and the war ended in 3 months. But it's sad to see all this time has passed and only now, three years and counting, people are beginning to see through the masks.
I hope this incident, as gloomy as it appears, as down as people are, will only help to spur people young and old to seek out truth, to think independently, to ask questions and I hope we as a country hold the drum bangers responsible. We have mortgaged my generation's future, our children's future and possibly their children's future for a war, despite whatever your belief is for it's catalyst, we should never have waged. We can and will get through this but how long the darkness looms one never knows.
-
yet another "Bush lied" book
All due respect to the New Yorker. All due respect to Frank Rich, but so what? Bush lied.
The invasion made no sense from either a strategic perspective (whether it be WMD, terrorism, Israel, etc.), from once of economics (I defer to truthwithlogic on those details), nor even a geo-political/religious one--i.e. Saddam/Iraq was Sunni, Sunni's historically, being much better educated and western than the other choices (I don't want to get into the Saudi/Wahibbi thing right now). So knocking off Saddam and releasing Sunni/Shia civil war stabilize the region how?
So why did it happen? It was driven by greed--corporate interests, yes, but mainly personal interests. Dumbsfeld and our "VP4Terror" had basically, lived their whole lives for the moment when they could assert the concept of "unitary executive," and they needed a war to do that. Bush was complicit, at least, probably culpable. Cheney/Halliburton, Halliburton alone has over 11 BILLION in contracts with US Government. Cheney's net worth went from about 10 Million to well over 100 Million in the 3 year span he worked for Halliburton...now tell me where his loyalties lie.
In December of 2001, before Powell had even spoken to the UN, the head of FEMA resigned, to start a "consulting" LLC to grease contracts for "post-war Iraq." Bushes first national security meeting when he took office concerned taking out Saddam.
In light of the facts--the historical record--isn't a book about Bush's lies sort of like worrying about the fire-codes in Pompeii?
I would prefer to know how we can put this Genie back in the bottle and lock it away forever. When are we going to impeach the dolt? When will Cheney be tried?
-
Bush and midterm elections
One way to explore Mr. Rich's theory, that the war in Iraq was a tool to win mid-term elections, is to look at how Bush made his staffing and nomination choices. I have read, that it was suggested even earlier than 2002, that Karl Rove wished to make Mr. Bush a "War President". One could argue that Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush chose Cheney, Libby, Rumsfield, etc., because they knew their feelings on Iraq. Thereby stacking the deck in favor of war.
-
Legally Piggilly
I don't think the "Sheehan question" can be answered solely by the elections, though I do not doubt that, once war was decided Rove manipulated it to gain control of Congress. Why else schedule the war resolution before the midterm elections rather than early 2003, before Powell's trip to the UN?
I think the American economy and its need for oil drove this warwagon. The rest of the reasons just hopped on board. It was a perfect storm of good intentions whipped into the fury of a very bad idea. Why Dubya went along for the ride? A clue may be in his Mission Accomplished stunt. Consider all the pictures of Poppy in his pilot uniform that Dubya grew up envying. My guess is he planned the carrier stunt back when the decision for war was first made and dreamed about it every night, instead of wondering what a postwar Iraq would look like.
Consider the usual suspects:
Oil: The truth may lie hidden in the notes at Cheney's secret energy police conference in early 2001. This meeting was so secret even the names of the attendees were suppressed. Could it be that if there were to a New American Century, America would need access and control over vast reserves of oil, while at the same time, the ability to deny such access to countries like China.
Consider the historical context. England colonized the world to ensure access to resources and markets while controlling the same resources and markets, through the East India Company, to prevent competition from the Netherlands, France and eventually Germany. Germany invaded Russia to seize the arable land and oil reserves necessary to sustain its growth and dominance in Europe and the world. Japan seized Manchuria and invaded the Malay peninsula to gain access to iron ore and the South Asian oil fields.
Without access and control over oil reserves large enough to crowd out competition, the US would eventually find itself a second rate country at the mercy of the rest of the world. In 2002 many countries with oil were too unstable (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria) or hated us enough to sell their oil to the likes of China and the new European Union. The supplies we did have full control over were dwindling and would be insufficient by as early as 2020.
Normally military invasion is the worst way to obtain resources, but I think Cheney and Rumsfeld were too blinded by the thought that the US was the only world superpower and its military too invincible that seizing Iraq would be quick, cheap and cost effective. Without the USSR there may have appeared no downside to their thinking.
The pro-Israeli lobby supported the war because the Palestinian issue was no longer tenable. They could not absorb them at risk of losing their Jewish identity and could not maintain forever the aparthied like occupation. Iraq was the last convential army that threatened Israel. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were all neutralized by open or tacit peace agreements. Get rid of Saddam and Sharon could kick the religious fundamentist wing of Likud to the curb and institute unilateral withdraw from most of the West Bank. Which is exactly what he did.
The Neocons dreams of remaking the Middle East, as foolish and fuzzy headed as they were, fit nicely with the propaganda war for invading Iraq. No serious analysis of how the Middle East would be transformed was ever made or was ever necessary, as this position was strictly window dressing.
Big business, led by Halliburton couldn't stop salivating long enough to consider any long term downside to the US economy. But long term thinking lately has not been a hallmark of American industry; except as to how to keep critical resources in their hands and out of their competitors.
Finally, Iraq gave Rove a war president and a useful tool for 2002 and 2004 and beyond. But nothing in his background, his position in the administration or his past thinking would lead most observers to believe he cooked up the Iraq war. All evidence so far suggests, very strongly, that this idea came from Cheney and Rumsfeld. Rove just agreed to let Bush wear his pilot's uniform again, and land on a carrier, just like Poppy.
BTW: The title comes from a chapter of Bucky Fuller's Critical Path. A valuable read. I'm surprised Hugo Chavez doesn't have a copy next to Noam Chomsky and Dude Where's My Country?