Why can't ONE SINGLE PUBLIC FIGURE explain why we really invaded Iraq?

[AngryYoungMan]

Damn it! Nobody will say it. Nobody goes near it. Not John Kerry, not John Edwards, not Lieberman, Daschle, Gephardt, Clinton or Clinton. Not Ralph Nader, not Al Gore. Not Wesley Clark. Not even sacred, holy Howard Dean would get into it.

When people like Viggo Mortensen get on TV wearing "No Blood For Oil" t-shirts, they are greeted with hostility and dull incomprehension. Nobody understands what they're talking about.

The person who came closest was Sharpton, in that debate last month, announcing the obvious: that Bush had lied about WMD. But when the CNN reporter asked incredulously, "Why would he lie?" Sharpton DIDN'T ANSWER, but instead made some amusing remarks about congenital lying and Bush's psychology.

And the result is that a majority of Americans STILL think invading Iraq was a good idea because they support "deposing a tyrant." They think this because they have never been provided with an alternate theory.

The Iraqi invasion is the ARMATURE of everything Bush has done; everything his father did; of 9/11 and Enron and Halliburton, of everything that's wrong with neocons, the PNAC and the BFEE.

What's the problem? Why can't an elected official or a journalist get on television and say "THE WHITE HOUSE WAS PLANNING ON INVADING IRAQ AS EARLY AS 2001 BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO TAKE THE FUCKING OIL—they just needed an EXCUSE." Then the chips would fall into place for Americans. Connecting the Energy Commision/PNAC/911 council/David Kay dots would be easy—far, far easier than expecting people to trace the dubious Whitewater/Vince Foster theories, and those were being screamed from every rooftop for months.

Why can't somebody SAY it? Why can't Kerry say it? What is he waiting for? It's killing me.

Sorry for the rant but it's driving me nuts.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. plenty of people have said it..

And they are immediately maerginalized by the media.

[AngryYoungMan]

2. Name one candidate, major journalist or public figure who's said it.

eom.

Not hostile; just incredibly frustrated.

[corporatewhore]

11. Dennis Kucinich

[dudeness]

38. john pilger..robert fisk..george monbiot

to name a few...

funnily enough all non US citizens..

[whirlygigspin]

3. Simple Simon says:

Bin Laden says:---Boom!----"get your troops out of Saudi Arabia"

Troops sent to Iraq---no more BOOM.

Simple.

Now do you really expect the War hero to tell everyone that?

[AngryYoungMan]

9. YES!

SAY IT! Why do we Democrats have to take all this shit over the decades about

1) Willie Horton
2) Gore "inventing" Internet (never said it)
3) Somalia was "political"
4) Clinton has no ethics
5) Daschle shown in an ad next to bin Laden

And we aren't "allowed" to call them out on what they're doing?

[jmowreader]

35. You're damn straight Somalia was political

On December 18, 1992, I was sitting in the Fort Drum Post Theatre receiving a country briefing on Somalia. December the 18th.

WHO IN FUCK WAS PRESIDENT ON DECEMBER 18, 1992? It sure as fuck wasn't Bill Clinton. It was George Bush, armorer for Saddam Hussein.

Somalia was designed specifically to blow up in Clinton's face.

[Vittorio]

4. As Mike Malloy has said in the past...

it's because nobody has the balls to do so.

[Cleita]

5. They planned on it before they took over the White House in 1998.

The PNAC, who have some very prominent WH players on the signatures on a letter they sent to Bill Clinton, one of whom was Dick Cheney asked the then President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[AngryYoungMan]

7. I know, I know! But if they want to defeat Bush, they have to SAY IT!

Damn it, it's all right there in the public record except for this one part.

The "jury" has been given everything but "motive."

Each of these points has been made and proven, and the polls show it:

1) No WMD; Bush lied.
2) No Iraq/bin Laden connection; Bush lied.
3) Cheney stonewalling on Energy Commision.
4) Bush stonewalling on 9/11 Council.
5) Iraq invasion not working; Americans dying.
6) Deposing Hussein ineffective.

Every one of these points has been made; the public has absorbed them. They just need a little goading to go the extra mile.

The thread that passes through all these needles has not been given to the public. WHY, WHY, WHY?

[Cleita]

13. My theory is genuine fear. Maybe the players in this drama

know how dangerous these men can be and don't want to risk the stakes until push comes to shove. I may be wrong, but just what are they afraid of that there is so much pussyfooting around?

[Dunedain]

16. They can't because just about everyone of them is

complicit in one form or another.

My 80 year old mother doesn't want to know the truth, she just wants to live her life as she always has.
Some people don't want to accept that the country is being run by crooks. Look how hard it is to have that discussion outside of this forum, with someone who doesn't quite think along that same train of thought. Even when they are lead by the hand to what most of the people here believe is a clear and definitive conclusion, they balk.
This period in time reminds me of watching the process my father went through when he realized Nixon was not only guilty, but would have to resign. He couldn't accept what was in front of him until there was no other choice.
I'm not saying it's hopeless, I just think that denial is big factor in a lot of peoples coping mechanism.

[RichM]

6. Kucinich has said it often. Nader said it on MTP last week.

If you look at the debate transcripts, & search the text for the word "oil," you'll see that ONLY Kucinich, among the Democrats, has said this word on TV.

When I saw Kucinich a few weeks ago in Berkeley, the first thing he said to the crowd was, "OK, Berkeley, tell me in one word: Why did we invade Iraq?" And the crowd all yelled, "OIL!!" And he said, "Tell me again, I can't quite hear you!" So everyone yelled it again.

In the debates, Kucinich wasn't quite as out-front about it as that. He somewhat low-keyed his delivery, usually saying, for example, that his plan for exiting Iraq means the US must "relinquish control of the oil, surrender control over reconstruction contracts, & give up the idea of privatizing Iraqi industry." Something like that. He never got the time to elaborate & flesh out the whole theory, but he's the only one who got as far as explicitly pronouncing the "forbidden" word.

[AngryYoungMan]

8. Exactly! EVEN KUCINICH! Why is it "forbidden"? Tell me slow; I'm dense.

eom

[RichM]

17. OK, let me try to explain why it's forbidden.

You ask 'Why can't Kerry say it?' That's a nice & juicy question. The reason is that if any Establishment figure - politician or media figure - starts talking about the oil, it will make the US government look like criminals and gangsters (which of course they are, in reality).

This violates the central precept of The American Propaganda System, sometimes referred to as "The Myth of American Virtue." To gain the orderly cooperation of the masses, the US ruling class has developed certain powerful propaganda themes, all based on the idea that "America is good; America stands for freedom and democracy; America believes in the rule of law."

NOBODY is allowed to really question these notions. For example, if you suddenly found rock-solid proof that someone high in the CIA or Pentagon had had John F Kennedy assassinated, this would really shake the republic to its foundations, because it would show that gangsterism prevails in high places in this country -- which isn't "supposed" to be the case. (It's only supposed to happen in "other" countries, less wonderful than we.)

Similarly, we all know that the 2000 election was stolen, but no one is allowed to seriously say so on TV or in print media. Rather, they all silently pretend that the election was "controversial," or had to do with funny things like "hanging chads" -- but direct expression of the idea that a criminal decision was made by the Supreme Court to install a guy who didn't really win -- this is a No-No. You can't say it in public; you have to pretend it didn't happen.

The OIL thing is the same. If you seriously lay out the whole horrible story, our whole fucking population -- as dumb as they are -- would pretty quickly see that their government is a bunch of lying thieving gangsters. This could very easily lead to "social unrest." For example, the people would pretty soon see that the tax burden is being pushed onto them, to benefit the rich. They might get mad about that.

In sum: our rulers NEED these helpful myths, to maintain their rule. Anyone who shows signs of stripping the mask from these myths, is recognized by the Establishment as a dangerous enemy -- and is promptly either marginalized by the media (like Kucinich) or outright destroyed by the media (like Dean).

[AngryYoungMan]

24. Okay, now we're talking. But why isn't this comparable to Watergate?

I'm familiar with Watergate. After Nixon fired Archibald Cox, it became clear that the nation was moving towards a perceived Constitutional crisis. The President was facing indictment and more subpoenas; he was urged to resign. The tapes made it all clear.

When he resigned, he never quite took culpability for his criminal actions, but commentators and journalists (and elected officials) at the time were quick to point this out. Ford made a statement: "Our national nightmare is over. The system works; this is a government of laws and not of men."

