Skip to main content

View Diary: What Is Different About This Time (370 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I use "ginned up" in (none)
    clear distinction from "totally fabricated"...

    You do not.

    I can deal with that.

    Let me explain: I use "ginned up" to mean that the rationale as it stood (Iraq invading Kuwait) did not appear to be compelling enough to gain popular support. The underlying, real rationale (oil security) was deemed to be too crass and possibly inflammatory ("War for Oil" has an ugly ring to it)... so (in my parlance) additional rationales were "ginned up"...

    Whereas, in contrast, the rationale for invading Iraq in 2002 was completely fabricated from whole cloth.

    It's a minor quibble about semantics, but does that help explain where I am coming from on this particular topic?

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 07:18:28 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  My belief (none)
      did not require ginning up.

      I expressed MY view, not the view of the country.

      Your point is not relevant to mine.

      see, the vice President did not make up a reason to go to war in 1991. Hussein made the reason - he invaded Kuwait and he threatened Saudi Arabia.

      The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

      by Armando on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 07:54:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He did invade Kuwait... (none)
        he may have been thinking that the US still viewed him as an asset in the region (given our unstinting support for him during the Iraq/Iraq war, and the nebulous language used by our diplomatic corps, e.g. Glaspie)...but that is irrelevant. He DID invade Kuwait, as you say.

        however, the claim that he threatened Saudi Arabia is another one of those "ginned up" thingies..

        as reported in the St. Petersburg Times there was no evidence for any buildup of troops or armor along the Saudi Border. None.

        Here is another recap of the same story from the Christian Science Monitor.

        Again, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Full stop.

        But don't start bringing up the ancillary justifications used at the time by the US government - most of them are weak, at best, and some are outright falsehoods.

        Apparently the fruit (bush) does not fall far from the tree (Bush sr.)

        The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

        by RedDan on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 08:19:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  nonsense (none)
          of course his invasion of kuwait was a threat to saudi arabia.

          puhleeeaze.

          The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

          by Armando on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 08:31:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm... (none)
            except that it wasn't.

            Because there was, and remains no evidence that he ever threatened Saudi Arabia. There is no evidence that he ever massed troops or armor on the border, and there is no evidence that he threatened Saudi Arabia.

            Period.

            Is that so hard to accept?

            read the links - the info is there.

            This is the point I am trying to make, Armando - you spend a lot of time castigating Bush and his cult about the illegal, stupid, damaging invasion of Iraq, and you conversely praise Bush the Elder for his excellent adventure...the problem is that there are many, many problems with the original justifications for that invasion.

            The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

            by RedDan on Sun Feb 12, 2006 at 08:40:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's nonsense (none)
              The invasion of Kuwait was the expression of the threat. You think MORE was needed?

              I'm sorry but that to me is absurd.

              The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

              by Armando on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 05:20:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site