Did Bush manipulate Iraq data?

[Jester]

"In the US, it seems that if a nation is demonstratably evil, we as a people have little hesitency in doing something about it."

I would amend that. There are plenty of "demonstrably evil" nations that the US has done nothing about (or openly supported, or, in a couple instances, had a hand in creating).

So, if they're a nation that's demonstrably evil, anti-US, floating in oil, and right next door to Israel, then yeah, the US "as a people" tend to have little hesitancy in doing something about it.

Jester

[Jester]

... isn't the US as a whole, but rather some small sector. Like, say, a sector that sells oil, and is poised to profit from any predictable shift in oil prices, up or down.

A sector VERY well represented in government, up to but not limited to the President and Vice President.

A sector which is, quite naturally, poised to cop enormous contracts for the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil industry.

Jester

[Feryar]

I think it's even more naive to think that the war was about "us good guys" saving "those poor guys" from the "bad guy".

Of course the petroleum products rise in price when there's a war that threatens to destabilize the one region which has the most oil. Now that the war is over and the US has parked a whole lot of soldiers and are working on a puppet regime they can have much better control over the oil in the future.

Anyway, time will show :)

[Moldran]

And my point stands. "Sense" is not a substitute for "evidence". You can't convict a criminal in a court of law on the basis that their having done it makes sense.

True. But I did not try to "convict" anyone. I was only trying to answer the question "did Saddam have WMDs or not".
Wether the US had "the right" to do this war is, IMO, not dependent on the WMD question. By international law, they quite clearly did not have the right, even if Iraq had have WMD. Morally, their intentions are questionable, but the outcome is good. A war was justified simply because of the suffering of the Iraqis under Saddam. That Bush might have "lied" over his motives does not matter a bit to me. Politicians lie all the time. I don´t care about the moral integrity of your president :P

Moldran

[kandrathe]

Uh, huh. Do you think that was the US motivation for actions in Bosnia, Somalia, Panama, Korea, Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan, and Columbia? Did you see "Blackhawk Down"?

I am more disturbed by the ones we are/have neglected, like Khmer Rouge

Almost 1.7 million Cambodians were killed, including members of minority and religious groups, people suspected of disagreeing with the party, intellectuals, merchants, and bureaucrats. Millions of other Cambodians were forcibly relocated, deprived of food, tortured, or sent into forced labor. Of about 425,000 Chinese Cambodians, only about half survived the Khmer Rouge regime. While most of about 450,000 Vietnamese Cambodians had been expelled by the Lon Nol regime, more were driven out by the Khmer Rouge; the rest were tracked down and murdered. Of about 250,000 Muslim Chams (an ethnic group inhabiting the rural areas of Cambodia) in 1975, 90,000 were massacred, and the survivors were dispersed. The most horrific slaughter took place during the second half of 1978 when at least 250,000 people were killed in the worst single massacre of the Khmer Rouge period.

or Rwanda,

Week 5, On May 16, HRW criticized the U.S. government for "effectively blocking" a UN vote that would send peacekeeping troops to Rwanda and pointed out that U.S. inaction at the UN was "allowing the slaughter in Rwanda to continue." The organization emphasized that "the slaughter of 200,000 unarmed and unresisting civilians is...far more than a Rwandan problem. Given this extraordinary violation of the international laws...this catastrophe confronts the United States...with a moral imperative..."

U.S. Policy Response During the fifth week of the genocide, a secret report by the Defense Intelligence Agency stated that "there is an organized...effort of genocide being implemented." During the sixth week of the genocide, the U.S. government and the UN Security Council formally agreed that new peacekeeping troops might be needed in Rwanda.

But U.S. officials effectively blocked implementation by insisting on more weeks of study before allowing final approval. The UN resolution pointedly refused to characterize the killings as "genocide."

... and the genocide continued for another 11 weeks before HRW reported...

Yet that is exactly what President Clinton now claims. President Clinton told Rwandans during his visit there in March that he personally "did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which [Rwandans] were engulfed by this unimaginable terror." Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary statement.

