How much of this world can Bush remake?(costing U.S. taxpayers nearly $5 billion a month)

Arizona Republic ^ | 7/10/03 | Robert Robb

[truthandlife]

As commitments pile up, the question arises: Is there any limit to President Bush's international interventionism?

This is a surprising question to be asking. During the presidential campaign, Bush seemed more circumspect than his predecessor or his opponent about involvement in international problems without a clear U.S. strategic interest at stake.

[big gray tabby]

Finally some loyal opposition, some criticism that comes from honest dissent and from American ideals.

A healthy and welcome break from blatant partisan carping.

[Support Free Republic]

Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!Hint! Hint!

[Sam's Army]

"And most movements inflicting violence against civilian targets around the world, including in the Middle East, are regional in their scope and ambitions."

Tell that to the families of 9/11/01.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

There is absolutely no good reason for us to spend $50,000,000,000 (that's 50 billions) and a couple hundred G.I. lives each year in Iraq. And, by the way, the 4-year duration for our occupation is B.S. Bosnia was occupied some 10 years ago and it's still under occupation with no date for ending it. Kosovo was occupied more than 4 years ago and it's still under occupation and there is no projected date for ending the occupation of any of the 2.

[gaspar]

I thought the America firsters learned their lesson at Pearl Harbor. I suppose they learn nothing from history because now they have forgotten 9/11.

[JohnGalt]

Yeah, we learned our government will lie and angle public opinion into supporting wars, or are you and FDR-phile liberal and still cling to the myth?

[Sam's Army]

"Yeah, we learned our government will lie and angle public opinion into supporting wars"

Yeah--we had no business getting mad over a little thing like 9-11.

[JohnGalt]

I got mad, plenty mad.

I am mad that we invaded Iraq rather than direct resources on a criminal investigation to arrest the Saudi's who aided and abetted the barbarians.

I am mad at the trillion dollar central intelligence agency that allowed 9/11 to happen due to criminal incompetence. I am very mad that there had not been one single resignation or a single pension stripped from the NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA/INS/DoD/IRS/ATF...

I am mad that the FAA disarmed passengers in the 1970s ensuring, as the gun culture tried to tell us, that gun control ends in genocide. After the lessons of Columbine and our gun free schools, I am mad that a 'conservative' President did not ensure that our airplanes were safe.

I could go on, but I am too mad over 9/11.

[Sam's Army]

Iraq needed to be cleaned up---Saddam's support of suicide bombers in Isreal was reason enough. Not to mention a ton of other reasons.

I support your other ideas in regards to tracking down Saudi's in collusion w/9-11. Fry 'em.

[JohnGalt]

'Iraq needed to be cleaned up' is debatable as a priority, but I am mad that Bush was led to believe the best way politically to sell the war was through trumped up WMD (whatever the hell those are) claims. Reckless advice at best, as it may cost Bush the election in 2004.

I am mad that Iraqi Freedom will ensure that the true criminals of 9/11 are never found; too much time has passed, too many deals cut with the Saudi's for use of their air space, ports, and cheap domestic oil. Oh, well catch up with the low level hacks and dupes sooner or later, but the criminals have already escaped.

If you start doing the available reading, you will see that some of the puppetmasters probably collected a CIA check back in the 1980s, or worked for the Clintonists as recently as Kosovo. Someone, it appears, does not want to go down that road and they found some willing fellow travelers in the Defense Policy Board, Rummy, and it now appears, Dick Cheney.

I am seething mad, but I continue to cling to the belief that Bush is a good moral man, surrounded by men of questionable nobility.

[gaspar]

Excuse me. Please make sense, what "myth" are you talking about? The one that says small countries in out of the way places are no danger to us? (Lebanon, Viet Nam, Cuba, Sudan, Afghanistan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc., etc., etc.,).

[JohnGalt]

I was specifically referring to the FDR Myth.


You cited Pearl Harbor as some proof positive of the fallacy of 'America Firsters' position which suggests you are ignorant of the conservative scholarship which debunks your theory, thus I asked if you were an FDR-phile, as those are the only people I have come across who still cling to such theories.

[The Louiswu]

"Is there any limit to President Bush's international interventionism?"

