Musings of the Pundits: Why did Bush lie?

Great Debates
1

Obviously, from the topic header, one needs to at least entertain the possibility President Bush (and members of his administration) lied about the stated reasons for invading Iraq. I for one cannot come up with any other plausible explanation, in light of the evidence. If you insist or strongly suspect Bush did not lie, but rather acted in good faith, I invite you to debate the question of his honesty in another thread.

So, we base our discussion on the tentative (some would say plausible) assumption that bush lied. This begs the obvious question: Why? Why risk American lives and tens (perhaps hundreds) of billions of dollars if Iraq did not pose the purported clear and present danger to our homeland security. Certainly there must have been a very compelling reason.

Those who cleave unto the neoconservative ethos have offered some possibilites, e.g. Bush felt the danger was so real and the need for action so urgent that fudging the data (or ignoring it) was necessary to expeditiously deal with the Iraqi threat. We can debate the merits of this theory, and others of its ilk.

Those who trust nobody, neocons least of all (such as myself) have offered other theories, e.g. there was a predisposition to remove Saddam from power, driven by a perceived need for retribution and rationalized by the real prospect of indefinite and costly surveillance to keep the Iraqis contained. Maybe we can debate the merits of this theory as well.

And others.

The point here is not to attain certainty; that’s impossible with the average politician, for whom lying is de rigeur. However, the whole idea of good political analysis is to speculate, reasonably, about what must be going on in these politicians’ heads. That’s all we can ever really work with, after all. That’s the information we are forced to use when we cast our vote.

So let’s speculate, shall we?

2

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the US had to actually face some hard truths rather than postpone dealing with them any longer – you might, or might not, put that down to second term-it is and/or the incoming president’s lack of interest in matters foreign.

The key to US Middle East policy is free-flowing oil to the western economies and support of Israel. Without the oil flow the whole capitalist world – including the empire at its centre – takes a rather unpleasant fall (until it’s military seizes the oil fields in the name of . . . something).

And the key to free flowing oil – at least in terms of Wall Street confidence, and other ‘confidence’ factors – has always been Saudi:

Capitalism >> Oil >> Middle East >> Saudi

9/11 showed how it was now imperative for worldwide capitalism - as well as the empire - to not rely on Saudi so much; the 9/11 terrorists showed that fundamentalism was quite advanced and seriously motivated within the Kingdom. Relying on Saudi oil also meant exposure to blackmail and other unpalatable (Israel related) options. No one knew, or knows, how lonh the Saud family can hold on to the reins.

The US had no choice – confirmed in the foreign policy bible aka ‘The Cheney Report’ - to diversify away from Saudi, and in double quick time.

And so it swapped horses mid-stream; the empire had to realign itself within the region and it did so quite smoothly – except that was only the end of the beginning. Now comes the hard part of hanging onto what it gained.

Of course, a big policy shift like that also has to have other serious benefits, as well as detriments. It also has to have worldwide repercussions for years if not decades . . . we talk about those incessantly.

But that’s the central plank in this policy shift; strategic defence of the flow of oil to capitalism in general, and the empire at its heart in particular.

Oil Moves the War Machine
Given that, it’s clear why the politicians lied; who in a democracy is going to support a war of aggression against another country on the otherside of the world when it’s no direct threat to you and, in any event, the UN has the matter seemingly in hand; that was the problem, the UN might actually do its job (finding no WMD found) and Saudi might actually go fundie – that would leave the US and capitalism over-exposed, at least according to the Cheney Energy Bible philosophy of diversification and entrenchment.

Neo-con conclusion: They’ve saved capitalism from a very nasty potential blip, and also ensured this first empire of the capitalist era prevails for a decade or two longer.

I get misty-eyed just thinking about it . . .

3

Short answer: Because he believed he could get away with it.

