It was always more than the oil.

It was about winning elections here deep into the new century.
It was about controlling the regulatory climate, making the court appointments, writing the tax law, running the whole thing, for a generation at least.
It was about turning the wartime powers of an executive onto your political enemies.
It was about reducing the Democrats to a Mulroneyesque rump.

The war was just how you got there -- with the war came the power, and the propaganda, and the hate and the fear.

Remember 2002? the One-Party State was right there, you could practically touch it, you only had to grab it.

And they got very close.

Dumb luck, and not fate, or our virtue, kept us from losing the Republic outright.

We dodged a bullet.


The country we hold in our hearts is waiting Bruce Springsteen

Except, of course, that they would immediately counter that of course Hussein was going to lie his ass off because he knew that he was facing death and wanted to leave behind a statement that would "hurt America" if it ever got leaked.  And by repeating this and lending it credibility you're helping the terrorists.  And why do you hate freedom.  And so on, and so forth.

PNAC.

The invasion and pacification of Iraq was to be a demonstration of US military might. As Madeleine Albright said, in response to the Powell doctrine, "What's the point of having this great army you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Forgot to mention - your link appears to be broken - it seems to link right back to itself.

The USSR was happy to negotiate many "security arrangements" with the US, but saw any pressure on it to improve itself on the human rights front as "interference in its internal affairs".

Not sure how that would have worked, since for quite some time the only real threats to Iran have come from the U.S. and Israel.

Holding one's breath until that happens is not recommended.

dada,
I concur.
This is so "old news" I wonder why it`s brought up now.
There definitely was a domestic agenda politically to create a profitable war, which keeps those on the take to keep the fear machine well greased, allowing individual rights to be usurped. This in turn was also a way to gain a major base of operations in the middle of the geopolitical center for the next century, & a one party rule for just as long.
Not being intelligent enough to pull it off, was also exacerbated by people on blogs like this to band together to break down the plan somewhat. But still, it`s obviously not completely trashed, as it should be, & won`t be, until this administration refutes all these changes which it promised to enact, & brings the criminals who fostered this plan to justice.
I`m getting a little blue around the gills waiting, & think that I`ll just go see the latest on Michael Jackson.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

Some still think he is a wizard.
I do love the phrase "he needed to prove his manhood, after surrendering it in the 1970s when it really counted". What a failure that was.
I think that those who arrogantly try to measure the size of their manhood, by the power of their missiles, rather than the superior power of diplomacy & patience, cultural sharing  & a commitment to peace are doomed to historical castration.
The problem left, is for others to clean up the bloody mess.

"I know George Bush. I've met him and spoke to him a number of times. He told me he had stopped drinking. When I asked him how he did it he said he was born again. I said, you were born again? WHY WOULD YOU COME BACK AS GEORGE BUSH???" -- Mort Sahl"
(From Maryscott O`Connor)

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

First, Saddam's fraud was not the problem. The problem was the Bush regime's fraud. That Saddam might have played into that was secondary at best. And in any case, Saddam's regime cooperated with the inspectors, and produced honest reports regarding their weapons.

Second, I don't know whether it would have brought down Saddam's regime or not. Opposition had been badly weakened by 13 years of unbelievable deprivation caused directly by the United States' (mainly Bill Clinton's) insistence upon continuing a sanctions regime that several very reasonable officials of the U.N. and WHO had referred to as genocidal, and that ultimately only the U.S. and the UK wished to continue despite the sometimes active opposition of the rest of the world, including most Security Council members. When you isolate a population by cutting off contact with the outside world (including banning such things as medical journals), and deprive it of the most basic necessities for human existence you increase its dependence on the internal power structure while weakening its ability to resist that power structure even when it wants to (people who are worried about when they will have their next meal and whether their children are going to survive the latest bout of water-borne diarrhea tend to focus on that rather than politics).

Third, the notion that Iran needed to be contained seems to me a knee-jerk reaction to tall the propaganda out there. Iran has not shown any real inclination to expand its territory or attack another country for any reason for more than 200 years, and it has given no signs that it intends to do so in the foreseeable future. So, what's to contain?