Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Administration Escalates Confrontation With Iran: Why?
The Obama administration announced two weeks ago that a bumbling Iranian-American used car salesman had conspired with a U.S. government agent posing as a representative of Mexican drug cartels, to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. This brought highly skeptical reactionsfrom experts here across the political spectrum.
But even if some of this tale turns out to be true, the handling of such accusations is inherently political. For example, the U.S. government’s 9/11 commission investigated the links between the attackers and the Saudi ruling family, but refused to make public the results of that investigation. The reason is obvious: there is dirt there and Washington doesn’t want to create friction with a key ally. And keep in mind that this is about complicity with an attack on American soil that killed 3000 people.
By contrast, the Obama administration seized upon the rather dubious speculation that “the highest levels of the Iranian government” were involved in this alleged plot. President Obama announced that “all options are on the table,” which is well-known code for possible military action. This is extremist and dangerous rhetoric.
University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, a leading Mideast scholar,offered that Obama may be “wagging the dog” – looking for a military confrontation to help his re-election in the face of a stagnant economy and high unemployment. This is certainly possible. Recall that George W. Bushused the build-up to the Iraq war to secure both houses of Congress in the 2002 election. He didn’t even have to go to war. The run-up to war worked perfectly to achieve his main goal: all of the issues that most voters cared about and were threatening to cost Republicans one or both chambers of Congress – the jobless recovery, Social Security, corporate scandals – disappeared from the news during the election season between August and November. President Obama’s advisers certainly understand these things.
Of course the latest saber-rattling could also just be part of a long-term preparation for war with Iran, just asPresident Clinton spent years preparing the ground for the Iraq warlaunched by Bush. Once this is done,war is difficult to stop; and once these wars are launched, they are even more difficult to end, as 10 years of useless, bloody war in Afghanistan show.
That is why international initiatives to roll back the march toward war, like thenuclear fuel-swap proposal brought forth by Brazil and Turkey in May 2010, are so important. The Iranian government has recently offered to stop enriching uranium if the United States would provide uranium for Iran’s medical research reactor – which it needs for hundreds of thousands of cancer patients. This uranium would not be usable for weapons. The proposal was endorsed by leaders of the American Federation of Scientists.
Brazil is one of the few countries with the international stature, independence, neutrality and respect to help defuse this confrontation. We can only hope that it will make further attempts to save the world from another horrible war.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
136 Comments so far
Show AllSo you're saying wars are not started over elections or oil?
I'd call that naive. And shows a lack of historical kowledge. I'd sugtest reading John Perkins.
And many politicians and ceo's of our biggest companies ARE sociopaths - don't kid yourself. There has been many studies saying that Exact same thing.
I swear that the typical CDer is more capable of putting words in someone's mouth than just about any other group. I did not say anything of the sort. Do you have trouble reading?
Your statement is right there - YOU ridiculed my saying obama could possibly start a war over reelection or that some ceo's ae sociopahs.
IF that's not what you meant then clarify your use of the written word instead of simply insultng me.
Sorry about my pathetic statement concerning your reading ability. I should have said something like "Do you have a problem with comprehension?
Once again insults but NO FACTS.
Typical troll behavior to turn the article into personal attacks. - people can read All of greg's posts below and notice he doesn't give any facts - just says HE Knows More than everyone else.
So have you read John Perkins or not?
That's an easy question - even for greg r.
I've read a little. I've seen him speak (video) a couple of times. He seems reasonable. I own and have even read lots of Chomsky books. I'm acquainted with the ideas of a great many on the Left. I consider myself to be a member of the Left. I take great issue with those who put words in my mouth, which you did, even if you are somehow unaware.
"Put your thinking caps on."
Okay, Greg, its on.
But every time I go over the passage: "The oilybomber could easily start this war if he thinks it would ensure his reelection. Never underestimate the depravity of a sociopath."
I keep coming back seeing it as not wild at all.
The Prez could easily start a war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That's a fact. The US military has the capability, and the dominant forces domestically seem to want it quite badly. The only difficult bits would be the People, the foreign elites, and their Peoples. And who knows what deals may be in the offing at the elite level?
So its really just the People.
