Not a surprise really and validates a lot of the problems some of us had with this action. Seems our leaders weren't really worried about WMD but wanted to make "a statement." Wonder how the families of those killed and those wounded like the idea of sending our people into harm's way to make a statement instead of dealing with the specific threat articulated by our Commander-in-Chief? Pre-emptive war was really an image war. Sad. ____________________ http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html ____________________ Reason for War? White House Officials Say Privately the Sept. 11 Attacks Changed Everything By John Cochran W A S H I N G T O N, April 25 — To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy. Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans. "We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war. If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here's the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration's thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein. Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States. Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution. The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope. Sending a Message Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving. Officials deny that Bush was captured by the aggressive views of neo-conservatives. But Bush did agree with some of their thinking. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first at us," conservative commentator Bill Kristol said on ABCNEWS' Nightline in March. The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism. And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target. Other countries have such weapons, yet the United States did not go to war with them. And though Saddam oppressed and tortured his own people, other tyrants have done the same without incurring U.S. military action. Finally, Saddam had ties to terrorists — but so have several countries that the United States did not fight. But Saddam was guilty of all these things and he met another requirement as well — a prime location, in the heart of the Middle East, between Syria and Iran, two countries the United States wanted to send a message to. That message: If you collaborate with terrorists, you do so at your own peril. Officials said that even if Saddam had backed down and avoided war by admitting to having weapons of mass destruction, the world would have received the same message; Don't mess with the United States. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong. "I don't think you should go to war to set examples or send messages," Woolsey said. Get the transcript of the Woolsey interview. Sept. 11, 2001 But what if Sept. 11 had never happened? Would the United States have gone to war with Iraq? Administration officials and others say no, at least not now. The Bush administration could probably have lived with the threat of Saddam and might have gone after him eventually if, for example, the Iraqi leader had become more aggressive in pursuing a nuclear program or in sponsoring terrorism. But again, Sept. 11 changed all that. Listen closely, officials said, to what Bush was really saying to the American people before the war. "I hope they understand the lesson of September the 11th," Bush said on March 6. "The lesson is, is that we're vulnerable to attack, wherever it may occur, and we must take threats which gather overseas very seriously. We don't have to deal with them all militarily, but we have to deal with them." Has the war done what the officials ABCNEWS talked to wanted? It seems to have improved the behavior of the Syrians and maybe the Iranians, they said, although there is still concern that Iran will meddle in Iraq. And it may have even put some fear in the North Koreans, they added. Plus, they said it probably has helped the Middle East peace process. But will Iraq be the model that can persuade young Arabs there is more to life than hatred? Too early to know, they said. Their point: We are deeply worried about the Shiites. It will be a tragedy if radical, anti-American elements gain control in post-Saddam Iraq. One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent. History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America. ______________ Not to wish anything bad on my country, but in my world view, the clear reality is that the ouster of Saddam will not come close to marking the beginning of the end for terrorists who hate America. (Going on a business trip... back in 4 days.)
I'm sure some have... like a grenade or a machine gun...it's not lying, it's just a matter of emphasis.
FYI, from January 24, 2003... __________ Q Who in this country, beside the President and his courtiers, want to go to war with Iraq? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not aware of anybody here who wants to go to war with Iraq, Helen. But the President very much wants to protect the peace by making sure that Saddam Hussein cannot engage in war against us. Q He's aware that there is widespread opposition to war in this country? MR. FLEISCHER: Do you think that the majority of the Americans are opposed to war with Iraq, Helen? Q I think so. What do you think? MR. FLEISCHER: I think if you take a look at all the public surveys on this issue, there's a lot of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein does, indeed, pose a threat. And they believe -- Q They'll give their brothers, their husbands, their children? MR. FLEISCHER: -- and they believe that if the President, knowing what he knows, makes the determination that the best way to protect the American people from the risks that we have seen our nation is vulnerable to -- Q So he believes people want to go to war? MR. FLEISCHER: -- is to disarm Saddam Hussein from having weapons of mass destruction, the President will make a case --
So now Bush is downplaying the WMD to the point that it may be only a trace we find... I wonder if this may actually be a classic "don't get your hopes up" type situation where in a week or two wham there is a large depot brimming with all sorts of nasty stuff. Much like the first week of the war when we seemed to be having trouble then suddenly we are taking Saddam International Airport and driving through Baghdad. Couldn't we have made our statement against the nation that at least has the capabilities to cause serious harm - N. Korea? If Saddam had WMD weaponized they would have been used against us during the invasion. The military brass have stated they were shocked that they did not encounter any Chemical weapons, I think that says a great deal about the true capabilities of Iraq's WMD.
I was beginning to think my worst fears about the bush administration were just paranoia but this report really disturbs me. I have been b****ing about the lack of proof of WMD for a while now but this is different.
Yeah, I'm disappointed that the Bush Administration felt they had to exaggerate the situation in order to do what needed to be done.
