On another thread Tuatara raised the issue of Saddam being a threat. According to George’s own web site (www.whitehouse.org) the “single question” was about WMDs

http://www.politicalforum.com/newrep...reply&p=600866
We all know now that the WMDs were a red herring designed to allow Geoge, Dick and the Neocons to provide “evidence” of this serious and even imminent threat. That topic has perhaps been beaten to death on this forum, even though many people have not managed to blush about it as the rest of the world still shakes its collective head and sometimes even manages to smile wryly.

I know that this might seem like a silly question, but even given the fact that the scales fell off (most of) our eyes quite a while ago, I feel that it needs to be asked:

"WHY was George so worried about WMDs?" What was it that got him to conclude that these formed an imminent threat for the American people? Why did the Americans believe him so readily even when the conflicting evidence rolled in?

Of course I could answer my own question, but my interest is to see what we collectively recall the threat to be and why. Humor me, please , because I believe there is more than one interesting answer, especially with sabres being rattled towards Iran.

The invasion of IRaq happened on 3-20-2003. For about a year, the entire Bush administration beat the drum that IRaq was a grave threat to the US, bent on attacking us. The attacks of 9/11 barely preceded the Bush Administration's push to war with IRaq.

People were afraid and Congress didn't want to do the wrong thing. No one could have imagined that a US president would methodically lie about the threat posed just to get a war on with Iraq. What's the motive? I don't care.

Bush used the scariest weapon he could--another terrorist attack from a source (Iraq) that has been trouble for the US before--desert storm.

It's quite an impressive (and deplorable) form of propaganda that worked very well.

Selling WMD attacks on the heels of the attacks of 9/11 and blaming Iraq was almost fool-proof.

Good points, all.

I have read everything I can find about the runup to the war and have concluded that the motives for launcing the war were mixed. You have start with the Administration's flawed assumption that the war would be quick, cheap, easy and wildly popular with the American people. This informs everything that happened.

The neocons conceived of the Iraq war as a way to quickly convert Iraq into a secular, democratic, free market ally of Israel. They were taken in by long-ago defectors like Chalabi who convinced them that Iraq had a vibrant middle class and a funcitioning infrastructure.

Rove convinced Bush that the war was an opportunity to isolate the dems for a long, long time on issues of security and terror. It was seen as a opportunity to stick to the UN, demonize the French, and galvanize the American people behind a resolute and courageous president.

There were other factors as well. Cheney told Bush that the executive branch has lost clout in the aftermath of Watergate and that the war would be a good vehicle to strengthen the presidency and operate in near secrecy.

Bush lacked the experience, character, foresight and judgement to tell those around him that they were leading the US into a quagmire or to demand comprehensive plans for the occuption.

Oil and national security issues played a minimal role in the decision to invade. The WMD and nukes were trumped up to sell the war. In the end, I think it came down to this: Bush was convinced by those around him to invade Iraq and had the power to do it.

There are 5 or 6 people who were insturmental in dreaming up this quixotic mission. They happened to hold high governmental positions at precisely the time that an accident of history put extraordinary power in the hands of a president who was woefully ill-equipped to handle it.

__________________
"Should'a never taken Willoughby out."

You answered the questions in your original post.

He wasn't worried, and he only concluded imminent threat to appease the masses.

__________________
"For time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth"
"Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-JFK

Knight Errant of the Simian Order
Truth - Justice - Comedy

Very good points, but I thought I would just expand on these thoughts in particular.

Iraq has always been a central focus for the United States within the last 20 years since it had been governed by a ruthless dictator and has made his intentions against the United States evidently clear. However his actions against the United States have been minimal at best and there has been no indication that he has ever had any capability of truly attacking the United States since 1992. But after 9/11, the chance that one the supposed iraqi weapons could fall into the hands of a terrorist organization were slim but it was a chance the Bush administration was not willing to take. On top of that, they feared Hussein was was bound to start his nuclear program once again.

Since Iraq has always been on the verge of a failed state since the Gulf War, the Bush administration sought to bring stability to the region meanwhile creating an ally within the middle east. The initial plans as Swede pointed out were for a quick and relatively painless war where we would oust Saddam Hussein and put in the Iraqi National Congress under Ahmed Challabi as an interim government. Essentially what the Bush administration wanted to establish was a quick puppet government under "Iraqi" authority that would be friendly to the United States.

Why we wanted an ally is pretty obvious. Iraq is one of the most strategic locations in the middle east which borders Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait and Syria. Essentially its the center of the middle east and would provide an excellent geopolitical point for conducting future military affairs. So establishing US military bases are extremely important to the United States and is one of the fundamental reasons neo-cons do not want to leave.

Also, Iraq being an ally of the United States could counter the growing power of Syria and Iran, while providing a stabilizing force to Saudi Arabia. Israel would no longer be the sole ally of the United States, which would put pressure on Jordan and Syria not only to seek diplomatic avenues with the United States but also promote democratic reform within the region.

Lastly there are the economic factors that inspired the invasion. Oil was a key factor to an extent since it was believed that oil would pay for the invasion, but it wasn't the only economic resource. Water is crucial in the middle east and with two of the largest rivers in the region, Iraq has one of the most abundant sources of water and fertility in the middle east.

However, most of those plans were screwed up when certain members of the Bush administration didn't trust Chalabi with having power and instead handed the interim president's position to Paul Bremer who was one of the main causes of what made Iraq what it is today. However, that's another story.

__________________
Signature:

One word - projection. Former Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neil said that Bushco tried to figure out how to go after Saddam from their very first NSC meeting, of which he was a member.

It's like those guys who cheat on their taxes and constantly (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about how everyone is cheating on their taxes.

As to the American people - getting hammered by the corporate media with BS

Paul O'Neil has no genuine proof. It's just his word that you so eagerly swallow and regurgitate simply on the basis that you want to show the administration in the worst possible light. In the end, there's nothing you can offer that proves you to be correct. It's just your opinion.

The President, no matter which party they represent, cannot unilaterally invade a country with no grounds to do so. They have to have support.

You'll find you have to admit to the inevitable fact that Congress voted TWICE to go into Iraq. They insisted on it. Either they were all brainless dupes of the evil diabolical Bushco or they're being duplicitous and you're the dupe for voting them into office. Which one is it?

As far as the fallacy of the "American Corporate media" ... the conspiracy theory threads are in another area of the forum index. Go spew there and leave the REAL debate to the grownups, okay?

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

O'Neil got grilled by "60 Minutes" and he had the memos, the meeting minutes, the goods.

Bush manipulated the support of the public, which was no great feat given the shock of 9/11

'Course they voted to go. Nobody wants to be unpatriotic in their line of work.

Grownups?? I'm not the one believing Bushco fairy tales

^^ age discriminator