I'm thinking about Rumsfeld's resignation in late 2006, just after the Democrats won (or, more likely, were permitted to win) the House. Everybody (um, Corporate News horns) seemed to imply that Rumsfeld resigned because "the people" voted against his war. I thought about that for about 2 seconds and dismissed it. When did Rumsfeld ever give a cat's crap about what "the people" want? Nope, something else going on. (See footnote for theory.)
Similarly, when the Bushwhacks were setting things up to invade Iraq, they seemed to be anxious to cross their legal t's and dot their political i's. I stress "seemed to be." They were trying to get a war resolution out of a Democratic-controlled Senate. In that effort--and solely for that effort--they sought (or seemed to seek) a UN peacekeeping resolution or some kind of official UN endorsement to invade Iraq, couldn't get it and then strongly pressured (strongarmed, blackmailed, bullied, threatened) all allies, big and small, to join their "coalition of the willing." I remember that silly list of small, bullied, subject countries they put together, after the UN Security Council and Germany and France balked at their war (and Bush saying, "Don't forget Poland!" when Kerry called him on it in the 2004 debate). The UK was the only major ally that went along, and, while the Bushwhacks behaved as if that legitimized their war, I don't think it was essential to them. Thus, I don't think that, if the Blair had declined, they would have backed off and not invaded. The result of Blair declining would have been the UK would have been cut out of the oil deals, that's all. The U.K. has a long history of messing over Middle Eastern peoples' for their oil. So, too, of course, does the U.S. Nothing new here, except that the Bushwhacks became vicious aggressors in the punishment of U.S. allies.
Would the Bushwhacks have invaded anyway, if Blair hadn't played their "poodle"? Absolutely. Would they have invaded if the Senate Democrats hadn't played their "poodles" as well? Probably. The Democratic Senators--as much tied to war profiteers and transglobal corporations as the Republicans are--maybe would have given them less of a scrap of paper than the "Iraq War Resolution" but they would have given them something by which they could lie that they had some kind of legal basis with which to slaughter a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis and take over their oil fields.
Did they care much about that piece of paper? I don't think so. To them, it was just a formality. Lack of it might have delayed them a bit (until they could kill, dis-elect, defame/destroy or suborn a few more senators) but they were totally bent on invading Iraq by any means necessary and it took the combined power of Bush Sr., the military brass, the CIA and other powers to stop them from moving right along into Iran and using nuclear weapons to do so. (See below.)
----------------
Footnote: Rumsfeld was ousted because Poppa Bush didn't agree with Rumsfeld/Cheney's intention to nuke Iran, nor did the military brass, nor did the CIA who were also hopping mad (and probably bent on vengeance) because of Rumsfeld/Cheney's outing of their entire WMD counter-proliferation project worldwide. These forces together ousted Rumsfeld. Poppa formed his "Iraq Study Group" (but it was really about Iran) in early 2006 and delivered the report to the White House that summer. The election was in November. Rumsfeld resigned in December. And it's quite interesting that, a) Nancy Pelosi's infamous "impeachment is off the table" statement (what "table"?) was issued between those two events, and b) talk about nuking Iran soon went away (and Pelosi went off on a Mideast tour to take the word to Israel and others, amidst the British navy incident with Iran that ended peacefully). Also interesting--in fact, pivotal: Leon Panetta was a member of Bush Sr.'s "Iraq Study Group." He is Bush Sr.'s point man in the Obama administration, commissioned to end the war between the CIA and the Pentagon that Rumsfeld/Cheney started and, not unimportantly, to monitor the no-investigation, no-prosecution deal that Obama and the Democrats made in order to gain limited power within our very secretive, very undemocratic, actual government. That's my theory. A pretty good one, I think. One key part of it is that a far rightwing-connected private corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold--now controls the 'TRADE SECRET' programming code in about 75% of U.S. vote counting systems, with virtually no audit/recount controls. Elections are now easily--EASILY!--rigged to suit those who actually rule over us. This immense power includes, of course, the ability to put Democrats in office who play ball with these rulers and to remove them at will, while 'trending' the whole political system toward militarism, fascism, loss of civil, human and labor rights, and corporate looting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
