Iraq: WMDs, Imminent Threat, 9-11, Nukes, etc. Simply Put: We Were Lied To.

Webster's defines " lying" as; ly_ing. 1. To tell a lie ( sub-defined as an untrue statement made deliberately; falsehood.) 2. To give a false impression.


Now there are many people who will still try and hold to the argument that the administration isn't technically guilty of definition #1...I disagree, but there are posters with better abilities of compu-recall who can bring up the specific lies to counter that defence.

What I want to address is the second definition; to give a false impression. I doubt that any but the staunchest Bush/war supporters will deny that the administration was guilty of giving us false impressions to achieve their desired effect: approval for the war they wanted.


Keep that in mind whenever you are about to whip out the ( too) oft used defense of "mistake"...did this 'mistake' happen to achieve the exact effect that the administration wanted? Was it ever retracted before the war? When you begin to realize how many 'mistakes' there were, how each and every one of them gave the exact impression the administration wanted, had the desired effect, and were never retracted in time to change the public support for the war, then it would seem to be a desperate and irrational defense to maintain.

But beyond that there are several examples where there is no doubt that a false impression was given, and all the lawyer double talk about ' direct attributation' can't and won't wash that away.


WMDs: As noted I am not going to list all the exact quotes which various administration officials stated about WMDs, it has been done too many times for any of us to not know them unless we are trying to avoid them, and even so there are other posters in here who can and will if so asked, I'm sure...but what i want to do is look at the various things we were told as a whole package;

What we were told:

We were told that they had hundreds of thousands of gallons of chemical weapons, that we knew where they were ( in March), that Saddam's was among the foremost WMD arsenals in the world. We were told that he had prop planes and terrorist connections to deliver them. We were told of pre-war plans to distribute these WMDs to troops. We were told that they were activated ( 'weaponized') and that the orders to use them had already been issued.

Effect of what we were told:

Hysteria about WMDs grew so high that in the weeks following the war almost a third of the American public believed that they had been used against our troops. On this board virtually every pro-war poster in here used WMDs as a main part of their argument, many of them used it as 'the' argument, which it in fact was, given's Bush's repeated statements of 'disarm=no war'. In sum total, what we were told about WMDs ( especially nukes, but I'll get to that in a second) was the primary reason Bush got the support for the war he wanted, as the polls showed.

What we now know:

We now know that if Saddam had one of the largest arsenals of WMDs in the world, then he accomplished an almost impossible feat; to hide one of the world's greatest arsenals so completely that we have been unable to find hide nor hair of it despite being in control of the country for months, of having in our possession many of the most highly placed Iraqi officials, and having conducted endless searches, having already exhausted our entirle list of most likely hiding places.

We now know that *if* we knew where they were in March, then one of two things happened: EIther we were almost criminally irresponsible ( ie not keeping full 24/7 sat rotation, plus live ops on target at all times), considering that this was A) among the largest arsenals in the world, B) illegal, C) the reason we were about to go to war, and D) kind of important to keep tabs on, if they existed, in light of the fact that we were about to fight their owners. Sort of target A1, no?...or Saddam managed to smuggle out one of the largest arsenals of WMDs on the planet under our very eyes, and hide it so well we still haven't found a trace of it.

We now know the prop planes was innacurate, our intel was telling us Saddam would not give WMDs to terrorists, and obviously the WMDs weren't activated, deployed, nor were there any orders to use them.


Nukes/Imminent Threat:

What we were told:

We were told that Saddam was seeking to acquire weapons grade uranium. We were told that Saddam was mere months, perhaps weeks away from having an active program. We were ( weeks later) that he had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program and reconstituted nuclear weapons. We were told of aluminum tubes the Iraqis had which could only be used for nuclear weapons. We were told that we could not afford to wait for the proof of the threat to become apparent, because that proof could come in the form of a mushroom cloud over New York. We were told that they could use nukes/WMDs to attack us 'at any moment'....the British were told an attack could be launched 'within 45 minutes'.


Effect of what we were told:

Support for the war, which previously had been less than required, and largely along party lines, immediately spiked following the 'revelations' about Iraq's imminent nuclear weapons, and the image of mushroom clouds over New York. Up until a few weeks ago a majority of Americans still believed that Saddam had nuclear weapons, or was within weeks of having them.


