# And we went to War because...?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 11, 2004, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969 "2004-01-11T09:06:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Alien2022](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien2022)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/1 "2004-01-11T09:06:56Z")
So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. This would imply that the entire notion of WMD was completely falsified in order to provide some shred of pretense for an invasion.
My questions are: what does this mean for the Bush administration? For future American conflicts? For the ongoing war in Iraq? For the election?
Most tantilizing though, Does this have the potential to become another watergate?
That is granted though that it is true.
Cite.
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html)
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/2 "2004-01-11T10:36:15Z")
It means little. Planning is not a crime. It will rankle the ones that opposed the war even more than they already are, but it won’t affect those that supported it or the fence-sitters.
If you read Bush’s past statements on Iraq, it was pretty clear that he was going to be a lot less tolerant than Clinton was. Considering that Clinton’s “tolerance” was heavy bombing, it doesn’t take much to connect the dots and figure out what “less tolerant” means.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/3 "2004-01-11T10:39:22Z")
It has **no** potential to become another Watergate, as what the Prez did was dishonest and disingenous, but not illegal. Ask Presidents McKinley and Johnson about starting up wars on flimsy pretexts (Maine, Tonkin)–not that either was entirely culpable.
As for planning the war from the beginning, no real problem/scandal there either. W could just say that he was making a contingency plan, as Sadaam had always been a clear danger. And he could aver that there was WMD evidence right from the beginning.
I regret it, you regret it–but I have little doubt that W will be reelected by the stupefied masses come this November. Weep.
---
### Author:  [@Quint\_Essence](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quint_Essence)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/4 "2004-01-11T10:45:59Z")
Does this have the potential to become another watergate?
Watergate? Watergate pales in comparison with lying the country into a unfounded war.
If their was true justice and rule of law in this country Bush will spend the rest of his life in prison.
My opinion (and I know some will disagree, some out of simple fear that I might be right, some out of pure ignorance) is that not only did bush and company have prior intentions for invading Iraq and afghanistan long before 9-11 (by the way these plans have been discussed on the net since months before hostilities even began…), Bush was not only aware, but COMPLICIT in the 9-11 attacks nd used thoese attacks as a pretense to further his goals in afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush makes Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like amateurs. The damage done to this country by these cretins surpasses anything done by all of our enemies COMBINED.
As long as Bush is president, American is a term of abject shame.
---
### Author:  [@the\_first\_supraliminal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_first_supraliminal)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/5 "2004-01-11T10:53:47Z")
We went to war for the same reason everyone ever went to war- we had prepared for it and the generals were ready.
---
### Author:  [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/6 "2004-01-11T10:57:38Z")
9 killed today.
3 killed today.
12 killed today.
1 killed today.
At some point in time, people are going to start to add the numbers.
That’s when a lot of families are going to start to wonder why their kids were killed and get angry.
This was not a war against terrorism.
This was not a war to end terroism.
This was not a war to fight against 9/11.
This was Jr’s war to show daddy he could do it.
I am not the first, nor the only one, who has said from day one that this war was an unecessary, poorly planned act of agression that, yes, removed the world of a piss-ant despot, but has cost the American public far, far too much financially, and more importantly, all the good will that America offered to the rest of the world.
Does anyone realize that with a real President, after 9/11, we could have made a real difference? We could have unified the entire earth and made real strides in forging unification.
Bush blew that…big time.
---
### Author:  [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/7 "2004-01-11T11:00:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Beeruser \*
> We went to war for the same reason everyone ever went to war- we had prepared for it and the generals were ready.
Cynical, but pretty accurate.
Note the exception of why the UK went to war with Iraq - we hadn’t prepared, were trying flat out for another UN resolution but suddenly discovered that ‘Saddam had WMD’s pointed at our bases, ready for use in 45 minutes’.
---
### Author:  [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/8 "2004-01-11T12:27:02Z")
Bush himself is a pissant despot. Please don’t cheapen the crimes of Hitler and al. by comparing Bush to them. W is merely an amateur.
---
### Author:  [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/9 "2004-01-11T14:38:00Z")
(sigh)…now:
If you you misopolemical Bushbangers can still your meglophonic tongues for a moment I will give you a clarigation that is all-inclusive but succinct. The alpha, the omega…
\*\* That dumb bastard Saddam Hussien would not obey our generous terms of surrender of which he eagerly agreed to accept when we kicked his ass back in 1990 because he had invaded Kuwait.\*\*
I bet he would do so now\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ :).