I would say if anything the People are more disposed to war with Iran than they were with Iraq -until the actual war starts and the casualties mount of course. Besides all of the obvious reasons, I think that many individuals secretly hope for the curtailing of democracy and artificial prosperity that war and isolation would bring -to throw all of the discontented rebels in jail and shut them up being part of this.
The truth is that from what seems to be Obama's perspective, a war with Iran may be a good thing even without re-election hopes.
MY hope is that he is actually hiding a desperate desire to escape the trap he has put himself in -as G.W. Bush so clearly was at times- and will leave conducting such a war to a Red Party successor.
Well, my thinking on that is only 180 degrees different.
THAT is your response?
I did as you asked and examined the question in YOUR terms, and THAT is your response?
Your credibility with me is waning, sir. ;)
I don't quite know why you thought I should expound voluminously on our differences of opinion. How would that matter, matti?
It does not have to be Obama who 'starts' a war with Iran.
All it will take is one madman in uniform, one zealot pushing a button, one more rogue CIA/MEK terrorist cell, and the engines of war start and cannot stop.
"" Underground Group of Cadets Say Air Force Academy Controlled by Evangelicals ""
Perhaps one of them, a la the unhinged US general in DR. STRANGELOVE, will decide it's time to BRING ON THE RAPTURE!
In August 1914 nobody wanted war. Step by step, it happened anyway because nobody could stop the inexorable madness.
The war-mongers have us one step from war yet again. When someone steps over the line, and the other side reacts, etc., well..
and don't forget about Public Law 107-40 which will be used as constitutional justification for the use of military force to prevent potential future terrorism by Iran.
Perhaps the shit will hit the fan when Cheney's stolen nuke cruise missile is finally put to use (and blamed on Iran).
With the speed of modern info-propaganda, we will be deep in warfare before the truth comes out (if it ever does).
Ummm, you're quite wrong about August 1914, the records show people were quite happy to go to war. They thought it'd be a quick jaunt, and back home before xmas... Boy, were they ever wrong.
The USA might not have wanted war in 1914, but Europe did.
The interesting thing to note about that war was that it began as a response to an act of terrorism. The assassination of the heir to one of the thrones in Europe brought about an end to an era.
Of course, you're also quite right about the possibility of a lone nut who decides to kick off a war by firing a missile at someone. Course it's more likely that the lone nut would be acting on the orders of one of the governments...
I'd say the assassination of Ferdinand was the excuse for a conflict that started a new era long held back by the resiliency of the old one. ;)
The key argument holds, it is just the date "August 1914" that is wrong.
August 1916 would have been better, with Wilson running to victory in the Prez race with promises to avoid war, Socialists and other left-populists (and where have THEY all gone to?) agitating against USAn capitalist (what we would call "corporatist") materiel support for the war, and Europe beginning to really falter (especially Russia and France) under the weight of the war.
The point though, is that USAns were very much against the war, and were intentionally turned pro-war by elite-directed efforts employing the best tools of the day.
Now USAns are a people who have given over a substantial part of their minds to live as hostage within the tools of influence. Whether there is a war now with Iran or not is -seemingly- wholly within the power of the elite. As the months go by, whether they want such a war or not will become evident based on the direction that the tools of influence take.
I'm not a citizen of the USA, so the history I learned was focused on other things. When I was taught about the wars of the twentieth century, they began in August 1914, and September 1939 - not April 1917 and December of 1941. 'Course it's not just the dates that are different, there is a different story if you read the histories of the nations from their own point of view.
The USA in the early century wasn't keen on a war with Germany, even if they did enjoy the war against the Spanish Empire a decade earlier, there are many reasons for that and I'm not about to try to pull them out of my memory for a post. However, the nations that kicked off the so-called 'Great War' had been rattling sabers at each other for quite some time, and they were all very keen for a glorious war that would soon be over.
Hey, isn't that the tale that the media is pushing with Iran? That it'll be quick, no real contest, and most importantly only the others will die and be made to pay for the adventure... Hmmm...
Excellent points.
But remember that the idea that the "Great War" was the doing of the pathetic remnants of the elite of the -by then decades gone- pure imperial era is an illusion told to idiots and children.
The "Great War" was the first major imposition by the current structures of Power into the game.
Great Britain was able to conduct war beyond 1914 largely because of funding and support by J. Morgan and other USAn industrialists. The bill that Britain chalked up for this eventually necessitated Morgan and Co.'s manipulation of the USAn political class and People into war frenzy.