What we now know: There has been absolutely no conclusive evidence unearthed of any recent nuclear weapons program, let alone one verging on activation. We now know that the uranium story has been discredited...and indeed already had been before it was mentioned by the President. We now know that the aluminum tubese, far from being usable only for nuclear weapons, are actually very poor for that purpose, that better and cheaper options were available to the Iraqis, and that the tubes have several other purposes. We now know without a doubt that there was no imminent threat to the US or anyone from Iraqi nuclear weapons, that there was no capacity to launch a nuclear attack at any moment, within 45 minutes, or to deposit a mushroom cloud over New York.

We also know that despite the fact that Bush was constantly citing our intel as the basis for his concerns about Iraq striking at the US through WMDs given to terrorists, the actual truth ( as per NIE report) was that Bush's intelligence was saying exactly the opposite; that Saddam posed no threat to the US out of fear of reprisal, that he had distanced himself from the parties which would take such an action.


9-11:

What we were told: We were repeatedly told that the war with Iraq was a continuation of the war on terror, begun with 9-11. We were repeatedly told that we would disarm Saddam Hussein and thereby lessen the threat of further 9-11s. Saddam Hussein and 9-11 were repeatedly linked in speech after speech. We were told that there was proof of Saddam's involvment in 9-11, but that it could not be revealed due to it's highly classified nature, with the suggestion that sources would be endangered if revealed. 'Leaks; suggested that Bush had shown the evidence to Blair, and that that was what had convinced the British PM to support the war.

Effect of what we were told: When originally floated, the supposed connection between Saddam and 9-11 was believed by less than one third of the American public. Following months of these unsubstantiated links in speeches and allusions to evidence not yet revealed, by the time the invasion came to pass well over two thirds of the American population believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, and in the last poll taken before Bush admitted there was no evidence of such a connection over 70% still held this belief.


What we now know:

We now know that the White House's Head of Anti-Terrorism resigned over Iraq because it took away from the War on Terror. We now know that there has never been any evidence which linked Saddam to 9-11. As such the 'proof' we had which we could not reveal was a fabrication, obviously.



It is concievable to look at an isolated statement and propose an honest mistake, and another honest mistake in forgetting to retract it. Both of these would be pretty huge, given the nature and significance of the subject, the severity of the position they were in part meant to decide, and the number of peopl exposed to it...but it's possible, for the sake of argument.

But to look at the sheer weight of the disinformation...to consider that almost none of it was ever retracted, and even less before the war...to realize the effect of each and every one of these statements was exactly in conjunction with what the administration wanted us to do...and resulted in us doing exactly what they wanted us to do...it staggers the imagination to concieve of what the odds are against all of this simply being honest mistakes.

But that is for the first definition; to tell lies. As far as giving false impressions, there is no doubt; we believed X...they told us a bunch of stuff, we believed Y. Thy wanted us to believe Y. We didn't beleive Y because the cat told us to; the White House was by far the primary font of information on these subjects. It affected our perception, and it was wrong.

At the very least...and this is really stretching it...if each and every one of these were mistakes, bad intel, etc....if all the officials claiming the administration was only looking for intel that supported their position were lying or suddenly political...even if you dismiss direct accountability for each and every one of those things, you are left with this: If they made mistakes, they ( as anyone on the country) knew the effect of their mistakes, and they never retracted or clarified them until it didn't matter anymore. That is giving a false impression.


Bottom line; we were lied to. About a war. Argue all you want that regime change was sufficient reason, now that it's been done. Some of you have even argued that it's ok that we were lied to...but considering the second definition of 'lying', and looking at all of the misinformation, and it's effect, there can be no doubt. We were lied to, plain and simple.

 

It's not even the llying about how we HAVE to go to war that did the most damage, in my opinion; it was the effects of the lying and bullying because we HAVE to go to war NOW.

We abandoned the foreign policy we had been building for 50 years, we severely damaged our standing in the world, etc. and all the US apologists at the time said;


" We shouldn't have to ask the world when and how we can defend ourselves!"

...uh-huh. Aside from the inherent problems in this, one of the things those of us who disagreed with at the time was " But...that's just it. Only we say that we are in danger."

