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

[rmnunez]

Perusing that site I also found a fascinating note on those terrorist ties

former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said bin Ladin’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Baghdad in September 1999, and al-Zarqawi entered Iraq “probably around the same time,” “began to set up cells,” and also “forged links with Ansar al-Islam.” Allawi, a former Baathist dissident who lived in exile at the time, said he had “confirmation” of Zawahiri's visit to Iraq and that the fugitive Egyptian Islamist had entered “under an assumed name” during the ninth Islamic popular congress held in Baghdad in September 1999. “Islamists who led terrorist networks in the world” met on the sidelines of the congress, he said. Allawi said Saddam's regime maintained contacts with militant groups via “one Faruk Hijazi, who was eventually named ambassador to Turkey and then to a (North African) country.” He said Hijazi was “arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime (in April 2003) while trying to infiltrate into Iraqi territory.” In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. “there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.” Allawi’s remarks, should they hold up to scrutiny, would suggest a more substantial relationship between Iraq and terror groups than is usually portrayed in the major media. Project for the New American Century

[thx1138]

Are you really quoting the Project for the New American Century!? Those are the nut jobs that called for a new pearl harbor. I wouldn't believe anything coming from that group.

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, it said, was “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the “new Pearl Harbor”, described as “the opportunity of ages”. The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and “think-tanks” were established to avenge the American “defeat” in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a “peace dividend” following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

[grandpa]

Washington (dpa) - President George W Bush said Monday that the United States will continue to remain on the offensive in the war on terrorism during his last year in office, and will not allow extremists to block the spread of liberty and democracy. "We have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists," Bush said in his final State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. "

There's another false statement, that the US is chiefly repsonsible for "the spread of liberty and democracy" in the world. Most often those we turn to for "law and order" turn out to be the predators, and this administration is no exception.

Grandpa h.

[xyzer]

Pardon the interruption, but I've rarely seen such misinformation posted about a subject as those on this thread about weapons inspections in Iraq?
Here is a timeline from BBC.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections

Grandpa somewhat oblivious to truth, posted

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

This is a false assertion which cannot be backed up with fact? Saddam didn;'t let the inspectors finish or even inspect! Bush never halted the attempts to comply with the UN mandate..

Also note, if the cornflakes don't get in the way, that in July 2002 a US Senate Committee was informed that Iraq had "stepped up production of chemical and biologicasal weapons(WMDs)after UN inspections had ended. It seems that comments about WMD were common and known, not invented by Bush and his cronies to justify a war?

[thx1138]

invented by Bush and his cronies to justify a war?

Wow, a kernel of truth, way to go.

[lsbskins1]

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

The problem is not seeking to promote your principles (which one can make a very powerful argument that they, the neo-cons, ignored rather than promoted) and your interests. The problem is that they felt it was the best policy to do this through force rather than persuasion. That is the stance the document takes if you do not cut and paste, but rather read it as the complete statement it is.

Quote by: rmnunez 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.

And it was not. And morals were never their concern, unless you consider it moral to expect to dictate to friends and foes the actions they must take. It is not that I do not believe the US should attempt to promote it's own interests. It's that I expect the US to play by the same rules everyone else plays by. Might does not make right. they expected to say,"This is how we want it, if you are our friend you will agree. If you disagree, that means you are our enemy and we will crush you." That is a course of action bound to generate animus. Bad policy. In the end, as we can see, it is counter-productive.

Quote by: rmnunez Nothing wrong with this, its moral and sound.

Except they thought they could dictate. That stregnthens nothing. And challenging foes by throwing all of your principles out the window is stupid.

Quote by: rmnunez Another loable pursuit, morally sound too.

Only if your actions actually accomplish this end. Another failure. This is them paying lip service to an ideal. It is not what you say, it is what you do that matters.

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

Nope, but see all of the above.

Quote by: rmnunez 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.

And there were a million better ways to deal with what is true about the above statement. Choosing a horrible solution to a real problem gets you no points in my book. You wouldn't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who solved the problem in Darfour by invading, killing millions and then turning the country over to a dictator who made sure the mass slaughter stopped by putting everyone on one side of the conflict in jail. The solution to the problem must be reasonable.

[rmnunez]

I don't think there was a reasonable solution to the problem of Saddam's rule in Iraq posed. Regime change was necessary and could not be reasonably achieved by other means.

Saddam was an adversary who was not amenable to persuasion and capable of resisting lots of pressure thanks to oil affluence. He corrupted and bribed his way through the Oil for Food programme and the import restrictions, was able to skirt the sanctions and smuggled across Syria.