Unfortunately, so far he’s being proven right. :frowning:

4

He lied because he needed Public Opinion on his side to justify this war. Public opinion can be very powerful, after all, public opinion had a big hand in getting the US out of Vietnam.
Bush wanted:
a) the nation united in fear of a common enemy (this helped him an awful lot with his mid-term elections)
b) an easy target to focus the country’s anger on. In this case, Iraq, although Iraq and Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Noam Chomsky is very convincing and clear in his book “Hegemony or Survival or The American quest for Global Dominance”.
read and weep.
I’m reading it at the moment, and I’m actually getting nightmares over it. I kid you not.

5

My contempt is based on incompetence, not mendacity per se, (thought there was plenty enough of that as well.)

In Mr. Woodwards act of journalistic analingus, Bush at War, he recounts how GeeDubya burst in on a meeting Condi Rice was having and said “Fuck Saddam! We’re taking him out!” in March, 2002. Ever after, Geedubya swore he hadn’t made up his mind, when clearly he had. After that point, every bit of evidence that supported his position, however vacuous, was regarded as solid gold.

GeeDubya sees himself as a Leader of Men, a bold and decisive geo-statesman and the architect of the new world order. Elmer Fudd channeling Bismarck. He is encouraged in this fantasy by those who manipulate him for thier own ends. it is the purest Bushwah.

Alternatively, I have seen offered the notion that GeeDubya nobly sacrificed his personal integrity in order that we might be safer, a momentous decision that required several nanoseconds of agonized thought.

No, seriously!

6

He lied because that is how it is done, and how its always been done. Left to their own devices and instincts people will choose peace, therefore its important that they not be left to their own devices. They must be prodded and confused and frightened and misled to agree to the war their politicans want.

Faked Gulf of Tonkin attacks, faked Polish attacks on a German radio station in 1939, faked Niger papers and lies over WMD, its nothing new just the traditional and well understood tactic of the warmonger.

How did Goering put it?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

And we will never learn.

7

I’l play along, though I’ll go on the record as not being convinced that he lied, and in addition, the reasoning below shouldn’t be taken as an excusing of said lying if he did:

I think that after 9/11, Bush was of the opinion that the only thing that will curb terrorism in the long run would be to promote Western Democracy in the Middle East, to give Arabs a better image of the American lifestyle than they get from Shieks, Mullahs and Al-Jazeera. Iraq was a pilot program for this - both in terms of figuring out the best way to establish an Arabic democracy, and in terms of setting up an example of good living that hopefully other Arab nations would aspire to emulate. Iraq made the best pilot program because Saddam was such a vile person - his ouster was (Bush thought) unlikely to raise serious international opposition (a gross miscalculation on Bush’s part), and he very likely didn’t rate much affection from the locals, either (this much proved true, the resistance is small, much of it not Iraqi, and most native cooperation with it is out of fear rather than agreement).

In short: if he lied, he lied about the short-term danger from Iraq specifically in order to establish long-term safety from the Arab world in general.

Not that this excuses lying. He’s a president, not a Machiavellian “Prince”.

8

Well as long as we are speculating wildly…

Perhaps he did it simply to take the “fight” away from American soil. Take the battle to their fields. This gives the terrorists a target to fight where the damage could be minimalized. This is not meant to trivialize the deaths of any of our men and women in uniform or the hardships that they bear, but they are probably much more able to deal with the continued threats and suicide attacks than the average American citizen…

I mean we hear “orange” and buy duct tape and bottled water.

9

So why did he choose a “field” that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or OBL or 9/11? How was Iraq any more relevant to the “War On Terror” than Luxembourg?

10

DtC…

Good question (and I did say it was wild speculation). I would point to some of the other (probably wiser) posters in this thread that speculated a possible reduction in the dependance on Saudi oil, or the fact that Saddam was not exactly loved by others in the region (making him an enticing target since it wouldn’t “upset the apple cart” like it would if we invaded, say, Syria). Or maybe it was because Saddam was a bad guy we could “get”, since he had a nation he was tied to and an interest in keeping visible and in power, unlike a rogue terrorist like Osama.

