glecco

An open question for all:

Many of us have come to the conclusion that GB is not the brightest star to have come out of the Texas night; and whatever his motivation for deciding to create the current mess in Iraq will remain a mystery for most of us. Ultimately, his motivation doesn't really matter.

The men surrounding him do not suffer this same lack of resource and it's reasonable to assume that whoever was pulling the strings was of sufficient intelligence to realize that the United States was not in the position to receive any benefit from the adventure in Iraq. Perhaps they were not so prescient to predict the extent of the struggle, but its fair to assume that they were intelligent enough to devise this scheme for some beneficiary. The question remains - who did they percieve to be the eventual beneficiary?

glecco

------------------------------------------------

Cui bono
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cui bono ("Good for whom?", or "Who benefits?") is a
Latin adage which means that the person or people guilty
of committing a crime may be found amongst those who
have something to gain, perhaps financially. Although
the principle is useful in criminal investigations, the party
with the most to gain may not always be obvious, or the
guilty party may distract attention by diverting attention
on to a scapegoat. The expression is said to have been
coined by Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius
Longinus Ravilla."

Harry Boy

Saddam fooled the world, he got rid of his *****.

scout

Great post.
I have given it some thought, and although there was some revenge factors involved, I kept coming back to oil. Its been well documented that this administration was dividing up Iraq oil fields well before 9/11. I'm guessing that Halliburton Corporation has made the most money resulting from this war. Cheney is still associated with Halliburton and will probably take on some type of position once he leaves office. He also controlled, influenced and pulled a lot of strings that led to the war (frequent trips to the intelligence bureau). He may have not benefited as much in dollars as his corporation or even some defense contractors, but he had more to gain in the way of power and ego. I'll go with Cheney for $200.

Turk

It was a power struggle between the USA and the EU.
You may even throw Russia into the mix.

Oil is the biggest reason, and when you have Saddam flirting shamelessly with the French, mainly France; well our conservative folk, with their newly re-found Jesus and all, would not have any of that public display of affection.

It wasn't just Halliburton, or any one single military supplier, or any one single oil giant, it was all of them wanting to devour that little sovereign nation, or bring them democracy, whatever you may want to call it, for years to come.

Great post, by the way, Glecco!

Harry Boy

Now you guys have told us why Bush went to war, why did the Democrats want to go?

wistahpatsfan

In the meantime, China sits by calmly collecting oil reserves with all the cash they have on hand from kicking everyone's but on manufacturing and trade using slaves. The US and Europe are exhausting themselves to get what oil they can. Meanwhile, US investment corporations buy up stocks of oil, holding them, and driving the prices up, all the while selling stock in energy sector funds.

The money ignores the tens of thousands who die for the profit of these pigs.

wistahpatsfan

In the meantime, China sits by calmly collecting oil reserves with all the cash they have on hand from kicking everyone's but on manufacturing and trade using slaves. The US and Europe are exhausting themselves to get what oil they can. Meanwhile, US investment corporations buy up stocks of oil, holding them, and driving the prices up, all the while selling stock in energy sector funds.

The money ignores the tens of thousands who die for the profit of these pigs. Free market, my a ss.

gomezcat

That's a very good question, given that they all backed him. From what I have read, my guess is that they decided to go along with the war for fear of not looking tough. I don't know how much they actually believed the evidence and I don't think we will ever know. It is telling, though, that Clinton never invaded Iraq. In other words, he and the Dems presumably thought that Iraq was safely contained. So my guess is they backed the war due to moral cowardice.

__________________
The blog of our recent trip to The States (September and October 2012):


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DarrylS

That is a good question, but I suspect it had to do with looking soft on "terrorism" and not doing their homework, had they been united and done their homework they may have opposed...however if they opposed they would have looked weak and suffered in the polls. It is a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing, the failure to unite the Dems and lack of leadership is obvious. If I remember there was a groundswell of popularity at the time based upon what our illustrious leader was selling, even they had info contrary to it...if they had opposed it at the time they would have looked weak, but if they had come back with a completely different plan to fight terrorism and control the borders they would have looked strong...the lack of consistent message and poor leadership provided a missed opportunity.

The Cui Bono thing, two people were supposed to benefit..

Neo Cons..their philosophy, if things went smoother, would have benefitted immensely

Specific Corporations..Blackwater, Haliburton, Custer Battles....all of which have made gargantuan profits from this skirmish, which is the power base of the Republican Party.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

All_Around_Brown

Good post. Follow the money, I like the latin version, Cui bono, better.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.