What is motivating Bush ?

[VoodooDali]

Speaking of Animal Farm...check out the quote in my sig I've had up since around 9/11.

What I've kept wondering about is why Bush hasn't been following the examples of his predecessors and engaged in a covert war which requires no congressional approval (e.g., our wars against Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.). Then, the other day it hit me. We do not have enough volunteer troops to sustain an invasion of Iraq. I've seen the terrain near Iraq - very craggy, rocky, mountains and hills. This isn't Kuwait, folks. And it's their own country. There will be very heavy casualties, no doubt about it. A congressionally approved war means that they can re-institute the draft. Would you like to be called to fight? Would you like to send your only son? Is this a winnable war? Highly debatable. I mean, Viet Nam looked easy going in, didn't it?

It all makes me sad...Unlike many SYMians, I'm old enough to have watched my 18-year-old brother get drafted through the lottery to Viet Nam. Old enough to remember gas lines in the 70's (you won't catch me buying an SUV!--owners of those should be ashamed of themselves--probably my next car will be a hybrid). So many other things. I can't imagine that a war in the middle east would accomplish anything good. Sure, Saddam sucks, but America's greatest weapon is its own consumerism - throw a lot of McDonalds and Cokes and MTV at 'em and he'll cave in by popular demand. Everybody on the planet seems to want our crap.

[Scayde]

*Beer Toast* @ Voo.........

Here Here...The power of American Consumerism and the all mighty Buck.. our greatest gift, and our greatest weapon..

[BaronTx]

My reason for supporting a war against Iraq is very basic.

Iraq with weapons of mass destruction = Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction. I believe Bush. I would also have believed Clinton, whom I despise.

But......

Reading through this thread I have seen several statements I wish to answer to. I try to be intelligent in my answers, but I am very passionate about what is occuring on the world stage right now so I can also be very blunt at times. So here goes

rant mode on

It is obvious he is using the "war effort" to deflect legitimate issues here in the states, and is deperately trying to help the republicans regain control of the Senate. (BTW, I just loved the comment he made concerning the Senate democrats, that they are not interested in the security of the US...I am sure Sen Inouye appreciated the statement)

If you can, go back and look at a transcript of that speech. Bush NEVER said "senate democrats", He merely said "the senate". As a matter of fact Bush lauded both republicans and democrats for their efforts in putting forth a bi-partisan resolution, demonstrated a week or so later in the White House Rose Garden. The NY Times and The Washington Post deliberately misquoted him and then later made a sorry attempt of a retraction.


Edit -Delete- My apologies to gwally. I guess i was being cross-eyed

Iraq is sitting on top of lots of oil, but Saddam has been negotiating with Russia and China to sell them his oil as soon as the sanctions are lifted. But the alternative groups in Iraq who want to topple Saddam, all swear they will sell the oil to the US if they ever get into power. That’s why Bush (and his big-oil friends) want a ‘regime change’.

Russia doesn't need Iraq's oil. They are sitting on several huge reserves and have enlisted several international oil companies to help them get to it. As far as China goes, they would love to stick it to the American Gov't (Off topic, has anybody heard that the PROChina has leased both sides of the panama canal?)

I think it's more a political motivation. After 9/11, the nation came together and united with a spirit of patriotism and Bush's popularity took a rise. It just seems to me like thatgave him the impression that the U.S. would unite that way behind an initiative against Iraq, and that would raise his support rating in conjunction

It would be criminal for a president to throw away American lives just for his own political advancement. And I don't think anyone of them ever has, not even Clinton, who I consider to be one of the most dishonest presidents we've ever had.

In his speach yesterday, he ask what would happen when Iraq got nuclear weapons and blackmailed the world? Well, North Korea is already in a position to do that. Yet, no word on North Korea

From my understanding there has been ongoing dialogue with N. Korea. And some strides have been made in regard to nuclear weapons.

Actually I've been b*tching my whole life that someone should take care of Saddam Hussein. And I know a whooooole bunch of other people who did think and say the same, but the way Bush is trying to do it is just plain stupid. He just makes a list of unreasonable demands and his main argument is "or else".

The demands Bush has made are no different than the demands made by the UN 11 years ago.

Don't you ever find all that complication pointless, whatever happened to the vote going to whom you voted for. I mean democracy should be simple, you vote for who you want and that is that, the vote of the people is the point of democracy

Regarding the electoral college. It's written into the Constitution, one of the greatest living documents ever written. If a movement occurs that wants change, an ammendment can be passed, but until that time it is our law and that law legitimizes Bush as our president.

