What Did President Bush Gain...

richard schumacher · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 10:47 AM) [snapback]318343[/snapback]</div>

That was my original post - but it is the President who makes the decision to go or not to go to war. What was President Bush's potential gain by going to war with Iraq? You can even expand that to Rumsfeld and Cheney - what did they have to gain - certainly not money since both are already very wealthy. So - what was the potential gain for Bush and if you would like to include the other two you mention to go to war?
[/b]
Click to expand...

He was an enthusiastic idiot doing what his handlers wanted him to do. Hey, why not? They'd usually been right before: getting him into Yale, getting him into the National Guard, lending him money on easy terms to invest in oil, installing him as general manager of the Texas Rangers, running him for Texas governor, getting him elected President by a clear 5-4 majority,... After 20 years of this he probably thought that getting into Iraq was his own idea.

As for the motives of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others whose names are not at all well known: very wealthy and powerful people do not often decide that they already have enough money or power and don't need any more.

efusco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 10:47 AM) [snapback]318343[/snapback]</div>

That was my original post - but it is the President who makes the decision to go or not to go to war. What was President Bush's potential gain by going to war with Iraq? You can even expand that to Rumsfeld and Cheney - what did they have to gain - certainly not money since both are already very wealthy. So - what was the potential gain for Bush and if you would like to include the other two you mention to go to war? [/b]
Click to expand...

The following is NOT my contention about why they decided to go to war, again, I think their intentions were altruistic but misguided.

But, the 'to gain' on a financial basis is not direct money to Cheney or Bush, but to those who are their financial supporters...big industry inparticular that helped them buy their office (happens on the Left too, but money moves these guys to where they are, not their brains or diplomatic skills). They are under tremendous pressure from those campaign funders to do their bidding on a multitude of issues that can result in greater profits for them. If we "owned" the drills and pipelines in Iraq someone would need to run them...why not Shell or Exxon? Halliburton recieved HUGE financial gain...still are and were huge contributors.

Someday Bush will be collecting money for his Presidential Library. Someday he's going to be the next Clinton or Carter out to 'do good' around the world and he's going to need money to plant corn in the desert or give HIV vaccinations in Africa or whatever...you know where that'll come from.

For the third time, I do not believe that those factors were a direct influence on the decision. I don't think they protected the oil ministry etc. for the US personal gain but rather b/c that's Iraq's main source of income....if that's destroyed the country would, likely, be even worse off than it is now...it had to be protected.

This was simply an apparent good idea (to Bush and cronies) that would strike a blow on terror (so they thought), get rid of some WMD (would make nice TV when they were blowing up all that stuff) and do so in a quick and clean fashion. They believed the Iraqi people would embrace the take over (in large part they didn't), a few months to establish a new gov't and army, out in a year or two leaving behind a democratic gov't of no potential danger to the US. And that would sound like a good plan to me, too, if I were the decision maker.

What wasn't accounted for was how the various sects would react differently (could Bush's lack of any outside cultural experience have been a factor there? I think so) to the take-over. They didn't plan for control of the borders to keep out the foreign insurgents. And they still refuse to put enough boots on the ground to truely control the situation there.

I think that if they had truely and carefully researched what the situation could/would be after the invasion that they would have been much much more cautious before going in. They'd have take more time to plan. They would have coordinated with the neighboring countries to try to get some sort of support to keep the insurgency at bay. And maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have had to go in. Or maybe it would have been delayed a year and gone off in much more controlled fashion. In any case, it was clear before and is even more clear now that the US was at no risk at all from Iraq at the time and we easily could have taken more care in planning while diplomatic channels did their work.

dbermanmd · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2006, 12:03 PM) [snapback]318367[/snapback]</div>

The following is NOT my contention about why they decided to go to war, again, I think their intentions were altruistic but misguided.

But, the 'to gain' on a financial basis is not direct money to Cheney or Bush, but to those who are their financial supporters...big industry inparticular that helped them buy their office (happens on the Left too, but money moves these guys to where they are, not their brains or diplomatic skills). They are under tremendous pressure from those campaign funders to do their bidding on a multitude of issues that can result in greater profits for them. If we "owned" the drills and pipelines in Iraq someone would need to run them...why not Shell or Exxon? Halliburton recieved HUGE financial gain...still are and were huge contributors.

