Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DOUG H who wrote (29894)	6/9/2004 9:47:46 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 81568

I think Bush went to war for a complex of reasons. I certainly didn't believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the US before the war. I think Bush had Saddam in his sights before 9/11, he just needed justification. The Reasons: 1. The neocons (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.) had written a detailed plan in 1996, still on the PNAC website. 2. Bush and Cheney are oilmen. They knew that invading Iraq would mean a powerful military presence in Iraq for years, securing the main reserves in an oil-hungry world. 3. The daddy factor. Bush has been hearing for a decade about how Poppy "wimped out" and let Saddam go. He can best daddy, and correct his "mistake". 4. To have a war. It's got to be the biggest power-rush a President can have, to command the most powerful military on earth. Bush was looking like a one-termer before 9/11. Better have his war while he can. 5. Corporate pressure. I'm sure Cheney was pushing, and Halliburton certainly seems to be doing well by the war. I'm sure many former contributors have been paid by the war, and many more encouraged to contribute. You notice, WMD and/or bring democracy to Iraq are not listed.

To: DOUG H who wrote (29894)	6/9/2004 10:44:35 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Tha water was nice, thank you. Nothing like a good swim to clear out the cobwebs. You bring up something else that rattles around in my mind, that is the role of the citizenry in controlling the military. By that I mean this, we are at war and we are asking our young men and women to go into harms way FOR US. A call to arms is that and nonething less. That said, I feel it is my duty to hold the CIC's feet to the fire as to under what threat does he undertake these actions. The constitution provides that Congress has the power to declare war. But that Power of the people has been watered down quite a bit. The President did ask Congress for authorization to go to war if necessary for national security. Congress granted that permission. But after the granting of permission there has been little or no congressional oversight. And the the permission was given to protect the national security vis a vis the alleged WMD's. I am not entirely convinced that Bush flatout lied and went headlong willynilly into war to somehow vindicate Daddy. Or at the behest of Halliburton, et al, so they could rebuild a country. I think the truth lies soemwhere in between. There have been huge profits made by companies like Halliburton and Carlyle. Bush most likely knew ahead of time that profits would be made by those in the wartime business. Maybe he wasn't thinking of his Dad being on the board of directors of Carlyle, and maybe the influence of Cheney's Haliburton was never visualized. Maybe the no bid contract was just a lucky stroke for Haliburton...and Cheney just so happened to be a former Chief Executive for the company. And maybe Bush pushed it out of his mind the many family members, associates and friends that would stand to profit handsomely from a war. Personally I'm having a problem allowing for that separation of thought. Couple that with the clear evidence of over selling the threat of Saddam and you have what I think is undue influence of the almighty dollar. Orca

To: DOUG H who wrote (29894)	6/10/2004 12:29:41 AM
From: Orcastraiter	Respond to of 81568

Something else to keep in mind: A 1998 open letter to President Clinton, calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and recognition of an Iraqi government based on Chalabi's organization, was signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Armitage and Elliott Abrams, among others. Also closely allied with Chalabi have been Vice President Dick Cheney and Richard Perle, a key architect of George Bush's Middle East policy. Except for Armitage, a close associate of Colin Powell, the names are those of the neoconservatives who have dominated Middle East policy in the Bush administration. Chalabi played them like a violin; his tune was music to their ideological ears. Chalabi met personally with President Bush, and sat with first lady Laura Bush at the 2004 State of the Union speech. He was one of the first named to the Iraq Governing Council. America was led into a bloody and continuing war on the basis of misleading and sometimes false information, much of it coming from Iraqi exiles with their own agenda and the ability to convince gullible American officials who heard exactly what they wanted to hear. As the death toll of American soldiers goes over 800, and the toll of wounded is in the thousands and as the death toll of Iraqi civilians is in the thousands, more is needed than shunting Ahmad Chalabi to the sidelines. Chalabi, after all, was pursuing his own personal fortunes. They just happened to coincide with the political needs of the Bush administration, which had its eyes on Iraq well before 9-11 provided an invasion excuse. Chalabi, a clever man by all accounts, simply fed the neoconservatives the information they wanted to hear. Mayer quotes former CIA official Robert Baer, "Chalabi was scamming the U.S. because the U.S. wanted to be scammed." The media proved gullible as well. Reporters lacked good sources in Iraq (as did the CIA), and Chalabi carried the credibility of top American politicians, particularly in the Pentagon and vice president's office. It's an embarrassment for the news media. But the media are of secondary concern. What of the Bush administration, a team that never admits an error? CIA director George Tenet has resigned, but Tenet long ago broke with Chalabi after an early CIA involvement with him. The entire flock of war hawks, Rumsfeld and Cheney and their aides, remains in place. They are culpable in ways far more serious than The New York Times or other news organizations that were sucked into the misinformation game. It's time for the president to either accept his share of the blame or sack those who misled the American people. seattletimes.nwsource.com Orca