qui bono? (who benefits?)
As a Canadian there isn’t much I can actively do about American politics, but that doesn’t take away my desire to keep an eye on the issue.
Apparently, George W. Bush had the 2000 election rigged in his favour
Greg Palast is an investigative reporter from the states who works for BCC. He made a report in 2001 called “Hail to the Theif” in which he provides evidence that the election was rigged in favour of Dubya in his brother’s state of Florida (incidentally Palast’s new work Armed Madhouse talks at length about 2004 “elections” as well and minces no words about the racial line that has been drawn in voter scrubbing.)
Apparently the Neo Conservatives were gunning for hegemony from the start of this “stolen” administration.
In Sept. 2000 Neo Conservatives (some of who would soon-to-be members of the Bush administration) penned an infamous document for The Project for the New American Century titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” It called for America to seize its unique opportunity in a post-Cold War era and grasp an American unipolar world. Hegemoney at hand.
On land, in the sea, in the air, and in space, the U.S. should have no adversaries. They called this “Full Spectrum Dominance.” But for this idea to be realized they would need to do something about “rogue nations” such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. By do something I mean transform into a military empire, and regime change. But that’s expensive. According to Rebuilding America’s Defenses, “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” It goes on to say “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
One year later “A new Pearl Harbour” premiered on televisions world wide.
It was just a coincidence that those in power happened to have called for this event having said “A New Pearl Harbour” was necessary, or at least would expediate, the post-Cold War opportunity to transform the military for everlasting American dominance.
While the argument can be made that 9/11 benefited the Neo Conservatives, it is harder for me to make the arguement that the Iraq war itself has benefited the aim of hegemony. I could speculate. But I’ll leave you tonight with Debunkers Wisdom:
“Yeah right… they were cunning enough to plan 9/11 but too incompetent to plan for post-war Iraq.”
“The government couldn’t cover up a blow job.”
November 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
As you know, I am more skeptical of “9/11 Truth” than you now appear to be, but to answer to those Debunker quotes:
-9/11 was a one-time shot that dealt with (largely) known variables. Commuting patterns don’t tend to change, especially not in a stable country. Iraq… has a complex history to say the least. And all known variables tend to go out the window once war starts.
-The government wasn’t TRYING to cover up a blow job. Bill Clinton was. The “government” wanted to impeach the man, for goodness sake.
How’s that for confirmation bias?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Good rebunking there. 9/11 would be considered a singular operation with minimal mutable factors. Whereas the Iraq war was always to be a quagmire, especially with them going in with no post-war plan and one fifth of the suggested invasion force.
However, without making leaps of speculation I still have difficulty arguing that Iraq benefits the Neo Conservatives.
Why did they lie themselves into a war that was not a cakewalk? Was it even supposed to be a cakewalk?
November 16th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
It is possible that they genuinely believed their own rhetoric - that they would be welcomed as Liberators.
But maybe I am giving them too much credit.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think Bush genuinely believed his rhetoric. And that the Neo Conservatives are, in their minds, noble. And if they need to lie, for the good of their empire, then lies are truth. If they believe they need to wage a war to maintain their power, then the war is waged. Obviously they believe it is in their best interests, given that they still defend being there five years later. They have an agenda which involves military industrial complex, oil, and long term geo strategic politics.
As for being greated as liberators, I think they were. They had their shot at liberating Iraq but instead they sat quietly during looting, let weapons caches be cleared out, and disbanded the army instead of retraining them to defend a new Iraq. I would recommend PBS’s “The Lost Year” as viewing because it goes through how they put Paul Bremmer (who had only a few weeks to prepare for being in charge of the Provisional Authority.) Bremmer made some bad decisions, and it is sad that he takes blame for the Iraq fuck up. He seemed to be there to do the best he could.
Furthermore if you review what Dick Cheny said in 1992, answering the question of why stop short of regime change in the Gulf War, he shows that they were fully aware of the challenges that would face them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT7Ik_X1HU0
This quote is from the side of the video, so I have to assume the person who posted it transcribed it correctly:
Cheney:
“But let’s assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it — … Then the question comes [of] putting a government in place of the one you’ve just gotten rid of; you can’t just sort of turn around and walk away — you have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi’a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba’ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up?
If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I’d probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home. … The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer: not very damn many.”