Now, tell me again - WHY did we go into Iraq?

Question

Apparently george w. bush knew FULL WELL there were no WMDs.
***********************

BUSH KNEW - MONTHS BEFORE WAR - THAT SADDAM HAD NO WMD'S
(Salon:Exclusive Info From 2 CIA Officers)
Edited on Wed Sep-05-07 11:34 PM by kpete
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive:
Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence,
and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

.................................

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell.

According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence

None of the senators who voted to authorize the use of force had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush...

AND NOW, FOR ALL THOSE LOVELY REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE POSTED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER about how the DEMOCRATS "voted for the war, too!" let me repeat:

"None of the senators who voted to authorize the use of force had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence"

Claudia - did one American die today in Iraq? Then, my sweet, the "horse" is very, very much alive.

To Sharia: Why don't you just post a recipe for lemon poundcake? It would have as much relevance.

YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I POSTED - DID YOU?

To "beer-n-guns" -- I frankly don't give a good goldarn what Saddam did or didn't do. That is NOT why we went in. If it WERE why we went in, then we'd have to have gone in a dozen countries all over the world.

It is infuriating that little automatons like you believe everything your Fuhrer tells you to believe. Grow some balls.

To Bob W. : You know, pal, people like YOU are why there are actually skyrocketing numbers of people all over the world who HATE America. I'd like for you to THINK about that for a nanosecond.
And Salon does not "hate America" and I am so, so, so frikking sick and disgusted with fascists like yourself who namecall and label "anti-American" anybody who has the moral integrity to print the truth.
YOU are the anti-American.

To montreaux1991: No, sweetie, I will NOT 'forget why we went in" as I see this as a REASON TO GET OUT.

If the premise for invading and destroying a country is irrefutably false, then there is NO legitimacy, honor, or legal basis for us to remain in another country.

IT IS CRIMINAL.

To Robert: Yes, I'm happy for you that you're Canadian, too. How's that pig-farming-liquid-manure-pits thingy coming along?
I would respectfully request that you not be so hard on Americans. I refuse to be held accountable for bush's decisions when I have personally been 100% AGAINST him from Day One. You are aware, I hope, that there is a huge percentage of Americans who have NEVER granted him one moment's legitimacy as "president?"

He wasn't actually elected, you know.

To ndgbill: Uh.......will you marry me? Your post is thundering, powerful.
Thank you.

To Ork: Know what I'd like to do? I'd like to put you in a room with bush and lock the door.

Now THAT would be a good day.

*******************************************
TO WASHINGTON IRVING: Um, will you marry me, too? Your post was delightfully informative. And perfectly reasonable. Rational. Logical. Could you be persuaded to run for some public office? ANY PUBLIC OFFICE? You are 100% correct about there are NOT just "two options" to the Iraq debacle. Do I have permission to email your entire post to Congress???

Answer 1

...to accomplish what the IMF couldn't...disassemble a country hostile to Western economic influence and auction it off to multinational corporations.

Author Naomi Klein explains the process very well...long 8 part video, but worth the watch.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

Answer 2

Hello, Blue. I agree the horse ain't dead. I am still very much surprised by the fact that so many people continue to believe the WMD myth.

There is one answer here that sort of hits the nail. It's evil video store clerk. The war in Iraq was in fact a means to extend the neoliberal agenda onto the Middle East. After all, the Saudis were not about to privatize their oil.

Jim D is also right... he should have added that the oil means nothing in and of itself. It's the proximity of Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea oil deposits to the Asian Energy-Security grid that prompted the US invasion.

It is also important to look at the importance of Iran in this context. A defiant oil rich power in the richest region in the world. Its defeat would be a feather on the neoliberals' cap. Why else do you think they attacked to neighboring countries?

Oh, for those wondering. The US had no casus belli against Afghanistan. If it indeed desired to persecute those responsible to the 9/11 attacks, it would have followed extradition proceedings. One does not need to study international relations to know that there are ample precedents for this matters. Other countries have suffered terrorist attacks and followed protocol. What makes the US so special?

Lastly, on the question of withdrawal. There is a myth being circulated by a a band of narrow thinking neo liberal trolls that the options in Iraq are either stay and fight or abandon the Iraqis to Civil War. There is also ample precedent for the Iraq situation. Withdraw the occupation force, pay reparations and collaborate with the deployment of UN peace keepers with a strict time table.

US citizens could educate themselves and demand an orderly withdrawal in cooperation with the deploying UN peace keepers or they could allow their government to repeat the Viet Nam trick. The last five years of the Viet Nam war were characterized by the reduction of American troops and the escalation of bombing. Half of Vietnamese casualties occurred in this last face of the war, which spread unto Laos and Cambodia destroying civil society in the latter and facilitating the rise of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

If the US wants a massacre in Iraq to make it look good, it will allow it to happen. Will the US population allow for it again?

Answer 3

Why?It was to take any violence to another territory so as the fighting would not be on American soil. Food for oil scandal and the mystery of wmd was the justification of transfer of violence to another part of the world. Everyone knows it... no one questions it.... because it is for the safety of the cause. No one wanted it ....but you don't start a war in America. Look at Pearl Harbor and the similarities that were accessed to this and the pressure was on to do something. Soooooo Now it is not a big secret ....if you watched the news for many years while the war was in pursuit of alzarqawi, and the terrorist movement was in America during the 1998- 2001, and still is...but we have reeducated ourselves to the fact that America is vulnerable This is why we were in Iraq.Now it is time to reevaluate the Iraq crisis as we now call it...

