Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[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

[noonereal]

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.

this is the correct ansewer

Bush's daddy revenge simply served as an emotional prod to the boy king to go along with the neocon dream.

[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

[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?

[finnbow]

In general, I don't believe in conspiracy theories because of the number of people who would need to be involved, their complexity of doing things involving multiple government agencies and involve only people loyal to the conspiracy, and the inability for anybody in Washington to keep a secret.

[flacaltenn]

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.

There is a huge diff JonL between a pre-emptive war based on trumped up (or at least limited) evidence and a direct attack by a foreign power on American soil or interests. I believe downing a jet off NYC with a military S-A missile or bombing the WTC is an act of war. And further, if the perp is ALREADY on probabation, you've got to neutralize him permanently. And Clinton had already done the intense bombing stuff. Would have had to step up to a decapitation.

I think at first the Clinton Admin MAY have actually believed that the WTC 1 bombing should be a law enforcement problem (I disagree), but later discovered that they lost the ability to prove a state connection to Iraq by doing that. Couldn't reconstruct enough solid evidence after the fact to convince the public that Saddam needed to be taken out.

In the case of Flight 800, it was speculated that a "Stinger" type missile could easily be launched from a small craft off Long Island. And it would have been very embarrassing to pursue this since the USA GAVE those missiles to the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. It was that missile that TURNED the Russians out of that country. Gave the Arab fighters the ability to neutralize USSR helicopter, air cover. At that point, if the govt knew it was a terrorist action (sponsored by Saddam) , it might have been just made a note, closed the investigation because the larger concern was a possible "pre-emptive" strike against Al Queada first. Don't know. But I'm fairly convinced this was a terrorist act.

[piece-itpete]

This isn't a conspiracy theory in the normal sense, as befits PC

There were a number of reasons to take out the Butcher. Because 'It's a slam dunk, Mr President' got top billing doesn't change that.

Examining Pres Clintons statements it's very clear to me that he would've been happy to take him out. As far as WMD the entire freaking world believed it, based on missing items listed by Saddam from the first Gulf action, and of course Saddams' own statements and actions.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

As far as WMD the entire freaking world believed it, based on missing items listed by Saddam from the first Gulf action, and of course Saddams' own statements and actions.

Not so. The chief of the UN weapons inspection team, an American (and a Republican), didn't even believe it.

[JonL]

Originally Posted by 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

Sanctions for Iraq obviously worked. Saddam had no WMDs. His regular army collapsed quickly. He was no threat to anyone outside his borders. His posturing was for domestic consumption and to attempt to keep Iran from getting any ideas.