[Zankou]

Originally Posted by busdriver01

So you don't' believe what he says then? Or could it be that the "clarification" doesn't fit your political beliefs?

It's more that the "clarification" doesn't fit his previous statement.

In any event the point is moot now -- see the threat that Depth just made about the Newsweek interview with Greenspan, where he elaborates on his comment.

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

I am sure that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. all BELIEVED that their real motives for the war were good for the country, and I'm sure they BELIEVED that it was ultimately necessary to hide those real motives. They seem to have a Machiavellian (sp?) view of leadership, and I'm sure they believe that that is the best way to lead the country to prosperity. Unfortunately for them, such views are, in principle, antithetical to the democratic process.

again, I don't see how anyone can make this claim about the Bush admin's state of mind, or why it is necessary to speculate for that matter. how can anyone say with an certainty that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. all BELIEVED that their real motives were good for the country? we are not mindreaders, so no one can safely vouch for their sincerity. maybe they truly are sincere, maybe they are truly craven and have only THEIR OWN interests at heart, and not America's. I think the only logical stance to take on this is to remain agnostic. Either way, it doesn't really matter, their policies are either disastrous or undemocratic, possibly both, but certainly not neither (according to your own logic).

[Cayne-Abel]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

again, I don't see how anyone can make this claim about the Bush admin's state of mind, or why it is necessary to speculate for that matter. how can anyone say with an certainty that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz et. al. all BELIEVED that their real motives were good for the country? we are not mindreaders, so no one can safely vouch for their sincerity. maybe they truly are sincere, maybe they are truly craven and have only THEIR OWN interests at heart, and not America's. I think the only logical stance to take on this is to remain agnostic. Either way, it doesn't really matter, their policies are either disastrous or undemocratic, possibly both, but certainly not neither (according to your own logic).

I'll tell you why I think I understand their mentality...it's because I used to be a neo-con myself. So I understand the mindset. And yes, back then, I truly believed that the neo-con philosophy would lead to world prosperity.

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

I'll tell you why I think I understand their mentality...it's because I used to be a neo-con myself. So I understand the mindset. And yes, back then, I truly believed that the neo-con philosophy would lead to world prosperity.

well that's a completely illogical argument. You used to be a well-meaning neocon, but that doesn't help you or us determine the Bush admin's state of mind. surely you can see that.

again I ask: why bother arguing about the Bush admin's sincerity? if you disagree with Bush and his policies, then it's a no-win argument to even go near the subject. as you can see from this thread, there's an absolute lack of maturity when it comes to this topic: if you even dare suggest that powerful agents might be pursuing goals for furthering their own interests rather than the interests of the American people as a whole, that these powerful agents are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, then you are branded a conspiracy theorist who believes in the Illuminati and you are heckled with images of Paul Wolfowitz cackling with glee while his alien pseudopod-hand clutches the globe. When it comes to the subject of "sincerity," there is just a a total lack of nuance, particularly from those who do support Bush and his policies. So why not just leave the issue of "sincerity" off the table and concentrate on what we CAN know. e.g. that the Bush admin's policies have been spectacular failures.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

well that's a completely illogical argument. You used to be a well-meaning neocon, but that doesn't help you or us determine the Bush admin's state of mind. surely you can see that.

again I ask: why bother arguing about the Bush admin's sincerity? if you disagree with Bush and his policies, then it's a no-win argument to even go near the subject. as you can see from this thread, there's an absolute lack of maturity when it comes to this topic: if you even dare suggest that powerful agents might be pursuing goals for furthering their own interests rather than the interests of the American people as a whole, that these powerful agents are speaking out of both sides of their mouths, then you are branded a conspiracy theorist who believes in the Illuminati and you are heckled with images of Paul Wolfowitz cackling with glee while his alien pseudopod-hand clutches the globe. When it comes to the subject of "sincerity," there is just a a total lack of nuance, particularly from those who do support Bush and his policies. So why not just leave the issue of "sincerity" off the table and concentrate on what we CAN know. e.g. that the Bush admin's policies have been spectacular failures.

I think the point is that there is no dispute remaining over the latter. The point of this thread is to ferret out the defects of political leadership that brought us into the situation, however, and part of that is coming up with a relatively realistic analysis of how we got in this situation, who the players are, and what their intentions are/were.

So it's not illogical to say that the neocon state of mind is very important to figuring out why/how they seized power, why their ilk pose a continuing threat, and how to defeat their brand of political failure in the future.

For example, you could characterize George Bush as simply selling Americans out to Israel. Clearly we sacrifice American interests to Israeli interests to a remarkable extent. But the truth is harder than that; it's evangelical American support for Israel that underlies Bush's support, and the support of Americans more broadly. So these interests ARE somewhat reflective of broader American interests. Unfortunately the Israel Lobby is enabled by this inane religious attitude that is widespread throughout the nation. If it were just an evil cabal, then it would be a lot easier to expose to light and destroy. But the cabal is us, our defects, magnified. To destroy it, we need to understand how we have created it, rather than just pretending that we were haplessly victimized by the evil.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by Zankou

I think the point is that there is no dispute remaining over the latter. The point of this thread is to ferret out the defects of political leadership that brought us into the situation, however, and part of that is coming up with a relatively realistic analysis of how we got in this situation, who the players are, and what their intentions are/were.

