I'm having a heated debate with a friend about Bush and the Iraq war. Here is her stance: She says that the reason Bush went into Iraq and the way he sold it to the american public was weapons of mass destruction and nothing else. I'm saying that he said weapons of mass destruction and to free the Iraqi people. And I told her that he had 10 to 12 other reasons that he sent to congress to get the votes. She claims that it was only for weapons of mass destruction and that he came up with the "iraqi freedom" concept AFTER he didn't find the weapons of mass destruction. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Well, I don't entirely know if you can win that one. Of course Saddam's brutality was mentioned, but it was a distant third to his WMDs and his connections to terrorists (specifically Al-Qaeda). It's really debatable whether Saddam's treatment of his own people was a significant reason for the invasion. The truth is probably somewhere in between. You might be better off making the semi-related argument that the neocon strategy to have a large new democracy in the Arab world was a key reason for the invasion.
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/ http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ I don't think any reasonable person would argue that the WMD slant was the primary focus of the administration. Sure, they commented on other things now and then, but the reality is that WMDs was the only one that could get the majority of Americans to support the war. And they knew it:
I remember, Bush made a speech the day before the war started and he mentioned the oppressed Iraqi people and he mentioned that Sadam was using innocent people for testing chemical weapons on and that Sadam was using innocent civilians for shields. I remember that speech in 03. I think I can easily win this argument because her main stance is that the whole "iraqui freedom" talk came AFTER he didn't find the weapons and I'm saying it came before the first strike. The fact that he even mentioned it before the war would prove me to be correct in this situation.
Most of the debate was focused upon "smoking guns" and "mushroom cloud". I think you can find what you're looking for in the 2003 SOTU speech. There has been lengthy debates on this exact topic . If there's time, I or some other member can search it for you. Searching and editing is handy...
whitehouse.gov used to have the 10 reasons for going to war with Iraq posted. WMD was actually not the main focus. I can't find the link anymore, but it was really interesting because the media hammers him on the WMD's and saying that Hussein was partially behind. Yes, the whole world thought he had or was trying to obtain WMD's, but Nowhere on the original list of 10 reasons was Hussein listed as being behind 911, only that he celebrated it. The list did mention freeing Iraq from a Tyrranious leader who used chemical and biologicial weapons on his own people. The liberation of Iraqi's was mentioned. Here's a whitehouse memo from 2002 that outlines the threat from Iraq. It specifically says that they don't know if Saddam has Nuclear weapons, or how long it would be until he had them. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html Try searching the whitehouse.gov website.
95% was that Sadam was a threat to people in the United States with his wmd and the "mushroom cloud" gambit as Condi called it. As we know at best about 50% of American supported the war in the buildup to the war, though for the first glorious few weeks over 80% rallied around the troops. Of course our great love of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people was mentioned a few times but almost never support for Israeli expansion or oil, two of the probable real reasons we invaded.
Sorry Any notion that Bush could have convinced the American people we need to take out Saddam because he was a dictator or for humanitarian purposes is laughable. The only way he was able to convince the American public that it was necessary to commit a Coup d'état on a sovereign nation and essentially assassinate it’s leader was to scare them into it with visions of nukes going off over Europe in “45 minutes.” All these excuses of “Helping the Iraqi people” and “bringing Democracy to the Middle East” came after the world saw what a major **** up we created and a way for the neocons to explain away this disaster of a war.
If you are trying to use an argument based on what Bush said the day before the invasion, you're going to lose. By that time, the invasion was in train and was going to happen regardless of any other events. It is what led to that point that was key, and the key was the "weapons of mass destruction" supposedly possessed by Saddam's regime. Impeach Bush.
If "winning the argument" means finding a couple of sentences in the SOTU that mentions freeing the Iraqi people, then congratulations. This has been debated endlessly in years past. I recall going toe to toe with Basso for a long time on this one. The entire pre-war media dialogue was centered on WMD. Oh, and "shock and awe." (remember that?) There are countless, endless quotes about WMD, chemicals, the threat posed to the USA and the world, again and again and again. Cheney, Bush, Powell, Hillary... endless. That was THE number one, primary cause. "Saddam is a bad guy" got minor play in comparison to the direct threat he posed, and for good reason: There is no way in hell the admin could get support for a voluntary invasion for the sake of humanitarian help. Aboslutely, utterly no way. The fear factor was deliberately chosen, expanded, and harped on endlessly in order to gain support. If the admin chose humanitarian "he's a bad guy" as the primary reasoning for invasion, then why aren't we invading or "helping" the dozens of other countries out there which most certainly need it? "Freedom for Iraqis" became the main focus once the goalposts were moved after the massive embarrassment of finding ZERO WMD.
Yeah, she claimed that the "freedom for Iraquis" was NEVER mentioned prior to the first strike. So I won. Keep in mind we are both democrats and bush haters, but sometimes she goes overboard with her agenda. We found what we needed in that whitehouse.gov article. Thanks for all the help.
For their extent of spin and half truths to survive to this day is a remarkable political feat in itself.
shock and awe was after the war started, and wasn't a rationale for going to war, but rather a convenient media construct for descibing certain tacts during the war. the term came from rumsfeld, IIRC. there were always multiple reasons for going to war with iraq, including both WMD and freedom for Iraqis. to be clear, the latter was placed in the context of democracy being the best means of ensuring american security in the long run. this is the heart of the bush doctrine. "A forward strategy of Freedom." we'd tried everything else, the mid-east at large still hated us and served as an incubator for hatred of america and for terrorism against the west. in a post-9/11 world a country like iraq, with "known" WMD, a history of extreme hostility towards america and her allies, and with a like history of support for and collaboration with terrorists, dominated by a genocidal dictator, had to be removed. freedom for iraqis was a side benefit, security for americans the goal.
