Bush's Prewar Putin Strategy

It was January 31, 2003. George W. Bush was moving toward war in Iraq, and he was meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Oval Office to discuss various war-related matters. Last week, The New York Times disclosed portions of a secret memo--written by Blair's senior foreign policy adviser, David Manning--that summarized what the two leaders covered at this session, which Manning also attended. Blair, according to the memo, wanted Bush to fight for a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein. Bush agreed to try for such a resolution, but he told Blair that the start date for the war, win or lose at the UN, would be March 10. Bush also proposed provoking a confrontation with Saddam's regime that would justify attacking Iraq. The pair chatted about postwar Iraq, agreeing that sectarian violence was unlikely.

And according to a previously undisclosed portion of this memo--a passage obtained by The Nation--Bush and Blair discussed what to do about Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was opposed to a war in Iraq. Bush told Blair he had come up with a possible solution: send Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to lecture Putin on free-market economics.

In the weeks prior to the Bush-Blair meeting, Putin had been calling for a diplomatic resolution regarding Iraq. And Russia mattered. Moscow could veto a second resolution in the Security Council--which the previous November had passed a resolution that had demanded that Saddam disarm and that had revived weapons inspections in Iraq.

With Bush aiming to invade Iraq in six weeks, Putin was far from ready to sign on to a war on Iraq. On January 27, Putin spoke with Blair on the telephone and told the British prime minister that weapons inspections should continue, and Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov said that day that there was "practically no chance" that the UN Security Council would support the use of force. On January 28, Putin publicly insisted that the Iraq problem be resolved through the United Nations and not by U.S. military action. Two days later, he called for "international and diplomatic efforts" to deal with Iraq. And Ivanov dismissed one of the Bush administration's chief rationales for invading Iraq: "For the time being, neither Russia nor any other country has information about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda."

How could Bush get Putin on board--or at least persuade him not to veto a Security Council resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq? Berlusconi was Bush's answer, according to the Manning memo.

Berlusconi, the conservative businessman leader of Italy, was a firm backer of Bush's position on Iraq. He had already agreed to allow US forces to use Italian airbases for an assault on Iraq. On January 30, he met with Bush in the Oval Office and pledged his support to the president. That day, he and the prime ministers of England, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland and Denmark released a statement that asserted that the "Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security" and that called on the Security Council to take action. Berlusconi was due to visit Putin in Moscow on February 3.

During his White House meeting with Berlusconi, Bush tapped the Italian to win over Putin by teaching him about fundamental economics. The Manning memo--according to sources who reviewed parts of the document and took notes--records how Bush described this idea to Blair the next day:

For Putin, the problem was oil. He had convinced himself, quite wrongly, that military action against Iraq would lead to the collapse of the oil price. Bush had encouraged Berlusconi to go and explain a thing or two to Putin about the laws of supply and demand.

Did Bush truly believe that oil was Putin's primary concern--not, say, American unilateralism--and that a lecture from Berlusconi on economics would turn around the Russian leader? How did Berlusconi react to Bush's suggestion? How did Blair respond to this "explain a thing or two" strategy? The memo says nothing else about this part of the Bush-Blair conversation.

On February 3, Putin and Berlusconi did meet in Russia. (The two enjoyed a close relationship; the previous year Putin's daughters had vacationed with the Berlusconi family in Italy.) After their talks, there was no sign that Berlusconi had made much progress with Putin. The Russian did say that "a meaningful part of the responsibility" for the crisis "lies on the Iraqi side," but Putin also maintained that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time: "Are the inspectors working? They're working. Have they found anything? No, they haven't found anything yet." As for a second resolution that might authorize military action against Iraq, he was noncommittal: "We'll think about it--so far there is no need, but I do not rule it out." A Russian television correspondent noted, "It is possible that Berlusconi will leave with an impression of Russian hospitality but with empty hands." The next day Ivanov was unambiguous: "There is no basis for using force against Baghdad."