Tens of millions did not die from Christmas 1914 to Armistice because of entrenched values of old empires that had come to terms much more readily a dozen times in the previous century. They died because Morgan and the New Elite had a bill to pay.
From any honest reading of history, this fact is as clear as the sunrise.
It wasn't only Morgan, you have omitted the Rothschilds from your history of who helped GB stay in World War I. And let's also not forget to whom Lord Balfour sent his now famous declaration.
It wasn't only Morgan, you have omitted the Rothschilds from your history of who helped GB stay in World War I. And let's also not forget to whom Lord Balfour sent his now famous declaration.
In addition to being a corporatist sellout swine, Obama's clearly a neocon too.
We will have war with Iran one day because this is what the neocons and the Israeli right-wing wants to happen.
You know, to make the Mideast safe for Democracy.
Like here, in Libya...
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya
In addition to being a corporatist sellout swine, Obama's clearly a neocon too.
We will have war with Iran one day because this is what the neocons and the Israeli right-wing wants to happen.
You know, to make the Mideast safe for Democracy.
Like here, in Libya...
http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya
"Obama's clearly a neocon too."
Yes, his whole administration is neocon, or neoliberalcon, and like BushCo constitute Public Enemy #1.
Is this a stink tank article? We ARE at war with Iran.
Leaks by government insiders tell us that massive covert internet operations were put in place after 9/11 and have been working ever since to sow the seeds of discord to destabilize every Muslim country in the world. These operations are still going, larger than ever, to this very day. (Recall after 9/11 how Arabic speaking Americans could write their own paycheck if they took government jobs. I remember quite well the job ads in major papers. Very big wages with no college required.) Years later these programs are bearing fruit. One by one we’ve been having success with popular uprisings we had a very big hand in starting. But we don’t really want to help. Our goal is: Destabilize, topple, drone (if needed), insert stooge. The reward? Oil money and protect Israel’s rejection of Palestinian rights.
Overt war is by far the last resort. Have the demons reached that point with Iran? I don’t know. But I do know it insults our intelligence to talk about potential war with Iran when it’s already been underway 10 years…. 60 years if you want to get technical.
For the record, I do believe we have the moral authority to kill Islam - just as soon as we kill Christianity and Judaism. Until then we should STFU.
"We ARE at war with Iran."
And have certainly since 1979; and as you note, essentially since the 1953.coup. The whole "sanctions" regime amounts to economic war. Then there's the Terror War waged by various Black Ops groups, which include both NATO and US Imperial stormtroopers and their surrogate Terrorists.
That last is backed up by so many examples in history as to function as a truism.
Though is it really the "last resort"?
Or is it rather the "climax stage"?
The last resort would be the use of nuclear weapons.
Update: I sometimes read back thru previous threads… It’s bad you regularly substitute revised articles after comments begin. It also upsets me you have previously deleted/edited portions of my comments (elsewhere) and left the remainders as if they were complete posts. Leave your articles up there the way the author submitted them and if you need to play censor with comments, either delete the entire post or leave it alone!
Here are a few "facts" for mtdon and others. Since the 'lesson' of Vietnam we have started only 2 serious, long-lasting, open-ended idiot wars. These would be Iraq and Afghanistan. Interestingly they were both started by the nimrod president, Dubya. It is also interesting that even a fool like Dubya did not listen to Evil Incarnate (Cheney) and take us on a true adventure toward Tehran. If we can avoid electing the truly disturbed, wars and skirmishes may remain manageable. The most likely scenario for war with Iran (other than rogue Dr. Strangelove horror shows) would involve all liberal-progressive types voting 3rd party and allowing a crazed republican to take the stage.
I suppose the US actions in central america and lebanon don't count? The 1st iraq war doesn't count? Yugoslavia doesn't count, haiti don't count, panama and grenada don't count.
Etc
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Go there and read a few FACTS.
The USA has been quite busy militarywise since the 'end' of the vietnam war -
I guess you are joining the oilybomber in redefining War.
You do win Propagandist of the Week award though, good work!