When you abandon the format global opinion has for discerning truth you allow for a lot more subjective, geo-centric opinion as fact mistakes and manipulation. None of Saddam's neighbioring countries, the ones it is supposed who should most fear him and his huge arsenal, saw the need to go to war...unlike last time. None of the other countries terrorists have attacked saw the need. Only us...and that was based on us believing what we were sold. We were told that Iraq, to borrow from Bill Maher, was this asteroid headed straight for us, and if we didn't act, and act quickly, all kinds of horrible things were going to happen.

No one else bought it...but we did. ANd the urgency which accompanied it was the basis for much of the worst stuff we did, internationally. If you are a conspiracy theorist, that is an area to examine; not " Why did we need to go to war in Iraq?', which is interesting, but ' Whay did we need to go RIGHT NOW?' What was the administration's motivation for selling us this urgency which countered everything we now know they knew? We know that their intel was telling them we weren't in any danger...we know that their intel was telling them Saddam wasn't dealing with terrorists, and wasn't planning to...


...so why the rush?

 

yeah, I considered putting in a section on that, how we were told that Iraqi oil would cover the reconstruction, and that we would be welcomed with open arms, but I didn't for two reasons;

1) I think it's still subject to change, and I'm more convinced that these issues were realistically more the result of poor planning, a rush to judgement, and incompetence than a pre-meditated plan to mislead and manipulate.

2) Honestly, I am less concerned with cost in dollars. IF this was right...and I don't think it was, but for argument's sake, if this was a justifiable war, complaining about the cost is pretty petty to me. Now when you consider that it wasn't a justifiable war, that we were manipulated into it, then the cost is an an ever-present and increasing burden the average American has to bear because of the administration's deceit, but to me you start by proving the first part; that we were lied INTO the war, before tackling how much we are paying for those lies in doallars and cents.

 

I agree with the rest of your post; qute well put, I thought. But with this I disagree;


There are degrees. It's one thing to lie to your boss about why you were late for work, it's another to lie about stealing the petty cash. I agree that from a purely personal morality basis you can argue that one lie equals any other, but from an administrative/governmental point of view, the lies told which lead a country to go to war are the most serious possible. War is, and always has been, the gravest and most impactive area any country or government thrusts upon another. It is not simply a relative body count, although that is bad enough; it signals to the rest of the planet how you see yourself in a global context, and how you behave based on that self-perception.


Decisions made about whether or not to go to war can and usually do have unforseen effects, as well as predictable ones, and these echo for generations and in many cases centuries. Remember, for example, that several incredibly significant and destructive wars began with hastily made decisions to engage in what was expected to be small and short-lasting wars; WWI, the American Civil War, the Persian Wars, etc. Wars have a tendancy to take routes those beginning them never foresaw, and when you abandon peacefull means of resolving matters, you relinquish a good deal of your control over what you do thereafter.


That is grave enough when the decision to go to war is an honest and open one, but for a government to decide that a certain war is what they think we have to do, and to thereafter do whatever they had to, including exploiting and betraying the trust people put in them and the fear they helped stimulate in order to ensure that war is about as significant of an abuse of power as I could conceive possible in our time.

 

Thanks for the heads up...watched it; unbelievable. Did you see it?

Guys sitting on policy departments deciding if we should go to war while simultaneaously being the heads of companies that make billions in defense contracts if we do....Guys sitting on the boards which award defense contracts while also being employed by the companies which get the contracts...this is amazing.

For those of ou who missed it, while Cheney was Sec. of Defense, he hired Haliburton to do a study to determine if the government should hire out contracts to companies like...Haliburton...instead of doing things themselves. Haliburton ( duh!) said yes, and pmoptly became the primary recipient of those contracts. Cheney was then hired as CEO despite not having a single day's experience in business. During his time as CEO Haliburton more than doubled it's government contracts and becoame the primary recipient of Defense department contracts.


Then, re: Iraq. The contracts were worked out, in secret, long before we invaded. And for some reason they were classified. What is more, when other companies approached the Defense department to ask about submitting bids ofr the contracts which would come about in Iraq, they were told that the government wasn't sure how things were going to go in Iraq, even if there was an invasion, and it was too early to try and contract out for such eventualities...in writing...over a month after they had already awarded the contracts to Haliburton.

To date Haliburton has made billions on this deal alone, although we can't know how much they'll make because it's secret. When asked what possible reason there would be for a contract about oil filed cleanups would be secret, the response from the government was 'because it's classified.'


Wow.