11

This is my (somewhat abbreviated) take on things, and why I support the war:

Yeah, Bush apparently lied. The real reasons for going to war, as London_Calling touched on, were that the US and other western economies could only rely on Saudi oil for so long - for pragmatic as well as ideological reasons. Concerns about fundamentalism and terrorism have called the Kingdom’s stability into question, and it’s also a little unseemly to claim to be fighting terrorists while one of your major allies in the region unwittingly spawns them.

Bush rightly realizes that the autocratic governments in the MENA are partly to blame for the poor state of the region, as well its continuing problem with Islamic terrorism. Hosni Mubarak, Bashar al Assad and the like.

Of course, steamrolling every such government in the MENA would be neither practical nor wise. So, Bush and co decided to take out the worst of the lot - Saddam - who it would rightly be pointed out did not rule with any overtones of Islamic fundamentalism, nor was his country a source of al Qaeda recruits.

The principle, however, is the same. By eliminating the most flagrantly anti-democratic and repressive regime in the area, and allowing its subjects to rule themselves, an Arab-style democracy is established in the MENA. I think it stands to reason (especially considering the inroads reformists have made in the area since the invasion of Iraq) that such a democracy will have the effect of encouraging its Arab neighbors to adopt a similar system. As open societies flourish in the MENA, the standard of living increases. Terrorism diminishes because the jobless youth who were drawn into al Qaeda’s fold are no longer jobless, and the leaders of MENA countries can no longer point to the US and Israel as the source of all their problems. (yes, I realize this is an oversimplification. I’m in a hurry :)). The Arab world benefits for obvious reasons, and the west is better off because young Arab men who live a comfortable, dignified life in a stable world are much less apt to fly planes into buildings.

Maybe it’s a little idealistic, perhaps unrealistic in some respects, but as I said earlier there have been positive improvements in the MENA - whether they’re related to Iraq and Bush’s London speech about democracy in the area is uncertain. Jordan’s King Abdullah II launched a plan before his parliament to transform his country into a modern Arab democracy. Part of the plan includes new textbooks that espouse a more open form of Islam (his father Hussein was also an advocate of liberal Islam) - a move that has been echoed by Kuwait. The top candidate to succeed Mubarak in Egypt is an avowed reformist (although he is Hosni’s son.) Many gulf states are moving slowly towards democratic reform. Women are allowed to vote in Qatar. Criticism of the monarchy is now allowed in Oman. The Emir of the UAE wants to turn his country into a model of an open Arab society for the rest of the MENA. Libya’s latest move in its bid to reconcile with the west - renouncing its WMD program - came as a direct result of Iraq according to Qaddafi himself. The list goes on.

In any case, something had to be done. Even if I disagreed with Bush’s methods, I would still admire him for having done something.

Be kind when you reply. :slight_smile:

12

While people are talking about oil and how it effected or should have effected decisions about the Iraq war, I’d just like to point out this little tidbit. While it is certainly true that a lot of oil imported into the USA comes from the Middle East, it is by no means a supplier of most of the USA oil imports. Arab OPEC countries supplied a little less than 25% of all crude oil imported to the USA in 2002.

Most of the imported oil in the USA comes from North and South America – Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela specifically. 45% of USA imports are from these three countries. Do what you will with that information.

13

Afghanistan wasn’t good enough for that purpose?

Whatever explanation you have about “why Bush lied” also has to explain why the other folks, not aligned with Bush politically, participated in this lie. That would be Blair and the Congressional Democrats who went along, and still go along, with the war.

14

I agree completely with Sine Nomen.

Terrorism is not merely a function of ideology; it is also a function of economics and politics. One who is prosperous has little reason to kill oneself to further a cause; one who has an outlet for grievance has less reason to choose more violent methods of political speech. After all, if it were merely a matter of ideology and religion, why aren’t abortion clinics being constantly bombed?

