Today's Weblog Home  Weblog Index

The Motivations of the Bush administration in Iraq

Date:             Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:42:34 -0500
From:             Jim Pivonka <>
To:             WN <>
References:             1 , 2

"Jim, what do you make of the motivations of the Bush administration in Iraq?  We've heard all the justifications, but what is it really? After this week's barrage by Cheney, all I could think of was they want the oil; is that too simplistic? (The number of oil men leads me that way.) Somehow "finishing up the Gulf War" does not carry much weight with me.  And further, while I can fully believe they have no problem jettisoning all kinds of international compacts and cooperation, just how do they think the world will operate when we in fact do go it alone in all areas?


Wink, I never know whether to attribute these things to stupidity or duplicity.   I do not think it is oil, though, this time.  My feeling is that it has more to do with the long term objectives of the people who arranged W's election, for the overall shape of Global economic and political arrangements.

The state of perpetual war that 9-11 has provided the cover for permits W and the bunch around him to eat away at the Constitution, and call anti-democratic legislation a "Patriot Act".  It has provided a convenient rationale for support of the terroristic Sharon government in Israel, with significant domestic political benefits to the Shrubbyites among Armaggedonist Christians as well as those knee jerk Jews who believe supporting Sharon is compatible with or even identical to supporting Israel.

Right now the "impending war" is intended to extend the duration of the "incumbent bonus" that resulted from the 9-11 attack, and so to help retain Republican control of the House and regain control of the Senate.  Mid-term elections are kind to incumbents, and to the White House,  only in times of crisis, so crisis now provides a significant political advantage.

I also think that the ideologues running the White House and DOD believe that the way they are doing things will strengthen the hand of right wing movements in other countries, and make the international situation more amenable to the goals of the international oligarchy/kleptocracy they represent.

The success of their strategy  in Columbia, Venezuala, and Israel are apparent, but I see less evidence the strategy is working in Europe.  Still, if we extend the 9-11 scenario to Europe, all that would be required would be a comparable attack in a European capital city which could be attributed to Iraq, and the governments currently opposing the Shrubbyist agenda there would most likely be replaced with neo-fascists much more to our Administration's liking.  Even without such an incident, the paranoiac zenophobia that the Administration is selling domestically and internationally is strengthening the neo-fascist movements in Europe.

So, I think that oil has little to do with what these people do, or how they do it.  Rather, their actions are driven by neo-fascist ideology, and a dark vision of a re-medievalized world civilization, with power and resources concentrated in the hands of a new super-oligarchy.  These people are, after all, no more than 19th Century Spencerian Social Darwinists, who can gain and hold power only through frankly criminal means, from rigging elections to diversion of profit from financial crimes to right wing political propaganda foundations.


Date:              Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:58:11 -0500
From:              Jim Pivonka <>
To:              W N <>
References:              1 , 2 , 3 , 4
 Date:             Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:51:09 -0500
From:             "W N" <>
To:             "Jim Pivonka" <>
References:             1 , 2 , 3

I can see it for the DOD crowd (and the nefarious Perle and Abrams), but the Cheney and Rumsfeld crowd? I can't believe they have any philosophical underpinnings. And since no one is talking about the day after, I fear they haven't thought about it -- too much movie-watching, that end with fade to black; or I guess for this generation, too many plots resolved in a 1 hour show, or at the worst, a 6 hours mini series.  The whole thing depresses me no end.


Perle and Abrams, and others in the second tier (there are a good many of them) are longstanding and accomplished ideologues.  I just cannot believe they were hired by accident, I think the top tier knows exactly who they are, what they believe, etc.  The "happy idiot" (or in Cheney's case miserable, depressed idiot) act the guys at the top put on is only to give cover to the ideological agenda they are pressing through the second tier, while they groom these guys for the next generation of rightist cabinet nominees.

Shrub's administration is a combination of the worst of Nixon and Reagan, dressed up to look like the more moderate of each.  And its agents have learned from Nixon's mistakes, as well as Reagan's successes.   I cannot expect we will see many tracks left.

It is not so much that they have not looked at the day after, as that they don't care about it, in most respects.  They think they do not have to.  They have an undemanding public opinion, influenced by the quick cut, no continuity, short cycle entertainments you refer to, etc.  (More on that later.)

