News What was the true motive behind the Iraq War?

[Art]

The Democrats have a big disadvantage. They can't call a press conference every week and indoctrinate people with a bunch of well prepared propaganda.

To again draw an analogy with Britain; traditionally the vast majority of the press supported the Tory party even as they moved further to the right under Thatcher as the alternative was to support a socialist Labour party.

Labour remodelled itself actually expelling extreme left members and moved ideologically to the centre ground. This upset a lot of their traditional supporters but won them huge support from disaffected Torys who were unhappy with the extreme rightwing policies of their party which were dividing the nation. They then relaunched themselves as New Labour and arranged meetings with all of the newspaper chiefs to introduce their new policies. Many of the newspapers switched to supporting New Labour and so come the next general election New Labour won by a massive landslide.

The GOP is now where the Tory's were but it is only if the democrats take that middle ground that they will capitilise on it. Some leftist democrats will complain about abandoning principles but as the modernisers in the Labour party correctly argued it is better to get 70% of your policies through rather than 0%.

 

[SOS2008]

Repeating a post in another thread that may be more applicable in this thread...(in follow-up to alexandra's post)

http://hnn.us/articles/3015.html

Review of Chalmers Johnson's The Sorrows of Empire
By Stanley Kutler

Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and professor emeritus at UC San Diego, is a formidable writer whose many books have garnered considerable acclaim. His work on the Japanese postwar political economy is unrivaled.

Blowback, his study of the unintended consequences of U.S. overseas military and political adventures, published before Sept. 11, 2001, proved prescient. It forms the backdrop for this new and eagerly awaited work.

…Today's leaders bristle at being characterized as imperialists yet curiously wax nostalgic about the good old days of the British Empire. …Why did the British retreat from their empire in the 1950s, and why did the Soviets leave Afghanistan in the 1980s?

…Although Iraq is not Vietnam, our experience in Indochina should have taught us the limits of our ability to be the world's policeman. We could not impose our will and force people to surrender their aspirations for independence and freedom (by their lights) only to become our client. Alas, those lessons now seem lost, even overwhelmed as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) confidently asserts that we would have won the Vietnam War had George W. Bush been president. [ <-- added]

…Now a determined group of policymakers has induced amnesia on the subject. It doesn't acknowledge limits to U.S. power. In fact, Johnson describes how its members have launched a new era, with President Bush instituting preemptive war as the foundation of our international role and insisting that the United States offers the "single sustainable model for national success," one that is "right and true for every person in every society."

…Johnson seeks to hoist the "neo-conservatives" with their own petard. They love, he writes, to breathe the air of "originalism" in the Constitution, yet they openly reject the framers' wisdom. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," wrote in 1793: "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive... The trust and the temptation would be too great for anyone man."

Yet President Bush unilaterally declared a long war against terrorism. Johnson notes that a White House spokesman at the time remarked that the president "considers any opposition to his policies to be no less than an act of treason." Treason? In his campaign, Bush joked in October 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." After Sept. 11, he told a reporter: "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." So much for James Madison.

Johnson has given us a polemic, but one soundly grounded in an impressive array of facts and data. The costs of empire are our sorrow, he contends. He anticipates a state of perpetual war, involving more military expenditures and overseas expansion, and presidents who will continue to eclipse or ignore Congress. He documents a growing system of propaganda, disinformation and glorification of war and military power. Finally, he fears economic bankruptcy as the president underwrites these adventures with a congressional blank check while neglecting growing problems of education, health care and a decaying physical infrastructure.

 

[ray b]

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

facts are the bush family does have money ties to the real national socialists in the 30's and 40's proven by the USA goverment
as DT said "follow the $$$$$$ "
and I and many others have been calling the extreem NEO-CON's the new nazis 10 years before you were born back when the john birchers and the KKK led that faction
now I know they arenot the VERY SAME as the national socialists but just as they try to paint all liberals as dis-loyal commies we see them as the same extreem ultra-far-rightwing threat to civilrights and personal freedoms
and use the BIG LIE and other nazi tricks very well
even have some of the same ideas like calling the press liberal therefore untrustworthy
favor news blackouts and want to burn books
censor movies and popsongs
hate gays

 

[Smurf]

The problem isn't that people don't use facts to back themselves up, the problem is that people don't have facts in the first place. People hold on so tightly to their collective world view no matter how many facts are thrown in their view. It's the media keeping them scared and dumb that's the problem.