The major media coverage of the Putin-Berlusconi talks did not indicate whether Berlusconi had acted upon Bush's suggestion, discussed the political economy of the global oil industry with Putin, and explained a thing or two to the Russian leader.

Had Berlusconi accepted Bush's assignment? Had the controversial Italian media baron, one of the richest people in the world, attempted to persuade Putin to go along with a war in Iraq by laying out the laws of supply and demand? Or had he ditched Bush's suggestion?

Berlusconi faces elections on April 9 and 10. An enterprising Italian reporter might want to ask him and his aides about this episode. It could turn up an interesting anecdote--perhaps one about the American president and his simplistic assessment of Putin's position. Maybe there's even a separate memo about the Berlusconi-Bush meeting.

Comments (48)

1. TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC RANT

   I just read this paragraph in an article about Max Clelland, the former Senator from Georgia, who is a triple-amputee as a result of a grenade blast in Vietnam:

   In 2002, what Cleland calls "the second big grenade in my life" blew up in his face. Running for reelection to the Senate, he was confronted by a Republican challenger, Saxby Chambliss, who used the George Bush/Karl Rove playbook to smear him as a weakling on national security. Chambliss (who sat out the Vietnam war with a bad knee) ran a commercial that depicted Cleland's face morphing into that of Osama bin Laden. Cleland lost the election, a blow from which he says he still hasn't recovered.

   The implication here is that Chambliss is the bad guy, and the Bush/Rove playbook is the root of all evil. When are we going to hop on this thought train and take it to the next station? It ISN'T that Chambliss, Bush, and Rove are so awful for regularly employing low, slimy, shameful political tactics. The truly horrible thing is that the tactics WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S what we have to talk about. THAT'S what we have to acknowledge and name. MILLIONS of ignorant, bamboozled Red-Staters BELIEVE that shit. THAT is the real problem in our country. THAT'S what the rest of the world perceives so clearly. The Red Staters have no problem hurling utterly UNTRUE invective at us. But when we venture to state the obvious--that you have to be a single-digit IQ, knuckledragging moron to believe the shit that Rove and Co. shovel--we are supposedly being arrogant, condescending Northeastern (gay) snobs who are out of touch with "real" Americans. Well, it was "real" Americans who watched that absurd fucking ad and decided then to vote against Clelland!!!! America's problem is not its current leaders; America's problem is the 30% or so who are so ill-informed and therefore so riddled with goofy political beliefs that they buy at disastrously steep prices (i.e., thousands dead in Iraq) the dung that the Shrubbers are selling.

   Posted by bookmanjb at 04/03/2006 @ 12:22pm

2. what you have to understand, BOOKMANJB, is that fundamentalist christians love evil people. They just had a big praise-fest for Rep. Tom Delay (indicted for money laundering) and they love people like that. Any bloodthirsty warmonger who says he wants to outlaw abortion can count on the fundamentalist christian vote. It is a fact of american politics, and I suggest you accept it and move on to issues that you can do something about.

   The really sad thing is, they would never vote for an atheist because we are "godless and immoral," yet the atheists I know are far more moral than most fundamentalist christians! Funny how the world works, huh?

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 04/03/2006 @ 12:42pm

3. Totally ON-TOPIC here...

   So is Mr Corn, in order to attack Bush.....defending Putin?

   Seems odd, given recent "Nation" articles about Vlad?

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2006 @ 1:04pm

4. That's right, MASK. Corn is totally on Putin's side...about everything. As you know well, neither Corn nor any other breathing soul needs any assistance in pointing out the foolishness of our current president. If our fool in chief determines to use Italy's current fool to reprogram Putin, and David Corn decides to write a column on the topic, this--you are quite right--means that David Corn is a communist.

   I have already begun my amateur Red Scare Black List and have replaced Jane Fonda's name at the top of the list with David Corn.

   There is little reason to think that Putin is a peace-loving man who has no interest in the current price of oil. Corn is making the point that, again, Bush has concocted a simplistic notion of what a problem might be and concocted a similarly simplistic solution to said problem.

