REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic
As the 10th anniversary of OIF arrives, Peter Feaver goes through some of the most prevalent myths regarding the wrongful narrative that “Bush lied, people died”:
1. The Bush administration went to war against Iraq because it thought (or claimed to think) Iraq had been behind the 9/11 attacks. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration did explore the possibility that Hussein might have collaborated with al Qaeda on the attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney (along with some officials in the secretary of defense’s office) in particular believed this hypothesis had some merit, and in the early months gave considerable weight to some tantalizing evidence that seemed to support it. However, by the fall of 2002 when the administration was in fact selling the policy of confronting Hussein, the question of a specific link to 9/11 was abandoned and Cheney instead emphasized the larger possibility of collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. We now know that those fears were reasonable and supported by the evidence captured in Iraq after the invasion. This has been documented extensively through the work of the Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC), which examined the captured files of the Hussein regime. A 2012 International Studies Association panel sponsored by the CRRC on “Saddam and Terrorism” was devoted to this topic and spent quite a bit of time demonstrating how those who insist that there were no links whatsoever simply rely on a poorly worded sentence referencing “no smoking gun” of a “direct connection” in the executive summary of the 2007 “Iraqi Perspectives Project – Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Documents” report and ignore the evidence of links and attempted connections uncovered in the report itself as well as subsequent work by the project.
It is heartening whenever I see someone link or make reference to the Iraqi Perspectives Project, since it went largely ignored by the media (aside from misrepresenting its contents, thanks to lazily piggying on McClatchy’s summary report).
My own contribution in regards to what President Bush and VP Cheney actually said in regards to Saddam and 9/11, and why there is confusion: Did President Bush Link Saddam Hussein to 9/11?
Feaver’s myth #2 has to do with the belief that we went to war for the sake of democratizing Iraq:
(1) Bush was committed to confronting Iraq because of the changed risk calculus brought about by 9/11, which heightened our sensitivity to the nexus of WMD and terrorism (believing that state sponsors of terrorism who had WMD would be a likely pathway by which terrorist networks like al Qaeda could secure WMD); (2) Bush was also committed not to making the mistake of Desert Storm, namely stopping the war with Hussein still in power and concluded that confronting Hussein must end with either full capitulation by Hussein or regime change through war; (3) given regime change, the best option for the new Iraq was one based on pluralism and representative government rather than a “man on horseback” new dictator to take Hussein’s place. To be sure, the Bush administration greatly underestimated the difficulty of the democratization path, but democratization was not the prime motivation — confronting the WMD threat was. Democratization was the consequence of that prime motivation.
It’s true that the political language changed after it was becoming embarrassingly clear that the wmd stockpile we believed would be found in Iraq wasn’t likely to turn up. Douglas Feith in his book points out that this was a mistake on the administration’s PR, not to reiterate to the American public and defend the original arguments for why we went into Iraq and removed Saddam’s regime:
it was a strategic error for the President to make no effort to defend the arguments that had motivated him before the war. We were in a U.S. presidential election year, and President Bush’s political opponents were intent on magnifying the Administration’s mistakes regarding WMD in Iraq. On television and radio, in print, and on the Internet, day after day, they repeated the claim that the undiscovered stockpiles were the sum and substance of why the United States went to war with Saddam. At first they argued that the war was based entirely on error. Now critics had escalated to the accusation that the war was based on lies.
Electoral politics aside, I thought it was important for national security reason that the President refute his critics’ mistatements. The CIA assessments of WMD were wrong, but they had originated in the years before he became President. The same intelligence assessments had been accepted by Democratic and Republican members of Congress, as well as UN and other officials around the world. And, in any event, the erroneous intelligence was not the entire rationale for overthrowing Saddam.
~~~ It would be useful to “make clear the tie-in between Iraq and the broader war on terrorism”- in the following terms: The Saddam Hussein regime “had used WMD, supported various terrorist groups, was hostile to the US and had a record of aggression and of defiance of numerous UN resolutions.” In light of 9/11, the “danger that Saddam’s regime could provide biological weapons or other WMD to terrorist groups for use against us was too great” to let stand. And other ways of countering the danger- containment, sanctions, inspections, no-fly zones- had proven “unsustainable or inadequate.”
-Douglas Feith, War and Decision, Pg 491-2
You know, the lore out there was we went to war to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. That was not the case. We went to war to achieve some hard national security objectives.
Before we went to war the president had, in the situation room, a conversation about, once we topple Saddam, what is our obligation to the Iraqi people? Is it simply to substitute an authoritarian who will not move against our interests by supporting terror, invading neighbors, pursuing WMD? Or do we have an obligation because we are the United States of America, and because they’ve suffered under 30 years of a brutal authoritarian. Do we have an obligation to give the Iraqi people a chance, an opportunity, to build a democratic future for themselves?
The president decided on the latter, and I actually think we achieved that objective. It wasn’t pretty, and Iraq today is not pretty, but it has an opportunity to build a democratic future despite the enormous pressure that Syria and other events are putting on Iraq.
Read more from the FP roundtable.
Reflecting back to pre-war debates:
When the Bush administration did put the Iraq issue on the front-burner over the summer of 2002, I found the arguments of Bush opponents to be over-drawn and unconvincing — in particular, the anti-Bush position seemed not to take seriously enough the fact that the U.N. inspections regime had collapsed nor that the sanctions regime was in the process of collapsing — and so I found myself often critiquing the critics. I found the Bush argument that Hussein was gaming the sanctions and poised to redouble his WMD efforts when the sanctions finally collapsed to be a more plausible account of where things were heading absent a confrontation (and as we now know from the interviews with Hussein after his capture that was exactly what he was planning to do).
