Gee, I'm so surprised!

[yendi]

As first linked by trillian42, ex-Bush boytoy Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (not to be confused with the former Yankee and Red of the same name) admits that the administration had been planning on invading Iraq from the get-go.

What a shock. The invasion had nothing to do with 9/11 (no matter how many times Dick "I really really really have no financial interest in Haliburton, I just suck their executives' cocks for fun" Cheney says that Saddam was behind the events of that day). It had nothing to do with wanting to get rid of a bad man (there were, and still are, so many folks who are just as bad, if not worse). It had nothing to do with bringing democracy to a people who have been deprived of it (hello, China calling). It had to do with two things: Bush wanting revenge for his Daddy's election loss, and Bush, Cheney, et al wanting to help their industry buddies. Yeah, it did result in getting rid of a bad man, but that was, at best, a pleasant side-effect (and until at least ten years from now, we won't know if Iraq has really become a better place). Every fucking life lost in this war, whether American GI or Iraqi citizen (we'll give the anti-benefit of the doubt and assume that all Iraqi soldiers were loyal to Saddam and therefore supported him completely), was lost for these causes. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either someone with something to lose (read: Cheney or one of his butt-buddies), or someone who's sticking their head in a five-gallon hole filled with ten gallons of shit to drown out the truth.

But hey, look, we're colonizing Mars! Nothing to see here. Move along.

Comments

[silme.livejournal.com]

Of course we shouldn't be setting them up. Nor should we knock down ones we don't like. (I'm thinking Allende here.)

The problem as I see it is that the situation in Iraq isn't any better now for the average Iraqi. For some, it's worse. Yes, they can speak out, but they don't have jobs, elecricity, etc. It's such a muddle.

In ten years, we should discuss this again. :)

But then I was watching the news on Channel 4 tonight, with interviews with various American intelligence experts about how they told Bush there wasn't any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but he used that as an excuse to go after Saddam. One man (I'm forgetting his name now) joked about how the American public (and the British, but more of us protested :) was told (by Bush) that Iraq had to be invaded because of WMDs (mushroom clouds and all that were threatened), that there were links with al-Quaeda and because Hussein was a bad person. The latter was the only one correct, he said with a sad grin.

I am glad to hear that some Americans in high places are questioning. Sometimes from over here, it seems as if most Americans are going along blindly. Blair may be in lots of trouble once the Hutton report comes out... He's already in trouble with the Labour backbenchers. Who knows? I wonder how well Bush and Brown get along! ;)

[snippy]

various American intelligence experts about how they told Bush there wasn't any evidence of WMDs in Iraq,

They've been lying for a long time, then, because Clinton admitted just last week that he was convinced Saddam had WMDs.

[amokk]

Like that, what, 1998 interview with Clinton about the inspectors where he said Saddam did have WMDs and that something needed to be done about it?

Yeah, this all has been going on longer than 2000 so laying it all as some revenge scheme for Bush I can't ever really pass the test.

I still think if Gore would have become president we'd have invaded Iraq a lot sooner than we did, since there were polls that supported doing it after 9/11, regardless of evidence of any links or not.

[silme.livejournal.com]

Didn't you guys hear the latest reason why there we haven't found anything -- except for what the Danish team just found? It made the front pages here, and the papers really played with those headlines; they had some fun with them. Hussein himself was fooled into thinking there were still WMD ready to activate. Long story -- I could send you the URL.

I don't approve of some things Clinton did either -- and I'm not talking about Monica. :)

[snippy]

I haven't seen any articles about that, but it is something I've wondered about. So yes, please post or email the URL. It would explain so many weird things.

[silme.livejournal.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1112467,00.html

[snippy]

That really is a useful theory; it explains both Saddam's bluster and the administration's conviction that there were still viable WMDs to find.

[silme.livejournal.com]

Isn't it? We laughed and laughed. We figured the headline writer had fun. :)