So, the bush administration is incompetent

[Grateful for Hope]

I have noticed that we have been involved in war in Iraq since 2002, and, there was not a whole lot of resistance (in the US) for that war (at least what the MSM reported).

And, then I see this thread about Ron Susskind's revelations in his new book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3426827

The level of propaganda that went into the excuse for the US to attack a country that did not pose a threat to the US was significant.

But, of course, the government tells us the truth. About everything. Yup.

[number6]

1. the bush (regime)administration is criminally incompetent and

911 is an inside job ;)

[AZCat]

2. I wouldn't call them incompetent.

I think they are frequently blinded by ideology, but they have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to risk a great deal in order to reach their goals (with which I almost always strongly disagree) and have been successful enough times to make the last seven years hell for some people.

[Flatulo]

3. I think the last truly moral POTUS we had was Jimmy Carter.

I remember he campaigned on the promise that he would never lie. And to my knowledge, he never did.

What I find more interesting is that hardly anyone seems to care that we were lied into a war. It's my observation that objections to the Iraq war are based on the perception what we were not *winning* the war, not that we were in it. Now that we *appear* to be winning, it's moved to the back burner.

[AZCat]

4. This is an interesting point.

While I do know a number of people who haven't forgotten the lies of 2002 and 2003, there are at least as many people who seem to feel what you described in your post - that the Bush administration is guilty of failing to win the war, but not guilty of lying in order to initiate it.

[noise]

5. One of the sickest aspects of the Iraqi occupation

is that the goal didn't seem to be to create a stable democratic Iraq. The notion that the White House made winning* impossible is another aspect that isn't discussed. The idea that supporting the civilian command policies is the same thing as supporting soldiers is grotesque propaganda.

*Defined as winning over the Iraqi people with good faith efforts to stabilize the country for transition to some sort of democratic state.

[jberryhill]

6. One wonders what the goal was....

I guess the assumption was that Chalabi would waltz in and be proclaimed Beloved Leader.

He certainly knew a rube when he found one.

I like the way he went from sitting with Laura at the State of the Union to "Chalabi Who?" when Commander Numbnuts finally figured out he'd been screwed.

What on earth has he been up to lately, anyway?

[Flatulo]

9. Possible motives...

1. Pick some low hanging fruit on which to exract vengeance upon the Muslim world for 9/11

2. Get 250,000 sets of American boots on top of the world's second-largest oil reserves

3. Flank Iran on two sides

4. The expectation that it would be a cakewalk

5. Seduction by the INC, whom, as you mention, seem to have disappeared completely

6. Most likely a combination of all of the above

Obviously, WMDs had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

Even if Iraq had WMDS, who the fuck cares? Half the nations in the world can produce nerve gas or bio-agents.

I actually believed Powell when he presented his case to the UN. In my mind, though, it still did not justify the first use of force.

Just look at the delicious irony though... What the administration got for its efforts was:

Iraq barely able to pump oil at pre-war levels
Iran is now immeasurably stronger than before
The previously secular Iraq is now pretty much a Shia theocracy
The world fears/hates us
We're completely broke

Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, 4,000+ dead Americans and upteen dead Iraqis.

[sofa king]

10. One big one:

Money.

Part of the reason why oil was so cheap in the 1990s was because Saddam Hussein was dumping huge amounts of it onto the black market, with President Clinton apparently turning a blind eye to the practice while the Saudis cried.

When the candidate from Saudi Arabia stole the White House, one of the first things they discussed was how to take out Saddam Hussein. At least, that's what we can now guess from what we know of Cheney's secret energy policy meetings in 2001.

So while your point about parking a quarter of a million troops on top of the world's second-largest oil reserves is valid, there is an important second part to that statement: parking on the reserves and preventing those reserves from being extracted, thus driving the price of oil through the roof and delivering windfall profits to the oil companies. They've effectively advanced the onset of peak oil by a decade.

Still another subset of the money question is the massive war profiteering which has been enjoyed by American corporations thanks to the invasion of Iraq. Halliburton spun off KBR and moved its headquarters to Dubai for a good reason, and that reason is that come 2009 a guy named Stuart Bowen is going to be fired as Inspector General in Iraq and soon thereafter Halliburton's board of directors are going to be wanted men.

But by then the profits and the perpetrators will all be out of the country.

[Flatulo]

11. Oh, I just remembered another one... in 2000, Saddam began

threatening to sell oil only in Euros. It's kind of a fundamental economic principle that if you can force your trading partners to accept only your currency, you can effectively tax them by the inflation of your currency.

Now the Iranians are threatening to establish their own oil bourse dealing in Euros, and subsequent US abre-rattling.

[Grateful for Hope]

12. I so agree about Jimmy Carter

I think the fact that many people are not bothered by the fact that we were lied into a war may be a function of the propaganda the MSM feeds us. Seems a whole lot of people are concerned by what the MSM tells them to be concerned about.

This is just an IMO.

[Flatulo]

14. People have too many irons in the fire...

Worries about employment, inflation, insurance, education etc force other concerns into the background.

I do agree that the media is nuts. Way to much voyeuristic 'reality' bullshit programming to take our minds off of the real issues.

All in all, it's been a real interesting eight years.

[jberryhill]

7. I certainly don't think the government tells the truth about everything...

...but relative to the proposed orchestration of the 9/11 attacks, I can't see how CT'ers can get excited over a forged letter. That's small potatoes in comparison.

But, somehow, Suskind found out about this forged letter adventure, and missed the much bigger story, eh?

But.. sociopaths can be pretty "competent" at reaching their goals. Their "goals", however, are all screwed up.

[noise]

8. I imagine Suskind would have very interesting things to say

in private. Suskind, Shenon and Mayer all come across as very intelligent yet we are to believe they found nothing more than mere incompetence in their research/investigation of 9/11. IMO, something is very off about this.

This is an excellent book that questions the idea that US journalists can wander around the country exposing whatever the hell they want to:

Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press

[Twist_U_Up]

13. Dont forget about STOLEN ELECTIONS too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=166925&mesg_id=166925

but then again these guys wouldnt do such a thing.

or would they ?