He could easily believe in what he is doing, run the political stuff through it as well including his election prospects, donors wishes, etc. and still do the wrong thing.
According to you. The point is, that Jack Beatty et. al. will never lend any credence to the "believe in what he is doing" part to Bush, but they will to Democrats.
And any quote which suggests that political leaders do things for singular motives is wrong. We, poor peasants that we are, can never know what the main motives are.
So why are we wasting our time on this thread, if we can never know? And why is it that anytime anyone comes near scoring a point against you, we get a chorus of 'We can never know anything! All we see is shadows on the cave wall!'? You seemed to have a quite definite opinion on Bush's real motives just a few posts back, if I may say so:
It looks to me as if the WWP crew, along with the Rumsfeld Cheney crew, came to office with an analysis of foreign policy that said, to put it crudely, the US needed an easy war to win. So long as its principle foreign policy shaping resource was force (a classic neocon position, but certainly not held only by such), the US needed a firm exercise of force, the better to shape the world to its liking.
Iraq is the place for that war in this estimation because its military is perceived to be weak, it has very large symbolic status in the ME, the oil argument is not trivial, and it signals Cheney's old buddies in the the Bush I administration that he is finally winnning that argument.
Thus, all the flailing around, looking for a justification.
|
