Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behind Iraq prewar debate
Sacramento Bee ^ | 11/27/5 | David Westphal

Posted on 11/27/2005 1:36:24 PM PST by SmithL

WASHINGTON - For months leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was Iraq's supposed stockpile of threatening weapons that President Bush held up as the main rationale for military action.

But it wasn't the only rationale expressed by the White House. In fact, some experts believe other factors rarely talked about might have been at play in Bush's war decision, as well.

The issue of why Bush chose war is once again frontand- center, with war critics suggesting the administration may have exaggerated prewar claims of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction arsenal, and Bush defenders branding the detractors as historical revisionists.

Even as they scrap over the weapons issue, both sides suggest other factors may have been in the mix.

Former President Jimmy Carter, for example, contends that Bush's lieutenants came to office hoping for an opportunity to establish an American foothold in the Middle East, and saw the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an opportunity.

Others suggest that Bush was looking for a demonstration project to show American strength and resolve in the aftermath of the attacks.

Richard Clarke, the former White House national security expert who has been critical of Bush's war decision, said the rationales for invasion varied from person to person.

Bush's own reason, Clarke believes, was a visceral response to Sept. 11. "A 'Don't Mess With Texas' thing," he said.

Paul Wolfowitz, the former No. 2 official at the Pentagon, encouraged the notion that justifications other than weapons of mass destruction were influential in the war decision. Soon after it became clear that dangerous weapons would not be found, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair magazine that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; prewar; prewarintelligence

1 posted on 11/27/2005 1:36:24 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Each of those reasons are legitimate now as they were then.

1. We were attacked. There will be serious consequences.
2. Don't F@ck with a Texan.
3. We don't know what happened to the WMD, but without any evidence of what happened to them, we should be damned worried.
4. Because of #4, it's a damn good thing we have a foothold in between the terrorist havens known as Syria and Iran.
5. Maybe Arabs will take to Democracy, maybe they won't, but it sure is worth changing the calculus of a region that would surely spawn the next Islamic Hitler (Caliph).
2 posted on 11/27/2005 1:44:31 PM PST by LA Conservative (Read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

We don't really give a ...


3 posted on 11/27/2005 1:44:51 PM PST by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
It's real simple even though the weak in the kneed Leftists refuse to deal with it. We needed a battlefield we could kill off enough Terrorists to make the rest realize "Jihad" is a fools game. Iraq is that battlefield. We had the political and legal consensus to liberate Iraq.

Saddam was breaking loose of the "Containment" policy the gutless Left imposed on him under Clinton. He was in violation of the 1991 Armistice and numerous UN Resolutions. Despite given ample time to comply, he refused. There are moral, propaganda and humanitarian reasons to do it but the above is the vital US National Security interest that made Iraq our next battlefield after Trashcanistan.

The US needed to draw the terrorists forces out of hiding all over the World into a chosen kill zone were we could match our military power to their military weakness on a battlefield they had to fight on where the bulk of the fighting would be done by native Muslims against the terrorists. Iraq is that kill zone. The strategy is working brilliantly if the gutless Left is not allowed to throw it away for domestic political propaganda reasons.

4 posted on 11/27/2005 1:47:28 PM PST by MNJohnnie (To be a "Peace Now Democrat" is to be Pro Mass Murder/Rape/Torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

All this revisionism....

Why did the military plan 10,000+ body bags and why did they ask the Germans to supply their Fox Chemical detection unit and why did they insist on extensive chemical and biological training for out troops in Qatar and Kuwait?

Oh, I forgot...it was all a ruse.


5 posted on 11/27/2005 1:47:58 PM PST by Prost1 (I get my news at Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
 

President Bush listed eight very clear reasons for invading Iraq and they are described below: These reasons were laid out at the United Nations, in front of live cameras and broadcast to the world. None of them have a damn thing to do with Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, yellow cake or Niger.  They were spoken September 12th, 2002, before the State of the Union was given in January 2003 with the famous sixteen words.

I agree with Paul Wolfowitz's assessment in the SacBee article and also note that- of all the reasons, the 'sexiest' was the WMD, and since the 'sexiest' is what the mainstream press always runs with, it is the only thing they reported. That alone gave the nation the appearance that WMD was the reason.

In short, it was the mainstream press that went to war over Weapons of Mass Destruction, not the President!

"Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself."

Reason Number 1: "In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. "

Reason Number 2:  "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them."

Reason Number 3: "In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq."

Reason Number 4: "In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge."

Reason Number 5: "From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons. And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons. "

Reason Number 6:  "Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region. "

Reason Number 7:  "In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens."

Reason Number 8: "In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again. As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy."

"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."

"Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming."

"The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

Below is a list of recommended demands from the President to the Iraqi regime found in this speech. None of them seem unreasonable even today.

  1. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

  2. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

  3. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

  4. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

  5. If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

  6. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

  7. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

 


6 posted on 11/27/2005 1:50:10 PM PST by HawaiianGecko (Facts are neither debatable nor open to "I have a right to this opinion" nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko
Exactly right. I have been saying exactly the same thing all along. The media can't talk about anything but a 30 second sound bite. They picked the most visceral one and went with it.

The resolution signed by congress to authorize use of force also laid out the rationale pretty clearly and it was not that Saddam had WMD that presented an imminent threat. NOT.

Scott Ritter reported the absence of stockpiles and the ever growing threat of Saddam. The MSM headlined the absence of stockpiles. Blix reported essentially the same thing and the MSM headlined the absence of stockpiles. Powel reported essentially the same thing to the UN and the MSM headlined the suspicions of WMD stockpiles. When the WMD were not located, the story turned into an administration "scandal" because they were not there even though everyone on the planet thought they were. The scandal, "Bush lied" became the story.

The media are commercial enterprises and the products they sell are their stories. They will tell you anything you will buy as long as they believe it wont damage their ability to sell you some more tomorrow. The lead up to the war created a market for an explanation. They boiled it down to a simple, marketable slogan and sold it. When the expectations THEY CREATED turned out to be wrong they found a new market had been created to explain why. They packaged and sold the Bush lied, manipulated intelligence, CIA is incompetent, your worst Viet Nam flashback fears are coming true ... stories. People feared bad news coming from the war front and the media packaged it up and sold it to them. New schools and smiling faces with purple fingers at the ballot boxes don't sell - blood in the streets and intractable quagmire sells ever day; they're called soap operas and they exist because people like to buy them. Now we "lack an exit strategy" and the nausea continues ad nauseum

The Iraq war has been a huge eye opener for me. The media absolutely disgusts me. It is literally sickening that these institutions assert their lofty moral position all while being the most persistent obfuscaters of the truth.

They got the WHOLE DEBATE COMPLETELY WRONG and they've lead the public into unbelievable ignorance all while professing to do public service.

7 posted on 11/27/2005 3:01:18 PM PST by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HawaiianGecko

bttt


8 posted on 11/27/2005 3:22:23 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

when Joe Six Pack goes to vote in 3 years he will know deep in his heart that the Democratic party is concerned with the defense of this GREAT country first and foremost.
</sarcasm>


9 posted on 11/28/2005 7:57:21 AM PST by ottersnot ( You can't spell Liberal without L, I, E.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson