Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

Yes I am blaming the Bush administration. While they didn't say that any of the hijackers were from Iraq, they made concerted effort to repeatedly and often mention the events of 9/11 and Iraq together. </b>

From the 2003 SOTU: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein..."

If that doesn't draw a distinction, I don't know what would for you. "This time armed" clearly indicates that "the last time" the hijackers were not armed by Saddam Hussein.

 

yes and yes. again, he used scare tactics to get the american people behind an invasion of iraq. he played up ties b/t al-queda and saddam and exaggerated the threat of WMD's and that saddam was intent on giving them to terrorists to use on us.

actually, it wasnt until about october 2003 that he finally came out and said there was no connection. at that point we were already firmly entrenched in war so it didnt really matter. it was what was said leading up the invasion.

article about administration's contention leading up to the war, that hussein and al-queda were allied.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

since you asked...

i wouldnt have started a war with a country who posed no threat to us. i would have gone after osama bin laden and not given up or relented until he was caught. i would have spent some of that HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars here at home, making our own country more secure. the soliders we have in iraq could be helping protect our borders here at home or hunting bin laden in afghanistan.

"I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

 

This argument is totally separate from what's going on in this thread. This thread is about pre-war justifications. The administration's reasons for going to war can be utterly different than the reasons we, the American public, were fed for going to war. You're rearranging the basis of the argument to try and score more points.

But since you asked-

Me, personally, I give W more credit than some of my left leaning friends. I think Bush really does beleive in spreading freedom. I think he believes very strongly in his principles. So much so, in fact, that it's okay in his mind to adopt a Machivelian ends-justifies-the-means methodology.

I don't necessarily believe that he went in only for oil, or to directly make his friends in the oil industry richer. But to say oil has no factor in the decision making would be silly. That's why, for instance, we have a priority in spreading freedom in a country with a majority of the world's oil reserves as opposed to any number of other countries in desperate need of some freedom spreading but with far less strategical importance. There's no question that setting up an America-friendly secular democracy smack in the middle of OPEC is a major deciding factor. Breaking the feverishly anti-America OPEC stranglehold on oil reserves would be a huge boon.

When Bush speaks of freedom as a gift from God (I'm not quoting him correctly here) I think he truly believes it, it's not just some insincere junk he's spouting. I think he wants that for Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the ME and China and N. Korea, to make the world a better place. To succeed in starting independent, self-sustaining secular democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq would be huge. Tremendous. Those two countries border most ME countries. A beacon of freedom, so to speak.

I also think that the administration was sincerely convinced that there were WMDs in Iraq somewhere. Sh*t, so was I! It just didn't make any sense otherwise- Saddam could just let the inspectors in, get everything okayed, and boom! Sanctions lifted! Why would he go on in isolation for all those years, economically crippled (even with black market income from oil-for-food scandal), unless he wanted to hang onto WMD? And after all, when you're a power-hungry madman, there's nothing like WMD or the threat thereof to make the big boys take you seriously. Just ask Kim Jong Il. I was convinced, along with many others, that it was only a matter of time before we found WMD in Iraq. They had to be there; it would be ridiculous for Saddaam to actually get rid of them, but not get the sanctions lifted.

Well, in hindsight, I guess there's no accounting for reason. It would appear he was too afraid that inspectors would be used for intelligence gathering for invasion.

I do not believe that the administration was convinced that Iraq posed a clear and present danger. I think they exaggerated in order to present Iraq as an immediate threat.

There is no question that the administration did whatever it could to sex up the presentation of the possibility of WMD. They believed it was there somewhere, but if they didn't have hard evidence, or the evidence they had wasn't strong enough, they didn't hesitate to exaggerate, or perhaps even fabricate. After all, we know they're there somewhere, we just need to get support for the invasion so we can get in there and find them.

I think Bush and the administration believed in the principles which motivated them to invade. I think they also believe that it's okay to comprimise other principles in order to acheive that goal. Hey, that's the same reason I supported the war back then- ends justifies the means. Even if our reasons aren't pure, we're still going for a great result. My views have changed since then.

The fact is, W never would have garnered the necessary support if he sold the invasion as spreading freedom. That would have been viewed as nation building at it's most extreme here at home and imperialism at it's worst abroad.

