Dear Cindy,
I hear you want to ask me what noble cause your son Casey died for last year. It's a good question. I'm not misunderestimating you. Let me confront it by telling you how I got into this war in the first place. Maybe you will appreciate my position when you understand it from my position where I see it.
Listen, before I got elected the first time, I knew this for sure: nothing establishes a leader's credentials better than a war. I saw how the Falklands War helped Maggie Thatcher. Win a war, and you stand a better chance of getting your domestic agenda greased.
So I was quite indisposed to a war. The best place was Iraq, because it had a bad man as a leader who wouldn't get sympathy from a rattlesnake. Besides, a lot of the guys who worked for my Dad thought he shouldn't have stopped when he did, before kicking Saddam's ass.
Also, Wolfowitz, Perle and the neo-cons had long surmiserated that the U.S. should have a war to establish our military superiority for the world to get it through their heads that we're the boss now, and to have military bases in the Middle East. Got to project our power, as the pundits pundate. These neo-cons also thought they could turn Iraq into a democracy, and so spread democracy throughout the Middle East, which I thought at the time was pretty cock-eyed myself. Some of the people on my side of the fence are nuts beyond the belief of a Christian person.
But most importantly, being a Texas oilman in my bones, I had to agree with Dick Cheney that this would be a way of getting control of mucho barrels of oil real quick and easy. Dick met with a number of oil guys, and they started divvying up Iraqi oilfields between our Texas companies.
Then there was this guy, Ahmed Chalabi, who was telling us that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. He impressed us all. He looked like the perfect guy to run Iraq. With him in charge, we could have our bases there, and have our corporations control Iraq's oil. This guy could charm the pants off a lesbian, and he did.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ryanclarkholiday
clever.....oh wait. not at all
2 - gonzo marx
smells like satire to me...
/golfclap
i laughed, i cried, i pissed my pants...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
3 - Victor Lana
Not sure if I want to laugh or cry while reading this.
Not pleasant in the end.
So I guess it's cry- for Cindy Sheehan and 1,800+ other parents.
4 - Shark
Excellent piece, Adam.
Hard to believe we're now some 2+ years into this nightmare of Iraq -- and the Bushies are still saying the same old shit.
It's like the average American can't remember what happened last week.
=====
Examples of Mass Memory Loss:
(Shameless Plugs)
written 8 months ago -- a summary of the ongoing opptimism of the Bush camp
Summary of Iraq Invasion in light of the "next" light at the end of the tunnel, the "election" -- and please don't bring up the new "constitution" -- which is the next "light" at the end of the grave, um... tunnel.
5 - with karate ill kik ur ass
I still stand by what I said in another thread.
President Bush is an idot.
6 - John Bambenek
Shark:
Celebrating American casualities, are we?
7 - OneMonkey'sUncle
Ouch! Ow! The truthses! It HURTSSSSSSSS us! Make it stop! Make it SSSSSSSSSSTtop!
8 - Georgio
Satire...HELL YES
Truthful....as good as any of Bush bullshit...
9 - MCH
Spectacular post, AA! Makes a great answer to Nalle's question on another thread of what could Bush say to Ms. Sheehan to ever satisfy her.
10 - Dave Nalle
Interesting piece, both a parody of Bush and a parody of the misrepresentations of the extreme left at the same time, since you include so many of their tired and disproven claims as if Bush really believed them, like the laughable idea that we went into Iraq for oil or to establish military bases.
Dave
11 - adam
Jeez, Dave, if we didn't go in there for oil and military bases -- remember, they started planning for this war way before 9/11, terrorism, etc -- why the fuck did we go in there? You tell me. Please.
12 - Bennett
"like the laughable idea that we went into Iraq for oil or to establish military bases"
"........................."
Is that what laughter sounds like?
Play it again, maybe I'll hear it this time.
"........................."
Um, nope.
13 - Dave Nalle
>>eez, Dave, if we didn't go in there for oil and military bases -- remember, they started planning for this war way before 9/11, terrorism, etc -- why the fuck did we go in there? You tell me. Please.<<
Is this Remedial Foreign Policy 101? I've gone over this so many times before.
Ok, we didn't go in for oil, because we could have had all the Iraqi oil we wanted at a lower price from Saddam just for the asking. He was more than willing to sign on for an exclusive oil deal with anyone who backed him up if given the chance. In addition, we make our money from oil distribution more than extraction, but no matter how the oil got out of Iraq, US interests get their share. Saddam couldn't export his oil without going through the multinationals who handle all oil refining, transportation and distribution. Invading Iraq to get the oil - guaranteeing the fields will be shut down for a year or more - doesn't pass the test of logic.