   You reach more and more for your peculiar brand of hypocritical gotchas. I inch closer and closer to the ignore button.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/03/2006 @ 1:13pm

5. There is a difference between Christians and the KKkristo-fascists that have hijacked the mindless drones too busy to care unless the name GOD is invoked.

   "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on "I am not too sure."

   "The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression. "

   "The only really respectable Protestants are the Fundamentalists. Unfortunately, they are also palpable idiots"

   ~ Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) U. S. Editor and Critic.

   Posted by capt at 04/03/2006 @ 1:17pm

6. TJB1 -

   Super post. Under most circumstances, that would have killed any invasive intruder. (I suspect Mask has more stamina, however.)

   B.

   Posted by Blinky at 04/03/2006 @ 1:42pm

7. The war in Iraq has been and still is all about oil!

   Too bad the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to keep Cheney's oil meeting secret; which was the third worst decision by the Supreme Court. Just behind Bush v. Gore and Dred Scott v. Sanford.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 04/03/2006 @ 2:00pm

8. TJB

   WHY IN THE WORLD would I call anybody defending Vladimir Putin....a "Communist"?!?!? When Putin isn't?

   Ms vanden Heuval attacked Putin last year (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050207/kvh)....does that make her a "staunch anti-Communist"?.....hehe....hardly.

   50 years later and you guys still see Joe McCarthy around every corner and knee-jerk respond with "Don't you call me (or my friends) Communists, you McCarthyite!!!!!" (that one needs 5 exclamation marks!)

   How about this for analysis of my post....that Mr Corn looks for ANY anti-Bush port in a storm, and will even take an authoritarian like Putin?

   Posted by Mask at 04/03/2006 @ 2:01pm

9. Obviously the point of Corn's blog is nothing more than to further demonstrate:

   1. That war was a certainty

   2. That Bush would go to some pretty embarrassing lengths to appease his lapdog, Blair.

   I don't think it matters (to this blog) whether Putin's country was the dissenter on the Security Council or whether it was Bermuda being led by Mickey Mouse.

   The blog is concerned with Bush / Blair and to a lesser extent Burlusconi.....the three B's!

   Posted by freedomplease at 04/03/2006 @ 2:06pm

10. Bookmanjb,

    Your thoughts of red-staters are balls-on! I live among and work with some of these morons everyday, and I can say to anyone who wants to listen, that they truly believe that their values are far superior than the rest of the country's.

    If you don't support what they believe is right, you are morally speaking, the equivalent of apeshit.

    Most infuriating of all, is their purposely turned blind-eye to all the evidence that points to how wrong they are on EVERY ISSUE and their lemming-like support for the Moron-In-Chief. "W, the President" and "Support the Troops"is what their bumperstickers say, while not being able to tell you the difference between a Kurd, Shite or Sunni or before Desert Storm, couldn't show you where Iraq is on a map.

    Posted by lefthookjab at 04/03/2006 @ 2:20pm

11. That's Shiite, sorry about that.

    Posted by lefthookjab at 04/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

12. MASK:

    Are we reading the same article? I thought Corn's point was that Bush had miscalculated that the price of oil was Putin's primary concern about Iraq.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/03/2006 @ 2:24pm

13. MASK,

    I was just trying to conceive a misdirection that was as deliberately far off course as your original post. While I think your second post is partly correct in that Corn looks for Bush's mistakes (though if one is such a seeker, one has found manna raining from heaven during Bush's time in the White House), I think you are still partly wrong in believing that he is looking to Putin as some sort of ally in Corn's anti-Bush crusade. Were some other world leader mentioned in the memo, the point would be the same: Bush has his head up his ass when it comes to understanding how international relations work.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/03/2006 @ 2:42pm

14. HMAN....allow me to quote it-

    "Did Bush truly believe that oil was Putin's primary concern--not, say, American unilateralism--"

    Seems Mr Corn feels that Mr Putin's concern was "American unilaterism". Which I feel pretty sure in saying was one of MR CORN's concerns as well.