My point (and maybe not his) being that the nations who are sold these nuclear weapons don't necessarily understand exactly what they will do, so how do they get their hands on these things in the first place? They certainly don't develop fiscile materials on their own and they got the tech from somewhere

They get them from governments like China, N. Korea, Russia and for two reasons 1. Money. The US isn't the only gov't that suffers this flaw. and 2. Antagonism towards the US

rant mode off

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by BaronTx
If you want to accuse Bush of spin doctoring, why not include what the opposition, Daschle, Byrd, Hussein or the UN, have said here lately.

Which is basically exactly what I did say:

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
I’m just tired of hearing nothing but rhetoric from the pro-war establishment. And the media and anti-war establishment aren’t any better.

..... but it bears repeating. I agree with Baron that there is plenty of spin to go around - blame is laid at the feet of all parties. Why is it so hard for the casual observer to get straight facts?

[Bloodstalker]

It would be criminal for a president to throw away American lives just for his own political advancement. And I don't think anyone of them ever has, not even Clinton, who I consider to be one of the most dishonest presidents we've ever had.

It would be criminal, I agree....but that doesn't equate to impossible. There is always a chance in any government that something like that could happen. To just say it won't because it never has would be a risk in itself. I simply question this because I would like to hear something that indicates without a doubt in my mind that Iraq does pose such a threat as to warrant sending U.S. troops into a situation that has the possibility of upseting the entire power structure of so large a region. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of that, but I will look hard at the matter.

As far as political motivations go, I still believe that they are a factor. I am inherently distrustful of politicians, and I prefer to stay that way. They have the same merits and failings as anyone else, and taking that into consideration, I feel it would be unwise not to be distrustful of them. I have seen politics on the local scene that sacrifice the wellbeing of the citizens in order to further their carreers or line their own pockets. And there have been cases where politicians have put lives at risk due to their own desires and needs. If this can happen on a local scale, then it is certainly not impossible to believe that it can happen on the national level.

[fable]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
It would be criminal, I agree....but that doesn't equate to impossible. There is always a chance in any government that something like that could happen. To just say it won't because it never has would be a risk in itself.

Also, factually inaccurate. There is a Watergate tape that includes both President Nixon and Sec of State Kissinger, discussing how they would stop negotiations with the North Vietnamese in the summer of 1973, so that Nixon could score political points towards his election with the "secret peace weapon for stopping the War." And sure enough, negotiations were broken off at that time, while several hundred more American soldiers and several thousand more Vietnamese lost their lives, as a result.

(This was also the genesis for the efforts made in recent years to have Kissinger up for war crimes in Europe; while in South America, there have been attempts made to bring him to trial for plotting the coup--proven, and with CIA involvement; White House papers released in 1998--that led to the overthrow of the elected Chilean regime in 1973, and the rise of the hellish dictatorship of Pinoche.)

I don't think Nixon deliberately set out to act like a cold-blooded murderer. Being in the limelight, in the top job, secured from interaction with the American public, it's easy for certain types of people to assume that all that matters is the next election and one's political party, and forget the lives involved.

But yes, it has happened.

[Maharlika]

If it's worth a thought to ponder on...

...I just heard this morning over the radio, that despite a(n official?) letter from the CIA that staes that IRAQ has no intention (CBWs) nor capability to launch WsMD (CBWs however would be used when the IRAQis are provoked), Bush has downplayed the letter and would still continue on his plans...

[dragon wench]

Hello All, this is DW's partner - aka her chained up love slave.

