5 ms·

Yeah, according to HN, the invasion was mostly the NYT's fault... Realistically, there is zero chance the invasion would have happened without exaclty that tri

Yeah, according to HN, the invasion was mostly the NYT's fault... Realistically, there is zero chance the invasion would have happened without exaclty that trio of President, Sec-State & VP, plus or minus a Wolfowitz. But the Republicans successfully goaded some Democrats into voting for it by threatening to taunt them. The US public needed some more important foreign blood to be spilled than Afghani. And that's the way the cookie crumbled...

zardo 5y ago
> The US public needed some more important foreign blood to be spilled than Afghani. And that's the way the cookie crumbled... I really don't see how you can reach that conclusion that prime mover on the Iraq invasion was the US public at large.
- asveikau 5y ago
  Yeah, it was more like dishonest politicians suggested to the US public that Iraq and 9/11 were related and a lot of people didn't know the difference, and didn't bother to learn. In that respect the US public was responsible and at fault. But not a "prime mover" as you say. I thought Richard Clarke's book a few years later was pretty informative. Iirc, in his telling, they wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11 happened, and when it did happen, many in the administration didn't care at all who did it, they just wanted Iraq to pay. There was a line attributed to Rumsfeld "but Iraq has better targets".
throwawaylinux 5y ago
> But the Republicans successfully goaded some Democrats into voting for it by threatening to taunt them. Really? Wow, voting for a war you (allegedly) know to be wrong because you're worried about being "taunted". That's the most pathetic spineless thing I've ever heard. Worse than unashamed pro-war crowd, in some ways. What happened to all those cowardly losers anyway? They all get voted out and replaced with people who were happy to continue those occupations and support the new wars and interventions during the Obama administration?
- asveikau 5y ago
  Technically they voted to authorize the war and the executive branch was trusted to make final decisions wisely (they did not).
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Doesn't change anything that's just a sorry excuse for cowardly corrupt warmongers. They clearly knew what the executive branch would do. More generally, that would be a dereliction of duty too. The entire point of these checks and balances is so that an individual branch does not need to be trusted to make a wise choice.

zardo 5y ago

> The US public needed some more important foreign blood to be spilled than Afghani. And that's the way the cookie crumbled... I really don't see how you can reach that conclusion that prime mover on the Iraq invasion was the US public at large.

asveikau 5y ago
Yeah, it was more like dishonest politicians suggested to the US public that Iraq and 9/11 were related and a lot of people didn't know the difference, and didn't bother to learn. In that respect the US public was responsible and at fault. But not a "prime mover" as you say. I thought Richard Clarke's book a few years later was pretty informative. Iirc, in his telling, they wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11 happened, and when it did happen, many in the administration didn't care at all who did it, they just wanted Iraq to pay. There was a line attributed to Rumsfeld "but Iraq has better targets".

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> But the Republicans successfully goaded some Democrats into voting for it by threatening to taunt them. Really? Wow, voting for a war you (allegedly) know to be wrong because you're worried about being "taunted". That's the most pathetic spineless thing I've ever heard. Worse than unashamed pro-war crowd, in some ways. What happened to all those cowardly losers anyway? They all get voted out and replaced with people who were happy to continue those occupations and support the new wars and interventions during the Obama administration?

asveikau 5y ago
Technically they voted to authorize the war and the executive branch was trusted to make final decisions wisely (they did not).
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Doesn't change anything that's just a sorry excuse for cowardly corrupt warmongers. They clearly knew what the executive branch would do. More generally, that would be a dereliction of duty too. The entire point of these checks and balances is so that an individual branch does not need to be trusted to make a wise choice.