Dan wrote:
But, you are putting forth a different question. Whether the Bush
Administration thought Iraq posed a significant threat to the US. I
think that's true. I think, especially after 9-11, they made the
connection, and proof texted the intelligence, ignoring every caveat, to
find proof of what they already knew. And, with all due respect, I
think the "blood for oil" argument is a left wing parallel of their
mythology.
But, gee whiz, we've not only got strategic control of the Iraqi oil
fields, we've got record high oil prices and oil company profits! Its a
win win!! And giant corporate friends of the president get huge no bid
contracts! Win, win, win!!! And it's all because of the war on terror,
so its all the terrorist's fault. Win, win, win, win!!!! Golly, gee whiz,
how convenient is that?!?!!
The torturer-in-chief may be incompetent, but it sure is paying off for
the right people, isn't it?
Let me ask you this, Dan: what percentage of Iraqi's do you think believe
that oil is not a motive? I'll bet the number is probably in the single
digits. How about Arabs in general? Still in the single digits, I'll
wager. How about the rest of the world? What'll ya bet that upwards of
two thirds of the people outside of the U.S. believe that oil is a
motivation for the invasion.
So it doesn't really matter if they really are _not_ trading blood for oil
because, like it or not, that's the way its being perceived.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
