Vindicated By Their Own Mess?
Andrew Sullivan writes:
In addition, it is ascribing competence and intellectual rigor to the Bush administration---the assumption that it thought the war through carefully beforehand, weighing the risks and possible consequences, instead of using its patented faith-based, "kids rolling around on the lawn" approach. Based on what we know now about the prewar planning, and in light of Katrina, Miers, Kerik, Plamegate and everything else, exactly how is that assumption justified?
One thing that today's high gas prices strongly suggest is that, whatever else it was, the Iraq war was surely not about oil. If you care about cheap oil above everything else, you'd have found some deal with Saddam, kept the oil fields pumping, and maintained the same realist policy toward Arab and Muslim autocracies we had for decades.This is like a lawyer arguing that because his client used the wrong combination on a safe, surely he didn't mean to steal anything. It is backasswards---interpreting intent based on an undesired result.
In addition, it is ascribing competence and intellectual rigor to the Bush administration---the assumption that it thought the war through carefully beforehand, weighing the risks and possible consequences, instead of using its patented faith-based, "kids rolling around on the lawn" approach. Based on what we know now about the prewar planning, and in light of Katrina, Miers, Kerik, Plamegate and everything else, exactly how is that assumption justified?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Thursday, May 04, 2006
25 Comments:
It also ignores the fact that if it was 'about oil' it wasn't 'about oil' for American consumers, it was 'about oil' for the oil companies, who do seem to be doing okay.
Interesting logic. I lost $2,000 in Las Vegas once. Therefore proving that my original intention was NOT too win some easy money.
Sully is a fool or believes his readers to be. Iraq is and has been always about oil, but not cheap oil for american citizens. It is about US control of the spigot of oil. Oil going to China, Japan, etc.
Well I like Sullivan usually but he does tend towards wingnut stupidity sometimes, I mean logic like this is just idiotic. I am not too bright but even I rememebr Feith or one of those Morons declaring that the reconstruction would be payed for by oil. Another one said on Meet the Press or some other show something to the effect that this will be a completely different war, Iraq is floating on an ocean of oil. Its really ridiculous to suggest that oil had nothing to do with Iraq. It gets old wasting time refuting the Bullshit. Nero fiddled while Rome burned, America may simply just wither under the weight of its own Bullshit storm.
Way to knock him down a few rungs! Bravo, TCR!
Sullivan's gotta allow comments. (cough cough, coward)
Also, TCR, from Monday's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Well, we did check in to that. And Lawrence Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to the president, did in fact say—and let’s look at the quote now. At the time he said that—just the opposite. He said the key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in wolf oil, which would tend to oil prices.” That is Lawrence Lindsey.
And then of course later on, as we went to war, Paul Wolfowitz said, not only would it bring cheaper oil, but that oil of Iran would largely pay for the reconstruction of Iran. He was quite clear on this—of Iraq. And now the president’s top guy practically, Dan Bartlett, is denying all that. What is true?
WALLACE: Well, I don’t know the context of Larry Lindsey’s comment. Certainly the reasons for going to war in Iraq are reasons that you have examined in great detail here and I am happy to go into them. I mean, having a democracy...
MATTHEWS: No, no. I’m sorry. I will interrupt you for the first time. I have not done it so far.
WALLACE: That’s OK.
MATTHEWS: The context is September 2002, as the argument was made to Congress why we should go to war. And Lawrence Lindsey, the chief economic adviser to the president, said it’s hard to say whether the economic effects would be positive or negative of war. There are enormous uncertainties about what might happen. It depends on the prosecution of the war. But under every plausible scenario the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.
Here is the chief economic adviser of the president advising on the benefits which will come from—no one will say we went to war because of oil by itself. He says the key issue was oil, to repeat him, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil and that means cheaper oil for us.
Isn’t that in fact the word of the president, his chief economic adviser, that Wolfowitz coming out in making the case for war. We know that Paul was quite a hawk, making the case for war by saying don’t worry about all of the costs after this war because their own oil over there in Iraq is going to pay for it. These don’t add up today, do they? Are they still true or are they inoperative?
WALLACE: We all certainly enjoy the benefits of 20/20 hindsight.