Feaver’s Myth #3 addresses the conspiratorial claim that Bush and Cheney went to war to make their friends rich and steal Iraqi oil.
#4 has to do with the notion that those dreadful neocons, like Feith and Wolfowitz, held such power of the Administration as to steer us to war.
Feaver, citing Frank Harvey, points out that he:
painstakingly reconstructs the decision process in 2002 and documents all of the ways that the Bush administration took steps contrary to the “neoconism” thesis — eg., working through the United Nations and seeking Congressional authorization rather than adopting the unilateralist/executive-only approach many Iraq hawks were urging. (Leffler makes similar points in his lecture).
Given how President Obama has in some ways perpetuated, escalated, and even “out-Bushed” Bush when it comes to the GWoT (or, if you will: “Overseas Contingency Operations”), it begs the question: Would a President Gore have authorized an Iraq invasion? Certainly he would not have had the same players advising him; however, given past statements during his Clinton years:
“Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He’s trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen.”
– Al Gore , December 16, 1998.
“[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people.”
– Al Gore , December 16, 1998.
…And given the current PotUS in perpetuating “endless war” rather than ending it, Feaver and Harvey entertains the notion:
Harvey goes on to make an intriguing case that had Al Gore won the election in 2000, he would have likely authorized the Iraq war just as Bush did. Harvey has not fully convinced me of the latter, but he usefully rebuts much sloppy mythologizing about Gore’s foreign policy views, documenting how Gore was, in fact, the most hawkish of officials on Iraq in the Clinton administration. At a minimum, Harvey proves that the Iraq war owed more to the Clinton perspective than it did to then-candidate George W. Bush’s worldview as expressed during the 2000 campaign. The neoconism myth serves a politically useful function of fixing all blame on a specific group of Republicans, but, as Harvey shows, the truth is not quite so simplistic.
Feaver’s myth #5 has to do with “Bush lied”:
I have addressed this myth before. It is a staple of the anti-Iraq/anti-Bush commentary — and not just of the pseudonymous trolls in blog comment sections. John Mearsheimer, one of the most influential security studies academics, has written a book built around the claim that leaders regularly lie and that Bush in particular lied about Iraq. Mearsheimer claims “four key lies,” each one carefully rebutted by Mel Leffler.
The first is the question of links between Iraq and al Qaeda. As I noted above, while the Iraq files contain no “smoking gun” of an active operational link, the record includes ample evidence of overtures originating from either side — each pursuing precisely the kind of enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend alliance of convenience that Bush worried about. The second is the Bush administration statements of certainty about Iraq’s WMD programs. It turns out the Bush administration officials were wrong on many of those particulars and should have been less certain about how they were reading the intelligence, but there is no compelling evidence that they knew they were reading the intelligence incorrectly, which is what is logically required to prove the charge of “lying” rather than being “mistaken.” The third is the charge that Bush claimed Saddam was behind the attacks of 9/11. Here Mearsheimer ignores the explicit and repeated explanation by President Bush (and countless administration figures) about what they meant — namely that the links they saw were (i) how 9/11 had changed their risk calculus and (ii) how terrorist groups and states sponsors of terror should be treated as part and parcel of the same war. Again, the Bush administration may or may not have been wrong to view things that way but these are disputes of reasoning and policy, not fact. The fourth is the charge that Bush “lied” about sincerely pursuing a diplomatic solution short of war in 2002-2003. In fact, Bush was committed to a final resolution of WMD issue, which he believed would require either abject capitulation by Hussein or forcible regime change. Bush was not open to a wide range of face-saving and half-way diplomatic measures, but he never claimed to be. In other words, Bush was not willing to accept diplomatic solutions that others might have accepted, but he did go to great lengths to secure the diplomatic solution he was willing to accept but Saddam was not.
Charles Duelfer also has a write-up in yesterday’s Foreign Policy, claiming that No Books Were Cooked:
Certainly, there were plenty of mistakes made then that should be avoided in the future. However, many of these arguments seem grounded in politics rather than reality.
One of the most obvious examples is the widely accepted statement that President George W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles. But here’s the thing: If Bush knew that Saddam did not have such weapons, he would have been the only one — even Saddam wasn’t 100 percent certain about what resided in his stockpiles. In reaction to insistent U.S. and British statements about Iraq’s WMD, at an October 2002 Revolutionary Command Council meeting, Saddam asked his own staff whether they might know something he did not about residual WMD stocks.
The intelligence wasn’t cooked or slanted to make policymakers happy. It was just wrong. That made Bush mistaken — but it doesn’t make him a liar.
Intelligence agencies around the world erred in their assessments about Iraqi WMD. Some were more wrong than others. But the broadly held view by intelligence practitioners was that Saddam had capabilities that exceeded the limitations placed on him by the United Nations after the 1991 Gulf War. And in fact, Saddam was not fully compliant with the United Nations: He had ballistic missiles that exceeded permitted range limits and he had certainly had a long track record of blocking and deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. His cooperation was always less than needed. But as it turned out, by 2002, the Iraqi president did not have militarily significant stocks of chemical or biological agents, and his nuclear program had been halted years earlier.