 

[outsider]

Originally Posted by russ_watters
I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.[/quote]OJ Simpson, innocent... Michael Jackson, innocent... no one with enough money and some decent story gets nailed... Martha didn't get fully charged... the list goes on... poor people who get the out-of-work lawyers get 10 years for shoplifting or stealing cars... does money buy fairness and equality?...

zero direct evidence is the only way to do crime as a professional. The insurance man who deals drugs door to door... does he ever get a "routine check"? No one reports him because he looks decent and everyone who he works with is "in" on it. There are no witnesses, no evidence... so I guess with this logic, there is no crime?

Sometimes you have to judge what an object is by the negative space when there is little or no other information.
http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/Images/machine.gif

 

[Informal Logic]

I could not disagree more strongly. Facts are singular, objective things and there is only one "correct" fact. The problem is people don't use facts to back up their arguments! Take the thread where people are claiming Bush is a Nazi, for example! No, the word "crackpot" most certainly does apply in such cases.

Even in cases where the fact is not known, there still needs to be objectivity in finding it. The threads on whether or not Bush stole the election are a perfect example. There is a fact out there: either he did or he didn't steal the election. But right now, there is precisely zero direct evidence that he did, yet a lot of people believe it!

And its not that guys like me think that all the people on the left are crackpots, but it is a basic reality that loudest complainers are most often the furthest from being reasonable.

I agree Bush probably is not a formal member of the Nazi party. However, there have been several posts providing a source that lists the traits and behaviors of Bush that are the same as those used by the Nazi party. So instead of saying Bush is a Nazi, if we say he acts like a Nazi will that be a problem for you?

With regard to elections, the 2000 election will go down in history as one of the most controversial in US history (a fact) and once again sources have been provided for this. You must admit that since Bush's brother Jeb is in a position of power in the state of Florida where most of the problems arose, it is cause for suspicion, along with the close election results for a candidate with little qualifications other than his family name. Aside from this, I am sure you are not so naive as to believe there are no cover ups that go on in our country, and that those in power can and do exactly that more often than we will ever know.

Whether any of these things can be proven or not, just the fact that Bush has divided our nation and the world (as can be seen in this forum) should be reason enough to want him removed from office. So what do you say, take one for the team and chill a bit.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree Bush probably is not a formal member of the Nazi party. However, there have been several posts providing a source that lists the traits and behaviors of Bush that are the same as those used by the Nazi party. So instead of saying Bush is a Nazi, if we say he acts like a Nazi will that be a problem for you?

When the majority of people think of the Nazi's and Hitler they think of one of the most despicable pograms of the last century. MILLIONS of people tortured, butchered, and executed just in concentration camps alone. THAT is what the majority of people think of when they think of Nazi's or Hitler. Comparing Bush to them is only a propaganda tactic for shock value. All of the comparisons I have seen are exagerations and over zealous justification for using emotionally charged rhetoric instead of contributing to an objective discussion.

 

[outsider]

When the majority of people think of the Nazi's and Hitler they think of one of the most despicable pograms of the last century. MILLIONS of people tortured, butchered, and executed just in concentration camps alone. THAT is what the majority of people think of when they think of Nazi's or Hitler. Comparing Bush to them is only a propaganda tactic for shock value. All of the comparisons I have seen are exagerations and over zealous justification for using emotionally charged rhetoric instead of contributing to an objective discussion.

your definition of objectivity is looking at things with one eye covered by a monkey

 

[SOS2008]

I understand people associate the Holocaust with Hitler. However, this is a politics forum and members should have a deeper understanding that Nazism (which still exists as a party) is an ideology, and a dangerous one because it led to the ability to commit the atrocities that Hitler orchestrated.

