Bravissima.
The good news is that the press remains a mixed bag-- but for the Grey Lady, WaPo and a few others (generally newspapers; t.v. and radio are just about worthless), we wouldn't know what has gone on in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, the ghost prisons, the "extraordinary renditions", the warrantless surveillance, or all of the other wonderful treats Dear Leader and our beloved government have for us... As compromised as it is, the Congress, and much of the courts, have rolled over and died in protecting us from tyranny in the name of "fighting terrorism".
The bad news, alas, is legion... pretty much what you have said... on steroids.
Ironic, no? Despite Lieberman's being a closet Republican, I think neither senator REALLY wants to see the senate in Republican hands...
I agree with the part that Bush's only agenda is helping his country club friends pay less taxes and get better government goodies, and getting himself reelected.
And I agree with the premise that maybe Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted a war with Iraq as soon as they could get one.
Where I disagree is that the Bush Administration would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of 9-11. No way. I don't care about the PNAC documents. Bush is fundamentally about the country club; if Jim Baker suggested going to war with Iraq, I would agree with you-- but he opposed it until it became a foregone conclusion. The PNAC document was prepared by a bunch of Jews who worked for Reagan. Big deal.
Bush seemed almost committed NOT to do anything about Iraq.
Lookit: in the aftermath of 9-11, there were people BEGGING Bush to invade Iraq once and for all-- as 9-11 was still fresh, there was the Prague meeting with Atta, which, though later discredited, there was good evidence Saddam was involved in the FIRST WTC attack in '93, all of which was a hell of a lot more convincing than the WMD shit (I know-- I was ONE OF the people BEGGING Bush to attack Iraq AT THAT TIME).
As unpleasant as it would have been, there would have been an international consensus that Saddam game playing with WMD inspectors close to 9-11 was casus belli, period. There would not have been months of agonizing; not even the French would have been that crass with 9-11 still fresh.
BUT... it was never about WMDs. or terrorists, or the security of the AMerican people. IT WASN'T EVEN ABOUT AVENGING PAPA. Instead, the decision was made to make Iraq a political football to take back GOP control of the senate in '02. As I said at the time, by FAILING to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein for SO LONG, Bush should have been impeached either for (1) clearly OVERSTATING the actual threat and committing us to a costly military action FOR NO REASON; or (2) by clearly UNDERSTATING the actual threat, he gave Saddam the better part of another year and a half to plan his deadly counter-attack using his WMDs, and thereby, Bush's actions were criminally negligent.
And, with the senate safely captured and the house safely held, it was onto Baghdad to work the '04 reelection campaign.
As bad as the reasons Teresa lays out, I think the reasons I have given are far more insidious. Its one thing to do evil because you wrongly believe certain strategic doctrines; its far worse to do evil just to hold onto power. That's what had separated American leaders (prior to the current one) from Saddam Hussein.
I guess Fox might have been motivated to salvage some Wee Rapport. You decide.
Are you questioning the purity of the motives of a true and loyal American like Rupert Murdoch? Oh wait...
Fair and balanced sour grapes. We report-- you decide.
AS to Al Franken-- obscure? He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 5 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by the (still fair and balanced) talking dog:
Show all comments by the (still fair and balanced) talking dog.