THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

So what is the left preoccupied with now? Why of course, when did Bush start contemplating war with Saddam's Iraq?

Did Bush contemplate it before he was governor of Texas?
Did Bush contemplate it after he was governor of Texas?
Did Bush contemplate it before he was inaugurated president of USA?
Did Bush contemplate it after he was inaugurated president of USA?
Did Bush contemplate it before 9/11/2001?
Did Bush contemplate it after 9/11/2001?
Did Bush contemplate it before attacking Afghanistan?
Did Bush contemplate it after attacking Afghanistan?
Did Bush contemplate it before attacking Saddam's Iraq?
Did Bush contemplate it after attacking Saddam's Iraq?

In Kennebunkport in 1998, George H.W. Bush introduced his son to Condoleezza Rice, a political science professor at Stanford University and the school's provost. The governor was beginning to think about what it might mean to be President. He had insights into only one foreign country thanks to Texas's long shared border with Mexico. Rice teamed up with Paul Wolfowitz, and a tutorial commenced. Over the next year and a half, others were called in, almost all of whom were part of a small, neoconservative community.

Things can only get better.

First Spain pulls out. Then Honduras and the Dominican Republic. Followed by Thailand and Poland. The Ukrainians ran away anyway, and now the S Koreans will withdraw if the right party wins the election. Meanwhile the coalition appointed Iraqi police are more likely to join the insurgents than fight them...all working out just as predicted.

Ican wrote:

:
So what is the left preoccupied with now? Why of course, when did Bush start contemplating war with Saddam's Iraq?
...
Did Bush contemplate it after he was elected governor of Texas?
Did Bush contemplate it before he was inaugurated president of USA?
...

I think Bush started contemplating it here:

from The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind, p.80

Quote:

In Kennebunkport in 1998, George H.W. Bush introduced his son to Condoleezza Rice, a political science professor at Stanford University and the school's provost. The governor was beginning to think about what it might mean to be President. He had insights into only one foreign country thanks to Texas's long shared border with Mexico. Rice teamed up with Paul Wolfowitz, and a tutorial commenced. Over the next year and a half, others were called in, almost all of whom were part of a small, neoconservative community.

I can't speak for everyone on "the left" but I wasn't contemplating "when".....or at least not only that question. That question alone is useless. The point, obviously, is that Bush didn't unilaterally declare war on Iraq because of his concern about Osama Bin Ladin, or the immediate threat of terrorism. He had been planning to attack Iraq since before he ran for the office of President. And he didn't come up with the idea himself. He was tutored.

And the significance of that, ican, is that Bush doesn't appear to be interested in what the people in this country need (much less the world), he's not interested in learning from others and struggling to determine where the real threat lies. He appears to be interested, as are his neo-con handlers, in proving he's right. And this is hardly a good qualification for re-election. This crowd is dangerous and has to go.

Main Entry: pu·sil·lan·i·mous
Pronunciation: -'la-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin pusillanimis, from Latin pusillus very small (diminutive of pusus boy) + animus spirit; perhaps akin to Latin puer child -- more at PUERILE, ANIMATE
: lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity
synonym see COWARDLY
- pu·sil·lan·i·mous·ly adverb

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Things can only get better.
First Spain pulls out. Then Honduras and ... Ukrainians ran away ... the S Koreans will withdraw if the right party wins the election ...Iraqi police are more likely to join the insurgents ...all working out just as predicted.

How nice for you that your side seems to be winning the day!

As for global affairs, the end of 2000 and the start of 2001 had not been a time of dramatic shifts in world events. Yet Bush's campaign positions, that the United States would be noninterventionist -- that we would hesitate to become embroiled in disputes as we had in Bosnia and Somalia; that we would be "humble abroad" and not "engage in nation-building" -- were the very opposite of the policy that O'Neill, Powell, and the other NSC principals saw unfolding [in mid-March, 2001]. Actual plans, to O'Neill's astonishment, were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it--complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals--carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war. . . .