Ok, I have other stuff to do so this is my last post to you. Your failure to COMPREHEND other's words is astounding. Like I said in another post, I've read lots of Chomsky. I understand your "Etc." We have taken various military and other nefarious actions in a great many nations over the last century plus. Yes, these are FACTS. But, they had nothing to do with my last post as stated. Please work on your comprehension problem. You are clearly aware of the warts on America's history. If you learn to speak clearly to the ideas of others, without interjecting your thoughts into someone else's words, you will have better luck truly communicating. Good luck to you. I think your heart is in the right place.
While you have a point, look at Darfur, Rawanda, Kashmir, Tibet, Bosnia, many parts of the old USSR, Russia, Iraq, Iran, what used to be Burma, etc, etc......the whole world has been and still is engaged in various military actions, both in civil wars, invasions, etc, without our involvement or support. Indeed many are engaged with the support and involvement of other countries.
In Darfur alone over 20 million people have lost their lives and the US has not been involved.
My point is not to excuse the things we have done that we shouldn't have like Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc but to point out that they are not unusual in the world we live in nor are we alone in indulging in the use of military force as so many here like to pretend.
When you go back to the fifties and sixties you should also add in the occupation of Eastern Europe, the events in Cambodia, China, etc.
Once again, I would not excuse our faults, but we are not alone by any stretch of the imagination.
Does obama get any credit for "suurging" the afghanistan war?
Iraq wasn't started by G.W. Bush, Greg.
Even in the B.S. scenario in which Prez's "start wars", it is George H.W. Bush that "started" the war with Iraq. The war which was then perpetuated by Clinton, and escalated by G.W. Bush.
And your last sentence is PURE democracy-stifling B.S.!
If the Prez actually "started wars" (and they don't), and the Red Party candidate was actually open about wanting war (at least as open as Obama is), then -and ONLY THEN- would any voters at all be responsible for "allowing" the war.
And those voters would be the hypothetical voters for the pro-war Red Party Candidate -not ANYONE else.
Every Citizen must vote for the candidate that they actually want to see in Office -otherwise the system does not function properly. There is no current way to vote against or to rank vote priority. So the number one choice must be the only vote.
Pre-allocating my vote to the Blue Party Candidate or post facto chalking my vote up as one that "could have" gone for the Blue Party Candidate is WAY outside of the rules, Greg.
Doesn't do much to help folks believe that you aren't here on a hidden agenda, stunts like that. ;(
Well we disagree again. Depending on semantics of course we could say there was a non-shooting war at play in Iraq when Dubya took over. My point is that he did not have to use the bully pulpit to lie and deceive us into a hot war. If Dubya had not chosen to catapult the propaganda we would not have had a real hot war. You are free to pretend that President Dubya was not the major factor in starting a hot war in Iraq.
And you are free to pretend that constant aerial bombardment of a place does not represent a "hot war", Greg.
As the readers of this exchange are free to conclude that your post reveals you are full of crap. ;)
As I am free to conclude that your reference to G.W. as "President" -the Office to which he was not legitimately elected- is not a demonstration of adherence to a cultural norm that is not generally honored in this forum, but rather a demonstration of adherence to a quite different norm.
I assume you feel the no-fly zone was a "hot war" in your opinion? (You were not overly clear on this)
Why? Ahhh, the War Profiteers are worried about the 99%?
We are going to war with Iran based on what facts? There are no facts that support a theory of an attack by the US on Iran.
Here are a few facts. Obama is not going to attack Iran because they would shoot back and it is a nation of over 72 million, not 30 million that had already been whacked silly a few years before.
He is simply talking tough hoping to attract some independents and moderate voters, but talk is all he does.
There is nothing to gain for the US in that. If Obama had guts he would have supported the protestors there last year, if nothing else that should tell you that Obama is not going to attack Iran.
Next America won't stand for it. And all delusional types that see Americans as war mongers are simply victims of your own dogma. History doesn't support your argument for one moment.
The republican President, who ever he is, that replaces Obama is not going to attack Iran for the same reasons and he will be dealing with domestic problems, something this little boy in office now didn't and won't do.
The only danger of war in the middle east comes from the middle east. And it is coming, I'm fairly sure of that. There will be NO American troops involved though.
There is one fact that is set in concrete I believe, if Israel thinks for one moment that Iran is about to or just has achieved a nuclear weapon, she will attack. Without hesitation. I would bet on a war between Egypt/Syria (backed by Iran) and Israel before that though.
