Friday, October 08, 2004
An answer to a simple question?: Now it’s the UN food-for-oil explanation for the Iraq war. What next? ...
Andrew Sullivan yesterday touched upon what I was roughly thinking a few days ago when I was mumbling about a nasty theory I was developing about the Bush administration. Here’s the gist of my not-altogether-thought-out Nasty Theory: The war was never really about WMD, terrorist links, utopian transformation democracy. They were just window-dressing rationales that many in the administration may or may not have come to believe in. At its core, the war was always and still is primarily about knocking out Saddam. Period. It was a very emotional, personal decision. But the war couldn’t be pitched that way. ... It’s not a terribly original theory. But it does help explain why there weren’t enough troops to secure weapon stockpiles, borders, and other essential sites. Why need more troops? They achieved their primary aim: Knock out Saddam. All good would flow from there, or so they thought. ... It also may partially explain the woeful lack of post-war planning. Why plan for an occupation when the cure-all goal was a simple knock out? ...
The dishonesty of the administration comes in two parts: A.) The pre-war secondary rationales for the war and B.) the post-invasion head-in-sand denials that things were going from bad to worse. The latter post-invasion spins are abundantly clear. There were no WMD. There were no terrorist links. There was no urgent commitment to stabilize and secure the nation. Yet Bush-Cheney kept rolling out the old WMD/terrorist link etc. explanations even though they knew perfectly well they were bogus and misleading. Now they’re shifting gears and, appealing to dutiful worker bees, are emphasizing the ‘intent’ and corrupt UN oil-for-food program. They’re still not being honest with the nation. ...
But I must say, I’m becoming more optimistic about Iraq. The January elections provide hope. The retaking of Samarra was very encouraging. Sadr is sending vague signals he wants in. I also think the mounting evidence of Iraq-gone-awry and intense criticism of the handling of the war has motivated the administration to hop to it, if only for their own political good. ...
Advice from Dr. Hub Blog: Nasty 48-hour bug out there. Arm yourself with Cold-eeze, NyQuil and other weapons of choice. ...
Andrew Sullivan yesterday touched upon what I was roughly thinking a few days ago when I was mumbling about a nasty theory I was developing about the Bush administration. Here’s the gist of my not-altogether-thought-out Nasty Theory: The war was never really about WMD, terrorist links, utopian transformation democracy. They were just window-dressing rationales that many in the administration may or may not have come to believe in. At its core, the war was always and still is primarily about knocking out Saddam. Period. It was a very emotional, personal decision. But the war couldn’t be pitched that way. ... It’s not a terribly original theory. But it does help explain why there weren’t enough troops to secure weapon stockpiles, borders, and other essential sites. Why need more troops? They achieved their primary aim: Knock out Saddam. All good would flow from there, or so they thought. ... It also may partially explain the woeful lack of post-war planning. Why plan for an occupation when the cure-all goal was a simple knock out? ...
The dishonesty of the administration comes in two parts: A.) The pre-war secondary rationales for the war and B.) the post-invasion head-in-sand denials that things were going from bad to worse. The latter post-invasion spins are abundantly clear. There were no WMD. There were no terrorist links. There was no urgent commitment to stabilize and secure the nation. Yet Bush-Cheney kept rolling out the old WMD/terrorist link etc. explanations even though they knew perfectly well they were bogus and misleading. Now they’re shifting gears and, appealing to dutiful worker bees, are emphasizing the ‘intent’ and corrupt UN oil-for-food program. They’re still not being honest with the nation. ...
But I must say, I’m becoming more optimistic about Iraq. The January elections provide hope. The retaking of Samarra was very encouraging. Sadr is sending vague signals he wants in. I also think the mounting evidence of Iraq-gone-awry and intense criticism of the handling of the war has motivated the administration to hop to it, if only for their own political good. ...
Advice from Dr. Hub Blog: Nasty 48-hour bug out there. Arm yourself with Cold-eeze, NyQuil and other weapons of choice. ...