Given Saddam’s history, it wasn’t crazy for the intelligence community to believe that he would reconstitute his WMD programs. Consider these data points: In the 1980s, Saddam employed massive amounts chemical munitions to the front in his war with Iran. It saved Iraq (and his regime) from Iranian “human wave attacks.” Later, in the 1991 Kuwait war, Saddam deployed and authorized the use of chemical and biological missiles and bombs, should the United States advance on Baghdad. It did not; Saddam believed his possession of WMD deterred President George H. W. Bush. So Saddam had two experiences where WMD saved him. That’s a pretty good incentive to hang on to as much of it as possible. And for years he did everything possible to do just that-as evidenced by his indisputable track record of lying and deception to U.N. inspectors from 1991 to 1997.
~~~ In the context of the days after the 9/11 attacks, when concern over the next attack on the U.S. homeland was palpable, America’s tolerance for risk was dramatically lowered. There was no appetite for minimizing any threat that could repeat the trauma of the 9/11 attacks. Saddam was one of those threats.
The intelligence community also was right that Saddam hadn’t lost his desire for WMD. He stated clearly during our debriefings of him after his capture that he intended to recreate these capabilities once conditions permitted — that is, after sanctions were lifted.
~~~ Intelligence reports should not be the only basis for making decisions, and they were not for the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney was correct to meet directly with intelligence analysts — it’s a good way to get a feel for what they really know. High-ranking officials were also right to think they may know more than the analysts. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, had much more experience with Iraqis than the analysts. He met with Saddam personally. He had multiple meetings with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
There were massive errors made in the run-up to the Iraq war. Some seemed even at the time to be avoidable. But the historical record doesn’t support today’s conventional wisdom: Bush did not lie. He made decisions based on incomplete and incorrect assessments. All presidents do this, and some decisions work out well and some do not.
So who lied? Well, Valerie Plame’s husband Joe Wilson, for one. So much so that he was rebuked in one of the Senate Select Intell Committee reports.
And yet, even to this day, I see those who perpetuate the distorted narrative regarding those “16 words” in President Bush’s SotU address.
Another myth: That we were never greeted as Liberators.
Iraqi children greeted McLaughlin’s tank in Baghdad on April 12. “People were pretty happy with us until about August of 2003,” he says today. “In April they were really happy.”
–Tim McLaughlin
I strongly believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration record in regards to what led them to opt for the decision in removing Saddam from power.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Wordsmith, what do you think of this story?
That war was a complete debacle. It destabilized a very dangerous area of the planet. It created a government that is now best friends with Iran. It forced 50% of Iraqi christians to flee and become refugees in Jordan and Syria. That “mushroom shaped cloud” that Condi Rice warned about: the American people were completely misled. As late as 2008 Curt was still tring to convibce us that Iraq had workable WMD. Something that Bush now admits was simply not true. Bush/Cheney demanded and got the intelligence they wanted, and the CIA Director Tennet was duly rewarded with our nation’s highest civilian medal.
@Poppa_T: The BBC Panorama programme might be “fresh”, but I don’t see how this “evidence” for “Bush and Blair lied, people died” (or in this case Tenet and Dearlove cherrypicked/misled) is anything new. Unless Sabri has finally come out and publicly commented and the BBC program obtained an exclusive interview (from the article, it doesn’t look like this is the case).
Naji Sabri has been discussed before at FA. And I believe, if memory serves, Drumheller’s account of Sabri is also refuted in one of the Senate Select Intell Committee report on pre-war intell.
I think the original story was the one by Lisa Myers (actually pretty well-balanced) 7 yrs ago, cited by Philadelphia Steve at FA.
My response then:
Part of the justification put forth for enforcing the UNSCRs violated for over a decade by Saddam had to do with history, intent, and capabilities (and as we know from the Duelfer Report, Saddam had retained intent and capability).
Just found this [my comment #70]:
MataHarley comment #134 in a detailed response:
The intell that pointed otherwise to the notion that Saddam didn’t possess wmd when weighed to the bulk of the intell at the time that pointed to the likelihood that he did tips the scales.
@john ryan:
…..And Saddam was such a stabilizing force in the region and in the world, right?
Baton was passed to President Obama. So what has he done with said baton on his watch, in regards to Iraq?
@john: Well John, most of the Iraqi military officers thought Saddam had WMD, too. There was several thousands tons of yellow cake that was sold to the Canadian government with the funds given to the Iraqi government. Actually, Ihad an Iraqi redicule the US press. He said, “Saddam was a WMD all by himself”!
Where oh where did the WMD’s go?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/19/us-syria-crisis-command-idUSBRE92I0IN20130319
@Wordsmith: Excellent post and response. Very detailed. It does get rather tiring explaining it all the time, doesn’t it? As you know, I’ve had more than one debate here and elsewhere about OIF, in particular WMD. One thing the neysayers have in common is that none of them have ever been anywhere near Iraq then or now. If someone who was there says something based on their experiences THERE that contradicts their point, they will merely state that what you saw or experienced didn’t happen. It’s that know it all lefty mentality (not referring to Pappa T). The latest talking point is that Bush said Saddam didn’t have WMD when in fact it is public knowledge that he had several hundred left over from the Gulf War that he said he destroyed. In addition, the truth as what he actually had or didn’t have probably lies in classified documents. Unlike the current POTUS, Bush isn’t going to be going on TV and divulge classified material to make himself look good if that’s in fact what the evidence shows and I’m not saying it does because I don’t have access to the info just like most everyone else who argues the issue. Like you, I believe when it’s all said and done, Bush will be vindicated.
