Changing the reasons for war once again

[flavio]

Now that we've spent all that money and killed all those people it's reassuring to know that it's still hard to get a clear idea of why we did it.

(05-30) 09:17 PDT BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) --

European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official playing down Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as the reason for the conflict.

In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited "bureaucratic reasons" for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal and said a "huge" reason for the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying.

He said one reason for going to war against Iraq that was "almost unnoticed but huge" was the need to maintain American forces in Saudi Arabia as long as Saddam was in power.

Those troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to protect the desert kingdom against Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1991, but their presence in the country that houses Islam's holiest sites enraged Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden.

Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and would set up its main regional command center in Qatar.

However, those goals were not spelled out publicly as the United States sought to build international support for the war. Instead, the Bush administration focused on Saddam's failure to dismantle chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

The failure of U.S. forces to locate extensive weapons stocks has raised doubts in a skeptical Europe whether Iraq represented a global security threat.

Wolfowitz's comments followed a statement by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who suggested this week that Saddam might have destroyed his banned weapons before the war began.

On Friday, the commander of U.S. Marines in Iraq said he was surprised that extensive searches have failed to discover any of the chemical weapons that U.S. intelligence had indicated were supplied to front line Iraqi forces at the outset of the war.

"Believe me, it's not for lack of trying," Lt. Gen. James Conway told reporters. "We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

The remarks by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld revived the controversy over the war as President Bush left for a European tour in which he hopes to put aside the bitterness over the war, which threatened the trans-Atlantic partnership.

In Denmark, whose government supported the war, opposition parties demanded to know whether Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about the extent of Saddam's weapons threat.

"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for the war," Jeppe Kofod, the Social Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said in response to Wolfowitz's comments. "Those who went to war now have a big problem explaining it."

Former Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said he was shocked by Wolfowitz's claim. "It leaves the world with one question: What should we believe?" he told The Associated Press.

In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiting newspaper said the comments about Iraqi weapons showed that America is losing the battle for credibility.

"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said Friday.

In London, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who quit as leader of the House of Commons to protest the war, said he doubted Iraq had any such weapons.

"The war was sold on the basis of what was described as a pre-emptive strike, 'Hit Saddam before he hits us,' " Cook told British Broadcasting Corp. "It is now quite clear that Saddam did not have anything with which to hit us in the first place."

During a visit to Poland, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday he has "absolutely no doubt" that concrete evidence will be found of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

"Have a little patience," Blair told reporters.

Wolfowitz was in Singapore, where he is due to speak Saturday at the Asia Security Conference of military chiefs and defense ministers from Asian and key Western powers.

He told reporters at the conference that the United States will reorganize its forces worldwide to confront the threat of terrorism.

"We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States," Wolfowitz said. "We're facing a very different threat than any one we've faced historically."

Source

 

[gigapet]

i hope that this isnt really surprising to you

 

[Zrom999]

I posted a list of possible reasons for the war a while back. Here is is again:

Most likely reasons why Bush went to war:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) Oil.
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.*
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Zrom999
I posted a list of possible reasons for the war a while back. Here is is again:

Most likely reasons why Bush went to war:

1) Iraq was incapable of defending itself.
2) Unfinished business.
3) Oil.
4) Osama got away and the average hick can't tell the difference between Saddam and Bin Laden.
5) To dish out nice gov't contracts to his buddies to rebuild a country he destroyed.
6) To diminish European influence in the region.
7) The military was already there.
8) The Saudis were getting ticked off, needed a new base.*
9) Re-election.
10)Pure envy.

11) to prove my(president bush's) penis is bigger than everyone else's leaders penis'

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well it is surprising to me. I never supported the war but I did believe Saddam had something to hide. I was quite perturbed this administration couldn't make a better case but I sorta bought the argument about protecting sources and not giving away everything we know. I questioned the use of the anodized aluminum tubes and African nuke memo b/c I was sure we had better proof . . . not to mention the fact Saddam was a lying POS which is almost proof in itself.

I still think Iraq is better off without Saddam . . . granted our occupying abilities bite compared to our aptitude at blowing stuff up. Colin is curiously quiet these days. I believe Blair and Powell will take the biggest hit if something of significance isn't discovered soon. I doubt the Bush admin had much global credibility beforehand (other than a well established predeliction to bomb) so nothing has changed.

