Aren’t these just givens?
Nobody on any “side” mentioned that water was wet either.
To address the OP about timing, it is very obviously done with an eye on 2004 Nov Elections. There was a single window of opportunity to attack Iraq, get it sorted out, turn on the oil taps to lower the price of oil, let the financial markets settle down, all early enough in the economic cycle that things would be booming right about now.
If waited until after the summer to attack, it would have been too late in the cycle. Bush Sr learned this lesson the hard way last time around.
One slight miscalculation is that Iraq is a quagmire and oil prices have gone up rather than down.
Peak oil.
Who cares? The argument that triggered this diversion of the thread was that procuring the Iraqi oil supplies for the use of the oil companies was a motivation for Shrub’s decision to invade Iraq. So why does the whole peak oil concept matter or not? The fact is that the more oil fields operated by the oil companies (or by interests friendly to the oil companies), the more profit they get. That’s true regardless of whether or not the reports on peak oil are valid. Given that we know American energy companies had secret meetings with the Bush Administration, and that the Bush Administration was considering attacking Iraq prior to 9/11, and the report rjung already cited showing that oil does drive foreign policy, it’s worth investigating exactly what the relationship between the energy companies and the Bush Administration and the decision to invade Iraq is.
Those are the motivations of the Bush administration. They really did believe that there was some threat of WMDs. They really did beleive that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and needed to be punished. They really did think it was the best next step in the war on terror.
My problem with this war amounts to one thing. It has been dreadfully obvious that no planning was made for the post-war situation. I think the people in charge imagined a scenario somewhat like the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama: Saddam would go underground for a spell - his loyalists would grudgingly become shoeshiners and busboys, some respectable old man with a pre-regime political career would be installed as “president”, revenue would start streaming back in, Saddam would turn up at a felafel stand in Tikrit - and we’d pull out in a year with a solidly pro-American regime in place. They army guys I know wargamed in desert warfare, and knew that terrain perfectly - but they had almost no training that concerned the post-war administration of cities.
Speaking of Latin America, I had a feeling that Cuba would be next on the “list”. I wasn’t thinking there would be an invasion, but I think that the Bush administration hoped a successful result in Iraq would make it clear to Cuba, Syria, Iran North Korea and others that the United States “mean business”.
For a time before the build up for Iraq, some of the “hawks” in the state department were making rather serious WMD claims about Cuba’s biotech industries. Fidel wasn’t helping his cause with his recent crackdown on dissidents and activists (which was probably his survival instinct kicking in as a reaction to the increased heat). Guantanamo Bay further complicates the situation. It also doesn’t hurt that Florida is a rather important state to the President for a couple of reasons, and putting a really squeeze on Castro plays well there.
No.
The Administration claimed that they believed there was some threat of WMDs.
The Administration claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11 and needed to be punished.
The Administration claimed invading Iraq was the best next step in the war on terror.
The evidence that has come to light so far have not supported these claims. In contrast, a claim like “The Administration knew they wanted to invade Iraq for its oil supplies, but lied about its motives in order to sell the war to the American Public” is easier to support with the information currently available.
No, I am telling you that at least Bush believed those things. They were wrong, but he believed them at some point. Clarke, for instance, quotes Bush as saying that he believes Saddam was behind 9/11 somehow, even if he can’t prove it.
I would argue that the sort of unshakable, unevidentiary faith that they seemed to have in these propositions is FAR more dangerous and irresponsible than if they had some other strange, hidden motives.
It was actually Wolfowitz who believed this shit. The guy’s completely nuts.
And although the above quote mentions Rumsfeld, his actual concern was the testing of his theories on the reformation of the military. Bush and Cheney were interested in Iraq because of the oil.
I think you asked a new question in your question.
Why did the US begin the Iraq war NOW?
Because this time, we have really fucked up and need to go back and start over.
The war was supposedly over one year ago today…remember the statue of Saddam tumbling and Dubya’s comment how it is all over?..we were supposedly just waiting for the happy masses to show up and toss roses to our troops and dance happy dances in native costume.
As most people with a brain realized way back then, this was not going to happen. Now, with less and less support (as opposed to the supposed coalition of countries with the population of Maine), this whole debacle has taken a turn for the worse.
The current President wanted to show his daddy, the ex-President, that he could finish off the job. So, using 9/11 as an excuse, he did what he had long planned to do. Kick the butt of the man who embarrassed daddy. Fuck the rest of the world and the lives of American soldiers, and forget the fact that OSAMA is still nowhere near Iraq, and even though there are no WMD…damnit…“I’m gonna make daddy proud of me.”
The fact that 44% of the voting public still want to follow this man down this path is proof that the American public sorely needs SDMB to fight ignorance.