Diplomatic pressure didn't seem to have much effect either as Saddam flouted recurring UN resolutions with impunity. The Europeans and Russia tried to encourage his cooperation to no avail either.

Finally he was not very responsive to the threat of force as despite having his airspace closed off, harbours closed with a de-facto naval blockade and tens of thousands of troops massed at his borders and daily increased with new deployments -wouldn't yield or concede anything to facilitate the UN's inspections.

What possible alternative (reasonable or not) do you think would have made Saddam more cooperative?

[thx1138]

What possible alternative (reasonable or not) do you think would have made Saddam more cooperative?

Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries.

I don't think there was a reasonable solution to the problem of Saddam's rule in Iraq posed. Regime change was necessary and could not be reasonably achieved by other means.

What gives anyone but the people of Iraq to make that decision?

[ruksak]

Quote by: THX1138 What gives anyone but the people of Iraq to make that decision?

Torture chambers and firing squads.

[thx1138]

Quote by: ruksak Torture chambers and firing squads.

How many other countries have torture chambers and firing squads? Just about every country in south america, so arguement that doesn't hold any water. Try again.

[xyzer]

thx posts.."Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries"

Ignoring the umteen UN mandates over the years that Saddam had ignored? Ignoring the fact that Saddam had invaded Kuwait been thrown out and agreed to peace terms, which he promptly broke and in fact fired missiles at US patrol aircraft flying over in an effort to enforce the terms of the agreement. How long does a ruithless dictator on the run have to be talked to before some action is taken? He had invaded Iran in 1980 and they fought a 7 year war?
This sounds like a redux of the antiwar pacifist ideology. It doesn't matter what another nation does, how much its evil ruler ignores the warnings and proclamations of the UN, we must continue to talk to him? It doesn't matter how many people he kills or nations he invades..just talk and complain to the UN..It doesn't matter that the UN(World Orgainization) has warned and cautuioned this butcher and destabilizer in the middle east for 20+ years we should still continue to talk? Nonsense! We don't let known murders run loose in our cities and towns do we?

I agree that a full scale invasion wasn't what I would have done. I would have dropped several block buster bombs on Saddams palaces and then given him an ultimatum to shape up or else face more bombing?
It worked with Libya. It's pretty futile to talk to an evil dictator...much more effective to use force. Bombing him would have been much cheaper.

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: Zeebadee 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?? 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.

And what hard evidence can you provide to show that Bush knew there were no wmds in Iraq? Other than an article written by one extremely leftist, anti-Bush individual, there is none. Yes Bush entered Iraq on a hunch, that was justified by information that had been collected for decades. Whether Hussein was bluffing or not, he had expressed interest in obtaining and making WMDs. The problem that President Bush sought to avoid, was not a direct attack from Iraq, but rather the sale of these weapons to a third party. Hindsight is 20/20, had Bush not have invaded Iraq and it turned out some terrorist group got their hands on a WMD and detonated such a weapon inside the US, you would be crying bloody murder for Bush not attacking Iraq when then CIA informed him there could be weapons. Im sure of that because I bet you were on of the people who threw a shit fit because of the memo Bush got prior to 9/11 that said such an attack was possible. He made a pre-emptive decision to protect the safety of our nation.

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: lsbskins1 You wouldn't give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who solved the problem in Darfour by invading, killing millions and then turning the country over to a dictator who made sure the mass slaughter stopped by putting everyone on one side of the conflict in jail.

You're right that isn't how you would solve that problem, and no one is arguing that is how the problem should be solved. There were many attempts at a reasonable solution just read the timeline of inspections BBC NEWS | Middle East | Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections
How many more decades of "reasonable responses" do you want? Action had to be taken.

[Jeranamostilton]

Quote by: thx1138 Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries.

It was the UN that authorized the inspections. Regardless, it becomes our right when our national security comes into question. If you are a reasonable person, than you would understand the purpose of this invasion as an effort to prevent more costly hostilities in the future.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Jeranamostilton And what hard evidence can you provide to show that Bush knew there were no wmds in Iraq?

I don't need to show that bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. This war was begun on the claims bush made that he had proof that there were. Since he obviously didn't have such proof, he lied. How do you get around that??