MATTHEWS But this was pre-sight. This was predictions made to get us to go to war. And I am just asking you, were they wrong?
WALLACE: Well, Chris, even what you read was caveated in a great deal of uncertainty.
MATTHEWS: Where? Where?
WALLACE: He says there are a great number of uncertainties. And I think that...
MATTHEWS: But under every plausible scenario the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits. Under every plausible scenario, the president’s chief economic adviser is saying we are going to benefit from cheaper oil if we go to war.
WALLACE: Well, I think he was speaking...
MATTHEWS: Is that inoperative?
WALLACE: He was speaking about the realities of the global energy market and certainly the challenges we see and the pain we feel at a pump is the result of a global energy market that is stretched to its limits. The demands that countries like India and China put on the global energy market are realities that we are all experiencing. When we go to the pump it is not just because supplies are tight. It is because of the impact of the global market.
How is the Iraqi gold production doing? They doing anything with copper or silver?
I'm not saying Iraq has nothing to do about the current oil situation, but I suspect what the federal reserve is doing with their printing press is doing a lot more to push prices up.
I keep hearing about all the demand China and India are introducing to the market, but I have not seen one station running out of gas. Supply is not the problem.
Man, I thought that argument bit the dust two years ago, because they never would stop talking about oil....
I was watching the history channel last night and there was a show on called "Declassified" and it was on WWI. I had a few thoughts of the then/now variety:
1. The Espionage Act, spying on fellow Americans (and even in schools), arresting them for not buying war bonds, etc.- does this sound at all familiar???? Of course hanging a number of African Americans after a riot in Houston, because they were so afraid of their reaction to fighting for a "Democracy" in Europe when many had no hope for getting in America, has been something this administration has not done.
2. Progressives and other war protesters like the Irish (who had no desire to "save" the English) seemed to be more vocal and active in resistance to WWI than we were in the run-up to Iraq. Heck even southerners weren't fully on board.
3. Wilson's PR campaign sounds a lot like the Bush's. Planting pro-war stories in the papers and planting audience members in movie theater audiences to support the war after a little pro-war reel (or whatever it was called) shown.
I always knew the administration love retreads - Cheney, Rummy, Negroponte - who knew they would borrow so many things from Wilson.
And to add to my last post, there is this which I rembembered when I hit submit and which was why I was posting in the first place...
4. All the secret deals about between the allies on how to split up various geographies when Germany was defeated. They mentioned how the motives of European allies were just as much about business/economics and world power than about democracy/freedom and other highbrow motives.
5. I also remember thinking that while it was nice that the allies defeated Germany, they ended up having to fight a much worse, much more dangerous Germany a few decades later. Iraq parallels???
6. While fighting in WWI was relatively short for the US (as compared to the allies) there were more casualties in non combat (i.e. training) situations if my memory was correct. I thought, Iraq war was "short" and we have had more casualties after is was supposedly all over.
Cui Bono?
How about attributing one reason (not the only one) for the war to the actual outcome?
The potential increase in Iraqi oil production were the sanctions on Iraq to have been lifted would have a downward pressure on world oil prices; this would have a consequent downward pressure on oil companies profits.
buy zolpidem online zolpidem tartrate is used for - can i buy ambien online
order xanax dosage for xanax 1mg - buy xanax dublin
lorazepam 1mg ativan vs xanax chart - ativan vs valium high
buy ambien online overnight delivery ambien no prescription cheap - ambien online no prescription usa
ativan online 30 mg ativan overdose - ativan overdose amount much
ativan anxiety ativan side effects in the elderly - how can i order ativan from india
xanax drug xanax drug forum - xanax bars and alcohol use
xanax antidepressant side effects from xanax pills - xanax .5 mg to get high
soma pain carisoprodol 700 - carisoprodol 31
valium no prescription overnight buy valium from india online - valium tricyclic antidepressant
buy somas online carisoprodol 350 mg hydrocodone - carisoprodol 350mg tablets used
soma soma intimates online coupons - carisoprodol 120
buy diazepam online valium cure anxiety - buy brand valium online
buy valium online valium 5mg last - valium 5mg 30 comprimidos
Post a Comment
<< Home