@Randy: Remember all the stockpiles of insecticide that none of the farmers used for their crops? Perhaps precursors for chemical weapons, nerve agent in particular? Nah. Saddam was a guy you could trust (at least the left did).
WHAT EVER THERE WAS MANY EXCUSES TO RID IRAQ OF THAT OPPRESSOR,
THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT HIS FATHER could tell a word or two about things going on
in IRAQ, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE HIS OWN FATHER WHO ALSO WAS A MAN OF PEACE,
AND THE 9/11 HAPPENED AFTER HIS FATHER CAME BACK OF DELIVERING KUWAIT FROM SADDAM,
SO IT WAS EASY TO FOLLOW THE DOTS, AND GO FURTHER IN HIS SEARCH,
GEORGE BUSH DID NOT RUSH IN LIKE OBAMA FOR LIBYA AND EGYPT,
GEORGE BUSH CONSULTED THE ALLIES AND AND…………….
@another vet: There were huge warehouses of drums of technical grade organophosphates that are only lacking a delivery vehicle to be a nerve agent. That was enough to wipe out nearly the whole population of Iraq. (28,000,000 people) It was all purchased through the oil for food program overseen by the UN and the Clinton administration.
Randy
don’t they get the message that giving them money is not the right thing to do,
OBAMA is doing more now, HE GIVE WEAPONS PLUS MILLIONS,
SO THEY CAN KILL THE AMBASSADORS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES,
AND REFUSE TO PROTECT THE MILITARY
HELPING THEM TO BE FREE,
BYE
@Randy: The UN were willing accomplices in his reign of terror. They had much to lose with him being gone. It wouldn’t be surprising if they helped him move or hide stuff.
@ilovebeeswarzone: You are correct. Contrary to what the historical revisionists like to say, Saddam was not a good person and he was a threat to that region. If he were still in power, there would be a string of countries from Syria to Iran who would be against us and Israel. IF he didn’t have newer WMD at that time, he most certainly would have had it by now and some of it may have very well ended up in the hands of terrorists he trained, financed, and equipped possibly even AQ. Had that have occurred and if that WMD would have been used in an attack against the US, either here or abroad, the same lefties who complained about Bush getting rid of him would have complained that he didn’t. They are called armchair generals and Monday morning quarterbacks.
What utter BS!!!
There are numerous sources that claim Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld were planning an attack on Iraq as a response to 911 while the WTC towers burned.
The intelligence from the CIA was 100% accurate, but the likes of Feith and Tenet reworded the facts to inflate the threat, the BBC recently presented proof that the CIA had direct contact with Iraqi intelligence who assured them that there were no WMD, information that would certainly have been presented to Cheney & Bush.
The War was for Oil, Cheney wanted Iraqi oil on the market as leverage against Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden being Saudi as were a majority of the 911 hijackers) but that reasoning would be rejected by the American people, so a threat had to be concocted to justify the invasion, but that’s history 4500 soldiers are dead, 30000 seriously wounded, the cost is minimum $2Trillion and may reach $4-6Trillion.
And for what? to over throw a dictator and handover substantial oil reserves to a pro-Iranian Govt!!!
Anun
WHAT UTTER BS YOU’RE GIVING US, GO BACK ON YOUR RESEARCH,
BBC IS NOT IN AMERICA.
HEY WHERE IS THE OIL?
How anyone can not yet have figured out that we were led into a totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq through the calculated use of intelligence that was known at the time to be highly unreliable, if not outright false, is increasingly difficult to understand.
Testimony has been presented by people who were actually part of the intelligence community at the time. They know what happened, because they were in positions to have witnessed significant parts of the entire deception first hand.
Consider, for example, the late Dr. Brian Jones, a former British intelligence analyst and the author of Failing Intelligence: How We Were Led to War in Iraq.
All I can figure is that some people are entirely focused on media outlets and sources that continue to filter out the damning evidence—much as critical evidence that didn’t support the war agenda was filtered out in the first place.
People also seem to have forgotten that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a stated part of the neo-conservative agenda before the Bush administration even existed, and that direct participants in the subsequent deception had been central to the laying out of that agenda in the form of written policy statements.
People seem to forget that the Project for the New American Century openly published their agenda; that the objective of regime change in Iraq was publicly laid out on their website as early as 1997; that this was part of their openly stated plan to achieve U.S. world dominance in the 21st Century.
The PNAC membership list read like a Who’s Who of the Bush administration.
@Anun & Greg: Did you read any of this post or follow up comments or do you just post some pre-written boilerplate comments across various web sites?
@Brother Bob: You answered your own question.
I don’t believe that ASSAD DID POISON THE PEOPLE,
NO THE REBELS HAD ACCESS TO ANOTHER SOURCE OF POISON,
THOSE CHIMICALS WHERE NOT ALL IN THE SAME PLACE,
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT LIBYA WOULD SELL ALL HIS CHIMICAL,
THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE TO ANYONE WHO WANT TO PAY,
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT CHINA DON’T HAVE ANY.
@Brother Bob, #17:
For myself, that would be a YES, followed by a NO.
