Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[flacaltenn]

FinBow:

The fact that Wolfowitz has a weak moment and admits the lying rhetoric was "bureaucratic convienience" or whatever -- doesn't weaken my theory. I'm allowing that none of WMD threat ever really existed. SOMETHING ELSE was the real motivation for both Admins.

If you want to believe that the US went to war to test some dumbass neo-con theory about rainbows and unicorns in the Middle East, have at it. But first tell me why

a) The majority of DEM leadership offered virtually no resistance.

b) Clinton didn't choose to follow the European leaders insistence that the sanctions were over because of lack of justification from the Weapons Inspection teams. In other words, my #2 option above.

c) What the neo-con plan was when they rolled thru that country and can't find a TRACE of the stuff they claimed was there? They knew they'd have to bear that humility and degrace.. What made it worth it?

My theory answers all three of those...

[finnbow]

a) The majority of DEM leadership offered virtually no resistance.

Dem's are perpetually afraid of being labelled as weak on national security and the WMD story had found fertile ground in the American imagination.

b) Clinton didn't choose to follow the European leaders insistence that the sanctions were over because of lack of justification from the Weapons Inspection teams. In other words, my #2 option above.

I simply don't follow where you're going with this point.

c) What the neo-con plan was when they rolled thru that country and can't find a TRACE of the stuff they claimed was there? They knew they'd have to bear that humility and degrace.. What made it worth it?

I think they started to believe their own story about WMD's (and their lame intelligence allowed them to). In Washington, if your boss continues to tell a story and seems to believe it, you start believing it as well.

If we chose to attack because of TWA Flight 800, why the hell didn't we use that rationale? The country would have jumped on it like white on rice. In all honesty, your explanations/theories don't explain a thing, but confuse a lot.

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Dem's are perpetually afraid of being labelled as weak on national security and the WMD story had found fertile ground in the American imagination.

{Regarding following European lead and letting Sadddam slowly out of containment}

I simply don't follow where you're going with this point.

{Regarding what the neo-con plan was when they inevitably got caught lying about the intelligience}

I think they started to believe their own story about WMD's (and their lame intelligence allowed them to). In Washington, if your boss continues to tell a story and seems to believe it, you start believing it as well.

If we chose to attack because of TWA Flight 800, why the hell didn't we use that rationale? The country would have jumped on it like white on rice. In all honesty, your explanations/theories don't explain a thing, but confuse a lot.

In no particular order Finbow:

Clinton had 8 years of "managing" the embargo. He was leaning on the UN to come up with ANYTHING to support the WMD theory. He lost the support of MOST ALL of the European capitals except London. They had Scott Ritter telling them the inspections game had played out. Why the heck did he STEP UP the pulverizing and economic torture of Iraq? That's what I meant. Why wasn't he willing to consider "letting Saddam out of the box"?? Are you telling me that the same DELUSION the Bush League had somehow was a systemic White House infection that also made the Clinton believe their PHONEY WMD lies??? I don't think so.. Perhaps he was holding fire to figure out how to handle the Al Queda threat, but there's no doubt he was focused on punishing Iraq.

About the neo-cons believing in their own crap.. You can't believe your own propaganda when your tasked to manufacture that crap and amplify it. You are then guilty of sheer malice. Not some simple delusion. They KNEW they would be ridiculed and pummeled real soon after the invasion. Herr Goerbel in Germany manufactured propaganda based on malice, not belief. Something deeper than Bush's daddy's honour drove them to that decision..

As for the Dems, it is entirely possible, if I am correct in my silly theory, that they AGREED to the exercise -- not because they worried about being weak -- but because they didn't want the REAL REASONS to be disclosed. Simple actually. Bush admin says "Get on board or we'll tell the world that Saddam had attacked American interests on American soil and the Clinton Admin decided to not tell you".. Public support for invading Iraq was pretty much split.. They COULD have dissented without changing the polls a whole lot.

BTW: How's that beautiful nose of yours? Can you smell the conspiracy yet?

Why would Kerrey refer to TWA 800 in a list of terrorist attacks TWICE on network TV interviews?

[d-ray657]

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JonL]

I don't believe that even the most trigger-happy administration would go to war over a largely failed bombing attempt and the downing of a single airplane in a terrorist attack. If they had evidence, or could even concoct seemingly credible evidence linking Iraq to these events, the response would be severe but measured. A limited airstrike on military targets, a tightening of sanctions, even covert ops... but not the all-out war we waged. I think Finnbow's got it right:

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm firmly convinced that the Iraq invasion was a NeoCon wetdream to restructure the Mideast, via the domino theory, into a peaceful region compliant to our (and Israel's) geopolitical interests.

The whole WMD threat was nothing more than a "bureaucratic" justification that they thought would work in the wake of 9/11, and Wolfowitz said as much.

Saddam was a convenient boogeyman and the WMD/terrorism rationale was a threatening enough reason to justify their big adventure in the sandbox. The Downing Street memo cast further light upon this (as did the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha). The NeoCon's had a compliant nincompoop in the White House (with a grudge), an strong ally there as well (Cheney), and a cabal of NeoCons in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith) and a weak, easy to roll National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

Sincerely, I have no doubt about this being the case. However, America is unwilling to admit to itself that we spent so much in blood and treasure on such a cynical misadventure.

I totally agree with this post. ^^^

Originally Posted by d-ray657

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

As a resident of Long Island, I don't think the missile theory is so far fetched. The planes fly very low over the Atlantic very close to shore on their approach/departure from JFK. There's plenty of open water out there where someone could easily fire a smallish anti-aircraft rocket from a decent sized recreational boat, of which there are many out there on any given day. I'm not saying I believe the theory, but I don't see it being at all impossible.

[piece-itpete]

I think it's all part of it. The reality is, everyone knew Iraq was a problem. At least the leadership. Look at top Dems statements about Saddam before they could blame Bush.

Sanctions, bah. For Iraq they obviously failed. Cop out.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

We're wondering off topic a bit, but I don't think anyone has ever argued that Sadam was a problem. Clearly our policy for years indicates that. But to imply that Clinton would have done the same thing Bush did is really grasping at straws. Clinton was never shy about using the military. But he was smart enough to see what a lot of people said before Bush went in - it would be a disaster. And it was. The other difference is Bush clearly lied and took us to war for reasons he never disclosed to the American people.

[piece-itpete]

Bush lied, people died.

Phoney 'containment' showed what was needed to put down Saddam. Bush was willing to do what was neccessary, even at the cost of his own legacy.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Bush lied, people died.

Trite, but true

Phoney 'containment' showed what was needed to put down Saddam.

This presumes that is was essential to our national security interests to put down Saddam. It wasn't true before the fact, and after the fact it's all the more certain that it wasn't true.

[piece-itpete]

Obama lies, people dies?

Certain? I love option 2, he would've just kept at it till he got what he wanted.

Pete