What's the conservative view on Iraq?

[Little_Nemo]

Eric Bolling, a Fox commentator, was speaking out against what he said is a liberal bias in school books. As an example he gave what a school book said about the 2003 Iraq invasion, “They were very, very liberally biased, saying George Bush went in there because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found. It was a very liberal bias to the history books.” cite

Maybe I’ve been caught up in the liberal web myself but I thought that was a pretty neutral version of what happened. What is the non-liberal-biased version of the invasion that Bolling wants taught?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Unless the textbook claims President Bush delibrately lied regarding the WMDs I don’t see the bias there, personally. But I’m guessing a “non-liberal” version would emphasize theories seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War

[RedFury]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Unless the textbook claims President Bush delibrately lied regarding the WMDs…

He most certainly did: Bush Lied About 9/11, and Now We Have the Documents to Prove It

[Sam_Stone]

The problem with that history book is that WMD were only one of the many reasons the Bush administration chose to go to war with Iraq.

Here’s the text of the war resolution, which calls out the justification for war. The highlights:

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 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” (Public Law 105-235);

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 resolutions 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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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 of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region…

And as background, a big problem facing the administration was that the sanctions regime had been corrupted and was breaking down, and the no-fly zones were becoming untenable. They required American presence in Saudi Arabia, which was inflaming the radicals and terrorists. American planes were being shot at by Iraq. And if the no-fly zones were ended, Saddam could then continue his genocidal actions against the Kurds and Shiites.

The Bush administration settled on WMD as the prime cassus belli for war, but there were actually many stated and unstated reasons. So just saying, “Bush went to war for WMD - which were never found” is certainly simplistic and somewhat biased, IMO. It’s true, but not complete.

The other reason for the war was that the U.S. started with a bipartisan strategy of threats and intimidation against Saddam, including massing tens of thousands of soldiers on his border. I’ve never heard a good strategy for unwinding all of that in the face of Saddam’s complete intransigence. The U.S. made the threat, and when Saddam thumbed his nose, they had to carry it out or risk making Saddam a hero and making the U.S. look like it had been beaten.

[John_Mace]

Sam: Yes, it’s true that the Iraq AUMF is a laundry list of bad things done by SH, but WMDs were more than just the prime reason for the war. They were the sine qua non of the Iraq War. It’s not like they could have just rolled the dice and picked one of the other things on that list and convinced Congress to vote for the AUMF. Bush and his administration tied SH to the attack on the WTC in 2001 and claimed that there was a real chance he was going to strike the US “again”, possibly within months.

The OP’s cite goes to a link about a math textbook, not a history one btw.

[GIGObuster]

It doesn’t take away the fact that many of those items in the war resolution were bullshit.

Several of them refer to the idea that “Saddam was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda”

At best, they were very reckless leaps, at worst, a part of the deception that was obtained by cherry-picking the intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-01.htm

The administration's allegations that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction have been the subject of much greater public and political controversy than its suggestions that Iraq and al-Qaida were in league. They were based on the Iraqi leader's long history of duplicity regarding WMD, which appeared to be confirmed by spy satellite photographs, defectors and electronic eavesdropping.

But the evidence of Iraq’s ties to al-Qaida was always sketchy, based largely on testimony of Iraqi defectors and prisoners, supplemented with limited reports from foreign agents and electronic eavesdropping.

Much of the evidence that’s now available indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida had no close ties, despite repeated contacts between the two; that the terrorists who administration officials claimed were links between the two had no direct connection to either Saddam or bin Laden; and that a key meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the leaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks probably never happened.

A Knight Ridder review of the Bush administration statements on Iraq’s ties to terrorism and what’s now known about the classified intelligence has found that administration advocates of a pre-emptive invasion frequently hyped sketchy and sometimes false information to help make their case. On two occasions, they neglected to report information that painted a less sinister picture.

The Bush administration has defended its prewar descriptions of Saddam and is calling Iraq “the central front in the war on terrorism,” as the president told U.S. troops two weeks ago.

But before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

[ul]
[li]Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam’s regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.[/li]
[li] The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.[/li][li] The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.[/li]
[li] CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there’s no evidence to support the allegation.[/li]
[li] Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.[/li]" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.
[/ul]
The charges that Saddam was in league with bin Laden, and carefully worded hints that he might even have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, may have done more to marshal public and political support for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq than the claims that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and was working to get nuclear ones.

A postwar poll last July by PIPA-Knowledge Networks found that 7 in 10 Americans thought the Bush administration had implied that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush himself never made that claim, but Cheney has kept the allegation alive.

[Absolute]

@RedFury

He most certainly did: Bush Lied About 9/11, and Now We Have the Documents to Prove It

The word “Iraq” does not even appear on this page.

So, if you wish to make some connection between this link and the claim that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs in Iraq, you will have to provide some additional explanation yourself.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sam_Stone

The other reason for the war was that the U.S. started with a bipartisan strategy of threats and intimidation against Saddam, including massing tens of thousands of soldiers on his border. I’ve never heard a good strategy for unwinding all of that in the face of Saddam’s complete intransigence. The U.S. made the threat, and when Saddam thumbed his nose, they had to carry it out or risk making Saddam a hero and making the U.S. look like it had been beaten.

Except that “complete intransigence” didn’t exist; we attacked when we did in large part because he wasn’t being intransigent, was letting inspectors in, and those inspectors would have proven us to be the liars we were.

[Sam_Stone]

The question was, what were the stated reasons the U.S. attacked Iraq, and what would be the ‘non-liberal’ interpretation of why Bush invaded Iraq. I linked straight to the source document. You may not like the reasons, or you may think they were bullshit, but there they are.

[GIGObuster]

Yes, there they are, and history is calling many of those bullshit; sorry, but if we want to learn from History, we have to understand that past “reasons” do not stay reasonable or new evidence undermines them as time goes by.

As a guy with history training I have to say that the Bush administration did forget one of the biggest lessons from the history of the Bay of Pigs, **never **rely on the intelligence that the dissenters of a regime are giving you.

[John_Mace]

@Sam_Stone

The question was, what were the stated reasons the U.S. attacked Iraq, and what would be the ‘non-liberal’ interpretation of why Bush invaded Iraq. I linked straight to the source document. You may not like the reasons, or you may think they were bullshit, but there they are.

No, the question is: What is the conservative view on Iraq? Note the tense of the verb “to be” in that sentence. If that “view” is unwilling to consider whether any of those reasons were BS, or if there wasn’t one, overwhelming reason that termed out to be false, then so be it. The “conservative view” is bunk.

[Little_Nemo]

@Sam_Stone

The question was, what were the stated reasons the U.S. attacked Iraq, and what would be the ‘non-liberal’ interpretation of why Bush invaded Iraq. I linked straight to the source document. You may not like the reasons, or you may think they were bullshit, but there they are.

As you point out, there they are. Anyone reading that list can see that WMD’s are given as the primary reason for the resolution.

[Little_Nemo]

@John_Mace

The OP’s cite goes to a link about a math textbook, not a history one btw.

Bolling’s primary complaint was about a math test and I understood the point he was making there. But he also mentioned the history book (in the ninth paragraph of the article) and I couldn’t see what he was trying to claim there.

[WillFarnaby]

The actual conservative view is probably the opposite of what Bolling thinks the conservative view is. it would be easier to make an argument against the wisdom of the Iraq War from a conservative perspective than a liberal one.

[Little_Nemo]

@WillFarnaby

The actual conservative view is probably the opposite of what Bolling thinks the conservative view is. it would be easier to make an argument against the wisdom of the Iraq War from a conservative perspective than a liberal one.

It depends what kind of conservatism you’re looking at. The libertarians were against the invasion but the neo-cons were strong supporters of it.

[marshmallow]

Fox doesn’t have to worry, in my experience the kids barely get past WWII before the year ends. Or maybe my history classes just sucked at time management.

