# Why did Bush decide to invade Iraq instead of Iran? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 1, 2005, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634 "2005-07-01T03:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/41 "2005-07-01T18:56:04Z")
And where, Sam, in your quote-fest is discussion about our military invading Iraq? All of those quotes are deliberately vague as to what should be done. If prominent Democrats opposed Bush’s policy, could it perhaps be because it was a _different policy_ than what was current in 1998? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/42 "2005-07-01T19:14:17Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > And where, Sam, in your quote-fest is discussion about our military invading Iraq? All of those quotes are deliberately vague as to what should be done. If prominent Democrats opposed Bush’s policy, could it perhaps be because it was a _different policy_ than what was current in 1998? Do I have to repeat this again? NO ONE is saying that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq in 1998, or that anyone was advocating a full-scale invasion. However, the reasons Bush gave for the invasion were echoed by Democrats in 1998. It’s all there - WMD, gassing the Kurds, the risk of weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, etc. I posted this in the context of a thread asking, “Why Iraq, and not Iran?” In that context, quotes from Democrats describing the desire to remove Saddam from power are reasonable, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/43 "2005-07-01T19:23:26Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > However, the point as often stated – “In 1998 President Clinton made Regime Change in Iraq the Official Policy of the United States.” – is often used (and has repeatedly been used so on these boards) as the quintessential argument that **the left** “just hates Bush”, because Bush is just following **Clinton’s** policies. In other words, it’s a way to call the Iraq war’s opponents hypocrites. Which is the most deftly dishonest implication possible from that resolution, a resolution that came from the Congress, not Clinton, and did not authorize war. No, **squeegee,** the most “deftly dishonest implication possible from that resolution” (because much easier to miss) is that either Clinton or the Congressional Democrats were part of, or represented, “the left.” ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/44 "2005-07-01T19:31:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, **squeegee,** the most “deftly dishonest implication possible from that resolution” (because much easier to miss) is that either Clinton or the Congressional Democrats were part of, or represented, “the left.” You lost me. “The left” and “democrats” are usually used as synonyms in the right’s Noise Machine, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/45 "2005-07-01T19:43:53Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > You lost me. “The left” and “democrats” are usually used as synonyms in the right’s Noise Machine, are they not? Yes, they are. That’s what I meant by “deftly dishonest implication.” ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/46 "2005-07-01T19:45:33Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I posted this in the context of a thread asking, “Why Iraq, and not Iran?” In that context, quotes from Democrats describing the desire to remove Saddam from power are reasonable, are they not? Maybe I read to much into your post – you were responding, indirectly, to a point made by me about your Regime Change Clinton Policy quote, no? So I thought it was directed at me, not unreasonably IMO. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/47 "2005-07-01T21:13:38Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Read narrowly, it doesn’t. And I’ll thank you to read me narrowly, and not assume you know what you think I _really_ mean. **Pleonast** is 100% correct. I’m not aware of anyone who would argue that the 1998 resolution alone justified the war from a legal standpoint; it plainly did not, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool. It (and **Sam** ’s quotes above) does, however, point out that there was a history there and that many people had at least in the past seemed open to the idea. IOW, deciding to add “and we will do so by military means” to the existing policy was less of a stretch than starting from step one with Iran. ---
**Author:** ![deadbeater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7c8e57/32.png) [@deadbeater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deadbeater)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/48 "2005-07-02T02:50:33Z")
Great job containining Iran, Bush. Now they learn one thing from both the invasion of Iraq and the North Korea affair: get nukes in the arsenal, no matter how. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/49 "2005-07-02T03:02:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Whatever the other reasons, the central truth is that Iraq was weak and essentially defenceless. It may now be hard to subdue, but it was easily overrun; they simply couldn’t put up much of a fight. And yet Bush took us to war by claiming that Iraq was actually a serious and growing threat to the survival of the United States. And some people actually believed him! :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/50 "2005-07-02T03:04:38Z")
> [@furt](#): > > 1. Saddam was in defiance of UN resolutions, providing a legal argument. And yet Bush bypassed the UN when it became clear that the Security Council would not approve his little invasion. Now where’s the legality of that? (And please don’t argue the right of self-defense.) ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/51 "2005-07-02T03:26:32Z")
