HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 июл 2024
- Robert Draper, writer at large for The New York Times Magazine and author of To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America Into Iraq, joins The Realignment to discuss the process that led President Bush to make one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history.
Subscribe to our Substack: therealignment.substack.com/
Buy a book from our bookshop: bookshop.org/shop/therealignment
Purchase a mug on our new website: www.therealignment.fm/
Find The Realignment wherever you listen to your podcasts:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/3mZB6me...
iHeartRadio: www.iheart.com/podcast/269-th...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/huds...
Google: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
In 2003 (I think that year) I was on TV asking Senator Corzine if the war was really about oil and infrastructure profits rather than about WoMD. I wish someone can find that tape. I infiltrated the press and asked that question. A proud moment in my life.
Well done
roughly 10,000 troops killed. The V.A reports 23 veterans commit suicide everyday. A million Iraqi's dead.
The real issue here is, the establishment doesn't care. 23 suicides a day for instance, is just 23 people per day that they don't have to pay PTSD benefits or retirement to.
10,000? I don't think you have the right numbers. I think it was half.
But yeah, it inflicted much more damage than Saddam could have possibly caused.
But the Arabellion in 2011 might have led into a war anyhow. And I think the US would have played, not minor, a role in that possible conflict too. Libya style...
Marshall and Robert this dialog was amazing, illuminating, ...and the best behind the scenes look at what happens when fear becomes all encompassing. The Iraq war ranks up there with the best Shakespearean tragedies. Thank you both.
Countries not bombed and occupied because of 9/11, and their numbers of perpetrators:
Saudi Arabia - 15
United Arab Emirates - 2
Lebanon - 1
Egypt - 1
Countries who were bombed and occupied:
Iraq - 0
Afghanistan - 0
Al Queda was actively at War with the gulf monarchies with the explicit intent of topping them because they viewed them as American stooges degrading the Islamic world.
They though dealing a devastating blow to the great satan (the US) would show the Umah that the infidels can indeed be defeated and all the people need to do is turn to them, the true followers of Islam and rid the Middle East of the Infidels and their puppets in the gulf monarchies.
That’s why Osama’s citizenship as well as those of his closest followers had been stripped for years prior to 9/11 and why he had to run away to Sudan and after they kicked them out, cause they didn’t want any trouble from the US after the Nairobi Bombings and WTC bombing attack, they went to the only fundamentalist Sunni regime in the world that also had its issues with the US, Afghanistan.
The reason Afghanistan was invaded and not Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Egypt or Lebanon or Qatar or Israel or Iran or Mexico or whatever is cause they had almost no role in the matter, we’re staunch US allies and willingly committed resources to helping the US find and take down those responsible for the attacks (Yes even Iran) because they all hated them as well cause they are Sunni Fundamentalist Theocrats who hated Shias, Westerners, Jews, the gulf monarchies and especially house of Saud.
Hope that makes sense as to why the US actually did invade the right country in 2001
Iraq however has the episode explores and has be talked over extensively was a massive fuck up,
Perhaps the biggest of the 21st Century. Perhaps even the biggest in US history.
It was an illegal war that should not have been waged and caused far more damage than just leaving things alone.
How? - By lying.
Why? - Greed.
*and pride
Wonderful interview, thank you to both.
Excellent discussion. Full orbed. Need to review history early and often.
I bought it based on this interview...
I didn't know any of the Rumsfeld and Bush characters, so I can't say whether they were "nice", however PNAC was commissioned by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Bush family ("Rebuilding America's Defenses" -2000) to look at our force projection and see if we could better position ourselves after the mistakes of the Gulf War. This isn't an Operation Northwood level report, but pretty damn close in retrospect and contradicts Drapers assertion that Rumsfeld didn't have a framework of operation to work with to formulate an opinion. Not only did he have an opinion he had commissioned research into wargaming different strategies in the Iraq and Iran, prior to them winning the Presidency.
Opposition to the Iraq war is how Trump won the 2016 Republican nomination.
that, and outsourcing
50:01 "Don't start a land war in Asia"
Ah yes, one of the classic blunders.
WTF happened to building number 7?
Simple… To exploit and make money.
All the same Generals and Policy wonks were there from the 1991 Iraq War.
That ground war took DAYS. General Schwartzkopf was a key looming presence.
It struck me as an odd decision in 2002 and still makes me scratch my head. What the hell were we thinking? There's a TINY part of me that thinks "9-11 was so egregious that we had to enact a bold move". Its just devastating that the scores of Iraqi citizens had to pay that price.
