Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 12:36 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Steve:
Furthermore, without 9/11 (even though Iraq was not involved), could Bush have ever invaded Iraq? I don't think so.


Isn't that just another way of saying that 9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq, and it was on Bush's mind from the beginning?


No. Certainly, Iraq would have been on anyone's mind who was becoming President in 2001. Not only was there the not-too-long-ago invasion of Kuwait, but the violations of the no-fly zones, defiance of the UN, and constant bellicosity.

Some have tried to turn it into 43 avenging the attempt on 41. I think that is simplistic and irrational on the part of those who believe it.

What I am saying is that without 9/11 and the spotlight it turned on Islamic radicalism, the notion of linking terror and WMD would not have been as plausible as it seemed in 2003. I also don't believe that absent 9/11 Americans would have supported ANY war in the Middle East for US troops.

Re O'Neil's truthfulness, I'm going to keep an open mind.


That's your right. I just wonder if there is evidence to support his claims. I haven't really seen anything more than unsubstantiated opinion.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 1:08 pm

The first response they discussed was invading Iraq. While the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was in the White House suggesting an attack against Baghdad. Somehow the administration's leaders could not believe that al-Qaeda could have mounted such a devastating operation, so Iraqi involvement became the convenient explanation. Despite being told repeatedly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, some, like Cheney, could not abandon the idea. Charles Duelfer of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group recently revealed in his book, "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq," that high-level U.S. officials urged him to consider waterboarding specific Iraqi prisoners of war so that they could provide evidence of an Iraqi role in the terrorist attacks -- a request Duelfer refused. (A recent report indicates that the suggestion came from the vice president's office.) Nevertheless, the lack of evidence did not deter the administration from eventually invading Iraq -- a move many senior Bush officials had wanted to make before 9/11
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 1:34 pm

rickyp wrote:
The first response they discussed was invading Iraq. While the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was in the White House suggesting an attack against Baghdad. Somehow the administration's leaders could not believe that al-Qaeda could have mounted such a devastating operation, so Iraqi involvement became the convenient explanation. Despite being told repeatedly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, some, like Cheney, could not abandon the idea. Charles Duelfer of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group recently revealed in his book, "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq," that high-level U.S. officials urged him to consider waterboarding specific Iraqi prisoners of war so that they could provide evidence of an Iraqi role in the terrorist attacks -- a request Duelfer refused. (A recent report indicates that the suggestion came from the vice president's office.) Nevertheless, the lack of evidence did not deter the administration from eventually invading Iraq -- a move many senior Bush officials had wanted to make before 9/11
.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901560.html


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah, I'd nearly forgotten about that buffoon.

You are welcome to believe Mr. Clarke, if you like.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 1:46 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:True, so by being patient and building international consensus, Bush the cowboy failed? Isn't that a bit funny to you?
If you call planning it from the moment he entered office,


That's just sad. I think you've come to believe the mythology you've read.
What, like the Republican platform for the 2000 election?

. . . rejecting most of your allies, ignoring the facts being presented by inspectors and pressing ahead without UN agreement as being patient and building a consensus, then you'd be right.


Really? Who were all of our allies Bush "rejected?" The UK? Australia? Canada?
Canada opposed the invasion at the time. I was thinking of France (who were with us on Afghanistan and were helping enforce the no-fly zone) and Turkey (key regional allies). Most of NATO objected, and they are by definition US allies. Additionally, Russia was opposed, and the local despots who were our pals were less than united behind it.

As it is, you are just being well, frankly hilarious.


I'm not the one who drank the Michael Moore Kool-Aid. Maybe O'Neill? In any event, I don't think anyone takes claims about Bush being dead set on invading Iraq from his inauguration on seriously--except for a few of you sucking down the rare green-fogged air of huffpo and dailykos and believing it uncritically.
Well, O'Neill's statements are part of it, but key members of the administration were well known as Iraq hawks from before 9/11, and of course there was that election platform. And the reallocation of intelligence resources.

You may not like it. It may be inconvenient. However, it is the historical record. And, that doesn't even count the opinions of President Bill Clinton and many Democrats, including Senator Kerry.
As for the intel, TheManInBlack has it, and I can remember looking at a report based on what was publicly available in late 2002 which predicted almost word for word the key allegations on WMD and explained why they were dubious, at best.

If a rube like me can see it, how come Presidents can't?

Of course the regime were hoping that misinformation would protect them from us (and also be a show of strength regionally). Who would have thought that Hussein was a bit of a fibber, eh? I recall at the time that the UN and IAEA inspectors were asking for more time to check – a matter of months. The ‘patience’ you talk about clearly didn’t extend to getting verification of the facts.

Do I think Bush made it up? No, I think he and others (it doesn't matter that some were Democrats, and some where leaders of British Labour) were just too willing to believe the intel that confirmed their assumptions and justified their actions, and too ready to disregard that which was contrary, and not prepared to await confirmation. The end result was, as TMIB says, a total failure in the one conflict we were already engaged in and a messy occupation in Iraq.

Probably Obama’s fault though, eh?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 1:53 pm

A question for all: To what extent is the Iraq invasion a result of Cheney / Bush 43 second guessing the 91 decision to not invade Baghdad?

And one just for Steve: if you believed that Iraq had WMDs, why were you against the 2nd Iraq war?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 2:11 pm

RJ - I think that a lot of people around him thought that Bush41 was badly mistaken to agree to peace in 1991, and things would have been a lot better had Saddam been removed and replaced by a more amenable regime.

Of course, it's possible that the post-2003 Iraq is an indicator of the problems that would have created.

