Iraq: Why Bush now wants the UN

[BOBDN]

An article from the BBC

Iraq: Why Bush now wants the UN

Can anyone say "election year"?

UN assistance will take some of the pressure off of Bush and he needs that very soon. The Republicans don't want to carry the double burden of massive costs in Iraq along with massive unemployment.

Those two factors just don't seem to add up.

 

[LunarRay]

I've been wondering what if. What if SH had had those Chem and Bio WMD and had used them and we sustained massive loss of life in our military units. What would the political climate be today? But, yet he said he believed they had them and he invaded notwithstanding the political risk not to mention the loss of life. The other day I said in another thread that every politician has the political devil whispering in their ear.. Is it possible that Bush went forth in good faith that he was doing what he believed was necessary to save more lives? How would this have been received?
The only thing I can conclude is that there is a greater Agenda that this Iraqi thing is only a bit part in or Bush had a decision to make and made it based on the assertions made by him. I suppose a third possibility exists and that would be that the whole lot of them in Washington are idiots... I can't yet conclude that given I believe a Grand Agenda exists and is of such importance that expected losses were reasonable. It assumes Bush was telling the truth about SH having WMD.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I've been wondering what if. What if SH had had those Chem and Bio WMD and had used them and we sustained massive loss of life in our military units. What would the political climate be today? But, yet he said he believed they had them and he invaded notwithstanding the political risk not to mention the loss of life. The other day I said in another thread that every politician has the political devil whispering in their ear.. Is it possible that Bush went forth in good faith that he was doing what he believed was necessary to save more lives? How would this have been received?
The only thing I can conclude is that there is a greater Agenda that this Iraqi thing is only a bit part in or Bush had a decision to make and made it based on the assertions made by him. I suppose a third possibility exists and that would be that the whole lot of them in Washington are idiots... I can't yet conclude that given I believe a Grand Agenda exists and is of such importance that expected losses were reasonable. It assumes Bush was telling the truth about SH having WMD.

I could agree with your hypothesis re: Bush going forth in good faith doing what he believed was necessary except for one fact. The Bush administration conducted a months long troop build up in the region which precluded any other option. His mind was made up well before the facts were in therefore I must conclude Bush did not decide based on good faith or good intelligence (he actually ignored the advice of his top Pentagon military personnel), but IMO he made his decision based on the advice of hawkish members of his administration and at the urging of several civilian Pentagon personnel who were hell bent on invading Iraq and overthrowing Hussein since 1991 or earlier.

 

[LunarRay]

So not part of a grand Agenda but, just a bit of unfinished business.. before '91... brings to mind April Gillespie (sp) if my memory is on and if not her the ambassador who was alleged to have said "Don't worry Saddam go to Kuwait"

 

[BOBDN]

I remember reading about the apparent go ahead Saddam received from the US to invade Kuwait at PBS' "Frontline."

Their new season begins with truth, war and consequences on October, 9.

"FRONTLINE traces the roots of the Iraqi war back to the days immediately following September 11, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered the creation of a special intelligence operation to quietly begin looking for evidence that would justify the war. The intelligence reports soon became a part of a continuing struggle between civilians in the Pentagon on one side and the CIA, State Department, and uniformed military on the other-a struggle that would lead to inadequate planning for the aftermath of the war, continuing violence, and mounting political problems for the president."

I'll be taping this one and offering it for discussion here.

 

[BOBDN]

There is more on the evolution of the ideas which led to Bush's invasion of Iraq at PBS' Frontline: Excerpts from 1992 draft, "Defence Planning Guidance."

 

[EXman]

No because it is the right thing to do to get alot of our biys back home it really is that simple Bush just now is realizing this but he is now doing the right thing so why bash? oh ya cause you a Bush-Basher

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman
No because it is the right thing to do to get alot of our biys back home it really is that simple Bush just now is realizing this but he is now doing the right thing so why bash? oh ya cause you a Bush-Basher

Isn't it great having a kindergartner learning on the job. Radical surgery on the nation's life blood with a butcher knife, but it's OK, he's learning.

