Iraq debacle has more conservatives going against Bush

[Gingersnap]

My mom (a right-wing conservative) sent me this article and I was encouraged to receive it. There are "smart" conservatives out there who are growing more and more disgusted with Bush. It's an interview with Paul Sperry, a conservative who has recently written a book entitled "Crude Politics: How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism" in which he agrees with the protesters: It's all about the oil.

link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34472

Excerpts from interview (with Barnes & Noble):

Barnes & Noble.com: "Crude Politics" is subtitled "How Bush's Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism." Who are these
"cronies"?

Paul Sperry: They include onetime Caspian energy industry lobbyist Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's broker for regime change in
Kabul and now Baghdad; Dick Cheney, whose Halliburton Co. has long been a player in both the Caspian and in Iraq; Condi
Rice, longtime director of ChevronTexaco, the Caspian's biggest investor and also a player now in Iraq; Deputy Secretary of
State Rich Armitage, formerly a powerful Caspian lobbyist in Washington; Commerce Secretary Don Evans, whose former oil
firm is partly owned by Unocal, the original lead investor in the trans-Afghan pipelines that Khalilzad lobbied for and which are
now on the fast track to development. The rest of the cronies are listed in the "Players & Power Brokers" section in the front of
"Crude Politics." Many of them were among the principals who crafted the post-9-11 war strategy.

B&N.com: You're politically conservative, yet you criticize the approach Bush has taken to the war on terror. At what point did
you start to feel that Bush wasn't doing the right thing?

PS: My doubts really crystallized in December 2001, when Osama bin Laden escaped from Afghanistan and many of my
Special Ops and CentCom sources began griping about the Bush administration's odd military strategy of focusing on the
Taliban and "regime change," while using local Afghan proxy fighters to hunt down bin Laden.

<snip>

B&N.com: Should Saudi Arabia be included in any "axis of evil" when it comes to harboring and fostering terrorism? Why did
the administration whisk Osama's relatives out of the country only days after 9-11?

PS: If the Bush Doctrine were applied evenly and apolitically, which it isn't, we would count Saudi Arabia among our enemies,
not allies. In fact, there is far, far more evidence linking Riyadh to al-Qaida and September 11th than Baghdad. Of course, don't
tell that to Bush, who has fudged the evidence in both cases. The main reason he allowed Osama's relatives to be whisked out
of the country after September 11th is the same reason he won't declassify those 28 pages on Saudi in the 9-11 report: Prince
Bandar. He and the Bush family go way back, and it was Bandar who lobbied the White House to spirit the bin Ladens out of the
country, and it is Bandar and his wife and brother-in-law, Prince Turki, who are cited in the 9-11 report as possible
co-conspirators.

What's more, it's a fact, not a rumor, that Bush's father and consigliere James Baker personally have done business with the bin
Laden family. In "Crude Politics," I produce a secret letter between a top Bush administration official and a Saudi official that
reveals the alarming degree of access and clout the royal family has with this administration. Bottom line: Bush is covering for
the Saudis, and it's not just for strategic geopolitical reasons.

B&N.com: Is Bush guilty of exploiting one of the worst American tragedies of all time?

PS: I'm afraid so. The book's subtitle is not just for effect. They really did hijack this war to pursue their hidden agendas. But that
doesn't mean they didn't want to bring al-Qaida leaders to justice, their royal benefactors notwithstanding. They did, and still do,
it's just that the war provided a golden opportunity to do other things at the same time – namely, to open up new oil frontiers –
and that's where they blew it. Trying to kill two birds with one stone sewed such a high degree of complexity into the operation
that it caused them to take their eye off the main quarry, bin Laden, and now he's still threatening us two years after he attacked
us.

I pray we get him tomorrow, before he can order another major hit on us. That would be the real victory, though it would still be
somewhat pyrrhic. If we had caught him in the winter of 2001 – when we had a bead on him in southern Afghanistan, and a
golden chance to take him out – I doubt the American people would have countenanced this messy Iraqi dogleg in the war on
terror, or the further erosion of our civil liberties. And I'm certain our economy and mutual fund balances would look better.