    So, I assume he (and maybe you) WOULD defend Putin for thinking the invasion of Iraq was a concern since it was "American unilateralism", right?

    Again, just curious that in MOST other circumstances, Vladimir's motives are questioned by "The Nation" writers...but when he seems to be opposed to "American unilateralism" (not something self-interested like oil prices for Russia), they like him again.

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2006 @ 2:44pm

15. Posted by MASK 04/03/2006 @ 1:04pm

    So, after reading Mr. Corn's article, Mask came away with the notion that, since Putin wasn't falling for Bush's simplistic analysis, David Corn now likes Putin?

    Interesting that in the rush to take his reflexive jabs at the Nation editors, Mask turns all the nuanced hues into either black or white.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

16. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/03/2006 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person

    Doc, pretty familiar with the strategy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (We (the US) used it a lot during the Cold War)....just odd to find David Corn endorsing it as well!

    Posted by Mask at 04/03/2006 @ 3:53pm

17. TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC RANT

    I just read this paragraph in an article about Max Clelland, the former Senator from Georgia, who is a triple-amputee as a result of a grenade blast in Vietnam:

    Correction - Happened in US (Alabama?) when he picked up a grenade and 'played' with it. He even admitted this on Larry King, of all places. I guess the myth just isn't exciting as reality.

    Posted by woodyee at 04/03/2006 @ 3:59pm

18. Woodyee,

    It happened in Vietnam, but not in combat.

    Posted by freedomplease at 04/03/2006 @ 4:13pm

19. you scared me capt! when i first read your post, i thought to myself, that is the quickest and most amazingly radical enlightenment i have ever witnessed! then i saw the "a" in your blog name. whew!

    Posted by loveloki at 04/03/2006 @ 4:18pm

20. On the same day as the Zinni MTP interview, we also have the following interview on CSPAN, saying the Exact Same Thing as Zinni.

    The truth is a bitch. Be sure to read every word of this interview. Karen Kwiatkowski is an American Hero:

    http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

    C-SPAN Interview April 2, 2006 Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski U.S. Air Force, 1983-2003

    KEY QUOTE:

    LAMB: You wrote one of the things that we don't often hear from inside, that Bill Luti referred to the Chief of Central Command, Anthony Zinni, as a traitor.

    KWIATKOSKI: Former Chief of Central Command Anthony Zinni, Tommy Frank's predecessor. Yes, he did, and right in front of the refrigerator that sat two feet from my desk.

    There was a huge contempt, and Bill Luti is not the only one. But, among the neo-conservatives in and out of the Pentagon and, of course, you can read their writings even at the time, a huge sense of collective derision, collective contempt for people that were like Anthony Zinni, people that were saying, "We need to sit down and think about what we're saying. We need to see how this fits in with America's national security interests. We need to be sure that what we're saying about Iraq's capability, Iraq's connection to terrorism, and anybody else's capability in connection to terrorism, we need to be sure that what we say is checked out."

    I'll tell you something about George Schultz, that - there was a fax that came into the office. It wasn't for me. I happened to get it, and I looked at this fax. It was a short note from George Schultz, who was on - who at that time, I don't know if he still is - but he was on the Defense Policy Board, along with Richard Perle. It was a fax, a copy of a fax that he had sent to Don Rumsfeld in June of 2002, June of 2002 I believe it was. It was the summer of 2002.

    And on this fax, it was a short, one-note thing, from Schultz to Rummy. Basically, we have to get together and talk about what we do after the victory in Iraq, and this was in the summer of 2002, long before even the president and the vice president had begun their round of why we fight-type propaganda speeches.

    Posted by plunger at 04/03/2006 @ 4:23pm

21. Note that the OSP set up an "IRAN DESK" even in advance of the invasion of Iraq. The entire IRAN invasion plan is all part of the same Israeli Foreign Policy initiative, which happens to be centered WITHIN THE US PENTAGON:

    KWIATKOWSKI:

    And in our staff meetings, of course, the Office of Special Plans folks, after they're formed, come down to our staff meetings, and they - I consider them our sister office, and that's how I describe them. I was not assigned into that office. I knew a lot of those guys because they shared space with us in the summer of 2002 and, of course, we saw them at our staff meetings and that kind of thing.