Interesting debate so far. Having worked in politics, I find it particularly interesting to try to understand Shrub the Younger's politics and motivations. Let's be clear. Saddam is a villain desparately in search of membership in a rarified club of bloodthirsty tyrants occupied by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. He is joined by a US government whose hands drip with the blood of too many murderous covert actions around the world, all in the name of freedom, democracy and the "American Way". From what I can tell from reading US newspapers and talking to business colleagues in the States Bush has been tracking to a one term wonder, heading to join his father in the ranks of presidents defeated by an inability to deal with domestic issues, manage the economy and attempt to deal with public concerns through dubious foreign policy adventures. The parallels are remarkable. Dubya has had difficulty delivering his domestic agenda. The Democrats have made substantial gains since Sen Jeffords crossed the floor to the party. GWB is a man trying to avoid a curse on the family name while dealing with a US public that expected far more from his presidency than he has delivered. At the same time, I cannot understand why a president would risk so much political capital on an issue that has failed to capture a clear majority of the American people. In the past month he has had to cross lines he vowed never to cross - quoting democrats, supporting the Clinton administration's foreign policy and seeking UN support for his administrations's policy. Bush has not clearly proved the threats posed by Baghdad. Israel has demonstrated it can handle it own defense needs. the world oil supply is reasonably diversified with substantial supply in Canda, Russia and South America. I can only conclude that Shrub the Younger is a man tragically trapped by international political forces that are beyond his comprehension, domestic politics that are beyond his control and a suspicisious view of the world shaped by the outcomes of his father's presidency.



please note the views contained in this post are solely those of the slave I have told him if he receives any replies he is required to establish his own account

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Speaking of Animal Farm...check out the quote in my sig I've had up since around 9/11.

What I've kept wondering about is why Bush hasn't been following the examples of his predecessors and engaged in a covert war which requires no congressional approval (e.g., our wars against Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc.). Then, the other day it hit me. We do not have enough volunteer troops to sustain an invasion of Iraq. I've seen the terrain near Iraq - very craggy, rocky, mountains and hills. This isn't Kuwait, folks. And it's their own country. There will be very heavy casualties, no doubt about it. A congressionally approved war means that they can re-institute the draft. Would you like to be called to fight? Would you like to send your only son? Is this a winnable war? Highly debatable. I mean, Viet Nam looked easy going in, didn't it?

Unfortunately, the over-riding impression I'm seeing from the Press and the Internet right now is that many Americans feel that this will be a war quickly won with a few airstrikes and no need to send in ground forces. This is utter foolishness - whatever Hussein may be, he is no fool, and will not make it that easy. Ground forces will be needed, and it will get messy in short order. And those who think that the existing forces are sufficient to handle this are in for a shock. There have already been several stop-losses enacted (service members prevented from retiring or leaving at the end of enlistment) to cover existing man-power shortages.

Rebuttal of Bush's October 7 Speech on Iraq

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by BaronTx
Regarding the electoral college. It's written into the Constitution, one of the greatest living documents ever written. If a movement occurs that wants change, an ammendment can be passed, but until that time it is our law and that law legitimizes Bush as our president.

I don't fancy diverting this topic to an argument fore/against the users of the constitution. Safe to say I think it is a highly influential and excellent set of ground rules that is occasionally abused.

They get them from governments like China, N. Korea, Russia and for two reasons 1. Money. The US isn't the only gov't that suffers this flaw. and 2. Antagonism towards the US

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to stop the trade of these arms rather than just blow up who ever has them...

[Gwalchmai]

Re: If it's worth a thought to ponder on...

Originally posted by Maharlika (color changed to protect my eyes)
...I just heard this morning over the radio, that despite a(n official?) letter from the CIA that staes that IRAQ has no intention (CBWs) nor capability to launch WsMD (CBWs however would be used when the IRAQis are provoked), Bush has downplayed the letter and would still continue on his plans...

I heard the same on NPR last night:

Reported on NPR yesterday:
This letter from the CIA says that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons as long as the United States doesn't attack him. Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle says that prediction supports the doubts that some lawmakers have about the war.

Senator TOM DASCHLE (Majority Leader): “Well, I think that many of us have said from the beginning that we have not seen any intelligence information that would give us any conclusive evidence to suggest that the threat was imminent. I think this public report now bears that conclusion out.”

When I heard this, I thought about the idea that there might be information on Iraq that is not publicly available but that is spurring the President on to war. Yet, the Congress doesn’t know about this information, and even the CIA says Iraq poses no threat unless threatened first. This seems to speak against the idea that the President knows something we don’t.

[BaronTx]

Here are some other items mentioned in the news report

Quoted from the Washington Post

Among the intelligence assessments linking Iraq with al Qaeda is “credible reporting” that the group’s “leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities,” according to a letter to senators from CIA Director George J. Tenet. Tenet added: “Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship” with al Qaeda, “suggest Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.”

In his speech to the nation Monday night, Bush said: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.”

In his letter, Tenet responded to senators’ questions about Iraq’s connections to al Qaeda. “We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade,” Tenet wrote. “Credible information” also indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda “have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.”