Seeing so much of the policy analysis that was being conducted--in so many realms--left O'Neill befuddled about the real intentions that underlay action.

Was it possible, O'Neill wondered, that the country thought it was electing a centrist when in fact it had empowered an ideologue?

The incident with Whitman (involving a sudden policy shift regarding environmental policy) was the start of what O'Neill later called "a rolling revelation of the way this administration was operating."

"What became clear to me at that point," he said in an interview with me in his house in Pittsburgh, not long after he left office,, "is that the presence of me and Colin and Christie helped convince people that this would, actually, be an administration that would look hard for best solutions, without regard for which party had claimed an idea first or some passing political calculation. That's what the three of us were kind of known for, for being non-ideological, for walking across political borders and looking for common ground. Thinking back about how all of us started to be banged up so early on, from the inside, it now seems like we inadvertently may have been there, in large part, as cover."

Lola, The problem has been they develop policy by their gut feeling without considering future consequences.

Thanks for your English instruction, ican.......of course you didn't first ask if I or anyone else needed it.......but ok, I'll say thank you anyway (although, I don't really mean it.)

... along with Bush's largest constituency in his voter base, the fanatical religious right are running this country through Bush, as a willing, though highly ignorant figure head.

Main Entry: 2shill
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps short for shillaber, of unknown origin
1 : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler); also : one who makes a sales pitch
2 : PITCH 8a

Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
- dem·a·gogu·ery /-"gä-g(&-)rE/ noun
- dem·a·gogy /-"gä-gE, -"gä-jE, -"gO-jE/ noun

...(O'Neill, Clarke, Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, DiIulio Greenspan) ... not pleased. ... These advisors are all highly qualified ...

how can anyone argue with this much mounting evidence? They're all Republicans with no reason to want to swing the election other than the fact that they are truly concerned about where this administration is taking us.

Perhaps it's time for all of us to consider the possibility that the war in Iraq was contrived and carried out by ideologues.

Lola, It seems quite evident from discussions with neocons on A2K that the growing body of evidence doesn't make any difference. That is what's so frustrating. They can rationalize everything until hell freezes over.

Lola, It seems quite evident from discussions with neocons on A2K that the growing body of evidence doesn't make any difference. That is what's so frustrating. They can rationalize everything until hell freezes over.

... I think it's worse than this. Policy has been developed for the purpose of financial gain and power to enforce a minority's ideological perspective on the majority.

Voters have been lazy. And this is the consequence. We're all busy, I know. But voters should be paying attention to this growing body of evidence.

You are increasingly behaving here like a shill for a demagogue . Why?

Name some members of the: "fanatical religious right ... running this country through Bush". Then provide some credible evidence to support your claim.

Lola wrote:
...(O'Neill, Clarke, Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, DiIulio Greenspan) ... not pleased. ... These advisors are all highly qualified ...


O'Neill has been proven wrong about the effect of tax cuts and tax increases on the economy.

Clarke frequently contradicts his book when under oath.

Christine Todd Whitman was not a competent federal administrator.

Powell was misquoted by Woodward. Woodward contradicts his own book when on TV.

DiIulio may be a reliable source. I don't know whether he is or not. Remind me what he said or wrote.

Greenspan was characterized by O'Neill as agreeing with O'Neill. Initially yes, but not now that tax reductions are shown to have helped the economy recover and not deepen the recession.

Suskind, author of your frequent reference here, has what credentials for truth and objectivity in reporting? Will he too contradict his book in public forums, or are his allegations contradicted by reality, or are your interpretations of Suskind's book contrary to what he actually wrote? That last was true for you before; perhaps it is still true.

DiIulio may be a reliable source. I don't know whether he is or not. Remind me what he said or wrote.

"Besides the tax cut…. the administration has not done much, either in absolute terms or in comparison to previous administrations at this stage, on domestic policy. There is a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded non-partisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism."

"Karl is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisor post near the Oval Office."

"When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you'll get a lot of ooops."