Rationales For the Iraq War
Rationales For the Iraq War
President Bush has repeatedly offered differing reasons for why we went to war in Iraq. Last night, we heard the latest and most egregious explanation — that we had to go to war in Iraq as a direct result of 9/11. Here is a list of a few of Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq:
Reason #1) Went to War As a Direct Result of 9/11
Bush: “The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001 Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.” [Bush, 6/28/05]
Bush: “We went to war because we were attacked.” [Bush, 6/18/05]
Reason #2) WMD
Bush: “This is not about inspectors; this is about a disarmed Iraq. He has weapons of mass destruction — the world’s deadliest weapons — which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies. He has been told to disarm for 11 long years. He’s not disarming.” [Bush, 1/21/03]
Reason #3) Links to Al Qaeda
Bush: “This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaeda as a forward army.” [Bush, 10/14/02]
Reason #4) Reform the Greater Middle East
Bush: “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all of the Middle East. Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both. [Bush, 2/20/03]
Reason #5) Liberate the Oppressed
Bush: “In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.” [Bush, 3/17/03]
Reason #6) Protect Integrity of the U.N.
Bush: “We are enforcing the demands of the United Nations.” [Bush, 3/28/03]
Reason #7) Fight Them Abroad So We Don’t Face Them At Home
Bush: “We will be unrelenting in our defense of this country, by finding the enemy before they find us. Listen, we want to whip them in Iraq before we have to face them here at home.” [Bush, 7/9/04]
Reason #8) Pursued Policy of Previous Administration
Bush: “Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.” [Bush, 1/12/04]
Reason #9) Removed a State Sponsor of Terror
Bush: “Because America and our allies acted, a state sponsor of terror was put out of business.” [Bush, 3/18/04]
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Are you sure Al-Qaeda exists? There are two spellings for it so one has to wonder.
al-qaeda
al-qaida
I've seen both these spellings by major news organizations.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:51 pmWhich one is correct?
Are there others?
Here's a handy matrix of Bush on Iraq, then and now.
June 29th, 2005 at 2:53 pmWhat is so egregious? Rep. Robin Hayes was very clear about there being soild evidence supporting the ties between Iraq and 9/11.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:06 pmI'm still left dizzy by the spinning wheel-o-rationales by the Bush administration.
But there are two other definitions that still aren't clear.
A) Now that we're there, I want someone to tell me what "victory" is. How will we know when we get there? Freedom or some other abstract noun (like 'terror')? WMDs found? Stability? Cheaper gas?
B) Bush mentioned several times "the lessons of 9/11." I'd like to know what that means, too. I'd always thought the lessons were "connecting the dots" and better intelligence and better communication between the DoD/CIA/FBI. Now the lesson is....what? Go abroad and fight extremists? I don't remember that being a lesson.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:20 pmI think "the lessons of September 11th" pertain to being in that Florida classroom when the attacks occured. "My Pet Goat" really seems to have stayed with him.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:26 pmReal Reason #666) If the manufacturing of most everything, but military goods, is to be moved to the four corners of the earth for profit motives, then they(U.S.govt. and multi-national co.'s) had better control the raw materials and natural resources(oil), or eventually they lose control and we are done as top dog. It's about money, again.
June 29th, 2005 at 3:31 pmThis gem from David Corn :
'Bush continued to maintain that Iraq is "a central front in the war on terror." How did he prove this case? He quoted Osama bin Laden, who once said, "This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war." You see, Bush attacked Iraq (which had no weapons of mass destruction and no operational ties to the terrorists who mounted the horrific attacks of 9/11), a war ensued, Islamic fundamentalists rushed to Iraq to do battle with the Americans, bin Laden welcomed this opportunity to have his followers kill US troops (who might otherwise be coming after him or securing Afghanistan), and that is Bush's proof the war in Iraq is "a central front in the war on terror." In essence, because bin Laden said so after Bush invaded Iraq.'
