Vanity Fair

Ravings from the Frothy Middle


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 November
2008 September
2008 March
2007 August
2007 July
2007 February
2007 January
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
Little Miss Attila
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
User Friendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


In which the middle-aged Peacenik mouths off about War Drones--and all the other things that make him cranky. Pnorny!

Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. He is reachable at: littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

Blogger Main Site


Still More Links:

Listed on BlogShares

Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Blogarama-Review My Site

IceRocket

LS Blogs

Blog Universe

Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory

Blog Directory & Search engine

Site Meter


Vanity Fair
04.20.04 (10:17 am)   [edit]
The latest issue of Vanity Fair (A Conde Nast publication - LMA!) with Jackie O on the cover has a huge article about the Bush cabal and the redirection of U.S. might towards Iraq. Very depressing. It reads like a good guy vs. bad guys epic with the good guy losing. Colin Powell is the good guy, the voice of reason, the one who says we shouldn't rush into Iraq and certainly without substantiated reasons. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Cheney are the bad guys who want to go into Iraq and will let nothing - not truth or honesty - stand in their way. Powell loses and ends up delivering the classic speech to the U.N. about Hussein and the dangers of WMDs. I like Powell. I may not agree with his politics but he's oozes sincerity. He doesn't smirk. He comes off very forthright and with his military background you know that he won't use the military lightly or haphazardly. In a way earlier blog I mentioned that Powell should show some major chutzpah and resign, claiming the lack of integrity in the Oval Office.


Bush comes off as a shallow thinker who wants to keep his buddies happy so Iraq it is, like a little puppy dog but with nuclear capabilities, or like a little kid playing army with the biggest set his daddy could afford. The article pretty much reinforced all the other "Invasion of Iraq" scenarios and certainly is what reality has borne out. We didn't go into Iraq for completely altruistic reasons.


And now we're in a dung heap of a lose-lose situation. Stay in Iraq and continue to be targets, continue to be symbol for terrorists to rally around. How funny that there may be more al Qaeda operatives in Iraq now than before the invasion. If we leave Iraq then we had the terrorists a symbolic victory. It will appear that they have driven us out. Maybe this can be avoided if Bush sticks to his word (for once), hands over the keys to the kingdom in June, and starts withdrawing troops in time for the election (hmmmm, do ya think?).


That combined with the perfect timing of dropping oil prices should pretty much guarantee Bush victory. Gaining the Presidency by holding America fiscally hostage over oil...


Read the following, picture Bush doing the talking and picture Cheney doing a happy dance in the background. It's from Bush latest speech.


QUESTION:Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq: that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, we know where they are.


How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong? And how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what have turned out to be a series of false premises?


BUSH: Well, let me step back and review my thinking prior to going into Iraq.


First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it. We can no longer hope that oceans protect us from harm. Every threat we must take seriously.
How about the ultra-rightwing religious nuts subverting our Government? - LMM


Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States.
Hussein no longer had WMDs. Which terrorists? Not al Qaeda who were proven threats to the U.S. Hussein was more of a threat to Israel not to the U.S.. If Hussein destroyed Israel, he'd be am Islamic hero for the ages. - LMM


That's the assessment that I made from the intelligence, the assessment that Congress made from the intelligence. That's the exact same assessment that the United Nations Security Council made with the intelligence.
Once the intelligence had been "cleaned up" and massaged by those wanting an Iraqi invasion. - LMM


I went to the U.N., as you might recall, and said, either you take care of him, or we will. Any time an American president says, if you don't, we will, we better be prepared to. And I was prepared to.


I thought it was important for the United Nations Security Council that when it says something, it means something for the sake of security in the world.


See, the war on terror had changed the calculations. We needed to work with people. People needed to come together to work. And therefore, empty words would embolden the actions of those who are willing to kill indiscriminately.
Huh? This from someone who knocked out the U.N. and many allies because of his unresisting plan to invade Iraq. - LMM


The United Nations passed a Security Council resolution unanimously that said, disarm or face serious consequences. And he refused to disarm.
If Hussein didn't have WMDs like he said than how can he disarm? Though Hussein was a cruel bastard doesn't mean every thing he said was a lie. - LMM


I thought it was very interesting that Charlie Duelfer, who just came back -- he's the head of the Iraqi Survey Group -- reported some interesting findings from his recent tour there. And one of the things was, he was amazed at how deceptive the Iraqis had been toward UNMOVIC and UNSCOM, deceptive in hiding things.


We knew they were hiding things. A country that hides something is a country that is afraid of getting caught, and that was part of our calculation. Charlie confirmed that.
And they hid things so well that we can't find them though we found money. - LMM


He also confirmed that Saddam had the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. And he had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations. He was a danger. And so we dealt with him.
Still quoting the unconfirmed or outright false sources. - LMM


And what else was part the question? Oh, oil revenues.


Well, the oil revenues, they're bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time. I mean, one year after the liberation of Iraq, the revenues of the oil stream is pretty darn significant.
Happy dance time!!! BTW, who's buying the oil?- LMM


One of the things I was concerned about, prior to going into Iraq, was that the oil fields would be destroyed, but they weren't. They're now up and running. And that money is -- it will benefit the Iraqi people. It's their oil, and they'll use it to reconstruct the country.
So why are we spending BILLIONS of dollars to reconstruct their nation? Who's profiting here? - LMM



And let me say this again: I support our troops. I do not support the policy that put these troops in the danger they're in now. I do not approve of the current stance that if you disagree with the invasion of Iraq - if you don't blindly support Bush - then you're not a patriot. Being a Patriot means supporting those qualities that make a country great. A quality such a Freedom of Speech (and Thought), being able to openly applaud or criticize the Government, is what I support and what the Patriot Act seeks to limit. The Bush Cabal are not Patriots; they are an embarrassment and a threat to that which makes America unique, great, and proud. Ramble over.

 


posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 04.20.04 (10:50 am)

Excellent comments after the answers to the questions. It does seem that we've heard all these answers before, it's to bad the Vanity Fair journals didn't ask some follow-up questions.

Your Name:


Your Comment:


More Links:

POLITICS:
Arianna
FactCheck.ORG not .COM
SpinSanity
Black Box Voting
OpenSecrets
Open The Government
AntiWar
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Church of Critical Thinking
The New Enlightenment
Mother Jones
Reuters
Pravda

RELIGION:
Secular Web - Atheism
Skeptic's Annotated Bible and annotated Koran.
The Happy Heretic
Fallacies
The Skeptic's Dictionary
God of the Month
Religion Selector