    Now, I have to say this. Interestingly enough, I never thought of it at the time, but, two weeks after - two to three weeks after the Office of Special Plans was set up as the expanded Iraq desk, they moved the Iran desk up into it, and that of course was headed by Larry Franklin, now serving a dozen years for apparently - I'm not sure what he did. He gave some classified material to members of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. He's - he plea-bargained down to 12 years, so I don't know the extent of what he did.

    http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1069

    Posted by plunger at 04/03/2006 @ 4:23pm

22. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission states the following:

    "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

    "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

    The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm

    Posted by plunger at 04/03/2006 @ 4:27pm

23. The New York Times has been urgently warning Congressional Republicans to abandon the Iraq War or face ruination in the November elections. Of course, for three years now, the Times has predicted that all world leaders who supported the war would be thrown out of office on their ears.

    However embattled they are, I don't think Republicans are at the point of taking advice from the mainstream media, but let's look at the facts.

    Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

    Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.

    But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.

    In the run-up to Australian Prime Minister Howard's re-election, the Times noted that he had "made the alliance with Washington a key element of his tenure." The Times was hopeful that Australia would be as pathetic as Spain, noting that "with al-Qaida threatening reprisals for the country's support of the United States in Iraq — a war that most Australians opposed — is Australia poised to become the next Spain? Will it become the next country to abandon President Bush?"

    On the eve of Howard's re-election bid in October 2004, the Times ran an article titled: "War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia," saying Howard's opponents promised to "have the troops home by Christmas."

    When Howard walloped the opposition in the election a few days later, becoming only the third prime minister of Australia ever to be elected to a fourth term, the Times headline was: "Australians Re-Elect Howard As Economy Trumps the War."

    As Blair approached British elections in April 2005, the Times ran an article titled: "With 10 Days to British Vote, War Emerges as Top Issue." As the Times cheerfully reminded its readers: "The prospect of war drew huge street protests here in early 2003, and in the aftermath Mr. Blair was — and is still is — accused by many people of misleading Britons about the legality and the rationale for the invasion." The war had "damaged Mr. Blair's credibility and left many Britons mistrustful of him."

    The Times cited "many Britons" who said "their vote will be swayed by the fact that, while Mr. Blair spoke so forcefully of a threat from Iraqi unconventional weapons, none were ever found."

    And then Blair went on to win the election, becoming the first Labor Party candidate to win a third term in the party's 100-year history. It was almost as if "many other Britons" believed in the cause the British military was fighting for in Iraq! The Times took solace in the fact that his margin was lower than in previous elections — "reflecting his unpopularity over the war in Iraq."

    One year before elections in Japan, the Times was predicting defeat for Koizumi, a loyal friend to President Bush and an implacable supporter of the war in Iraq.

    Reporting on the unpopularity of the Iraq War in Japan, the Times said "polls indicate that the population is against an extension" of Japanese troops serving in Iraq and that the opposition vowed to withdraw troops. Indeed, "some members of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's own party have been calling for the troops' withdrawal."

    And then in September 2005, Koizumi's party won a landslide. The Times described this as mainly a victory for the prime minister's idea to privatize the post office, explaining that Koizumi had won "by making postal privatization — an arcane issue little understood by most voters — a litmus test for reform," thus confirming the age-old political truism, "Most elections hinge on arcane, obscure issues voters don't know or care about."

    As congressional Republicans decide whether to take the Times' advice and back away from the war this election year, they might reflect on a fourth world leader who won re-election while supporting the Iraq war. Just about four months before Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Times put this on its front page: "President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks."

    Maybe it was his support for the post office.

    COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/03/2006 @ 4:41pm

24. MASK:

    Again, whether Corn or I agree with Putin's underlying reasoning in opposing the invasion, is irrelevant to the point - Bush is basically clueless.

    Are you saying that the price of oil WAS Putin's main concern and that it had nothing to do with American unilateralism - so Bush's instincts were correct?

    And what does Putin's underlying motivation have to do with the other point of this article - that the only "diplomatic" solution Bush was seeking at the time, was to diplomatically convince others to assent to the invasion.

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/03/2006 @ 4:52pm

25. ZERO 04/03/2006 @ 3:29pm

    Feel free to post that again on a less junky thread, it was well worth the read.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 04/03/2006 @ 5:15pm

26. ya, zero, put it on every thread!

    Posted by loveloki at 04/03/2006 @ 5:30pm

27. I wonder about the attack on the billboards. Is this directed at Clear Channel? If so, what works best: fire, chain saws or spray paint?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/03/2006 @ 5:33pm

28. lefthookjab (gee, I wonder what side of the aisle he is on) claims,

    Most infuriating of all, is their purposely turned blind-eye to all the evidence that points to how wrong they are on EVERY ISSUE and their lemming-like support for the Moron-In-Chief.

    I am glad that the Left is oh so much more open to debate than those foul red-staters...

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/03/2006 @ 5:52pm

29. With respect to Mr. Corn's opinions, I think his only motivation is the paycheck.

    However, I certainly don't see any comment in the article worth paying for.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/03/2006 @ 5:57pm

30. Zero,

    Afraid of a little honest debate?

    Afraid of having no where to go? - We are everywhere.

    My point? I believe I made it. Mr. Corn's piece says nothing.

    And your point is?

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/03/2006 @ 6:44pm

31. Zero,

    With respect to you raising the issue of bias, you have a point to make there as well? I don't recall making one.

    (note: I never claimed to be a conservative. Must be something about your own prejudicial stereotypes that went on the fritz)

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/03/2006 @ 6:46pm

32. Finally, zero, I fully appreciate that others may feel the same way about leftjab.

    So, maybe we do have something in common???

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/03/2006 @ 6:49pm

33. Jay,

    You might be new here. You might not. But people who are not on the left of the political spectrum are not at all uncommon on this site. In fact there are certain times and issues that bring more from the right than the left to this site. Zero's point is that coming here and simply dismissing what you read out of hand is not just a waste of your time. It's a waste of our time. If you have problems with Corn's article, help up understand what they are. If his article seems trivial or silly to you, please explain why.

    This site is open for debate as you will find. But each side has to participate.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/03/2006 @ 6:56pm

34. This is beautiful......ZERO says

    "obviously i am afraid of debate"

    Then says:

    "i am starting to aim for the ignore list button here"

    I wonder with that attitude hou you LIBZ can somehow claim intellectual superiority????

    Posted by libzsuk at 04/03/2006 @ 7:29pm

35. Zero,

    In case I forgot to tell you, you're the bad cop.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 04/03/2006 @ 8:18pm

36. If it's too complicated as to what the reason was as to why we went into Iraq, make it simple: either the W really thought Saddam had WMD, in which case he was willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of our fathers, sons, mothers and daughters to horrible deaths via that very same WMD rather than let the inspections continue, or he and his admin bold face lied to all us and he sent troops into Iraq knowing the whole time Saddam posed no threat and had no such weapons and the W is sacrificing our family members and those of the Iraqis, solely as body sheilds for corporate money making scams. Is that simple enough?

    Posted by Bushfools at 04/04/2006 @ 01:23am

37. TJ,

    You play the good cop rather well. Yet, please, let's start by not assigning axial relationships. Again, I appreciate that other people from the "Right" do participate here, yet I have never claimed to be from the Right.

    As far as opening with a more descriptive analysis of what my problems are with Mr. Corn's report, a) I have already said all that I believe needs to be said, b) as someone who is new to this site, I wanted to test the waters before jumping in.