June 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pmDon't Let Bush Change the Subject
Last night President Bush tried to rescue his failed Iraq policy in a nationally televised address by connecting the Iraq war to the war on terror. He is trying to change the subject from Iraq to terrorism and September 11—implying that Iraq at...
June 29th, 2005 at 3:35 pmSusan: Probably the correct spelling would use Arabic characters or something like that. When you romanize a non-romanized language there's generally some ambiguity. It's the same reason you used to see "Mao Tse Tung" but now it's "Mao Zedong".
June 29th, 2005 at 3:37 pmReal TReason #667
June 29th, 2005 at 3:40 pm- The U.S. military is being used as private corporate muscle, not as the world police.
You forgot one more rationale:
"...he tried to kill my daddy!"
June 29th, 2005 at 4:30 pmWe watched Team America - World Police the other day. Couldn't tell if it was a documentary, or not. It sure looked real. But the characters all seemed equally vapid.
There's no stopping a Man on a Mission. Why confuse him with the facts?
June 29th, 2005 at 5:12 pmThere *were* connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, see here and here.
But the question is, were these connections (together with other reasons) worth going to war for?
(There *were not* connections between Iraq and 9-11.)
June 29th, 2005 at 5:35 pmTony, I read your pdf link. I notice that the 9/11 Commission quote about Bin Ladin pursued relations with Iraq desipte his disapproval of Saddam's secular regime has elipses (...) right after that statement. Do you know why?
Because your "fair and balanced" publication decided to leave the next part out.
The next part reads and he had no real success in those pursuits, and that there was no clear evidence that saddam ever supported those pursuits.
But of course, you guys don't like to mention that part. The rest of the links simple repeat the same innuendo. There was a lot of suspicion about a link between Iraq and AQ, but in the end, there was no conclusive evidence.
June 29th, 2005 at 6:00 pmThe trouble for Bush is -- reason number four was always reason number one. If you go back and look at the PNAC letters and white papers all the way back to 1998, the idea of invading Iraq was about changing the balance of power, not just in the Middle East, but between the U.S. and an emergent Europe (they rely on Mideast oil more than we do, so if we have a footprint in the oilfields outside Saudi Arabia...). The other three reasons were slapped onto the war to make it salable to the British, to the U.N. and to the American people. The PNAC people mention wmd too (they also accused Saddam Hussein of being the "real" mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombings) but it was always about getting that foothold. How can Dubya admit that now?
June 29th, 2005 at 6:30 pmSad thing is, no matter what BushCo thinks of "old" Europe, they're not the ones he needs to be watching.
The country that should be causing him sleepless nights is the one that props up the US dollar: China.
We have been sold up a river without a paddle and China will eat our economic lunch within the next 5 years. And we will have no way to respond. Game over (for about 15 or 25 years).
June 29th, 2005 at 6:35 pmTony-
You unbelievable shill.
Contrary to you what you dittoheads believe, Rush Limbaugh is certainly NOT a valid source for news.
Amazing that despite the 9/11 Commission repeatedly rejecting the notion that Saddam had ties to 9/11, you and your ilk prefer to parrot your right-wing echo chamber and prove how irrelevant you are to a serious discussion.
You are a moonbat, sir.
June 29th, 2005 at 6:46 pmMake sense to me. Bin-laden attacks us, so we attack Iraq. A chance to finish what his daddy did not. And gas prices sore. The war is about oil. A poorly ran war at that. All Mr. Bush thinks he as to say is 9-11 and Patriotism should cloud everyones mine. I support the troops. They are obeying their orders. I cringe every time the president of someone from the GOP mentions criticism of the war and the way it is being handled is criticism of our troops. I know better than that. They do too.
June 29th, 2005 at 7:02 pmIraq as the battleground (and traing ground) for the war on terror-Did anyone bother to ask the Iraqis?
June 29th, 2005 at 8:08 pmHas nobody read the Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq?
June 29th, 2005 at 11:11 pmUh, What? Two corrupt organizations negotiated some sort of deal? What? It's over. These are W's LAST THROES.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:53 amThen there is the reason he has always avoided stating: Oil. He has failed even on that front. Part of the rise in oil prices is because it has always been assumed that if Saudi Arabia "destabilizes" the US could go in and enforce a steady flow of oil, but in Iraq Bush has proved that premise false.