Last year, the economy wasn’t looking very good (still isn’t but it is certainly in better shape). I wonder if Bush & team might have been thinking we can take out Sadamm and a “short, little war” will add some bounce to the economy. Sort of kill two birds with one stone approach? Problem is, the “short, little war” plan seems to have got awry.
My argument isn’t compelling because I haven’t made one yet. I didn’t want to hijack the thread but at least wanted to respond to the other non-argument that “it’s all about Peak Oil” --a canard that’s been around in one form of another since the turn of the century. It’s amazing how people on this board laugh at conspiracies until they find one that suits their agenda. My arguments against Peak Oil run significantly further than “they’ve been saying that for years.”’ As per your usual, you jump to conclusions and argue just for the sake of arguing. Don’t always assume to be true whatever makes it convenient for you to jump down someone’s throat.
Oil was the REASON
9/11 was the TRIGGER
WMD’s were the EXCUSE
now REGIME CHANGE is the BAIT & SWITCH since we can’t find WMD’s
Funny how Arab terrorists tried that airliner kamakaze trick in 1994 on Paris but French commandos retook the plane on the ground in Marsailles but the FAA didn’t spend 6 years reinforcing doors to cockpits and warning airline crews. Why hasn’t the media been jumping all over the FAA for the last two years?
FBI had 3 weeks, CIA had 5 weeks, FAA had SIX YEARS.
Dal Timgar
Some of Jay Garner’s coments:
Interview with Jay Garner
[Garner:] I think the day you start building the war plan is the day you start beginning the postwar plan.
[Q:] Did we do that?
[Garner:] …Not in this case… But there’s two answers to that. … Because they did begin planning immediately for the military part of the postwar – the civil affairs battalions and what the engineers would do, that type of thing.
But the civil side of that, the humanitarian crisis piece, and the reconstruction piece and the civil government piece, as an organization, it didn’t start until really Feb. [except in other agencies] …
[Q:] You mentioned that the State Department had done some good planning. …the Future of Iraq Project. What was the attitude in the Pentagon towards the work that had been done by the State Department?
[Garner:] … It wasn’t well received. <snip>…but not only in the Pentagon. It wasn’t real well received in portions of the executive branch, either.
[Q:] They didn’t like the work that Warrick had done? [Editor’s Note: Tom Warrick was director of the Future of Iraq Project]
[Garner:] I don’t know whether they didn’t like the work Tom Warrick had done or they didn’t like Tom Warrick. …Tom Warrick was a very, very astute, very competent guy. But I was not able to get him on the team. <snip> When I asked for him, he just never showed up.
[Q:] But was it his lack of willingness to join your team?
[Garner:] Oh, no, no, no. …
[Q:] …a number of people in the State Department…[are] bitter about… their project [being] …ignored…
[Garner:] They did put in a big effort, and I think that it was a mistake that we didn’t use that. I agree with that. It was my intent to use that, but we didn’t.
[Q:] Why didn’t we use the Future of Iraq [Project]?
[Garner:] I don’t know the answer to that. …it’s just a decision they made that we’re not going to bring Tom Warrick or his work on the team.
[Q:] Who told you that?
[Garner:] I got that from the secretary [Rumsfeld], and I don’t think that was his decision.
Prob’ly Mr. Bolton.
**EPF511 10/31/2003
Text: Bolton Says U.S. Is Actively Seeking to Curb Proliferation*
Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State
**“Rogue states such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba, whose pursuit of weapons of mass destruction makes them hostile to U.S. interests, will learn that their covert programs will not escape either detection or consequences,” says John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security. **
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton
The Heritage Foundation Washington, D.C. May 6, 2002
**"In addition to Libya and Syria, there is a threat coming from another BWC signatory, and one that lies just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland-namely, Cuba.
But Cuba’s threat to our security often has been underplayed. An official U.S. government report in 1998 concluded that Cuba did not represent a significant military threat to the United States or the region.
…Secretary of Defense William Cohen…[epressed] in the preface his serious concerns about Cuba’s intelligence activities against the United States and its human rights practices. Most notably, he said, “I remain concerned about Cuba’s potential to develop and produce biological agents, given its biotechnology infrastructure…”
For four decades Cuba has maintained a well-developed and sophisticated biomedical industry, supported until 1990 by the Soviet Union. This industry is one of the most advanced in Latin America, and leads in the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines that are sold worldwide. Analysts and Cuban defectors have long cast suspicion on the activities conducted in these biomedical facilities.
The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research-and-development effort. "**
You came in here and said:
You did not come in here and say, “I have very compelling arguments as to why the peak is not going to actually occur anytime in the near future but I would be hijacking this thread if I presented them.”