No one seemed to ask if there was any end to Clinton's international interventionism - my take is that President Bush is just batting clean up for previous administration(s) who couldn't seem to get the job done.

[Sam's Army]

Priority or not, it has happened. WMD's may or may not ever be found, but he did have them---and promised the destruction of the USA and Isreal on numerous occaisions. I'm glad we didn't wait around to see if he would ever make good on his claim.

"I am mad that Iraqi Freedom will ensure that the true criminals of 9/11 are never found;"

That presupposes that we can't do more than one thing at one time. I'm not sure we'll ever catch Bin-Laden, but then again---Hitler was never caught and tried either.

"If you start doing the available reading, you will see that some of the puppetmasters probably collected a CIA check back in the 1980s,"

Probably so. The world was a different place in the 1980's. Islamist extremism was a tool we used against the Soviets. The Italians have a saying that translates loosely as: "I have to make wine with the grapes I have". I don't fault those decisions, but I do fault that maybe we "let go" too soon and created the opportunity for the power vacuum.

And yes, Kosovo was a mess from the word go.

[Redwood71]

"Al-Qaida did find safe harbor in Afghanistan, which was poor and unstable. But most of the poor and unstable countries in the world are tragedies, not threats."
________________________________________

Does McCain own this rag? I guess everyone was supposed to forget that the US gave the leaders of the Taliban a number of opportunities to produce Bin Laden, and not only failed with little effort, but got real stupid in their responses and action on purpose. If they hadn't lied about his presence, and allowed him to go where ever he wanted to escape detection and capture, they would have been left alone. They made that decision, not us. If you dance, you pay the piper.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush'
FR - thru Capitol Hill Blue ^ | January 6, 2003 | DOUG THOMPSON

[riri]

No one seemed to ask if there was any end to Clinton's international interventionism - my take is that President Bush is just batting clean up for previous administration(s) who couldn't seem to get the job done

You are right, no one batted an eye when Clinton was jetting around the world. Filling up his passport with stamps, I think.

Unfortunately, I think Bush is just continuing the trend---Do you have any idea what it takes to "put on" one of these visits. Hear this:

excerpted from Adventure Captialist by Jim Rogers

...the cost of the adventures in dollars alone came home to us as we read about the scores of cargo planes full of equipment flown into the country for a state visit there by the US president (India). The people and equipment he moved required 26 c-17 and C-5 cargo planes, five c-130 and C-141 cargo planes, 7 KC-10 tanker planes and 30 KCI35's. To support the five day visit, the US Air Force flew 1,150 sorties, according to Air Force Times..."

[JohnGalt]

"No one seemed to ask if there was any end to Clinton's international interventionism"

Ah, yeah there were. Except for the neoconservatives who cheered him on for the most part, with the brief exception of Charles Krauthammer, conservatives and the entire paleo-right were a consistent voice of restrain through the entire Clinton Error.

[gaspar]

Again, you had better explain yourself. Are you suggesting that American firsters were heroes and FDR was a traitor? Is that the neo-American Firster position now?

From my long years of combat with the American firsters and the Ayn Randers I have noted that they are driven by two mortal sins, greed and selfishness. Neither is conducive to a rational foreign policy.

[Cronos]

I get mad that we're giving $3 billion to Pakiterrorists. I get mad that we're supporting our enemies in PakandSaud and not going after them. We could end this WoT if we just took them out, kaputt

[JohnGalt]

(not a Randian, click for my profile before you engage, but then looking before you leap is not part of your make-up as far as I can tell, which makes your claim of rational foreign policy seem almost ironic.)

Not America Firsters, conservatives. FDR wasn't a traitor he was a dupe to the Communist spies that surrounded him. Am I to believe you don't read many conservative books? I suggest Thomas Fleming's New Dealers War, if you are not a conservative, as a good place to start. Fleming, as far as I can tell, has not showed his ideological cards in his books.

[JohnGalt]

But it won't happen because there is a very real reason why it won't. The central intelligence aparatus fears the light, and thus directed resources elsewhere.

The best patriotic Americans can hope for is a renewed push for a decentralized government and a well armed citizenry; more Todd Beamers and a lot fewer Rummys, Perles, Wolfowitzs, Ginrichs, Tenets, Freehs, Renos, Franks, and Clintons.