There are people who like to psychoanalyse Bush Jr and say that he was trying to outdo his pop, or to prove his worth to him, but I think that kind of thing is too glib.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 2:16 pm

From the Republican party platform in 2000:

Perhaps nowhere has the inheritance of Republican governance been squandered so fatefully as with respect to Iraq. The anti-Iraq coalition assembled to oppose Saddam Hussein has disintegrated. The administration has pretended to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but did nothing when Saddam Hussein's army smashed the democratic opposition in northern Iraq in August 1996. The administration also surrendered the diplomatic initiative to Iraq and Iraq's friends, and failed to champion the international inspectors charged with erasing Iraq's nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile programs. When, in late 1998, the administration decided to take military action, it did too little, too late. Because of the administration's failures there is no coalition, no peace, and no effective inspection regime to prevent Saddam's development of weapons of mass destruction.

A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction. In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, the clear purpose of which is to assist the opposition to Saddam Hussein. The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime. We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 2:18 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:That's just sad. I think you've come to believe the mythology you've read.
What, like the Republican platform for the 2000 election?


Do tell. So, Republicans were wrong to support a law signed into being by Bill Clinton?

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.


Nice try.

Additionally, Russia was opposed, and the local despots who were our pals were less than united behind it.


Turkey had its own reasons--namely the Kurds.

Russia opposes any exercise of American power and stood to lose money in Iraq. Clearly, Russia was not and is not our "friend."

Well, O'Neill's statements are part of it, but key members of the administration were well known as Iraq hawks from before 9/11, and of course there was that election platform. And the reallocation of intelligence resources.


Yeah, shame on Republicans for backing Clinton's scheme. "Iraq hawks" does not translate into "invasion." There are several countries wherein we don't care for their leadership or policies. We don't invade them. Of course, we don't have to drive many of them out of Kuwait either. Iraq was a special case, no matter how you might try to pretend otherwise.

You may not like it. It may be inconvenient. However, it is the historical record. And, that doesn't even count the opinions of President Bill Clinton and many Democrats, including Senator Kerry.
As for the intel, TheManInBlack has it, and I can remember looking at a report based on what was publicly available in late 2002 which predicted almost word for word the key allegations on WMD and explained why they were dubious, at best.

If a rube like me can see it, how come Presidents can't?


I don't know. Then again, neither did your PM. How many Democrats were not as "smart" as you?

Who would have thought that Hussein was a bit of a fibber, eh? I recall at the time that the UN and IAEA inspectors were asking for more time to check – a matter of months. The ‘patience’ you talk about clearly didn’t extend to getting verification of the facts.


Seriously, why do you want to re-argue this?

Was Saddam cooperating with inspections?

Logically, why would Saddam not back down--even when invasion was imminent?

Do I think Bush made it up? No, I think he and others (it doesn't matter that some were Democrats, and some where leaders of British Labour) were just too willing to believe the intel that confirmed their assumptions and justified their actions, and too ready to disregard that which was contrary, and not prepared to await confirmation.


Good, so a lot of people erred and Iraq was invaded. Saddam is dead.

Can we move on?

Thanks!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 2:39 pm

Steve, I sympathise since you started this conversation about British intelligence and Obama a few pages ago on a topic that had nothing to do with Iraq. Tom then compared Obama and Bush, and we've been more or less relitigating Iraq ever since. However, I wrote the rest of this before your most recent post, so I just want to summarize my view on Iraq, and then I'll keep my mouth shut (unless provoked -- but how often does that happen ;) )

On net, I believe that invading Iraq was a huge mistake. For the $1 trillion, loss of life, and sustained injuries, I cannot come up with a balance sheet where the assets exceed the liabilities. Add in the diplomatic smarting, the opportunity cost of being distracted from more worthwhile objectives (e.g. Afghanistan, domestic issues), the splitting of the West, and the strengthening of Iran, this was a looser of a decision.

Whether it was to avenge an attempt on his dad's life, or some sort of Oedipal need to outshine his father, or smarting over decision made in 1991 (that were correct in hindsight), or oil, or a democracy agenda, or genuine concern for the oppressed minorities in Iraq, or a faulty genuine belief in WMD, or some complicated combination of all of the above, the war was a mistake. Even if you believe that the war decision was correct, but the prosecution of the war was faulty because of Rumsfeld or others, at the end of the day, you have to blame Bush 43. Many others had a role but as he correctly pointed out, he was the decider (and could of, should of fired Rumsfeld earlier)

I think that this mistake is bigger than any Obama has made, but then again, Obama's term is still young.

RJ
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 2:51 pm

Ray Jay wrote:On net, I believe that invading Iraq was a huge mistake. For the $1 trillion, loss of life, and sustained injuries, I cannot come up with a balance sheet where the assets exceed the liabilities. Add in the diplomatic smarting, the opportunity cost of being distracted from more worthwhile objectives (e.g. Afghanistan, domestic issues), the splitting of the West, and the strengthening of Iran, this was a looser of a decision.


Agreed. I never liked it--for other reasons.

So many other rabbit trails . . . oil? Oedipal complex (that seems an inapt comparison)?

I'll pass.

I think that this mistake is bigger than any Obama has made, but then again, Obama's term is still young.


I think you may be right. It is only when one begins adding Obama's mistakes together that the sum is far worse than Iraq--and, let's not forget Obama promised to have us out of there!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Feb 2011, 3:40 pm

Oh, I don't know. There was the whole deficit thing. What was the deficit by the end of 2007, before the US had entered recession? What was it by the time he left? And what was the deficit in 2000/1, which Bush inherited?

Oh, I forgot. all deficits are Obama's fault.