If we take the President at his word, then we are left to believe that our massive U.S. government‹with all its intelligence gathering, analytic capacity, diplomatic contacts, and massive resources‹suffered a monumental failure by neglecting to inform adequately its own leader about the clearest genocide the human race has seen in nearly 50 years. Mr. Chairman, a governmental communications breakdown of that magnitude is worthy of close examination by Congress, the State Department, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, and other pertinent arms of the U.S. government.

An alternative explanation is that weak U.S. policies and the glaring lack of strong moral leadership during the Rwandan genocide stemmed not from a lack of knowledge, but from a lack of interest and political will.

or Sudan,

Approximately 4.4 million Sudanese were uprooted at the end of 2001, including an estimated 4 million internally displaced persons and some 440,000 Sudanese living as refugees and asylum seekers.
Sudanese refugees primarily lived in eight countries, including about 150,000 in Uganda, some 80,000 in Ethiopia, 70,000 in Kenya, 70,000 in Congo-Kinshasa, about 35,000 in Central African Republic, 18,000 in Egypt, 15,000 in Chad, and 1,000 in Eritrea. In addition, more than 3,000 filed new asylum applications in Western countries during the year...

And, I have cited here sources before outlining over 2.2 million murders and deaths due to displacement in Sudan.

or DR of Congo

Despite three peace agreements aimed at ending the five year-old Congolese war, fighting in eastern DRC, particularly in Ituri and South Kivu, intensified in late 2002 and early 2003. The current violence in Bunia is only the latest episode in this war that has left an estimated 3.3 million civilians dead throughout the Congo, a toll that makes it more deadly to civilians than any other since World War II.

And, still there are over 9 million refugees displaced and at risk in Central Africa alone. Then add Eritrea, Zimbabwe, etc, etc, etc...

I'm getting a bit tired of the "No War for Oil" drum. If that were an issue, why are we not poking our noses into Canada, Nigeria, or Venezuela?

The United States imports 9.9 percent of all the oil it consumes from Canada, more than from any other nation. It imports 7.9 percent from Saudi Arabia and 7.8 percent from Mexico. It imports 2.2 percent from Iraq. All Persian Gulf nations together supply only 11.5 percent of the oil the United States consumes.

American Petroleum Institute

The reality IMO is that our hammer is not always the right tool to solve these problems. Somalia is a classic example of just how wrong things can be when you try to use the wrong tool, or just not understand the problem. And, as for Anti-US... Who isn't? Just ask the French.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I'm getting a bit tired of the "No War for Oil" drum. If that were an issue, why are we not poking our noses into Canada, Nigeria, or Venezuela?

I have no illusions that were Canada a non-democracy, with its political geography dominated by a religious fundamentalism, there would have been US troops in here long ago. Yes, you get alot of oil from Canada; most of it from my own province. If we ever shut the tap off, I firmly believe I would see the wondrous parade of Abrahms tanks down my own town's main street.

The 43 Administration is setting a bad precedent for premeditation. But, then again, that's what the New American Century and the Neo-Reaganites are all about: Hit them before they hit us. In fact, hit them before we even really know if they COULD hit us. Can't be too careful, y'know. <_<

There is an overwhelming amount of shrugging shoulders in both the White House and DoD these days. Yes, we didn't actually have proof. Yes, we exaggerated our claims to the UN. Yes, we wanted a war and decided to come up with the reasons after the fact. Wolfowitz's doctrine is in full swing, and the "Intelligence" gathered isn't real. It is more of a "what is theoretically possible in all probability" than "what we have seen and heard and found proof of". It's the B Team's oblivious posturing of intelligence gathering drowning out the A Team's actual data. This is the same sort of drivel that led to the US's assertions of the strengths of the USSR when it was actually rotting away from the inside and about to collapse.

You have some scary-assed bastards running your country, boys. And they're listening to some scary-assed advisers that are presenting rhetoric as fact.