We can't afford this idiot. He's a total disaster. Get real.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman
No because it is the right thing to do to get alot of our biys back home it really is that simple Bush just now is realizing this but he is now doing the right thing so why bash? oh ya cause you a Bush-Basher

Isn't it great having a kindergartner learning on the job. Radical surgery on the nation's life blood with a butcher knife, but it's OK, he's learning.

We can't afford this idiot. He's a total disaster. Get real.

Are these actually the same people who attacked Clinton for eight long years?

Now their guy starts a war based on false evidence (LIES), tells us it won't cost much while being warned time and again it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars (MORE LIES) and now he realizes his mistake (after everything blows up in his face) and goes to the UN so we're supposed to just forget everything before his epiphany?

These Bush apologists are simply ludicrous.

 

[EndGame]

Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

Whatever Bush was forced to include to get congress to approve his invasion of Iraq, lies, promises, whatever. The fact is the Bush administration raced into Iraq without UN approval. You can argue the fine points if you like but you can't change that simple truth.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

Whatever Bush was forced to include to get congress to approve his invasion of Iraq, lies, promises, whatever. The fact is the Bush administration raced into Iraq without UN approval. You can argue the fine points if you like but you can't change that simple truth.

If you check, fine points are what is/was being discussed! Could we have waited? Sure! You're point in the thread was that the U.S. only NOW wanted UN involment, that is actually incorrect.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

Whatever Bush was forced to include to get congress to approve his invasion of Iraq, lies, promises, whatever. The fact is the Bush administration raced into Iraq without UN approval. You can argue the fine points if you like but you can't change that simple truth.

If you check, fine points are what is/was being discussed! Could we have waited? Sure! You're point in the thread was that the U.S. only NOW wanted UN involment, that is actually incorrect.

Well I have to disagree with you EndGame. Whatever lip service the Bush administration gave when forced to to the UN, they did in fact invade Iraq without UN approval and against the UN Charter which only approves attacks in self defence.

Why doesn't the Bush administration want to discuss any other details? Only the one about being forced to include something about the UN coming in later?

What about the details about the WMD, imminent threat, nuclear weapons, drone aircraft that were going to attack us with chem/bio? Nice when they can choose the details they want to discuss. It leaves out all the messy stuff they lied to everyone about.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

Whatever Bush was forced to include to get congress to approve his invasion of Iraq, lies, promises, whatever. The fact is the Bush administration raced into Iraq without UN approval. You can argue the fine points if you like but you can't change that simple truth.

If you check, fine points are what is/was being discussed! Could we have waited? Sure! You're point in the thread was that the U.S. only NOW wanted UN involment, that is actually incorrect.

Well I have to disagree with you EndGame. Whatever lip service the Bush administration gave when forced to to the UN, they did in fact invade Iraq without UN approval and against the UN Charter which only approves attacks in self defence.

Why doesn't the Bush administration want to discuss any other details? Only the one about being forced to include something about the UN coming in later?

What about the details about the WMD, imminent threat, nuclear weapons, drone aircraft that were going to attack us with chem/bio? Nice when they can choose the details they want to discuss. It leaves out all the messy stuff they lied to everyone about.

One question.

If the same intel. would have been provided by the same sources, but, to a Dem., Lib., or Green party administration, would your feelings remain the same? What amazes many in the military and other government capacities is that so many people seem to believe somehow that the leaders of these countries are out there on some ridge, or in a recon. plane gathering this info themselves. They aren't! The current administration mostly depends on the same sources, same people, and same recon. that was available for everyone else in their capacity. Interpretation (sp?) of this information is then condensed and provided to leaders. This is where mistakes, if there are any made, occur. Bush has the final word in most cases, on that I agree, but, his descion is made after consultation with advisors, consultants, and in this case, another country (U.K.). Would any other person in the same capacity have made different decsions? It's quite possible, but, without having the exact same data provided under the exact same circumstances, it's immpossible to know.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: EndGame
Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception. The US Senate submitted that control of Iraqi oil wells should be turned over to UN control as soon as the country was determined completely secure. Also submitted was a plan which would give the UN or a committee formed by the UN to oversee and regulate an election proccess in Iraq.