Go back and read those SOTU and picture in your mind 95 percent of the speech is about democracy and freedom, and 5 percent is that Iraq is a threat. NO WAY do they get support for the war in that case. No way.

This thread is about prewar justifications. They mentioned freedom and democracy? Great. I believe that the administration wanted that. Great. The small bits about freedom and democracy are VASTLY overwhelmed by the fear mongering about WMD that it turns out don't exist. That's how they garnered support, that's how they sold the war. Any mentions of spreading freedom are NEVER used in conjunction with justification for military action. The use of pre-emption for self-defense was the justification for military action. The polls that Jo Mama posted earlier support this.

 

I am totally baffled that you quote this and can't see with your own eyes what a puny part of the "sell" spreading freedom is.

It seems, in your mind, if you actually found a couple of quotes (looks like you found three or so! Awesome!) that shows Bush talking about spreading freedom then voila! That's what it was about all along!

Come on, dude. That is not how this was sold to us. Is this thread about justifications? Spreading freedom was NEVER used to justify military action. Ever.

I thought this head-in-the-sand sh*t would stop since your boy won the election. Jesus.

 

It was never ALL about either WMDs or Liberation. It was always about both and, as I pointed out, WMDs are the much easier sell since they potentially pose an immediate threat but, hell, since we are going to use WHATEVER resources necessary to change regimes let's help facilitate a democratic form of government rather than another totalitarian regime. Duh.

I'm sure I could find more quotes. I found those few in the ONLY place I looked. Whether or not this constitutes a puny component is up for grabs but it sure as hell proves that this part of the sell was not non-existent.

Check your own eyes and ears, this thread starts with some of these same remarks as "justifications" and yet you challenge my inclusion of them?

 

my friend, you are truly hopeless.

for the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the whole freedom/spreading democracy component was "non-existent". it was there, and so was alot of other stuff. but that was not the reason used to invade. it was the WMD's. freedom was a byproduct of that. we would NEVER, EVER have invaded a country to nation-build.

again, the american people supported war w/ iraq b/c we believed they posed an immediate threat to our security. only 14% favored an invasion to spread democracy. 75% favored war b/c of the perceived threat of WMD's and the belief that saddam and al-queda were working together.

 

let me get something straight here. are you accusing nolan of not even reading the SOTU, but in your very next post admitting that you didnt actually go back and read them either?

would those be the addresses that you didnt actually go back and read?


things that make you go hmm.

 

Do you truely believe that WMD was not the major reason the country went to war in Iraq? remember you are not the administration which need to keep up the image. I wonder if this is like OJ's lawerly presenting OJ's side in the court room, even if they know OJ is guilty.

 

I had read the address several times before and had posted sections of it at least three times. That's why, in that moment, I didn't NEED to go back and read it. I knew what had been left out.

IN GENERAL, I have always insisted and asserted that there were two justifications given. The WMD potentiality was always the first and scariest. Nothing is scary to me about Iraqis suffering under their own dictator and, that alone, is not sufficient to invade.

Than language talks about using all resources available or something like that-- that would include military power, would it not? It is not a unilateral move. There was a coalition though admittedly not as strong as the one from the first Gulf War and then some of the coalition partners backed away under the political duress of terroristic threats to citizens.

 

Okay, cool. We agree more than I thought.

I'm happy to concede that liberation of Iraqis was indeed mentioned back before the invasion. From what I've read nobody in the thread denies that.

Seems that we agree on the basics. Some of us find it disingenuous that the administration has brought spreading freedom to the forefront of justification when it was in the background in the beginning. You and basso don't have a problem with it. Oh well.

 

Actually, most of the coalition partners who "backed away" did so due to protests by their citizens, not terrorist threats.

 

Is it just me or was Spain one of the last to leave?

The rest of them did not bow to any type of terrorist threat, they followed the wishes of their people.

You made your statement about terrorist threats as if a dozen countries had attacks and decided to leave because of them. Besides, IIRC, the Spanish people were protesting Spain's involvement in Iraq even before the attack and the train bombing was the proverbial straw.

Are you allergic to facts?

 

What had the greater effect was the fact that the government at that time, tried to cover up who the culprits of the attack really were. That brought about the election of people who were against Spanish troops in Iraq.

 

And this argument has been shown to be pretty darn accurate given the total lack of any WMDs whatsoever.

