Questions and answers during the early days of the Iraq war

More early war discussion. Questions and answers:

>Subject: q's and a's> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:17:21 -0600
>
> Another good friend and armchair philosopher asked me some good questions about ongoing political debate. I thought you might be interested in the questions and answers too.
>
>From: CHUCK
>To: Scott Starr
>Subject: Re: unplug?
>Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:07:56 EST
>I have been working on some thoughts I wanted to share with you but I have
>some questions that need answers first.
>What do think of the accusations going around that Bush had Sadam captured a
>long time ago but just brought him out?
>That Bush plotted this war in Texas for the benefit of a few oil companies?
>That Bush was warned of the plot for 9/11 but said nothing because .. it is
>not clear to me what motive Dean thinks Bush would have for that?
>What is your take on this?
>chuck
>
> I really don't think there is any possibility that Saddam has been captured for any longer than they say. I suppose anything is possible...but it is very unlikely. I can't imagine how holding on to him would be of any benefit in any way given the pressures of the Iraq situation.
> On the second question, about the war being plotted in Texas for the benefit of oil companies is not quite such a pat answer. First of all, let me say that Ted Kennedy's statements on this can only be seen as a politically motivated and overblown generalization. The president and his staff would have to be the most crass and EVIL people on the planet to actually sit around and consciously hatch such a machiavellian scheme, whereby all this death and destruction would result, just to add to their personal fortunes. As much distaste as I have for the president and his cronies, I simply cannot believe that they are that immoral consciously. However, It is also difficult for me to imagine us being so commited in Iraq if there was no oil to be found over there. Without the oil factor and its attending implications for the oil based world economy, we would probably go on largely ignoring Saddam's crimes against humanity like we did for most of the last few decades including the genocidal rampage carried out at the close of the first Gulf War. Off the top of my head I have to say that the war, as most are, is mostly about the balance of power rather than any commodities or moral considerations. The U.S. backed Saddam back when it served their interests...we basically created Saddam by giving him our blessing and helping arm him back when they were at war with Iran. This is not a new thing for Uncle Sam, we have consistently backed jackasses like Saddam around the world. During my youth there was support for Khmer Rouge, the Esquadron de Muerte in El Salvador, dictatorships from the Philipines to Chile, Haiti, Columbia etc., etc.
> In more recent times we just ignore situations like the slaughter of people in East Timor, in the Slavic world and the gassing of the Kurds in Iraq... in each case we backed or ignored harsh regimes to maintian that same balance of power that served our economic and cultural interests no matter what the cost of human life was in some faraway land that Joe Sixpack typicallly doesn't know anything about. Heck we wouldn't even take on the Nazis and get into what became WWII until we got attacked on our own turf. Both the political right and left are guilty on this...both of their key interests have always been maintining their own baseline of power. Power is the name of the game, economic, social, political ...power. Each of these cases and the general concept of all this warrant a lot more thought and discussions...there is a lot of literature out there on all of it. I always like to study both sides of the story and make inferences from that. I can give some examples... Of course, I don't believe evrything I read from any source, but I have been a voracious reader and news junkie since 9/11.
>I know people from both the political right and the left (as if those are the only two ways of thinking) that are not objective and cannot stomach anything that directs critical thought at their preferred leaders. " I ain't married to none of 'em," as I've heard a local car salesman say.
> On the 9/11 thing..
> From what I can discern, the intelligence community in general has known that the threat of major terrorist attacks was great and also on the rise for many years now. I have heard the political right accuse the Clinton administration of dropping the ball and lowering our defenses. However, that is more guff, because the record shows that that administration was very worried and very active about the subject. (also, the military now in the field was built mostly prior to November 2,000...i.e. under the previous administration so this is not a new military machine recreated by the Bush administration that is performing so well but the legacy of about the past three administrations....and no I am not a fan of Clinton...just stating facts) Memos were passed around concerning the ongoing terrorist threat and plots during the change of administrations. However, several things interfered with the process. First there was that screwball election. Then there was the changing of the guard and all the attending focus that had to be devoted to building a new cabinet and shaping new foreign and domestic policy.
>From what I can tell, the threat of terrorism was sort of put on the back burner, so to speak while all thesre other things were happening. I really don't think that the Bush admin. got detailed specific info and then just blew it off. They had an agenda for dealing with the threats all along...they just got beat to the punch by Al Qaeda. Other matters dimmed the focus on this issue....politics in general. The right and left were so busy fussing, the new and old admins had such low regard for each other and poor communications that the REAL enemy slipped in a solid sucker punch. ...And now both right and left are very busy blaming each other for the results.
>
>