Here is the answer given by Russ Baker based on interviews with people who know George Bush.
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, “a great president.” Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush’s decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
The Downing Street Memos clearly establish that he wanted to invade Iraq as early as March, 2002. There are news reports that he wanted to invade Iraq days after 9/11 even before the perpetrators of 9/11 were clearly identified.Russ Baker in an earlier article reported that Mickey Herskowitz, a well-known Houston reporter and ghostwriter for celebrities told him the following based on Herskowitz’ 1999 interview with G. W, Bush:
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”
This explains the very poor and clearly contrived reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, even though the invasion drew resources needed badly in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq was clearly a decision made to take advantage of the opportunity that 9/11 gave Bush. The reasons presented for the invasion have obviously been dredged up after the decision was made.It explains the timing of the Iraqi invasion. It was more than just the need to influence the 2002 elections. It was part of a larger plan. It explains the refusal to deal with other nations or the UN to try to resolve the problems with Iraq. Such solutions would not lead to Glory for Bush as President.The only argument against such motivations are that no normal human being could be so insane as to start an unnecessary war in order to be viewed as a successful President. The insanity, horror, and stupidity of such an idea makes it immediately obvious that such a war in Iraq for domestic political reasons could not possibly succeed.Nothing in Bush’s history indicates that he would view it like a normal human being would. His choice of Dick Cheney as his vice President and his isolation from normal people in fact suggest that this is an idea that Bush would easily adopt. It would suggest that he suffers from a level of grandiosity that is truly psychopathic.But I don’t think he intended for Iraq to be a large war. Russ Baker also reports in his earlier article:
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. I see no reason at all to doubt this article. It explains too much.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Bush Wanted War
By Richard CohenThursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.
I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."
Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."
As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.
None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.
It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind., and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied" that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.
I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no -- "But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book, "Against All Enemies."
Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."
As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources -- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war almost no matter what.
None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut -- not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What are we fighting for?
Posted on February 06, 2008 by pmacdonald
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
All have my permission to print my Name, address, phone # and e-mail NH.Red.Sox.@gmail.com
“What Are We Fighting For, Next Stop Is Vietnam”. Navy Seals Nate Hardy from Durham NH and M. Koch from Pa were killed by small arms fire in Iraq yesterday. Talk in the local restaurant this morning was how sad the families must feel. Many families across the U.S. have or will be feeling this same way as long as innocent kids fight on the no experience politicians egos (orders). Don’t get me wrong I am not against the war. War is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. If someone attacks the U.S. or it’s citizens, we should wipe out that entire country. No mercy. On the other hand if our elected officials wage war on another country to create a legacy for themselves we should abolish that President. Why should innocent American kids die, why not people from another country that was unwilling to fight for themselves. There are no innocent people in a war zone and attached us.
These Veterans that are lucky enough to come back, will be discharged into a nation that has no idea or even cares about the medical or physical condition of these hero’s. These Veterans will be so happy to be back in the “world” U.S. they will not realize the demons growing in their heads. These Veterans will go back to their families only to find nothing is the same. Separating the mind controlling lessons drilled into you at boot camp, then demonstrated in service that you committed with out mercy from the cruel but lawful society of the U.S. is easy at first. Family and friends happy to see you home tolerate and rationalize the happenings you create. They laugh when you duck at loud noises. They get mad when you do something harsh or speak at people with out feelings. Society feels sorry for the Veterans that come home with no arms, legs or other (visual or not) disabilities but fails to give medial aid. Aid will cost to much or the politicians don’t care because the election is to far away for self benefit. Were these the lucky Veterans that died?
Suicide while in service or after discharge is one solution. I have thought of it many times and come close some of the times. I am told that I have no feelings but the feelings I have goes out to these families. We fought to protect and defend our Constitution for equal treatment of the law for all. Now we lose our families, jobs, friends and become homeless to keep you safe from the demons maturing in our heads. These Navy Seals as all that gave their lives for the people of the United States of America have my gratitude and I thank them all. We are fighting for our country and it’s citizens.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi
Written by Peter Macdonald 465 Packersfalls rd Lee NH 03824 603-659-6217
All have my permission to print my Name, address, phone # and e-mail NH.Red.Sox.@gmail.com
“What Are We Fighting For, Next Stop Is Vietnam”. Navy Seals Nate Hardy from Durham NH and M. Koch from Pa were killed by small arms fire in Iraq yesterday. Talk in the local restaurant this morning was how sad the families must feel. Many families across the U.S. have or will be feeling this same way as long as innocent kids fight on the no experience politicians egos (orders). Don’t get me wrong I am not against the war. War is necessary to protect the rights of the individual. If someone attacks the U.S. or it’s citizens, we should wipe out that entire country. No mercy. On the other hand if our elected officials wage war on another country to create a legacy for themselves we should abolish that President. Why should innocent American kids die, why not people from another country that was unwilling to fight for themselves. There are no innocent people in a war zone and attached us.
These Veterans that are lucky enough to come back, will be discharged into a nation that has no idea or even cares about the medical or physical condition of these hero’s. These Veterans will be so happy to be back in the “world” U.S. they will not realize the demons growing in their heads. These Veterans will go back to their families only to find nothing is the same. Separating the mind controlling lessons drilled into you at boot camp, then demonstrated in service that you committed with out mercy from the cruel but lawful society of the U.S. is easy at first. Family and friends happy to see you home tolerate and rationalize the happenings you create. They laugh when you duck at loud noises. They get mad when you do something harsh or speak at people with out feelings. Society feels sorry for the Veterans that come home with no arms, legs or other (visual or not) disabilities but fails to give medial aid. Aid will cost to much or the politicians don’t care because the election is to far away for self benefit. Were these the lucky Veterans that died?
Suicide while in service or after discharge is one solution. I have thought of it many times and come close some of the times. I am told that I have no feelings but the feelings I have goes out to these families. We fought to protect and defend our Constitution for equal treatment of the law for all. Now we lose our families, jobs, friends and become homeless to keep you safe from the demons maturing in our heads. These Navy Seals as all that gave their lives for the people of the United States of America have my gratitude and I thank them all. We are fighting for our country and it’s citizens.
Peter Macdonald Sgt USMC Semper Fi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
