On Iran/Contra II:
I have yet to read an argument convincing me that the neocons duped anyone. I think they have long been well-kept servants, dutifully following the directives of Cheney and Rumsfeld, neither of whom are people I would describe as neoconservative.
The question for me is whether George W. was in on the Iraq-scam from the beginning or a dupe of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis of evil who couldn’t/wouldn’t turn back once it was obvious he’d been dealt a crooked hand. He has found it impossible so far to admit imperfection.
But I think something else should be considered if you argue he was fooled. That would mean Poppy was as well despite his extensive CIA contacts, or that he warned G.W. and was ignored, or that he engaged in a conspiracy with his old partners to lead his son astray.
Let’s say the former is true which, along with the second option, are the only scenarios that relieve GHWB of the charge he intentionally misled his offspring into a minefield. The president-select was handed numerous opportunities to pull the reigns in and not only refused but actively engaged in PR campaigns designed to convince the public to go along with his plans to invade Iraq. Bob Woodward quoted him as saying he never consulted his father; he consulted a higher father. Was that his way of saying he refused poppy’s advise if and when he raised warning flags? Was it a line he fed to Woodward so the family hierarchy would be protected if and when his treachery caused family tree rot? George has blamed God for his decision-making on several occasions but that’s an insanity defence.
No matter how you look at it there is no sane defence of GWB. If he wasn’t a willing accomplice in the beginning he became one by the end and long before the first bomb was ever dropped on Iraq. If you argue he was convinced the deception was necessary for an ideological reason then you’re saying he willingly lied to get his way. And if he was duped by all of the people closest to him then he’s the most ignorant, spineless person on the planet and should be removed from office immediately not prepping for nomination to a second term. After all, we are fighting a war on terror, aren’t we?
Finally, I won’t be too excited by this investigation unless it reaches back into the Clinton years, most especially, to his impeachment and his decision to take Donald Rumsfeld’s advise and bomb Iraq. Wasn’t that Josh Marshall, in a follow-up to a comment made by Wesley Clark, who said there was a lot more to that arrangement than is widely known? Will the neocons be blamed for that, too? What hold did they have over John Kerry at the time that he signed onto the Iraq Liberation Act? Is he still under their spell?