Bob Woodward makes clear in “Plan of Attack” that this was not going to prevent the invasion. With or without Saddam in charge it was going to happen. Even if anti-Saddam generals had overthrown him, it was still going to happen.
The logic in terms of the coverstory is that how could you be sure the new regime didnt keep the WMD if you didnt go in?
Having violated my wise policy of never posting before the first coffee in the morning I now see its wisdom. I mean imply of course :smack:
We are talking complete hypotheticals, of course, but I think that Saddam disappearance would be a HUGE deal and wipe the board clean, so to say. I just can’t see the invasion happening if “Saddam and his sons” would abdicate power in Iraq.
Thank you all for your great posts. Perhaps I was taken in by all the news media. M-Man’s post was especially interesting. I will have to rethink all this.
OK, so if George W played the media (and Saddam) like a tin whistle, does that mean he is brilliant?
Same can be said about earthquakes, tsunamis and forest fires.
I guess that would be one take on it. I wouldn’t take any pride in playing Saddam though. He was a toothless and beaten dog, so afraid of his “tough guy” image being shattered by a real confrontation that he had laid down and whimpered under sanctions for over a decade.
The US media, on the other had, there is an art to playing them, and the Bush admin has been very good at it. Unscripted interviews? Nope. Most communication comes indirectly from spokesmen and therefore is plausibly deniable. Heck, even in the presidential race there were only three “debates” in which the questions were carefully pre-screened and conditions tightly controlled. Whatever else the Bush admin should be remembered for, it is their ability to present the media image they want presented. Right down to finding a carrier with a “Mission Accomplished” banner already hanging on it for a photo op.
Not sure we should measure the quality of a President by their ability to manage their media image though.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, if he “played” the media (and the population of the country he was supposedly leading) by utilizing false pretenses and thereby contrived to wage a war justified by deliberate lies, he is more likely to be branded a “war criminal” than “brilliant”.
So…you’re not from around here, huh?
So come up with three then.
WMD: didn’t exist.
Oil: what precisely are you saying? That it is acceptable to invade a country if it has a resource you want? Violent robbery is OK if they are foreigners?
Terrorism: Saddam had no connection to terrorism
Retribution: for what? Say “9/11”. Go on. I dare you.
Axis of Evil: huh? If you call someone something that becomes its own justification now?
Problem causing murderous dictator: I’ll give you this one. Although if you’re going to rely on just this one, the US has got a whole lotta invading to do, worldwide.
So where’s your three?
I mixed my list with even the crazy nut job conspirators reasons who believed Oil, and Retribution for 9/11, or a revengeful Bush, were “secretly” the sole reasons for the “go to war”.
My point was that even if the hypothetical government was the kind of government that considered it ok to invade a country based on; “if it has a recourse you want” “If they believed violent robbery is ok if they are foreigners” -Even if we had a government that did that sort of thing (like say Iraq who tried to do just exactly what you said in 1990) -Even if our US government was like Iraq - (I’m placating to the conspirators) then our government wouldn’t tell us the truth about that “side” reason, and would use the 3 (initial) best sounding reasons. Everyone has an ulterior motive or two, ect. My point is that the “nut jobs”, will “flip out” over the ulterior motives, which hypothetically, if they were true, still weren’t the only reasons for the (initial) reason the decision was made to go to war. I tried to be as delicate as possible with this so no one is mistaken further. Again however, the fact that I wrote a paragraph as apposed to a sentience means that there will be the “least common denominators” who skim over the material, and misread what I wrote. This would indeed, back up my theory for why " it is best not to give too much information to the public cause the nut jobs will overreact on the basis of there misunderstandings. Thus, only “safe” answers can be given to a mixed public of varying reasoning abilities. Thanks for proving my point.
*You are on the side of the fence that was initially against the war and now, after the war, you are “partially” correct with your own counter list. _But my list was only stating the initial reasons for justifying going to war (weather they were right or wrong)
My list was confusing b/c I mixed what was believed by our government initially with what conspiracy theorist believed our government secretly intended.
Again, (to placate to you) we now know that there probably weren’t enough “right” reasons for the war. Ill give you that. Congratulations, the US made a mistake, namely on WMD. But us being mistaken about WMD was actually Sadamn’s fault cause “he thought he had them too”. (see the above threads which discuss this in depth) Again, I’m not saying this is/was/will be the sole reason.
I’m sure you mean some specific act of terrorism, don’t you? I mean, I think a few thousand dead Kurds, tortured Shiites, and raped schoolgirls might disagree with you there.
Actually, Lib, Fishquail was quoting me.
And yes, you and DrDeth have correctly pointed out that saying Saddam had no connection to terrorism is dubious.
Having said that, I’m not sure that either you or …
have it quite right.