June 30th, 2005 at 9:19 amJohn S:
You must not have actually read my post.
-The notes were compiled by Rush, not created by him.
-I clearly stated that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
-I was stating that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Bush attacked Iraq as part of a broad war on terror, not in retribution for 9-11.
-Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that the ties were strong enough in and of themselves to warrant full-scale war, but I just wanted to show the evidence of the connections that some say didn't exist.
June 30th, 2005 at 10:07 amTony-
I'll accept your points, but you do realize that you are pissing into the wind on this one.
Technically, one may find linkages between many things that are unrelated (read as 'Butterfly Effect'), but that is hardly a case for war.
And yet, the administration continues to practice flagrant deception in order to conflate the link between Iraq and 9/11.
If Americans are duped so easily, they deserve what they get.
June 30th, 2005 at 11:25 amI won't accept Tony's points, because he's dead wrong.
British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.� [Iraq: Options Paper]
Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.� [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.� [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
“No Credible Evidence� On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.� [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]
Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).� [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]
June 30th, 2005 at 12:20 pmThe notes were compiled by Rush, not created by him.
Splitting hairs maybe, but I doubt Rush compiled them. His employees looking for a raise or to keep their job is a better bet.
June 30th, 2005 at 2:02 pmThe reasons and rationale is clearly laid out in Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. I suggest reading it sometime. You should also read Section 10.3 of the 9-11 Commission Report.
June 30th, 2005 at 3:10 pmGood point Steed. You should also note, of the 24 points in the resolution, only three do not refer to WMD. Those three are...
Iraqi involvement in 9/11
MIA and stolen property from the first Gulf War
and...
"He tried to kill my Daddy!"
June 30th, 2005 at 4:58 pmRead the resolution again. Care to try again? Because you answer is very incorrect.
June 30th, 2005 at 7:39 pmTONY, listen to yourself: "I said Al Queda had ties to Iraq"
Al Queda has ties to The United States of America too according to your logic. It was Al Queda that made claim to the attack on America, no? They did enter our country and boarded our airplanes, no?
Are you telling me that they did not have anyone inside the U.S. helping them? Yeah, right. We know for a fact they did.
So Tony, Now that means (according to your logic) the United States has "ties" to Al Queda, should Bushie attack the United States of America?
STEED, I don't care what the Joint Resolution states. Nothing prepared by the Bushie administration is credible.
July 1st, 2005 at 10:50 pmHe's a liar and has no credibility.
Google Irag ties to 9/11.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-02,GGLD:en&q=Iraq+ties+to+9%2F11
But the intelligence was being "fixed" because it was broken, in the British usage and sense of the word, like being repaired or glued.
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:04 amSaddam would never work with anyone that was the enemy of his sworn enemy, no way, unbelievable. He was a grand pacifist whom actually wanted to smoke the peace pipe with the US. Actually, that is what the meetings between the IIS and al Qaida were about, brokering a peace deal with the US....
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:42 amSaddams lack of cooperation after the gulf war is reason enough to remove him. His cooperation should have been priority #1, but it wasnt because he was up to no good. America lost money and good men in order to establish an aggrement with Saddam. Were these lives lost and money spent in the gulf war a waste?
Get off the peace pipes, Saddam was fooling you.
July 2nd, 2005 at 9:50 pmHow many more lies does this man have to tell us before we hang his ass out to dry? Like really he's not had anybody try to impeach him yet?Hummmmm? Something smells like crab if ya asked me...
July 5th, 2005 at 2:41 amYou have a very talented and skilled writting. I had a great time reading your comments. Soldier will Grass unconditionally: http://www.amctv.com/ , right Plane will Double Circle without any questions Faithful, Lazy, Small nothing comparative to Green , White, Central, Big nothing comparative to Black when Boy Rape Player Make
December 5th, 2005 at 3:51 pm