Devil's Advocate in Defense of George W Bush

[cape_royds]

In response to the lack of neocons on the forum, I'll try to play "devil's advocate" for George W. Bush.


General Thesis: George W. Bush is just taking the heat for doing unpopular, but necessary, things.


Let's start with the most important thing--waging war in Iraq.

Consider the following:

1. Strong economic growth in Asia meant that world energy demand was going to soar. That meant that constrained world oil markets would have encouraged countries to flout, or even dismantle, the sanctions on the Saddam regime, in order to buy petroleum.

2. In turn that meant that Saddam's regime would have eventually recovered its revenues and hence, it's ability to buy or develop new weapons. Given Saddam's past record of regional aggression, it was likely that Iraqi rearmament would be a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

3. Therefore, to move quickly to crush the Saddam regime was a necessary precaution, done for the sake of the entire integrated world economy over the medium to long term. The instability and violence in Iraq today, although worse than Bush expected, is not as bad as what would have happened if the Saddam regime had been allowed to reconsolidate.

4. Moreover, this war was a selfless act by the USA, which has undergone great expense to prevent future Iraqi aggression, even while the benefits will be experienced by all. And Bush has been willing to incur the odium for decisive leadership, which will only be vindicated a generation hence.

[tjakey]

Then again, maybe the guy's just an ex-crack head and dry drunk who outright stole the first election and lost the second one, (but the Electoral collage saved his ass) and got away with it because the American electorate can't see past its guns and religion?

[cape_royds]

--George W. Bush won the popular vote in the 2004 election. That was after the controversy over the 2000 election, after 9-11 and the USA PATRIOT Act, after the 2001-02 recession, and after the Iraq War began. Good or bad, his main lines of policy were clearly approved by the majority of voters.

--In 2000, George W. Bush became the fourth candidate in US history to win the Presidency with fewer votes than his rival.

--Even after the 2006 Congressional elections made him a "minority, lame duck," President, Congress has never failed to vote funds or reinforcements for the Iraq War. So the war has been approved by both the common people and by a bipartisan elite in Washington.

[perfessor]

The O.P. combines a lot of hazy speculation about what Saddam might have done, with a frank assertion that economic reasons can justify preemptive war.

This would be breathtaking if it came from the Bush administration. Even after all these years, and so many shifting justifications, they've never tried that one.

--George W. Bush won the popular vote in the 2004 election. That was after the controversy over the 2000 election, after 9-11 and the USA PATRIOT Act, after the 2001-02 recession, and after the Iraq War began. Good or bad, his main lines of policy were clearly approved by the majority of voters.So, the majority of voters are morons. Tell me something I don't know.

--In 2000, George W. Bush became the fourth candidate in US history to win the Presidency with fewer votes than his rival.Irrelevant.

... So the war has been approved by both the common people and by a bipartisan elite in Washington.
Not really - it just shows that, like a rookie poker player, many in government will throw good money after bad. And, since the majority of voters are morons, we end up staying the course.

[tjakey]

"Stay the course!"

At this point that sounds like something an eeejit would shout after jumping off a cliff.

"Stay the coooouuurrrrsssseeeeeee....."

[Dlx2]

In response to the lack of neocons on the forum, I'll try to play "devil's advocate" for George W. Bush.


General Thesis: George W. Bush is just taking the heat for doing unpopular, but necessary, things.


Let's start with the most important thing--waging war in Iraq.

Consider the following:

1. Strong economic growth in Asia meant that world energy demand was going to soar. That meant that constrained world oil markets would have encouraged countries to flout, or even dismantle, the sanctions on the Saddam regime, in order to buy petroleum.

2. In turn that meant that Saddam's regime would have eventually recovered its revenues and hence, it's ability to buy or develop new weapons. Given Saddam's past record of regional aggression, it was likely that Iraqi rearmament would be a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

3. Therefore, to move quickly to crush the Saddam regime was a necessary precaution, done for the sake of the entire integrated world economy over the medium to long term. The instability and violence in Iraq today, although worse than Bush expected, is not as bad as what would have happened if the Saddam regime had been allowed to reconsolidate.

4. Moreover, this war was a selfless act by the USA, which has undergone great expense to prevent future Iraqi aggression, even while the benefits will be experienced by all. And Bush has been willing to incur the odium for decisive leadership, which will only be vindicated a generation hence.

Alright. I'll play your game.

