Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

[Zeebadee]

Exactly why bush and company couldn't allow the UN inspectors to complete their searches. Continued failure to find any evidence of WMD's would only undermine the administrations claims that Iraq was a threat.

[rmnunez]

Even if it were true Bush wanted to keep the inspectors out so they couldn't provide evidence Saddam had no wmds, since they were unable to provide any, it cannot be shown Bush knew at the time there were no such weapons in Iraq.

I think Bush wanted the inspectors out because he anticipated they'd be there for a long time getting the run-around as had been the case earlier and Bush thought Saddam was on the verge of deploying some such weapon with all those US troops standing by in the vicinity.

[thx1138]

Quote by: rmnunez Even if it were true Bush wanted to keep the inspectors out so they couldn't provide evidence Saddam had no wmds, since they were unable to provide any, it cannot be shown Bush knew at the time there were no such weapons in Iraq. I think Bush wanted the inspectors out because he anticipated they'd be there for a long time getting the run-around as had been the case earlier and Bush thought Saddam was on the verge of deploying some such weapon with all those US troops standing by in the vicinity.

You honestly think that the U.S. had no idea that there were no WMDs, that's what to public was told, but I do not believe Bush Co. was in the dark.
But I think they saw the opportunity to use that fear to promote invasion. Just like they want to use Iran developing a nuclear program to promote attack. All Iran needs to do is swicth to the Euro when selling oil and the US will attack, that would be a direct attack on the US economy.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Even if it were true Bush wanted to keep the inspectors out so they couldn't provide evidence Saddam had no wmds, since they were unable to provide any, it cannot be shown Bush knew at the time there were no such weapons in Iraq. I think Bush wanted the inspectors out because he anticipated they'd be there for a long time getting the run-around as had been the case earlier and Bush thought Saddam was on the verge of deploying some such weapon with all those US troops standing by in the vicinity.

The bush apologists continue to defy common sense with their flimsy excuses for his unnecessary and extremely costly war.

Exactly what hard evidence was ever presented to justify this war before it was started??

Possibly the fact that saddam had used chemical weapons previously, but that had been 10 or 12 years earlier. No evidence that he had anything left to use.
Claims of "intel reports" that were always much too highly classified for us to see. Since they were obviously so wrong, why are they still being hidden from us?
Claims that "foreign intel services" confirmed what bush was claiming. Again, much too highly classified to release to the public.
The appearance of Colin Powell at the UN?? Complete with scratchy tape recordings of supposedly incriminating conversations, and drawings of "mobile weapons labs" provided by Battelle under contract to the CIA?
bush claimed the Iraqi's had "thousands of tons" of WMD's. Surely such quantities couldn't have been kept hidden from U-2, UAV, and satellite collectors, yet, where are any pictures of such storage facilities??
The intel community deliberately gave bush false info?? The why was Tenet rewarded with the Medal OF Freedom after his retirment??

If, as you say, "it cannot be shown Bush knew at the time there were no such weapons in Iraq", there is clear evidence that he certainly knew at the time that there were also no grounds to make the claims that there were.

[rmnunez]

there is clear evidence that (Bush) certainly knew at the time that there were also no grounds to make the claims that there were (wmds in Iraq).

I haven't seen this evidence Bush knew there were no grounds to sustain a claim of wmds in Iraq. I remember US troops deployed (in August) in the middle of the desert with full NBC gear because they anticipated chemical or biological attack. I also remember seeing reports some Iraq troops also deployed with gas masks and other chemical or biological equipment, though no such weapons were recovered.

I know the mobile labs were discounted as hidrogen balloon-launching facilities for weather research, but never heard of such research undertaken by Iraq before so I'm not convinced this was their use -though its true these labs were clinically clean when seized with not a trace of any biological or chemical weapon production.

I also know the UN's own inspectors seized forbidden missile fuselages designed for larger than permissible payloads which could have been used for nuclear or other wmds, but the proscribed payloads were never recovered.

It was also reported a huge 45 vehicle convoy laden with secret documentation and equipment left the Russian embassy bound for Syria days before intervention, but we don't know what materials were removed, it could have been just routine diplomatic records, though that's a huge convoy for an embassy.