Iran/Contra showed that the evildoers in Washington had learned to be slick and avoid this kind of crisis. They were not caught red-handed so they got away with it.

But Bush II HAS BEEN caught red-handed. Why can't we have another Watergate-style crisis? Don't the power-players who have obviously switched their allegiange from Bush to Kerry WANT this? Don't they WANT heads to roll? Never mind their morals; where the hell is their sense of expediency and self-protection?

In other words, as Len Colodny ("Silent Coup" etc.) and others have pointed out, the establishment forced Nixon out; forced him to take the fall. Why can't they do this with Bush?

[RichM]

31. The power-players may indeed decide to switch allegiance, but will

do it in a way that doesn't harm the overall legitimacy & credibility of the US government, which is in a sense their own private tool. The financial elite of this country NEED the "front" of the US government; it's very useful to them, and they don't want it permanently disfigured, or robbed of credibility.

So, next fall, if the ruling class decides Bush has to go, they will ease him out & replace him with Kerry, but will do so without destroying the whole edifice of governmental legitimacy. Kerry - by steadfastly refusing to utter the word "oil" - and by talking a tough militarist kind of game (suggesting that Bush has not been "hard" enough on N Korea, etc) - has shown the ruling elite that he can be trusted. He is seen as an acceptable alternative to Bush, from their point of view.

Dean was not acceptable, because sometimes he blurted out things like "We're not safer with Saddam captured." (This was a No-No, because US Mythology relies heavily on the absolute demonizing of The Enemy. It's not permitted to suggest that Saddam was not a maximum-dangerous enemy. Allowing such loose talk would mean you could no longer justify any damn crazy thing by simply pointing to how evil Saddam was.)

Anyway: Watergate. (You make a great point in mentioning that Iran/Contra showed that our evildoers had learned their lesson from Watergate. They didn't learn to stop committing crimes; they learned to commit them more cleverly.) The big guys don't want a Watergate style crisis. Watergate was very messy. It shook the masses's faith in government, & this can give rise to all sorts of dangerous thoughts. You never know what people will do, if they get it into their heads that their government is systematically lying to them. It's much smarter for rulers to handle transitions SMOOTHLY; to avoid unnecessary & potentially destabilizing disruption.

Even if they decide next fall that Bush has to go, they don't want to "destroy" him; they would just want to remove him. They want to destroy as little as possible, and they do NOT want to damage Bush in a way that might reflect on themselves. After all, Bush only pulled his naughty little escapade in Iraq for the oil companies & defense contractors. Those people wouldn't want Bush's head to roll, because in explicitly charging him with crimes, they'd be accusing themselves, too.

[KG]

37. thanks for one of the most cogent explaination about how things work

politically in this country.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Your point is correct, but you didnt ask the correct "Why"

WHY do they want to control THAT oil?
answer?
China.

A rapidly developing middle class with disposable income that wants what the west has. Cars. Lots and lots of cars.
A middle class of possibly better than 500 million car driving, appliance using consumers need a SHITLOAD of oil.
It wasnt about "getting" the oil, it is about CONTROLLING it

Who get to control the profits?
Who gets to control and/or profit from the massive infrastructure involed in production?
The French?
The Russians?
HELL NO!!!!!
The Boys from Houston, thats who.


The answer to the question "Why did we invade Iraq?" is .......



CHINA

[AngryYoungMan]

12. Fair enough. But not one responder on this thread has really answered.

Why won't they say it?

Again, folks, not hostile; just really frustrated. I love all you DUers. I'm not picking a fight. I just want a straight answer from someone.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

19. Since you seem to have all of the answers, and you don't like the...

....answers you're getting from DUers in this thread, why don't you tell us YOUR answers? How does that sound...is that fair?

Piece of advice for you...leave your hostility on the doorstep before you start posting on DU. You'll find people more willing to talk with you.

[RichM]

21. Actually, YOU'RE the one with the "hostility" - the lead poster is fine.

All he did was start & continue a decent thread. If you don't like it, why don't you butt out of it? :eyes:

[AngryYoungMan]

25. Thanks, friend.

I appreciate it.