Dogmatic thinking leads to the misuse of facts to revise events and history to support a particular view. Unfortunately it is not only NeoCons and Conservatives that indulge in it from time to time..
To a point I agree that Obama won't launch a war against Iran. At least he'd not do it in the manner that bush the lesser launched his wars of choice. That doesn't mean that a war wouldn't break out because of the actions of others. Heating up the rhetoric is also a bad idea, that makes war much more likely.
However, you're quite wrong about the USA not being a warloving and warmongering nation. The military is more respected and revered than it is in many other nations, now or in the past. Prussia and the Empire of Japan weren't as keen to launch wars and interventions as your nation has been over the last 60 years (at least). To be fair, no, you're not alone in sending the army out to invade other nation states, but you are the world's leader in invading other nations. Even the USSR didn't invade as many nations as you have. Nor did they overthrow as many 'democratic' governments as the USA has done - or totalitarian ones for that matter...
Disabuse yourself of the notion that American troops won't be involved in a conflict in a region where there is so much oil.
The article suggests that Obama is following the same sort of "wag the dog" strategy the Bush used to take people's minds off Social Security, etc. But if Obama were a true Democrat he would want to focus people's attention on issues like Social Security, etc. All goes to show that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Obama and the Republicans.
"The US is the most evil empire that has existed in this species' perverted history."
Well, if you have to call him the Devil to fight the demon, then so be it -as long as you fight the demon. ;)
"solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
They made a wasteland and called it peace.
There is nowhere to run to, really. Not any more. Just like for Tacitus's Galgacus.
Fighting back or capitulation are becoming the last options.
Weisbrot sez: "... the U.S. government’s 9/11 commission investigated the links between the attackers and the Saudi ruling family, but refused to make public the results of that investigation. The reason is obvious: there is dirt there ..."
***
Actually, the dirt was flown back to the Kingdom, along with various royals and bin Laden family members, while all other other air traffic in the U.S. remained grounded in the days after 9/11.
Less we forget it was Bill Clinton who laid the groundwork for the war in Iraq with his children killing sanctions and Obama has been worse than Bush in promoting war all over the world. The democratic party is dominated by an elite group of zionist warmongers inside and outside of congress and people like Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta are just as criminally crazy as any of the idiots Bush had around him.
A lie wrapped in a generalized truth is an effective lie, and a well known propaganda tactic.
Wrapped in the undeniable truth that Obama is a warmonger — he escalated Af/Pak, increased drone assassinations, and wanted to keep troops in Iraq after George W. Bush's December 2011 deadline, etc. — Weisbrot plants his signature Bill Clinton smear, claiming that "President Clinton spent years preparing the ground for the Iraq war launched by [George W.] Bush."
As authority for his claim, Weisbrot hyper-links to...(wait for it)...another article by Mark Weisbrot! In his February 2010 article Weisbrot says "President Clinton imposed sanctions on Iraq...[and] President Bush picked up where President Clinton left off."
That's it? That's how Clinton "prepared the ground" for Bush? But, what about the facts, Mr. Weisbrot?
A) The Iraq sanctions were imposed by the United Nations Security Council beginning August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
B) After the end of the Gulf War [March 1991] those sanctions were extended and elaborated on.
C) Bill Clinton became president in January 1993.
So, not only did Bill Clinton not "spend years preparing the ground" for Bush/Cheney's criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq, he didn't even impose the Iraq sanctions. That was done by the United Nations during George H.W. Bush's presidency.
As always in Weisbrot's twisted history, Democrats (and Bill Clinton in particular) are evil, and war criminals like Bush I, Bush II and Darth Cheney hardly merit a mention except to imply they were some sort of innocent bystanders to history. That's why I find nothing Weisbrot says to be credible.
You are full of it. ;)
Weisbrot is simply recalling for the reader the fact that the Iraq war was not "begun" during W. Bush's term, but had been long in the works.
You are obviously forgetting "Operation Desert Strike" in 1996( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28September_1996%29 ), "Operation Desert Fox" in 1998( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox ), and the entire history of UNSCOM from 1990-1999( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission ).
Weisbrot doesn't operate in a "Democrats versus Republicans" world. He operates in the real one.