And Chaos furthers their agenda, so long as it does not cause them to lose elections and they can ensure relative compliance with their wishes on the ground in Iraq, post Saddam.  They never, so far as I know, have implied a desire for a free or democratic regime in Iraq.  Their sole objectives are no capability of or desire to use nuclear or CBW, and "friendliness" to global capital markets.

Yeah, it is really very depressing.


The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up

Subject:             Re: Article: First Among Evils? The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up
Date:             Sat, 31 Aug 2002 19:59:05 -0500
From:             Jim Pivonka <>
References:             1

Subject: Article: First Among Evils? The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up
 Date:          Sat, 31 Aug 2002 13:49:44 -0400 (EDT)

This article from has been sent to you by
re: last message
Before Sept. 11, North Korea and Iran were the top concerns of the Bush administration. So when did Iraq become the problem that had to be dealt with first?

Week in Review Desk | September 1, 2002, Sunday
The World: First Among Evils?; The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up
By DAVID E. SANGER (NYT) 1500 words - Late Edition - Final , Section 4 , Page 1 , Column 2

ABSTRACT - Bush administration's sense of urgency about Saddam Hussein, and debate
 over whether that urgency is justified, are likely to dominate arguments over Iraq in
 coming weeks, as Pres Bush tries to make case that delay could be deadly (M) WHEN
 Vice President Dick Cheney declared last week that ''the risks of inaction are greater than
 the risks of action'' when it comes to ousting Saddam Hussein, the rest of the world read
 between the lines. Despite White House denials that President Bush has yet to decide
 about military action, it sounded as if Mr. Cheney was saying that he and his boss have
 concluded there is no diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem.

Further United Nations inspections, he said, would dangerously ''provide false comfort.''
 Providing no details, he said Iraq will obtain nuclear weapons ''fairly soon.'' His tone
 suggested the administration doesn't plan to get sucked into a lengthy discussion on
 the subject with its allies. Article: First Among Evils? The Debate Over Attacking Iraq Heats Up

Interesting stuff, Wink.  Thanks for the note.

If I were a hard line hawk who objected to the Administration's approach because it was constrained by the current lack of public and international support, and if I believed Cheney's blatherings, I might say that this was an opportunity to lay back until Saddam acted and then provide a demonstration to the world of the consequences of threatening US interests with nuclear blackmail.

Since this is exactly the kind of thinking that I believe these yahoos engage in, it follows, for me, that they do not themselves believe the Cheney line; that that line is a coverup for other concerns and objectives.

Fear that Iraq might partner with Al Qaeda in nuclear, biological and chemical attacks on other countries, and hope to avoid the consequences of such attacks, may be one such concern.  And Iraq is possibly a more likely source of such coordinated sub-rosa actions than Iran, because the internal political dialogue in Iran seems healthier than that in Iraq.   And a properly planned and executed action to liberate the Iraqi peoples from Saddam's yoke could be appropriate.

But I am persuaded that the real reasons for focus on Iraq have to do with domestic political calculations, based on the Bush peoples' judgements about which of the several "candidate" external enemies the administration might best focus on in its efforts to consolidate its regime.  I think they have read the conversations in internet forums, email newsgroups, and chat rooms, as well as assessed other gauges of public susceptibility to jingoistic manipulation, and come to the conclusion that Iraq has more emotional "grab" with the public than the other enemies.

The anthrax mailing last fall nailed this down for them.  They are explicitly exploiting the fear of CBW that attack has raised, associating it with the most likely foreign source of such attacks, and using the resulting miasma of terror in the US population to further their own political advantage and agenda.

It does not matter whether the (now generally accepted) US source of the anthrax attack was acting purposfully in furtherance of the Administration's objectives, or completely independently, out of some political or "professional" grievance (such as underfunding of the anti-CBW research program).  The Shrubbyites have amply demonstrated their willingness exploit the resulting mass psychology of fear, and to use a desultory investigation of the anthrax incident to perpetuate its effect on the public psyche.

A reign of terror.  These folks believe, and are in the midst of an attemp to prove that it is easy to rule a terrified people, and not so hard to terrify them.