[thx1138]

Quote by: xyzer thx posts.."Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries" Ignoring the umteen UN mandates over the years that Saddam had ignored? Ignoring the fact that Saddam had invaded Kuwait been thrown out and agreed to peace terms, which he promptly broke and in fact fired missiles at US patrol aircraft flying over in an effort to enforce the terms of the agreement. How long does a ruithless dictator on the run have to be talked to before some action is taken? He had invaded Iran in 1980 and they fought a 7 year war? This sounds like a redux of the antiwar pacifist ideology. It doesn't matter what another nation does, how much its evil ruler ignores the warnings and proclamations of the UN, we must continue to talk to him? It doesn't matter how many people he kills or nations he invades..just talk and complain to the UN..It doesn't matter that the UN(World Orgainization) has warned and cautuioned this butcher and destabilizer in the middle east for 20+ years we should still continue to talk? Nonsense! We don't let known murders run loose in our cities and towns do we? I agree that a full scale invasion wasn't what I would have done. I would have dropped several block buster bombs on Saddams palaces and then given him an ultimatum to shape up or else face more bombing? It worked with Libya. It's pretty futile to talk to an evil dictator...much more effective to use force. Bombing him would have been much cheaper.

Again who funded Iraq when they were at war with Iran? The US supported this butcher, you can not white wash over that fact (well the US supported Iran also).

Again why was Kuwait invaded? Kuwait was (and may still be)stealing oil from Iraq with the use of sideways drilling.
Kuwait's Oil Industry Rises From the Ashes of War - New York Times

You see the white hat is not so white after all. sorry but the US is just playing games like all other nations. It's nice to think you're with the "good guys" but there are no "guy goods" just a power stuggle between groups that all use the same dirty tricks.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Jeranamostilton It was the UN that authorized the inspections. Regardless, it becomes our right when our national security comes into question. If you are a reasonable person, than you would understand the purpose of this invasion as an effort to prevent more costly hostilities in the future.

Your national security never come into question from Iraq's military, but it was the switch to the Euro from the USD that was threat to your national secutity and reason for the invasion.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez I don't think there was a reasonable solution to the problem of Saddam's rule in Iraq posed. Regime change was necessary and could not be reasonably achieved by other means. Saddam was an adversary who was not amenable to persuasion and capable of resisting lots of pressure thanks to oil affluence. He corrupted and bribed his way through the Oil for Food programme and the import restrictions, was able to skirt the sanctions and smuggled across Syria. Diplomatic pressure didn't seem to have much effect either as Saddam flouted recurring UN resolutions with impunity. The Europeans and Russia tried to encourage his cooperation to no avail either. Finally he was not very responsive to the threat of force as despite having his airspace closed off, harbours closed with a de-facto naval blockade and tens of thousands of troops massed at his borders and daily increased with new deployments -wouldn't yield or concede anything to facilitate the UN's inspections. What possible alternative (reasonable or not) do you think would have made Saddam more cooperative?

It was not necessary to make Sadam more cooperative, it was necessary to insure he was not a true threat. We could have kept up in much the same way in Iraq, secured Afganistan more effectively and helped to create a real bastion of democracy in the region, all with the support and good-will of the world community. Once we had fought the real war against terror, we could have kept up a real coalition of the truely willing and used the power of our still present moral standing in the world to promote a Middle East peace plan that would have showed the average Arab citizen (who really only wants some kind of secure life and an expectation of future success) that the western world is not opposed to that happening. All of our policies in the middle east are focused on securing our power and control. Just as there is a small radical branch of western idiots who believe that only the white man matters and it is a sell out to take any action that does not secure white dominance, there is a small radical branch of Islamic idiots who believe that the world will not be right until it has been returned to the state of being that existed when Mohhamed walked the earth. The way you defeat them is to marginalize them. You make life agreeable to the majority so that their idiotic rantings seem just what they are. And just like the KKK and the militia morons in the US will never completely go away, they get less support when the world around them does not lend creadence to their stupid ideals. If you are shooting at them every chance you get, they get to wag their fingers and scream from the mountains "Oppression!"

