[Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to Hank and Tootle)

[FCrawford0707 at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/14/2006 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
saroj at pathfind.net writes:

To  Hank:

Exactly what do you believe WAS the reason Bush and his cronies  decided to 
go to war in Iraq?

The stated reason was that Iraq  harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and Sadaam was 
a recalcitrant tyrant and had  WMD which he planned to use against us.  That 
he was a tyrant there  is no doubt.  Is it the job of the U.S.A. to eliminate 
all tyrants  from this world? There are plenty to choose from...

Aside from the fact  that there are anti-Western radical Muslims throughout 
the world and that  there were no doubt a few in Iraq, there has never been 
evidence that Iraq  had significant supportive ties to al Qaeda.  The 
preponderance of  the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi 
Arabia and yet this  administration yielded to Prince Bandar on 9/13/2001 and 
facilitated the  prompt removal of 100 or so, many of them relatives of bin 
Laden who, had  they stayed and been extensively interviewed, could possibly 
have helped  in capturing him.  Not only were they allowed to fly within the 
U.S.  during the total shut-down of air traffic following 9/11, they had  
government-provided escorts.

Afghanistan and Pakistan were far more  likely countries than Iraq.  We got 
half-way in Afghanistan before  diverting our attention to Iraq.  On the 
question of the WMD's, the  CIA had already disputed that and provided this 
information to this  administration prior to either the presentations to the 
U.N. or the  declaration of war against Iraq.  In addition, there is very 
good  evidence that we actually began attacking Iraq militarily prior to  
approval by congress.

As far as this war having a lower casualty  rate than previous wars, I am not 
in the least interested in the  rate.  It was an ill-conceived war and one is 
too many.

On the  issue of prescience, there were volumes of intelligence that Muslim  
terrorists were planning to use aircraft as weapons against the U.S. both  
from foreign sources and within the FBI, FAA, and elsewhere.  NORAD  was 
planning preparation exercises to develop the capability to respond to  this 
event that were denied authorization by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  
Prescience means "knowledge of actions and events before they occur"...  
there was plenty of it before 9/11.  I realize you were referring to  Bush's 
argument for going to war, but this seems actually more  significant.

On Bush's pronunciation of "nuclear", this is simply a  "stand-in" for my 
perception (am I alone in this?) that Bush is neither  particularly 
intellectually gifted nor intelligent.  He has succeeded  in dumbing-down our 
government to appeal to the masses, which  unfortunately has wide-appeal in 
this country.



Saroj - Would you consider running for some office - start with  
Representative and look toward the Senate ?  Your analysis is so right on  that you should 
be in there !  I do have one difference of opinion - that  regarding W's 
personal characteristics - he ain't no Bill Clinton in his  intellect, but he's 
more lazy than unintelligent.  I don't believe he has  any intellectual 
curiosity or desire to understand any of the issues that he  deals with - "don't 
confuse me with the facts".  He's hinted to this before  - makes decisions based on 
his gut.  There is no room for dissent in this  oval office - delegate the 
hard stuff to Cheyney and Addington and Woo, and if  it violates the Geneva 
Conventions, we'll try to sweep it under the rug or put  out a ridiculous legal 
argument and say that if you differ you're giving aid to  the enemy.  
    Frone