Some proscribed wmds were recovered by the inspectors just before they had to leave, but nothing that Bush claimed they had was ever recovered. It is strange, it seems like the US was deceived. Saddam did have wmds before, actually even used them. UN inspectors were told he destroyed some wmds, but they never were able to verify this.

I suspect Saddam deceived the US, induced the impression he did have wmds, had some, destroyed some, sought and obtained more, transfered some and that there likely even are some buried in the desert that haven't been found.

[thx1138]

I haven't seen this evidence Bush knew there were no grounds to sustain a claim of wmds in Iraq. I remember US troops deployed (in August) in the middle of the desert with full NBC gear because they anticipated chemical or biological attack. I also remember seeing reports some Iraq troops also deployed with gas masks and other chemical or biological equipment, though no such weapons were recovered.

That was a lot of show and tell, Iraq has been monitored since Gulf War I.

there likely even are some buried in the desert that haven't been found.

That along with Yamamoto's gold and Santa Ana's leg.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: rmnunez I suspect Saddam deceived the US, induced the impression he did have wmds, had some, destroyed some, sought and obtained more, transfered some and that there likely even are some buried in the desert that haven't been found.

There had been some speculations that Saddam was being deceived by his own generals.

But 60 MINUTES interviewed the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for five months. Saddam told him he kept up the masquerade of having WMD's so as to deter Iran. Based upon his experiences with President Clinton, he did not believe the USA would react much to that masquerade ( a few days of missle strikes, perhaps, which were okay with him). But he did state he had every intention of restarting his programs (probably as the inspections were watered down, as the pressure for doing so was growing in the UN).

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO There had been some speculations that Saddam was being deceived by his own generals. But 60 MINUTES interviewed the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for five months.

There were all kinds of speculations, but those are not evidence and concrete discoveries. But let's examine this speculation. Why would any Iraqi general have deceived Saddam? Would he think he would not be punished, or perhaps even killed?

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

If Bush was duped by Saddam's masquerade, how would it be wrongful for him to publicly voice concern and act on fears of an imminent danger from Iraqi wmds? Wouldn't a president who was deceived by such a farse, but failed to act on it be more wrongful?

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez If Bush was duped by Saddam's masquerade, how would it be wrongful for him to publicly voice concern and act on fears of an imminent danger from Iraqi wmds? Wouldn't a president who was deceived by such a farse, but failed to act on it be more wrongful?

This assumes Bush wasn't having his own masquerade party. Waging a war over nonexistent Iraqi wmds was "more wrongful" than Saddam's alleged "masquerade." Was it worth many thousands of lives to arrest him and file charges against him?

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=grandpa;475077]There were all kinds of speculations, but those are not evidence and concrete discoveries. But let's examine this speculation. Why would any Iraqi general have deceived Saddam? Would he think he would not be punished, or perhaps even killed? Grandpa h.

[/quote]

The speculation was that saddam would have them killed Iraq did NOT have them.

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=rmnunez;475163]If Bush was duped by Saddam's masquerade, how would it be wrongful for him to publicly voice concern and act on fears of an imminent danger from Iraqi wmds? Wouldn't a president who was deceived by such a farse, but failed to act on it be more wrongful?

[/quote]

Yep. It should be noted that saddam was more worried about Iran than the USA. He did not take the USA seriously as the bigger problem. Which made the overall problem greater.
There is a moral in there somewhere...

[BobbyO]

[

QUOTE=grandpa;475165]This assumes Bush wasn't having his own masquerade party. Waging a war over nonexistent Iraqi wmds was "more wrongful" than Saddam's alleged "masquerade." Was it worth many thousands of lives to arrest him and file charges against him? Grandpa h.

[/quote]

Nothing alleged about it. Saddam admitted it.

Now, the burden is on you to prove the administration "lied." No evidence has ever come forth to support such a claim. The word "lie" is not a synonym for "wrong" no matter how often it is used thus.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez If Bush was duped by Saddam's masquerade, how would it be wrongful for him to publicly voice concern and act on fears of an imminent danger from Iraqi wmds? Wouldn't a president who was deceived by such a farse, but failed to act on it be more wrongful?

