Quote from KymarFye:
What I said was:
I don't deny, haven't denied, haven't made any statements that I believe could reasonably be construed to deny, and don't believe that any intelligent observer could deny or would want to deny, that oil was "a major factor."
I see nothing wrong with most of your related statement, for instance:
During the build-up to the war, we frequently discussed these matters: I argued then that oil played a critical, multi-sided role in the larger equation - first in sustaining and insulating the Iraqi regime, second in putting it in a position to re-constitute its military apparatus and ambitions as soon as containment slipped, third in making the world at large vulnerable to Iraqi aggression or blackmail.
Surely you can understand the difference between acknowledging the importance of resource issues in a geopolitical context and basing foreign or military policy on thievery and corruption. Those seeking and spreading anti-Bush bumper sticker slogans may remain unsatisfied with this distinction.
Others whose opposition extends to the international economic order itself may not acknowledge the distinction for other reasons: They already believe that capitalism implies injustice ("property is theft," as they used to say and as some still do), and their reflex is to oppose any action that implicitly supports international capitalism. When they say "No blood for oil," what I think they really mean is "no blood to support international capitalism."
In a way the communists, anarchists, and even their newly appearing Islamic fascist allies who can march together these days under the banner of "anti-globalization" agree with their opponents about the importance of oil to the economic system - and in this sense are more sophisticated than many of their dupes - they just disagree about the economic system itself. Many of them are unimpressed, for instance, with tales of Hussein's depradations because they believe that capitalism and its supporters (with the US at the center of it all) are truly responsible for Hussein himself and for much worse, all over the world, day after day and year after year. They are happy to support "peace," and to make common cause with pacifists, but they do so as much because they recognize that peace means defeat and surrender for their real enemies.
As you know, I used to be one of those people, and I hasten to add that I no longer consider either their evidence or the reasoning to be sound.
So are we clear? [/B]
You appear to me to be "Pro Bush" rather than "Neutral Bush" searching for the truth.
If so, that is bias.
Any purely objective party would question the motives of Bush, based on actions of presidents in the past, and the view of history of what has happened when men wield the amount of power that Bush currently yields, compounded by the amount of fear generated by 911.
I have not reached any conclusion, how could I, all the facts are not in evidence.
However, when I take off the pro/anti Bush glasses, and just look at the facts, the facts do raise questions that I believe deserve answers.
When I see you levy any criticisms against the administration, which is normal (every husband who loves his wife still has his criticisms) then I may come to belief that your perceptions are not filtered with pure bias, in the same way you used to hold extremist communist beliefs. Unfortunate, I view you as one of those types who have swung 100% to a polar opposite, and are pro Bush, rather than take each and every issue independently. You appear to me to tow the party line unequivocally.
There is a real disease in our society these days, the disease of polarization.
We have an abundance of people who have their opinions formed by them via Fox News (Clear and balanced my ass.) In the wake of 911, and the fears generated, people have surrendered their intellect, and have put a blind faith in the current administration. Those who suggest the administration might be wrong, or corrupt are labeled unpatriotic, rather than simply Americans expressing a different perspective.
The pure fact is that we don't know what Bush & Company's real agenda is, do we?
The facts are nebulous, and much is hidden from view, or sealed under the guise of "National Security" which creates an impossible situation, except for the leadership to say: "Just trust us."
I have a serious problem with the Administration changing policy in mid stream. Going from WMD and National Security, to removal of a threat, to liberation of the Iraqi citizens could possible indicate that all the proclamations of Bush about WMD were false.
It seems quite illogical to me to think a man proclaimed to be as evil as Hitler, if he were in possession of WMD, would not have used them on the invaders of his country. It seems highly illogical that even if Hussein was killed, that there were not standing orders to unleash those weapons upon his death.
Why is it important what the motive of Bush and Company was? Is all that matters in the end, is the end result?
Let me ask you a question, is an illegal search and seizure justified when it produces something in the search which is positive?
The court says no. The courts say you have to abide by the rules, abide by the law. The law prescribes a protocol of action, that if deviated from nullifies the results of the actions.
Bush said in the beginning that this was about WMD, not the liberation of Iraqi people. He said emphatically that they exist....yet to this point they do not exist.
If in fact he did falsify the real reasons for his war, and now justifies the war because the end result leaves Iraq in a better position now than it was before the war (debatable), does that make his actions right? Does it make his actions legal?
Here is the bottom line.
We do need to know the truth as a society, we do need to trust our leadership. Only 30 years ago, we had Nixon. Only 30 years ago! Yet people who are pro Bush are unwilling to hold him to the necessary scrutiny, or even accept the possibility that he may well have abused his power, in a "means to the end" war.
So many pointed to Hussein and made parallels to Hitler as justification of action before and after the war, but if you suggest any parallels between Bush and Nixon (or Reagan with Iran/Contra) the same people decry you as heretical.
Is it so hard to believe that a Republican administration is acting in a clandestine manner?
One basic difference between a democracy, and a totalitarian state, is that in a democracy like ours the principles do not support an "end result is a justification of the means" approach to policy and making and execution of said policy.
In a totalitarian regime, the end always justifies the means in the eyes of leadership.
Had the stated goal been from the very beginning to liberate the people of Iraq, if that was the agenda from the beginning, presented to Congress and the American people, to the United Nations and the rest of the world....and if the support was there for that agenda that is one thing.
That simply was not the case.
Failure to hold those in power to fulfilling their promises because a side effect of the policy is deemed of value, leads those in power to dismiss the stated goals and choose rather to look for ways to rationalize the means.
When those in power are allowed that kind of power, unchecked by the media, Congress, and the American people....we have a totalitarian state in the making.
Do I know Bush is guilty of some impropriety? No, do you know that he is not?
We have to keep our minds open to all possibilities, and scrutinize the politicians with the keen sword of our intellects, and not fall prey to the warm fuzzies that they offer in black and white solutions to the gray areas of life.
The people in Germany in the early 30's turned off their intellects in favor or a vision of a Utopian society. We must not forget the reward of their lack of vision and scrutiny, and not always checking the power of leadership against all possible measures.
