Difference between revisions of "US-Iraq/war/justifications"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎News: 2005-12-01 lying about the war (link from GWB page))
Line 5: Line 5:
 
* (c) that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks (for which there is no evidence):
 
* (c) that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks (for which there is no evidence):
 
** 2003-03-21 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html Letter to Congress]: "The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
 
** 2003-03-21 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html Letter to Congress]: "The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
−
** 2006-03-20 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-7.html President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom]: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said – at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."
+
** 2006-03-20 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-7.html President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom]: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said
−
** 2001-09-12: [[Richard Clarke]] says that on September 12, 2001, President Bush "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the [[9/11|terrorist attacks]]. After an initial denial, the White House has since conceded that the meeting took place. In response he wrote a report stating there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the FBI, and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit," apparently unshown to the President. {{wpref|Richard A. Clarke}}
 
−
** 2007-03-04 [http://thismodernworld.com/3595 The Seven War Memo]: General [[Wesley Clark]] says he was told "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." on or about 2001-09-20. This was soon followed by plans to invade Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finally, [[Potential US invasion of Iran|Iran]].
 
−
 
 
−
[http://www.beingism.org/evidence/pages/war.html Many people believe] this is an impeachable offense.
 
−
<includeonly>
 
−
[ [[US justifications for invading Iraq|More...]] ]</includeonly><noinclude>
 
−
==Comments==
 
−
* [http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/ The Architects of War: Where Are They Now?]: telling quotes from various [[Bush Jr. administration|Bush administration]] officials on the need to invade Iraq, likely costs and benefits of same, etc., as well as updates on their status
 
−
===WMDs as ''justification?!'' WTF??===
 
−
The claimed presence of WMDs in Iraq always seemed to me like an extremely good reason ''not'' to invade.
 
−
 
 
−
Picture the situation in 2002: you have a crazy dictator who has demonstrated that his only interest is power and that he is willing to sacrifice anything, including his own people, to keep it. Add to this an invasion by an incomparably strong foreign power, pushing that dictator back up against the wall: all of his genuine strategic options are used up, he knows he will either be killed or captured by an extremely unsympathetic enemy. If he had actually been in possession of WMDs, what are the odds that he would have taken the humane route and declined to use them?
 
−
 
 
−
So I have to ask the question: '''why did anyone buy the WMDs lie as a reason ''in favor'' of invasion in the first place?''' Oh, certainly, if Saddam had really had WMDs, or been in the process of making them, we couldn't have just stood around doing nothing about it &ndash; but bashing the hornets' nest has to be the ''worst'' possible way to go about dealing with that situation (unless you ''know'' that he ''hasn't actually got any of them ready yet''; Bush did his best to convince us of the opposite, that Saddam was ready to use his WMDs at any time). When a mad bomber terrorist takes hostages, you tread ''delicately''; going in with guns blazing is a recipe for disaster.
 
−
 
 
−
Well, we've managed to get our disaster even in spite of the lack of WMDs; we were just damn lucky that the WMDs were a figment of neoconservative ambition, because apparently we happily bash the hornet's nest when The Decider tells us to. The results could have been much, much worse if the WMDs had been anything more real than scrap tubing and twisted words. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 14:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 
−
==Links==
 
−
===News===
 
−
* '''2006-12-20''' [http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war]: The UK had no reasons to believe Iraq possessed significant chemical, bio, or nuclear warfare weapons. Also, "British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed."
 
−
* '''2006-12-09''' [http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116563832147020.xml&coll=7 Smith's war critique cracks wall of support]: Republican Senator Gordon Smith's switch from passive support for the war may signal the beginning of a fall-off in GOP support
 
−
* '''2006-11-18''' [http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/spy-says-alqaeda-tricked-us-into-war/2006/11/17/1163266782059.html Spy says al-Qaeda tricked US into war] (please make a note [[htyp:2006-11-18 Woozle tech log|here]] if you get redirected when trying to access this site)
 
−
* '''2006-09-15''' [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html The Rest of the Story: Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda]: may cast new light on some of the accusations above
 
−
* '''2005-12-01''' [http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2005/12/lying-about-war.html Lying about the War]
 
−
* '''2003-04-01''' [http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm Prewar predictions coming back to bite] by Susan Page, USA TODAY
 
−
</noinclude>
 
−
 
 
−
===Commentary===
 
−
* '''2003-03-18''' [http://www.smalla.net/files/docs/daggatt_iraq_war_opposition.html Why I Oppose An Iraq War] by [[Russ Daggatt]]: exposes several blatant misstatements by the administration which do not seem like they could possibly be innocent errors
 
−
==Related Information==
 
−
* "In 2003, Republicans refused to allow a vote on a bill introduced by [[Henry Waxman|Waxman]] that would have established an independent commission to review the false claims Bush made in asking Congress to declare war on Iraq. That same year, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, [[Porter Goss]], refused to hold hearings on whether the administration had forged evidence of the nuclear threat allegedly posed by Iraq. A year later the chair of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, refused to hold hearings on new evidence casting doubt on the "nuclear tubes" cited by the Bush administration before the war. Sen. Pat Roberts, who pledged to issue a Senate Intelligence Committee report after the 2004 election on whether the Bush administration had misled the public before the invasion, changed his mind after the president won re-election. 'I think it would be a monumental waste of time to re-plow this ground any further,' Roberts said." [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/5]
 

Revision as of 03:42, 8 June 2007

List of Justifications

In justifying the US invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush claimed:

  • (a) that there was strong evidence of WMDs, when it seems clear that there was none and that this was well known to Bush and his closest advisors at the time the claims were made [?] (Incomplete argument: Bush certainly seemed determined to invade Iraq whether or not evidence was found, but although this indicates dishonesty it does not prove that he actually knew there were none; it just proves that he didn't care.)
  • (b) that Iraq had refused to allow UN inspectors (see [1], final paragraph) to confirm their claimed lack of WMDs, when in fact Iraq did allow the inspectors in and the inspectors had found nothing. ("In 2002, the commission began searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, ultimately finding none." [W] and "The Iraqi government did what it was required in the 1441 resolution and presented a report of its weapons. The US government claimed that the report was false for not recognizing having the WMDs. It announced the invasion in the Spring of 2003." [W])
  • (c) that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks (for which there is no evidence):
    • 2003-03-21 Letter to Congress: "The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
    • 2006-03-20 President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom: "First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said
Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=US-Iraq/war/justifications&oldid=6536"