How many times does one have to say this for it to be heard - If Bush was "duped" it was because his Vice President, Sec of Defennse, Under Sec of Defense and countless others whom he appointed to key positions established streams of information to his dumb ass. Even if you believe he was a dumb-ass idiot who really believed; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others knew they were cooking the books, because they had to create a whole new intelligence stream to get the "answers" out that they wanted. Personally, I think Bush is only stupid in-so-far as he believed that what he was doing was for the best. I do not think him so stupid that he did not know the means being employed to get the public on the band wagon. They lied to further their agenda. The only thing they actually believed in error was that it would work . The dumd-ass cowboys thought we could ride into Middle East Town, shoot up the OK Coral and have our way with the world and that the world's citizens would look up in awe and say, "Man, those cowboys sure know how to do it right! Let's throw roses at their feet!" Lying idiots. But really dangerous idiot-savants.

[rmnunez]

They lied to further their agenda.

What was this 'agenda'?

With or without a complicit Bush, we are told by critical lefties and their assorted fellow-travellers, a vast right-wing neoliberal conspiracy was determined to intervene for its ulterior aims, what would these be?

The first goal we are often told was to get Iraqi oil. Before intervention Iraqi oil amounted to about 7% of the total US foreign oil imports (on a good year). Iraq's oil production was very low, installations damaged, antiquated, poorly maintained and inadequate. But Iraq does have tremendous reserves so if the US intervened and could somehow give Exxon or Mobil access to all this oil, maybe this was the idea? Oil is sold on the open market and just because its extracted by a US corporation doesn't mean its any cheaper for united statians. The only gain is better assurance of supply in a competition with China and the EU. In the end everyone bids for the same oil and it goes to whoever pays the most.

I've heard of some other implausible reasons it is claimed motivated this neoliberal cabal of conspirators in the White House to attack Iraq. Some say this was because Bush as a born-again Christian fundamentalist is determined to re-live the Crusades and kill all the Muslims. Others claim Bush got all fired up because Saddam apparently retained some terrorists who unsuccessfully tried to kill his daddy. Some say intervention was an effort to surpass Bush Sr. by accomplishing what his daddy left unfinished in Desert Storm. Nice theories, but I'd like to see a bit more substance than some odd coincidences.

I think Bush and others involved did want to intervene and that they sought a compelling reason to do so that could be 'sold to the citizenry. I suspect they found the humanitarian plight of Marsh Arabs, Kurds and other minorities deplorable, but not dramatic enough to earn sufficient support. I imagine they found Saddam's bullying and attacks against neighbors worrysome, but also not enough to justify an attack. I figure the documented corruption of the Oil for Food programme and import restrictions, coupled with the ineffectiveness of the sanctions regime probably were quite frustrating but not likely to justify a military attack either. Possible terrorist ties were too vague and rather weak, despite the recurring association of Muslims in general with 911. Breach of numerous Security Council resolutions also didn't seem bad enough to merit such a forceful response. None of these things individually justify invading Iraq, but all of them together do. They exagerated the danger of WMDs because this was the most potentially dangerous of the negative features of Iraq, and Saddam was even promoting its exageration.