[Martin_Hyde]

@John_Mace

Sam: Yes, it’s true that the Iraq AUMF is a laundry list of bad things done by SH, but WMDs were more than just the prime reason for the war. They were the sine qua non of the Iraq War. It’s not like they could have just rolled the dice and picked one of the other things on that list and convinced Congress to vote for the AUMF. Bush and his administration tied SH to the attack on the WTC in 2001 and claimed that there was a real chance he was going to strike the US “again”, possibly within months.

The OP’s cite goes to a link about a math textbook, not a history one btw.

I disagree on this, I think in the atmosphere of the time, the AUMF would have passed even if they had not made WMD the cornerstone of their effort. I think the WMD were played up in hopes of getting broader support from UN members or even potentially a security council resolution. That’s why Powell was highlighting what intelligence they did have in regard to WMD in front of the UN.

To answer the OP, my view (as a conservative) is Iraq is a mixed bag. I don’t think it really furthered our interests strategically and cost a lot of money. I think if you want to argue it for humanitarian reasons, it is hard to deny Hussein was a really bad guy and killed a lot of his people. The Kurdish semi-autonomous region is one of the clear, unambiguous good results of the Iraq war that I think we should be proud of; but long term it’s questionable if we have improved the lives of the rest of the Iraqis. Life under Hussein was bad enough, and Iraq was such a pariah State, that I’d lean toward yes on that. If even just because it ended all the international isolation of Iraq and the sanctions that were crippling the economy. But we did trade State-sanctioned terrorism of its own people in Iraq for instability and decentralized militia/guerrilla violence.

The realpolitik thus would suggest there was no justification for the invasion. The moral/humanitarian side would suggest maybe it sort of helped, but a huge amount of human suffering and a huge amount of money had to be expended to basically make the Kurds really secure up North and possibly maybe in the long term improved life for the rest of the Iraqis. I think maybe if the country is stable and violence is at reasonable levels in 10 years from now I might have a stronger opinion on the positive side for the humanitarian side. But right now I still conceive it as possible Iraq could devolve from where it is now instead of evolving.

FWIW my opinion during the Iraq war, as argued on the internet, was that once we had actually gone in and removed Saddam Hussein from power I think that it was both morally and strategically necessary to do what we did to try and stabilize the country. The SDMB left’s opinion that since it was wrong to go in, fuck Iraq and leave them to burn, I found to be both strategically and morally reprehensible.

Now, I’ve advocated such a solution to the war in Afghanistan because I have a fundamentally different view of what possible outcomes there are in Afghanistan. I tend to favor the view Biden presented early in Obama’s Administration and wish we had followed it. (That was, pull most/all ground troops out right away and just use drones and air strikes to blow up any locations harboring international terrorists, mostly leave the domestic fighters to duke it out with themselves.)

[GIGObuster]

@Martin_Hyde

FWIW my opinion during the Iraq war, as argued on the internet, was that once we had actually gone in and removed Saddam Hussein from power I think that it was both morally and strategically necessary to do what we did to try and stabilize the country. The SDMB left’s opinion that since it was wrong to go in, fuck Iraq and leave them to burn, I found to be both strategically and morally reprehensible.

I disagree with this one, maybe you will find leftists like that but I said in those days that selecting people like Negroponte to be in control of the Iraq occupation did tell everyone that the idea was indeed to fuck Iraq and let it burn, just as Negroponte did with Central America thanks to his patented “head in the sand” approach to let death squads run the place.

[RedFury]

@Absolute

The word “Iraq” does not even appear on this page.

So, if you wish to make some connection between this link and the claim that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs in Iraq, you will have to provide some additional explanation yourself.

No problem, there are literally hundreds by now. Try this one:

The Two Most Essential, Abhorrent, Intolerable Lies Of George W. Bush’s Memoir

But beyond mere cites, what crazy-assed Americans believed that Iraq was a threat to the US in any way? Pray tell you weren’t one of them.

[RedFury]

@Little_Nemo

As you point out, there they are. Anyone reading that list can see that WMD’s are given as the primary reason for the resolution.

Amen – none of others would have sufficed. So let’s quit the Bushit.