Iraq...what is going to happen and what will Bush/Rove do?

You might recall that I have, from the beginning, emphasized that our principal reason for the intervention was to change the historical trajectory of Iraq and create, in the midst of a very troubled Moslem world, an example of a modern, relatively open state.

Did you? If so, your statement of this rationale preceded the administration's by many months, after Sadaam escaped and the palm tree yield was embarrassing. You ought to dig up the text, mail it off to them, and insist on credit. But I think you misrememberify, george.

blatham wrote:

Did you? If so, your statement of this rationale preceded the administration's by many months, after Sadaam escaped and the palm tree yield was embarrassing. You ought to dig up the text, mail it off to them, and insist on credit. But I think you misrememberify, george.

Not at all. I always indicated this was the key REASON for the intervention, and I believe quite strongly this was always prominent in the minds of prominent administration figures even a decade ago. The RATIONALE was mistakenly allowed to be forced into the WMD mold only because of the decision to take the matter to the UN - a precondition the British established for their participation. A long time ago we had Paul Wolfowitz aboard Nimitz during an Arabian sea cruise (he was then Ambassador to Indonesia and had several of their government figures with him. Iran was our chief focus then, but Wolfowitz I recall offered his views of the prevailing distemper in the Moslem world and noted that Iraq (Mesopotamia) of all the former Ottoman states had the best chance for modern development, based on its history and the temperment of its people - but only if we can get the Baathists out he added -- this was in the early '80s.

fbaezer

Nice to see you.

The coolest cucumber in the picture seems to be Sistani. He's refused to engage the many invitations to violent and imprudent response, and he seems to have been the individual with whom the US has had to make key accomodations. Assuming that the Shia slate will prove quite successful in the vote counts, I think he will continue to exercise prudence and make significant room for Sunni representation in governance and in the writing of their constitution.

Talking heads and talking points, ad nauseam.

It's becoming more and more tiresome to dig through the agenda-driven garbage to get at even a sliver of truth. We used to be able, at least to some extent, to count on a kind of journalistic code of ethics, but no more.(IMO)

The truth, as they say, is out there, but, at this point, I see both "sides" locked into their beliefs with no interest in that "truth".

So, McG et al can quote their talking heads and their talking points all you like, doesn't make any of it true.



Oh, and in response to that Boorish (sp?) person's request :
(results of a quick search)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21100/

If all goes according to the Bush plan, American investors and companies will soon begin to own chunks of Iraq's national oil company.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil."


http://www.targetoil.com/article.php?id=35
"If you justify [actions] under the law of military occupation, you
can justify just about anything," said one administration official familiar
with the current debate among Pentagon and State Department lawyers.

"3. You can smoke cigarettes"

McGentrix wrote:

"3. You can smoke cigarettes"

Have to correct Boortz on that one. Idiots smoke cigarettes (also known as nicotine delivery devices).