The credibility of the USA is just fine. You guys are making huge leaps of faith here, they said emphasized ..not lied. Sheesh !! Every now and then you got to whip it out and show the baddies who is bigger. DD
It was the primary justification for the war. I think distorting the truth in this matter is significant. Why exacly shoud we make an exmple out of someone?
What is the point in lying? Why not just come right out and say, "We're America we're pi$$ed and when we find the right scrawny wimp to beat the cr@p out of we're gunna come and git ya." I don't think France would have had a problem with that.
As outlined in the article, two strategies. One European, one American: one, address the issue of WHY certain people hate us; two, ignore that and let them know we'll bomb hell out of them if they don't keep their hate to themselves. Quotes like the one above from DD are a great example of why we're hated. And the frivolity with which they're expressed, while innocent people die horrible deaths in the name of us "whipping it out to show who's bigger," is despicable. At least have some small respect for the dead and the ones who've lost loved ones, DaDakota. To be cute about this stuff is worse than callous. It mocks them. The reason the US got away with this war was that they insisted it was in defense of an imminent danger to America (which they allegedly now say they exaggerated) and to liberate an oppressed people. If the real reason was to set an example that we would not be ****ed with, by a show of power in whichever country it was most strategic to do so, those people died for our convenience -- not because they had to and certainly not for their own good as many have espoused. At best, according to this article, that was merely a happy side effect. Never mind that there are equally oppressed people who we don't seem to care about and greater threats to our security both of which are apparently less convenient in our quest to send the message about our big missiles. I've been really trying to avoid these "We Have/Haven't Found WMD" threads, since they are ALL either based on faulty or unconfirmed info or the fact that we haven't found weapons which may or may not exist but would likely be hard to find. They are all premature. They all seem to say, "See??? See how right I was??? Apologize immediately and say you were wrong!!!" From both sides. These types of threads are premature ejaculation from both sides. But this story, if true (the new disclaimer -- it's replaced the stupid 'IMHO'), is deeply disturbing. And coy, smirking, smarmy rejoinders about us needing to show we have bigger dicks, in the face of lost and destroyed innocent lives, are pretty damn gross, too.
DD, Isn't emphasized the new super extra large serving size at McDonalds? (ie) more crapola than any human can consume...
giddyup: I'm talking strategies to combat terrorism, not to ensure Iraq attended to its promises. That's as the strategies are outlined in the article. No one ever asserted that the MidEast peace process would make Saddam a nicer man. This article asserts they were not the imminent threat the administration made them out to be (that that was exaggerated). It admits there are many countries which are equally guilty of oppressing their people, maintaining an equal or greater threat to US security and maintaining ties to terrorist groups, and that we selected Iraq for the 'show of power' out of convenience. If they were targeted out of convenience while we (and the rest of the world) were told the US acted primarily in defense of imminent threat and secondarily in order to liberate a people, and innocent people died due to this convenience and this misleading campaign as to our true purpose, doesn't that bother you at all?
I know it's late, but I'm not catching anything in the article about strategies to make the terrorists hate us less. There have been a handful of terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 and there were a handful before 9/11. Kudos to the US fo rmaking it's play on a player (Saddam) which may make our influence stronger. I know that you agree that Saddam deserves no quarter. The campaign was always for TWO reasons: safety and liberation. I'm guessing that most US soldiers were not too concened in which order you rank them. I'm saddened by the loss of any soldier's life, but that is the life and the career that they chose. From what I've seen the parents, brothers, sister, spouses and extended family members who have lost loved ones have borne their sorrow with dignity and without resentment. Why is that not good enough for the rest of us?
giddyup, I'm saddened by the loss of ANY life, but when I use the term "innocent" life, I'm referring to civilians. I'm guessing the families of innocent victims -- those who did not choose a military life or career -- are not quite as without resentment. And if their loved ones died largely because they were born in country situated between various other countries we wanted to send a message to, I wouldn't blame them.
Sorry, I totally missed your use of "innocent." However, I don't think the liberation of Iraq is as capricious as you make it sound. This is merely the renewal of a struggle that is more than a decade old. The main message was sent to Saddam and his henchmen. We knew that others would be watching. There never will be a clean and neat solution. I would be embittered and resentful about the death of my wife or any of my children whether it were in a situation of military struggle or not. I don't know a way around that but nor am I willing to identify it as a permanent deterrant.
giddyup: I don't have any major disagreement with anything you're saying, but you don't seem to be responding to the major allegations of the article: 1. That we went to war with Iraq primarily to send a message to the world that we were strong, that it was a reaction to 9/11. Not a reaction because they'd perpetrated it, but because they were the most convenient vehicle with which to send the message. And... 2. That we, in this country and around the world, were misled as to the primary reason for the war, as it was understood the real reason would be less palatable or saleable to the world at large. I only ask you, if these allegations are proved to be true, won't that bother you at all?
I think the lesson to learn from this war is: America makes a powerful ally, but an even more powerful enemy. In other words, don't pi$$ them off.