What critics fail to consider is how after 911 the situation changed dramatically. Although the sort of negative features Iraq had under Saddam hadn't previously justified military action, after 911 they could. Additionally, with a substantial deployment in Afghanistan and this new focus on Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism, the existence of all those negative features in the middle of the place couldn't be long endured. If Saddam did have terrorist ties, or was dabbling in wmds, with united statian troops in Afghanistan, this could no longer be tolerated.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez What was this 'agenda'? With or without a complicit Bush, we are told by critical lefties and their assorted fellow-travellers, a vast right-wing neoliberal conspiracy was determined to intervene for its ulterior aims, what would these be? The first goal we are often told was to get Iraqi oil. Before intervention Iraqi oil amounted to about 7% of the total US foreign oil imports (on a good year). Iraq's oil production was very low, installations damaged, antiquated, poorly maintained and inadequate. But Iraq does have tremendous reserves so if the US intervened and could somehow give Exxon or Mobil access to all this oil, maybe this was the idea? Oil is sold on the open market and just because its extracted by a US corporation doesn't mean its any cheaper for united statians. The only gain is better assurance of supply in a competition with China and the EU. In the end everyone bids for the same oil and it goes to whoever pays the most. I've heard of some other implausible reasons it is claimed motivated this neoliberal cabal of conspirators in the White House to attack Iraq. Some say this was because Bush is a born-againer determined to relive the Crusades. Others claim its becuase Saddam apparently retained some terrorists who unsuccessfully tried to kill his daddy. Some say intervention was an effort to surpass Bush Sr. by accomplishing what was left unfinished in Desert Storm. Nice theories, but I'd like to see a bit more substance than some odd coincidences. I think Bush and others involved did want to intervene and that they sought a compelling reason to do so. I suspect they found the humanitarian plight of Marsh Arabs, Kurds and other minorities deplorable, but not dramatic enough to earn sufficient support. I imagine they found Saddam's bullying and attacks against neighbors worrysome, but also not enough to justify an attack. I figure the documented corruption of the Oil for Food programme and import restrictions coupled with the ineffectiveness of the sanctions regime probably were quite frustrating but weren't found to justify military attack either. Possible terrorist ties were too vague and rather weak. Breach of numerous Security Council resolutions also didn't seem bad enough. None of these things individually justify invading Iraq, but all of them together do. They exgerated the danger of WMDs because this was the most potentially dangerous of the negative features of Iraq, and Saddam was even promoting its exageration.

They told us in 1997 why they wanted to do it.

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" (find the full text here: Statement of Principles)

It was about establishing the US as the guiding force in the world. They may as well have said, "We aim to make sure everyone else does our bidding. We aim to take full advantage of the fact that we have the most power and the biggest guns. Anyone who does not tow the line better look out." They thought that being a big bully would make us feared and obeyed. That was the agenda. It blew up in their damn faces, because it was stupid to begin with. You can not make the world favor your interests, especially when yours conflict with so many others. Did they think Europe would abandon it's efforts the build an economic union that would rival our own by kicking Iraq's ass? That would have surely been in our interest, keeping them divided and small and unable to compete. Instead, they galvanized most of Europe into a group that feared unchecked American power. They had a plan, it was just flawed in it's entire conception. They honestly thought asserting power would make everyone fall in lock-step. Stupid.

[Chaossaber314]

So since no one answered me, I take it there is no reason for this being breaking news.

[Century 25]

Quote by: grandpa Of course, Bush didn't even let the inspectors finish, which is well-known (or at least was). Grandpa h.

That is true. Also.. papa Bush wasted ?? lives there..?

Also, why didn't Bush allow Saddam to be tried out in the open.. in the World Court, the UN..? Too many secrets to bury.. with Saddam.

I wonder, how many Wars were ever started for just cause..? I have seen video of WWII & Vietnam, and War is dirty, it is a horror.. muddy & bloody. And civilians.. kids with bodies ruined, ripped apart.. for what..? Why did more than 58,000 Americans and over 1 Million Asians die in Vietnam..?? I don't get it. And they didn't call Vietnam a War.. only a conflict, like Iraq. Conflict..


.

[rmnunez]

to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests

sounds like a good policy for the US government to pursue, certainly better than seeking to work against those principles and interests.

Whether US principles and interests can be best furthered by military action is debatable. I think they can, but only as long as force is used morally.

strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values

Nothing wrong with this, its moral and sound.

promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad

Another loable pursuit, morally sound too.

preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

This makes sense too, unless you found US interests, principles, prosperity and security inherently bad.

Iraq under Saddam certainly was contrary to US interests and principles, apparently it wasn't as much of a security threat as was believed. Saddam's continued existence was a threat to international order, to US allies and friends, to political and economic freedom and prosperity.

[Jack]

So since no one answered me, I take it there is no reason for this being breaking news.

My opinion; it is from a major news source, it was published on the 22nd and posted here the next day. It conforms to the requirements of this forum.