1991- first Iraq War was the key foundational fact.
I have been super impressed with your mind Marshall since the first time I saw you Rising. Perfect questions. Draper's unbiased and fair breakdown of the Iraq decision-making, and those making them, means so much to me. I was a Republican Hawk that wanted Saddam Hussein dead even before 9/11. Truth makes us all much wiser.
Thanks Michael!
Gross. Draper is whitewashing bush administration. Read. They were in on 911. They executed a plan. Come on!!!
what less than 100 (y) for 7 hours for this topic???!
First Iraq War in 1991 was determinative. Obviously.
I liked the video because i love different perspectives. But I couldn't disagree with you and the guests point here. It's not about oil of course there would be evidence if oil was taken from Iraq. It was about using the fear created by 911 to try and nation build in the Middle East. The goal being what happened in Europe post WWII. To bring a part of the world that has been at war with its self to heel. Secretary Rumsfeld (who thought he was a genius) published most of his memos. In some memos with the think tank Project for the New American Century Rumsfeld argues invading several countries (including Iraq). abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1
Also side note I can't accept President Bush was a "flawed but good leader" when all the guest talked about was how Bush didn't like to talk things through. If his cabinet was the "dream team" for foreign policy (which I find laughable) than why would the President ignore these conversations?
I feel like I need to be given your definition of "Neocon" Marshall. I won't claim to be an expert on Wolfowitz but your first comment on why Wolfowitz was not a Neocon is that he bused down for civil rights in Selma - the implication being that to be Neocon is to be racist or pro segregation?
I generally dislike neocon/Neolib but I don't think of their actions/beliefs in racial terms. I think of them being pro war, MIC, pharma, oil and banking while using law, croneism and tax payer dollars to insulate those industries, only disagreeing on social issues.
Hey Elliot, two things:
1) I said that Wolfowitz is a neocon, Rumsfeld and Cheney aren’t.
2) Neocons were Cold War liberals in the 1960s who swung to the right under Jimmy Carter. The point about MLK isn’t that he can’t be bad because of it, rather to suggest that he actually came from the ideological left of the 1960s, as did many neoconservatives.
You’re using neocon as an epithet, which may be fair, but I’m referring to an actual school of ideological thought that had real implications for how the war in Iraq played out. Neocons in the Bush administration were more interested in making a broader push around democracy than more traditional conservatives like Cheney.
@@marshallkosloff8019 thanks, Marshall. I don't think the historical term has been popularly used for 10-15 years. I'm so used to it being used in the way in which I described both popularly and coloqially that I assume that's what we are talking about when it is used and it does have its own definition.
Perhaps I should have assumed you meant it in the historical context, since you were discussing history but it's a confused term these days.
You can speculate all you want but this guy was in the building ruclips.net/video/gTbg11pCwOc/видео.html
Marshall should be a permanent co-host on Breaking Points. Merge The Realignment with Breaking Points, or do both with schedules that don't conflict. Eff Kyle K though... Lol ... And I'm a lefty.
K k & some friends seem deluded about certain 'left' issues, to me. To you, what if would those be?
@@alecchapin9071 I'm for any issues that focus on the working class, left or right. The Realignment helps me see the bigger picture. KK talks a big game and in doing so comes off like a douche, very driven by his ego imo. It drives me nuts when he's like "You know me," when trying to argue his point. I felt this way about him even before Force the Vote, and ever since Force the Vote he continues to confirm my first impression of him. I still listen to what he has to say, but do not find him to be genuine. He might very well be, but does not come across as so. He seems more interested in keeping his viewers lately than actually fighting for the working class.
That oil baby
hmmm what about the fact that saddam attempted to sell oil in euros rather than the US dollar? considering that’s why we invaded libya to simply ignore that and argue that oil didn’t play a significant if not pivotal role in the war is embarrassing and frankly irresponsible. i’ve been asking for quite some time to have an episode related to the petrodollar economy, and that seems even more pertinent following this episode. secondly, i think the bush distinction is stupid. sure he believed that there were WMD, but the issue is the pentagon for perpetuating these same lies over and over again. sure i agree that solely blaming bush is idiotic, but i don’t think anybody really makes that argument. i’m not trying to be a cringe leftist and call you a neocon or anything like that, but to truly think the war in iraq wasn’t propelled by oil and the petrodollar is disingenuous