[Redwood71]

I posted the article because the byline of the article came from the Arizona Republic. McCain is from Arizona.

[big gray tabby]

What you're missing is that before our Iraq adventure we couldn't afford to confront the Saudis. Now we can.

Let's hope they had their TV's on when the bombing campaign over Baghdad began. They know just what to do if they want a little of that themselves. Don't think that's not exactly why we are in Iraq now. We're out of SA and we can come back in at any time. Noisily, too.

Our dependence on Saudi oil and influence was hamstringing the War on Terror. No more.

[JohnGalt]

That is wishful thinking and post facto rationalizing.

The War on Some Terror, like all government projects, is an expensive disaster.

[kevkrom]

What you're missing is that before our Iraq adventure we couldn't afford to confront the Saudis. Now we can.

I never even thought of that... but not only do we get rid of Hussein and stop his chemical, biological, and nuclear research programs (plus funding and support for terrorists), but Iraq's oil supply gives the U.S. the leverage to do anything deemed necessary to the Saudis without overly disrupting delivery of oil...

Gotta love "bank shots".

[JohnGalt]

So you are conceding that while the 'war was not for oil, it is an added benefit'?

[kevkrom]

So you are conceding that while the 'war was not for oil, it is an added benefit'?

I am just remarking that, by accident or deisgn, once Iraqi oil production ramps up, we are less dependent of the Saudis, which gives us more political flexibility. I don't have any idea if that was part of the "plan", but having additional options in foreign policy can't be a bad thing.

[big gray tabby]

Is there anything I should know that would make me change my mind? Other than your opinion, that is?

There's nothing wrong with cynicism. Heck, that's usually my job. But this time I think these guys knew exactly what they were doing.

1) Out of SA. Remove major source of AQ's antagonism.

2) Secure supply of oil, avoiding Wahabbi threat of supply disruption.

3) Move major ordnance to area. Use some on TV.

4) Pressure on Palis and Saudis re: road map.

5) Deliver serious ass-kicking to "pan-Arab hero".

Pretty effing smart IMO.

[nuffsenuff]

Downright brilliant, in my opinion.

[JohnGalt]

Weighed with the costs:

American lives.
Billions of dollars.
Reduced ability to act on other priorities.
Bush's Re-Election.

Pretty f'ing reckless for a political scheme.

[discostu]

the problem with giving primary responsibility to the UN is that they suck. Compare the job they've done in the former Yugoslavia Sudan and Ethiopia with the job we did in Germany Japan Grenada and South Korea. It would be great if there was somebody else we could trust to do a half-way decent job, but there isn't, so that means we either walk away knowing it'll be a disaster and possibly provide a safe haven for future terrorists making us go back and conquer it again, or we stick around and do it right the first time.

[big gray tabby]

On that we can agree. I have a personal stake in the War on Terror, so my priorities might be different than yours. But strictly as a tactical move in the War, I think it was pretty smart.

[GraniteStateConservative]

McCain is a hawk, not a dove.

[kaktuskid]

McCain is a female reproductive organ!

[Sam's Army]

An egg?

[kaktuskid]

No...."Slot B!!"

[gaspar]

I would suggest you go back and read my posts. I am talking about American-firsters and now, when caught out, you wish to change the subject. To answer you, conservatives didn't get us into WWII, Germany, Italy and Japan did. Secondly, there was really no such thing as a Conservative prior to WWII. There were reactionaries, and there segregationists, and there were country club republicans. The Conservative movement is the handiwork of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and not the John Birch society. Period.

[JohnGalt]

"reactionaries, and there segregationists, and there were country club republicans"

Interesting theory, but not surprising. Let me guess: Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Churchill are three great 'Conservative' statesmen? Correct?

[u-89]

Reading these posts here that you are involved with (and others) makes me want to say something regarding us and Iraq which once I did not understand the "why" of but have come to believe over time yet never spelled out here on FR. Come to think of it I decided I will not say what I was planning to, I will just lay a few historical facts out on the table without comment to play it safe.

