4 ms·

>> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east > Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome.

by ardy42 6y ago

>> ultimately failing to achieve anything other than even more instability in the middle east > Hate to break it to you but this was the exact desired outcome. That's not actually true. It doesn't seem like it was deeply cynical and nefarious like that; it was more of an overly-simplistic moral crusade: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-war-robert-draper.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/books/review/to-start-a-w...: > In “Plan of Attack,” Bob Woodward described Bush as being beset by doubt about the case for war, and suggested that Tenet’s affirmation had been “very important.” Draper disagrees. The issue wasn’t the evidence. It was the spin: “Tenet’s words were ‘important’ only because they helped remove any doubt as to whether the C.I.A. could mount a solid case.” Bush’s thinking was as clear as it was simplistic. Saddam was a monster. It would be a bad idea to leave him in power. According to Draper, Bush’s “increasingly bellicose rhetoric reflected a wartime president who was no longer tethered to anything other than his own convictions.” > In his 2005 Inaugural Address, Bush tried to turn neoconservative ideology into official doctrine: “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” It wasn’t until the shellacking that the Republicans endured in the 2006 midterm elections that Bush began to abandon his fantasies about spreading peace, love and understanding across the Middle East. He fired Rumsfeld and shunted Cheney to the side.

paulcole 6y ago
Oh sorry, I didn't realize Bush was under oath in his inaugural address.
jessaustin 6y ago
Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (and much worse besides) wanted a less stable region. Less stable regions lead to increased spending on armaments and "black" budgets. As we're reminded by the recently-completed "Blowback" podcast [0], blowback is a feature not a bug. The machine works the same way every time, not due to a mistake or the bad luck of having bad people in control but because it is a machine that works the same way every time. [0] https://blowback.show/ https://blowback.show/
- eternalban 6y ago
  You are entirely off on this. (Iranian born, with picture of Mossadeqh on my wall when I was a kid.) Mossadeqh was a destabilizing actor, as a matter of fact. Also, this recent yet-again re-telling (adjusting) the story of the fabled '53 coup to "reinstall" the actual monarch of Iran is interesting. Many of us for years complained "why is the role of UK minimized and America vilified for this coup?". This was specially puzzling since it was the CIA and NYTimes that were screaming 'mea culpa'. Very strange. And we now have the adjusted matter that says, "oh yea, the Brits were 'involed'". It's funny. Even now you don't have the facts, but no excuse for lack of knowledge. You need to review Iran's political situation starting with invasion and occupation of neutral Iran by US, UK, USSR, up to the "reinstalling" of the Shah of Iran. Pay special attention to the "stable" period featuring assassination of prime ministers by "Muslim Brotherhood" (UK "orientalist" spook outfit); attempts at 'liberating' North Western Iran by USSR; attempts on the life of the reigning (not governing) monarch; etc. The counter-coup of '53 was a reaction by elements in Iranian society against other elements in Iranian society. The Western imperial interests of UK and 'cold war' interests of hegemon USA simply aligned with Nationalist Iranians who happened to be Royalists, or vehemently anti-Communist. That is all. The 'National Front' of Iran needs to get over this emotional hangup over '53 and start telling the full truth. Their churlish attitude was certainly instrumental in letting the regressive Islamists hijack Iran and the "revolution" in '79. You would think they've finally learned the lesson but alas.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Sure, Iranians in Iran were responsible for events in Iran. Just as Indonesians in Indonesia were responsible for events in Indonesia. And so on, for forty other nations. 20th-century history rhymes. There's always another fool ready to answer CIA's call. Luis Fernando Camacho is a recent example. Nationalism is overrated, but it's better than CIA-toadyism. Maybe Mossadeqh wasn't perfect? He was elected by Parliament and appointed by the Shah. He was removed from office via royal decree dictated to the Shah by CIA reptile Donald Wilber. In the aftermath his supporters were executed by General Zahedi. This is all public knowledge now. What is your beef? Should the British get more credit? OK, let's give them credit for asking Eisenhower to do the thing, after Truman had refused them. Assuming you're referring to Razmara or Mansur, it's interesting to learn that Fada'iyan-e Islam were run by UK "orientalist" spooks. I'm sure you could teach us lots of other interesting things, if you cared to do so.

by ardy42 6y ago

paulcole 6y ago

Oh sorry, I didn't realize Bush was under oath in his inaugural address.

jessaustin 6y ago

Bush the Lesser made no decisions. He did what his handlers told him to do. Of course the same people who did in Mosaddegh and have done dozens of other coups (and much worse besides) wanted a less stable region. Less stable regions lead to increased spending on armaments and "black" budgets. As we're reminded by the recently-completed "Blowback" podcast [0], blowback is a feature not a bug. The machine works the same way every time, not due to a mistake or the bad luck of having bad people in control but because it is a machine that works the same way every time. [0] https://blowback.show/ https://blowback.show/

eternalban 6y ago
You are entirely off on this. (Iranian born, with picture of Mossadeqh on my wall when I was a kid.) Mossadeqh was a destabilizing actor, as a matter of fact. Also, this recent yet-again re-telling (adjusting) the story of the fabled '53 coup to "reinstall" the actual monarch of Iran is interesting. Many of us for years complained "why is the role of UK minimized and America vilified for this coup?". This was specially puzzling since it was the CIA and NYTimes that were screaming 'mea culpa'. Very strange. And we now have the adjusted matter that says, "oh yea, the Brits were 'involed'". It's funny. Even now you don't have the facts, but no excuse for lack of knowledge. You need to review Iran's political situation starting with invasion and occupation of neutral Iran by US, UK, USSR, up to the "reinstalling" of the Shah of Iran. Pay special attention to the "stable" period featuring assassination of prime ministers by "Muslim Brotherhood" (UK "orientalist" spook outfit); attempts at 'liberating' North Western Iran by USSR; attempts on the life of the reigning (not governing) monarch; etc. The counter-coup of '53 was a reaction by elements in Iranian society against other elements in Iranian society. The Western imperial interests of UK and 'cold war' interests of hegemon USA simply aligned with Nationalist Iranians who happened to be Royalists, or vehemently anti-Communist. That is all. The 'National Front' of Iran needs to get over this emotional hangup over '53 and start telling the full truth. Their churlish attitude was certainly instrumental in letting the regressive Islamists hijack Iran and the "revolution" in '79. You would think they've finally learned the lesson but alas.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Sure, Iranians in Iran were responsible for events in Iran. Just as Indonesians in Indonesia were responsible for events in Indonesia. And so on, for forty other nations. 20th-century history rhymes. There's always another fool ready to answer CIA's call. Luis Fernando Camacho is a recent example. Nationalism is overrated, but it's better than CIA-toadyism. Maybe Mossadeqh wasn't perfect? He was elected by Parliament and appointed by the Shah. He was removed from office via royal decree dictated to the Shah by CIA reptile Donald Wilber. In the aftermath his supporters were executed by General Zahedi. This is all public knowledge now. What is your beef? Should the British get more credit? OK, let's give them credit for asking Eisenhower to do the thing, after Truman had refused them. Assuming you're referring to Razmara or Mansur, it's interesting to learn that Fada'iyan-e Islam were run by UK "orientalist" spooks. I'm sure you could teach us lots of other interesting things, if you cared to do so.