Maybe the article "How George Bush became the new Saddam" at
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070920_100442_7900&source=srch&page=1
has it figured out. Maybe the stupid "bubble boy" had so many wet dreams about the man who went after his Poppy that he eventually identified with Hussein so extensively that in his own mind he became him. That is the only explanation for his plan now of arming Hussein's Baathist dead-enders, so that they can eventually attack the US military as well as the Shiite Iraqi military after they polish off al-queda in Iraq which only materialized after big bro 43's "Shock and Awe" of Iraq.
The article states "I'm fairly certain that if the tribal militias had been intelligently treated-i.e. paid US$10 each per day the way they are now-and the U.S. Army hadn't driven around Ramadi and Falluja shooting wildly in the spring of 2003, many would have been American allies from the beginning. Instead, a lot of them became insurgents, hooked up with their cousins from Saddam's former security services, and eventually allied themselves with the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. That relationship was symbiotic at first, but al-Qaeda soon became destructive parasites, jihadi body snatchers who killed anybody opposed to their control and strict Islamic codes.
When Gen. David Pet raeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, appeared before Congress with Ambassador Crocker to testify about the results of President Bush's "surge" strategy, he talked a lot about these tribal militias and the success of Anbar. It is the only progress the U.S. has made in Iraq for years. It's unclear whether the additional 30,000 troops that make up the surge have had much effect on the Anbar Awakening. But watching Gen. Petraeus, I was struck by how familiar his words sounded. The general talked like every Sunni I've ever met in Iraq-hell, he sounded a bit like Saddam. The old tyrant would have had one of his characteristic chest-heaving guffaws watching Petraeus as he intoned the old Baathist mantra about the dangers to Iraq: Iran, Iran, Iran.
Bush took up Gen. Petraeus's views a few days later in a nationally televised speech about Iraq, in which he talked about the threat Tehran posed. It seems that Petraeus and Bush have come to the same conclusion as Saddam: the main enemy is Iran, and you can't govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, even as you encourage anti-Iranian nationalism among the Shia. This is what Saddam did during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and what Washington is trying to do now.
One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and
Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don't trust each other-a potential recipe for further disaster."
W doesn't seem to care that his stated policy is doomed to failure because he has a "hidden agenda". His "ulterior motive" is to privatize the security of Iraq with soldiers of fortune such as Blackwater.
Iraqis begged for a Democracy -- Hussein begged to be exiled to achieve his personal freedom -- Hussein wanted regime change of his dictatorship into a Democracy.
The article "Syllogism" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
describes it as "Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate) of the conclusion; in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. For example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal."
Since there hadn't been a history of democracy in the Middle East region--or in Iraq specifically for the Iraqis to emulate--thus precluding any chance for a Iraqi Democracy to occur within the next twenty years or so-nothing in W's insane rantings proved to be accurate. "Thesis synthesis anti-thesis" the form of every Philosophy 101 syllogism course in the world proves the Iraqi theatre of GWOT arguments to be illogical.
Did Hussein want any part of this war? The article "What Bush said to Aznar in February 2003." at
http://www.slate.com/id/2174857/nav/tap3/
states "The Spanish newspaper El PaÃs recently published the transcript of a conversation between President George W. Bush and then-Prime Minister Jose' MarÃa Aznar on Feb. 22, 2003-a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq-and it confirms some (though not all) of the most dreadful accounts and suspicions about Bush's intentions and nature.
It may be a bit late in the day for another round in the debate over how the war in Iraq began. But the time is ripe for a discussion of what qualities the next president should possess-and the transcript reveals that, in many aspects, they should be the opposite of President Bush's qualities.
The crucial exchange, in this respect, comes toward the end of the conversation, when the two leaders are discussing the magnitude of changing Saddam Hussein's regime by force.
AZNAR: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
BUSH: I'm an optimist because I believe that I'm right. I'm a person at peace
with myself. It was our turn to face a serious threat to peace.
Here, in three sentences, is the first lesson on how to assess the current crop of presidential candidates: Don't pick anyone who utters, or seems capable of believing, those three sentences.
"I'm an optimist because I believe that I'm right." There's a delusional tautology to this sentence. (Bush is quoted as making similar remarks in Robert
Draper's book Dead Certain.) To the extent that sensible people are optimistic about something, it's not because of a belief, much less a belief in their own wisdom; it's because the facts at hand-or perhaps their experiences with similar situations-suggest that a positive outcome is likely. Bush had no experiences, on any level, with anything like war or Iraq...
