Daily Kos

Iraqis stage mock Abu Ghraib; "topple" Bush/Blair/Saddam

Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:12:18 PM PDT

Why did I have to go to the Canadian media to see this?


Caption: Iraqi demonstrators stage a mock reenactment of Abu Ghraib Prison abuses during a rally in Baghdad, Saturday.

And how about this for a tragic indictment of our US image abroad:
Waving Iraqi flags and chanting slogans against the occupation, they placed three effigies representing Saddam, U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a pedestal, then knocked them down.



Headline: Huge crowds rally in Iraq against occupation.

The more I read, and the more I see crude prices skyrocket, the more I'm a fan of Occam's razor: we quite simply did it for the oil.

(If you want to read more about oil, read Jerome a Paris' outstanding diaries.)

Poll

We did it for the oil. As simple as that.

75%22 votes
24%7 votes

| 29 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 23 comments

  •  Not quite that simple. (4.00 / 2)

    But close.

    The oil was just the primary motive in a plan that had at least 3 goals: get the oil, get a foothold of control of a country in the Middle East and spread freedom and democracy throughout the earth.

    Okay, TWO motives.

    •  But why spread democracy? (none / 1)

      So we get access to more oil! :)
    •  I still wonder (none / 1)

      How much of the "you wanted to kill my daddy" crap entered into Bush's mind about Iraq. I suspect that was one of the bigger reasons Bush himself wanted to go to war, but those around him had their own reasons.
      •  Are you serious? (none / 1)

        It is the biggest bullshit ever.

        That was designed for people too stupid to understand what WMDs and democracy are.

        Who says Saddam tried to kill his daddy? Why it was the CIA Surprise, Surprise.

        Interesting piece on it
         here at Antiwar.com

        In October, 1993, however, New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh assailed the government's case as "seriously flawed," noting among other problems that seven bomb experts had told him that the devices were mass-produced and probably not even manufactured in Iraq.

        Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who met with Saddam when he served as U.S. charge d'affaires in Baghdad during the Gulf War, said he found the plot "odd."

        "[Saddam] had to have had some idea that his ability to run operations outside Iraq was not very good, because we had foiled so many things before the war. So you have to ask why someone who was a risk-taker but clearly not suicidal would undertake to assassinate a former president of the United States," pointed out Wilson.


        •  I am talking about what motivated Bush (none / 1)

          It doesn't matter if it is true or not it is what Bush felt.

          He said himself years ago that this was the man that tried to kill my father and I do believe that he believed that.

          •  Bush isn't stupid (none / 1)

            He is evil.

            This dumb Bush is all an act.

            Do you think Saddam invaded Kuwait without Bush Sr. approval?

            Please don't help these people spread their mythology.

            Bush knew. Bush knows. And Bush doesn't care.

            I would however be interested to find out if the new Iraqi regime has removed the ceramic mosaic portrait of Bush Sr. adorning the floor at the entrance of one of Saddam's palaces.

            Circling the portrait are the words `Bush War Criminal'.

      •  I don't think Bush cares about his Daddy... (none / 1)

        he wants to show his Daddy that he's bigger and better and has more power.

        It does not take many words to tell the truth. - Chief Joseph - Nez Perce

        by Gabriele Droz on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:26:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Two motives that boil down to one (4.00 / 3)

      They wanted to get a foothold of control in the Middle East to keep access to oil.  Spreading freedom and democracy never entered their minds as anything more than a cover story.  If they believed in that, we'd have them in America instead of loyalty oaths.

      It's far better to uphold the Constitution and burn the flag than it is to hold up the flag and burn the Constitution.

      by beemer on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:26:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Revenge (none / 1)

      He wanted to kill my daddy
    •  Three (none / 1)

      3) Avenge Daddy.
    •  Operation Iraqi Liberation... (none / 1)

      um,

      Ottoman Infidel Liquidation

      ah,

      Oligarchy Impassioned Lunacy

      ok. now we need a big sign that says "Mission Accommodated..." or something

      Maybe "Accentuated"?

      How about "Absolved"?

      That's good, "Mission Absolved!"

      Yes!!

    •  One more (none / 1)

      I think you have to recognize one more motive:

      To be able to call Bush "a popular war-time president."  That seems pretty clear in the timing.  To be completing a bloodless victory and get the photo opportunities of statues toppling and Bush landing on the aircraft carrier in order to run over the Democratic opponent in 2004, as well as paint Congressional opposition candidates into a corner in 2002 during the run-up.  It was important domestically, as well.

    •  forgot one (none / 1)

      4th goal: Apocolypse. ie "I'm just doing the biddings of God". Even if this one were true (who knows what Bush thinks.. no one ever asks him that question), no one higher up will admit to it. However, to a certain group of religious-right, this is the reason.
    •  Third and most important. (none / 1)

      Protection of the US dollar by preventing oil from being priced in Euros.

      Truckle the Uncivil, Nullus Anxietas Sanguinae. Economic Left/Right: -3.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00

      by Truckle on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:17:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Those are members of the Mahdi Army (none / 0)

    I wonder if Sadr is going to try to make another play for power?
  •  For really great pictures of the Iraqi demo (4.00 / 2)

    See here. I got this tip from Riverbend from Bagdhad who, like us, is trying to figure out if these developments might really be a source of hope.

    Does the US ever intend to get out? Or is the US aim permanent divide and rule? At least today's rally points toward these questions which are the real ones to which that sadly damaged country needs answers.

  •  Oil!!! Oil!!! Oil!!!... (none / 0)

    ...Oh, let me see, did I mention "OIL"!!! And did I forget OIL!!! And how about OIL!!!  No, on second thought it's a much better idea to drill in ANWR for OIL!!!

    Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin Survivor Left Blogistan

    by boran2 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:46:23 PM PDT

  •  To (none / 0)

    me the war was not about getting the oil because our country still doesn't have the refineries to turn that into Gasoline (and the oil companies are in no rush of course to build more).

    This was about creating a panic situation all across the markets which led to high oil prices and now the corporations are making a killing.  All paid for by the blood of our troops.

    The Poorest of All Men is not the man without a cent but the man without a dream.

    by EMKennedyLucio on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:49:02 PM PDT

    •  You left out the perks... (none / 0)

      Massive war profiteering for bush cronies.
      •  Ah. I was waiting to see if someone (none / 0)

        would mention this obvious explanation.

        The Bush 43 administration is about asset-stripping the US Treasury -- thinly disguised embezzlement. That was the primary purpose of the war: war profiteering. Certain people have gotten very, very rich. Plus, they also got a tax cut! Bonus!

        The Social Security "plan" was supposed to let the administration cover their tracks by causing the US to default on all those Treasury Bonds... but, mmm... that part doesn't seem to be working out too well.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

        by Canadian Reader on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:34:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  why even argue what it was about? (none / 0)

    PNAC could've told you long ago. It's crazy to think it is something of bush's will. he is just a convenient character who can be played as someone who has " a vision".

    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.

    by Miss Devore on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:25:32 PM PDT

Permalink | 23 comments