|
I typed my fingers to the bone, not remembering until too late that GE-MSNBC will have a transcript up on the site tomorrow.
But, gristy, to your previous post that Tweety is "atoning," as I said in the O.P. he is only the Good Tweety a tiny bit, while being an infuriating tool the rest of the time. I have been relentless in slamming him here for about nine years.
**************QUOTE************
Teddy ROOSEVELT once said that there are some things that would happen no matter WHO was president of the United States and some things that would happen only if a certain person were. I don’t believe we would have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 if anyone else were president but George W. BUSH.
BUSH came to the presidency with limited intellectual curiosity and a vice president with an intense interest in taking action against Iraq. Dick Cheenee, armed by the younger BUSH with unprecedented influence on matters of national security, was able to staff the new administration with a cadre of like minded hawks. When Cheenee met the outgoing secretary of Defense William COHEN in January of 2001 his only interest was what could be done with Saddam Hussein.
The relentless push to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq was masterfully marketed by a group within the White House known as the White House - Iraq Group. Karl Rove, the architect of Bush’s coming to office, “Bush’s brain,” in the lexicon of Texas politics, was its ramrod, its driver bent on justifying an American move on a country that had not evidenced ANY role in the deadly attack on us.
Out of nowhere there emerged a new language of war. America took on the eerily totalitarian character of a “homeland.” Suddenly we embarked on a “preemptive attack.” There was a new confusion that came with this new language, a conflation of those who attacked us on 9-11, Al Qaida, and who we were headed to attack, Iraq. Instead of saying “nuclear” we now said “weapons of mass destruction” so as to imply “nuclear” without having to show evidence of it.
And now Mr Rove is back with his book. He says that BUSH and his cohorts would PROBABLY have not attacked Iraq if it weren’t for the nuclear weapons, probably. PROBABLY not gone to war if they didn’t have the nuclear argument.
Well then by God why WERE they wanting to go to war, a war that‘s cost thousands of American lives and more thousands of Iraqi lives? Why were they ready to believe or use any evidence they could muster that would justify our going to war? Since when does this country, our country, go to war for reasons that can’t be honestly spelled out and defended in the wide open without the cover of suspected weapons that didn’t exist?
That is what we need to get, and we need to get a BOOK on it.
*************UNQUOTE*************
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