"I'm a person at peace with myself." Taken by itself, this can be a reassuring sentiment. A leader should be comfortable with power, assured at making decisions. But combined with the first sentence, it's the sort of thing that might be uttered by ... well, by George W. Bush.
"It was our turn to face a serious threat to peace." Beware the politician who sees his life as an appointment with destiny. Ditto a president who thinks it's his "turn" to do anything, much less to go to war and save civilization...
Another lesson that a president-wannabe, and those of us deciding which one to vote for, could take from this transcript: Never overestimate your own power.
Prime Minister Aznar-who, it is worth noting, favored going to war-keeps urging Bush to wait a little longer before invading, in order to assemble a broader coalition. "I agree," he says after Bush tells him it's time to put a stop to
Saddam's dithering, "but it would be good to be able to count on as many people as possible. Be a little bit patient."
"My patience is over," Bush replies. "I don't even think about [waiting] beyond mid-March." The other members of the U.N. Security Council, he says, "have to know" that friendship with the United States is at stake. If Chile doesn't go along with a war resolution, the Free Trade Agreement is in trouble. If Angola falters, its leaders should forget about receiving funds from the Millennium Account. Vladimir Putin should know "that his attitude is jeopardizing" U.S.-Russian relations....
An additional lesson that one could glean from these transcripts: Never let timetables for mobilization determine decisions about war.
At the beginning of the transcript, Bush says of Saddam, "We have to get him right now. ... There are two weeks left. In two weeks, we'll be militarily ready."
This seems to be at least one reason Bush doesn't "even think about" postponing the invasion past mid-March. His attitude is: Unleash the dogs of war when they're ready; and "in two weeks," by mid-March, they'll be ready....
The evidence is strong that he had decided to go to war as far back as late May or early June of 2002, about nine months before his conversation with Aznar. But the timing of actually launching the invasion does appear to have been determined by when the invasion would be ready for launching.
This distinction isn't academic, because the transcript has Bush telling Aznar the following:
The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. It seems that he's indicated that
he's willing to go into exile if they let him take 1 billion dollars with him,
and all the information that he wants about the weapons of mass destruction.
Gadaffi has told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to go....
Rumors were floating around at the time of a deal in which war would be averted if Saddam went into exile (where, by the way, he would be much more vulnerable to assassination). But this transcript reveals, for the first time, I think, that there actually were offers on the table and that Bush was well aware of them...
The transcripts also reveal the shortcomings of a trait that has long been detected by Bush-watchers-his inattention to detail and his failure to enforce high-policy decisions. In talking about the war plans, he tells Aznar, "We're already looking at a post-Saddam Iraq, and I believe there's a good basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a civilian [sic] society that's relatively strong."
As Bush was soon to discover, there was no plan for a "post-Saddam Iraq" at all-except for one, laid down by Paul Bremer as Order No. 1 of the Coalition
Provisional Authority, to demolish that "good bureaucracy" by firing every bureaucrat who was in the Baathist Party, even those who joined only because membership was required to get a job."
Big bro 43 deluded himself into believing the phony Chalabi INC reports of Hussein possessing WMD which made him an "imminent threat" to the US. He's stupid, deranged and a light-weight as "But the fact that Bush believed his distorted intelligence only highlights a deeper failing in his administration, in his character-and a sterner demand on the voters in the coming election. It's not enough to pick someone who's honest.
The next president also has to be realistic, skeptical, curious, and experienced; he or she has to be decisive but also smart."
Who knows? Maybe W isn't twisted or stupid. Maybe he just wants the US military-industrial to rape and pillage Iraq. The article "Blackwater blamed for guard deaths" at
click here
states among other things "Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war in 2004 by sending an unprepared team of guards into an insurgent stronghold, a move that led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by U.S. forces, says a congressional investigation released Thursday.
The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped. It is also accused of impeding the inquiry by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The March 2004 incident involving Blackwater was widely viewed as a turning point in the Iraq war after images of the mutilated bodies of the four guards were seen around the world. Four days after the Blackwater guards were killed, a major military offensive, known as the Battle of Fallujah, began.
The combat lasted almost a month in Fallujah, which is 40 miles west of Baghdad. At least 36 U.S. military personnel were killed along with 200 insurgents and an estimated 600 civilians, the congressional investigation found."
Blackwater's incompetent involvement is jeopardizing themselves, innocent Iraqis and the US military. Why are they there then?
The CEOs of the Blackwaters in Iraq, as well as the ghouls such as W's Texas oil buddy Hunt--who has already cut an oil deal with the Kurds, are paying W commissions for their opportunity to rape and pillage Iraq.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
