# So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567 "2009-04-27T23:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/81 "2009-04-28T13:50:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Oh well. At least we have established it as imaginary.Really? Which statements, _specifically_, that Bush Sr. has made, make you think that he despises his son? Nope, not imaginary, merely inferential. As far as which specific statements Bush Sr. made; feel free to dig them up yourself, I have better things to do than try to make an airtight case for something a Conservative doesn’t want to be true. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/82 "2009-04-28T13:54:30Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > \*\*So Bush lied to get into Iraq, ok but why? > \*\* > > I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that he didn’t. Where are the WMD’s? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/83 "2009-04-28T13:56:03Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > it seem fatuous to argue other than that the insurgency is a consequence of the invasion Okay. Now did you mean to be responding to someone else? I mean, considering that I’ve never said anything of the sort… > [@Princhester](#): > > Even leaving that aside your cite doesn’t seem to support your position. My cite does, indeed, support the fact that “they hate us for our freedom” (which was most certainly not coined regarding Iraqis, insurgents or otherwise), is partially accurate. > [@Princhester](#): > > In fact, it says specifically that its subject did not resent at least political freedoms. No. It specifically said that Qutb believed the west was jahiliyya and that “[o]nly the strict, unchanging law of the prophet can redeem this uncivilized condition.” You cannot have political freedoms under a strict theocracy. > [@Princhester](#): > > What he really evidences is an apparent distaste for a culture different to his own, to a pathological degree. And once you’ve eliminated all the actual differences and points of divergence that he hated (eg. our political, social, sexual, cultural, etc… freedoms), then sure, an oversimplified gloss can cast it as simply ‘cultural distaste’. Ignoring, of course, what the actual cultural clashes were and what, specifically, he found unpalatable. Namely, the lack of fundamentalist Islam which allowed people to live their lives other than by strict Islamic law. > [@Princhester](#): > > Your characterisation of that as hating you because of the freedoms you enjoy is just a characterisation derived from your own key cultural reference point, namely that US culture is all about freedom, ergo if he dislikes your culture he must dislike freedom. Yah, that or the fact that Qutb resented people not living under a strict Islamic theocracy. Could go either way. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/84 "2009-04-28T13:58:58Z")
So it basically boils down to power. They had a bunch, so naturally they needed more. I second Greg Palast’s theory as linked by **BG**. A couple more things… Some people seem speak of the cost of the war and the trillions “lost” without appreciating that most of the money wasn’t “lost”. Although amazing amounts did effectively disappear, the great majority of that money was _spent_. Spent on America’s military-industrial complex, more and more privatized. The whole thing worked much like the bailouts, sucking money from taxpayers to billionaires … largely R donors… permanent majority and all that. It’s the very definition of government to them. (All the while, preaching how EVIL taxes redistributing wealth is.) Forgive me for speculating, but these guys have made it clear that that is how they think. People suggest that they had all these schemes for “American” influence and domination of the region. I think it is worth noting that they define “American” as “me and mine, fuck those liberals”. War/defense was traditionally the Rs issue\*. As much as they wanted America to dominate the Middle East, I’m sure they were equally motivated by Rs dominating Ds. And they did until they finally fucked it up so bad nobody could stand it. Imagine if they’d pulled it off. The permanent majority could have happened. Plus this country loves war. Needs it. We don’t know what to do without one. The lies were transparent to those paying attention, but most \*wanted \*to fall for it. \*This sentence was really fun to write, because last year I might have written “Defense is an R issue” as if there was no doubt. Not so much these days… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/85 "2009-04-28T14:05:42Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Nope, not imaginary, merely inferential. > As far as which specific statements Bush Sr. made; feel free to dig them up yourself, I have better things to do than try to make an airtight case for something a Conservative doesn’t want to be true. Inferences based on nothing are imaginary, as I am sure you already know. So, you are making inferences from statements that don’t exist, **Bosda** is listening to voices that no one else can hear, **sailor** is defending allegations for which there is no proof, and **ElvisL1ves** is manufacturing quotes. All in a thread dedicated to examining somebody else’s lies. 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/86 "2009-04-28T14:19:50Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Fuck Saddam. I’m taking him out.” - GWB > > All else is commentary. While this anecdote has made it [into the blogosphere,](http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/article_1354.jsp) (without much in the way of corroboration), it should be noted that the comment is claimed to have been made in Marcxh, 2002, substantially later than Bush’s remarks during the 2000 Presidential campaign and much later than Wolfowitz’s term paper and the various meetings and letters of neo-cons rallying around its simplistic ideas. The rest is not “commentary,” it is the search for the actual answer. Attributing the whole thing to a simplistic phrase uttered by Bush is an act worthy of Bush, himself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/87 "2009-04-28T14:21:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **ElvisL1ves** is manufacturing quotes. Since the barest hint of an effort on Google demonstrates that **ElvisL1ves** did not manufacture the quote, perhaps you will refrain from jumping to such conclusions or posting them? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/88 "2009-04-28T14:23:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So, you are making inferences from statements that don’t exist Show me proof of their nonexistence. Until you do so, I will continue to believe I have seen them. My memory does not usually play tricks on me, so I’m more willing to accept what I remember, rather than what some dude on the internet claims to be cold hard fact. If that irritates, so be it. Your whole fucking war irritated me. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/89 "2009-04-28T14:35:18Z")