[Hamlette]

14. it's a tad more complicated that "about oil"

I completely buy into the woman from the Pentagon's three reasons which don't make a great sound bite (can you imagine your average countryman listening long enough to understanding what it meant when Iraq started pricing it's oil in Euros?)

There is another reason: what happens if we say it out loud, if we admit it?

What happens in the US with this next election seems critical to us but to the rest of the world it is meaningless. Americans of both parties have screwed up so many times in messing in the affairs of other countries. (Republicans more than Dems I would argue but I'm not sure many people in the world separate us out that well.)

So, if we admit to the rest of the world, especially the middle east, that we invaded their part of the world to steal their oil, you think that's gonna make things easier for us in the rest of the world? Bush was just hoping WMD would give him all the cover he needed to do what he wanted to do any way.

It's the whole world's dirty secret. The only people who don't get why we can't say it out loud is the angry white man who thinks Bush is a hero.

[maggrwaggr]

22. here's the "woman from the Pentagon" -- the straight answer you want

Local - Los Angeles Weekly
Soldier for the Truth - Exposing Bush's talking-points war
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/vv/20040220/lo_laweekly/51202&cid=891&ncid=1501

(snip)

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important that is, if you hold that is Americas role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program arent very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but its not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May <2003> switched trading on Iraqs oil back to the dollar.

[Hamlette]

27. right, that's the one

it makes the most sense of any reason I've heard so far. It's oil at its root but nuanced.

But my point is: if we say we invaded Iraq for oil, the rest of the world hates us. We risk some pretty heavy shit coming down on us. I don't think we can just say: "my bad" and all is forgiven.

[maggrwaggr]

30. they already hate us. And they already know.

It's the American media that's the last to report any of this shit.

We're the ones behind the "iron curtain" of the american media.

And we don't even know it, that's what's really pathetic.

At least in the old Soviet Union they knew they were being fed a load of crap.

[AngryYoungMan]

26. That didn't stop them from trumpteting "Whitewater."

That was far more complicated than this. But they got everyone saying it.

[Hamlette]

32. Watergate didn't result in the invasion of another country

or the loss of lives. Easy to admit watergate.

As someone else said, it destroys the myth of American virtue. Why do you think the right is so angry about us saying this was not a virtuous act? Denial.

[hunter]

15. No, no, the U.S.A would never do something so rotten...

We are a great God-fearing nation!

We are His favored people, we can do no wrong.

Every American knows it is wrong to covet his neighbor's stuff, and that it is especially wrong to steal it.

Therefore we MUST have gone to Iraq to depose a tyrant and protect all humanity from the potential Weapons of Mass Destruction this tyrant was planning.

Nothing else makes sense -- nothing else explains why hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis had to die.

I couldn't be about oil, it just couldn't...

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. "scuse me while i clean up this gorgeous puddle of sarcasm...lol....n/t

[Disturbed]

20. Denial

Yeha, the American people just don't want to know. Same thing about the CIA and coups in Chile, Iran, Gautamala, Honduros, El Salvador, Venezuala and Haiti.

The need to keep believing in fanatasies.

[AngryYoungMan]

29. But they accepted Watergate and Whitewater.

If they're told to, they will. I'm sure of it. They had no idea what was going on in Grenada but they rallied. Ditto Iraq right now. And 9/11 is a pretty fucking serious incentive to understand what's happening.

[maggrwaggr]

23. It is bizarre, how the answer is sitting right here (post #22)

but nobody is saying anything.

It's like nobody talking about the big pink elephant in the room.

I've e-mailed this story to, well, everybody I can find, over and over, and nobody's picked it up.

Absolutely no mention of her by the media, or by any candidates, whatsoever.

Yet they're running against Bush? It's the silver bullet that will take Bush out.

I agree with you, when we know what the answer is, but everybody is ignoring it 100%.