I.
a) 1990 - Iraq is finished with a war against Iran and deep in debt.
b) Kuwait is pumping more oil than allowed by OPEC agreement , deflating the price of oil thus hurting Iraq's already troubled economy and ability to repay it's debts.
b1) Kuwait is drilling sideways under their border taping into Iraqi fields.
c) Iraq does a lot of very loud saber rattling but the Kuwaitis do not cease and desist.
d) The US does not take the initiative to be a peace broker or approach OPEC members on the brewing trouble.
d2) The US ambassador to Iraq actually tells Saddam that the dispute is not our concern - thus giving him a green light for action.
e) Saddam finally makes a move against Kuait and we scream like a stuck pig about how we must "restore democracy to Kuwait".
f) We tell the Saudis they need us to protect them though they do not feel threatened. We say we have satellite photos of Iraqi armor massing on their border ready to overrun them. Other countries satellites show noting on the border - theirs are released to the world - we stand by our story and to this day have not released our photos.
g) We assure the Saudis our bases will only be on their soil for as long as it takes to liberate and secure Kuwait.
h) We leave Saddam in power and establish no fly zones over his sovereign territory telling him he has no rights there thus making sure we need permanent bases to counter him and thus never leave Saudi Arabia.
i) Just an aside- the Soviet Union had collapsed the year before and was therefore in no position to object to our moving into the gulf.

Conclusion: Seems to me like we saw a crisis and an opportunity therefore we set up Saddam as cover to establish permanent presence i..e.control over the gulf but I wouldn't say that here on FR.

II.
a) Fast forward to late 1990s - certain conservatives want to take Saddam out of the picture completely, draw up plans and wait.
b) 9/11 happens (note:one of terrorists pet grieves is infidel US presence on holy Saudi territory -11 years after gulf war)
c) The US decides Saddam must go but can't pin 9/11 on him so fumbles around for excuses.
d) Before war starts US warns Iraqi generals they will be tried as war criminals if they harm their own oil fields.
e) War starts and first targets secured are oil platforms on Iraq coast.
f) US wins war easily and occupies Iraq (for some reason but it was NOT for oil)
g) Now that Saddam is gone Iraq will once more trade oil for US dollars and not Euros. Other OPEC countries who were thinking of taking Euros now are staying with USD.
h) Saddam's pre-war long time oil contracts with France and Russia are void. US and Britain are on the scene.
h2) Pre-war plans of an oil pipeline from Iraq, through Jordan to the Mediterranean coast (Israel) can proceed now that Saddam is out of the way.
i) Iraq is unruly and not ready for independence and may not be for many long years. US forces must stay indefinately in large numbers.
j) Now that we have bases in Iraq and Qatar we leave Saudi Arabia who wanted us out for years.

Conclusion: none of this was a predetermined plan (using democracy, national security and conventient global troubles as cover) to secure the mid east oil fields for US companies and US military presence, it's all a benign coincidence.

P.S.Failed Unical efforts to get a pipeline through Afghanistan and our overthrow of the Tailiban and continuing presence there is beyond the scope of this outline but is also a coincidence.

P.S.S. Our shifting of forces out of Europe and into the Balkans, Bulgaria, Georgia, Azerbashan, etc. at this time has nothing to do with securing the mid-east or the central asian oil and gas supplies. All this too is a coincidence. We are not now, never have been and never will be imperialistic or aggressive. We are a benign peace loving people minding our own business wishing all the world peace, love and joy.

?) But even if it were about oil, what were they doing in control of our oil anyway?

[JohnGalt]

I think that is a rather sober (in the modest sense)analysis, however, I think your use of the words 'we' and 'conservative' clouds the picture. Bush Administration, Beltway conservative think tank operatives, Republican defense industry operatives, Republican oil industry operatives...that paints a clearer picture.

The question is that as Americans or as Old Europe Christians (as opposed to the Armagedonists), should American lives and treasure be risked abroad to play out the schemes of Ivy League geeks?

Keep going with your train of thought, I would be interested in reading more. Also, your first point on Persian Gulf War I is similiar to what Jude Wanninski says, only he adds in the famous meeting between Bush's Ambassador at the time and Saddam in July 1990 when Saddam believes he gets the green light to invade Kuwait; he also cites a US Army investigation that debunks the widely reported claim that Saddam gassed the Kurds specifically in 1988-89.