Let's assume for a moment that George W. Bush brilliantly predicted a terrible energy crisis, and figured that invasion of Iraq would be the best way to fix this, and let's assume for a minute that averting this energy crisis by opening up the Iraqi oil fields is so important that it warrants absolutely unparalleled violation of the US Constitution, violation of right to privacy of Americans in America and abroad, and of foreign nationals in America and abroad, the violation of human rights and laws against torture, the waging of preemptive war, the commission of widespread war crimes, and wholesale treason by the executive branch.

Let's ignore all these things.

Let's also ignore deliberate attacks by the Bush Administration on foreign trade agreements, e.g. trade agreements within the EU. Let's ignore numerous violations of Mexican sovereignty, Venezuelan sovereignty, etc. Let's also ignore the complete lack of finesse that Bush has acted with in regards to Russia and China.

Let's ignore these things too.

Let's also ignore the fact that Bush has encouraged further Reagan-like hypocrisy concerning terrorists, on one hand negotiating and dining with open supporters of terrorism (e.g. the Saudis) while simultaneously invading a foreign country and bogging the US in a 5 year war based on assertions that the government of that country was "funding terrorism." Let's ignore the fact that we've outsourced torture of war prisoners to countries like Syria. Let's ignore the fact that we've convicted most of the Iraqi government and sentenced them to death in kangaroo courts, and then executed these government officials in an absolutely sloppy and inhumane manner.

Let's ignore that we've replaced much of our standing military with mercenary groups who we do not hold responsible to any law, either international or military, and who are free to commit war crimes at whim and will.

Let's ignore the fact that the Bush administration has outsourced the production of most of our military equipment to foreign nations. We no longer produce our own aircraft, for example. Let's also forget the fact that we are not even providing basic equipment to our soldiers. Hell, somethingawful.com had to buy body armor and helmets over and over again for various military divisions. Let's ignore the fact that the US military has been consistently breaking and rewriting contracts with its soldiers.

Let's ignore the fact that we've outsourced all our debt to this exact same China that we're supposedly protecting against.

Let's ignore the fact that the Bush Administration has vehemently fought all initiatives to support responsible and effective sexual education, both in the third world and at home, which is the most effective means to fight the effects of overpopulation.

Let's ignore the fact that the Bush Administration has done absolutely nothing to develop alternative energy sources.

Let's ignore the fact that public transportation in the US has essentially gone to shit during the Bush presidency.

Let's ignore the wholesale deregulation of American energy companies, which has resulted in greater waste, greater pollution, and several widespread failures of major energy grids.

Let's ignore the fact that rather than diplomatically engage one of the major oil producers in the world (Venezuela) we have systematically attacked its president, led a coup against him, and subsequently have driven him to sell most of his country's oil rights to the exact same China you propose Bush is trying to defend us from.

Let's ignore the fact that the Bush administration has repeatedly ignored blatant genocide in a variety of places in the world so as to protect American business interests.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has essentially blocked funding to the most effective means to combat the pandemic of our llifetimes (HIV/AIDS). Let's also ignore the fact that some communities in the US exhibit infection rates of up to 20%, due to absolute lack of attention from President Bush.

Let's ignore the fact that obstinance and ignorance by President Bush has resulted in a crisis of epic proportions in Zimbabwe.

Let's ignore the fact that US military contractors, such as Humvee, were too busy producing gas-guzzling monstrosities on the public dime to actually retrofit military equipment.

Let's ignore the fact that 7 years of mishandling the Israel/Palestine conflict has taken a situation which was essentially recoverable in 2000 and turned it into a complete clusterfuck with the potential to ignite the entire region.

Let's ignore the fact that we've been driving Iran into an ever more militant position due to threats by the US on Iranian sovereignty.

Let's ignore that repeated avoidable failures of Bush's diplomacy have resulted in a failed state (North Korea) acquiring nuclear devices.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush anti-immigrant rhetoric has fanned the flames of a whole new era of xenophobia and racism.

Let's ignore the PATRIOT Act.

Let's ignore numerous violations of net neutrality.

Let's ignore the fact that today the executive branch has more power than any time in the entire history of the US.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has essentially turned the congress into puppet body that exists to ratify his personal decrees.

Let's ignore the fact that the FBI and CIA, separated with good reason during the Nixon Era, have been reunited into a stronger unified intelligence agency with significantly increased protection and significantly more connection directly to the president.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has set the dangerous precedent of forcing votes on Federal Judges and supreme court justices through congress during periods of congressional recess, and thus has sacked the checks and balances separation the Judicial and Executive branches.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has worked very, very hard to redefine the national budget as a responsibility of the Executive branch rather than the Legislative Branch.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has essentially destroyed much of the public educational system in order to support faith-based charter schools.

Let's ignore the fact that Bush has systematically damaged basic research by cutting a vast amount of basic research funding.