---
### Author:  [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/10 "2004-01-11T15:00:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Alien2022 \*
> \*\*So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. \*\*
Piffle. Plans would have been in place long before W. Plans for possible wars are always in place, no matter how unlikely the conflict:
[http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html)
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/11 "2004-01-11T15:03:18Z")
I saw an ad for a movie about bush bangers. Didn’t seem to be related to this discussion though.
Here’s alist of official reason why we went to war:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*[AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
> \*\*](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)
> Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and
> illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
> of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
> national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
> Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
>
> Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
> United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
> unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
> biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
> and develop them, and to end its support for international
> terrorism;
>
> Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
> intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
> Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
> biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
> weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
> nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
>
> Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
> attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
> and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
> development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
> of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
>
> Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
> Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
> vital United States interests and international peace and security,
> declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President `to take
> appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
> laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
> international obligations’’;
>
> Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
> the United States and international peace and security in the
> Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
> of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
> to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
> capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
> supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
>
> Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
> Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
> civilian population thereby threatening international peace
> and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
> account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
> including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
> wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
>
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
> willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
> and its own people;
>
> Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
> hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
> including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
> and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
> Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
> United Nations Security Council;
>
> Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
> attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
> the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
> Iraq;
>
> Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
> organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
> safety of United States citizens;
>
> Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
> underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
> weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
> organizations;
>
> Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
> mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
> employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
> States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
> terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
> would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
> attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
> itself;
>
> Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
> the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
> Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
> and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
> international peace and security, including the development of
> weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
> Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
> Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
> in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
> (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
> in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
> 949 (1994);
>
> Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
> Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
> ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
> Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
> implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
> 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’;
>
> Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
> `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
> security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that
> Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
> goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’;
>
> Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
> the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
> States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
> regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
> replace that regime;
>
> Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
> States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary
> resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ``the Security Council
> resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
> security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’;
>
> Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
> terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist
> groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
> in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
> other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
> is in the national security interests of the United States and in
> furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
> Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
> of force if necessary;
>
> Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
> terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
> by the President to take the necessary actions against international
> terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
> organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
> aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
> harbored such persons or organizations;
>
> Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
> all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
> terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
> persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
> attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
> persons or organizations;
>
> Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
> action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
> against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
> resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
> 107-40); and
>
> Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
> restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
---
### Author:  [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/12 "2004-01-11T15:07:01Z")
There’s nothing inherently wrong w/ making plans aout how to conduct a war.
The Plame incident may become a scandal.
The mis-use of intel may become a scandal.
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/13 "2004-01-11T15:12:58Z")
The military has plans as a matter of course. The politicians, however, have intent - [obligatory link](http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) to Project for the New American Century’s 1998 letter to Clinton.
> [@](#):
>
> **…misopolemical Bushbangers can still your meglophonic tongues for a moment I will give you a clarigation…**
Aha, I see someone got the ‘GWB Dictionaryity of the Englishized Language’ for Christmas. 😉
---
### Author:  [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/14 "2004-01-11T15:53:34Z")
If O’Neil felt so strongly, why didn’t he issue his criticisms before the damn war started, when the criticism would have had a lot more impact?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/15 "2004-01-11T16:05:33Z")
By **Quint Essence** : “Bush was not only aware, but COMPLICIT in the 9-11 attacks nd used thoese attacks as a pretense to further his goals in afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush makes Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like amateurs.”
Dude, get some rest.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/16 "2004-01-11T16:34:34Z")
This is news?! This is standard military planning. Every country’s military is constantly creating plans to defeat or fend off other countries.
---
### Author:  [@Alien2022](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alien2022)
#### Post date: [January 11, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/17 "2004-01-11T17:07:29Z")
Yes, It’s standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn’t exist to begin with.
The only way this could drastically affect Bush in the elections, is if documents were leaked confirming this story, or that the “WMD” were doctored. If this happened, and a congressional investigation was launched… Bush could topple. Otherwise, it probably will have very little to no effect on him.
If O’Neil had voiced is opposition before the war, he would have been kicked out of the White House. A cabinet member doesnt bad mouth the presidents policies publicly and survive to see another day.