 

[jjones]

No surprise at all. I always thought there were reasons other than a supposed stockpile of WMD for finishing this business with Saddam. I never liked the way the administration "sold" this war. They always should have been straightforward about the reasons for taking out Saddam but they had to play their silly boogeyman games for fear of not getting enough support.

 

[gigapet]

public opinion is everything in politics so they will say whatever take for the general population to support whatever it is that they want..

bottom line is they always lie and they have no reason not to cuz it always works

 

[Gage8]

the reason was to find weapons of mass destruction, but that changed because.....



Top Ten President Bush Excuses For Not Finding Weapons of Mass Destruction


10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

1. "Geraldo took them"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

NYT Op-Ed via CNN
"We never felt that there was any leadership in the C.I.A. to qualify or put into context the information available," one veteran said. "Rather there was a tendency to feed the most alarming tidbits to the president. Often it's the most ill-considered information that goes to the president.

"So instead of giving the president the most considered, carefully examined information available, basically you give him the garbage. And then in a few days when it's clear that maybe it wasn't right, well then, you feed him some more hot garbage."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

 

[Gage8]

hey! you stole my sig!!!

 

[Vic]

Geez... I was opposed to the way the war was sold but not necessarily to the war itself. And it's really not hard to know why we did it.

Three words: Strategic Military Location

Pull out a map. Where is Iraq in the Middle East? Holy Sh!t, it's right in the middle of it, bordering almost every trouble country. By occupying Iraq (which we will do for some time), the US can:
(1) move military bases out of Saudi Arabia, which will improve the US image there and weaken Al-Queda's motivation and recruit base,
(2) more effectively control the oil supply, which is the biggest reason why France and Russia are giving us so much grief about the war, they wanted more control of that oil supply,
(3) remove a hated dictator and provide money and aid to middle eastern peoples, improving the US image in the area,
(4) maintain a military presence in one of the world's nastiest hot spots, where WWIII threatens to erupt at any moment,
(5) use all of the above to force Israel into making concessions and peace to the Palestinian people, something that is already beginning to happen as we speak.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

hey! you stole my sig!!!

ME
BaliBabyDoc
Platinum Member

Posts: 2505
Joined: Jan 2001

YOU
Gage8
Senior Member

Posts: 396
Joined: Feb 2003

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

Probably quite a few as the search for WMD continues to be nonproductive.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Vic
Geez... I was opposed to the way the war was sold but not necessarily to the war itself. And it's really not hard to know why we did it.

Three words: Strategic Military Location

Pull out a map. Where is Iraq in the Middle East? Holy Sh!t, it's right in the middle of it, bordering almost every trouble country. By occupying Iraq (which we will do for some time), the US can:
(1) move military bases out of Saudi Arabia, which will improve the US image there and weaken Al-Queda's motivation and recruit base,
(2) more effectively control the oil supply, which is the biggest reason why France and Russia are giving us so much grief about the war, they wanted more control of that oil supply,
(3) remove a hated dictator and provide money and aid to middle eastern peoples, improving the US image in the area,
(4) maintain a military presence in one of the world's nastiest hot spots, where WWIII threatens to erupt at any moment,
(5) use all of the above to force Israel into making concessions and peace to the Palestinian people, something that is already beginning to happen as we speak.

You mean Bush might have some kind of strategy? And that France, et all weren't just opposed out of the goodness of their hearts? My liberal mind is reeling...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

WMDs were the main reason for war. Without a perceived threat of Saddam and all his nasty weapons, there would be no justification for the war (both the US and UK set their legal pretext for war based on the threat of WMD). But hey, might as well let the admin. tell us what the reasons are......

Link
Ari Fleischer:

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Oh, the war was and is about WMDs?? Well what did Bush say about the matter??

Link

So, in the name of security and peace, if we have to -- if we have to -- we'll disarm him. I hope he disarms. Or, perhaps, I hope he leaves the country. I hear a lot of talk from different nations around where Saddam Hussein might be exiled. That would be fine with me -- just so long as Iraq disarms after he's exiled.

Bush spends the whole "press conference" talking about WMDs and disarming Saddam. As long as Iraq disarms and Saddam exiles, there will be no war.
Right.....there were so many other reasons for war......

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?