Now that we've completely forgotten the last 7 years of politics, you were trying to convince us of something?

[SteveF]

Apart from that, he's been a success!

[Ray Moscow]

1. Strong economic growth in Asia meant that world energy demand was going to soar. That meant that constrained world oil markets would have encouraged countries to flout, or even dismantle, the sanctions on the Saddam regime, in order to buy petroleum.

2. In turn that meant that Saddam's regime would have eventually recovered its revenues and hence, it's ability to buy or develop new weapons. Given Saddam's past record of regional aggression, it was likely that Iraqi rearmament would be a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

SNIP


However, since Iraq was already effectively blockaded with weapon inspectors in place, it would been impossible for Iraq to acquire or build any devastating weapons anyway. Saddam's regime was contained, and no invasion was necessary.

Not only that, but having to pay a market price for all our oil stuck under their sand was pretty galling, but geez, everyone else had to do so, so we could have continued to do this as well.

However, knocking out a regional rival for Israel and trying to control about 15% of the world's oil reserves is certainly worth the lives of a few thousand naive US soldiers and several trillions dollars (NOT!).

[Dlx2]

Not even that. Bush has repeatedly fucked up in terms of diplomatically acquiring oil rights. He's fucked up in the Caucasus and the Caspian, which has essentially resulted in Russia selling a lot off their oil to China. He has fucked up in Venezuela, which has had the same result. He's fucking up with Turkey. He's fucking up with Saudi Arabia. I mean, even if we assume that oil is worth all the violations of human rights, international law, constitutional law, etc., and that oil is the only viable form of energy for most of our energy needs, then we still have to ask why Bush has been so fucking incompetent when it comes to most of our diplomatic relations with oil-producing countries. If access to oil is the critical aspect of judging Bush's presidency, he's still a complete and utter failure.

[Esocyn]

In response to the lack of neocons on the forum, I'll try to play "devil's advocate" for George W. Bush.


General Thesis: George W. Bush is just taking the heat for doing unpopular, but necessary, things.


Let's start with the most important thing--waging war in Iraq.

Consider the following:

1. Strong economic growth in Asia meant that world energy demand was going to soar. That meant that constrained world oil markets would have encouraged countries to flout, or even dismantle, the sanctions on the Saddam regime, in order to buy petroleum.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the sanctions weren't working as 'planned.' The people of Iraq were hurt far more by those murderous sanctions than Saddam was.

2. In turn that meant that Saddam's regime would have eventually recovered its revenues and hence, it's ability to buy or develop new weapons. Given Saddam's past record of regional aggression, it was likely that Iraqi rearmament would be a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

Not so, if the UN inspectors were continuously breathing down his neck -- which they were.

3. Therefore, to move quickly to crush the Saddam regime was a necessary precaution, done for the sake of the entire integrated world economy over the medium to long term. The instability and violence in Iraq today, although worse than Bush expected, is not as bad as what would have happened if the Saddam regime had been allowed to reconsolidate.

This is based off of a false assumption, and so it's not justifiable, much less "necessary." More over, Dick Cheney, in 1992, admitted that if we toppled Saddam, the country would've been thrown into absolute chaos. The dynamics didn't change a decade later, other than the fact that Cheney now had a large stake in an economic take-over.

4. Moreover, this war was a selfless act by the USA, which has undergone great expense to prevent future Iraqi aggression, even while the benefits will be experienced by all. And Bush has been willing to incur the odium for decisive leadership, which will only be vindicated a generation hence.

No, he won't. The area isn't going to get substantially better and it will remain a breeding ground for terrorist acts and hatred against the West if the USA doesn't begin to rebuild the bridges it's burned in that area -- which means peacefully dealing with Iran, not supporting Israel at every single turn, and to build trust up throughout the leaders by, at least once, not over-throwing their leaders.

There was no evidence that Iraq was going to become aggressive, nor even had the ability to become aggressive. Saddam was neutered after the Gulf War.

If any interventionism was to take place on humanitarian grounds, the proper course of action would have been to support People's movements in the area, that had a solid and unified following, rather than trusting the word of Chalabi, who was universally distrusted except for Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[tjakey]

geez Dlx2, and I thought I didn't like the guy...

[B Cereus]

I'll throw out another piece of bait for you all....

With Bush as president, we have had no more attacks from terrorists on American soil.

(I am on the road for the next few weeks and can't check in here very often, but please carry on).:)

[Esocyn]

--George W. Bush won the popular vote in the 2004 election. That was after the controversy over the 2000 election, after 9-11 and the USA PATRIOT Act, after the 2001-02 recession, and after the Iraq War began. Good or bad, his main lines of policy were clearly approved by the majority of voters.