And in case you haven't seen it before, I will say it again. I lived in the DC area on 9/11. I worked 3 blocks from the Pentagon. I personally knew someone who died on the plane that hit the pentagon. I do not claim that I was great friends with this person. I was a friend of his daughter and knew him from cook-outs and such. My point is, I do not in anyway not know what that day meant. I have not forgotten or any such nonsense. But here is a truth that can not be ignored. Our actions have taken many more innocent lives in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. The people who have lost childen, wives, mothers, fathers, husbands, brothers and sisters in Iraq where not responsible for 9/11 and we are breeding more hate. You would not care either (if it was one of your family) that we TRY not to kill innocents. Those people are just as innocent and just as dead as any American. We feed the monster when we do stupid shit like that. All your backward reasoning and attemps at justification do not change that simple fact. We are now feeding the monster, not killing it. Just about any answer would have been better. We are weaker, they are stronger. Is Bin Laden weaker? Yes, but he does not care. He cares that millions more despise us now. Can HE attack us with the same effect? No, but he does not care. He cares that millions of more brains are being applied to finding ways to attack us and thousands of more cells with the same ideology are being spawned. It was a stupid, short sighted solution. It will cost us if we do not stop it. It has already cost us, just not in civilian blood, yet.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It was not necessary to make Sadam more cooperative, it was necessary to insure he was not a true threat. We could have kept up in much the same way in Iraq, secured Afganistan more effectively and helped to create a real bastion of democracy in the region, all with the support and good-will of the world community. Once we had fought the real war against terror, we could have kept up a real coalition of the truely willing and used the power of our still present moral standing in the world to promote a Middle East peace plan that would have showed the average Arab citizen (who really only wants some kind of secure life and an expectation of future success) that the western world is not opposed to that happening. All of our policies in the middle east are focused on securing our power and control. Just as there is a small radical branch of western idiots who believe that only the white man matters and it is a sell out to take any action that does not secure white dominance, there is a small radical branch of Islamic idiots who believe that the world will not be right until it has been returned to the state of being that existed when Mohhamed walked the earth. The way you defeat them is to marginalize them. You make life agreeable to the majority so that their idiotic rantings seem just what they are. And just like the KKK and the militia morons in the US will never completely go away, they get less support when the world around them does not lend creadence to their stupid ideals. If you are shooting at them every chance you get, they get to wag their fingers and scream from the mountains "Oppression!" And in case you haven't seen it before, I will say it again. I lived in the DC area on 9/11. I worked 3 blocks from the Pentagon. I personally knew someone who died on the plane that hit the pentagon. I do not claim that I was great friends with this person. I was a friend of his daughter and knew him from cook-outs and such. My point is, I do not in anyway not know what that day meant. I have not forgotten or any such nonsense. But here is a truth that can not be ignored. Our actions have taken many more innocent lives in Iraq than we lost on 9/11. The people who have lost childen, wives, mothers, fathers, husbands, brothers and sisters in Iraq where not responsible for 9/11 and we are breeding more hate. You would not care either (if it was one of your family) that we TRY not to kill innocents. Those people are just as innocent and just as dead as any American. We feed the monster when we do stupid shit like that. All your backward reasoning and attemps at justification do not change that simple fact. We are now feeding the monster, not killing it. Just about any answer would have been better. We are weaker, they are stronger. Is Bin Laden weaker? Yes, but he does not care. He cares that millions more despise us now. Can HE attack us with the same effect? No, but he does not care. He cares that millions of more brains are being applied to finding ways to attack us and thousands of more cells with the same ideology are being spawned. It was a stupid, short sighted solution. It will cost us if we do not stop it. It has already cost us, just not in civilian blood, yet.

100% right on. Great post.

[grandpa]

Quote by: xyzer Pardon the interruption, but I've rarely seen such misinformation posted about a subject as those on this thread about weapons inspections in Iraq? Here is a timeline from BBC.

What does the following statement by Bush mean?:

"For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately."

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours

The inspectors were not finished!

It's even more obvious, given reports such as the following:

(

AP) Prime Minister Tony Blair's government “dramatized” some of its prewar evidence about the threat posed by Iraq, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Sunday. On the British Broadcasting Corp.'s “Breakfast with Frost” program, Blix said it was unclear what was meant by the claim in a September 2002 intelligence dossier that Iraq could deploy some weapons of mass destruction on 45 minutes' notice. “The intention was to dramatize it just as the vendors of some merchandise are trying to increase and exaggerate the importance of what they have,” he said. “From politicians, from our leaders in the Western world, I think we expect more than that. A bit more sincerity.” ....Blix, whose team of U.N. inspectors did not make any significant weapons finds during months of searching Iraq before the war, said it was clear now that there were no weapons of mass destruction there before the U.S.-led invasion. ....“We would all like to see the truth come out after all this wrangling,” he added. “And we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction when the invasion started. Now we hear a case saying that 'Well, there were programs, there were laboratories that were suitable ... or there were intentions. I would say, all right, let's have evidence of that.”

Blix: Iraq Evidence ‘Dramatized’, Ex-U.N. Inspector Accuses Bush, Blair Of ‘Information Management’ - CBS News

Grandpa h.