No, the blah..blah..blah is because it is the same tired song, played by the same tired band already. No, we haven't found WMD(yet), but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant. Like I posted in a different thread and it has been said by many others as well, - If Iraq "never" had WMD, then why did the UN send Inspectors in? Weren't you guys the ones clamoring for "more time" a couple months ago? If you were - then you surely had to believe that Saddam possesed them(there is no other logical conclusion) But now all of a sudden - "they never existed", "Bush lied", and "blah..blah..blah" which directly contradicts your position of 3 months ago if you supported "more time for inspectors".

If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there ) and acted on it. - How is that "pulling the wool over our eyes?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?

No, the blah..blah..blah is because it is the same tired song, played by the same tired band already. No, we haven't found WMD(yet), but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant. Like I posted in a different thread and it has been said by many others as well, - If Iraq "never" had WMD, then why did the UN send Inspectors in? Weren't you guys the ones clamoring for "more time" a couple months ago? If you were - then you surely had to believe that Saddam possesed them(there is no other logical conclusion) But now all of a sudden - "they never existed", "Bush lied", and "blah..blah..blah" which directly contradicts your position of 3 months ago if you supported "more time for inspectors".

If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there ) and acted on it. - How is that "pulling the wool over our eyes?

CkG

So who else besides Bush (the US that is) was for a war? Blair was. OK, now you have two. I may believe someone here is a jerk, but if someone "acts" on it, against my wishes and shoots him, I am to blame? Where was the cry in the UN for Bush to start bombing? Where? Bush bribed or coerced a large number of countries to form a "coalition of the willing" No, most were hoping for a hand out. Bush was going to have a war, why not profit from it? That is what happened there.

Bush is president. Bush was the ONLY leader who wanted war. Blair went along, but he slowed things. I am sure he would have avoided it if he could, but he stood by the US no matter what he thought.

Bush and Bush alone did this.

 

[Gaard]

but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant.

I couldn't agree with you more. But, um, I don't think anyone here is blaming Bush because we aren't finding any WMD. That wouldn't make any sense. What he's being accused of is justifying a war on a lie. Not quite the same thing, is it? I can't tell...do you think it's premature for any calls of "liar", or do you agree with what another prowar member here stated last night...Sure the Bush administration used half truths and probably some flat out lies but I guess I can forgives them since there end goal was just.



If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there ) and acted on it. - How is that "pulling the wool over our eyes?

Surely you aren't serious. The phrase "pulling the wool over our eyes" doesn't pertain to someone making an honest mistake. It suggests using deceit. If it turns out that Bush was being less than honest when he stated he had 'solid' evidence of the presence of WMD in Iraq to garner support for this war, that would fall under the category of "pulling the wool over our eyes". If he made an honest mistake, and truely believed that there were WMD, and believed that this was a legitimate reason for going to war, that would not fall under the category of "pulling the wool over our eyes". Follow me? (I really didn't need to type all that out, did I?)

One more thing, there is a difference between believing in the presence of WMD and stating you are in the possession of 'solid' evidence of them. (I think Iraq has WMD. I know Iraq has WMD. See the diff?)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn*

Blah..blah..blah... WMD Blah..blah..blah...

You know full well that WMD wasn't the only reason for the war. Cripes

However, it was the most publicized part.
Can you tell me which UN nations will go on record to say that they don't believe Iraq had WMD?

CkG

I guess it's ok with you if it turns out that the WMD reason turns out to be just a smoke screen we laid out in order to garner support? Not saying it is, mind you...but the more time that passes the possibility grows, IMO. Just so we're clear, your blah, blah, blah is because you don't care if our government lied to the world and you don't think anyone else should care either, or are you just tired of people expressing their displeasure at the ever increasing possibility that they were given a false reason to give their support for this war?

No, the blah..blah..blah is because it is the same tired song, played by the same tired band already. No, we haven't found WMD(yet), but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant. Like I posted in a different thread and it has been said by many others as well, - If Iraq "never" had WMD, then why did the UN send Inspectors in? Weren't you guys the ones clamoring for "more time" a couple months ago? If you were - then you surely had to believe that Saddam possesed them(there is no other logical conclusion) But now all of a sudden - "they never existed", "Bush lied", and "blah..blah..blah" which directly contradicts your position of 3 months ago if you supported "more time for inspectors".