<snip>

B&N.com: The question of whether the Bush administration lied about the threat Iraq posed to us is running rampant in the
headlines. Do you feel Bush and his people deliberately misrepresented the situation in order to get the American people behind
the Iraq war?

PS: Absolutely, there is no question now that Bush sold the American people a bill of goods about the alleged Iraqi threat to
them. And even if they stumble on some evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program or a clear al-Qaida link at this late
juncture, it still won't confirm Bush's prewar rhetoric, because we now know the intelligence underlying the rhetoric was soft –
and in some cases fabricated. The cat's officially out of the bag: We went into Baghdad on a hunch, not on hard intelligence.
Any evidence we find now in Iraq isn't confirmation, it's luck.

That's no way to prosecute a war, and certainly no way to start a war. And it's the height of irresponsibility to do so in the middle
of a war on al-Qaida, the real threat to America. Bush diverted resources – such as troops, intelligence assets, Arabic
translators – from the hunt for bin Laden and his top henchmen like Dr. Zawahiri. That's inexcusable, and Bush supporters with
any modicum of intellectual honesty should be mad as hell about it. And that's coming from someone who voted for Bush.

<snip>

B&N.com: With Bush running hard for re-election, is it safe to assume he won't be getting your vote? Do you see anyone on the
Democratic side you'd feel comfortable voting for instead?

PS: Like I said, I voted for Bush, but I don't plan to vote for a Republican or a Democrat this time. Both parties disgust me now,
quite frankly.

[Brucey]

1. weird..

he seems to be seeing the light, yet says that Dem candidates disgust him. I hope others are getting the message about Stump and his friends. They are seriously dangerous.

[grasswire]

2. Sperry...

...is the reporter who harrassed Bill Clinton at a WH party and became persona non grata. He's no friend of Democrats.

[Gingersnap]

4. I don't think he's a friend

but it is encouraging to see that even people like him are starting to see some of the truth about this administration. How long before other right wingers realize they have nothing to gain from voting for Bush (unless they're oil execs.).

Many people like my mom didn't listen to me when I said these things about oil last spring, but now that a confirmed conservative says them, she's suspicious. Articles like this are good ammo for sending our conservative friends, co-workers and family members, that's all.

I'm not about to say that I want to be Sperry's new best friend...

[Skittles]

7. people like him

are RESPONSIBLE for this misadministration.

[Gingersnap]

5. maybe an "outsider" democrat

would appeal to him: Clark, Dean, Kucinich? Someone who didn't go along with the war in the beginning and now criticize it for political advantage?

Even if he doesn't vote Dem, it's great that Bush won't get his vote a second time. I think there are many mmany more people out there like this guy.

[loudnclear]

3. I hate when they say we lost the war in Viet Nam because of politics

back home. It appears that the political appointees of every President since Roosevelt can never or will never take responsibility for their own failed influence on US Presidents. The Kennedy men, the Johnson men, the Nixon men, the Carter men, the Reagan men, the Bush I men, the Clinton men, and now the Bush II men...all want to blame the public sentiment and public opinions for their wayward influence that resulted in policies detrimental to both the US and the rest of the world. What the hell does it mean to say that "we lost Viet Nam because of political pressures back home" as Schwarkoff (sp) just said? What was the result of our "losing in Viet Nam?" Did the world come to a sudden end? Were those people worse off than if we had "won" the war? And what would we have won?

I am sick and tired of these pundits using these worn out cliche's to try to make the policies and behavior of this administration appear to make sense. Iraq is now a hot bed of terrorism that would never have existed under Saddam. We are now in the corsshairs of a myriad of terrorist groups that will stirke us at their own calling...no matter what we say or do. This bullshit that national security comes first before the welfare of our own citizenary is total bull! 9/11 was an event for one purpose...just what Osama said...to get the US out of Arab territory especially in Saudi Arabia. HE SUCCEEDED! The US is not out of Saudi Arabia. Now we will be facing another terrorist plot to make us get out of Iraq...which is something that didn't have to happen. Anybody else out there see what crock this administration is handing everyone with the help of the media.

[newyawker99]

6. Gingersnap

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator