Originally posted on 03/22/2011:

Quote Originally Posted by NYSportsGuy210 View Post
You can't be serious with an asassine statement like this can you? Bush totally gave the American public a big F U when he went after his "daddy's old enemy" in Iraq and used the 9/11 bombing as an excuse. He basically used the American people and the nation's tragic suffering as a whole for his own greedy and selfish causes. And everybody knows it....

Everyone knows also that he OUTRIGHT LIED about any WMD links between terrorists and Saddam Hussein....it was all just a cover up so he could go in and fight his "daddy's war".

Get a clue before you post your nonsense.
Everybody knows it eh?

Well as we all know from gambling, what everybody knows is never what you need to know is it?

You speak of a "cover-up." That's one way to look at it. I think cover-story would be a better term. And it had nothing to do with greed or fighting daddy's war.

It had to do with maintaining the US's position as an unchallengeable global power. Which, if you understand the "peace through strength" dynamic, has always been a top priority for any sitting U.S. President. Some talk about it openly (Reagan), some pretend it doesn't exist (Carter/Clinton/Obama), but it is always there.

The fact is that Bush didn't trick anybody in congress, nor did he use the American people. What he did was get compliant consent from those in his party AND THE DEMOCRATS, to set about protecting the United States from major threats in the future. And they developed a plausible cover story to get the American people to go along with it.

There were enough Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee and in other high places to expose Bush's "lies" from the get go. They didn't. And they didn't because that wasn't the plan.

The plan was to go into Iraq and take out Saddam real quick before he (or his crazy fukking sons) could use Iraq's vast resources to create a major threat the west would have much more trouble dealing with further down the line. And from there they could turn Iraq into a political ally, using the country not only as a staging point for efforts in Afghanistan, but also future operations against other foreign threats if they became necessary.

And in the beginning Bush had most everybody's support, as the Dems full well knew that if anything went wrong, they could just blame Bush for "lying" and distance themselves from the WMD argument and the decision to invade. As that was part of the deal. The ability to denounce the war if anything went wrong. Which they did after Iraq turned into a giant fiasco.

For if you'll recall, during the first few weeks nobody gave a shit. The general sense in the country was "We're invading Iraq again? Oh. Okay. What's on Sportscenter?"

But then shit turned out to be tougher than we anticipated. And the public started getting a little antsy. And before too long, after more and more American lives were lost, well it became a major shitstorm, and the Democrats had to run like they stole something. Which they did. They weren't going to lose their office over it. Who would? And that's how it shook down.

Look, no President is going to deliberately put US lives in harm's way simply for greed or revenge. Because those lives being put in harm's way, they know the deal. Maybe not every last man, but enough that America's military would collapse over night if they found out they were being used for such a hollow purpose.

The fact is that war has grown a lot more complicated than it used to be. And defending America's shores is increasingly difficult. When you're the top dog, no one cares if you fall. And many want to do the felling. This means that you have to do your best to determine one's enemies and threats before they become big enough to cut you down. Because once they've got everything in place, you're fukked. Either you're going down, or you're going to be severely wounded.

Do you remember some years back when the chic discussion in American politics was about "preemptive" military action? This was largely a non-issue when everyone thought there were WMD's. Because in that situation, of course preemptive action is acceptable. That's why the WMD's not being there is such a big deal to some people. Without the threat of nuclear war, a lot of people don't believe in preemptive military action.

But that chic argument that came out when Bush was in office about preemptive action was all encompassing. It wasn't simply about nuclear weapons. No. It was about preemptive action in general. And why? How come all these insiders and politicians who had originally supported the invasion of Iraq when there were WMD's were suddenly against any form of preemptive military action? Because that's what it was about from the outset.

It wasn't about nukes. It was about Iraq's development as a potential threat. It was about the future development of a nuclear state, not a current one. The last thing the U.S. needs is another country with nukes. That's just another country we have to spend resources to monitor, and have to worry about getting a nuke up our ass if we have to invade them. And if we just up and let everybody have nukes, eventually we won't have the man power to be able to cover our ass.

The war was never about Saddam already having WMD's. It was never about greed or revenge. It was about ensuring the safety of the United States through the continuation of the "peace through strength" doctrine. And the only problem was that we miscalculated the cost. If we had taken out Saddam in three weeks, nobody in this country would give a shit about the WMDs argument. The only reason we care is because we need some reason to explain all the death and misery that has been caused. We need something to believe in to make such sacrifices necessary. And for many people, the idea of engaging in preemptive military action when that action is only preempting a potential threat, and not an operational one, is just not enough. And that's why we got the cover story of WMD's.

The point is, the leaders of the free world not only have the job of protecting the people, but of also having to keep clear the consciences of those people they are protecting. And that's a difficult fukking job. Some choose to do it by "rallying around the flag" and building patriotic support against an enemy (Bush/FDR/LBJ/Nixon), and others choose to do it by constantly talking about peace while still engaging in military action (Obama/Clinton/Carter). Either way, that's the President's job. And it's an impossible job to perform without innocents getting caught up in the process.

We are the United States of America. We aren't perfect, but it ain't a perfect world we live in neither. Should we stand up for our imperfections or surrender to everyone else's?