Iraq: The New and IMPROVED Front on the War on Terror!

Ok, let's give the admin the benefit of the doubt on this claim since we now have a Bin Laden tape that makes the same claim, which I'm sure is legit :eyes:

So, which is it then? There are two incompatible reasons for invading Iraq: 1. To liberate the Iraqi people and free them from an evil monster, to essentially "nation build" Iraq, and 2. To make Iraq the new front on the war on terror.

These two reasons are incompatible. Think about it. If it's the new front for the WOT, then we can't possibly rebuild the country and free the Iraqi's while simultaneously inviting all the terrorists there and turning it into a war zone. Nevermind the depraved ethical implications of invading a country for the express purpose of turning it into a warzone in order to fight a different enemy there.

Besides the fact that it might be all part of the evil plans of the BFEE, am I missing something here? Is anyone else making this observation?

this is SPIN not planning.

they never intended to make Iraq into a battlefield in the 'war on terra' - but when it happened, they had to claim it was their intent all along.

p.s. they never intended to 'liberate the Iraqi people' - that was rationale 7 or 8 after all the others dissolved into so much sewage.

I'm not so sure. I still haven't made up my mind yet as to what I think they really thought a post-invasion Iraq would look like. It's conceivable to me that they knew it would be fucked up but didn't care and are arrogant enough to believe they CAN completely control public perception through a lapdog press and Orwellian tactics. It's still a possibility IMO.

and ignored it....

now they are trying to spin their way out of it.

consciously or unconsciously?

IOW, did they say and believe privately "Yeah, it's gonna be fucked up, so what? We can sell it to the people anyway and deal w/ the chaos by spinning that too, the important thing is stealing as much as we can through no bid contracts and get as much oil as we can."

Or did they say "Nahh, it's not gonna be fucked up, those experts don't know what they fuck they're talking about, they're gonna welcome us for the most part. Easy pickens, the whole thing"

:shrug:

I like your thinking. Obviously they are inconsistant. The beauty of your thoughts are that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Both rebuilding Iraq and fighting terrrorism are spins.

They never intended to rebuild Iraq, until they walked into this war and the rest of the World didn' t follow. They were stuck.

Then when the resistance started, not the roses in the street, a think tank came up with the idea that this was to be the battleground against terrorism.

the rest of the world into cleaning up their mess. If in fact they didn't really believe their own lies about how easy it would be, I could see them saying "Yeah it'll be a mess, but we'll just drop the mess into the lap of the international community while we pump out all the oil"

In my opinionm they believed in the "roses in the street" theory, and they assumed that all of the experts, the intelligence and defence community, otehr nations and protestors were wrong.

I think they believed they'd waltz in, boot out Sadaam, find enough WMD's to justify it, set up their corporate colony easily and leave.

Any other explanation about luring in terrorists into their trap, etc. is pure spin.

I just have a hard time believing they are that "naive" as you put it. There are some real smart (but nefarious) people in the admin. I have an easier time believing the players (certainly not Bush, his opinion on the matter was irrelevant. He probably didn't even have an opinion on the matter because he didn't care) who made the decision to invade knew it was going to be a mess but thought they could drop the cleanup into the lap of the international community, who would take the heat of the resistance while the US provided security for the oil wells. I think what they "naively" underestimated was the spine of the international community and it's resistance to being bullied and manipulated into sending troops and money to clean up the US's mess.

I'm also not 100% sure the flypaper theory is pure spin, though they are using it as spin, it also very well could have been part of their initial thinking on the subject. I certainly considered the idea (and found it ethically reprehensible) before the invasion that Iraq might turn into a magnet for terrorists to fight the US.