Someday Bush will be collecting money for his Presidential Library. Someday he's going to be the next Clinton or Carter out to 'do good' around the world and he's going to need money to plant corn in the desert or give HIV vaccinations in Africa or whatever...you know where that'll come from.

For the third time, I do not believe that those factors were a direct influence on the decision. I don't think they protected the oil ministry etc. for the US personal gain but rather b/c that's Iraq's main source of income....if that's destroyed the country would, likely, be even worse off than it is now...it had to be protected.

This was simply an apparent good idea (to Bush and cronies) that would strike a blow on terror (so they thought), get rid of some WMD (would make nice TV when they were blowing up all that stuff) and do so in a quick and clean fashion. They believed the Iraqi people would embrace the take over (in large part they didn't), a few months to establish a new gov't and army, out in a year or two leaving behind a democratic gov't of no potential danger to the US. And that would sound like a good plan to me, too, if I were the decision maker.

What wasn't accounted for was how the various sects would react differently (could Bush's lack of any outside cultural experience have been a factor there? I think so) to the take-over. They didn't plan for control of the borders to keep out the foreign insurgents. And they still refuse to put enough boots on the ground to truely control the situation there.

I think that if they had truely and carefully researched what the situation could/would be after the invasion that they would have been much much more cautious before going in. They'd have take more time to plan. They would have coordinated with the neighboring countries to try to get some sort of support to keep the insurgency at bay. And maybe, just maybe we wouldn't have had to go in. Or maybe it would have been delayed a year and gone off in much more controlled fashion. In any case, it was clear before and is even more clear now that the US was at no risk at all from Iraq at the time and we easily could have taken more care in planning while diplomatic channels did their work.
[/b]
Click to expand...

In conclusion - Bush et al had nothing to gain personally?

Tadashi · Sep 12, 2006

Hindsight, yeah we should have planned for it but not sure we saw that coming. I think they expected it like the old paradigms when they repalced the leaders (Germany, Japan, Korea, and probably other countries we tried, failed, and succeeded). They thought that Sadam and his cabinet would flee but the rest of the government (social services, utilities, police, etc) would continue to function. It is definitely in all planning scenarios now.

We can see it now as we train their Army. Subordinates do not make decisions for fear of making a mistake or making their superior look bad. This is a big problem in the government and their military. We are lucky that we have such a strong NCO corps in our military. Their philosphy is also different from ours which may have played a small part. I forget the saying but it basically translates to - If god wills it, it will happen. I think this is partly why they put up with Sadam for so long. They are one of the oldest societies and do not have the rush-attitude that we do in the military.

The Presedent did not make the decision in a vacuum. I am sure he based his decisions on what his advisors and intel people told him. Granted he probably looks for evidence backing up his course of action. If there was a scientific formula for go to war or not to then we would not need a President. He gets paid the big bucks (sorta speak) to make those decisions and be held responsible for them if they are bad. History will be the judge. In 50 years we will probably be watching analysis about it with all the info on TV like they do for the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.

efusco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]318377[/snapback]</div>

In conclusion - Bush et al had nothing to gain personally? [/b]
Click to expand...

That's not at all what I said.

What I said was that they had no immediate direct financial gain. What they gained was the continued support of their major commercial campaign contributors and their loyalty for future projects. That is power in Washington. But just because there isn't an immediate direct financial gain does not mean that other, less tangible benefits wouldn't influence them.

Let me go to a medical example....drug reps.
Every study done on the subject of the influence of drug reps giving away meals, pens, trips, whatever does have a large influence upon the prescribing behavior of physicians. And, without exception, physicians deny that they are influenced by these gifts. The pressure put on us, psychological or otherwise, has an impact.

Likewise these lobbiests and contributors to politicians. The lobbiests wouldn't have the budgets that they have if they couldn't influence behavior in DC. The President is granted no special immunity.

jayman · Sep 12, 2006

Those of us in the Rest Of The World (Not the United States) look at this as an example of the Classroom Bully or 400 lb Gorilla taking advantage of our good will and feelings of sympathy due to the events of 9/11. Small wonder Americans are now treated with almost universal contempt, distrust, and even hatred.

It will take a long, long time for Americans to be trusted again. The attitudes of right-wing kooks, especially those on this forum, make the task impossible.

efusco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 11:15 AM) [snapback]318381[/snapback]</div>

Hindsight, yeah we should have planned for it but not sure we saw that coming. I think they expected it like the old paradigms when they repalced the leaders (Germany, Japan, Korea, and probably other countries we tried, failed, and succeeded). They thought that Sadam and his cabinet would flee but the rest of the government (social services, utilities, police, etc) would continue to function. It is definitely in all planning scenarios now.