Three statements about "freedom" in the SOTU versus pages of dialogue about WMDs including the yellowcake "intelligence" that had been debunked MONTHS before the SOTU speech.

GWB sold the war to the American people with talk of WMDs. I was one of the ones who was duped into supporting a war against Iraq on the basis of WEAPONS. If this had been sold to us based on freeing Iraqis from Saddam, I would not have supported it and neither would millions of other Americans. THAT is what sticks in my craw. GWB and his cabal KNEW we wouldn't support the war unless it was about weapons and instead of trying to convince us honestly, they massaged the "intelligence" until they got the support they needed.

For me it is both. The process by which GWB convinced us that war was necessary was despicable, and the results have hardly been better. You can tout the elections all you want, but all of us know that we will not see what Iraq will become until after we remove the bulk of the troops.

But when the "battle plan" consisted of Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet and a reconstruction that could be financed by Iraq with no planning for protection from looters, keeping the military intact, policing the populace, or dealing with an insurgency, the plan was flawed from the start and should not have been used.

Consistency and steadfastness are two virtues you would want from a CiC unless he is consistently ignoring problems and steadfastly staying with his personnel when it is clear that they are incompetent.

 

Didn't Japan cave in too when some Japanese workers were taken?

BTW, does anybody have a list of the nations who bailed out of the coalition?

 

Good points. You're right, it is part of the same discussion, really.

Process vs. results- yeah, you're probably right. The cause of my strong reversal from supporting the war to being anti-war has to do with process. Once I saw that Bush really planned on Iraqi regime change soon after taking office, that they sexed up the WMD "intelligence", that's when I started getting angry. Then, when there were no noteworhty WMD discoveries at all, and the Saddam Al-Qaida relationship was debunked...

It came down to this for me: Integrity counts. Honesty counts. Accountability counts. When it comes to war, death, and destruction, it counts even more.

If the cause is so noble, why can't it be the selling point? If the true motiviation is ME democracy instead of eliminating a clear and present danger (in my opinion the administration wasn't sincerely concerned with that,) why can't that be the major selling point and withstand true public scrutiny out in daylight? We must now accept 'spreading freedom' as the reason to be there because 1) all other reasons are bunk and 2) we're already in there now. Deal.

"i find this curious, since the best battle plan never survives the first shot. a certain amount of improvising, in tactics, strategy, rationale, etc. always goes on in war."

My objection has to do with lying to America and the world more than nuts and bolts process. However, now that you bring it up:

ACCOUNTABILITY. Rummy had a plan and he rammed it down the Pentagon's throat. He was wrong. Very wrong; wrong about things that it is NOT GOOD to be wrong about. It's one thing to be able to improvise, because of course you're right, war is a messy matter that evolves and you have to change tactics according to the scenario. It's another thing to go against the direct advice of your military advisors, and force them to see things your way. Rummy sought out one, maybe two guys who agreed with his "invasion on the small and cheap" strategy and stuck with them. Countering opinions be damned.

This is reflective of Bush and the administration in general. They believe what they believe, they're going after what they want and f*ck anybody that gets in the way. If you share that guy's opinions and goals, sure, it'd be great to have him in your corner. It's also indicative of a closed, ossified mind, and a total lack of respect for anyone outside your group of peeps who think like you.

In hindsight I can totally see how this quality is very appealing in wartime. Especially if you have little care for foreign relations, deft diplomacy, and fairness in dealing with the rest of the world. Neither does Bush. I know I'm right, f*ck you if you don't like it. Bush isn't afraid to step on toes while shoving his boot up someone's ass. If I'm a mom (edit: ignorant mom) who's worried about the safety of my family here in the US, and I don't care or don't know about long-term implications of immoral/irresponsible actions internationally, I'm taking him over a poll-watcher like Kerry.

If I'm a conservative that shares Bush's goals in foreign affairs, tax cuts, gay marriage, abortion, I'm totally loving life right now. Because Bush is going to pursue those goals with determination, and if he has to compromise other principles (like honesty, honor, accountabiliy, fairness, respect, playing by the rules, even-handedness) then so be it.


Two years ago, I figured that the ends might justify the means. Now I don't. I think focusing on doing the means as well as you can is a good thing for every individual to do in living their life.

basso- do you think the ends justifies the means? Or do you disagree with me that this is the methodology used?