Not entirely true. The Republicans were able to perfect their racist technique of booting people of color off the voting rolls (as they did in Florida in 2000) in some key swing states, and, more over, there were widely reported problems with the voting machines (that were never seriously investigated -- even after an ex-employee of the corporation who made the software for some machines testified how easy it was to flip the votes.)

http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html for more information.

--In 2000, George W. Bush became the fourth candidate in US history to win the Presidency with fewer votes than his rival.

Which just goes to show that our democracy is, in reality, a sham -- a mere extension of the protections given to the ruling class and elite capitalists. No political system that allows for real democracy and allows people a real say in their government would ever allow this.

--Even after the 2006 Congressional elections made him a "minority, lame duck," President, Congress has never failed to vote funds or reinforcements for the Iraq War. So the war has been approved by both the common people and by a bipartisan elite in Washington.

Not approved by "common people." The people elected the Democrats in 2006 on the hopes that they would stop the war in Iraq. What happened was the Democrats went back on their campaign promises and mislead the people.

There's no strong instrument for the people, except in select locales, to recall their representatives -- neither in the Congressional arena or in the Executive arena. It only happens on some State levels and many City councils. Because there is no real, strong, binding instrument for this, it allows for the government to do whatever the hell it wants for four years, or two years (depending on the office, which ever term limit comes into play), and doesn't give the People any real say. Again, 'democracy' in America does not exist.

[Esocyn]

I'll throw out another piece of bait for you all....

With Bush as president, we have had no more attacks from terrorists on American soil.

(I am on the road for the next few weeks and can't check in here very often, but please carry on).:)

As far as one can discern from public records, there exists no real organized threat to the American homeland, post 9/11. The examples the officials have offered up are a crock of shit.

[cape_royds]

Some of the replies have supposed the Iraq War was meant to open up oil fields for increased world demand.

But my devil's advocate point was a bit different from that.

The point of invading Iraq was that world demand was going to barge down the sanctions barrier no matter what. Once world demand rose high enough, there would be plenty of energy-hungry states saying, "Who cares about 1991? Screw the sanctions, let's just buy the freakin' oil."

So the point of invading Iraq was to forestall the inevitable crumbling of the sanctions regime in the face of mounting world demand, even if that meant for a period of time constricting world oil supplies through a war in Iraq, with no nation being more heavily affected by such constriction than the USA itself.

WRT the dangerousness of the Saddam regime, the proof was in the pudding. Saddam had already started two regional wars, catching the world by surprise both times. Particularly surprising was the Kuwait War, since most observers had reckoned that Iraq was too exhausted by the Iran War to embark upon any more aggressions.

So to return to the first point, the sanctions regime was to crumble as a result of supply and demand. The sanctions regime could be upheld fairly easily in the 90's when oil was cheap. The world had little need for Iraqi supply, and so nobody minded observing the sanctions. But with high and rapidly growing demand, it was inevitable that hard-pressed consumers would eventually flout the sanctions, meaning that Saddam was going to have a whole lot of hard currency come to hand. And for obtaining weapons, money talks.

So the Bushite can argue that from Day One of their administration, the priority was always on warring against Saddam. Normally that fact is raised as a criticism against GWB, but the Bushite can say that they always knew what stood as the greatest danger in the region.

Naturally no one can know the counter-factual, i.e. what Saddam would behave like in today's energy market. But Bush didn't want to take the chance, and would argue that the mess in the region, while worse than anticipated, is less severe than might have been the case.

And again, the war was not so much undertaken in the direct US interest, but rather undertaken knowing that the US would probably bear a disproportionate share of the costs (being a heavily energy-dependent country).

[Dlx2]

Once world demand rose high enough, there would be plenty of energy-hungry states saying, "Who cares about 1991? Screw the sanctions, let's just buy the freakin' oil."

Well, the UN had already set up an oil-for-food program in Iraq. It had its problems, most notably that UN members were using it to make bank, but it was exchanging oil for resources without putting money in Hussein's war coffers, whatever those supposedly were.

Anyways, let's suppose that Hussein was a threat and an oil rush by China violating the UN sanctions gave him funding that permitted him to act as a destabilizing force in the region.

I honestly don't think that Hussein could have possibly destabilized the region any worse than Mr. Bush and his Merry Men have.

[dug_down_deep]

You could add in that a Saddam of the hypothetical future would have escalated efforts to match Iran's military capabilities, including going nuclear. I just heard that justification on the Charlie Rose show.