We can see it now as we train their Army. Subordinates do not make decisions for fear of making a mistake or making their superior look bad. This is a big problem in the government and their military. We are lucky that we have such a strong NCO corps in our military. Their philosphy is also different from ours which may have played a small part. I forget the saying but it basically translates to - If god wills it, it will happen. I think this is partly why they put up with Sadam for so long. They are one of the oldest societies and do not have the rush-attitude that we do in the military.

The Presedent did not make the decision in a vacuum. I am sure he based his decisions on what his advisors and intel people told him. Granted he probably looks for evidence backing up his course of action. If there was a scientific formula for go to war or not to then we would not need a President. He gets paid the big bucks (sorta speak) to make those decisions and be held responsible for them if they are bad. History will be the judge. In 50 years we will probably be watching analysis about it with all the info on TV like they do for the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. [/b]
Click to expand...

We elect and pay him to consider the contingencies and make the right/best decisions and to plan for those contingencies. This didn't happen here.

And yes, he didn't make his decisions in a vacuum, he made them at the guidance of like minded individuals that he hand picked b/c they think like he does. I know, every president does, but it seems to me that someone who's a little bit of a skeptic would serve our nation well in the War Room when the president is getting his briefings and making his decisions.

I read Tom Clancy novels...I know how it would work if Jack Ryan were president!! (jk)

Tadashi · Sep 12, 2006

Well, if he thought there would be some gain he missed the boat. The country is more in debt and spending more money over there to ensure the Iraqi state does not fail.

Heck military spending has been cut to fund the war effort. Not that we were really fat, dumb, and happy before but nothing like it is now. One good thing it has done is improve the equipment of the soldier. You would be amazed but much of the soldier personal equipment was Vietnam War era stuff (uniforms, ruck sacks, canteens, sleeping bags, radios, weapons, etc).

It is easy to arm-chair quarter back and second guess his decisions. I definitely would not want to make the decisions he makes. His job is "You are damned if ou do and damned if you don't". Either he would be too soft on terror or an out of control cowboy, crappy on domestic issues and good on foreign, or vice versa. I have yet to hear about a President who made all the right decisions (except for George Washington, but I bet he made his share of mistakes.

I do not think they (Bush Advisors and cabinet) picked their job for power. They do it to protect the country and look after its interests the bestway they know. We see their decisions as miss guided because we do not have the whole story. Heck for power they should just make a global corporation. I may not vote for that person the next time around but I will not attribute malice where negligence (or maybe just bad luck) can responsible.

dbermanmd · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]318393[/snapback]</div>

We elect and pay him to consider the contingencies and make the right/best decisions and to plan for those contingencies. This didn't happen here.

And yes, he didn't make his decisions in a vacuum, he made them at the guidance of like minded individuals that he hand picked b/c they think like he does. I know, every president does, but it seems to me that someone who's a little bit of a skeptic would serve our nation well in the War Room when the president is getting his briefings and making his decisions.

I read Tom Clancy novels...I know how it would work if Jack Ryan were president!! (jk)
[/b]
Click to expand...

So the answer was that he had nothing to gain from invading Iraq? Just a yes or no would do
dont forget the intelligence post - it will get interesting - thanks

efusco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 11:33 AM) [snapback]318402[/snapback]</div>

So the answer was that he had nothing to gain from invading Iraq? Just a yes or no would do
[/b]
Click to expand...

The simple minded answer is YES, he had much to gain from invading Iraq.

For those of the thinking ilk I'll refer you to my other posts in the thread, in particular my last one where I directly and succinctly answered this question:
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=24362&st=0#

It's just this simple minded kind of thinking that got us into this mess. These things are not simple and clear cut, there are many variables to consider. When one thinks it's going to be easy, one isn't thinking.

Let me, for the 4th time, reinforce that I still don't think he did this only b/c he had something to gain. I think his reasons were altruistic...that doesn't mean he still didn't have something to gain or that his altruistic visions weren't compelled b/c of pressure from outside influences.

dbermanmd · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]318410[/snapback]</div>

The simple minded answer is YES, he had much to gain from invading Iraq.