Actually I lived through it and my memory is pretty good.

The Bush administration ignored the UN and attacked Iraq without Security Council sanction. If they wanted UN cooperation they should have followed the UN Charter instead of breaking the rules.

The Bush administration didn't want the UN anywhere NEAR Iraq until the reality finally struck them that they couldn't get the job done without them.

Hey, that's GREAT! You "remember" it as you wish! Point is, if you care to do actual research, you will find that the submissions were made. What's more, you should back the fact because several were a direct result of Democrat Congressmen.

Whatever Bush was forced to include to get congress to approve his invasion of Iraq, lies, promises, whatever. The fact is the Bush administration raced into Iraq without UN approval. You can argue the fine points if you like but you can't change that simple truth.

If you check, fine points are what is/was being discussed! Could we have waited? Sure! You're point in the thread was that the U.S. only NOW wanted UN involment, that is actually incorrect.

Well I have to disagree with you EndGame. Whatever lip service the Bush administration gave when forced to to the UN, they did in fact invade Iraq without UN approval and against the UN Charter which only approves attacks in self defence.

Why doesn't the Bush administration want to discuss any other details? Only the one about being forced to include something about the UN coming in later?

What about the details about the WMD, imminent threat, nuclear weapons, drone aircraft that were going to attack us with chem/bio? Nice when they can choose the details they want to discuss. It leaves out all the messy stuff they lied to everyone about.

One question.

If the same intel. would have been provided by the same sources, but, to a Dem., Lib., or Green party administration, would your feelings remain the same? What amazes many in the military and other government capacities is that so many people seem to believe somehow that the leaders of these countries are out there on some ridge, or in a recon. plane gathering this info themselves. They aren't! The current administration mostly depends on the same sources, same people, and same recon. that was available for everyone else in their capacity. Interpretation (sp?) of this information is then condensed and provided to leaders. This is where mistakes, if there are any made, occur. Bush has the final word in most cases, on that I agree, but, his descion is made after consultation with advisors, consultants, and in this case, another country (U.K.). Would any other person in the same capacity have made different decsions? It's quite possible, but, without having the exact same data provided under the exact same circumstances, it's immpossible to know.

It is impossible to know but I have some historical evidence from the Clinton administration. The same people who convinced Bush to race into Iraq without considering all the consequences tried to convince Clinton. The info is on PBS' Frontline site. I can dig for it if you like. It's a letter form the PNAC folks, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle et al urging Clinton to attack Iraq and depose Saddam. It didn't happen.

I truly believe a Democratic president would have taken the advice of the Pentagon MILITARY and not invaded. I believe a Democratic president would have gone the UN route instead of beginning a build up that left no option but to attack. Becuase that was the Bush administration's intent all along. Else why the build up? Not to mention all the lies.

 

[zephyrprime]

Actually, if you do the research, the plan included UN involvement since its inception.

Really? Where can I read more about this?

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
An article from the BBC

Iraq: Why Bush now wants the UN

Can anyone say "election year"?

UN assistance will take some of the pressure off of Bush and he needs that very soon. The Republicans don't want to carry the double burden of massive costs in Iraq along with massive unemployment.

Those two factors just don't seem to add up.

Yes they do, BOBDN: can anyone say "HYPOCRITE"?

They stuck their fingers up at the UN earlier this year, and now they want the UN to pay/help for what Bush's Regime has done. Bush wants his cake and eat it too...story of his life and political career.

This should suprise absolutely no one.