Answer 4

Clinton replaced into precise; Iraq had WMD at that factor. The worldwide community addressed that with sanctions and inspections. It replaced into no longer a possibility to appreciate with reality no be counted if or no longer they nevertheless had any because of the fact they did no longer totally cooperate with the inspections, in spite of the undeniable fact that it replaced into sparkling that they did no longer signify an instantaneous danger to the U. S., and the UN did no longer authorize armed forces action, because of the fact the approach appeared to be working. The invasion replaced into for this reason unlawful, and because it became out, if Iraq did have any WMD's left, there have been no longer very many, as none have been ever discovered. The Democrats who went alongside with the invasion acted as badly because of the fact the Republicans. because of the fact of this Hillary Clinton isn't President.

Answer 5

It is so good to be Canadian.
I was never prouder of my country than when our government told GWB to p!ss off and to let weapons inspectors do their jobs.
Contrary to popular myth, very few people outside US borders believed Saddam had WMD's. And those that did believe did so because the US said so, that was back when there was some US credibility in the eyes of the international community. Not so much anymore.

Good luck with Iraq. You started it, you're on your own.

Answer 6

I KEEP TELLING YA, BUT [AS YOU KNOW] FEW LISTEN!

There were probably a number of reasons Georgeous Bush sent troops there.
But, I've said, all along, probably the prime motive was simply, "Unfinished Family Business".

He had to go and complete his father's work!
His dad had left the job undone!

Just in case of future problems, Young Georgeous had to 'clear' his father's name.

Just think:
Who would people turn to to blame if Iraq had proved in the years to come to be a real international menace in the world?

Who would people start looking at to have foreseen the trouble?
George Bush Senior went right into Iraq ... they were all there, but they didn;t finish the job of rounding up Saddam Hussein.

Young George had to save his father's face.
"Unfinished Family Business"
In Texas they hail from a lot of family pride.

Answer 7

Your link is coming up file not found. I would like to read it if you can send it to me. My first reaction though, in the address bar its subsection pointed to Salon.com's opinion section. The fact that this is in an opinion section is significant to me. However I would like to read it.

EDIT: I search it, I don't think YA posted your entire address for your link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index_np.html?source=rss
The first thing that jumped out at me was this quote, "Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again."
Information from Saddam's inner circle? I don't think any leader in their right mind would take the word of anyone in Saddam's inner circle. This information turned out to be accurate true but the ends don't justify the means. As I read on it seems that this article is built around the quote I pasted here. I found nothing new just the same old argument.
***First these are quotes from the "National intelligence estimate of October of 2002" which as you know was the argument for war!
"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
These are excerpts from the report:
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
This is a transcript on George Tenents address on Iraq's WMD's in 2004 provided by CNN. Please read!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/tenet.transcript.ap/
Last, alot of sources on the internet are questionable! Here are some links to prove my point.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200602/SPE20060202a.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.shtml?s=ic
When impeachable evidence is presented and a hearing is brought before the House and Senate I will believe be on board with the impeach Bush crowd! Why wait until then? Well its because if it gets to that point out side the realm of the pundits and political maneuvering then its believable!


EDIT: On top of it all I just remembered Tenents most infamous quote "Its a slame dunk"!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14030-2004Jun3.html

Answer 8

Sun Tzu's Art of War set out the rationales for war well before any pope touched the idea:

* Immediate defense: one's land has been directly attacked.

* Desire to expand and the enemy is weak: this, however, presumes a desired permanent presence in the conquered land.

* Resources: if one does not have the ability to sustain a presence in an enemy territory, but can expect no ability for retribution AND the value of the resource stolen outweighs the cost of the adventure, then this is still of dubious value.

Other rationales we like to base on our own orc philosophy:

We orcs. We like fight. We like kill.

Answer 9

Here is what is so infuriating to me and why in the hell people can't see it.

Who runs the country?
Cheney and Bush

Who profits from Oil?
Cheney and Bush and all the people above and below them.

The collusion is obvious

The war for oil is obvious

So therefore, there was two ways to fight this war.

Diplomatically, which would have cost the oil people more, or go to war, which will cost the people more.

Who wins?

Big OIL

Now the big oils big problem is they went in thinking this was going to be a cake walk. It was at first, now its a clusterphuk.

Now the oil companies are posting record profits and the people are posting record losses.

Come-on people, start smelling those $hit roses big oil through the WH have spoon fed you. It really is that simple

Peace

Jim

=================================

Life is really simple
But we insist on making it complicated

Confucius 551 - 471 BC

.

Answer 10

Actually the "Iraq regeime change" doctrine became US policy during the Clinton administration.

All........all western nations had information Saddam did have WMD. Remember Hillary(It takes a village) Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor reaffirming her belief that WMDs did exist and we needed to get rid of Saddam.

So we won in Afganistan and Bush thought we could go into Iraq, subdue it and then we would have Iran "surrounded" but even tho the thought was correct, I think Rumsfeld "blew" the post war situation and we are now mired in this terrible mess. The overriding goal was never Iraq, it was isolating Iran. We just absolutely mis-planned the war and its aftermath.

By the way, I would not use Salon as a valid reference.

They hate America and Bush almost as much as the New York Times does.

Answer 11

I believe it was Smedley Butler who said something to the effect of "War is a racket".

It was about fleecing the Treasury of the United States, not finding WMD's or bringing democracy to the Middle East, we only needed to look at the British experience in the 1920's to see how things would go in Iraq.

~