A War of Convenience? Was the Iraq War for our safety, or a premeditated seizure of political power?

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: A War of Convenience?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, July 15, 2008

President Bush and Vice President Cheney could have reacted to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in lots of ways. What they chose to do was launch a global war on terror -- potentially a war without end.

This decision now seems like a big mistake. In the name of the war on terror, we have invaded and occupied a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, we have emboldened our enemies, we have lost and taken many lives, we have spent trillions of dollars, we have sacrificed civil liberties, and we have jettisoned our commitment to human dignity.

But was it an honest mistake? Did Bush and Vice President Cheney declare war because they believed it was the best way to guarantee the safety of the American people? Or did they do it in a premeditated -- and ultimately successful -- attempt to seize greater political power? New Yorker writer Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals," offers evidence of the latter.

In an online interview with Harpers blogger Scott Horton, Mayer sums up her findings this way: "After interviewing hundreds of sources in and around the Bush White House, I think it is clear that many of the legal steps taken by the so-called 'War Council' were less a 'New Paradigm,' as Alberto Gonzales dubbed it, than an old political wish list, consisting of grievances that Cheney and his legal adviser, David Addington, had been compiling for decades. Cheney in particular had been chafing at the post-Watergate reforms, and had longed to restore the executive branch powers Nixon had assumed, constituting what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called 'the Imperial Presidency.'

"Before September 11, 2001, these extreme political positions would not have stood a change of being instituted -- they would never have survived democratic scrutiny. But by September 12, 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were extraordinarily empowered. Political opposition evaporated as critics feared being labeled anti-patriotic or worse."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/07/15/BL2008071501518_pf.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Is there any real question?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I don't think so -- but this book apparently spells it, and other things, out pretty well. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Sure hope that some of the people who have doubts about the answer take the time to read it.

[indepat]

3. That is was a premeditated seizure of political power is as certain as the sun rises in the

east since the evidence is just as compelling. :D