So now Alan Greenspan, a long time self promoter, is going on the record about how he feels. P.S., he has a book coming out and recently made a highly public move in the market.

He expects people to eat up his sentiment that Saddam was a real threat or even viewed as a threat to the straights of Hormuz. Which oil-selling arab nation exactly was about to allow that to happen? Surely not Iran, who is utterly dependent on oil exports to support its domestic economy. I am sure that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and U.A.E. would all be more than happy to lay down their arms and allow Iraqi forces to tie up the straight.

Ok Alan, set the koolaid down and stop lying to us and yourself.

Even if he honestly believes that the administration was of this line of thought, there are still several logical flaws to it.

A) The American Century Project, headed by none other than Paul Wolfowitz and his ilk, outlined the need to go BACK to war with Saddam very clearly. The papers and the letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 is still on display at that website. Saddam did possess oil, of that Iraq is rich with. A threat to the straights of Hormuz Saddam was not, never was and was never mentioned as being such. The architects saw Saddam as a long term threat to Israeli safety, a long term instability to the smoothly running oil factory and a belligerent force in general within the Mid East.

Unfortunately, only sparing parts to that reasoning were actually grounded in reality and supported by legitimate fact. The Duelfer Report outlined fairly clearly years after we went back to Iraq that Clinton's missile strikes in 1998, throughout Iraq, effectively squashed any remaining remnants of a Chemical Warfare Program. Iraq lay weak and from what we have now learned the hard way, deeply divided.

But the British might have shed a little light on that last issue considering their history in the formation of parts of the Middle East but of course the economic draw of the US, the deep pockets and a life above and outside of European unity for Great Britain made that possibility a figment of imagination.

Of course a nation, sown together by a despot, with well known religious strife, already harboring hostility towards the west and big brother nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia on either side would shatter.

B) Greenspan is effectively admitting that the administration is/was woefully out of touch with reality and utterly inept in the War of Terror and generally with intelligence. I have trouble buying this tack as it give Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz far too little credit. As already stated, the reasons for going to war with Saddam were already outlined 4 years prior by the same men that pulled all the strings in 2003.

C) Iran would have been a more logical target, post 9/11 if the straights of Hormuz were truly an issue.

D) Why even make up a reason like WMDs? Should the administration really have needed to cook up a reason such as WMD's and connection to 9/11 for the US to implement strong force in the Persian Gulf against Iraq? Absolutely not... Bush and co. could easily have justified pretty much anything post 9/11 regarding threats to oil: defending the world's oil supply, defending Saudi Arabia, defending Kuwait... again. And so on it goes.

So it's not illogical to say that the neocon state of mind is very important to figuring out why/how they seized power, why their ilk pose a continuing threat, and how to defeat their brand of political failure in the future.

I would highly recommend to anyone here that wishes to better understand what Zankou is writing in this last quote, to pick up one or all three of John Dean's books on the political shift in this country. Specifically, Dean delves deep into the schism between traditional Barry Goldwater Conservatives and the new breed: Neo-Conservatives.

For those that don't know, Dean was the whistle blower in the Nixon White House and identified his years in that administration as one of his first true experiences with a shift in the Republican party that was primarily characterized by authoritarianism, brazen arrogance and love of a powerful executive.

It has continued to this day and effectively wiped out the true and traditional Goldwater conservativism in politics today. That's not to say that such leanings don't still exist in the country but instead that the Neo-Con variety tends to prey upon some of the social issues that more traditional conservatives share.

Divide and conquer is another trait that Dean identifies and the newer Republican breed is one that is primarily designed on power plays, which is also why they tend to do better in elections over the past 30 years.

This love of executive power has also helped to ruin the other branches of government as we have first hand been shown over the past 6 years that with enough support, a president can run amok. The system of checks and balances has been uprooted and the Democrats share the blame.

For example, you could characterize George Bush as simply selling Americans out to Israel. Clearly we sacrifice American interests to Israeli interests to a remarkable extent. But the truth is harder than that; it's evangelical American support for Israel that underlies Bush's support, and the support of Americans more broadly. So these interests ARE somewhat reflective of broader American interests.

I wouldn't say that it's so much America's interest as it is a false sentiment. Perhaps we are using two different definitions of interest. Surely there are vast evangelical segments in the US that support the creation, survival and concept of Israel. The support is also primarily religiously supported as well as it is supported by xenophobic and racist intollerances. However, I also would say that such sentiment is unfortunately misguided in viewing Israel's interests as American interests.

Thus we have hit a deeply important and core issue in the entire debate: the American public, is not only easily manipulated but to a large degree, completely uninformed.