And what's scarier: The US population as a whole, even presented with the proof and actual admissions that their government was propagating lies and marketing falsehoods in an attempt to garner popular support for the war.... STILL think the war was okely-dokely by them. All hail Freedom™ and the right to have your own opinion, no matter how many 30 second commercials it takes to buy you off. :huh:

Hey, you won! I'm sure you'll be comfortable with whatever reasons you can make up. "It needed to be done, anyway." "He was a megalomaniacal mass-murderer". "He wanted to invade the neighboring states and set himself up as a God." "Oh, the war? Give me a second, I'll turn on CNN and find out what my opinion should be today." :blink:

At least the British have the good sense to crucify a Leader that was so inept as to be led astray. With any luck, they'll remove all the cronies that supported and reinforced said leader as well. But the US? Well no... we still like our president: premeditation, manipulation and outright lying. That's okay. We won.

It's a funny fact that if an individual were demonstrating the facets of personality that the 43 Administration and DoD are demonstrating, he would be locked up for being a dangerously threatening paranoid schizophrenic. :ph34r:

**Freedom™ is a solely American ideal, not following any actual definition within a world paradigm, and subject to change with such piss-assed reasons as the price of oil, if the Democrats are in Office, if Hollywood feels a need to expand their creative roots, or if anyone feels they didn't get paid enough money this week, or if someone says "boo" before you've had your first morning coffee. Patent pending, but we don't really give a hoot about patents**

[Jester]

"By international law, they quite clearly did not have the right, even if Iraq had have WMD. Morally, their intentions are questionable, but the outcome is good. A war was justified simply because of the suffering of the Iraqis under Saddam."

This is a strange definition of the word "Justified". That always seemed to have something to do with justice. If their intentions are questionable, and they didn't have the "right", what justice are you referring to? Perhaps you mean "moralized into existence"? That's certainly true. But, then, so were the crusades. Nations have no business being the guardian angels of the world. If there is a god, he'll deal with it. If there isn't, invoking his name to invade countries is in pretty bad taste.

"I don´t care about the moral integrity of your president"

Good thing, too, because I haven't got one.

Jester

[ALnitak]

And, as for Anti-US...&nbsp; Who isn't?&nbsp; Just ask the French.

I'm not a regular, respected LL poster, not even the only French here (CorwinBrute is, if I'm not mistaken). I could even have done as if I hadn't read that, or simply followed advices of my wise forum pals, that is : "never put your nose into political threads". But I feel like I "owe" you some explanation.

At a personal level, I would say that I'm not anti-american, and I find it astonishing some Americans (or most, dunno the trend of the day...) still believe France's opposition to a precise US decision/action meant France is a systematic anti-US country. Especially after recent finds (read : == NULL) in Iraq about WMD. Anyway, I will still drool for a long time at both your president's and administration's ability to endoctrinate (read "hide the truth, enhance it or whatever") his own country ; but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

At a more general level, I find your saying quite dangerous, like a random pointing fingers at, description of a country as a whole. A common thing for all countries (yours and mine included) is that every people is different, entitled to its own opinion. If you imagine all the French were against this war or worse, are anti-american, I'm sorry to say you're far from the truth. And if you believe disagreeing about a specific case deserves an instant "anti-US" tagging, lemme tell you that's just childish. Last, assuming a whole people deserves the same treatment/tag is the first step to what is usually called racism. I hope you can live with that, actually I hope you can change your point of view one day, that would be much better IMO. Up to you.

Oh, forgot to say... I'm not one of those French who think this war was justified, as for the reasons that had been presented by your government. IMO that's just a question of protocol, like asking U.N. to follow U.S. to a war for a main, shiny reason A (Iraq owns WMD and supplies terrorist groups with that), whereas the true reason is rather B, or C (Saddam is an evil dictator, Saddam kills his people, we have to remove it, or whatever reason - oil let apart, if you want).

[kandrathe]

You are right. It was an off hand slam, and I do not think all the French share a common brain. I like France and have many friends there, many of whom disagree with me. Just as Anti-Americanism is a blanket targeted usually at the administration, so too are my comments.

As an American, I do feel betrayed by the contraposition of America being dragged into the European problems of the former Yugoslavia, when the European nations were unable to resolve the problem. We had far less justification for sacrificing American lives to depose Milosovic. When it comes to "The War On Terror", however half baked it might be, I think many Americans expected just a bit more solidarity with our Allies.

