Et tu, Brutus?

[capriccio]

Prominent conservative devastates Bush's credibility
In the Washington Times, editor at large and prominent conservative Arnaud de Borchgrave assesses the "devastating blow to the credibility of the Bush White House" inflicted by Iraq's nonexistent WMD's. But WMD's were never the reason we went to war in Iraq, anyway, he reminds us. Irrefutable evidence was not the standard of the Bush Administration, because "axis of evil regime change was the lodestar." "When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of 'if' but 'when,' the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power."

"… So the leitmotif for Operation Iraqi Freedom was not WMDs, but the freedom of Iraq in the larger context of long-range security for Israel. Mr. Bush is right to change the rationale for war to isn't-the-world-a-better-place-without-Saddam? Of course it is. Was Iraq ever a threat to the U.S. homeland? Of course it wasn't. But hasn't the U.S. occupation of Iraq provided a force multiplier for al Qaeda? Of course it has. And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040209-090308-2252r.htm

[cosmicdot]

1. I don't think *'s right for changing "the rationale for war"

but, this statement is bold:

"And the world is not a more peaceful place than it was before the occupation of Iraq."

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. chimps "bold moves" have even been too radical for the

far right wing. The repubs have been blind sighted by the PNAC!

[PATRICK]

3. Betrayal of just about everyone

Unless you enjoy being a sap you have to realize everything you hold dear is in absolute jeopardy because of the ambitions and profiteering of a few whose "ideology" beyond serving the clique seems not just hypocritical but a cynical expedient hiding behind Bush Junior's empty enthusiasm for an amorphous Right Wing Christian "cause". He also enthused over executions.

In the pyramid, everyone below gets dumped on in order of precedence and George is gleeful as the current Pharaoh of the hill. None of the values, no person or sacred trust carries any importance over the needs of the Bush gang power trip. Just count yourselves lucky not to be armless in Iraq, jobless in Michigan, enslaved and blinded in America.

We are all betrayed. So what is everyone going to do about it other than commiserate and note the troubling circumstance?

[yolatengo]

4. just like...

outsourcing.

Yep, everything will be fine and dandy...in about 100 years when the whole
world is happy and wealthy and democratic.

Trouble is, WHO HAS TO ENDURE the next few DECADES of constant war,
random terror, escalating responses, potential global war, and the sacrifice
of our citizens to GET this 'security' for Israel or to have completely 'free'
global markets?

Not B*sh. Funny how he and his cronies seem to make ALL the money, and
face NONE of the hardships? Well, that's just WIN-WIN for him and maybe
YOU should've thought about that before supporting the Iraq war (and it's
every shifting rationale).

I just see a parallel in outsourcing and iraq. In both cases the general,
far future IDEAL is ok (peace in ME, stability for Israel, democracy in
ME, stability in oil markets just as supplies are running out; raising
everyone's living standards, modernizing the 3rd world, dropping
punative terriers and barriffs, etc). But in practice, both issues require
ordinary people to pony up their livelihoods and LIVES, while BFEE
just skims the profits and tells us that 'sometime in the future' we
will thank them.

Being empathic with those who's lives are directly impacted DOESN'T
MATTER. They're like Bolsheviks; the end justifies the means. We WILL
have five year plans until we are the greatest nation on earth. If 5 million
Ukrainians have to die first, that is the price to pay!

And I notice a LOT of these pundits fall into the "this is all a GREAT
idea for a GREAT future (as long as *I* don't have to be impacted in
ANY way)".

Bigby

[info being]

5. Great point

That is kind of a "given" assumption of right-wingers: some have to suffer for the good of the many (laissez-faire economics, etc.). The trouble is the "few" are starting to outnumber the "many." I realize that makes no sense...but it is kind of catchy, don't you think?