    Seems to me we are wasting a heck of a lot more of everybody's time with "bad cops" diatribe than anything I have posted.

    I actually was hoping he would punch the ignore button.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 04/04/2006 @ 09:44am

38. good point Fooly, I don't believe for a minute that the "architects", my apologies to that profession, themselves believed the crap they foisted upon the country.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/04/2006 @ 09:55am

39. HELLO, time to chomp on Chomsky, over at TomDispatch.com, an indispensable site.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/04/2006 @ 12:03pm

40. Oraib

    Agreed (and am awaiting Mask's finger pointing at this) on Cheney's Energy task Force = the prelude to the Iraq War and was one of the prime motivating forces. The FOIA released documents show maps of Iraq oil fileds, piplines, processing facilities, etc. with notations regarding potential developers. They were dated March 2001...which on MY calendar is before September 2001. In Nov 05 the Washington Post reported that oil companies lied to Congress in saying that they did not particiapte in these talks when in fact they had.

    Cheney & co. of course claimed immunity from FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) which disallows the very closed-door type of meetings he held with special interest groups to craft policy around the wants & desires of the involved industries.

    Should we be surprised that the POTUS [member of one of the richest oil families in the US) and Cheney (former CEO of the world's largest oil outitting company) would play "good old boy" games with their industry cronies, or that oil itself would become the defining and driving force of the administration?

    No surprises here other than the fact that apparently many citizens are surprised by such thoughts.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/04/2006 @ 1:02pm

41. LL

    If you read the PDf you will note the court never addresses the FACA issue. Its sole position was based on the lower court exceeding its authority and the shield of "Executive Branch" privacy. It does not block futher litigation.

    Short version...just because Dick chose to hide his dirty laundry under Dubya's skirt doen't make the act "right."

    Hence my post stands....at least until the next round of litigation.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/04/2006 @ 4:09pm

42. LL

    Didn't know there WAS a World Socialist Websiste! (Does this mean you're a closet socialist?) But yes, unsurprising that Bush/Cheney get a "pass" with respect to "normal legal precedent"

    Guess 1984 is here already?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/04/2006 @ 6:34pm

43. Lefty, 1984 was "here" in 1948, when the book was written. Now it is increasingly here, in america

    Posted by johannesrolf at 04/04/2006 @ 7:06pm

44. Be your age, David. Do you think Bush knows or cares about the laws of supply and demand? Do you really think that Bush thinks Putin needs education on this topic?

    I think we can be sure that whatever Bush said, it was delivered with the kind of verbal English that made Brando's "offer he couldn't refuse" so chilling. My translation of Bush is something like, "Let's find a go-between we can trust to explain to Putin just what's in our scheme for him."

    Posted by drlimerick at 04/05/2006 @ 4:45pm

45. interesting to here outside of the "nut job" sites.....Cheney

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/05/2006 @ 5:01pm

46. ooops "hear" (my bad...)

    Posted by leftofcenter at 04/06/2006 @ 07:05am

47. LEFTOFCENTER - thanks for the link. I never considered congress.org a "nut job" site. As conspiracy theories go, though, this is a doozy.

    Posted by BECAUSEISAYSO at 04/06/2006 @ 1:32pm

48. What David Corn's article points out is that the answer to Putin's opposition to the U.S./British War on Iraq, in our illustrious President's mind, is send someone over to explain about the law of supply and demand! When Bush says something, pay attention... his message couldn't be more clear. IT'S ALL ABOUT BUSINESS, ALL ABOUT "THE MARKET"... it's all about oil and money. Period. He couldn't have been more clear. I'm no fan of Putin, but it is horribly insulting to have a president of the United States (who can't seem to form a coherent thought and sentence) take it upon himself to send the Italian leader to go to Moscow and give the Russian head of state a tutorial on capitalism! Talk about condescending! But this is yet one more nail in the coffin of this administration. They have no more integrity, they have no credibility. They should go now. Enough damage has been done.

    Posted by Quannah at 04/08/2006 @ 12:53pm