[tobius]

28. "No blood for oil!"-- C'mon the screams, the signs, the tshirts,

the billboards, the hats, the placards, the pundits, tv, radio, web sites, political forum boards, the opposition in the UN, leaders of France, Russia, the bumper stickers , the tattoos, the bands, the lyrics, the celebrities, the NYT bestseller list. For crying out loud it's been everywhere since 1991. Hell, there are now even funny shirts for sale everywhere that say "No Oil For Pacifists" with a pacifier logo with a red line thru it.
People don't know what no blood for oil means?! Your brilliant idea is the people will finally hear it if Kerry says it? My God, if Kerry said it he would be toast- his position is he would have gone in after he convinced France and Russia. Or more inspection time then -in. Hey man, take a breath. (me too)

[TreasonousBastard]

33. Because they can't.

The whole story goes back to PNAC and how they tried to get Clinton to invade Iraq. Nothing new or conspiratorial about it, and everyone who has to or wants to know knows about it.

The problem is how to give the story legs in a campaign. It's simply too complicated for sound bites. Watergate, Whitewater, lying about blowjobs... These are all simple concepts, and don't need much explanation.

PNAC is a program for total US hegemony over the world, and Iraq plays a key role in controlling the Middle East. It's all laid out in their manifestos, and they make no secret about it. In fact, they are proud of it.

But, how to get this concept across to the public which doesn't really care and probably thinks US hegemony is a pretty good idea anyway?

Well, you don't. No point in bringing it up and confusing the issue. No point in making a big deal over "blood for oil" either. Let the protestors handle that one. If a candidate makes a big deal out of it, they simply respond with the WMD's, al Qaeda, and Saddam was a bad
man, denying that oil had anything to do with it. Shit, damn near half the people out there still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, so don't give them anything too heavy to think about until they've got the basics straight.

So, if you want to ralk about the war, you drop the complicated stuff and just talk about how these guys can't actually win a war. Talk about Halliburton, dead GI's, how much it's costing, how it will never end... The easy stuff that people who are half listening to Fox News can get without trying.

Political candidates are in the business of winning elections, not teaching us about world affairs or giving us civics lessons. Very rare is the candidate who can fully explain a position and keep everyone's attention. Most of the time it's safer to go for the sound bite.

It's all a sales pitch.

[stepnw1f]

34. Control the Oil

then you control everything else: retaining power=control.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Great thread, but the pisser is.

It won't matter in 30 years. Because we'll be way past the point where it will be an affordable energy commodity.

What the Republicans have done for 35 years is keep our national energy policy tied to their political benefactors. We got cheaper oil in the 80s so Reagan Bush could promote "Morning in America". Dimson is now presiding over "Evening in America". Worse than that, he's cashed out the national treasury, so the next Democratic administration won't have the financial options to change the situation without raising taxes and reducing military spending.

I hope Kerry plays up his vision for cutting our oil dependency by 2020, but frankly, he's need to go further.

The point is the Democrats must make this election a referendum on America's vision of the future:

Republicans = Oil Energy = War = Deadend
Democrats = Renewable/Alternative energy = jobs = Real Future

[Malva Zebrina]

39. I agree with all that you say in your rant

I am flabergasted myself-I simply cannot understand how this is being allowed. Perhaps I need to reread the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich to see how human psychology works, for it is said that the people of Germany also had the wool pulled over their eyes, and absolutely believed everything their "furor" (substitute "my president") told them.

I am simply just angry that this man has been allowed to lie, and lie and now we get the propaganda ads--flag waving, I am great leader, Laura is great helpmate

Really is an awful world here when all you have been taught all of your life about integrity, good works, humbleness, concern for fellow man, becoming the best you can intellectually,using your talents for good in the world, suddenly seems to be passe. Under Bush, it has disappeared and everybody is simply happy, happy happy at NASCAR.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

41. I think this is exactly what has changed - people's morals

I used to think that most Americans were good people deep down, that if told the truth, they would do the right thing eventually. Now I question that.

I suspect a lot of people know that oil is the root, but don't care. They know the media is BS, they know they, themselves, are spouting a lot of myths, but they don't care. They want their oil and their lifestyle and they don't want to have to apolgize to anyone or to listen to anyone talking about fairness or morals. They like hearing that Democrats and Bill Clinton and gays and poor people are "immoral," because that lets them think it's only about sex. That way they can be greedy, grasping and racist and cold-hearted and not feel bad about themselves.

If these people really wanted the information, it is readily available -- but they don't want it. Now I am wondering how many Americans think like this and how many think like us?

[Junkdrawer]

40. Here's another word you won't hear: China...

because controlling China by controlling the oil is making WWIII more likely every day.