Like the man said, we either learn from history or we’re doomed to repeat it. Part of avoiding the same mistake twice involves getting the history right to begin with.
In my opinion the American people were deliberately misled, pursuant to a geopolitical agenda that most Americans don’t buy into. We were deliberately led to believe that Hussein’s Iraq represented an immediate threat to the safety and security of the people of the United States; that there was a growing near future danger—if not an imminent danger—of attack with weapons of mass destruction. I recall talk of a spreading mushroom cloud.
This was total b.s. No such threat existed from Iraq, nor was any such threat likely to come into existence in Iraq.
I agree that Hussein was an evil S.O.B. I’m glad he’s gone. But what we did—speaking in bottom line, geopolitical terms—was spend a trillion borrowed dollars to remove Iran’s chief regional worry. That allowed Iran to divert their resources elsewhere—for example, into their nuclear program.
They haven’t even sent us a Thank You note.
@Greg, so if you read Wordsmith’s post and comment #3, why did you waste your time posting an opinion that had already been refuted?
@Brother Bob, #21:
The opinion that the Bush administration deliberately led the nation into an unnecessary war by playing up highly questionable information and ignoring all intelligence that cast doubt on it hasn’t been refuted. It has only been denied.
There was no evidence from credible sources supporting the theory that Iraq was capable of attacking the United States with weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq was anywhere near acquiring the capability to do so. There were specious reports and questionable documents from sources that people in the intelligence communities in both the U.S. and the UK knew could not be trusted. Those qualified people expressed their views, but they were deliberately disregarded. What we got was George W. Bush talking on national television about the danger of a spreading mushroom cloud.
There was also a documented, preexisting intention on the part of the administration to pursue regime change in Iraq. What it lacked before 9/11 was an excuse.
We can nitpick about specifics until the cows come home, as if all things turned on some single small detail, but looking at the whole situation, I can only come to the conclusion that I have reached.
Either Bush lied, or Bush was taken in along with everybody else by those in his administration who did so.
@Anun: And your references are where? Some of us were actually in Iraq and iworking in the intel section. You have no idea what you are talking about. There were WMD and the intel sources believed there were WMDs. If there were a WMD attack in the US would you have blamed Bush? Sure you would. He would have blamed himself. If there was an eror, it was on the side of caution.
@Greg: Actually Greg. the removal of Saddam was part of the Clinton agenda. You remember that administration? You know, the one that had several shots at OBL before 9/11 and didn’t take them!
@Greg: Gregie, your reasoning falls into the category of How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?”
GREG
THEY WHERE THAT MUCH VICIOUS ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH HEY?
THEY SAID ALL THAT, HEY?
WAIT TO HEAR AND READ WHAT THEY WILL SAY ABOUT OBAMA WHEN HE LEAVE,
ON THE SAME SUBJECT ON A DIFFERENT STAGE OF WAR,
YOU WILL CRAWL UNDER THE TABLE TO HIDE.
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TODAY.
Randy
it come back to me what a video showing the GOONS POLICE OF SADDAM
DOING TO THE PEOPLE THEY ARREST
THEY WOULD THROW THEM DOWN A HIGH LADDER TO THEIR DEATH OR MULTIPLE WOUNDS,
AND LAUGH TOGETHER,
WHERE YOU AWARE OF IT WHILE YOU WHERE THERE,
OR WAS IT TOO LATE AFTER, BUT YOU MUST HAVE HEARD OF HIS BEASTLY SPORT
BYE
@Randy: Dem pols touting what a threat Saddam was and how he needed to go was a popular thing until 2004 when it became popular to be part of the anti-war crowd. All of a sudden their tune switched for political gain. Notice how all the anti-war rhetoric from their side and the protests stopped after Obama’s election even though we were still there? I’ve said it many times here before, I’d rather have a known terrorist in front of me than a lefty dem pol behind me any day.
another vet
there are many and more coming that lost TRUST in OBAMA,
HE WENT ACROSS THE LINE WITH HIS SEQUESTER COMING WITH
THE DEVIL DESTROYING EVERYTHING TO GIVE PAIN TO THE PEOPLE,
THAT IS THE PRINT HE LEFT IN THE MINDS OF THE AMERICANS,
PLUS HE HAD RELEASE 2600 CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ON THE STREETS
TO SHOW HE WAS SERIOUS, AND OUTRAGELY CUT ON MILITARY NEEDS.
@another vet: Yes, if you ask all of the liberals, they all said it was Bush’s war. Yet, nearly all of the liberals voted for it and the Dems voted to fund it. They still blame Bush. Now that Obama care is poised to cost more than 10 times the Iraq War, where are those blaming bush for a health care law that most people didn’t want. Even the unions are concerned about the cost! Liberals who now call thmselves progressives are looking to coin a new name since progressive only applies to progressively worse. Maybe bunglers is a better name. Just look at Detroit, and Chicago. There are no Conseratives there to blame.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Don’t worry. Obama and his sheep, including the media, will blame everyone but him and get away with it. You have to remember, 51% of Americans who voted in the last election bought off on his line. If they do wake up, it’s too late.
another vet
you said 51?
but but but, there was a lot of dead democrats in there
and they cannot talk they just vote,
we should change the 51 number. if all are counted only once
you see it shrink dramaticly
bye
@another vet, #28:
Unfortunately, members of Congress—republicans and democrats alike—only had access to the same sort of filtered intelligence information and assessments that were being used to convince the public. The dissenting voices in the intelligence sector weren’t being heard. A very one-sided picture was being promoted, both by the White House and the media. As here, also in the UK.