[Burkeman1]

I read "The New Dealers War" just about a month ago while on a short vacation. Really eye opening for me and caused me to change some opinions (The Rainbow 5 "leak" just days before Pearl Harbor, The little secret missions to get the Japanese to fire on our shipping first, the naked campaign to intentionally target civilians in terror bombings, the ignoring of German resistance movements and the refusal to even talk to them despite repeated attempts on their part, the insane Morganthau plan to turn Germany into pasture land and enslave all German males on giant construction projects in Africa, and Roosevelts totally ignorant and arrogant attitudes toward the Soviet Union). I intend to get his WWI book for my vacation this week.

[u-89]

should American lives and treasure be risked abroad to play out the schemes of Ivy League geeks?

That sums everything up rather well I suppose, particularly when it is clear that these schemes involve power and money. That's how the world has always worked but unfortunately too many Americans are naive enough to believe that their country is different than all the rest. Or at least Republicans would never do anything like that even if Democrats might.

I have to admit that being born during the cold war and being an anti-communist I never questioned the cold war though certain aspects of it made me wonder. Only after the war did the obvious become obvious. Same with Gulf War I, only after the fact did the pieces of the puzzle form a picture to me. At the time I knew it was about oil (obviously we wouldn't care if this were Borneo) but I did not think of it as a first step in a bold geopolitical move to take over the region. Again I wondered why Bush would encourage the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up then let them whither on the vine - it did not seem righteous or smart as it would hurt our credibility. But amoral realpolitik saw it as a beautiful excuse to set up our no fly zones thus securing the need for permanent bases - the foot in the door (or more apropos the camel's nose in the tent). This is no different than Stalin encouraging the Warsaw Poles to rise up against the Germans as the Red Army approached then stopping his advance to let the Germans slaughter those Poles who if alive would be a thorn in his side post war. Different scenarios yet the same principle - and evil through and through. Of course that line Bush Sr. used to justify the war "we must restore democracy to Kuwait" was totally cynical and speaks volumes about him and the elite's contempt for average Americans.

[JohnGalt]

I will be curious to hear your thoughts on Illusions of Victory; I won't be seeing my father for another couple weeks, so I won't get to it until August.

Regards,

[Burkeman1]

I actually just ordered "Paris, 1919" by suggestion of another Freeper and it should come by tomorrow. But I checked one of the two bookstores on this Island (hint- big island in whaling history) today and they didn't have Flemming's book which is weird because I bought "The New Dealer's War" at that same store. Going tommorrow to the other. I will let you know what I think of it if I read it first.

[Willie Green]

No one seemed to ask if there was any end to Clinton's international interventionism - my take is that President Bush is just batting clean up for previous administration(s) who couldn't seem to get the job done.

They're on the same globalist relay team.
The 'Toon grabbed the baton from Papa Bush in Somalia and ran with it for 8 years.
Now Juanterm is carrying the baton.

We haven't had a decent President in the White House since Reagan.

[JohnGalt]

I suspect you probably got a soft cover New Dealers War on Nantucket, where as Illusions just came out and is only in hardcover.

Just a guess.

LewRockwell.com has been providing links to Fleming's commentary on hnn.com; he provides a good compliment to viewing current events through the themes in his historical books.

[Burkeman1]

Correct. Was just looking for a good beach book when "The New Dealers' War" title grabbed my attention and I bought it. And success today, I just shelled out 31.50 for "An Illusion of Victory". Will let you know my thoughts.

[Burkeman1]

An excerpt from "The Illusion of Victory":

"A pro-war Republican, Clarence B. Miller of Minnesota, enlivivened things by reading a supposedly suppressed paragraph in Herr Zimmermann's telegram to Mexico: "Agreeably to the Mexican government, submarine bases will be established in Mexican ports, from which will be supplied arms, ammunition and supplies. All {German} reservists in the United States are ordered into Mexico. Arrange to attack all along the border."

"Antiwar congressmen rushed a messenger to the State Department which denied the existence of any such paragraph. But Miller kept insisting on its authenticity and waved the paper at them to the end of the session.

Sounds very familiar to some of the "evidence" that I get waved at me all the time around here.