I genuinely believe Bush was told the following: 1. America needs Middle East oil. 2. Saddam Hussein has invaded Kuwait once, so after we drove him out we put lots of US troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to protect them from another invasion. 3. Many Saudis see these US troops in their country as infidels infesting the Holy Land (i.e. Mecca). 4. Some Saudis bombed the Towers mainly because of those troops. Therefore we need to reduce the troops in Saudi, yet not risk Saddam invading Kuwait. It would also help to have a benevolent regime in Iraq. Putting it all together, we manufacture evidence of WMDs, invade Iraq no matter what Saddam says or does, then reduce the bases in Saudi. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/90 "2009-04-28T14:37:09Z")
In some cases we can only speculate as to what would have happened if… In this case we are lucky enough to know what Bush father would have done if he was president because he WAS president. And when he was president he followed a policy which was substantially different and in many ways opposite to his son’s policies later. So there is no speculation needed to know, for example, that Bush the father thought “going to Bagdad” and occupying Iraq was a “bad idea”. So yes, we have some evidence that George the elder liked Clinton’s foreign policies better because when he was president his foreign policy was more like Clinton’s than like his son’s. His decision to not occupy Iraq, even when it could have been done so easily at that point, shows he understood the situation in a way which Clinton also did and which Bush the son evidently did not. Schwarzkopf said it best: > [@](#): > > ## General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, a conservative Republican understood this , and said so! After Desert Storm , he wrote a book -"It Doesn’t Take a Hero " and explained how occupation --killing Saddam would backfire !. He said it in no uncertain terms . He called Iraq a "tar pit " that would drain us --in every way . > > Why didn’t we go all the way to Baghdad and “finish” the job"?. > > ## “It should be clearly understood that the option of all the way to Baghdad was never considered. Despite all the so called experts who with twenty-twenty hindsight are now criticizing that “decision” at the time the war ended there was not a single head of state, diplomat, Middle east expert, or military leader who, as far as I am aware, advocated continuing the war and seizing Baghdad”. – Page 497. > > "I am convinced that had a decision been made to invade all of Iraq and capture Baghdad, the coalition that we worked so hard to preserve would have fractured. I am equally convinced that the only forces that would have participated in those military actions would have been British and American. Even the French would have withdrawn from the coalition. > > Had the United States and the United Kingdom gone on alone to capture Baghdad, under the provisions of the Geneva and Hague conventions we would have been considered occupying powers and therefore would have been responsible for all the costs of maintaining or restoring government, education, and other services for the people of Iraq. > > ## From the brief time we did spend occupying Iraqi territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit — we would still be there, and we not the United Nations would be be bearing the costs of that occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on." Page 498. > > ## “Had the United States and the United Kingdom alone attacked Iraq and occupied Baghdad, every citizen of the Arab world today would be convinced that what Saddam said was true. Instead, they know that the armed forces of the western world and Arab nations fought side by side against Iraq’s aggression and that when Kuwait was liberated the western nations withdrew their military forces and went home. For once we were strategically smart enough to win the war and the peace”. Page 498 > > General H. Norman Schwarzkopf - - "It Doesn’t Take a Hero " All this was _way_ over GW Bush’s head. Way over. Bush father understood it well as did Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/91 "2009-04-28T14:38:33Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Show me proof of their nonexistence. > Until you do so, I will continue to believe I have seen them. My memory does not usually play tricks on me, so I’m more willing to accept what I remember, rather than what some dude on the internet claims to be cold hard fact. > If that irritates, so be it. Your whole fucking war irritated me. Um, sorry. How does anyone prove non-existence? I’m afraid you have to find them. (And the war sickened me, but the above is just standard practice.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/92 "2009-04-28T14:50:28Z")
[QUOTE=sailor] His decision to not occupy Iraq, even when it could have been done so easily at that point, shows he understood the situation in a way which Clinton also did and which Bush the son evidently did not. [/QUOTE] You are wrong. Bush I couldn’t have easily gone into Iraq at that point, because doing so would have completely shattered the coalition he had carefully built. The Saudi’s and other regional powers (including Kuwait) didn’t WANT the US (or anyone else) to go into Iraq and didn’t want Saddam deposed because Iraq acted as a buffer between (Shi’ia) Iran and (Sunny) Saudi and the rest of the Middle East. Had Bush continued on he would have had to do it alone…and without the basing and staging areas in either Saudi or Kuwait, since neither were going to allow the US to stage up for a full scale invasion of Iraq, nor to support said invasion logistically after it happened. Our coalition allies were unified under the concept of pushing Iraq and Saddam out of Kuwait…anything more and that coalition would have melted like a sand castle on a beach during a heavy tide. So…Bush I had no choice but to limit his and the US’s goals to simply pushing Iraq out of Kuwait, and then hoping that Saddam’s own people would topple him (something that, at the time, the ME contingent of the coalition definitely didn’t support…which was why we pretty much cut those openly opposed to Saddam off at the knees, support wise, except for the no-fly zones). I’m not saying that the invasion of Iraq was a smart move…but things had changed quite a bit since Bush I’s days (for one thing, Saudi and Kuwait were obviously open to the US using them as a staging and logistics base for an invasion of Iraq by then…since they actually DID allow that. Otherwise, no invasion)…they were both dealing with a completely different situation that impacted their decisions. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/93 "2009-04-28T15:04:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While this anecdote has made it [into the blogosphere,](http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/article_1354.jsp) (without much in the way of corroboration), it should be noted that the comment is claimed to have been made in Marcxh, 2002, substantially later than Bush’s remarks during the 2000 Presidential campaign and much later than Wolfowitz’s term paper and the various meetings and letters of neo-cons rallying around its simplistic ideas. So? Yes, there were a lot of people urging Bush to start his war. but ultimately it was Bush’s decision, and only Bush’s reasons really matter. > [@](#): > > The rest is not “commentary,” it is the search for the actual answer. The reasons those others had for pushing Bush to do it are of academic interest only, and yes, that’s commentary. > [@](#): > > Attributing the whole thing to a simplistic phrase uttered by Bush is an act worthy of Bush, himself. What is your problem? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/94 "2009-04-28T15:09:08Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > While this anecdote has made it [into the blogosphere,](http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy/article_1354.jsp) (without much in the way of corroboration) [The original Time article](http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/), for you scoffers. The Google is truly a wondrous thing. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/95 "2009-04-28T15:13:49Z")
> [@glee](#): > > Um, sorry. How does anyone prove non-existence? > I’m afraid you have to find them. Nope, Shodan claimed certainty that such statements did not exist. That leaves it up to him to prove their absence. As I said, my memory is good enough for **me** to believe, and I don’t really care enough about what **Shodan** believes in this case to do any work for him. Now if you, **glee** , care enough, you’re welcome to waste your morning digging around in old article archives. As Shodan knows full well, that’s a pain in the ass, which is why he thinks he can get away with dismissing the assertion. What he’ll refuse to admit, is that his dismissal has at most no more value than Bosda’s original claim. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/96 "2009-04-28T15:14:21Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > Schwarzkopf said it best: All this was _way_ over GW Bush’s head. Way over. Bush father understood it well as did Clinton. Bush 1 and Scowcroft explaining their decision in their book _A World Transformed_: > [@](#): > > While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in “mission creep,” and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. \*\*Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different–and perhaps barren–outcome. \*\* Bolding added. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/97 "2009-04-28T15:22:23Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You are wrong. Bush I couldn’t have easily gone into Iraq at that point, because doing so would have completely shattered the coalition he had carefully built. Exactly. He built a worldwide coalition because he thought that was essential. He knew, like Clinton, that international support was essential for such an enterprise. Bush the son did not want to know this and arrogantly thought America could go against the world and win. Exactly my point. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/98 "2009-04-28T15:22:48Z")
Ah…my apologies then. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/99 "2009-04-28T15:24:08Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I think Bush honestly believed that the mission would be a cakewalk, that we’d be welcomed with open arms by Iraqis, That Iraq would become a American style democracy with pee-wee soccer and a League of Women Voters, and that the Iraqis would serve as a shining example to other Arab nations and inspire revolution in Iran, which we would aid militarily, bringing an end to terrorism and a Pax Americana that would last centuries. I really think he believed this. Certainly the ideologs at PNAC did. > > I don’t think he’s a monster, just not very bright. Unfortunately stupid often causes as much damage as evil. I gotta go with this. The real tragedy is that he had an opportunity to do something close to this, and have righteousness on his side as well. If only he had focussed on AFGHANISTAN instead. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567/100 "2009-04-28T15:30:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Did that actually happen? And if it did is the amount stolen greater than the cost of the war? Costs to whom? Halliburton, for instance, bore only a very small portion of the costs (no more than any other American taxpaying company their size), but got a very large slice of the revenue. And lo and behold, Haliburton (or major stockholders thereof) was heavily involved in the decision to invade. Back to the OP, I do think that Bush’s decision was based on the supply of a strategic resource critical to him, but that resource wasn’t oil, it was testosterone. The US had just gotten hit hard, and so he needed to hit someone back. When it proved difficult to hit back the folks who had hit us, we needed to find someone else to hit, and Iraq was convenient. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-bush-lied-to-get-into-iraq-ok-but-why/494567.md?page=6)