---
### Author:  [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)
#### Post date: [January 12, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/18 "2004-01-12T00:16:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Alien2022 \*
> \*\*So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. This would IMPLY that the entire notion of WMD was completely falsified in order to provide some shred of pretense for an invasion. \*\*
(I added the emphasis)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the US have planned to invade Iraq back in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Why does this “imply” that info on WMD were falsified? How have you drawn that conclusion? The idea that Iraq had WMD didn’t start with Bush. He didn’t arrive into office and cook up this entire situation. Removal of WMD from Iraq was the basis for 10 years of sanctions by the UN.
In my opinion, Saddam was the only one who falsified evidence of WMD.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Alien2022 \*
> \*\*Yes, It’s standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn’t exist to begin with.
> \*\*
Why “regardless?” If I remember correctly, Bush outlined a variety of conditions that would have avoided war. Are you sujesting that if Saddam had stepped down that the US still would have invaded?
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [January 12, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/19 "2004-01-12T01:05:02Z")
From Alien2022
> [@](#):
>
> Yes, It’s standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn’t exist to begin with.
Ok Alien2022…HOW were we going to go to war? I assume you mean that they were planning on going to war with Iraq PRIOR to 9/11 (start of Bush’s term) reguardless of whatever was going on, so…how were they going to get the war through Congress (we won’t even talk about how they were going to convince the people to do it…god knows, without even the pretext of 9/11 the anti-war crowd would have gone completely nuts and probably had massive support)? Can you give a reasonable logical explaination of HOW Bush and Co were gona get us to war with Iraq without something like 9/11…with a country that was fat and happy, and more concerned with the recession than with Iraq??
And lets deal in the real world please…no conspiricy theories about Bush knowing about it prior to it happening, or him being involved, etc, ok? Frankly, I’ve heard this rant before, and unless you go the tinfoil hat route, it just doesn’t work out…no WAY the US was going to war with anyone prior to 9/11.
AFTER 9/11…sure, I can very well imagine Bush and co dusting off operation Fuck Saddam in the Ass, but not prior to that…not in any real or meaningful way. I can see them dreaming about taking out Iraq, but realistically? They didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting something like that through, and they knew it.
From Alien2022
> [@](#):
>
> The only way this could drastically affect Bush in the elections, is if documents were leaked confirming this story, or that the “WMD” were doctored. If this happened, and a congressional investigation was launched… Bush could topple. Otherwise, it probably will have very little to no effect on him.
The only way it could drastically hurt Bush is if the foaming at the mouth crowd are able to convince a large segment of the population that there is something here. MOST folks with a clue realize that the military makes plans like this all the time. They don’t just sit around with their thumb up their collective ass waiting for stuff to happen then run around and figure out what to do. They PLAN for even remote possibilities. He’ll, I’ve heard about plans for the US Navy to fight it out with Britian prior to WWII. Stuff like this is nothing new, unless you are wide eyed and patently clueless about how the real world opperates.
From Alien2022
> [@](#):
>
> If O’Neil had voiced is opposition before the war, he would have been kicked out of the White House. A cabinet member doesnt bad mouth the presidents policies publicly and survive to see another day.
True enough but where were his principals then? If it was SUCH a bad thing, why didn’t he resign and go forth with the information THEN?? Why now…that he’s been fired?
-XT
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [January 12, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969/20 "2004-01-12T02:07:16Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xtisme \*
> MOST folks with a clue realize that the military makes plans like this all the time. They don’t just sit around with their thumb up their collective ass waiting for stuff to happen then run around and figure out what to do. They PLAN for even remote possibilities. He’ll, I’ve heard about plans for the US Navy to fight it out with Britian prior to WWII. Stuff like this is nothing new, unless you are wide eyed and patently clueless about how the real world opperates.
I wonder how many hours per week the National Security Council spends closeted with the president discussing the details of plans for the partitian of Baluchistan?
It seems more likely to this simple soul that the planning of such theoretical tactical exercises are limited to the war rooms of the pentagon, and that the big boys, like the president, the secretarys of defense and state, the national security advisor and such, only get involved when the game is _really_ afoot.
The participation of senior administration officials in pie in the sky wargames would take too much time away from their otherwise busy schedules.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-we-went-to-war-because/223969.md?page=2)