Don't forget the 120 billion barrels of sweet black gold in those sands. Texas tea.

Don't forget that if the environment should somehow turn hostile (don't know how that could happen), our troops & materiel would become about 60 clusters of sitting ducks.

Always, always, always follow the money. All the bullies in the conservative corner will cry foul, and question your patriotism, but you're better served by understanding the practical reasons for diverting all those resources and lives. I refuse to believe that, though Bush himself may live in a bubble, there aren't more superior reasons to invest all that capital on the basis of some grand theory of Middle East democracy wave.

Real, practical answer: to maintain American power in the face of a changing and globalizing world, where resources will be more acutely stretched due to demand from the new rising powers of China, Russia, India, Brazil, etc etc. It's so simple to understand, because why else would a powerful country divert it's scope from Osama Bin Laden towards Iraq? Again, Bush may be that foolish because of his personal history with Saddam, but not Cheney.

The other answers were excellently posted in the previous thread regarding John McCain and his "not too important" remark.

Kevin writes: "Andrew Sullivan ponders the real reason that the Bush administration wants a long-term presence in Iraq ..."

The CheneyBush cartel wants a long term US military occupation of Iraq to enforce US corporate control of Iraq's oil, which will be established by the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law which the CheneyBush cartel is trying to bully the Iraqis into accepting along with the long-term military occupation. Not much to "ponder" over. It's very straightforward.

Bush/Cheney's reasons don't matter. The consequences of their actions and their desire to expand our military role in the Middle East, are enormous.

After our criminal invasion of Iraq, Iraqis looted museums, government buildings and armories, with terrible consequences. This was a violent uprising. Our politicians, not just the Bush/Cheney war criminals, are looting the store without resistance. We have the greatest private wealth in history, but no money for inner city schools, bridges or a better healthcare system. No wonder that our minority children often grow up to be criminals, choking our prisons. Democratic politicians talk about tax cuts and improved healthcare services which they claim will come from increased efficiency and shifting the tab to the rich. Pure hogwash. Consider the famous Massachusetts Health Plan. Businesses that don’t offer insurance for workers (need not be accepted by the worker who would pay a substantial portion of the cost from his/her meager paycheck) pay a $295 “fine� for insurance worth more than $5000. No wonder that the Mass plan is in financial trouble. Now the Mass businesses and chamber of commerce are joining forces to insist that they can’t pay more than the token $295. This idea, painless universal healthcare, is an oxymoron. Collective sacrifice for a better future is an insane idea in modern day America.

The ship is going down; we Americans keep quiet, grumbling while our Washington politicians live it up, partying on the corporate dollar. Dustin Hoffman was told to “get into plastics� in the famous 1967 movie, The Graduate. Our children are implicitly told “get into prisons, torture and remote control bombing of third world countries�. We lead the world in these categories. However, our militarism, combined with the something for nothing philosophy of American culture, is bankrupting us. Asian cultures have not had such excessive militarism in the last 50 years and certainly not our self-esteem comes first/something for nothing culture. However, Chinese youth are slipping into those same attitudes. The US will break apart, just as the Soviet Union did. Asia, but no single country, will become the center of world power, economic and military.

I was gonna write "Duh" but, then, I saw your "duh" and -- duh -- I decided not to leave a comment after all.

Because, really, what else is there left to say?

Boorring and SecularAnimist are both correct.

Does anybody remember a few years back when Margaret Thatcher's son was caught planning and leading a coup against Equatorial Guinea?

The other day I saw a report about how the Chinese had fanned-out over Africa - and even into Equatorial Guinea. Why? Their huge oil fields.

Of course Bush and Cheney wanted control of Iraq's. Better get it now before the Chinese do.

And as far as Sullivan's idea about Israel goes, how many trillions of dollars will Israel be paying the US for this protection? Or will we be offering it to them, for free, as a 'two-fer'? Would our sentimentally romantic notions about Jesus, Mary, Joseph and a Bethlehem manger make it worth our while to do it for nothing?

It goes beyond just oil though, Iraq has proven to be a corrupt corporate fantasy-land. Billions are handed out for Iraqi reconstruction with no accountability. And those that receive these funds are the loudest supporters of the occupation. With this money, and the desire for more, these war-profiteers have gained significant influence in Washington.

The occupation has taken on a life of it's own, and is in a self-perpetuating state. We will remain there as long as corporations are making profits, and using some of these profits to buy politicians who will continue the occupation, enabling these corporations to make even more money, which they then use to buy even more politicians.

What I fear is that the Bush administration and many neo-conservatives are claiming one thing, while planning for another

You don't say.

The moral question is: was it right to do so?

The troubling question is: do the ends, justify the means?

Or, was there another, credible, way to achieve this?

Andrew Sullivan is a militant right-wing harpy who voted for George Bush in 2000 and cheered the onset of the Iraq War. And while screaming queens like Sullivan can and do change their wardrobe to appeal to the latest trends, political leopards don't change their spots -- Obama's liberal supporters best never forget that. This guy has rarely been correct in his assessment about any policy issue of substance, save perhaps for (and for obvious reasons) gay marriage.

The real question is why this is debatable point instead of common knowledge.

The word is empire.

Does anyone remember a document called PNAC?

Does anyone remember a document called PNAC?
Posted by: on June 12, 2008 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK PNAC...isn't that the Fourth Reich that will last for a hundred years?