Thus, what needs to happen is for prosperity and democracy to come to the MENA. How do you do that? Well, you either spread money across the region in economic grants- which has produced little-to-no results in the last twenty years- or you pick up an easy pretense and plant a tree in Baghdad.

15

I don’t know about Blair but I can explain the Democrats. Political fear. It’s really no more complicated than that. No one wanted to be seen as unpatriotic or antagonistic to the “War On terror.” in the wake of 9/11 it was all about pandering to the most base, jingoistic and bloodthirsty sensibilities of the American people. Voting against the war made them vulnerable to political attacks and endangered their reelections. No one was immune. One need look no further than the ads run by Saxby Chambliss (a draft dodger) in his campaign against Senator Max Cleland of Geogia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam. The ads ccompared Cleland with Osama bin Laden and and Saddam Hussein because he wasn’t supportive enough of Homeland Security legislation.

I would also argue that they had no way to know that Bush was lying at the time. They went along with the war but without knowing it was based on a lie. I still think they were gutless weasels, though, and I was damn proud of Paul Wellstone who voted against the war in the midst of his own close Senate campaign. The vote was held before the election deliberately to either stampede Dems into supporting it or making themselves walking political targets by opposing it.

Wellstone’s poll numbers went up after the vote and he would have won his election had it not been for that plane crash. most senators do not have the personal respect and credibility from their constituents as Wellstone did, though.

16

While Americas particular supply migh not be directly affected, the price of oil worldwide will be. If those who do import petro from the ME have to pay higher prices, then those who supply the US now will sell to their oil elsewhere until the price in the US reaches the same level. The price of petro goes up and down pretty much all over the world at once.

17

Sure, but will those numbers stay the same over the next 20-50 years? Dick Cheney’s own 2001 energy report projects that America’s continued dependence on petroleum means we’ll have to import 60%-70% of the stuff in the next decade or so, thus driving the need to secure foreign sources from governments friendly to the US.

Just because the majority of America’s oil is not coming from the ME today doesn’t mean it won’t tomorrow.

(And, of course, it doesn’t hurt to make rumbling noises at other countries that aren’t playing nice with us – or did you miss the “terrorist threats” the Administration was waving about Venezuela a few months ago?)

18

TheR, the importance Saudi Arabia has is it’s refinery capacity in that it is a stabilizer of world prices to a degree that is much more significant than our actual consumption of middle east oil. We could pick up the slack elsewhere ,other countries economies less diversified than ours are more vulnerable, large fluctuations in the price of oil doesn’t benefit anyone,the gas crunch in the early 70’s wasn’t fun. In one sense we are protecting the worlds access to stable supplies of middle east oil, a world we trade with.

I’m with London Calling for the reasons of invading. I don’t think it makes sense to say “why did Bush lie?” as much as the story he told was consistant with the partnership we’ve had with Saudi Arabia. Like Wolfowitz said “WOMD,it’s what we could agree on”. Like what kind of pizza to order. But when systems of denial crash,like a drunk getting sober,it affects everyone.

19

I’m not sure that I think “lying” is the best way to describe what’s been going on here. I definitely agree that it looks as though the Administration has been telling us a lot of things that are false, but I’m not sure it’s a question of deliberate deceit in order to mislead us for their own purposes.

This Administration kind of reminds me of a crack of Molly Ivins’ about Ronald Reagan’s wacked-out pronouncements (trees cause acid rain, Lenin wanted to invade the US through Mexico, etc. etc.): “No wonder we trusted him; he never lied to us.” If somebody really means what they say, even if it’s completely false and they have to spin it like mad to make it plausible not only to you but even to themselves, it doesn’t resonate as a lie.