[ALnitak]

Glad to see you're not one of those "burn them all" jerk. Glad to see we can discuss, to make it short. And you do get a point when you precise your comments are directed at French administration, that's the way it should be in both ways.

As for Yugoslavia, I was "too" young at that time, not interested in politics at all (not that I am much more now, but I have to get informed a minimum as I have the right to vote now), so I could hardly discuss about that. However, correct me if I'm wrong : European Nations didn't manage at that time to solve this problem cause European Nations, despite all EU construction efforts, aren't that well organised together. European countries don't have a common army, and would they have had it at that time, that army wouldn't have had the legitimacy to stop Milosevic alone, IMO. For international matters of that scale, I think UN is the one to be called. And if a majority of nations at UN don't consider it's justified to act, then... do not act, or put the request in another way to convince UN of the necessity to do something.

Isn't it what European Countries did ? I mean, we didn't ask our US ally to come and help us with our problem, we asked UN to do so (as I said, I may be wrong here). By the way, the dangerosity of Milosevic's regime was known, it was happening "live", and without any control. Something had to be done, quickly.

Now with Iraqi problem, the situation was kinda different IMO. USA was the only country to ask for an intervention/war (at the beginning, before gathering other countries around this idea). We knew for a long time Saddam is a fool, is dangerous, what he did to his people and what dangerous weapons he owned : that's why his country has been stopped while attempting to invade Kuweit (and France helped, IIRC), then has been put under severe control and embargo for long (note the difference with Yugoslavia, no control as the problem was rising). However, nothing "special" was happening in Iraq at that time : it's not like US or any other intelligence had discovered evidence of Iraq being making WMD in huge quantities or aim one missile at New York, although under embargo and UN inspectors control - IMO that would have convinced my country to join yours without discussing.

Something had to be done in Yugoslavia cause it was urgent, the problem was rising, we had to do something to stop the slaughter. In Iraq, I consider the damages Saddam's regime could cause to the world had been jugulated thanks to embargo and UN control (although it had to be strengthened for sure). The way your president asked for "help" or "support" in Iraq just didn"t convince my country, as well as others, to do so, whatever allies we were, are and will be.

Other considerations of the same kind lead people say : "our soldiers freed France in 1944-1945, and that's how you thank us ?". Sure, lots of US soldiers lost their lives to save us, we really need help as we were under occupation. Would such a bad thing occur to your country (which I obviously don't hope), even at a much lesser scale, that France and other countries will come and help, make no mistake about that. I just think all those situations are different, and shouldn't call for "tit for tat" as a reason to go to war.

[--Pete]

Hi,

When it comes to "The War On Terror", however half baked it might be, I think many Americans expected just a bit more solidarity with our Allies.

Would you be so kind as to explain what the war against Iraq had to do with terrorism? Specifically with the terrorism responsible for the events of 9/11? Or do you just feel that anyplace that harbors terrorists is fair game for invasion? Like Ireland and Montana?

--Pete

[Chaerophon]

That was a damn fine read there, Nico! :) Certainly couldn't have said it better myself.

[Growler]

Regarding your item 3, you are stating that the US' possession (and use) of WMD is morally equivalent to Iraq's.

How can you expect to be taken seriously by ordinary people when making such ludicrous statments?

The US used nuclear weapons to defeat Japan, the former Empire of the Sun. It was a knock-down, drag-out total war between two world powers who started the war with fairly equivalent powers. On the other hand you have Hussein, who gassed unarmed citizens of his own country.

And with regard to your item 4, I can report that since 9/11 large sections of the region known as North America are on fire and loathsome of the mid-east, and is willing to repeat Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. indefinitely if that is the only way to strike back.

Growler

[Chaerophon]

I don't think that he was making the claim in "item three" that you think that he is. Iraq signed the NPT treaty and, as far as I know, they adhered to it by not producing nuclear weapons. Chemical and Biological weapons are in no way "illegal" in that sense. The United States has used chemical weapons in the past. Apples to apples, please.

gassed unarmed citizens of his own country.

