Why were Cheney and Rumsfeld so bent on making the war in IRAQ happen?

Question

It seems clear that Cheney and Rumsfeld got bad intelligence on Iraq, because they asked for it. But why did they want this war so badly?

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
(thanks nefariousx)

Answer 1

Well we can safely say that the genuine reasons had nothing whatsoever to do with 911, rather 911 was used as propaganda to sell the American public on such an invasion. In fact, bin-Laden and his cohorts had attempted to disrupt the secularist Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, even before American troops arrived. Moreover, the fact that the US set up military bases on the Saudi Arabian peninsula is what ticked off bin-Laden, not our defense of Kuwait. A defense that might not have even been necessary if not for the misleading and precarious meeting between Hussein and Bush Sr special envoy April Glaspie in 1990. Hussein needed a means whereby he could pay for the previous 8 year war with Iran, and a war constantly encouraged by the Reagan Administration. Likewise, any WMD that would have been found in Iraq would have merely been what the Reagan Administration either sold to Hussein or diverted to Hussein in order to fight the Ayotollah in Iran during the 1980s. An Iran still holding American hostages that likewise spurned the illegal events surrounding the Iran-Contra affair later in the 1980s. Likewise recall Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special envoy to Iraq partying and dining with Hussein in 1982 in order to work out the details of supplying the dictator with chemical and biological weapons from several different countries, and all the while Hussein was using these weapons to murder Kurds. Yet even chemical weapons do not rate the classification of WMD unless they are used in massive quantities, and even there are in fact vaccines for such agents as Anthrax and Mustard Gas, and anticdotes for the VX nerge agent. Chemical weapons are dangerous to be sure, but the amounts found in Iraq can hardly be considered massively destructive. The real reason behind the invasion of Iraq, formerly the 4th largest oil exporting country in the world has to do with the acquisition of oil fields. Many of the most prolific oil fields in the world have reached their peak, and a time period that can last several years. After this peak it becomes more and more costly to keep these fields pressurized enough to pump out the oil. Oilfield peaks are not myths, they are a reality, especially considering that without alternative means of energy, the world's oil consumption will only increase. But this has set the Bush Administration seeking oil fields in the Alaska Wilderness and off the coast of Northwest Africa, with little or no success. What better way to acquire oilfields then to simply take them, and use a terrorist attack as cover for your deceptive plans. Cheney, holding a prominent position within Haliburton in the past understands the global oil field problem, which could in fact lead to massive shortages in merely a few years. Toppling Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with bin-Laden, 911, or Hussein's mass murdering of Kurds and Shias, but everything to do with finding a solution to the coming oil price surges due to the increased difficulty in extracting the energy resource. As far as Mexico and Venezuela are concerned, that is simple. Bush and his cohorts did not and have not a reasonable lie to sell to the American people to justify such an attack on either nation, though his buddy Pat Robertson would just as soon assissinate Chavez as has already been illustrated. Reagan found his excuse to invade the Socialist governed Grenada in 1980 per the assassination of Maurice Bishop, whom he wanted to topple anyway. But a legitimate excuse was found for the invasion of Iraq, namely a concocted collaboration scheme between the non-Islamic and securlarist Hussein and the Orthodox Sunni bin-Laden. All lies. But I am one to be fair, and the Democratic party is just as guilty. Not only did Clinton desire to attack Iraq but most of the dems in Congress voted for the war, and now most of them are changing their views. I am neither Republican or Democrat, and in fact I think we need to end this political 2-party oligarchy facade of conservatism and liberalism. In the end we have seen a road traveled from the Nuremberg Principles to Baghdad atrocities, and likewise have gone from Lebensraum to corporate colonization.

EO Lemons

Answer 2

I don't think it was Cheney and Rumsfeld as much as Bush. I think that Bush Jr. was try to finish the job this father started, so to speak. My guess is that Bush Jr. and his father argued about how to end desert storm as it was happening.

I frankly think that was the whole reason behind W. running for president in the first place - so that he could get back in Iraq and do things differently than his father did. In fact, gauging by the history that Bush's family has had in the Middle East for generations, I wonder if 9/11 would have happened at all if we had elected someone else.

Of course it doesn't hurt Cheney that Haliburton gets so much work out of it. Maybe Rumsfeld is just excited by the opportunity to run a full blown war - or maybe they too wants to get back in Iraq and do things differently than Bush Sr did. There's a lot about this situation that feels "personal" to the guys in charge, in my opinion.

The question is, can America survive these next 2 years without some major damage, now with N. Korea, et al, breathing down our necks? It's one thing for the folks in the middle of the country, but for those of us living on the coasts this is a very nerve wracking time.

Peace!

Answer 3

I never tire of the laughable liberal bs that gets printed here. Oh, excuse me, i forgot...PBS is such a bastion of fair reporting. Gimme a break.

Here's a little history lesson, because conveniently enough, you neglected to include any facts. Rumsfeld and Cheney didn't approve the war; Congress did. Yes, the author of 9/11 is a Saudi and not an Iraqi, but OBL and most of the significant Al-Qaida leaders were seeking refuge in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the problem of Saddam Hussein, who was systematically performing genocide on his people with weapons of mass destruction, and throwing out the welcome mat to any terrorist group who wanted to set up training camps in his country...oh, by the way, our troops have been finding significant stores of WMD's in Iraq, including roughly 500 missles, etc with sarin and mustard gas....the stuff that he used on his own people...but the drive-by liberal media have chosen to quash those reports. If you don't believe me, check the Dept. of Defense's own report, linked below.

The whole Halliburton thing is a tired old cliche' excuse that Libs use when they can't argue the real facts.

As for the claims of our doing this just for the oil, then answer this... if it's about oil, then a) why aren't we taking full military control of oil fields in Iraq and controlling the supply? and b) if oil's all we're after, why didn't we just invade Mexico and Venezuela? They are a LOT closer, have enough oil (especially Venezuela) to supply our needs for hundreds of years, and they'd be a whole lot easier to overrun.

I'll gladly debate this anytime, and I'll win every time.

Answer 4

They were right about the war, when Bush stood on that aircraft Carrier and said "mission accomplished" that was the end of the war. After the war came the occupation and we still are in an occupation. Bush has done a great job of turning the word insurgent into the word terrorist and anyone who thinks the terrorist are going to flock to Iraq to get the Americans are being misled. I think Bush wants to control the business part of Iraq and Iran so he can control the oil China and Russia will need in the future. Terrorist are criminals and the way you stop criminals is with police work with teams of spooks and investigators around the world in any country that imformation may take them.

Answer 5

I know this answer won't be chosen since I am going to submit the truth and the facts. We are in Iraq because of Saddam and his blatant misbehavior. This did not start with President Bush. This started with Saddam invading Kuwait, then exacerbating the problem with his antics and payoffs to the members of the UN security council. President Clinton was discussing preparing us for war also. Of course that would have required he develop a backbone. Read the link below and you will see that the evidence that was provided to President Bush was also briefed to Clinton and every other person in Washington. So if you are falling for the liberal lies and machinations, then you are the fool.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Answer 6

In order for the U.S. to have control over EVERY oil source in the world, they have to take over iraq, iran, and saudi arabia, these are the largest sources of oil in the world, next they are going to implement want is being called the peak oil scam.....they will continue to raise gas prices until we, the common man, cannot afford gas at all, ie. $10 a gallon, which in turn will cause the poor folks, ie. the majority to go into panic and finally, our government will be able to implement martial law, which they have been wanting to do for many years.......this way they will have complete control over us even as the majority of the citizens will be awakening to the idea that we did not ever live in a democracy and that our leaders are evil ..........but by that time , if they have there way, it will be too late for us to rise up against this obvious atrocity. If we left to do things as it has been in the past, we would soon be going into another depression, a plunge so much larger than our depression in the 30's, so large we would probably never even use cash money AGAIN!!!
which in turn would mean that the government and the rich, one in the same, would have no power over us, this is why it is vital for our fascist leaders to take control of us BEFORE we realize what the heck is going on...........we do not live in a democracy..............open your eyes people........we are slaves to the almighty dollar, if we quit going to work, the billionares of the world, who control EVERYTHING, would be powerless, we would be free of there power and control, it's all through the dollar that they have power, take away the worth of the dollar and we would be free!!!!!!!!

Answer 7

Some will answer some nonsense about getting cheap oil or securing america's sand supply, but i have some other nonsense to blather about. It is a complex scheme to do several things
1. more expensive oil. this helps out the big buisnessmen with their "insecure supply" BS while making record profits.
2. tie up our forces. this will make us a more even match for the real fight, which is coming in a few years.
3. lock the people down. the patriot act was not written after those CIA employees flew that airplane into a building, but before. Yes, those people were in our government's employ.

The main objective is to have a UN superstate where everyone gets along and does what the armed guards tell them to.

Answer 8

Both of those men also served under the First President Bush who attacked Iraq for invading Kuwait, kicked some butt and left Saddam in power. Ego, pure simple ego

That's no way to respect our troops! They deserve so much better than that!

as for 9/11 - the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq. We took all they sympathy of the world and pissed it away by going all cowboy and invading. Did we find OBL? no What we did do is give terrorists a great recruiting tool!

Answer 9

Maybe because the UN for years was complaining how Saddam Husein was not living by the ceasefire that was signed after the first Iraqi war. After 9/11 and we took care of Afghanistan, we turned to the more unstable area that was unfinished over 10 years ago. The main parties at the UN that did not want us to take care of Saddam after 10 years of diplomacy were the same countries that were getting rich off of him by illegal kickbacks. Bush also tried diplomacy up until we invaded and it still did not work. The rest of the world has been allowing the US to do it's dirty work ever since WWII has ended.

Answer 10

1) If you have a Trillion Dollar war machine, you have to justify its existence.
2) By entering a war one usually unites the country and internal problems become secondary. In history, often when countries had internal problems, they started to wage war.
3) The U.S. was attacked - one couldn't find the culprit - so one manufactures another one.
4) two old men, one last hurray. Cheney obviously likes shooting off traget.
5) It did get rid of one mean motherf%%%er of a dictator.


Georgiegirl
It's Al-Qaeda. If you were to attack every country of which the president supports Al-Qaeda, you might as well attack most Middle-Eastern countries.

WOMD - it's "were" found and not "was" found when you're talking about multiple weapons.
Also, don't you find it rather questionable that a war and spy machine the size and quality of the U.S. needs years to find supposed proof when they supposedly had proof enough to invade the country ?

"Takes a few but answers many questions. "
Takes a few WHAT ?

Your argument is incoherent and badly written.



answerman63
You're a whackjob : "They are a LOT closer, have enough oil (especially Venezuela) to supply our needs for hundreds of years, and they'd be a whole lot easier to overrun."

Please, oh please, provide proof that this statement holds true. I'm in Canada, we're the world's 9th largest producer of oil and the U.S.'s single largest provider of oil. Are you telling me that WE (in Canada) have oil for hundreds of years as well ?

Answer 11

Has everyone forgotten 9/11? Has everyone forgotten that the Iraqi President supported Al Quadia? Doesn't anyone remember that some weapons of mass destruction was found? Does no one read the news concerning the files, disks and tapes that was found recently explaining this question? Please read the news. Takes a few but answers many questions.