For those of the thinking ilk I'll refer you to my other posts in the thread, in particular my last one where I directly and succinctly answered this question:
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=24362&st=0#

It's just this simple minded kind of thinking that got us into this mess. These things are not simple and clear cut, there are many variables to consider. When one thinks it's going to be easy, one isn't thinking.
Let me, for the 4th time, reinforce that I still don't think he did this only b/c he had something to gain. I think his reasons were altruistic...that doesn't mean he still didn't have something to gain or that his altruistic visions weren't compelled b/c of pressure from outside influences.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Being simple minded - i still dont get your point(s) - they do not rise to the level of him risking it all and invading iraq.

KMO · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 05:33 PM) [snapback]318399[/snapback]</div>

Well, if he thought there would be some gain he missed the boat. The country is more in debt and spending more money over there to ensure the Iraqi state does not fail. [/b]
Click to expand...

And where is that money largely going? To Bush's backers. To private contractors like Blackwater, Halliburton et al. In the form of suitcases full of $100 bills. Literally.

The war industry is doing very nicely, thankyou very much. The current Republican leadership are far more connected to such entities than this old-fashioned ideal of the "state". They're not going to lose any sleep at night if the US government bankrupts itself. It all helps shifts the balance of power from the people to corporations.

efusco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 11:50 AM) [snapback]318420[/snapback]</div>

Being simple minded - i still dont get your point(s) - they do not rise to the level of him risking it all and invading iraq. [/b]
Click to expand...

Sorry then, I think you're doomed to never be able to understand as I just don't think I can be any more clear than I have been.

My first post outlined the wherefores of how the decision was arised and and why he decided to go in. Personal gain (other than the satisfaction we all gain when doing something that is successful) was probably, IMO, not a main factor in that decision. Remember you're the one who originally and persistantly is implying that the reason we went into Iraq was for Bush's personal gain.

My subsequent posts outlined the things he would/could gain by invading Iraq. Whether you think they'd 'rise to the level' to justify is not relevant and wasn't the question. He did it for the reasons in my first post in the thread, he stood to gain the things I outlined in subsequent posts but those gains were not the reason for going in.

dbermanmd · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 12 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]318433[/snapback]</div>

Sorry then, I think you're doomed to never be able to understand as I just don't think I can be any more clear than I have been.

My first post outlined the wherefores of how the decision was arised and and why he decided to go in. Personal gain (other than the satisfaction we all gain when doing something that is successful) was probably, IMO, not a main factor in that decision. Remember you're the one who originally and persistantly is implying that the reason we went into Iraq was for Bush's personal gain.

My subsequent posts outlined the things he would/could gain by invading Iraq. Whether you think they'd 'rise to the level' to justify is not relevant and wasn't the question. He did it for the reasons in my first post in the thread, he stood to gain the things I outlined in subsequent posts but those gains were not the reason for going in.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Do you had a J.D. too

Proco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tadashi @ Sep 12 2006, 12:15 PM) [snapback]318381[/snapback]</div>

Hindsight, yeah we should have planned for it but not sure we saw that coming. I think they expected it like the old paradigms when they repalced the leaders (Germany, Japan, Korea, and probably other countries we tried, failed, and succeeded). They thought that Sadam and his cabinet would flee but the rest of the government (social services, utilities, police, etc) would continue to function. It is definitely in all planning scenarios now.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I still don't understand this. Bush I & his team had the idea that it might happen. That's part of the reason they chose not to push on to Baghdad and get Saddam the first time around. And at least a few of those people are/were part of Bush II's administration. Should they have known for certain that the government would collapse? No. But they should have entertained the possibility and had something to refer to if it happened.

If Bush I thought Iraq would be so radically de-stabilized without Saddam that he decided not to try to remove him, why would Bush II think it would be different this time around?

Sufferin' Prius Envy · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 11 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]317838[/snapback]</div>

I think Bush personally had something to gain though. Politically he was not doing so well, and were it not for the tragedy and the crime of 5 years ago today, I don't think Bush would have been reelected.[/b]
Click to expand...

