If the Iraq war was the "right" thing to do, why did the Bush admin have to lie to get it started?

Question

Had the Bush admin not fabricated lies and cherry picked information, yet the war was launched anyway, wouldn't there be fewer people upset with the war regardless of the outcome?

My guess is had the Bush admin been honest, the Iraq war would not have happened at that time. Your thoughts please.

Bush admin lies:

- Iraq involved in 9/11
- Iraq buying uranium
- Iraq buying aluminum tubes to enrich uranium
- Iraq has mobile chemical weapons labs
- Iraq building long range missiles

ALL proven to be fabricated lies

elmjunbu (below) The only mention of an AL-Q member in Iraq was in the northern province where Saddam had no control or least we forget the northern no fly zones to protect the Kurds...

elmjunbu (below) ALSO, for some reason I had the mistaken impression that Afghanistan was the HQ for AL-Q and OBL was under the protection of the Taliban. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

Answer 1

For the same reason clinton sent in cruise missiles using the same information......just saying that GW lied is a lie in itself...he didn't lie when he said there were WMDs in Iraq...we all know they had them...Saddam used them on his own people and were probably on that convoy spotted heading towards Syria just before the war when GW was trying to appease people like you by going through the UN first....so knock off the GW lied bit...its getting real old...I know that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes perceived reality, but its getting to the point now where people are starting to even question that because it is so over used....you libs just can't help yourself though...defend a liar who was proven to lie to a Grand Jury, but trash a good man by calling him a liar even when you know thats not the truth...shameful..

Answer 2

Its true it wouldn't have happened. What the uninformed don't know is that the military industrial complex always wants war. War is extremely profitable. When Bush makes requests for billions of dollars of our money, where do people think that money goes? Soldier salaries? Not hardly, that figure doesn't even register a hiccup on the Richter scale. U.S. made weapons and ammunition defense contractors get the money.

But the nature of war is an ugly one so the idea has to be sold to the public. The only way to sell a war is to manufacture a villain. Saddam Hussein was a convenient villain because he wasnt a nice guy. In addition, he was sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world (Iraq). He made the mistake of attacking Kuwait, which the US cared little about until realizing that he was now in position to attack Saudi Arabia, the largest oil reserve in the world.

This conflict is not now nor has it ever been about terrorism. It has always been about securing our middle east oil interests. Donald Rumsfeld has worked for every republican administratrion since Nixon's. He is the man responsible for empowering Saddam Hussein.

"A pro-Iraq policy was adopted when the Iran-Iraq war began to go strongly in Iran's favor, and it looked as if Iran would overrun Iraq completely. Although the United States was hesitant to support a Soviet client state, the prospect of a greatly expanded Iran outweighed these concerns. When Rumsfeld visited on December 19–December 20, 1983, he and Saddam Hussein had a 90-minute discussion that covered Syria's occupation of Lebanon, preventing Syrian and Iranian expansion, preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries, increasing Iraqi oil production via a possible new oil pipeline across Jordan. According to declassified U.S. State Department documents Rumsfeld also informed Tariq Aziz : "Our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us ... citing the use of chemical weapons." Rumsfeld brought many gifts from the Reagan administration. These gifts included pistols, medieval spiked hammers even a pair of golden cowboy spurs. Until the 1991 Gulf war these were all displayed at Saddam's Victory Museum in Baghdad which held all the gifts bestowed on Saddam by world leaders.

During his brief bid for the 1988 Republican nomination, Rumsfeld stated that restoring full relations with Iraq was one of his best achievements. This was not a particularly controversial position at the time, when U.S. policy considered ties with Iraq an effective bulwark against Iran.

While our constitutional requirements meant change in the white house. Saddam Hussein and Rumsfeld represented a thread of continuity over the issue of oil and weapons.

Answer 3

I don't ever remember people saying he was involved with 9/11, I do however remember it being reported that he gave the families of suicide bombers money after the bomber had done the deed. The other "lies" were based on intel that the entir world had.

I ask you this because I haven't heard it asked before but I think it needs to be asked to clear things up a little; If Bush is so stupid, how is it he was able to convince Congress, The UK Parliment, Spanish leaders, and countess others that Saddam was pursuing WMDs? How could a stupid man like Bush do all the things you claim he has done? In my honest opinion you would have to be a genious to pull all of this off, but the left keeps claiming he is stupid among other things

Answer 4

Had they been more forthright in mentioning the flimsiness of the evidence, their would not have been as much support for the war as their was. Basically, from my perspective, at the start of the Iraq war the anti-war crowd was somewhat silent while the pro-war crowd was quite loud. Had the quality of the intelligence been known, the anti-war crowd would have been louder. I doubt they would have had the necessary support for war.

"My guess is had the Bush admin been honest, the Iraq war would not have happened at that time. Your thoughts please."

I think you're right. Too bad it did happen.

Answer 5

Some people yet are not blind but still can not see. Logic is entirely missing and is replace by thirst for blood, or oil depending on how you look at it. These are the loyal followers of the modern day imperialists or fascist bent intruders that justify everything with a true lack of conscience. They are the dictators and the money changers that God himself rose against at the temple. They are evil in there nature and will kill you at a glance. They are murderous and full of themselves. These are the real children of Satan!

Answer 6

The Bush administration did not lie.

The Bush administration NEVER said that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The other statements you list were based on good faith beliefs - many in this country and others thought that is what was there.

Ironically, it is those who say he did who are themselves spreading deliberate misinformation.

I find it deeply shameful, and in a time of war a very, very questionable practice that DOES lead many to question people's patriotism.

PS One could ask instead, "If the case against the Iraq war is so strong, then why do its opponents have to stoop to lies about how we got into it?"

Answer 7

We had to lie because the American people would not have accepted an elective, aggressive war on Iraq. We know that Iraq had no WMD and that they had been verified destroyed by the Gulf War cease fire agreement, but we outsmarted the libs and claimed vague weapons programs and scared the American people with a false story of WHAT IF the Iraqis had nuclear WMD!?!

LOL! We lied, so what!?!

Answer 8

More and more of the truth is coming out. Even more will be revealed after he leaves office. Many war supporters bring up comments made by Democrats concerning Sadam's threat level. The main difference is, all of them had enough smarts NOT to invade Iraq. He WAS contained. Evil to be sure, but he was contained.

Answer 9

It was done as a means of distracting the public from the advancing repKon plan to install a permanent fascist oligarchy in the USA.

The fact that is also allowed cheneybush to funnel vast amounts of borrowed money, which will have to be payed back by out children and their children, to their friends and supporters was just icing on the cake.

w, cheney, and all their minions, are war criminals.

Answer 10

I don't think the administration knowlingly lied. They used the infomation they had (flawed or not) to make a decision.

I also don't think the president should be overly concerned with upsetting people. It is just not possible to please everyone, and many people are going to be upset with anything a president does. A President should do what they believe is right and in the best interest of the country--not what is politically correct or what will please the most people. After a president acts, the people will judge him later when it comes time for re-election.

If Presidents did what pleased the highest number of people, we would not have had civil rights laws passed when they were, we would have a divided country because the South would have been allowed to split from the union, and minorities in all areas (race, religion, beliefs, etc) would be subject to the whim of the majority and a president who did what was popular.