From very serious indications more and more available today, there were untrue justifications for Bush and his war party to wage the military attack on and occupation of Iraq.
Now we would like to examine exactly what are the real agenda of Bush and company.
Were the agenda national or personal, i.e., for the national interests or the personal ones of Bush and the people who effectively either sided with him or drove him to the war.
If national in the longer perspectives, what about the personal ones if any in the shorter perspectives?
If the agenda were essentially national whatever the personal advantages to the parties involved, namely Bush and company, are they in keeping with the present consciousness of enlightened humanism on the part of liberalized democratic societies?
Assuming that this thread will be moved to GD soon, here’s my breakdown of the Bush Administration’s real agenda, regarding the Iraq War II in particular:
Oil. Money. Lots of it.
Distracting the American public from the most important news story that emerged after 9/11: The Enron/Cheney scandal. Of course, they never did get Cheney to turn over his notes, so how will we know for sure what’s in there? But from Dec. '01 to April '03, the diplomatic situation with Iraq totally DOMINATED the news. That’s why they dragged it out so long…to wait until everyone forgets. Pure wagging the dog.
To maintain the current level of paranoia (in America, at least) regarding foreign terrorism. Never mind that there has not been one single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Yes, al-Qaeda has bombed a few tourist spots and tried to shoot down a plane w/ a Stinger missile, and I’m not saying that that’s not a problem that needs addressing. Perhaps, one day, the current Administration will address it…
…but right now, it’s almost like they’re playing this terrorism situation as a way to keep the people in panic mode, so they’ll gladly allow more and more laws that whittle away at our Constitutional Rights (Patriot Act, etc.)
Pah. Re-election. As long as there is war, people will support the President. Of course, if there were a couple hundred soldiers coming home in bodybags, instead of a few dozen, you could pretty much call the Democratic Primaries the election.
But since the Republican Guard isn’t quite the “hard-core elite” it once was, and Saddam’s army is (or was) no longer the world’s 4th largest, and since American and British planes have been whittling away at the Iraqi air defenses since the last Gulf War…
you can pretty much write off anyone else’s chances of the Presidency for another four years.
Humanism, I will presume everyone knows that who is in SDMB. Qualifying humanism with enlightenment, that’s to emphasize the kind which our mentor, Cecil Adams, is dedicated to: the kind consisting in the fight against ignorance.
I have the impression that many Dopers here are humanistic in leaning, but in their attitude towards total enlightenment, at least the positive disposition of, they seem to be deficient. An example of their deficicncy is failure to detect the unjustifiable character of the war against Iraq launched by Bush and his company.
Thie war was, I think, intended to accomplish a number of purposes, some of which have been mentioned above.
> To distract the public from a number of things, including Cheney/Enron, the details of a tax plan that mainly benefits the wealthy, and the steady erosion of civil liberties.
> To hand out no-bid contracts to favored companies for the rebuilding of Iraq.
> To gain control of the disposition of Iraqi oil.
> To get the people whipped up into a rah-rah, support our troops, support the President frame of mind, to insure re-election.
> And perhaps the main reason, to establish an American empire.
They didn’t have an exit strategy because they don’t plan to exit. We’ll be occupying Iraq indefinitely. Will they stop at Iraq? I doubt it. Who’ll be next?
Don’t forget to add to the list, “Establish a new American presence in the Middle East, so we aren’t caught up a creek when Saudi Arabia collapses under the predicted uprising coming RSN.” What, you think we pulled US forces out of Saudi out of the goodness of our hearts?
That’s a bad presumption. ‘Humanism’ is one of those mom and apple pie things. Perhaps we should start with a good definition. What’s your definition of this?
Perhaps he was acting on what was common knowledge at the time - that Saddam had a WMD program, intended to retain it, was not prepared to cooperate fully with the inspection regime, presented a threat to his neighbors and his own people, and served as a locus of terrorist support.
Even Hans Blix agreed that Iraq had tons of WMD unaccounted for. Clinton said the same in 1998. One of the major objections of the Left to an invasion of Iraq was that Saddam would both employ WMD against the allied invasion forces, and provide it to outside terrorists.