On this point I will post this again:

The Bush Fascist Index

"Fascism: Any program for setting up a centralized authcratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition." --Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Early on during the first term of the Bush presidency many progressives characterized Bush's statements and actions as "fascist" and, for dramatic effect, compared him with Adolph Hitler. While they were reacting to Bush policy, they also recalled that the U.S. government found that Bush's grandfather had illegally aided the Nazis during the 30's. Conservatives responded that the comparison was exaggerated, since Bush had not done the things that Hitler had done, like imprisoning and murdering European jews. Nevertheless, it's clear that it was Bush's fascist leanings that progressives were focusing upon. In comparison with what had came before, a trend toward fascism was seen in the early days of the Bush presidency, and became more pronounced after 9/11.

In 2002, Laurence W. Britt's Fascism Anyone? analyzed seven fascist regimes in order to find the common threads that mark them as fascist: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. He found 14 common characteristics (reprinted below, with 6 additions by Umberto Eco) and concluded:

"Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not."

We think "maybe not." It's just a matter of degree. Reading the daily news, we come across numerous critics of the Bush Administration who document, point to, or warn about each of the characteristics used to identify a fascist regime.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism - e.g., Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights (Abu Ghraib?)
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause - a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism - used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism - adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic.
6. A controlled mass media - Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats.
7. Obsession with national security - usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints (the Patriot Act?)
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together - Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected - Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens. (CAFTA, tax $ to assist oil companies, bankruptcy laws, etc.?)
10. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts - Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal (global warming, ID, etc.?)
11. Rampant cronyism and corruption - the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves (Halliburton?)
12. Fraudulent elections.

http://www.bushwatch.net/fascism.htm

And that leads me to the next so-called unfounded topic of elections...This from Wikipedia:

The U.S. presidential election of 2000 was one of the closest elections in U.S. history, decided by only several hundred votes in the swing state of Florida. ...This election was only the fourth time in United States history that a candidate had won the Presidency while losing the nationwide popular vote.

For more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_U.S._presidential_election#Disputes The list is too long to post.

After the 2004 U.S. Presidential election there were allegations of massive fraud, including but not limited to forging vote totals, miscounting votes for Kerry as votes for Bush [1], widespread voter intimidation and depriving neighborhoods likely to vote for Kerry of voting machines.

Over 40,000 alleged incidents were reported in the 2004 election, ranging from minor errors to direct voter intimidation, mishandled absentee and provisional ballots, malfunctioning or inaccurate machines and/or apparent hacking and vote tampering.

For more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

Thank you once again for the opportunity to post this information.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I wasn't referring to fascism I was referring to the use of "Nazi" and "Hitler". Regardless of parallels, and whether they are really close or a stretch, those particular invocations, including the term fascist, have little point but to rile people up and are not conducive to objective discussion. If someone doesn't like the things that Bush does and believes that they are parallel to Hitler then to discuss them objectively those things need to be adressed themselves. To continually refer to Bush as Hitler and a Nazi is only serving to rile people up. It's like Rush and people like him referring to people as commies because they are on the left. It has no other purpose than to effect people emotionally no matter how much anyone wants to try to justify using those words.
Maybe this will explain better than I can...

Fascist (epithet)
The word "fascist" ( or "fascism") is sometimes used to denigrate persons, institutions or groups that would not describe themselves as fascist and that do not fall within the formal definition of the word. As a political epithet it has been applied to persons and groups on the extreme left, the extreme right and most points in between. It has also been applied to persons of many religious faiths, particularly fundamentalist groups, and it has been used to label a broad range of persons and institutions. Its use as an epithet generally serves to imply that the supposed "fascist" is unreasonably authoritarian. At best, it is considered mildly offensive, although many persons find it highly offensive and inappropriate.

By 1944, the term had already become so widely and loosely employed, that British essayist and novelist George Orwell was moved to write " ... the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

During the late 1960s and 1970s, it was popular for many leftists to describe a wide range of governments and public institutions as fascist. In the 80's the term was used by leftist critics to describe the Ronald Reagan administration and recently George W. Bush's. In her 1982 book "Beyond Mere Obedience" radical activist and theologian Dorothy Soelles, coined the term "Christofascist" to describe fundamentalist Christians and following the September 11, 2001 attacks a number of right wing commentators, particularly in the United States, began using the term "Islamofascism" to describe Militant Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here's some more I'll quote the ones that seem to fly around quite a bit...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commie#Commie.2C_Communist

Fearmongers
Largely used by American Republicans to describe commonly used Democratic election rhetoric and vice versa. Usually refers to claims that the Republicans will abolish Social Security.