@Randy:I have no sympathy for the unions. They helped put him in the WH twice and are therefore partially responsible for the mess. Unfortunately, lots of others who wanted no part of it have to pay the price as well. The ironic part about “liberals” is that in the traditional sense, modern “liberals” are no way liberal. Their views are far closer to Marx and Engels. Hell, in the traditional sense, I’m probably more liberal as are most people who blog here are, than most ‘liberals”. Another word that has been twisted around to mean something other than what it was originally intended to mean.
@Greg: They came out in favor of getting rid of Saddam BEFORE Bush was even elected POTUS and stated as one of the reasons that there was WMD. The links have been posted here numerous times. Apparently Clinton must have manipulated the intel as well then. I don’t buy the excuse about selective intel either. Franks was seeing intel reports BEFORE the WH did and he believed there was WMD there. He was still being told by sources that Saddam had WMD and was going to use it right up until the day before the invasion. That’s why when we rolled north we were in MOPP gear. Again, it’s easy to armchair general this stuff after the fact especially when there is the Bush derangement syndrome.
@Greg:
I was led to believe that we must act before the threat became imminent; because if it was imminent, then we would have acted too late:
It was in part, the “not knowing” that was the problem, perpetuated by Saddam himself:
Greg wrote:
How do you reconcile that statement with
Just how evil do you understand him and his murderous sons to have been? Was his desire to obtain wmd ever denied by him? Did you bother to read Charles Duelfer reiterate the fact that his post-war findings indicate that Saddam retained not only the intent but the capabilities to restart his weapons programs once sanctions were lifted (and sanctions were eroding)?
@Greg:
The dissenting intell and voices of which you allude to were in the minority. With all available info taken into consideration at the time, the majority of it pointed to Saddam being a wmd threat.
Not exactly the claim that was being made. The fear was that Saddam would collaborate with terrorists by using them as proxy to deliver a wmd attack.
And yet with all your 20/20 hindsight criticism by citing flawed intell as if we knew what was flawed at the time (and what still can be substantiated today), the Senate Select Committee phase II report pretty much concluded on all counts, “substantiated by intell at the time….”
As pointed out to you, regime change was made official U.S. policy toward Iraq by the Clinton Administration.
Throughout the 90s, we lived with the saber-rattling of Saddam, defying UNSCRs, kicking out weapons inspectors, playing cat-and-mouse, attacking our planes daily in the no-fly zone- a constant menace. What administration succeeding Clinton would not have gone into office, not examining what to do with “the Iraq problem”? And in wake of 9/11, how would a responsible administration not revisit a state-sponsor of terrorism like Iraq and think it’s past time to do what the UN and the rest of the world failed to do?
@Greg: So the liberals were sheep that didn’t think? Whell, they are the same sheep that are now in charge. Poor babies. It is Bush’s fault they are mindless sheep!
Randy
they sent illegal concicted of crimes out and the father who is expert in gun
give his son teen his hunting gun and take a picture of him for his birthday, get the police at the door ask him to open his safe and want to check and write his guns registery number,
what is this? stupidity is in it?
his son is already a pro in gun knowledge,
someone said this is only the begining it going to get worse.
the snake must have his head cut of soon,
or many good AMERICANS will suffer, THE MORE THE DELAY,
WHO IS PROTECTING THE CITIZENS?
@Wordsmith:
This is from Curt’s most recent post on the other thread. It seems pretty straight forward. It has been posted here numerous times. In addition, Kay raised the strong possibility that WMD may have been moved to Syria which happens to be in line with what was alleged by General Sada, the one the left claims has been debunked. And didn’t Syria recently use chemicals on some of their people? Again, old news that has been posted here before but seems to be forgotten every time this issue comes up.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
@Wordsmith:
Hello my friend, sorry for the tardiness of my reply and thank you for your in-depth response. First let me say that I have no doubt that Saddam Hussain wanted a nuclear program and I have no doubt that he had chemical weapons. That being said I also have no doubt that we were lied to in order to draw us into war(s) in the mid-east and to justify those same wars.
From the Kuwait incubator baby myth, the “rescue” of Jessica Lynch, the death of Pat Tillman Lies and propaganda are routinely used to justify war. I’m not going to try to respond to all of your well documented points but I will address one of them…
“Feaver’s Myth #3 addresses the conspiratorial claim that Bush and Cheney went to war to make their friends rich and steal Iraqi oil” These documents here and here were obtained by Fuel on the Fire using the freedom of info. act. The point being that there were plans in place to privatize Iraqi oil prior to the war.
My concern is not these particular wars but how “we the people” continually allow ourselves to be manipulate by the powers that be into sacrificing our money and lives in order to enrich in rich. As I have stated here before it was two time Medal of Honor recipient Marine Corps Major General Smedley D Butlers book “War is a Racket” that opened my eyes to how badly we are being played. Just look at every war we have participated in since Lincoln started the Civil War.
The Spanish American War. It is generally accepted now that it wasn’t a Spanish mine that sank the Maine but that the Maine’s boiler(s) exploded, and Hearst’s papers fanned the flames of War into being.