While he did, indeed, gas unarmed citizens, it's not as far from what Americans have done in the past as what you would have us believe. The Kurds were gassed in order to suppress an uprising (granted, it was certainly a justified insurgence). However, just as the North Vietnamese of the 1960's were deemed to represent a threat to the "American way of life", the Kurds certainly represented a threat to Iraqi sovereignty (be there opposition justified or not). Ever heard of Agent Orange?? I know, I know, "it's an herbicide". Say what you want, it was chemical warfare. The war in Vietnam was essentially conducted to suppress a communist uprising against a democratic nation. Furthermore, Americans supplied the Iraqis with chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war. America is certainly not clean in this regard. Neither is Israel, nor are several other notables.

And with regard to your item 4, I can report that since 9/11 large sections of the region known as North America are on fire and loathsome of the mid-east, and is willing to repeat Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. indefinitely if that is the only way to strike back.

Okay, the shade of your neck is showing. Grow up and consider that those are real people over there, most of whom have no real idea of a.) what is going on in the world and b.) why those who hate America feel the way that they do. Of course, your reasons for hating them seem equally justified. Unfortunately, BS like that gives them a damn fine reason to feel the way that they do, while your ideas are based more on some tenuous notion of "freedom".

[Xbizkitl]

First of all, I hope everyone here understands that the war was not about oil. There simply is no debate here, for the prices of oil were only slightly affected, and Occhidiangela's excellent post about the reasons why oil could not be a factor should be reviewed.

However, I do believe that it is the rather chilling leadership of the so-called "neo-conservatives." The website that Nicodemus Phaulkon posted a while ago had the scariest understated mission statement I've ever seen. The need to agressively intefere in hot spots, and I do believe that they stated that US leadership of the world was actually better than other nations governing themselves.

Where these people get the arrogance to make such generalized statements, to suggest that the United States is the "calming force" in the world in beyond me.


The truth, I think, is that Iraq most probably did not demolish their least toxic nerve gases, VX and some Sarin, were probably not destroyed. However, the cost of maintaining such WMD, and the increasing pressure of the UN I think enabled Iraq to actually rid itself of most of its arsenal of WMD. Also, the 5 supernations (Security Council) need to rethink the entire concept of disarmament by making sure the United States sets the example of ridding itself of by the far the largest WMD aresnal in the world, with the possible exception of the aging weapons in the former Soviet Union.

I also fail to see the tie the 43rd Administration made to support the "War on Terror" was somehow related with Iraq. 9-11, I suspect, finally made the neo-conservatives outlook appealing to the nation at large. And to be clear, the neo-conservatives are not the same as old conservatives, who believe more in the isolationism and government self-restraint. Like Republicanism with a Democratic Punch. A retired group of CIA officers Administration is now asking members of the CIA to end executive privledge and secrecy by exposing all information that shows that top level administators literally fed information to try to belie the fact that there was no real intelligence over Iraq's WMD.


Does anyone else think, like I do, that the war was also a way for Bush to keep his massive popularity up?

[Chaerophon]

Occhidiangela's excellent post about the reasons why oil could not be a factor should be reviewed.

As much as his post was well written and I respect his knowledge of the political realm, I think that it would, indeed, be helpful to read his post as several objections were raised to his treatise that, at the time, he dismissed, but now seem infinitely more accurate given the current situation in Iraq.

[WarBlade]

Does anyone else think, like I do, that the war was also a way for Bush to keep his massive popularity up?

Up?

Post-Iraq Bush has become one of the most universally reviled SoBs in today's political climate. Am I to assume then, by your post, that his popularity hasn't waned inside the U.S. at all?

[kandrathe]

If the IRA were targeting the US, I would guess we might be more involved.

Would you be so kind as to explain what the war against Iraq had to do with terrorism? Specifically with the terrorism responsible for the events of 9/11?