First reaction it's a"duh."
But in reality it's more of a "holy crap, someone can be that thick and still be considered one of the more intelligent political commentators by the mainstream media"

I mean, Iraq has been in the news a bit in the last few years.

Part of the motivation, I'm sure, is pure domestic political posturing. Bush and the neo-cons want to have a dumb SOFA weakly in place, and force Obama to rescind it. Then for the next 40 years they will have their talking point: Bush "won" the "war on terra", but Democrats surrendered.

Then for the next 40 years they will have their talking point: Bush "won" the "war on terra", but Democrats surrendered.
I guess you make a few Rambo, First Blood part X: Iraq movies and enough of the public believes "their hands were tied" for them to get away with it again.

Part of a continued presence in Iraq is to get the endorsement of the Democrats, so we can't say Bush was guilty of war crimes. They want the Democrats to exonerate Bush.

Let me make this as clear as I can: Our presence in Iraq has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with "national defense". It is about forward power projection! You got that? Good!

Now lets get busy and impeach and imprison Bush!!!

"What I fear is that the Bush administration and many neo-conservatives are claiming one thing, while planning for another...If this is the agenda, please let us know."

Andrew Sullivan is displaying all the classic symptoms of Battered Shill Syndrome...He and Scott McClellan should get together and workshop their bad daddy issues.

Of course what is NOT being said here, and what Kevin Drum doesn't even mention, is that we were supposed to be bring democracy to Iraq. REMEMBER?

But if Iraq doesn't want permanent bases which is officailly an occupation - so NOT ONLY has Bush been lying about WMD - he was also lying about fighting for democracy other there too.

This is a control issue, Bush wants to lie about the reason for bombing Iran - it's not WMD and it's not nukes but control of the region. There is talk that Iran has settled the infighting and some peacefully influence in Iraq - thus giving the Iraqis some peace which Bush never has seem to care about nor implement. Bush just wants to build those billion dollar bases.

Then we have McCain talking about war in a way that implies that Americans could CARE LESS about the lives of Iraqis as long as there are NO American Causalities. It shows the McCain's true colors are really pretty ugly - because VICTORY only means that nobody cares about tribel war in Iraq are what Iraqis think.

Harry Reid just said that whatever Republicans say the EXACT opposite is true - and he has damn sure got that right. Right now we have enough evidence of criminal act with this unbid contract to indict both Bush and Dick Cheney and we should do it. We have reached to point were is grossly immoral NOT TO DO IT. I think Nancy Pelosi and most of the Democratic doesn't want to impeach Bush and Cheney for purely self-serving proposes, the propose of using the horrors of this administration simply to win elections.

There is poll out that shows that some 80% of Americans think Bush and Cheney should be impeached and IF Cheney bombs Iran and reasonably be said that Democrats irresponsible and negligent to the great harm those two are causing the nation.

er - I should have previewed:

There is poll out that shows that some 80% of Americans think Bush and Cheney should be impeached and IF Cheney bombs Iran THAN it can reasonably be said that Democrats have ben irresponsible and negligent to the great harm those two are causing this nation and other nations.

And there are lots of unbid contracts that Bush and Cheney are simply allowing to intentionally rip-off American taxpayers with phony, massively trump-up charges.

I fear they want a permanent presence in Iraq to reassure Israel; and to pursue the option of war with Iran.

Took Andy quite a while to see the light...

I'm a moderate now and I would like to suggest a compromise answer to the question "Should we invade Iran?"

As it happens, the present government of Iraq is getting uppity, talking about "sovereignty", making deals with Iran, and refusing to accept our plans for a permanent occupation. What we need to do, obviously, is invade Iraq again, and liberate the Iraqis for real this time.

That will be easier than starting a new war in a new country, because all of our troops are already there in Iraq. The new liberation government we set up can hang Maliki and Sadr and a bunch of the rest of them, we'll be welcomed as liberators, and Iraq will become peaceful.

Yeah, and I fear that weak thinking, yet somehow prominent conservative pundits will accuse me of being a terrorist appeaser and a fifth columnist because I think the Cheney Administration is wildly misguided at best. But I suppose that's all behind us, right?

Of course Bush and Cheney wanted control of Iraq's. Better get it now before the Chinese do.
Posted by: gyxno on June 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Interesting thought about China...one of the top two countries with the most US debt holdings. (Please excuse my cutting and pasting)

The Middle East (plus Venezuela), total share of world oil production is forecast at 45.4 % in the year 2010.

China's main oil import partners have been Oman, Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Indonesia and Angola.

According to information circulating among western energy experts, though the Chinese are still denied access to Iranian oil fields, Chinese construction companies are currently bidding on the proposed Iranian pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Tehran.

...trend is the significantly increasing oil flow from the Middle East to the Asian Pacific region, with China, Japan and Korea the main consumers.

As a result of these trends, the Middle East's share of China's oil imports, fluctuating roughly about 50%, could conceivably grow to 80% or more in the year 2010...It would not be an exaggeration to say that the key objective of China's oil strategy will be to avoid this strategic vulnerability."

One possible tendency might be growing economic and security cooperation between China, Japan, and Korea. It is clear that all three countries have strong a strategic interest in the benefits of continental access to Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy reserves.

Countries such as India and China, will compete fiercely for stable oil supplies and may insist on views different from those shared by the United States and Japan. Japan, which is an integral part of the Asian market and is as dependent as its neighbors on the Middle East for oil, will not be able to follow the U.S. line as closely as it has in the past."

Very interesting article:
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1999/fall_china_troush.aspx