Hitler
Used by virtually all sides of all debates with the hope of discrediting opposing viewpoints. Conservatives claim that anti-war activists are similar to those who appeased Hitler in the 1930s. Liberals claim that conservatives are similar to those who helped Hitler. Like "fascist," the strong connotations of "Hitler" often obstruct substantive dialogue.

See also Godwin's law.

Homophobia / Heterosexist
Heterosexism is a belief that heterosexuality is the only natural sexual orientation; homophobia was coined by analogy with psychological phobias to mean a dislike of homosexuality. Both terms are used to disparage persons and organizations that oppose gay rights.

Activist Judges
U.S.: Judges whose decisions overturn traditional legal interpretations, or who craft decisions to produce a specific outcome. Most commonly described as judges who "legislate from the bench."

Fence Sitter
One who "sits on the fence", ie, refuses to commit himself to either one side of a political issue or the other, preferring to waver in the middle.

Gay Agenda
U.S.: Phrase used by conservatives to oppose any new extension of legal rights and privileges to homosexuals, on the grounds that homosexuals are seen as working gradually to abolish all sexual morality.

Government Handouts
Term used by opponents of wealth redistribution to imply that tax relief and aid for poverty is unjust. Also used by opponents of corporate subsidies to imply that tax relief and aid to for-profit corporations is unjust. See also: Corporate welfare

Nazi
The term "Nazi" is overused by people of all political stripes to describe or insult their opposition. The multiple atrocities and extremist ideology that the Nazis followed have made them notorious in popular grammar as well as history. The term "Nazi" is used in various ways. The terms are often used to describe individuals or groups of people who try to force an unpopular or extreme agenda on the general population, and also commit crimes and other violations on others without remorse. The terms are often simply used as an insult. The overuse of this term is best expressed by Godwin's Law, in which any debate is lost by the first party to use the terms "Nazi" or "Hitler" in their argument.

Neocon
U.S.: When many prominent members of the George W. Bush administration were identified as neoconservatives by the press, the terms "neoconservative" and "neocon" became ephitets applied to the Bush administration and its supporters, regardless of the more precise meaning of the term. It was exploited into obscure meanings based on opposition partisan perceptions of a rift in the GOP.

Variants include "Neocon Death Cult" (used extensively on Air America Radio, particularly on its Morning Sedition program), "neoc***" (particularly in reference to the right-wing columnist Ann Coulter), "neoconartist" and "neoconazi."

Pro-Abortion
U.S.: An insult used by the Pro-life movement against people who support the legal right to abortion. The term is meant to imply that those who support legalized abortion necessarily support and even encourage the practice of abortion.

Racist
Traditionally, one who discriminates or is prejudiced based on race. As a pejorative, anyone who disagrees with a controversial policy or idea that seeks to benefit a minority race, such as Affirmative Action. Also occasionally applied to those advocating such policies or ideas, with the implication that they are racist against the majority race, though this usage is frequently (but not always) sarcastic or in jest. The connotation has become similar to that of Nazi in race-related discussions.

Unamerican / Anti-American
.S.: Used to label somebody the user believes is undermining American values or working against the interests of the United States. Because there is little agreement about what constitutes either of these, in practice it is applied to an extremely broad set of people. See also: House Un-American Activities Committee.

Ect...

 

[2CentsWorth]

This discussion appears to have started with a post claiming that associating Bush with Hitler is completely unfounded, and that there is no proof of election fraud, and therefore both are just off the wall conspiracy theories. I agree that Nazis and fascists are not exactly the same, but what I come away with is that there are enough similar characteristics between the two, and similarities to the Bush administration to show it is not completely unfounded. Likewise, the elections and possible fraud is not just a conspiracy theory because problems and resulting disputes are real. The bottom line is members have provided information in relation to these claims, so to say otherwise is untrue at the minimum.

 

[Skyhunter]

The question is how did they get that way? The democrates had quite a bit of political power but then lost it. Why do you suppose they lost so much of their power?

Conservatives are predictable, they wish to preserve the status quo. Don't rock the boat. Therefore they have always been generally united as a party. Liberals want to push the envelope so they are more contentious and fight amongst themselves.