Firstly, I accept that “terrorism” can mean a reign of terror by a government against its own people. However, in the context of a list of Saddam’s real or imagined sins that also included being a “murderous dictator” (which I agreed he certainly was) it would be doubling up to include this (governmental) type of terrorism as a separate item.
Secondly, the evidence that Saddam was involved in the more classic type of international random acts of violence style terrorism is paper thin. Even DrDeth concedes his cite is biased. And lets face it, someone who writes an article railing against Bush for “inexplicably” failing to talk up Al Quada links to Saddam is pretty damn out there, even by right wing standards.
Actually, I don’t really doubt that Saddam gave at the very least comfort and succour to terrorists whose aims suited him. Just like numerous nations who the US have no intention of invading. What was it someone said earlier: Cheney could have just aimed some missiles straight up?
Fishquail I understood what your position was. But your position is like that of a man in a swamp: he has to keep jumping from tussock to tussock as each one sinks beneath him.
I’m not sure what to take away from your latest post (perhaps nothing much). Let me just summarise thusly:
1 Citizens who ask for reasons for going to war, get told something, later find out they were lied to, and complain about it are not “nutjobs”. Appropriate terms might be “rightly concerned citizens”, “justifiably angry people” and so on.
2 In a democracy, if the government can’t think of reasons for going to war that people will actually support, perhaps it shouldn’t go to war, huh?
3 Many dopers have a degree of intellect. As I understand you, there were good reasons for going to war, but they wuz a bid too hard for po’ widdle Joe Average to unnerstan widout getting into a tizzy wizzy, so Good Mr Government had to give him some widdle white lies. Fair enough. I don’t promise to understand the Real Good Reasons, they’ll probably be a bit beyond me. But perhaps you could explain them, so that some of the smarter Dopers around here can put them into words of a single syllable and I’ll try not to pop a brain fuse.
4 You say
Well gee, I’ve read the thread. The conclusion as I read it is that this statement of yours is total BS. Are you perhaps confusing “discuss” with “debunk”? As I understand the heavily researched and properly cited posts in this thread (read Mtgman’s post, for a quick starter) Saddam said he didn’t have WMD, he ultimately allowed inspections that even Blix agreed were totally open, and Bush knew all this. So Saddam didn’t think he had them, he didn’t say he had them, and Bush knew he didn’t have them, but used them as an excuse anyway.
No, I’m sure you’re not. Doing so would be like the man in the swamp (see above) pinning all his hopes on one tussock. Whatever reasons for the war we blow out of the water, you’ll always have one more, each more pathetically BS than the one before.
Well the issue of a change of government was discussed by the NSC. From “Plan of Attack” chap. 30:
Saddam or not it was going to happen.
What, for mouthing the lines Karl Rove fed him?
I’d blame both Karl Rove and the spineless conservative-kowtowing corporate media, myself. How anyone can look at the news coverage of the Clinton and GWBush presidencies and still insist we have a “liberal media” is beyond me.
Wonder if twenty years from now the kind of revisionist bullshit put forth in this thread by the Bush Apologists will actually make it into American History books? Or, if as they should, be discussed in Psychology classes under the rubric of Cognitive Dissonace in The Misbegotten Bush Era?
Which bit is bullshit? Presumably you can be specific, or is your post just a silly driveby in which you make a baseless comment in order to avoid facing up to what you don’t want to know, as some kind of demonstration of Cognitive Dissonance?
I commend my fellow posters for their growing awareness of the threat posed by the current pandemic of Cognitive Dissonance, the Number 1 threat to the Republic.
I will forward our newsletter, and invitations to the Mother’s March Against CD.
I was specific as I distinctly referenced the Bush Apologists.
Beyond that, it doesn’t look like you need my help in debunking the layers upon layers of revisionist bullshit that are being put forth. But should you need help, just holler.
Saddam had another factor to consider, and that was his approval rating. He ruled by fear, he could not afford to look weak, or some ruthless young colonel will do to him what he did unto others. So he was forced to simultaneously attempt to appear defiant and heroic, while gradually knuckling under. While at the same time not giving the Iranians the idea that he could be buggered.
Tough dance, and he couldn’t pull if off. Hell, at the last minute, he even made a humiliating peace offer, but Perle didn’t figure it was worth talking about. Might spoil the fun.
Sorry Redfury I actually totally misread your post. Apologies.
I, on another hand, would like to express cautious satisfaction with signs of improvement of mental health in some Bush-hating types here, who used to be simply stark raving mad only recently.
We started this debate about two years ago and the progress is undeniable.
Patients exhibit better grasp of geography, world affairs and actions of leading personalities.
Without saying, relapses to preceding incoherency can be expected but there certainly are reasons to be optimistic, as well.