A Parallel Illustrating a Point of Character

[gipper]

While far-out liberals like Crane foam at the mouth about Bush's evil ways -- all the way from "he started the war for pecuniary gain (oil)" to "he simply lied our way into this war" to all sorts of equally asinine concoctions of evil motives finding evil outlets -- the nation is still in need of a sensible, reasoned and compelling counterpoint to Bush's certitudes, and the decisions he makes in their wake or makes to preserve their illusion. As a matter of gross analysis -- perhaps only useful to rabid radicals, the rest of us convinced, variously, of Bush's good sense or good faith (but major) series of mistakes -- Bush's present stand on the immigration bill should tell you all you need to know about Bush's good faith. At the cost of a defecting party, led by Congressional Republicans, Bush has stubbornly (one of the hallmarks of his psyche, some would argue) or resolutely (as those more kindly disposed would say) maintained his vocal and avid support for an "amnesty" bill. This should illustrate, even for thhe most dundering dunderhead of the Left, that -- within normal limits -- this president follows his conscience.

If you're going along with me this far on this observation, you will begin to realize that much (most) leftist crtiquing of Bush's Iraq policy, perhaps especially at inception, were grossly wide of the mark (implausible and unpersuasive) as buried beneath an avalanche not so much of putrid vituperation but mindless indulgence at the price of a cogent and persuasive message by serious people who know what they're about. This dynamic is pretty clear, and its existence corrodes our public life and leads to bad decisions made without a true test.

[BT]

Sometimes you post gems.

[gipper]

I appreciate that, brother.

[Plane]

It is insightfull, evenhanded , well considered and profound.


Where is the fun in that?

[Amianthus]

Bravo.

[fatman]

We're in agreement domer.  Although my political affiliaton is moderate, leaning left, I have always found the arguments that Bush is evil, dumb, arrogant, stubborn, a pawn, substitute your adjective, to be too simplistic.  No one is that one-faceted, even Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian.  I think that is symbolic of the near complete polarization of national politics, there aren't that many conservative southern dems anymore, nor the more liberal Rockefeller Republicans (though there are exceptions, such as Snowe).  The question I have is 1) does such polarization exist or is that my misguided perception and 2) is it healthy for the nation as a whole?

But back to Bush and Iraq for a minute.  I fault Congress as much as I do Bush for the war, in the last decade Congress has been abdicating more and more of its responsibilities, perhaps because it's politically expedient to do so.  They established no checklists of any kind, simply handing Bush a blank check instead of saying, we need to meet this objective or this one or so on.  None of that has occurred, now Congress is waiting until September's report from Petraeus do act.  There appears to be no oversight, no check on the executive branch. The current Congress was elected (in my often misinformed opinion) to straighten out the Iraq situation, if not to end it then to at least clean it up.  This isn't happening, some of it due to the failure of the Democrats to secure more votes on the more important matters.  I would love to see a legitimate, strong third party so that whenever there is an election we don't get a choice between bad and worse.  I'd like to see term-limits in Congress so that our representation could concentrate on something other than re-election or enriching themselves at the public trough.  Is it any wonder that so many people on both sides of the political aisle are so disillusioned with government?

[sirs]

Sounds like an echo of my post on domer, in another recent thread.  Well stated gipp

[Michael Tee]

Someone (and I believe it was the philosopher Eric Hofer) once stated that even in the worst totalitarian regimes you could find some good regulation; for example, even the Nazis must have enacted some sensible laws regarding traffic safety.

Fatman pointed out quite sensibly that even Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian, though whether his vegetarianism stemmed from love of animals or misguided health concerns isn't clear to me.  I have from time to time pointed out Bush's few redeeming qualities - - that he was probably more fun to be with than Al Gore being the only one I can remember now.

I don't know how much of Bush's stand on immigration reflects concessions to the strength of the Hispanic vote in key states like Florida or Bush's own Texas and how much is due to higher principles, but even (for the sake of argument) conceding a stand on higher principles, this does not invalidate my characterization of Bush as a war-monger and generally evil man.  LBJ, who ran against Goldwater on a peace platorm and then invaded Viet Nam on phony, manufactured pretexts. was a similar example of an evil-doing lying, deceitful, murdering bastard, who nevertheless took a principled stand on the domestic front when it came to civil rights.  Although I have to say that LBJ showed a great many more redeeming features than Bush does.

[Michael Tee]

<<While far-out liberals like Crane foam at the mouth about Bush's evil ways -- all the way from "he started the war for pecuniary gain (oil)" to "he simply lied our way into this war" to all sorts of equally asinine concoctions of evil motives finding evil outlets >>

This far-out liberal would like to correct some common misrepresentations about why we foam at the mouth.

Although I plead guilty to having, for simplicity's sake or rhetorical exaggeration stated that Bush started the war for oil, I think it's fair to say that in my more thoughtful postings (yes, there were some!) i made it clear that oil was probably a factor - - and a big factor - - in the decision, it was not the only factor. 

A more accurate description of my idea of how the war started is this:

We know that the stated reasons were false.  The real reasons for war had absolutely nothing to do with WMD or with the wish to bring democracy to a democracy-starved nation.  Both those reasons are, on their faces, ludicrous and absurd.  They bear no resemblance whatever to the past six decades of U.S. foreign policy and serve no economic interest related to the interests of any of the major financial backers of either American political party.  The real reasons for the war were geopolitical or geostrategic.  The main reasons probably included:  control of Middle East oil production, starting with Iraq; making an example of an out-of-control satrap who had decided to price his country's oil in euros rather than dollars, a potentially disastrous development for the U.S. dollar, which had to be stopped in its tracks.  Another powerful reason which may well have produced the war was the misguided need to publicly avenge the insult of September 11, which was a terrible blow to American prestige all over the world. 

I have also stated that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken for the benefit of the State of Israel.  This I have reconsidered especially in the light of comments from Noam Chomsky, certainly no friend of Zionism in its current incarnation, and I believe the real role of Israel in the invasion is as follows:  Israeli military and government circles were extremely anxious for the U.S. to attack Iraq, just as they are currently hungering for a U.S. attack on Iran, and in both cases have done everything they could to promote and support such attacks.  This would include manufacturing false intelligence as required to (a) convince the American ruling class to make the strike but much more importantly, to help that ruling class (which was already determined, for its own reasons, to invade) to sell the war to a reluctant American public.  It would also include direct and indirect sponsorship of American "intellectuals," writers and commentators (good examples of which are Jonah Goldberg, Michael Ledeen, Victor Davis Hanson, et al.) to churn out pro-war, pro-military garbage by the ton.  And it would also include direct military assistance in the form of advanced weaponry, counter-insurgency "advisors," etc.  Embedded throughout the Bush administration and its supporters are or were  Zionist neocons, such as Douglas Feith, Wolfowicz, Richard Perle and others - - described by Zbigniew Brzezinski as "neocons with a special interest in the Middle East"  (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) - - who have consistently pushed for and supported war against Iran and Iraq.  Nevertheless, despite Zionist pressure in all its forms (I neglected to mention AIPAC - - sorry, AIPAC!) I believe, as does Chomsky, that the U.S. government acted on its own motivation regardless of what Israel wanted or what was good for Israel.  This is consistent with the history of US policy and with common sense.  There was a congruence of desire for war and bloodshed, but what the Israelis hoped for was not a motivating factor in the decision ultimately taken to invade.

So, "It's all about oil" is an oversimplification.  But I would still think that oil was the most important factor.

As far as, "He lied us into war," that is a slam-dunk, my friend.  The war was "sold" to the public on an unprecedented (not really) campaign of blatant lies, forgeries and deceptions that would have done credit to Josef Goebbels.  I really don't see how any intelligent individual can deny that.

[gipper]

Witness, Michael, an intelligent person denying that "Bush lied" AND that oil was the primary motivator for the war. Going to war is like telling your wife you love her: there are myriad reasons for such an expression of the heart, and if you're a veteran husband, they extend all the way from overlooking her correcting you regarding discipline of the kids, for which your expression of love is an indirect apology, to a devilishly manipulative bid to curry favor so that poker night, now threatened, survives intact. It is of course a truism that multivariate and complex and intertwining reasons motivate much human activity, including making acts of state. I can agree, rearranged, that your list of "factors" (and others) played upon the president's mind. Where we differ is in my insistence that he bundled all these items together in a principled conclusion (that was wrong in my view) and took his decision based on those principles.

[Amianthus]

What I like is the continued insistence by the left that anyone who disagrees with them is "obviously not intelligent," or a "Nazi."

[sirs]

What I like is the continued insistence by the left that anyone who disagrees with them is "obviously not intelligent," or a "Nazi."

So true.  Boy isn't that a tiresome practice

[Michael Tee]

<<What I like is the continued insistence by the left that anyone who disagrees with them is "obviously not intelligent," or a "Nazi.">>

I'm simplifying the whole thing to "obviously a Nazi."

[Michael Tee]

domer, it's the most obvious thing in the world to me that Bush lied.  About Saddam having them, about the strength of the evidence that he had them, about the threat that he posed by having them.

He whipped up a war hysteria that had nothing at all to do with any actual threat because he had already decided to invade Iraq before he began telling the public about the "threat." 

The people around him had wanted to invade Iraq during the Clinton administration.  For reasons totally unrelated to any "WMD."

What part of this don't you get?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Juniorbush lied the US into the war because of (1) oil, (2) Israel (3) and the fact that Saddam crossed the entire US Big Oil establishment, (after all the weapons the US helped him get to fight Iran, too). Remember Noriega: these clowns allow all manner of violations of human rights provided you dance to their tune. But Saddam invaded Kuwait and refused to grovel properly after the first Gulf War. This is extremely insulting to the macho instincts of dolts like James Baker, Dick Cheney, Olebush and Juniorbush, just to name a few; (4) there is also the matter of a cadre of neocons waiting in the wings to try out there harebrained theories on a real country.

And lie, lie lie they did, and Iraqis are mostly all worse off than before. Their are more Iraqi refugees as a result of Juniorbush's unnecessary and inept warmongering and mismanagement than any other sort of refugee, including Sri Lankans, Darfurans, Cpongolese and Zimbabweans.