As for military bases, we stated at the very beginning of the war that we had no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq and our actions since that time have born that out. We already have permanent bases in the area and have had them for years. More bases would only make sense if we intended to occupy Iraq for the long term, and there has never been any indication that such was our intention. In fact, the original neocon plan for reconstructing Iraq was completely incompatible with the idea of a long-term military occupation.
Finally, the reasons we went into Iraq were mostly pragmatic and geographica. First, Iraq was one of the most suitable countries for establishing democratic, non-islamist government, ironically because of Saddam's socialist anti-religious regime. Second, it was one of the weakest and easiest to invade countries in the areas. Third, it has the most desirable location for influencing the countries around it. It adjoins Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia - the three real problem countries of the region. Taking Iraq breaks up transportation between those countries and puts heavy pressure on them. Then look at where else we invaded. What's right between Afghanistan and Iraq - what country have we essentially surrounded. Let me give you a hint - it's the country where Osama is currently getting his dialysis, where money for the Iraqi insurgency is coming from, and where they have real WMDs and have just reopened the nuclear program the UN sealed several years ago.
Dave
14 - adam
This was not just meant as a parody.
I tried to establish a pretty exact timeline of how Bush & Co kept changing their minds, in public anyway, based on what they said and did from before 9/11, and as reported by insiders. I defy anyone to try and rebut the arc of this timeline, which is based on reported fact. I wanted to genuinely get inside George's mind, for once, to show how it kept changing as the facts on the ground kept changing under his feet.
For myself, I have yet to see a clear exposition of the administration's changing reasons and views, and this is what the post is all about. Someone's got to do it, dammit.
But then, of course, trying to get into Bush's mind, one has to get into his mind's marvelous stabs at the language, which I also tried to do as honestly as I could. That it comes across as parody, is simply a reflection of the fact that Bush & Co. are laughable. Painfully destructive, yes, and non-compassionate, blind and hypocritical: but also laughable.
It is the story, in the end, of our continuing and pathetic attempts at empire -- a story of high-profile stumblebums.
15 - adam
Dave, thanks for exposition. Very clear, in your usual cogently argued manner.
Not that I agree with you. Listen, if Iraq didn't have oil, we would never have invaded, no matter how you try to spin it. A reason I shoud've put in there is that Saudi-Arabia has been regarded as shaky for years, which is why we pre-emptively needed to have more control of another source of oil.
We are indeed building bases in Iraq; saying we don't want real estate there is Rumsfeld doubletalk.
Your list of pragmatic reasons are good and sound. But to accuse this most ideologically-driven of administrations of pragmatism gets us into regions of surrealism I personally cannot follow. I think the Rapture and other crazy notions are part of parcel of it, as much as pragmatism.
If I had to sum it up in one word, we wanted more CONTROL in the region. A reason of empire, in other words. That's what it really comes down to in the end, whether one thinks they've been pragmatic, like you do, or crazy, like I do. Or whether we're occupiers or liberators, or occupiers who became liberators in spite of ourselves.
It's all very sane to consider pragmatism as a reason for human actions, but our motives are usually deeper and darker than that, and not even clear to ourselves, and I think Bush & Co are perfect examples of this big irony of the supposed rational human condition.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>Not that I agree with you. Listen, if Iraq didn't have oil, we would never have invaded, no matter how you try to spin it. A reason I shoud've put in there is that Saudi-Arabia has been regarded as shaky for years, which is why we pre-emptively needed to have more control of another source of oil.<<
You're both right and wrong at the same time. The presence of oil specifically in Iraq is relatively meaningless. It's the presence of oil in the region which makes what goes on there part of our national interest. Whether that means invading Iraq or subverting governments there economically and politically, or throwing around bribes and 'economic aid', we're going to be involved there because of the oil. That doesn' t mean that the oil in Iraq was a specific factor in invading the country. No matter who controls a specific country, we get the oil one way or another.
>>We are indeed building bases in Iraq; saying we don't want real estate there is Rumsfeld doubletalk.<<
This is actually not true. It's a widely spread rumor which is not supported by fact. Joint statements have been issued by our military command in Iraq and the interim government to the effect that the bases we are building will be turned over to the Iraqis once the transition is complete.