Saddam was not cooperating with the inspection regime. Post 9/11, Bush wanted to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks both by acting against al-Queda, and by acting against Iraq. He gave Iraq one last chance to cooperate, Iraq failed to do so, and we overthrew the regime and are in the process of setting up another, hopefully better one.
Bush and company made some overstatements about the exact extent of how many WMD Saddam possessed. Much of the rest of the objections being raised are ex post facto accusations based on partisan bias. And the process of discovering the actual WMD programs in a country as big as Iraq is a slow one.
I realize nothing is going to stop the Democrats from repeating their line that “Bush lied” ad infinitum, but speculation about the “real agenda” of the Bush administration are unnecessary at best, and paranoid conspiracy theories at worst.
Bush invaded Iraq because he perceived Iraq to be a threat to the region and the world. Like North Korea, except before they actually developed nukes rather than after. Iraq has been a problem in the Middle East since the invasion of Kuwait.
Don’t forget a direct threat to the US. That was THE essential selling point for the whole invasion. Don’t ever forget that!
Even though it was, has been and continues to be the position of prominent members of the US intelligence community, world leaders and members of the international intelligence community that the invasion of Iraq has increased the number of potential recruits for groups like al Qaeda.
Overstatements? Is that the same as saying that the Baush admin used discounted evidence, outdated photos and various other shoddy bits and misrepresentations irresponsibly in a matter of grave national importance?
Umm, Actually, quite a bit of these things were called into question BEFOREhand, by amateur armchair-intelligence-analyst partisans such as members of the CIA, DIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Dept in various reports, testimonies and interviews.
Don’t forget a direct threat to the US. That was THE essential selling point for the whole invasion.
Don’t ever forget that!
PS
Spare me your cries that concern over the worthiness of a casus belli being merely a partisan issue. I am a Republican and I believe whole heartedly that if we are going to commit our US troops that we should have a damn good, monumentally terrific reason to give to parents when we have to tell them that their child is dead.
Democrats are NOT the only ones who value the lives of US military personel.
“Direct threat” in the sense that Saddam had a WMD program, and that he was not prepared to cooperate with the inspection regime.
But no, I do not agree that this was “THE essential selling point” for the invasion. There were a lot of reasons given. Some have been validated, some have not.
If you want to pick out one essential motivation for the invasion, it would be the unwillingness of Iraq to cooperate with the inspection regime, and to disarm fully, and to account for that disarmament so that we all were clear that she was no longer a threat.
PS - what I am not agreeing with in the second paragraph is the idea that the whole invasion is discredited if Saddam did not have fully functioning ICBMs targetted on the US.
I think Clinton showed us how much the American people care about presidential scandels
Besides, the idea that Bush + Co would start a war just to distract the American people sounds insane. Do you have anything more to support this theory than innuendo and conjecture?
And if there was a terrorist attack, you would be blasting the administration for not doing enough.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that people aren’t after you.
That’s right. He wants to take away all your rights…because why again?
Cite, please? IIRC, Blix suspected that Iraq might have WMDs, but was uncertain of how much and in what condition. Which was, of course, why he was in the country pokin’ around. I don’t recall an admission from Blix that he knew Iraq had unreported WMDs.
Especially to al Qaeda, since we all know Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are real close buddies. Never mind how Bin Laden was ready to send al Qaeda into war against Iraq, that was just a little misunderstanding. :rolleyes:
Especially since everything Iraq did in response was dismissed as “not good enough” by George.
I suspect this is going to win the Understatement Of The Week Award; either that, or being off by a factor of 500,000 is now merely “some overstatements.”
Yeah, I recall Hans Blix saying the same thing back in March – and Bush refusing to give the inspectors the time that they needed…
Translation: “La la la la la la, I can’t hear you, neener neener neener…”
Yeah, never mind the continued lack of WMDs, never mind the growing reports of WHite House pressure to slant the intelligence data, never mind the “mobile labs” that weren’t, never mind the total lack of WMD usage in the war itself – Bush must be completely innocent and honest, because he told us himself that he’s innocent and honest. :rolleyes: