Why did Cheney, Bush, Rice, & Rumsfield go to such lengths to get us into war in Iraq?

Question

I don't know how much damage outing Valerie Plame did to our country, but the details coming from Libby's trial are shocking. The crooked manipulation of information is horrible.

Answer 1

You are right. They can't blame the Clinton administration because all intelligence information was passed on to the Bush administration by Day One when W. took office. That's contrary to what Condie Rice said on national TV, and that has been proven as fact that they did have in hand all the data that the previous administration had. Second, the 4 WarHawks contrived and manipulated intelligence, regardless of what the UN had found regarding WMD's, and the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, nor had plans to buy any nuclear tools or know-how from anyone else. That, too, was a lie. Also, Saddam had no connections with al-qaeda because of a mutual hatred Bin Laden and Saddam had for one another. That's been a known fact since the late-1980's, after his war with Iran. Saddam was also a natural, political buffer between Iran and the region because of his intense hatred for Ahmadinejad and their Shia government. The WarHawk 4 had made plans to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam way before 9-11. It's a known fact that they had plans on Day One to attack. We had already controlled 2/3 of their air space, had sanctions in place that were hitting the population very hard, and Saddam was a known entity. Cheney outed Plame, and I believe that fact will come forth soon. Libby was the fall guy. The WarHawk 4 will go down in history as utter failures in Iraq because of their desires to rush into a conflict without accurate intelligence, and they misunderestimated the insurgency force for their willingness to strike allied forces, particularly the US and UK, and they didn't see the sectarian violence coming like a cold slap in the face.

Answer 2

Bush wanted to attack Iraq long before 9/11. He used every excuse in the book from terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Saddam being a threat to USA, Saddam killing his people, Bush wanting to protect the Iraqis etc. The bottom line Saddam started using euros for his oil instead of dollars! Iran is also changing to Euros from dollars and you can see what is going on with Iran! It is all about the oil! Bush could care less about the Iraqi people and this attack on Iraq has proven that. Since USA attacked Iraq over half a million civilians have died not Iraqi soilders but CIVILIANS. Saddam did not come anywhere close to that figure and Iraq was a much safer and better place than the hell hole it is now. The sad part is Saddam was blamed for the deaths but Bush who has turned a entire country and its people into a bloody mass of horror is not blamed for anything instead the mess is blamed on the poor people of Iraq. Actually world's biggest terrorist can not come close to the mass killings in Iraq and Afganistan by Bush and his administration!

Answer 3

I would love to offer some witty answer, something that seems less sexist but I can't.

Testosterone. They went to such lengths to prove their own (and/or their nation's) bravado.

They were 12 year old boys pushed on a playground. They had to save face so they pushed back without considering anything other than how their sense of strength was insulted.

And, please, make no mistake, I wish not to belittle the lives lost in 9/11, any other terrorist attack, or those who were hurt by the Hussain Regime. They do deserve justice.

But justice isn't gained by stumbling upon the bad guy when trying to simply proove who is tougher.

Yes, there were flaws in intelligence. Remember how much Bush's dad used the word "prudent?" Wouldn't caution and skepticism have been prudent on his part? Wouldn't taking the time to truly investigate the situation be better than jumping at the first chance and the slightest excuse to prove how "strong" America?

They went to such extreme lengths to get us in war because they let their emotions take too much control over logic. Further more, they exploited the emotions of the people of America to this effect.

I honestly can't say whether it's better or worse for the people of Iraq that we involved ourselves thus. History goes either way on that subject. I hope it works out well for them but I fear it won't.

But that's not the point. Lives were and are still being lost over this. The ends do not always justify the means. To fight a war on moral grounds one must strive to be moral. Even if everything ends well for both nations there is still the big issue of America's moral ambiguity in this. Who's to say we'll trip and fall on the right side next time?

The logical way isn't always the easiest way. More often than not it is the hardest way. Still, we should strive to balance our emotional reactions to such horrific events with the reality of how very much harm we can do in letting our emotions determine how we react.

