Bill--Al Qaeda didn't really take hold, didn't grow at all, until US military troops entered Saudi Arabia--the US having gained pre-Gulf War entry into Saudi territory by using doctored intelligence to show Iraqi troops threatening the Saudi border, when they weren't. Once the US military took a foothold in Saudi Arabia, that's when OBL's recruitment office opened into promising results, result which might otherwise have been without the US military in the Saudi lands.
Also, by the way of GOPside talking points, is a popular noton you see forthcoming from Administration hawks: "Hey, if we wanted the oil we would have taken in during the last Gulf War," using this line repeatedly to dis the possibility that this war actually has anything to do with oil.
Prior to the last Gulf War there existed no extensive Al Qaeda organization, and the Saudi Arabian source of oil for the US was considered reliable. Now that a very militant Al Qaeda has sprouted, with much growth coming from within Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Saudi dictatorship isn't guaranteeed for America, as it had been in the past.
Consequently, next time you hear the talking point-like indoctrination aimed at middle America thinking, and redundantly spilling forth, "Hey, if we wanted Iraq's oil, we would could have gone and gotten it during the last war," remember that the last time around we didn't need Iraqi oil because we presumed, in the absense of Al Qaeda, a stable source from the Saudis.
Bill, this is not solely a 'go in and take away the weapons of mass destruction campaign' in order to make Americans feel safer. The Bush strategists have well reasoned a dual bonus from the war: a) Bush wins reelection by taking out Saddam; and, b) Republican donars gain bigtime from the realization of controlling the primary source for the coming future, and a good part of this control means keeping the oil off the market, as well as into it.
Essentially, this war is a trade of dollars for people more than anything else. You should think this sad. I do. |
