"Practice to Deceive" - Is it really about Saddam and WMD?

Pretty much what I've been saying for a year now.

Haven't read the whole article yet, so there may be something there I don't want to endorse, but I have been arguing all along that this is the Kissinger plan from the 70's, it's the Wolfowitz plan after Gulf War I that scared Bush 41 staffers so much they leaked it to the press and Cheney rewrote that led to the policy of "containment", this is the PNAC plan.

It has been from day one.

All other stated goals are "fringe benefits".

I've been reading this guy a lot lately at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com .

I'm not sure I disagree with the view that the Islamists are the new Evil Empire. They certainly hate us, at least. And they'd like to take over the Middle East. And they're not exactly into liberal democracy.

lovely!

Yep. That also what I've been saying.

this is SO in line with my fears I am tempted to believe it.
However, I do point out that much of the arguments would be difficult to prove directly (unfortunately) in order to stop it.

this neoconservative wetdream is going to blow up in their faces.

unfortunately, as per the article, if it blows up that just feeds into the paranoid structure of the plan as justification for the plan. Its sort of like if Johnny Carson bombed on a joke, he was funnier than if it had worked.
this plan only accelerates if it fails.

God help us all.

I heard a quote, someone called the war "The search for weapons of mass distraction". It made me chuckle.

I found it interesting as well (i've printed it out to re-read later). But anyone who has been paying attention to this administration, as I have, aren't surprised by the this quickie slam-bam-thank-you-Saddam/WMD war propaganda "sham" in the least. It is the broad spectrum of the american public at large that has been hoodwinked into not realizing how LONG and DANGEROUS this hydra-headed -- and potentially, Pandora's box -- endeavor of remaking the Middle East will last, never mind end. (Simey smartly & honestly admitted to "20 years" when pressed, but I think most average Joe's are under the impression we'll be out of Iraq by X-mas with bouquets of flowers as a reward. )

I tend to see it differently: As long as we and the global economy are dependent on Mid East oil we'll be stinking up the joint, and that's the plain truth.

Rather than try and bring Peace, Freedom & Democracy by force (a very dubious proposition) to the Middle East, I'd have preferred that we made it a national priority to eliminate our economic/oil dependance on this region starting way back in 1974. Had we poured as much money into this effort to solve our oil addiction, as we have done into sending human fireworks into space, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

But we didn't; and we still blindly seem or wish to believe even now that this has nothing to do with the terrorist acts that roosted here at home on 9/11, and that will continue to haunt us so long as we are parked with our military might in the Middle East's Islamist fanatical breeding backyard.

So, if it's a "20 year" gamble we're in for to teach the heathens some lessons in PF&D� as the ancient Greeks first tried to do, we are just as likely as they did to end up exhausted and defeated in the end. Empires teetering on such a fatally flawed upside down pyramid of oil/economic power as ours is crumble and fall eventually.

All it takes is an unforeseen Golum, and in this day and age there are plenty lurking out there.

It's a conspiracy to enslave the world, don't forget that part. And kill Mother Earth.



Holy sh*t! Call the pope, these guys are off the reservation! I thought I was supposed to be the paranoid one around here.



Not surprisingly, the Leftist commentator looks down upon the "peepul" of the US because they obviously are too dumb to govern themselves, etc. "If they only knew..." Whatever.

I think the context is a little different from the so-called "Kissinger plan." Things around the world are having more and more influence on the US domestic situation, and the political solutions of the 1970s aren't holding up anymore. Plus, we have a very real threat of terrorism spillovers here at home. I refuse to believe that there is some giant conspiracy behind American foreign policy.

Rather than try and bring Peace, Freedom & Democracy by force (a very dubious proposition) to the Middle East, I'd have preferred that we made it a national priority to eliminate our economic/oil dependance on this region starting way back in 1974.

First off Bush is trying to eliminate our economic dependence or weakness relative to the middle east. He's invested heavily in hydrogen fuel cell technology and tried to open up more oil resources outside of the middle east.

I think most people think that fuel cells will be a significant factor in our transportation infrastructure within 10 years. According to one report on NPR they expect about 1/4 of all cars to be fuel cells by then.

As for trying to bring peace and freedom to the middle east, I'm not sure *why* that is a bad thing. It seems like we treat the middle east like second class citizens. We deserve civil rights but they, of course don't. Further it is as if the entire 9/11 thing never happened. Hello, there is a threat. Sorry, but Al Queda is not the figment of the neo-Conservative mind. Unless you start really going for the conspiracy theories and say that the CIA and Mossad was behind it all.

now, let's just think about this for a moment....why would an oil man hope for an end to dependence on oil? The answer is he wouldn't. He would, of course, want to bring about a situation where all his friends controlled the oil. But eliminate our dependence on it? are you nuts?

If you believe Bush's hydrogen fuel cell token is anything other than delay tactics, you'll end up being surprised.

It is precisely your inability to accept it as a possibilty which allows it to happen.

All Saddam had to do was put all his banned weapons in a big parking lot and let the UN inspectors come in, record the stuff, and destroy it - much like South Africa did. But he didn't.