The "Axis Of Evil" stuff, and the subsequent gunboat diplomacy is not my idea of a proper course into alleviating the threat of terror from the planet. I stated before that the Bush vendetta with Iraq was established well before 9/11, or before Powell convinced the hawks that we might consider the UN response to the Iraq invasion plan that was prepared for Spring 2002. All the additional year of politics, WMD wimpering, Hans Blix manuverings aside, I suspected from the beginning that another war was inevitable. Not because of all the WMD crap, or even the brutal way he treated his own people, but because of his disregard for the armistice that was signed in 1991. Bush Sr. made some mistakes in how the war ended, but it was under Clinton's watch that whatever containment on him we had was lost.

Now, that said, I suspect that from a fighting terrorism POV, we have a good idea as to who is targeting us specifically. Al Queda certainly and overtly from their strongholds in Afghanistan, but I suspect that there is some information that we have that implicates Iraqi intelligence, and probably all those in the "Axis of Evil" in aiding, or coordinating some post 1991 anti-US terrorism. It is pretty clear that Iran has a long history of allowing many anti-western terrorist organizations access to set up training bases on their soil. North Korea has become the shady arms dealer of choice for most of the terrorist world.

And, then some bad intelligence... Czechs Retract Iraq Terror Link ... can contribute to make suspicions seem more real.

Or, maybe its just what he said on June 10th, Bush defends Saddam terror link claim.

[Feryar]

And with regard to your item 4, I can report that since 9/11 large sections of the region known as North America are on fire and loathsome of the mid-east, and is willing to repeat Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. indefinitely if that is the only way to strike back.

Suggestion: Ask Israel if that way of handling terrorism works.

How on earth can you justify "striking back" when the people who do get the short end of the deal are the same kind of people who got killed in 911? Innocent civilians who have no say in these matters in the first place.
I think it's a better idea to try and discover what on earth makes people hate the US enough to hijack planes and fly them straight into buildings, and then try to work out a solution from there.
Running around with an Iron Fist won't help in any way, unless you kill of every single person who thinks different than you do. If that is your aim then I rest my case.

[kandrathe]

Actually my recollection was that it was the UN that was struggling to keep their peace keepers convoys from getting creamed which resulted in US planes providing high cover. The situation was seriously out of control. Finally, NATO organized the invasion, but in fact was technically in violation of international law. The US was(and still is actually) a reluctant participant, which had the 150,000 man army that was needed.

I don't think economic sanctions, boycotts, or blockades are good long term strategies for bringing rogue nations into compliance. What happens is what we saw with Iraq. The increasing human toll generates sympathy for the nation being punished, while painting the enforcers as brutal. Saddam was increasingly then able to engineer a smuggling operation, and given enough time the sanctions were becoming less and less effective. He was also funneling the monies meant for food and medicine into other military purposes. It was because of Saddam remaining in power that a second war was probably inevitable. The US was wrong in its heavy handed diplomacy, and this was distasteful to me and many in the US, and many around the world. I personally think that the softening of our realtionship with Iran, and their aid in helping to install Karzi in Afghanistan lessoned our 1991 reasons for keeping Saddam in power in Iraq. So, then add to that our suspicions and fears that some rogue states might covertly sell WMD's to terrorist groups. It is a situation that, now after 9/11 would no longer be tolerated by our gevernemnt if we are to be able to defend ourselves from this catastrophic form of death. I was so hopeful that Mr. Blix would find something substantial, but alas I fear now that Iraq's officials have secreted any evidence of these weapons away very well.

To your final thoughts on the relationship with France, back to WWII. I would say as a nephew, and grandson of a few of the soldiers that fought in France, that it was our honor to repay France in some part for its role in providing the impetus for our creation. I would like to thank France for the influence of such great persons like the Marquis de Lafayette on our early founding fathers. And, then also for a favorite of mine, Alexis de Tocqueville. We did come in 1945, if not a bit late, and much thanks must also go to Russia for holding out as tenaciously as they did. If not for that Russian tenacity, it would have been a different world today. In many ways the early US is a creature of French creation, from the conflict with our then common foe, the British, to your Revolutionary fervor, to the Louisiana purchase, and then our more recent alliances against fascism and dictators.