> [@Frostillicus](#): > > And yet Bush bypassed the UN when it became clear that the Security Council would not approve his little invasion. Now where’s the legality of that? (And please don’t argue the right of self-defense.) Again, whether or not you _accept_ the argument is another issue; but there was at least _arguably_ more legal justification. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/52 "2005-07-02T03:45:43Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Again, whether or not you _accept_ the argument is another issue; but there was at least _arguably_ more legal justification. Well, sure, its an argument. Of a sort. And just what **Bricker** says, when GeeDubya swears he’s telling the truth, that is evidence. Mahatma Ghandi and Jeffrey Dahmer are both people, too, which one would you rather have for a baby-sitter? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/53 "2005-07-02T05:30:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > NO ONE is saying that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq in 1998, or that anyone was advocating a full-scale invasion. Actually, [you have stated](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2803899) that Clinton was planning the same thing, but didn’t have the political capital to pull it off. You claim that the reason he ended up just funding the Kurds was because of lack of support. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Speaking of which… **The Clinton administration advocated the same goal the Bush administration is undergoing now - only Clinton didn’t have the wherewithal or the political capital to pull it off.** And he almost certainly wouldn’t have had the support of the people at the time. So the job went undone. **I’m not blaming Clinton, but Bush is essentially following the established U.S. strategy.** > > **Clinton’s administration adopted ‘regime change’ as the official stance of the U.S. towards Iraq. But because they didn’t have the poticial support to carry out an invasion, they planned to fund insurrection with the Kurds.** ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/54 "2005-07-02T05:32:52Z")
You’ll also note that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for people to assume that that last line of your’s is equating “regime change” with “invading.” It also wouldn’t be the only time you’ve tried to make that connection. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/55 "2005-07-02T05:42:18Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You’ll also note that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for people to assume that that last line of your’s is equating “regime change” with “invading.” > > It also wouldn’t be the only time you’ve tried to make that connection. Apparently, it’s not the only time you’ve misread what I said, too. > [@](#): > > Actually, you have stated that Clinton was planning the same thing, but didn’t have the political capital to pull it off. And your very quote of me says: > [@](#): > > The Clinton administration advocated the same goal the Bush administration is undergoing now - only Clinton **didn’t have the wherewithal or the political capital to pull it off**. And he almost certainly wouldn’t have had the support of the people at the time. So the job went undone. You even bolded the correct part. I did NOT say that Clinton advocated an invasion. I said he advocated the same goal (i.e. regime change), and that he didn’t have the wherewithal or the political capital to pull it off. In other words, an invasion wasn’t an option, and couldn’t do it any other way. Would he have invaded if he thought he could get the support for it? I have no idea. But I certainly didn’t claim that Clinton wanted to invade Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/56 "2005-07-02T05:47:16Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > You’ll also note that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for people to assume that that last line of your’s is equating “regime change” with “invading.” You know, you really lost me with this. This is what you’re referring to: > [@](#): > > Clinton’s administration adopted ‘regime change’ as the official stance of the U.S. towards Iraq. But because they didn’t have the poticial support to carry out an invasion, they planned to fund insurrection with the Kurds. HOW in the world do you get that I’m equating ‘regime change’ with invasion out of that? In the very sentence you mentioned, I said that they couldn’t change the regime by invasion, _so they planned to do it without invading_. I don’t know how more plain that can be. Regime change means… let me look it up…“causing a regime to change”. Invasion is but one way to achieve that. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. Is this a case of you reading my words and substituting what you believe I’m “really” saying, or what? If I make a suggestion, why don’t you limit your comments to the words I actually wrote? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/57 "2005-07-02T07:10:57Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > HOW in the world do you get that I’m equating ‘regime change’ with invasion out of that? In the very sentence you mentioned, I said that they couldn’t change the regime by invasion, _so they planned to do it without invading_. I don’t know how more plain that can be. Regime change means… let me look it up…“causing a regime to change”. Invasion is but one way to achieve that. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise. Note the bolded word, which makes it mean exactly what I stated. Did you mispeak? