and printers."

That is from Naomi Klein's Baghdad Year Zero

The tone of Bremer's tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country's borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was "open for business."

One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq's non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. "Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands," he said, "is essential for Iraq's economic recovery." It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But Bremer's economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq's corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein's economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.

If these policies sound familiar, it's because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements.

He's turning Wisconsin into America's Iraq.

folks in WI

Look, we broke Iraq and Colin said we would, we are war criminals, Obama is trying to fix another mess created by 200 years of white man fuckups...

But what is happening right HERE right NOW is pretty damn scary

My takeaway was that in some sense our very soul as a nation was damaged, and I didn't know then if we could ever repair that damage. I knew in my bones, though, that electing a Dem in 2008 was make or break, even though it was equally certain that no one human being would be able to make those repairs in 4 or 8 years.

Your last sentence is spot on, madfloridian -- it's Obama who is reaping what the previous admin sowed, through no fault of his own. It's why I cut him considerable slack -- I believe in his good intentions, but they're not enough in the face of relentless obstructionism in Congress, lies and hate mongering from RW talking heads, and the destruction of what we thought were immutable American institutions. There are a significant minority of Americans who want his murder, as well, and stochastic terrorism keeps that pot stirred.

I still feel as though electing a Dem in 2016 is another make or break moment, for the sake of the SCOTUS, if nothing else.

My whole view of our country, our politicians, changed so much when we invaded that country.

... which was never, ever called "The Homeland" before Bush.

...which is what the terms Homeland, Fatherland, and Motherland have always implied.

There's something about the Bushes and the terminology they pick up and apply to the US that I always have found creepy: New World Order; Homeland. I wonder what Jeb will decide to spring on us if we give him a chance? (Gods forbid.)

your posts. But of late, some people on DU have been saying if you do not live in the US, you have no authority to comment on posts here.

Fortunately, I live in Canada and our PM is a Reagan guy!

So of course you do have a right.

Bush ruined three nations.

And he seemed proud of it.

The nightmare began with the stealing of the 2000 election, then 9-11.
The Iraq war was the critical final stage of that process.

America crossed a huge moral line to commit the Iraq atrocity.

We had problems and some bad trends already in progress, but
America has been super-screwy ever since we invaded Iraq.

Your pattern seems right...stolen election, 9/11, Iraq.

The election of Reagan in 1980, setting the scene for later regression by starting a new kind of negative momentum
in America whose remnants are still felt today, like background radiation or toxic residue.

He said that the worst words were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." That was I believe a big turning point in the anti-government movement...if Reagan said it it was okay.

Reagan proved truth doesn't matter.

(Just like deficits)

To even start down any path that might lead the USA to returning to a semblance of its former self would initially require prosecution of the war criminals - i.e., Bush et al. That path, though, is apparently far too rocky for politicians or their appointees to take.

So, among other things, not only was a foreign country invaded - killing directly or indirectly many, many people in the process - but people were also tortured. Now, the adopted solution seems to be to walk away as if none of it happened. Every time Bush appears with Bill Clinton or President Obama in a social setting, Bush is just a little bit more rehabilitated in the amnesiac eyes of the public.

The blame for the tragedy that is Iraq will now be shifted to President Obama by the Republican politicians and their talking points. McCain seems to be one of the point men for this. One should note, of course, that President Obama did not need to accept any blame for any of this. However, "looking forward" instead of investigating and prosecuting Bush et al was not the way to separate oneself and one's administration from the misdeeds of the past.

Al Qaeda could destroy infrastructure and lives in the USA, but it took George W Bush et al to corrode and destroy the idea of the USA. That is something that Al Qaeda could never have done.

should have happened. But it never will. Now I am not sure even that would help healing much. It would give a lot of us some satisfaction.

Ideally the war architects should not even by having their voices heard on TV. They should at least be ashamed.

I cried too. My tears for every year of Bush II thereafter could probably have floated a battleship.

I had watched my country invade another country on what anyone who was paying attention knew were lies. How was our invasion of Iraq any different from Russia's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan (with much more justification than we had, considering what was happening next door in Iran), which was generally condemned? Even our invasion of Afghanistan was something I did not approve, but I could at least see some rationale other than oil and greed for it and basically agreed to disagree.

