Why Did the Bush Administration Really Decide to Invade Iraq?

National Security.org ^ | 07.12.03

[ASA Vet]

cute Iraqi babes

Ok, so where are the required photos?

[beckett]

The sky is falling --- The sky is falling!!!

Guys like this just won't take success for an answer.

[Consort]

Afghanistan, Iraq....next are Syria, New Jersey, Iran, Michigan, North Korea, Delaware....enemies, foreign and domestic.

[kimosabe31]

bump

[88keys]

Hardly looks like a liberal outfit:

True..."liberal" is not exactly the word I'd use, and in fact their website has all the best "conservative links", but... their "about us" page is blank, and they've not (yet?) put any bio's for their "policy analysts", none of which I've heard of! I'd say more of an "old generals" alert (you know what I'm talking about...we've seen them on TV) and I can't say as I agree with them myself; what do you make of this from their home page?!

"CNSI supports the implementation of the tenets of the Weinburger Doctrine, which states that the US should only fight wars that are just and that further the US vital interest only after all reasonable alternatives have first been exhausted and with total national commitment including the support of a sizable majority of the US population.

So far, so good, but read on:

CNSI adds its voice to those of retired Generals Schwartzkopf, Zinni, Hoar, Clark, Scowcroft, Shalikashvili and many members of former President George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War cabinet including former Secretary of States Jim Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger, former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp and until recently, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell in urging the Administration to abandon its plans for an unnecessary and unprovoked invasion of Iraq fraught with potential negative consequences for US national security.

CNSI believes that the expert opinions of retired and still serving general officers on this and other important issues have been given insufficient consideration by the President and his Secretary of Defense.

'Course, they're also anti-UN, pro big tanks and heavy weapons, and opposed to "nuking" anyone (they actually used the word "nuking", in quotes...that's kind of unprofessional, don't you think?!)...but I think as sensible as they may seem on some issues, they just really dislike Rummy a lot, and do not want a "lighter, faster" military, LOL!!!

[LS]

Sorry, dude. "Real" conservatives DID support this. The fact is these states were, and many remain, threats to this country through their support of terrorism, with or without WMDs. (They have them, don't worry).

Real conservatives don't hide behind the "isolationist" blatherings of Buchanan, but understand that an active foreign policy of taking out your enemies is preferable to 9/11.

[billbears]

Why is that so hard to understand?

Considering how many WMDs 'intelligence' reports said Saddam had, you'd think they would have found them by now don't you? How can you disarm when you don't have anything to disarm?

[ArneFufkin]

Or are they using the war to keep our attention focused somewhere else whilst our government officials fill their pockets with cash and send our jobs overseas?

Socialist putz.

[samuel_adams_us]

Socialist, or realist? You trust our government? You stupid?

[gcruse]

First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure to achieve a lasting victory over Saddam and more particularly his desire to get back at Saddam for an alleged assassination attempt against former President Bush Sr. in 1993.

That's pretty much the case.   A tie to 9/11 was conjured  up to paper this over.

[RobbyS]

That it starts out with the dynastic claim shows that the rest of the claims are equally speculative. 9/11 showed, if nothing else, how unstable the Middle East was before the invasion.

[wildbill]

Look at it as a strategic military and geo-political decision. By taking Iraq you cut the Mulim crescent from N. Africa to S.E. Asia in two.

Co-incidentally, you demonstrate your military capability in the Arab world by conclusively beating the largest Muslim military regime twice in ten years with hardly any losses.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is a pathetic load of lies. Long but still crap. Bush did not invade Iraq for ANY personal reasons. The article's statement to that effect is only one of the lies it attempts to spread.

Another howler "Iran is a democracy." Please, no more, I am laughing too hard.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh, maybe you were so dazzled by this brilliant analysis and load of lies that you didn't notice that Afganistan was "first."

[Shermy]

Just another ahistorical rant forgetting that we, and the UK, have been bombing Saddam since 1991, and that we were engaged there.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I suppose you just give up when your team gets behind 14-0 in the second quarter or is losing 3-0 in the third inning, too.

BTW there were no weapons of MD found for FIVE yrs after the first war and then only when they were told where to look.

Absurd.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not only that but this is a miserablely written article too.

[Catalonia]

I only got this far:

First and foremost was the President's desire to avenge his father's failure ...

Any serious discussion of our motivations for going into Iraq that begins with the ridiculous assertion that this was the PRIMARY reason for invading is a harbinger of bias. Or perhaps just the workings of a politically adolescent mind. Powerful men such as Bush II seldom have that kind of love of their fathers. Bush II is concerned with his own successes/failures, not those of his father. Only a teen-ager would believe such moronic assertions.

[Frances_Marion]

"In fact, Iran is a democracy today"

In fact, with this sentence, this article destroyed any chance of me reading further. Anyone who claims as "fact" that the Iranian Thugocracy is a democracy doesn't deserve your time.