If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there ) and acted on it. - How is that "pulling the wool over our eyes?

CkG

So who else besides Bush (the US that is) was for a war? Blair was. OK, now you have two. I may believe someone here is a jerk, but if someone "acts" on it, against my wishes and shoots him, I am to blame? Where was the cry in the UN for Bush to start bombing? Where? Bush bribed or coerced a large number of countries to form a "coalition of the willing" No, most were hoping for a hand out. Bush was going to have a war, why not profit from it? That is what happened there.

Bush is president. Bush was the ONLY leader who wanted war. Blair went along, but he slowed things. I am sure he would have avoided it if he could, but he stood by the US no matter what he thought.

Bush and Bush alone did this.

Bush did push for war - I won't deny that - infact I support what he did. But for you people to pin the fact that we didn't find WMD on Bush is absurd. Bush didn't create the belief that Saddam had WMD. He had every reason to believe the Saddam possesed them and could possibly use them. He infact gave Saddam ample opportunity to provide proof that the ones known to exist - were destroyed. The US wasn't the one who said he had them and had to get rid of them - the UN did that after the '91 war. It's just that Bush had the balls to follow through with the threats(resolution after resolution) the UN has been making for 12 years.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
but to blame Bush and Bush only is ignorant.

I couldn't agree with you more. But, um, I don't think anyone here is blaming Bush because we aren't finding any WMD. That wouldn't make any sense. What he's being accused of is justifying a war on a lie. Not quite the same thing, is it? I can't tell...do you think it's premature for any calls of "liar", or do you agree with what another prowar member here stated last night...Sure the Bush administration used half truths and probably some flat out lies but I guess I can forgives them since there end goal was just.



If they don't exist and never did - then fine, so be it. But that isn't ONLY Bush's fault - he took what everyone(UN) else believed was true(challenge is still out there ) and acted on it. - How is that "pulling the wool over our eyes?

Surely you aren't serious. The phrase "pulling the wool over our eyes" doesn't pertain to someone making an honest mistake. It suggests using deceit. If it turns out that Bush was being less than honest when he stated he had 'solid' evidence of the presence of WMD in Iraq to garner support for this war, that would fall under the category of "pulling the wool over our eyes". If he made an honest mistake, and truely believed that there were WMD, and believed that this was a legitimate reason for going to war, that would not fall under the category of "pulling the wool over our eyes". Follow me? (I really didn't need to type all that out, did I?)

One more thing, there is a difference between believing in the presence of WMD and stating you are in the possession of 'solid' evidence of them. (I think Iraq has WMD. I know Iraq has WMD. See the diff?)

Right, and who is to say that he didn't have what could be considered "solid" evidence at the time? Evidence isn't absolute proof - you people are the ones who need to learn that. Our gov't can only act in situations using the evidence in their possesion. Bush and Co. looked at the evidence - the UN concurred(material breech) and gave Saddam one last chance to come clean. See the difference?

Sure he pushed the WMD portion - because he had every right to believe it was true because of the evidence they and the UN possesed. So no - I don't think Bush pulled the wool over our eyes.

Prove that he purposely lied and I'll believe you - wether we find WMD or not. But no one has presented proof that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

The UN concurred that there was 'solid' evidence of WMD? Is that what you're saying?

Prove that he purposely lied and I'll believe you - wether we find WMD or not. But no one has presented proof that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD.

Well, I have proof. SOLID proof. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that proof is out of fear for the well-being of my informants.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The UN concurred that there was 'solid' evidence of WMD? Is that what you're saying?

Prove that he purposely lied and I'll believe you - wether we find WMD or not. But no one has presented proof that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD.

Well, I have proof. SOLID proof. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what that proof is out of fear for the well-being of my informants.

No - read what I said

"Bush and Co. looked at the evidence - the UN concurred(material breech)..."

Are you saying that the UN didn't consider them in material breech? And what were the cease fire terms?

Hmmm...

Yeah - Bush just made the whole thing up so he could play Risk(TM) but using real people

CkG

 

[Gaard]

If it turns out that deceit was used, it wouldn't have been used to play a game of real-life Risk. (Oh, were you joking?)

Are you saying that it is beyond any comprehension that there may have been an alterior reason than WMD for this war?