But I didn't just cry before the Iraq invasion. I wrote and sent links (both the Guardian and the Independent had excellent reporting) to my Congressional delegation, begging for them to not to allow this wholly contrived travesty of "justice" to take place, and to everyone I knew, begging for them to write to their own. There were quite a few family members and those I considered to be "friends" who actually quit talking to me for a while because I was so passionately against the invasion and remain that way to this day. I also wrote LTEs and responses to Op-Eds, most of which were never published or never responded to. Most basically told me that I was "hysterical." Perhaps I was. But if having one's country become an appallingly hypocritical international scofflaw and outlaw before one's eyes does not warrant some passion, I don't know what does.

Most fell for the lies. Some I corresponded with have since apologized for their reactions to me and regretted their credulity; some never will. But those I no longer count as friends, whether family or not. If we still cannot agree on something that has since become crystal clear, we never will, and I will not lose any sleep over not having them in my life. Ever.

For whatever reason, both my Senators (Mikulski and Sarbanes) voted against the IWR, as did my then-Congressman Cardin (now MD's junior Senator). Even Connie Morella, an R from MD (not my Rep, but a decent woman who would not survive in today's GOP), voted against it. I bless ALL who did, from whatever party, for their courageous actions in doing so.

As for Bush, Cheney and all their minions - and their Iraqi exile toady friends (e.g., Ahmed Chalabi, international criminal) - who contributed to tearing Iraq asunder, I cannot even imagine a fate bad enough for them. But if one exists, I hope that they suffer it in full measure - every last single one of them.

And yes, we are all reaping the sad harvest of those years, but Prez O more than most. Talk about a thankless job!

Thank heavens that Prez O is in charge! He at least thinks first, before acting in cockamamie fashion, no matter what the media hue & cry or what the chickenhawks want. Interestingly, this crisis is having some unforeseen results that are not necessarily negative. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0611/Iraq-s-Mosul-crisis-creates-strange-bedfellows-video

they might not even have a real memory of what the lead up to war was like.

The build-up to invasion started in 2002 basically, so that is 12 years.

There must be many who just don't know what I am talking about.

right after 9-11.

Even though Iraq had absolutely zilch to do with 9-11.

I remember how Richard Clarke, who had been trying to get their attention for months about the REAL terrorist threats, was totally nonplussed by this per his 9-11 Commission testimony. Once he testified, the word was out to thoroughly discredit him and Faux & Co went into full blast.

I know that. I've commented on it before. I am not alone in having commented on it, many here have. However, I am struck by a problem, and that is obvious. What do we do now?

I imagine it is the same problem that many of you are having. What do we do now? How we got here was a huge screw up and all of that. I won't bother going over the issues again. They have been covered many times far more eleoquently than I could attempt. Let me lay out my thinking, and see if anyone has any thoughts that I have missed.

What I don't want to do. I don't want to go back to Iraq. I don't want to start the cycle of violence again. I don't want to lose our soldiers again. I don't want to expend billions of dollars we don't have on another military deployment that at best will push the problem down the road for the next decade, if we are lucky.

I also do not want... I don't want to see Iraq fall to the radical insurgency. I don't want to see Iraq develop a civil war with two or even three sides. I don't want to see Iraq become a bastion of Terrorist training or support. I don't want to see what kind of attacks the Terrorists can launch with the support of their own nation state.

What I think we know can't work. We know that diplomacy doesn't work, sadly. We know that occupation doesn't work in the long term. We know that nation building props up a government, but that government is often unable to endure the challenges when we leave.

So what to do? If we do nothing, best case scenario is that Iraq devolves into a two or perhaps three way civil war. Millions will die, and eventually we'll pick sides, probably the established government to support with weapons and equipment. Worst case scenario is that ISIS gets their own nation, threatens their neighbors, and all out regional war escalates in which many more millions will die. Terrorism has the resources of an oil rich state, which allows financing of far more elaborate and elegant attacks.

If we go in and support the established government, hundreds of thousands will die including many thousands of our own people. It will cost billions of dollars that I don't think we have, and hang the war around the neck of this President, and probably the next.

I don't like any of the options I see. I believe it is likely that President Obama feels the same way. If we do nothing, or offer only limited support, the costs could be enormous. If we act, the costs may be equally high.

In many situations, and in many issues, I have a clear opinion that I am happy to point out. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. But I have a feeling based upon my considered principles that directs me. I believe that my opinions are based upon logic, law, tradition, common sense, and/or morality. In this case, my views are torn. I don't want another war, but I don't want what may happen if we don't war.