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Clinton’s administration adopted ‘regime change’ as the official stance of the U.S. towards Iraq. **But** because they didn’t have the poticial support to carry out an invasion, they planned to fund insurrection with the Kurds. > [@](#): > > Is this a case of you reading my words and substituting what you believe I’m “really” saying, or what? Nope, it’s pretty clear. > [@](#): > > If I make a suggestion, why don’t you limit your comments to the words I actually wrote? I did. [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2469737) is another one, where you quite clearly are making the case that Clinton wanted a war: > [@](#): > > Yeah, the war talk is really scary. And there is nothing worse than a politician who tries to use war for political gain. > > I mean, listen to what Bush said just the other day: > > “If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.” > > How can he know? The Democrats want proof, reasonably enough. But the Republicans are lock-step in behind Bush. Republican Tom Delay has co-sponsored a bill that says, “We urge the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” > > I mean, how can Daschle go along with that? That would be giving the president virtually a blank check to do whatever he wants. Agreeing to something like that would be irresponsible, don’t you think? So why would Delay sponsor that? It must be for political reasons! > > Oops. I made a slight typo. The president in question was Bill Clinton. The co-sponsor of the bill in question was Tom Daschle. The year was 1998. Or [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2470293): > [@](#): > > The fact is, the policy was essentially the same, but the last administration was feckless in carrying it out. Now Bush wants to do it properly, and suddenly those same Bellicose Democrats have turned into doves. And they claim that BUSH is politicising this. Then we have [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2900896) post in which you take a statement by Clinton out of context to show that he backs the war. Feel free to provide that entire speech in context, instead of the single quote. He’s not backing up what you think he is (I take that back, you might know what he’s referring to, but decided to intentionally mislead). And just for fun, since you want me to stick to [your explicit words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=3107928), without any parsing, remember the good old days?: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The only people that doubt weapons of mass destruction exist seem to be a few people on this board. The Bush adminstration thinks they exist. Britain agrees they exist. France agrees they exist. The New York Times agrees they exist. Every Democratic presidential candidate agrees they exist. The U.N. inspectors think they exist. > > But on this board, we have to keep going 'round and 'round, with the same old, “There’s no PROOOOOFFFF” argument. > > And here I thought the SDMB was about fighting ignorance. And just for fun, since you like to talk about us tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists regarding the war, [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2428276) post stands on its own: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Well, they DID try to kill Bush I. I think that should count for something. And there are still bits of evidence that may tie the Iraqis to the first WTC attack, the OKC attack, and the second WTC attack. Let’s face it, when it came to Iraq, your posts were loony back then, and it’s actually a shame, as you were spot on in many things in those days. You derided your own party for claiming that Clinton was “Wagging the Dog”, for example, but when it came to Iraq, you had this bizarre irrational fear of Hussein, that wasn’t based on any actual evidence. You were fairly even-handed on everything else, even when I disagreed with you on just about every issue, but you and I both know that you tried to make the claim that Clinton wanted to go to war, that he supported Bush going to war, and that Congress wanted Bush to go to war. Fun times, those. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/58 "2005-07-02T07:31:48Z")
DMC, you are not interpreting Sam remotely correctly. > [@DMC](#): > > Actually, URL=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2803899]you have stated that Clinton was planning the same thing, but didn’t have the political capital to pull it off. Sam has not used the word “plan” at all; that’s purely yours. He _is_ saying Clinton advocated the same _goal_ (all questions of means aside) of regime change; and that is indeed a fact. He _has_ suggested that Clinton may have wanted to invade, but couldn’t. That is speculation on Sam’s part; take it FWIW and argue if you like. He _has **not** _ said that Clinton expressly advocated invasion as a means to that goal. If you think he has, show where Sam has said so, explictly and in his own words. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/59 "2005-07-02T07:47:22Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > NO ONE is saying that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq in 1998, or that anyone was advocating a full-scale invasion > [@furt](#): > > He _has_ suggested that Clinton may have wanted to invade, but couldn’t. That is speculation on Sam’s part; take it FWIW and argue if you like. Advocate, want, half dozen, six. Questions? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634/60 "2005-07-02T07:52:29Z")
Additionally, what does this mean then? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The fact is, the policy was essentially the same, but the last administration was feckless in carrying it out. Now Bush wants to do it properly, and suddenly those same Bellicose Democrats have turned into doves. And they claim that BUSH is politicising this. Are you really going to claim that funding Kurdish rebels, in the hopes that they will be able to overthrow Saddam, is essentially the same policy as us launching a war that has no end in sight? That’s absurd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-bush-decide-to-invade-iraq-instead-of-iran/310634.md?page=4)