WWI, the German government took out advertisements in over 50 newspapers warning potential passengers that the Lusitania was carrying munitions and telling them not to cross the Atlantic on it. Due to actions taken by the U.S. State Department, 49 of those 50 newspapers never ran the ad. Churchill pulled the Lusitania’s escort, the Juno, off the coast of Ireland leaving it a sitting duck to U-boats.
WWII, In 1999 Robert Stinnett released his book “Day of Deceit” he proves that not only had we broken the Japanese Military codes but that our foreign policy had much to do with bringing about the Japanese attack.
Korea, attacks by South Korea’s Tiger regiment into North Korea initiated a North Korean response not the other way around.
Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was an admitted false flag attack.
What about other operations our government has sanctioned or proposed, Project paperclip, MKultra, MKdelta, MKnaomi, Operation Midnight Climax, Project Family Jewels, Operation Pandora, etc, etc, etc…
The point my friend is this, Iran, N. Korea, Iraq, Russia and other nations don’t have a hegemony on evil, we have some very bad people in charge here as well, we are and have been played over and over again, it’s time to stop this madness. Iran looks like it’s next on the hitlist and I’m sure that many here are all for our government destroying that “threat to freedom” but before anyone jumps on the bandwagon please do me one favor, Google “US bases around Iran” and tell me who has more to fear, us or them?
@Poppa_T: Didn’t want to but in but you have an interesting post. With regards to the documents pertaining to the planning that was done prior to the war as to what was to be done with the Iraqi oil, that is nothing out of the ordinary as it would pertain to post war ops (Phase IV). It wasn’t just what to do with the oil after the war, there were plans that had to be drawn up for everything else- the restructuring of the government, the infrastructure, security etc. In other words, the post war planning for the oil had nothing to do with the reasons for going to war, rather it was in response as to what was to be done in the event of one. Prior to the war, they also had to update OPLAN 1003 which was the old OPLAN for conducting the war itself because it was outdated (1998) and based on Iraq’s military capabilities at the start of the Gulf War which was much different than its capabilities in 2003. For example, OPLAN 1003 called for an invasion force of 400-500,000 troops. We used about 160,000.
You make some interesting points about the other wars as well. I read Stinnett’s book shortly after it came out. Very interesting to say the least and it definitely gives a different perspective as to whether or not FDR went looking for a war and whether or not we knew of the attack on Pearl in sufficient time to warn those in charge ahead of time. Your thoughts?
I also think the 9/11 demanded a retaliation, so to give the message that you don’t get away with sending terrorist to kill 3 thousands and more now as we speak ,
let it be known again today to those who think they could hurt AMERICA
NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, THEY WILL BE PUNISH A CENTER FOLD
FOR NOT TAKING IT SERIOUSLY, AND ISRAEL IS OUR FRIEND AND ALLY AND IT IS
THE SAME WARNING WE GIVE FOR THEM, IF YOU HURT ISRAEL YOU HURT US IN AMERICA,
AND YOU WON’T GET AWAY WITH IT, YOU WILL GET THE CENTER FOLD PUNISHMENT,AS WELL
@another vet:
Please feel free to butt in whenever you wish my friend. This may be taking the easy way out but let me respond to your question with a question. Who had control over and profited from the Iraqi oil contracts pre war and who has control over and profits from the Iraqi oil contracts now?
Now I’m not saying that Iraqi oil was the driving factor behind the war but I think all those who say that oil had nothing to do with the war are gullible, deluded innocents. I think that once it looked like war was going to happen power brokers in and out of government started looking at how to profit from it.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes Ms. Bees 9/11 most definitely required retaliation but did we retaliate against the right people? Weren’t something like 17 of the 19 9/11 attackers from Saudi Arabia? Why not attack the nation and religious sect that originated these people rather than the nations that merely supported them? And yes Israel is an ally but they are not without blood on their hands as well, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty?
@Poppa_T: There is no doubt that someone had to go in there and get those oil fields up and running to their potential. That was key to getting Iraq’s economy going full throttle which in turn would help to stabilize the country. Everyone benefits: the Iraqi people from the jobs, the Iraqi government from the revenues as well as the stability that comes from it by having a working populace (idle, unemployed people have a tendency to cause trouble), us from having a stable Iraq, and yes, those who go in there and get those oil wells up and running. Iraq also has a strong agricultural base. That is also key to getting the economy going resulting in the same benefits as getting the oil industry up and running. Iraq has lots of potential as a country, probably more than any other in that region. Getting it going will take outside investment because of the way it was run down under Saddam. Look at the outside investment in this country. What would have happened if China didn’t buy up part of all that debt that has been run up the last 5 years? And that is meant in a negative way.
Poppa_T
AM I RIGHT TO SAY, ONE THING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER,
and the previous presence of PRESIDENT BUSH NUMBER ONE, TO DEFEND KUWAIT
FROM SADDAM INVADER MUST HAVE HAD AN INFLUENCE IN ACKNOWLEDGING
THE VILE PROFILE , AND THE CHARACTER OF A TYRAN, REPEATED BY ONE WHO PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TRUSTED WITH HIS LIFE,
HE HAD A DECISION LONG AFTER MORE RESEARCH AND DEMAND FOR SUPPORT FROM OTHER COUNTRIES ALLIED WHO JOINED HIM AND AGREED TO HIS DECISIONS TO FOCUS ON THAT SADDAM COUNTRY WE ALSO LEARNED WAS WELCOMING ALQAEDA TRAINING AND GIVEN HELP AND SUPPORT TO BIN LADEN ARMY.