"Long been in the works?" I suppose that's Weisbrot-style code for "Clinton prepared the ground."
George H.W. Bush started the Iraq War. Then the neo-cons pissed on Clinton for eight years for "failing" to invade Iraq and take their oil fields. Meanwhile Governor George W. Bush told his biographer that if he was elected president he would invade Iraq because being a "war president" meant getting two terms, and of course he did just that at his first opportunity. Or are you "forgetting" that, like Republican shill Weisbrot did?
Well, that can also be argued. :)
Reagan started the war against Iran and Iraq back in the early 1980s when he supported both sides of a war. (I'm sure if I dug a bit I could flesh out the argument)
Or you could always argue that it was the fault of the European Empires who buggered up the world when they divvied up the world after the end of WWI. :)
No, I am not.
A cursory glance at my posts in this thread would have told you that.
Obviously -given the false notion that Prez's "start wars"- G.H.W. Bush "started" the war in Iraq.
But you were accusing Weisbrot of manipulation of the facts -bizarrely for the benefit of forces that he constantly opposes- when he said that Clinton had "prepared the ground" for the invasion of Iraq.
This is demonstrably true -again given your false conceit that Prez's are the leaders in war. The "Operations" that I cited -and you failed to refer to in response- were specifically designed to "take out" facilities that would hinder a future invasion.
I do not say that either of the Bushes or Clinton did ANY of this.
You are the one adhering to this false notion.
All I am saying is that -given an audience that is blinded by such false notions as badly as you are -Weisbrot is merely attempting to demonstrate that this is a "bipartisan" crime.
matti BS#1) H.W. Bush did in fact start the Gulf War when he snookered ally Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait by dispatching Iraq Ambassador April Glaspie to tell him the U.S. had "no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait" (while Iraq had troops massed on the Kuwait border) and then expressing "shock, shock" when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
matti BS#2) Weisbrot did misstate the facts when he said Bill Clinton "imposed sanctions on Iraq." I pointed out the incontrovertible fact that it was the UN Security Council that imposed the sanctions, and it did so years before Bill Clinton became president.
matti BS#3) Your links to UNSCOM activities in the '90s further demonstrate my points. UNSCOM stands for United Nations Special Commission, not United States Special Commission.
matti BS#4) Talk about false conceits. Your claim that Bill Clinton (who successfully fought bloodthirsty neo-cons to keep U.S. troops out of foreign wars — the only president since Jimmy Carter to do so — and who closed military bases and cut military budgets) is somehow equally responsible with the Bush crime family for the Iraq War takes the cake.
When Democrats are equivalent to Republicans, as is Obama, they should be called out. When there is no such equivalence, those who attempt to create it should be called out. Namely, Weisbrot and you.
Your "point" is false. Clinton ACTIVELY challenged and discontinued H.W. Bush policies.
H.W. Bush purposefully transformed an ally into an "enemy" to take control of Iraq's oil. H.W. Bush sparked the invasion of Kuwait, pressed the UN to act against Iraq, pressed other nations to invade Iraq, and put U.S. troops on the ground in the Middle East, ultimately resulting in the 9/11 blowback.
Clinton did none of these things. He put the brakes on U.S. empire building, refused to invade and occupy any foreign country (including Iraq), closed military bases, cut military budgets (and was viciously attacked by right-wingers throughout his term in office for it).
Before H.W. Bush, Iraq was stable and secular, women were educated and employed, health care and infrastructure were some of the best in the Middle East, and religious militancy and extremism was not tolerated. In fact, Iraq was a bulwark against Islamic extremism.
After H.W. Bush, Iraq was destabilized, it's infrastructure and economy were destroyed, poverty increased sharply, religious militancy and violence were rampant, and Iran's theocracy was strengthened.
Bill Clinton had to deal with the mess H.W. Bush created. He did support the continuing UN sanctions against Iraq. Perhaps a stronger Democrat, like a JFK, would have taken a more courageous position and petitioned the UN to lift the sanctions. On the other hand, lifting the no-fly zone may have resulted in the massacre of Kurds and Shiites by Saddam.
In any event, Clinton's actions were in no way equivalent to either Bush's. Clinton did not "prepare the ground" for Bush II's war. If anyone prepared the ground, it was Bush I. And Bush I, you may note, is never mentioned by Weisbrot.