IMO The democrats lost power when Reagan repealed the fairness in broadcasting doctrine, allowing the radical right to dominate talk radio. They were able to build a base of 20-25 million bigoted homophobes who are now activists. These are the volunteers in the voter suppression drives that the right engages in so heavily. They pass out fliers in poor black neighborhoods telling them to remember to vote the day after the election, warn them that they will be arrested for outstanding parking tickets etc.

The tide is turning, I just hope that the Dem's have learned something because frankly their inept bureaucratic policies are why there were so many disgruntled conservatives to begin with.

 

[Informal Logic]

So true how things can be spun to fit one's agenda. In surfing around the same Wikipedia source, here is what I found:

Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements spread across Europe between World War One and World War Two and took several forms such as Nazism and Clerical fascism. Neofascism is generally used to describe post-WWII movements seen to have fascist attributes.

Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life.

The last highlighted sentence sounds a lot like the Bush regime to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

The extent and nature of the affinity between Fascism and Nazism has been the subject of much academic debate. Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism…

Nevertheless, despite these differences, Kevin Passmore (2002 p.62) observes:

There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. In Italy and Germany a movement came to power that sought to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation.

Hitler and Mussolini themselves recognised commonalities in their politics.
The second part of Hitler's Mein Kampf, "The National Socialistic Movement", first published in 1926, contains this passage:

I conceived the profoundest admiration for the great man south of the Alps, who, full of ardent love for his people, made no pacts with the enemies of Italy, but strove for their annihilation by all ways and means. What will rank Mussolini among the great men of this Earth is his determination not to share Italy with the Marxists, but to destroy internationalism and save the fatherland from it. (p. 622)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Nazism_and_Fascism

Most scholars consider Fascism to be an authoritarian political movement, and it is generally considered to be part of, or in coalition with, the extreme right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism

Bush Administration

Some writers claim that the United States now meets some or all requirements for a Fascist state. Cases have been made both for and against this allegation on all sides of the political spectrum.

Cases made to support the contention that the US is currently Fascist or moving towards fascism include:
· Reports such as the Bush Administration paying journalists to promote the policies of the Administration. This would lend credence to the allegation that Media is being controlled by the Administration. Also, self-censorship such as the sort practiced in open forums to prevent the spread of viewpoints that oppose the current administration may be considered evidence that the administration need not openly censor, but can rely on supporters to carry out the necessary censorship. (The Armstrong Williams incident)(The Balkans Website incident)
· The widespread use of religion as a justification for many laws and policies (such as Faith Based Initiatives) and the blocking of certain legislation on religious grounds (such as gay marriage and stem cell research). Also the widespread use of religious rhetoric and symbolism in many speeches and appearances lend credibility to the allegation of religion being intertwined with Government.
· Fraudulent Elections have been suspected in both of the last presidential elections. There is evidence such as the sworn testimony of Mr. Clint Curtis, and other widespread indications of deceptive election processes in Ohio and other locations, in addition to the conflicts of interest with Secretary of State of Ohio Mr. Blackwell also being the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign in Ohio.

To counter the claim that the United States is becoming fascist, opponents point to the fact that George W. Bush won a majority of the popular and electoral votes in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. However it should be noted that the Electoral Votes are usually based on the popular vote counted from the election. It is further noted that the belief that the US is becoming fascist is fiercely disputed under any administration by all sides of the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism#Bush_Administration

Returning to the OP, the reason we are in a quagmire and stuck in it for who knows how long, is because of fascist policies in this country, which is more of a threat to democracy than some dictator in the Middle East.

 

[TRCSF]

Returning to the OP, the reason we are in a quagmire and stuck in it for who knows how long, is because of fascist policies in this country, which is more of a threat to democracy than some dictator in the Middle East.

The reason we're in a quagmire is because we're in Iraq. We knew it was going to happen. Everybody knew it. Dick Cheney knew it, he's on record for saying it as the reason they didn't go in after the last gulf war.

 

[Skyhunter]

The reason we're in a quagmire is because we're in Iraq. We knew it was going to happen. Everybody knew it. Dick Cheney knew it, he's on record for saying it as the reason they didn't go in after the last gulf war.

He wasn't the CEO of Halliburton the last time.