THE OIL WAS A COMPLETE SEPARATED SUBJECT IF WHAT YOU SAY IS EVEN FROM A RIGHTFUL SOURCE, THE PROOF IS NO ONE PROFIT FROM IT AFTERWARD,
I’m not familiar too much into the USS LIBERTY DESTROYED FOR OVERLOOK THE COMMAND OF THE ISRAEL MILITARY, THE PROOF OF THE DOUBT STILL EXIST AND IS STIL CHALENGED ON YOUR SIDE AND THE OTHER, I HAVE NO SIDE TO TAKE ON IT
BYE
I have been sick and tired of the frauds saying that Bush lied. What’s worse, are the lies that Obama says on a daily basis and the frauds love the maroon.
@another vet, you came in with the same thoughts I had, but I’ll just add links as to FuelOnTheFire’s incorrect characterization of the EIPG and it’s purpose.
The study of the Iraq oil fields and their status/output has also been the source of UN studies since the late 90s, as the Oct 2003 NYTs article about the EIPG report notes. EIPG’s creation by the DoD/Pentagon, in conjunction with the CIA, was standard preplanning for the 2003 OIF war and, as another vet mentions, updating on studies by many entities that had been ongoing for some time. The effect of Iraq’s oil reserves globally cannot be minimized…. whether Saddam remained or was deposed.
To summarize, the EIPG study isn’t a new revelation, and has been addressed before. It was to assess the potential Iraq oil capacity.. not as a source of revenue, but as to it’s potential post war damage. For the Bush admin, it was counting on whether Iraq’s own resources could fund their reconstruction, post war, instead of via American aid. The worst that can be derived from all this is that the Bush admin overestimated the post war ramp up time-frame and capacity for Iraq’s oil production.
As for Americans getting first shot at that “war for oil” bit? Nope. As a matter of fact, American oil companies were shut out of the Iraq auction bids. Ultimately, only one of Iraq’s eleven oil fields auctioned off went to an American company. However American workers can benefit from some of the domino work, such as drilling subcontracting.
And this is wrong, how?
Frankly, with the American blood and taxpayer dollars spent, it would have been nice to have been given an edge on the auctions as thanks. But that wasn’t a prerequisite for going in, nor did it work out so well for the US in the end. America, being the liberator, did not get that edge.
Russia, who opposed OIF, made out like a bandit. Oddly enough, it was the same Russian oil giant that had a deal with Saddam before his fall. They were merely delayed as all those negotiated contracts had been frozen until Iraq’s new ministers were capable of managing their own oil futures. Needless to say, Saddam had already privatized a sector of the oil and gas fields.
OIF was not an evil plan to seize Iraq oil reserves. Certainly if it was, it was a helluva poorly executed plan. But then, the US didn’t go in there to annex Iraq as another US territory, nor to seize ownership of it’s fields.
So the meme, a “war for oil” , is as much bunk today as it was then.
However, just as it’s incorrect to say that the US went into Iraq as a war for oil, it’s also incorrect to say oil had nothing to do with it as a repercussion. Anytime major Middle East oil reserves are disrupted, the effects are felt globally, and contingencies have to be made as part of planning. While not the reason for OIF, it can also be said the free world benefits if the bulk of Iraq oil reserves are not controlled by a dictator. A privatized structure financially benefits the Iraqis as sellers, global experts for exploitation, and minimizes a dictator’s enrichment by black market side deals for illicit arms/weaponry.
I will also add what should be obvious. A war for essential survival resources – such as oil – isn’t new in history. Tribes of old warred over the precious essential resource of fresh water. Nations warred over seaports’ access and shipping lanes.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here, Poppa T. Certainly with the fall of the Saddam regime, and no organized replacement government capable of immediate and efficient control, securing Iraq’s oil fields, and most abundant resource, had to be part of any war planning. And it’s already documented that if the intent was to “enrich the rich”, it sure wasn’t executed well.
As to how it was handled in the future, there are only two choices… it’s either owned by the State, or it’s privatized. Ultimately that was a decision had to be determined by the Iraqis – and was, but not until after many and still ongoing battles within their new government.
However I fail to see the alternative of the oil being State owned… and by a fragile new government at that… as being superior to the more optimistic plan that privatized. I guess I’m just a private business/capitalist entrepreneur. What can I say. Libertarian think tank, CATO, was calling for privatization in Dec 2002, before the EIPG report was even a scandalous headline in the dreams of the anti-war.
I understand that the masses have been manipulated into sundry wars over history, and that can be a valid complaint if you don’t agree with the war they are being “manipulated” in to. For many, the KISS theory is still better than an eye-glazing repertoire of intel and predictions that they don’t understand. However being manipulated 11 years later as a “war for oil” by a website – misrepresenting the intent of a “book length” report that wasn’t an unusual (or unnecessary) study in itself – by releasing just a couple of (semi-readable) documents shows that political manipulation has a long shelf life.
The point it, it doesn’t make much difference if government or media manipulation is pro or anti Iraq war… it’s still manipulation. Facts usually can straighten it out, but only if there is an open mind willing to receive the facts.
MataHarley
super info thank you for straightening some comment mine also,
only an ignorant could not believe those facts,
nice to have you back
bye
@MataHarley: Excellent input and links as always.