Instead, Saddam continued to deceive and play the same games with the UN that he had for the past 12 years.

It's amazing how liberal extremists and conspiracy theorists fail to recognize that Saddam is the one at fault here.

Because he is President of the United States. He realizes that oil is a natural resource that will ultimately run dry, and that our dependence on oil is so high that it interferes with US national security interests.

Regarding the worry about an eventual conflict between political Islam and our culture the following from Atlantic Monthly was very interesting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/...t2002-03-29.htm

I had lots of discussions about that last year. You'll note a lot of similarities to the article under discussion here.

now, let's just think about this for a moment....why would an oil man hope for an end to dependence on oil? The answer is he wouldn't. He would, of course, want to bring about a situation where all his friends controlled the oil.

Ah, no one can think nationally or globally, can they? All people who work in industry must be just out to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

If there is a worry along the lines you speak of, it is probably because the oil industry knows a switch over to hydrogen is inevitable. Thus they want to position themselves along those lines. According to the NPR show I mentioned, a lot of the funding for hydrogen fuel cell research actually comes from the oil industry. Further when hydrogen vehicles come on the market the infrastructure for distribution will come from the oil/gas companies.

However, despite some corrupt companies like Enron, I honestly do not believe that everyone in business are evil. That's a false boogy man put out by the left, just like the right sees a socialist or communist behind every corner.


Getting back to the NPR show, here's one link. It isn't the one I was thinking of (which was a series of interviews on Talk of the Nation). But it has a lot of the same info.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/oi...elcellcars.html

You will never see a thoughtful or productive debate on US Foreign Policy so long as this kind of rhetoric is used.

Hint: conservatives are people too, and they don't like particularly appreciate people calling them deceptive, power hungry warmongers.

Rumsfeld had another interesting quote(link)



It doesn't sound like he at least is particularly interested in reshaping the political order in the Middle East.

Let me rephrase. I refuse to believe, given all the evidence presented and all the analysis that I've spent a lifetime compiling, that there is a conspiracy or unspoken agenda behind US foreign policy. Do lots of very smart and very successful people, who share responsibility for the outcomes, believe that this is the right thing to do at this time? Yes. I refuse to recognize as an evil conspiracy a convergence of intellectual thought about solutions to world problems and national security.


The reasoning of the Left seems to be that since all these prominent individuals seem to feel that certain actions need to be taken, it must be a conspiracy which is attempting to enslave the common people of the world. By the same logic, we should refer to the intellectual left as a great conspiracy to eliminate private property and install world socialism.

On second thought, I'll take the first if you Lefties will grant me the second.

It is really sad how no one can disagree with you without you referring to them as a socialist or a communist.

why is that?


just curious. I'm neither one, yet this is second time you've made that oblique accusation in as many days.

I edited to add: this is directed to finboy.

Hint: maybe if they stopped being deceptive, power hungry warmongers....

In six months time I'm going to post the following quote again and see how it reflects the current situation then: "If things go badly, what allies we might have left are liable to say to us: You broke it, you fix it."

Donald Rumsfeld's aggressive bullying of European nations and American Ambassadors worldwide threatening their host nations will come back to haunt America when it needs those countries to foot the bills of America's wars.

I wrote a post in the middle of last year about the increasing distance between Europe and the USA. The beginning of a European Defense Force, moving along at a snails pace up until now, was given a kick start by France and Germany who are starting to get tired of having to foot both the bills and the insults of the current administration. It won't happen quickly or efficiently, because Euope is as greedy and chaotic as a group of nations speaking 20 different languages can be, but it will happen. The USA rushing unilaterally into wars without consulting their former allies will start another arms race.

I imagine that in the beginning no one will take it seriously, but I believe that in the next ten years Europe, China and India will be competeing for the place of the second superpower on earth.

It is a sad fact for humanity that things have to happen this way. I look at the amount that Bush wants for his war in Iraq. $74 Billion. That amount is enough to feed, clothe and provide medical care for 2 or 3 poorer african countries for a whole year.

And it would make the USA some friends in the world for a change.

I agree.

Actually France is pushing very hard to be in charge of Iraqi reconstruction for the very reasons they've been involved in Iraq for the past two decades.

I think Rumsfeld, for all his poor rhetoric, is simply saying we don't want to run things. Apparently following the planned position of the administration in following Blair and allowing UN involvement - probably necessary now that the Iraqis weren't quite as welcoming as the administration initial felt. They recognize now that the US wouldn't be trusted the way the UN would.

Nonetheless I think there are legitimate reasons to worry about France going for a powerplay here.

It is really sad how no one can disagree with you without you referring to them as a socialist or a communist. why is that?

He didn't call you that, from what I can see. Rather he said your claims of conspiracy between those of a conservative ideology is akin to calling the left involved in a communist conspiracy.

If it is sad that you think the left shouldn't be called communist then surely the right deserve the same fair treatment. Otherwise it is simple hypocrisy. It is always easy to assume the worst of those who don't agree with your position. It is very rarely true.

Both the French and the German government have decided to up their defense spending during the last couple of days. Not within the framework of NATO but to bolster the European Defence Force.

Probably a good idea