Answer 4

President Clinton signed a bill with the intention to liberate Iraq, and to establish democracy here. President Bush followed through with that agenda. President's method of liberating Iraq (by deposing their dictator) was to put boots on the ground, and I have to say that was probably the only way to get that particular job done. Let's face it: after thirteen years, Saddam Hussein was still running amok and ruthlessly killing people. He was also making a mockery of the UN weapons inspection process. Unfortunately, the first President Bush didn't keep troops in Iraq quite long enough for Saddam to surrender.

So, Saddam signed a cease fire to get us to leave. After the beating he took from US forces the first time, however, he began to develop more damaging weapons than an AK-47 with a flashlight taped to it.

Answer 5

The Bush dynasty is a nasty one.

You'll notice that former president Clinton is kissing up to the elder Bush for the last couple of years.

I think the Clintons would like to join the dynastic club.

Answer 6

Bush, not even reaching mediocre level, wants to go in history books as "Great" and figured a war was his best chance -- Iraq because they were bad to his daddy. (As soon as the Towers fell, he insisted to staff that they pin it on Saddam Hussein, even though they kept saying that was not true. The stuff about "Greatness" he said even before he was elected.)

Cheney wanted Haliburton to make obscene profits from Iraqi oil (at the expense of the Iraqi's whose oil it actually is), and be able to rip off the US government by quadruple-charging over-inflated prices on no-bid contracts (which they have). -- Over-charged us, the oil thing didn't work out so well because all the flowers thrown by liberated Iraqi's keep clogging the pipe-lines.

;-)

Rumsfeld wanted permanent bases in the area -- with Bush all hot to invade Iraq, there was his chance.

Pretty p*ss-poor reasons, eh?

But those were there reasons.

Condi just LOVES her Georgie -- I actually don't know her reasons, if any.

What was worse than the Administration's lies was the media's complicity.

They became stenographers, dutifully taking dictation, rather than fact-finders and publishers.

And Congress, which after the Trade Center fell sang God Bless America and then abdicated all responsibility, have a share in the blame, too.

The idea that Saddam and Bin Laden were in cahoots was absurd -- Bin Laden is after theocracy, Saddam was a secular dictator who wouldn't at all have liked the idea of asking Clerics for permission.

The evidence for that "connection" (I believe Dick called it "well-confirmed") was also bogus; not just the WMD stuff.

But, gee. It's all gone so well since, so who can complain?

After all, the insurgency was in its last throes a couple years ago, a year AFTER the Mission was Accomplished.

editor's note: Children, can you say 'bitter'?

There is one other group, I'm sad to say, bearing responsibility -- and a LOT of people are going to hate me for saying this, even you, perhaps: When the Towers fell, Bush's approval rating went from bad to 90%. (Not with me, among Americans as a whole.)

People felt they needed to "support" the President -- even when everything he did and said was tragically wrong.

A horrific act of terrorism on his watch does not a good man make.

I wish all those people who "supported" him would remember what a mistake it was to give him a blank check -- and tell their kids and grandkids, and great grand kids to not make their mistake.

Answer 7

Personally, I would have been perfectly content if Bush had gone to the American people and said that Saddam was a butt head, that he has violated EVERY stipulation of the peace accord signed after the Gulf War and needs to be deposed.

Everything else is just making a case.

Answer 8

well who cares about the reasons the fact are simple the USA are stuck in iraq maybe for 10 years or more, US economy has fallen in deficit, the us prestige and popularity in the world are in the floor and the myth of the unvencible hyper power will be buried in iraq, Hail to the new world order, in iraq began the fall of the anglo saxon supremacy.

Answer 9

Yeah, these guys wanted to go to war with Iraq before 9/11. I really don't get it. And though we may never know the real answer, it's probably so shockingly pathetic that we are probably better off not knowing...

Answer 10

Do you think 3000 Americans being murdered in 3 hours might have something to do with it. The real question is, how in the hellll can people forget 9/11.