Preemption

K.R. said, We call it preemption. It means that if we say it first then others will not be able to say it. It frames reality. It lays a false trail. It reduces criticism.

I said, I thought preemption is, like, when you invade a country because you have good reason to believe they are about to attack you.

KR: No, no. Preemption is a way of doing what you want to do while keeping any criticism at bay. It is a way to attack without being hit back.

Then, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was preemption because...they had weapons of mass destruction?

No.

They worked with the terrorists on 9/11?

No.

They weren’t democratic? They weren’t Christian?

No, no. You don’t get it. Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11. He needed to establish a reason. So, weapons of mass destruction. That wasn’t quite good enough because they might have WPD but have no reason to attack us. So, that was the beauty of 9/11. That provided the link. So, he said Hussein was working with al-Qaeda Once the link to al-Qaeda was made, no one could disagree because then they would be siding with the terrorists -- al-Qaeda. No one wanted to be a traitor or unpatriotic after 9/11. Pure genius.

But Powell could not sell the U.N. on WPD or al-Qaeda.

Right. But so what. It did not matter to Bush. He was going to invade anyway. The U.N. thing was just a bummer idea that Powell had. Bush couldn’t fool the U.N., but he could fool the U.S. Congress.

But there was no WPD and no al-Qaeda.

Right. That was after the fact of the invasion. Once those unpatriotic Frenchmen said no, and once we said we were going to invade anyway to get those WPD and al-Qaeda then the invasion was on. It was a little embarrassing for everyone that we could not find them, so by then Congress was pleased with the idea of making a democratic society of Iraq. What Congressman or woman is going to admit they were lazy and were suckered because they were scared the President would say they were soft on terrorism, unpatriotic.

So we are spending, like, five billion bucks a week because we have these grown up people back in Washington D.C. who are children.

Exactly. That is the genius of Bush. He knows. All of the grown-ups left Congress decades ago. There is important money going to a lot of influential people in a lot of different countries. They are pretty excited.

Let me see if I have got this right. Bush wanted to give a lot of money -- not his -- to friends. He could not say that to the American public. He could say that Iraq -- a rich, military cupcake country was linked to the al-Qaeda terrorists and had weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaeda might use against the U.S., sucker Congress, and invade. They are like shells in the shell game -- sleight of hand -- and if you follow the moves you miss the real action: the disbursement of billions.

You still don’t understand “preemption.” Only half. Who had the weapons of mass destruction? Who was the real threat? Who invaded? Who was the real terrorist in Iraq?

Why, it was the United States!

Exactly. Because Bush used the words first, it preempted the dialogue. Once he had said “they are the terrorists” no one is going to say “No, you are the terrorist.”

I think I see.

It works very well. Like: “Axis of evil,” once he has said it, no American churchgoer is going to think he is talking about the White House and a Republican Congress. Of course it is finesse, like bluffing in poker. You must keep a straight face. It is how you tell a gullible child the story of the hoop snake. You must be serious. You want persons to know that you believe the bullshit. You cannot let people know what is going on behind the scenes. You might have to threaten people and hurt a few.

Okay, so now we have “the surge.” What does that mean?

Well, the reality is that the war in Iraq wasn’t a war. It was only a invasion. The plan was that they were going to hand their oil over to us. But we stayed too long, the Iraqis were too suspicious of us, we stumbled, and al-Qaeda quickly saw the many opportunities we were giving them. So the real War on Terror moved to Iraq. The longer we stay the worse it will be for us and the better it will be for al-Qaeda. But Bush ‘reality’ is his Iraq War, and he does not want to lose it. He is not concerned about cost or casualties or al-Qaeda. There are a lot of big bucks riding on oil leases. He would be prepared to move out as soon as oil leases were signed by his friends and oil production was secure. It ain’t going to happen. At least while he is still in office. So the purpose of the surge is to prolong the war so he can leave the Iraq War to the next sucker who gets to be President. Bush and the Republicans can then blame him or her -- whoever is President -- for losing the war. (You see he really doesn’t care if Hillary gets the job. It is a trap.) So the “surge” is really a retreat: It is to cover Bush’s retreat. There weren’t enough whole American troops left to make a ripple much less a surge. But everyone will talk about “a surge.” Meanwhile, Bush goes heavy on the “retreat” mentality of the Democrats who have the mandate of Americans to pursue a withdrawal. Not one Democrat is saying, “No, it is Bush that is retreating.” No Democrat is saying, “Bush is poisoning the well.” Preemption! Beautiful!