Wow!
Just over seven months into his first term and you already had him labeled as a failed President who needed to go to war to increase his chances of reelection? :huh:

No, your bias isn't showing . . . not one iota.

dbermanmd · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Sep 12 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]318456[/snapback]</div>

Wow!
Just over seven months into his first term and you already had him labeled as a failed President who needed to go to war to increase his chances of reelection? :huh:

No, your bias isn't showing . . . not one iota.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I am not even considering that an alternative here because there is/was tooooo much downside risk in terms of re-election than upside.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Sep 12 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]318391[/snapback]</div>

Those of us in the Rest Of The World (Not the United States) look at this as an example of the Classroom Bully or 400 lb Gorilla taking advantage of our good will and feelings of sympathy due to the events of 9/11. Small wonder Americans are now treated with almost universal contempt, distrust, and even hatred.

It will take a long, long time for Americans to be trusted again. The attitudes of right-wing kooks, especially those on this forum, make the task impossible.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thank you for your insight - but if you want to add something constructive - please answer the post.

And the reference is usually 800lb gorilla here in the US of A - i am not sure what weight they use in Canada but i do not think you need discount it sooo much just because its Canadian reference.

And some of us in the US of A could not give a ---- what you think of us. If you dont like us so much, stop trading with us. And your good will - ha. how about living off the largess of this country - you have spent nothing to defend yourselves in decades - you have life like a parasite - imagine what you would be doing for a living if you were located somewhere else. And why oh why are so many of you guys moving south?? At least you now have a conservative govt in place - and hence a brighter tomorrow. And remember, when you guys call for help - make sure you dont call us. BTW - do you still trust our $? And you are sure in love with yourself speaking for 5.5 BILLION humans - must be a Canadian trait

Alric · Sep 12, 2006

Jayman,

Let me be the first to apologize in behalf of our more clueless citizens. As you can tell most of us disagree and are embarrased with dbermanmd and his nationalistic, and I'd like to think, atavistic point of views.

For me Canada is an example of a nation with national healthcare coverage and less crime, even on its bigger cities. I just spent some time in Vancouver and was impressed at the diversity and cheerfulness of the people.

Cheers mate, and please don't think less of the rest of us because of the resident wingnuts.

dbermanmd: your selective reading and refusing to acknowledge other people responses was amusing. But, insulting someone else or their opinion because they are not from the "US of A" is simply repulsive.

Proco · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 02:23 PM) [snapback]318468[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for your insight - but if you want to add something constructive - please answer the post.[/b]
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear your opinion. You haven't really offered it yet. Your replies indicate you don't think Bush & Co. had nothing to gain from invading. How about explaining the rationale behind why you think he had nothing to gain?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 02:23 PM) [snapback]318468[/snapback]</div>

And some of us in the US of A could not give a ---- what you think of us. If you dont like us so much, stop trading with us.[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah, jayman! Go tell your Prime Minister & Parliament that you, jayman, disagree with the way the US has done things and they should sever ties with the US. Because we all know that one random Canadian posting on PriusChat speaks for all of Canada. Just like Doc speaks for all conservatives.

Good grief.

NuShrike · Sep 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 12 2006, 05:19 AM) [snapback]318230[/snapback]</div>

You make absolute NO sense here. Two birds with one stone? Afganistan and Iraq are two totally different types of conflicts from American perspectives.

How is it a win-win scenario?? Bush gets the blame ++++ on the downside - where is his upside????????

Profits? For Bush?? Why does he need more money?????

Where is his upside here?????[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm sorry it isn't clear enough. Let me spell it out more.
o it's a win-win scenario for Bush's handlers because they're isolated from negative fallout
o it was a chance to use the "global political capital" of 9/11 to run around and smack anybody who even had the hint of a connection while settling old grudges
o it's profits for his handlers and political gain among supporters, and maneuvers in their games

The gain sold to Bush is he would be the President to go down in history who got rid of one of the USA's greatest enemies, "liberated" and brought freedom to an "oppressed" country, and created a shiney legacy for all to admire him by. All well and great according to his personal religious beliefs. It's "doing the right thing".

The better decision and the lesser of evils was the previous decision not to invade, but sanction Saddam to death.

A house built on stilts is still, no matter the chrome.

What Did President Bush Gain...

richard schumacher shortbus driver

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Tadashi Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

jayman Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

Tadashi Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

KMO Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Proco Senior Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

Alric New Member

Proco Senior Member

NuShrike Active Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

What Did President Bush Gain...

richard schumacher shortbus driver

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Tadashi Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

jayman Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

Tadashi Member

dbermanmd New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

KMO Senior Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

dbermanmd New Member

Proco Senior Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

dbermanmd New Member

Alric New Member

Proco Senior Member

NuShrike Active Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member