>>Your list of pragmatic reasons are good and sound. But to accuse this most ideologically-driven of administrations of pragmatism gets us into regions of surrealism I personally cannot follow. I think the Rapture and other crazy notions are part of parcel of it, as much as pragmatism. <<
I think that looking for the extreme, crazy explanation when there are perfectly good rational ones available is a sign of thinking which is distorted by ideological preconceptions. The fact that Bush was able to attract the votes of the rapture crowd doesn't mean that he's part of that group. He got the votes of a lot of libertarians too, but he's no libertarian either. Based on everything we know about Bush he's a moderate, totally self-serving classic politician. There's no need to go looking in extreme crazyland for explanations for actions which can be explained logically.
>>If I had to sum it up in one word, we wanted more CONTROL in the region. A reason of empire, in other words. That's what it really comes down to in the end, whether one thinks they've been pragmatic, like you do, or crazy, like I do. Or whether we're occupiers or liberators, or occupiers who became liberators in spite of ourselves.<<
There's empire and then there's empire. I don't see any real intention to conquer and control territory. The American idea of empire has always been one of economic influence and networks of trade, and I don't really see anything wrong with expressing that sort of interest in a vital part of the world.
>>It's all very sane to consider pragmatism as a reason for human actions, but our motives are usually deeper and darker than that, and not even clear to ourselves, and I think Bush & Co are perfect examples of this big irony of the supposed rational human condition.<<
While you don't sound as nutty as Alex Jones, this is the kernal of the kind of thinking which leads to pure conspiracy nuttism. If you always assume that there's a nefarious purpose behind common actions, then eventually you'll start finding conspiracies even when they're not there.
Dave
17 - adam
Dave:
I'm not saying there's a nefarious purpose behind common actions, I'm saying half the time we don't know why we're really doing what we're doing. There's a mighty big difference. You're a rational man, but that's quite exceptional. And even though there may be deeper and darker reasons for why you do what you do, they're not necessarily nefarious.
You're right, Bush is a classic self-serving politician -- what politician isn't? But I disagree with you when you say he's not part of the Rapture crowd. He is, Dave. He talks to them in code all the time. He's genuine about it, a born-again ex-alcoholic who glories in taking decisions from his gut. You're giving him a lot more credit for rationality than he deserves.
18 - Shark
Bambineck: "Shark, Celebrating American casualities, are we?"
Bambineck, imagining me telling you [edited], are we?
19 - adam
Yo, powers that be, what's with the editing of FU and the like?
I rather enjoy the frank exchange of vigorous Anglo-Saxon nomenclature. Is this a recent policy or what, and why? If we can't call each other names on BC, won't it take away half the fun?
20 - Lee Richards
A Swiftian achievement, Adam--thanks!
It's been said that history doesn't repeat itself, we just ignore history and repeat mistakes others have made.
Why do we concerned citizens (who have the best government money can buy) allow the ethically-challenged and irresponsible of both political parties to completely ignore the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, which gives to Congress the sole power to declare war? We haven't declared a war in so long it's hard to believe that young Americans have been lost by the tens of thousands in fighting them. The Founding Fathers knew it was much too important a decision to the people and nation to allow it to happen on a deranged whim, in a weasel-fervor, by mistaken calculations, or for self-serving political or ulterior motives, one or all of which now seems to be the case.
21 - Shark
Dear Censor - Editor,
How can I encourage John C. A. Bambenek -- (who accused me of celebrating the deaths of American G.I.s) -- to be fruitful and multiply, alone -- with no help from another --
--but not in those exact words?
Thanks in advance,
S
22 - adam
Lee, thanks. I think your question requires a book as an answer, and it's probably been written. I wonder: could the ACLU or someone legally challenge the president's war-making powers? I think war is so big, a nation should vote on it in a referendum. Then Britain, for example, would never have followed Bush & Co into the Iraq. That wouldn't stop a nation from being scared or enflamed into a war by a smart leader, but at least a referendum would be preceded by a public airing of the whole thing.
23 - RJ
"Invading Iraq to get the oil - guaranteeing the fields will be shut down for a year or more - doesn't pass the test of logic."
Well, that's a "test" that Bush-hating Leftists rarely dare to take, and when they do, they usually fail...
24 - EMT907
Do you really think Bush would actually string liberal BS talking points and spin in a letter?
25 - adam
RJ, for chrissake, what kind of a contribution is that? What kind of a logic? Many conservatives are very logical, Dave Nalle for example, and show it by engaging in a discussion with logic and passion. But your comment is simply inane, a robotic echo in the chamber of your own mind, with no relevance except to the paucity of its cliched kneejerks. People like you, on the right and the left, give your causes a bad name. Christ, if you're gonna hit and run, at least try to be original, funny, or smart.