Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Obama Administration ObamaCare Medical Codes Confirm: Execution by Beheading To Be Implemented

Further confusing this assertion is the fact that Wilson was a master elocutionist, who used the quoted phrase to spur the nation to declare war as a result of German attacks and their attempt to bring Mexico into conflict with the U.S. (and perhaps in response to other stimuli). Wilson's first term was notable for himself keeping the country out of the global conflict, so Wilsonian "policy" is itself contradictory. "Protecting democracy" is a euphemism for "we need to declare war", for whatever set of actual reasons.

Bush's actual reasons for invading Iraq I believe were very thin, and certainly delusional, and have very little consonance with the WWI backstory. Ardy's characterization of Bush's mentations as being "git Saddam and democracy will fill the void" rings solid to me. The debacle following that was an excellent example of trying to justify sunk costs (a nod to the ever present spectre of Capitalism )

At the risk of returning to the topic, do you think it is a mental defect that allows uncritical thinking, or is it a conditioned response?

IMO quite a lot of fuzzy thinking is tied to confirmatory bias. Virtually anything can be taken as credible in support of a strongly held attitude.... especially if that attitude has to do with feelings of revulsion, contempt, or one's perceived enemies.

With respect to the folks who brought this to my attention, I would say that it's both.

Good point. You see what you want to see.

FIrst, Ardy, this is not my thread. Second, I did not inject this topic into this thread. Third, I never denied that the Iraq invasion was promoted based on the claim that Saddam had WMD or the claim that they were a threat to us. Fourth, in politics, it is not unusual for what is used to "promote" an action to not necessarily be the underlying reason for wanting to implement the action. Fifth, because Democrats like to convince themselves that they are smart and Republicans are stupid, Dems tend to fall into the trap of believing that members of the Bush administration and other cheerleaders of the invasion were stupid enough to actually believe their own promotional activities. But, then, perhaps you are simply expressing what your beliefs were at the time of the lead-up to the invasion. Did you really buy into the promotion, Ardy, or did you recognize it for the BS that it was? Just mildly curious.

no i did not buy into the promotion
otoh i do think the bush admin mostly invaded iraq for the reasons they said

I didn't buy it, either. The clincher for me came when they started saying that the invasion had to happen by the end of March (if memory serves) because in another month it would be too hot there for the soldiers, even though the imminent threat (that mushroom cloud) was proclaimed to be at least a year away.

I thot to meself, "Well, why not wait until after summer then, and more intel might show things to be different in the bargain?" Then's when it hit me that they thought they'd lose ground on the public opinion front, probably because their made up reasons for the necessity of invasion might evaporate, and they had already decided to invade.

So, I didn't buy the sales pitch, nor do I think that the invasion was based on what they were selling, at least not in whole.

The invasion of Iraq always had a 1997 road map. It's signatories: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby among others.

It's no coincidence that this road map was followed to a "t" complete with a "Pearl Harbor event" , which the road map called for to kick-start the journey.

Rick
Thx for the posting
Interesting to go back and consider these issues with some time and distance
Perhaps the basis for a new thread. Though there are so many interlocked issues I am not sure what subject.

A few comments
I do not see the pnac as being at all "wilsonian"

IMO bush was surrounded by pnac advisors. And as such that certainly contributed a predispositing thought bias. And that in turn would have shaped the confirmatory bias in viewing events like 9-11

That said, IMO the evidence is that prior to 9-11. Bush was inclined to believe what he said he believed. Which was that the us should be a strong country but should be more narrowly self interested and should avoid direct involvement in international problems to the extent possible. IMO there is no evidence of anything else before 9-11

Following on that line
I think 9-11 was seen as a stunning threat to us security
And the response was developed in the context of trying to pre empt future potential threats. And IMO saddam was seen as an uncontrollable wild card who likely did have WMD and might well transfer those to terrorists at some future point

And so IMO bush saw the invasion of Iraq as a necessary measure to protect the us from what could have been an enormous threat to the homeland and to the stability of our strategic allies including Israel and the gulf states.

Having reached that conclusion the promotion of the invasion was begun and executed in an expedient manner

History shows that people make poor decisions. They rationalize, they deceive themselves and they lie to others. But in their own minds those decisions seem appropriate and necessary.