We heard it over and over again when the United States, under George W. Bush, invaded Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and establish a new democracy in the heart of the Middle-East. Bush was fighting this war to enrich himself. He and his friends from Texas wanted that Iraqi oil. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how he was going to enrich his friends in Texas with Iraqi oil, but that was the claim over which much clamor was vented.
Well, ten years on and it appears that none of that talk was grounded in reality, yet the common misperception rolls on. One of the biggest losers in misguessing what George Bush would do and why had to be Saddam Hussein. George Jonas speaks to the problem:
"Iraq's dictator was convinced America wasn't going to interfere with his invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. Indeed, if it had been all about "the oil, stupid," America wouldn't have. But it wasn't, and America did interfere, big time."Good stuff. Read the whole thing here.
In the last couple of weeks, the Lefties at other sites I visit have started saying that Bush didn't even secure (take) the oil we went in there for. Of course, that would support the lie they've been pushing since 1990 that America is imperialistic. I don't know if that new meme is being pushed at Kos and TPM, et.al. I just find it interesting.
ReplyDeleteMost people forget that in the first days of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, at one point he had 1 million troops and full armored support at the border of Saudi Arabia, awaiting the command to invade. If he pulled that trigger, the world economy would have been thrown into complete chaos and that war would have been a much different animal. We supposedly let him know that if he did it, all options were on the table including the limited nuclear option. In private, we were taken totally off-guard, and if his troops over-ran the country quickly and secured the oil fields, we'd have few real options.
If he didn't secure it, what does that say about the idea that he sent our troops there to secure it? The obvious contradiction, and yet no one over there says:
ReplyDelete"Hey, wait a minute guys, this is stupid stuff!"
Still, Charlie Sheen will be out there crying "Not in my name! Not in my name!!"
It's tiresome.
Hey, Mr. D, did you catch April's new site?
ReplyDeletehttp://crossfitdolls.blogspot.com/
It seems she wanted to comment on cool stuff she discovered to help one look glam while you're at the gym. Cathy says it's of the first import. Check it out!
Are you sure I can take it?
ReplyDeleteWould there be any images containing April, weights,
and a sundress? I need to be sure. . .
Oh yeah, oh yeah..
ReplyDelete: )
Makeup?
ReplyDelete.
.
.
Makeup?
Yes, makeup. Apparently the liner/mascara problem has been handled, and ... well, I'm just going to get myself in trouble. I am delighted to see her just up and do something like that, and it really was attractively done. Plus, Cathy tells me it's very helpful information, so that adds to the positive vib of the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteYes, very nicely done April.
ReplyDeleteBut you, James, got me going with thoughts of April, sundresses, and weights.
Not funny, Sir!!!!!!!! Not funny at all!!!!!!!
Makeup. Makeup.
I assure you for the forty-some-years I exercised on a regular basis that makeup never entered the picture. Nor anything less than the grubbiest clothing I owned.
Sweat, dirt, more sweat...sometimes blood. I would want my mascara/liner to run so I would look like one of those undead characters in film--like in The Crow. But that's the way I roll, I guess. Go figure!
But on a positive note, now I do have options.
You boys are so silly!
ReplyDelete;)