Reason for War Explained!

[Avalux]

I am so sick and tired of the spin and lies about why we went to war. I'm sitting here at work listening to the Diane Rheam (sp) show; guests Mark Shields and William Kristol. Discussing Iraq; a caller claimed we went into Iraq for oil.

Mr. Kristol said this in response - "We did not go into Iraq for oil. Obviously it hasn't helped our oil/gas situation one bit. We went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and because there was a PERCEIVED threat of WMDs."

UGGHHHH! Someone give me a hammer so I can smash my radio and stop the madness.

[Spazito]

1. So perception is now an acceptable rationale for invading a country...

and killing thousands of it's citizens. Wow, now I understand and will support the illegal and immoral act, geez!

[derby378]

2. I perceive that the Bush junta is a threat to America

Now prove me wrong!

[Avalux]

3. I perceive

the sky is orange! Prove me wrong!

[Az]

4. Milk and Cheese live

Sorry, had to respond to your sig graphic. I now return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

[derby378]

10. M&C rule

They came up with one of my favorite chants of all time:

We're here!
For beer!
Get used to it!

[HFishbine]

5. William Kristol is a blatant liar

His signature is at the top of the list of this letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) on September 20, 2001 stating quite clearly why he thought Iraq should be attacked.

----

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.


Sincerely,

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann


http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

(mods: no copyright)

[Avalux]

6. That's why it's so maddening

He's introduced as editor of the Weekly Standard, and most people don't know his real agenda. One of the most dangerous men in Washington IMHO.

[Mike Daniels]

7. I am so tired of the "we went to liberate" excuse

Not that I think anyone really bought it to begin with.

Reagan and Bush were content to let Saddam murder his own people for 12 years and we're supposed to accept that all of a sudden a Republican admin gives a fig about human rights?

I don't see us trying to liberate the N. Koreans and Chinese. Of course if we tried that we really would have WMD coming back at us and that wouldn't go over to well with the voting public.

I really wish someone would ask why we didn't care about the Iraqi's during Reagan/Bush the next time some Repub brings out that sorry ass justification.

[tjwash]

12. If that's the case...

...why haven't we "liberated" Cuba, or North Korea, or any of the myriad of oppressed countries that DON'T have a good chunk of the worlds oil under it's soil?

[maggrwaggr]

8. the real reason is right here. You can e-mail him and educate him

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

as per Karen Kwiatowski, who was definitely in the loop

(snip)
The neoconservatives needed to do more than just topple Saddam Hussein. They wanted to put in a government friendly to the U.S., and they wanted permanent basing in Iraq. There are several reasons why they wanted to do that. None of those reasons, of course, were presented to the American people or to Congress.
(snip)
One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important — that is, if you hold that is America’s role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

[Terran]

9. Kristol is a liar

Liberating the Iraqi people was not a reason given by Bush to Congress at the start of the invasion. It was solely about WMD's and national security.

And as for oil, he's correct that we haven't benefited so far; but with US presence in Iraq for decades to come, we surely will. He's not only a liar, but disingenuous as well.

[Bucky]

11. "benefitting"

Dirk:
"And as for oil, he's correct that we haven't benefited so far; but with US presence in Iraq for decades to come, we surely will."

Not sure who you mean by "we" but the notion that knocking over Iraq will make our oil & gas situation any better is wrong. It's helping some big American oil & drilling contractors in the force-privatized petroleum industry in Iraq get mllions & billions, but the American consumer is certainly not seeing a drop in oil prices.

Instead, what's going to happan is that all the inconvenient reasons that kept previous administrations from just going in there & conquering the joint--namely the violence of peoples who don't like getting robbed--are going to steadily increase the cost of us staying on and trying to run Iraq through Chalabi & other such surrogates. The cost we're about to pay in dollars, blood, international credibility, and overall preparedness for a now dramatically expanded war on terrorism is going to go up and up.

[Terran]

13. Should have been more specific, sorry

That was sloppy. I was using the word "benefit" the way Kristol apparently sees it, i.e., geopolitical advantage, and perhaps ultimately the sheer control over a large oil supply that the rest of the world will covet. No, for the American people, there is no benefit at all, given the cost and sacrifices that such an ill-advised venture has and will cost in the long-term.

Dirk