Enter Fox News and the war against journalism and reporting that really isn't that liberal but called liberal because anything to the left of Fox is considered liberal these days. Here we hit divide and conquer, a central theme to neo-con and Republican tactic. Surely, CNN has left leanings but I can't say that's truly a fair assessment all the time. The problem CNN has is that if it covers a bombing in Iraq or the destruction from an Israeli bombing campaign, it is called sympathetic and liberal.

The right and all withing follow in line behind the propaganda machine that not only tells them CNN and others alike are purely liberal hogwash but they are deceived from a foundational standpoint. They will come to think such things about anything or anyone who does not share their views on supporting the president and supporting, more importantly, the troops; an issue that Republicans ans specifically this administration have done well to monopolize.

I recall so clearly, Sean Hannity decrying Bill Clinton's involvement in Kosovo, despite the well-known genocide that was taking place. But Clinton was a war monger and a despot to Hannity and so many American though this as well.

This once more brings us to another critical observation the Dean makes in his second book "Conservatives Without Conscience". Dean identifies the phenomena that many people, tending to be conservative, are highly receptive to authoritarian style and they sub-consciously want to be told reality, they want to be told how it is, what to do and what's going on. It's a heard mentality and I have also read interesting things regarding the Russian population, regarding what Putin has accomplished over the past 5 years.

Unfortunately the Israel Lobby is enabled by this inane religious attitude that is widespread throughout the nation. If it were just an evil cabal, then it would be a lot easier to expose to light and destroy. But the cabal is us, our defects, magnified. To destroy it, we need to understand how we have created it, rather than just pretending that we were haplessly victimized by the evil.

Supporting Isreal's interests is perhaps one of the more externally draining things to the US economy that we partake in on a daily basis in this world. That's not to say that Israel isn't worth defending because it certainly is; however, we are talking about a country with a budding economy that can more than sustain itself yet the US and Germany throw millions upon billions of dollars at Israel as if it's one giant wasteland or refugee camp in the middle of Johannesburg.

But the billions are not enough, no, we need to go into Iraq and remove someone from power. That someone was a man viewed, clearly by the New American Century Project as a long term threat to the security of Israel. The threat of his acquiring chemical agents, an active air force...etc was too great to risk and besides, they have the clear opportunity. Why wait to justify something about an issue over the straights of Hormuz when you could attack Iraq for something that it was believed, albeit erroneously, to be engaging in.

[Octavian]

continued (original post was too long to fit)...





I think that Israel, considering the players from the admin. that played a major and fundamental role, played a major role in the reasoning for going into Iraq and I think that the admin. did truly believe that they could wave a flag of democracy at the people and they would dance in the streets, singing and laughing... the oil would start fountaining from the ground, like pools in Beverly Hills, the surrounding nations would applaud the ousting of such a odious leader such as Saddam....etc.

So they believed, truly, that they could implant Malachy, a man who had not been in Iraq for some 20+ years, and poof! a democratic nation appears.

They underestimated the situation and they underestimated their own ability to estimate the situation. A complete and fundamental break down in planning, reasoning and touch with reality starved our ability to effectively move into and occupy Iraq and I think it all hearkens back to the primarily observation of Neo-Conservativism: it is brash, authoritarian, brazenly arrogant and from all of those, utterly out of touch with reality.

Neo-conservativism is in its own right, already outdated and inept in a globalized world. Those leaders from this administration found that they could not function in Iraq and they certainly could not function on a global scale, where the US, despite being a military powerhouse, was not the economic untouchable that they thought it to be. Another result of their line of thought is that they are in a position of power, therefore, they are the makers of reality for all those around them. Of course, that is folly and the rest is history.

[Octavian]

I might have unintentionally killed this thread.

[Mithra]

Dead or Not I think your post/s was very accurate

[Gregster]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

As for Greenspan's "clarification," that has to be the most obvious case of back-peddling I've ever seen. The passage in his book was clear and unambiguous.

Of course it's "obvious" that his "clarification" was nothing but frantic "back-pedaling;" what else could it be?

"Obviously," Alan Greenspan-- a well-known and highly-visible public figure of enormous political consequence whose resume includes over 30 years' experience working directly with US Presidents and other key political figures positioned up in the highest rungs of federal governmental power-- is a complete and utter imbecile. The sort of imbecile who, upon leaving the political arena and settling into private life, decides to write a candid memoir about his life in and out of politics for which he is advanced 85,000,000 (the second-largest advance ever for anon-fiction work) which takes care to mention in a "clear and unambiguous" manner that the nightmare scenarios and ugly accusations of the Bush Administrations' most rabidly zealous critics related to the invasion and occupation of Iraq are indeed true.

As he's doing this, it apparently never dawns on him that such anecdotes might spark a wee bit of controversy and media attention, thus causing him to be blindsided when it crops up and obligated to try and feebly revise.

Yeah, that makes a lot of "sense."