Question for Sensible Democrats regarding motives of President Bush?

Question

Thanks for any intelligent answers. I believe there are reasonable good people on both sides on the debate of Iraq. With that said here is my question:

In your judgement while evaluating the motives of President Bush on his decision to invade Iraq I would like hear from you of the posssible motives he harbors to do such a thing.

We all agree Saddam was a very bad man, rape rooms, torture chambers that would make the Nazi's cringe. He has used wmd's against his own people and his own people. 112 scientist that escaped Iraq all say he had or was working on massive WMD's, 67 nations went on record to say the same thing. If Bush knew all of this was a lie, he risked his name, his Presidency, his legacy for something he knew was a lie. He had to fool the world to believe something that he KNEW we would find out was a lie when we found NO WMD's.

Please explain in a rational way his possible motives for starting the war in Iraq?

Thanks for any responses!!

Answer 1

You make some very good points; however, Bush is to blame for these reasons:

1. Not verifying the information given to him by the CIA
2. Starting a war without UN support
3. Taking advice from people who had an economic interest in the region

There are people in Iraq making $100K a year plus hazard pay. These people work for companies that have Dick Cheney sitting on their board of directors. Haliburton was given a huge government contract with no limits on spending and with no chance for any other company to bid for the job. I can go on and on but I don't have too much room here.....good question.

Answer 2

I think he figured that since Saddam was so awful, the world would be accepting of an invasion even if no WMDs were found (I'm sure he believed that we would at least find some remanants of biological weapons since they were used before). Bush thought that the Iraqi people would welcome us, and our democratic system, with open arms, which would give us a stronghold in the region. We could "zip in and zip out" while leaving the Iraqi people with the knowledge and ability to build a democracy with only minimum US intervention. Obtaining access to Iraq's vast oil reserves was certainly also a consideration.

Unfortunately, Bush and his advisors didn't do their homework and understand that the region was not ready for democracy, and that Saddam, as bad as he was, was keeping the lid on sectarian violence and a civil war, which may eventually lead to an even worse, anti US fundamentalist muslim regime. Bush now believes that if we leave, Iraq will plunge into turmoil,and the US will lose face.

But the Bushees have injected two additional arguments: 1. opposing the war is the same as opposing the US soldier which is traitorous. 2. If we don't fight the terrorists over there, we'll fight them over here instead. Both arguments are ridiculous.

BTW, I don't think Bush and his cronies ever seriously believed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They felt though, that some ties to Al Qaida were a given, but on this as well, they were sadly mistaken. Now we're in a quagmire without light at the end of the tunnel (see also Vietnam).

Answer 3

The answer concerning democracy has it about right. These conspiracy, revenge, oil theories are a lot more fun, and they might have played a part in the mix. But I think people did not understand how radically and aggressively conservative Bush was when elected. He surrounded himself with ideologues, the neo-conservatives, who were looking to establish a "beach head" for democracy in the Middle East. The best option was Iraq. We had several pretexts for starting a war with Saddam, and I think Bush talked himself into believing what the Iraqis in America who had fled Saddam were saying about our prospects for success. He hoped that this would be the first in a series of "democratic revolutions" reminiscent of what happened in Eastern Europe during his father's term in office. Sure, the oil is a big bonus. But turning the Middle East into a bunch of democratic allies would be an excellent way of creating stable oil producers.

Answer 4

a million. regardless of the undeniable fact that it won't be able to be rational, there has been plenty mentioned approximately Bush desirous to end what his father in no way did end. This became a private factor between Bush and Saddam. 2. the obtrusive reason is that Iraq is an oil producing usa and has a very good kind of oil reserves. US oil agencies might get a extra perfect deal on Iraqi oil with a extra friendly Iraqi government. France and Russia might have had a extra perfect deal than the US if we did no longer take out Saddam Hussein. 3. Bush thought that he ought to replace Saddam Hussein and the Baath party with a central authority that became extra friendly to the US and US pursuits. this might enable a military presence interior the area.

Answer 5

Maps and Charts of Iraqi Oil Fields


"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001. "


http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-m...



LET ME REPEAT THAT FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED: "The documents are dated March 2001."

Answer 6

I beleive it was personal because Saddam tried to have his father killed (Bush1). Also he was pressured by companies like haliburton and other companies that profit off of war. So to sum it up. Revenge and Greed are the reasons. WMDs were just how he sold to the American Public who were still in much shock for 9/11

Answer 7

Because Bush and the NeoCons thought they could bring "Democracy" to Iraq and start a domino effect of "Democracy" throughout the rest of the islamic countries of the Middle East. They thought that "Democracy" would be so attractive to the people of Iraq, that they would put aside thousands of years of sectarian differences and a few months of bombs falling on them, and embrace western "Democracy", without him having to do anything except brush aside a weak army and get rid of a dictator who had threatened to kill his daddy. 9-11 and WMDs gave Bush a very emotional excuse that he could twist to his purpose, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and the NeoCons very well knew it at the time.

Answer 8

I really, truly believe that a person doesn't worry about his namesake or credibility when his constituents' companies make billions of dollars supplying and arming both sides of a war. I wish it wasn't that petty, but i really believe it is. that's why people get so pissed about it.

Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit man." It's not about Bush's or anything, but it sheds ALOT of light on our foreign markets/policies.

Answer 9

we new this 20 years ago! but then he was are best friend then right? right?! RIGHT! bushes old man did not remove him even though we knew it 15 years ago after the 1st war so why go after him after 9/11? is it because bush and dick cant or wont catch bin laden?

Answer 10

Sensible Democrats?? What's that?? Is that like jumbo shrimp, or government intelligence??