There are two sides to every story, sometimes even in the same article.

[Nightmare]

Originally posted by Sojourner
Rebuttal of Bush's October 7 Speech on Iraq

Nice link, Sojourner. I read all it, good stuff, that analysis.

[JackOfClubs]

In response to dragon wench's original question:

I think there are two primary motives for Bush's actions:

1) Iraq may not be an actual threat to the US but he is financially supporting those who are. There is plenty of documentation that Hussein is financially supporting Palestinian suicide bombers (or at least their families) some of it from Palestinian newspapers. Cutting off the funding is one of the primary goals of Bush's strategy to combat terrorism.

2) The credible threat of war with the US is already causing moderate elements within Iraq to try to topple Hussein, or at least to seek avenues of escape. I think Bush is counting on massive defections should war actually be engaged. Further, a defeated Iraq (at whatever cost) will have a cautionary effect on other militant Islamists (especially in Iran which is on the verge of another revolution -- this time in the right direction -- as we speak). As Bin Laden said, these people respect the stronger horse...

Personally, I would like to see more attention paid to Sudan where there is active military oppression, but I find it hard to argue with the idea that cutting off the money supply will make all subsequent battles that much easier.

[Ambiorix]

No war yet. But weapon inspectors back in place. The only reason they are back is Bush's very creadible threat of war.

Where's the catch ?

[fable]

The "catch" is that Shrub will invade Iraq, while North Korea 1) has biological weapons, 2) has chemical weapons, 3) has been proven to possess a nuclear weapons program, 4) is avidly seeking more nuclear technology, 5) never signed a peace treaty, unlike Iraq, thus remaining technically at war, 6) never treated its people well, 7) has maintained a thorough police state, and 8) has never permitted the inspection of its armory.

[JackOfClubs]

@fable: But the same argument could be made if we started with N Korea that we are ignoring the threat in Iraq! You have to start somewhere and N Korea could easily be the tougher enemy, especially if China gets involved. I don't think Bush has written them off at all, but there is no denying that Hussein has made himself the more attractive target by pissing off most of his neighbors.

Also, the "shrub" thing is beneath you. You generally come off as fairly reasonable. Ad hominem arguments just sound silly.

[fable]

Originally posted by JackOfClubs
@fable: But the same argument could be made if we started with N Korea that we are ignoring the threat in Iraq! You have to start somewhere...

IMO, we don't have to start anywhere: this is simply a matter of an American administration seeking a quick-win war for reasons they will not explain in any sane fashion. (I refuse to countenance Bush's "He threatened to kill my daddy" as anything other than a smokescreen, and one so condescending in its assumption of an audience of idiots as to warrant contempt.) I was merely pointing out that if we're looking for #1 Big Evil to attack because of perceived threat, North Korea is way ahead of Iraq on all fronts. Ironic, from my perspective, given the adminstration's attempts on all fronts to prove that Iraq is much worse for you and I than anything, including second-hand smoke.

Also, the "shrub" thing is beneath you. You generally come off as fairly reasonable. Ad hominem arguments just sound silly.

That's not ad hominem. It's simply a measure of my disrespect for a man who has (for example--I don't want to get into a great deal of detail, here) messed up both the American economy and all our international relations in an extraordinarily rapid and thorough fashion. He is nowhere near the president that his father was, nor the leader, IMO. Hence, he is not a Bush; he is merely a small Shrub.

When I'm feeling less concerned about everybody than myself, I can refer to "the Bush administration." But when I see the increasing number of people forced out of jobs because of layoffs, hear respected reports about the enormous national budget deficit being racked up, and hear attacks on the people of another nation being planned by the only remaining superpower for no discernable reason, then I can't just be selfish, the sense of the world rushes back in, and it's back to Shrub.

[Nightmare]

To recap the "reasons" that Dubya will attack:

1) Oil. This is a good reason, although it *is* going a bit too far.

2) Economy. The US economy is always high during wartime or a crisis. This is no exception. I believe this is one reason.

3) Divert attention from internal stuff. The Bush administration's strong point isn't exactly the economy or internal affairs.

4) Divert questions about bin Laden. People start asking why he hasn't been found, so Dubya finds another scapegoat.

5) "Finishing daddy's war".

6) He actually believes the "freedom, democracy, and justice" argument he seems to use (not a direct quote, mind you). This, IMO, would be the scariest reason.