I think the Bush folks (at least, Cheney’s ruling PNAC/neocon crowd) are genuinely convinced that unchallenged American political and economic dominance—maintained by military aggression if necessary—is the best thing not only for the US but the rest of the world as well. I think that inclines them to believe whatever will justify their perspective, even if it requires seeking out dubious “stovepiped” intelligence about Iraqi WMDs and ignoring opposing viewpoints. I don’t think that’s excusable behavior for a presidential administration, but I think it’s a waste of outrage to condemn it as deliberate nefarious lying. It’s wrong, and that’s bad enough.

Seems to me that the actual goals to be served by the occupation of Iraq rank out roughly as follows:

1. Promoting US economic hegemony. As others have pointed out, our economy is extremely dependent on oil (much more dependent than it absolutely needs to be, in fact), and loss of effective control over the oil supply could mean a big hit in our wallet. Moreover, as I don’t think anybody’s pointed out here yet, the US dollar is the currency for most oil transactions, which helps stabilize our rather shaky debt-and-deficit fiscal situation. If a large percentage of oil transactions switch to, say, the euro (as Iraq’s did in November 2000), then a powerful international incentive to maintain the strength of the dollar starts to erode.

2. Promoting US political hegemony. Retaining economic hegemony requires maintaining some measure of political control over the region. We’ve been doing that for decades in our choices of which regimes to support and which to try to bring down; the invasion of Iraq is just a much more extreme version.

3. Promoting freedom and democracy in the region. I agree with JC and SN that a lot of people in the Administration, as elsewhere, genuinely think it would be better for the ME as a whole to be more democratic. Not just for idealistic altruistic motives, but because peaceful prosperous states are usually better customers (and, as mentioned, produce less terrorism).

However, I think it’s totally misleading to suggest that the main problem is that up to now, we just haven’t done enough to foster ME democracy. Bullshit. Up to and including now, we’ve often been actively opposing more free and democratic governments in the ME (especially when they do things like nationalizing their oil assets, which we find very unpalatable), and instead propping up dictatorial regimes like the ones in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (and until recently, in Iraq). US policies have very clearly shown that our top priority for ME governments is friendliness towards us and ability to control their citizens, rather than freedom and democracy.

Yes, it’s nice that we now seem to be bumping the issue of democratic reforms up a notch or two on our scale of priorities, and that some governments are at least making gestures of compliance. But please let’s not kid ourselves that we haven’t been a big part of the problem for a long time, or that invading Iraq was the only way (or even a particularly good way) to start fixing the problem.

Then there are the goals which aren’t actually served by the Iraq war, but which are more palatable to the average non-imperialist citizen:

4. Protecting ourselves against severe and immediate danger from Iraqi WMD. Yup, it was a myth, and responsible knowledgeable people were saying all along that it was a myth. But it was, in LeeG’s metaphor, the pizza topping that the largest number would eat, so it was what the Administration demanded to hear from the intelligence communities.

5. Protecting ourselves against terrorism. Again, it was objected all along that Hussein’s Iraq and Islamic terrorists were never credibly linked; but again, it was a popular pizza topping.

Then there’s the possible goal that DaveX suggested, which I sincerely hope was not really involved in the calculations, because I think it’s completely revolting and immoral:

6. Hanging out some terrorist bait so they’ll quit bugging us. It’s one thing to send our armed forces into danger so that they can defend us from danger: that’s what armed forces are for. It’s another thing, and IMO a completely inexcusable one, to use the armed forces to provide an easy target that you hope the terrorists will find more attractive: like setting out a dish of sugared beer for slugs in the hope that they’ll leave your cabbages alone. Especially if the invasion rouses Arab/Muslim animosity so that we then end up with more terrorists, this would be a completely callous and ultimately totally counterproductive betrayal of our soldiers’ courage and loyalty.

20

I don’t believe Bush did lie. There’s a big difference between unknowingly not telling the truth and lieing. We haven’t yet found Saddam’s WMD, and there may not be any. But Saddam did his damnedest to make us think he had them. And we believed him. Trouble is, he didn’t think we had the balls to act; he was wrong.