sort of what im often thinking to myself. once the original bogus wmd justification fell by the wayside, the other excuses, primarily democracy promotion, have been ad-hoc rationalizations to obfuscate the original lies and motivations.
FORGET DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ. This morning CNN's Michael Ware did an interview on American Morning where he (wrongly) analyzed the situation in Iraq, saying troops need to stay put. Right-wing NewsBusters quoted him as saying:
“And you listen very carefully to what General Petraeus says, he says ‘This is what we would like to see, a representative government.’ When I was in Diyala province, I interviewed a two-star general on camera for CNN, and he admitted for the first time from anyone in the military that they’re now prepared to accept options other than democracy.
“Now this is what this war was sold to the American public on, yet they’re now saying democracy isn’t mandatory, it’s an option, and that they’re prepared to see a government that can protect itself, give services to its people, and it doesn’t have to be democratic. In fact, the general said, most of our allies in this region are not democratic. So that fundamentally addresses the root cause of why America says it went to war, and now the military is saying, well, we may not get there.”
It's official. The military wants to keep an authoritarian regime in place as long as it will stabilize Iraq and be a U.S. ally. Now the two reasons for going to war in Iraq, WMDs and democracy, are abandoned. Hm, I seem to recall an authoritarian regime that had stabilized Iraq before the war started...
-- Kay Steiger
And a segment of the American public bought the rationale as it changed, as evidenced by the comment on my page recently:
"In my mind 'the elective war' was decisively won several years ago. It's the post war occupation to help Iraq establish a new government on a secure foundation that is an ongoing disaster."
Even if that is critical of the "evolved premise" it accepts the premise, which is ad hoc colonialism disguised as nation building after the WMD rationale failed.
No one in Bush 2 was thinking beyond blowing up Saddam's palaces. There was no plan to "help Iraq establish a new government on a secure foundation." Many people don't seem to understand that.
ultimately i think they thought they would just plow on ahead to syria and iran just like they hopped from afghanistan to iraq leaving a trail of propaganda and destruction in their wake while bleeding the country dry with bloated defense contracts for their kith and kin.
I suspect at least some of them thought Chalabi would be able to take control. He certainly lead them around by the nose.
|
- dave 4-27-2007 4:09 pm
FORGET DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ. This morning CNN's Michael Ware did an interview on American Morning where he (wrongly) analyzed the situation in Iraq, saying troops need to stay put. Right-wing NewsBusters quoted him as saying:
“And you listen very carefully to what General Petraeus says, he says ‘This is what we would like to see, a representative government.’ When I was in Diyala province, I interviewed a two-star general on camera for CNN, and he admitted for the first time from anyone in the military that they’re now prepared to accept options other than democracy.
“Now this is what this war was sold to the American public on, yet they’re now saying democracy isn’t mandatory, it’s an option, and that they’re prepared to see a government that can protect itself, give services to its people, and it doesn’t have to be democratic. In fact, the general said, most of our allies in this region are not democratic. So that fundamentally addresses the root cause of why America says it went to war, and now the military is saying, well, we may not get there.”
It's official. The military wants to keep an authoritarian regime in place as long as it will stabilize Iraq and be a U.S. ally. Now the two reasons for going to war in Iraq, WMDs and democracy, are abandoned. Hm, I seem to recall an authoritarian regime that had stabilized Iraq before the war started...
-- Kay Steiger
- dave 4-27-2007 4:43 pm
And a segment of the American public bought the rationale as it changed, as evidenced by the comment on my page recently:
Even if that is critical of the "evolved premise" it accepts the premise, which is ad hoc colonialism disguised as nation building after the WMD rationale failed.
No one in Bush 2 was thinking beyond blowing up Saddam's palaces. There was no plan to "help Iraq establish a new government on a secure foundation." Many people don't seem to understand that.
- tom moody 4-27-2007 7:41 pm
ultimately i think they thought they would just plow on ahead to syria and iran just like they hopped from afghanistan to iraq leaving a trail of propaganda and destruction in their wake while bleeding the country dry with bloated defense contracts for their kith and kin.
- dave 4-27-2007 7:52 pm
I suspect at least some of them thought Chalabi would be able to take control. He certainly lead them around by the nose.
- mark 4-27-2007 8:10 pm