As for “my usual” of jumping to conclusions and arguing just for arguing’s sake, this seems to be a complaint that I can only remembering having heard from you. So, I trouble believing that it is a deep personality fault of mine.
As I said, I don’t really have a strong opinion on “peak oil” but I don’t think that the (unsupported) claim that we have always had people saying we only have 10 years left of oil and we haven’t run out yet is very convincing. I’m glad to hear that, although that is the argument you basically presented, you knew that it wasn’t really much of an argument and you actually have a much better one.
Nor did you say, "I have very compelling arguments as to why the peak is going to occur in the near future but I would be hijacking this thread if I presented them. Instead you made the assumption that I argued that the supply of oil was infinite. I’ll drop it if you will.
Ok, you got me.
Nobody has come out and said Saddam was a good guy who liked to buy Girl Scout cookies or anything.
However, and here we are again, with the reason I avoid a lot of GD.
People have come out, saying “These things (the war in Iraq, in this case) happened because the Administration believed this (whatever the reasoning may be).”
And others jump on and say “No, they said they believe that, but it was a lie, just so they could do it. And the proof is the fact that they turned out to be wrong.”
Knee jerk reactions.
If Bush and his administration (and Clinton too… he said it as well) didn’t HONESTLY believe that there were WMD in Iraq, they wouldn’t have used it as a plank in that platform.
Of course, there’s no proof whatsoever that it was done to impress his dad. Nothing. No cites, no nothing. But it’s cited over and over again.
Signing off… I’m sure there’s a poop thread in MPSIMS that could use my attention.
Well, obviously, it is a certain amount of speculation about what they believed. Perhaps if they were more forthcoming in explaining what they believed at the time (and these seemed plausible), we wouldn’t have to speculate.
Personally, I think they did believe that there were WMD in Iraq…enough so that they were comfortable in pretending (or even convincing themselves) that they actually knew this as fact. However, it seems quite clear now that they didn’t (correctly) KNOW there were WMD in Iraq. I am a little confused about whether they thought they KNEW there were WMD in Iraq, although this seems somewhat beside the point to me, since I can’t really see it being good either way: I.e., either they claimed to know when they really didn’t OR they truly believed they knew things which just ain’t so…which is dangerous when you start making policy on the basis of these things that you know to be true. (And, at the very least, Bush ought to be spectacularly contrite about believing he knew something that he shouldn’t have, or spectacularly angry on the failed reports that led him to believe this. And, to be honest, the way the White House apparently used intelligence, it would be somewhat self-serving for them to be angry at failed intelligence when they were pretty clearly cherry-picking it.)
Consider it dropped.
Oh yeah…I should add that I really do have a hard time believing that they thought these WMD constituted a serious threat to the U.S.
And, given the several inside accounts of Bush’s obsession with Iraq prior and immediately following 9/11…and various issues involving the timing of their interest in Iraq and the way the issue was used in the 2002 elections…it is really difficult to take at face value the idea that this idea that they had WMD and that these constituted a serious threat that must be dealt with at once.
A lot of this will probably become clearer on a more historical timescale when more of the actors involved will be free to speak as private citizens. In the meantime, I suggest checking out “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”.
Did the President lie or did he just use atrocious judgement? You be the judge.
It’s funny how those who say that the Iraq War is all about oil all hate Bush, isn’t it? And funnier how the area near the Persian Gulf is in the hands of the British, not the Americans.
If the Iraq war were about oil, Bush would have glassed assorted areas of Iraq and had done.
But this is the SDMB where Bush-hatred is de rigeur. Fighting ignorance is easy compared to fighting blind hatred.
Question:
Okay, let’s assume the following: the administration uses Saddam’s alleged WMD for their casus belli. This is not their real intent, as they are really in it for (insert motive here, i.e., oil). However, it turns out no WMD are discovered.
Now the question- why would anyone be so adamant about a lie that was so demonstratively false? If they knew it would be proven false, why make the lie? An analogy- I make the claim my car can fly. I promptly get in my car and blatantly fail to do anything that resembles flight. Why would I do that? One would assume that I at least believed, somewhat, that my car could, indeed, fly. Ergo, it is only logical that the admin believed at least some WMD would be found, no? Therefore, they’re not lying by a margin of 100%. They were errant, or engaging in political hyperbole.
Surely if they knew that no WMD would be found, they would either have fabricated them (assuming they don’t) or they would have opted for a more plausible, easily provable casus belli (i.e., Saddam is a tyrant. People got worked up about Kosovo and that was 10,000 civilians dead. Conservative estimates put Saddam’s dead at 300,000. Surely the public could have been riled up sufficiently had the right cards been played.).
Or simply they’re damn fools for conjuring a lie they couldn’t make good of.