I did not want us to go into Iraq initially. But now that is history. We went, and I'm struck by the old saying, you broke it you bought it. I feel a certain moral debt of honor to the people of Iraq. We helped get them into this mess. Our actions destabilized the nation, and I feel a certain responsibility to take actions based upon that responsibility. But I don't want another war, or Iraq 3.0 to spend another decade battling in that land.

I know we all wish that people could learn to just get along in a live and let live attitude. But that doesn't seem to be a realistic goal, here or there, or anywhere.

I wish I knew what our next move should be. I wish that the best course of action was more clear to me. Because I admit to being rather conflicted. I am still considering, still reading and trying to better understand what exactly is going on. But I fear that none of us will ever know what is truly going on. Sadly, I haven't read anything yet that made a clear and convincing case for anything. Plenty of recriminations, but little in the way of opinion, informed or otherwise, that charted a course of action that made some sense.

Your words are just right:

I don't like any of the options I see. I believe it is likely that President Obama feels the same way. If we do nothing, or offer only limited support, the costs could be enormous. If we act, the costs may be equally high

We have never really gone back to what we were before. We humiliated Iraq's leader publicly, executed him openly, executed his sons and put their bodies on display....how does a country get back its old soul after that.

And a bunch of cowboys and the ones who dared not cross them for fear of not being re-elected.

don't be the least surprised that at some point in the near future, Iraq nationalizes their oil again.

then and only then will you see our politicians get their candies in a bunch and want to roll in shooting again.

right now, whether we want it or not, "we" will be lobbing some missiles in there to help out that propped up fool Maliki.

We lost our bearings....the media played along with Bush and we all got to pay for it literally.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5092464

Not moral.

There is not much uglier in this world than the replacement of human ethics with corporate ethics. Blood for profit.

The soul of our nation was sold. Probably a long time ago, but you are right. This was a particularly steep additional descent into moral sewage.

Thank you for this post. K&R

They're basically saying, "Look over there! It's all Bush! He did it!" It's like a group of five-year-olds who accidentally break a window and then all agree to blame it on one of their friends.

These are the same politicians who, had the Iraq war been successful, would have said how genius the Bush Administration was and how moral and just the war was, probably by spouting the same lies.

And yes, I'm (especially and also) talking about Democrats. I don't buy the "we were misled" meme for one second. They went along with the group think of the time because they had no courage, and they still don't have any. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton for this reason.

I really don't think they fell for lies, either.....I think they willingly went along to save their butts at election time. The fervor for war was high, but they could have spoken out more.

about the kind of man Bush is/was.

Now we all pay the price for his cowboyism.

The phrase "redemptive violence" comes from a book by Jim Wallis, I believe. The violent and cruel death of a perfect person as the means to personal and collective salvation is the very foundation of fundamentalist Christian belief. It elevates violence to a sacrament, one that is the only means of being right with God. If the US is truly a "Christian" nation, what else can we do but promote violence as the Way of (democratic) salvation? W meant it when he referred to us as crusaders.

Let's see...the death of a perfect person as means to salvation. I am getting the connection.

What was the name they first tried to give Desert Storm? Something with Crusade in it? Can't remember. They had to change it hurriedly.

Now I remember that GW said God sent him into Iraq.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

I think it's a huge paradox. Doing something horrible is not the way to bring about good. And I think I'm wrong about it being Wallis. I'm thinking that it was Walter Wakefield.

It's the attitude. I grew up Southern Baptist, recovering now, but the selective reading of the bible and the judgmental attitudes got to me.

Bush acting like he was doing the world a favor in the name of God was just plain evil. And Cheney was worse.

Thanks for the post.

You're welcome

It still sucks as many years later. This was so senseless.

Whenever the topic comes up I remember how upset we were. I live in a very conservative religious area, and their churches provided yard signs that said to the effect we support the president we support the war (or pray for it or something indicating approval). It was scary stuff.

I remember Bill Nelson's office telling me I needed to understand we had to protect ourselves. There was no discussion allowed, that was it.

It was an immoral move from the git go. All based on lies from Bush and his cabal. Against the teachings of Jesus. To attack and kill so many innocent people. A forever stain on the US that will never be washed away. I can't believe so many Christian people bought into this.

so I called and said I could not believe it needed to verify. I was told that we needed to be more patriotic. That is when we withdrew our names from the church.

when he thanked George Bush, Jr. for his service to the country. Instead of arresting him for crimes against humanity.

I respected Colin Powell until his testimony about the WMDs. Did he feel compelled? Problem is we had our own out there calling for war. Madelyn Albright for one.

I see the terrorist connection to Iraq now.