PDA

View Full Version : The March to War: A Stroll Down Memory Lane




IJ Reilly
Mar 17, 2006, 06:17 PM
"What I have said is a fact -- that there are al Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, August 21, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
—Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
—George W. Bush, United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002

".. there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented... [but] no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 26, 2002

"I truly believe that now that the war has changed, now -- that we are a battlefield, this man [Saddam] poses a much greater threat than anybody could have possibly imagined... There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my Dad."
—George W. Bush, Texas Fundraiser, September 28, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons... we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons... We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas... We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
—Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, December 2, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
—Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, January 9, 2003

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question. I think the way to put it into perspective is that the estimates as to what September 11th cost the United States of America ranges high up into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, another event in the United States that was like September 11th, and which cost thousands of lives, but one that involved a -- for example, a biological weapon, would be -- have a cost in human life, as well as in billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, that would be vastly greater.
—January 19, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
—George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
—Colin Powell, UN Security Council, February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, February 8, 2003

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."
—Colin Powell, Interview with Radio France International, February 28, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? ... I think our judgment has to be clearly not."
—Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
—George W. Bush, March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
—Ari Fleisher, Press Briefing, March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
—Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."
—Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark, March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."
—Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, March 23, 2003 (Washington Post, p. A27)

Just a few words to ponder, three years on.



blackfox
Mar 17, 2006, 06:42 PM
You know, I read (somewhere) recently that Saddam purposefully bluffed with regards to Iraq having WMDs as leverage against Iran - in terms of regional strategy.

I also read that Hussein was more concerned in the lead-up to the war with internal stability concerns (eg: threat of a coup), than of the US forces. His concerns about sectarian violence and chaos resulting from the breakdown of order were astute and prescient.

Hussein seems, in retrospect, a somewhat moral man in that he knew his country, it's people and the Region and did what it took to hold it together. Although horribly vicious at times, I tend think that he knew that was what was necessary to maintain order and the status quo.

He just underestimated the ideological zeal of the Bush Administration. He played the hand he was dealt as best he could.

Lest people think I am being too soft on Mr Hussein, I would remind that the most pressing human right for many is not "freedom" but "security/personal safety". It is the US's inability to provide this basic right, that forments dislike of the US presence and support for the Insurrgency. Regular Iraqis are merely adhering to what looks like the strongest "tribe", because they have the best chance of security in that decision.

Hussein provided basic security, however imperfect, through order. In pursuit of that order, he bluffed himself into a position of strength and got called out by an overzealous America.

It is all kind of tragic. I do wonder how ignorant the US was of the real situation, or if it just posed (at the time) a low-risk point for ideological intervention.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 17, 2006, 06:58 PM
20 million a day, 2400+ dead, many thousands limbless and Iraq is a bigger mess then when we went in. We were lied to many, many ,times. The agenda wasnt the agenda of the people. We have a 9 trillion dollar debt and growing. Best thing we can do is vote out all the incumbants, Everyone of them is tainted by special Interests. We also have to eliminate 100% the lobbiest who control govt with their election $$$.

Even today they are saying this swarm is the largest operation in Iraq, another Lie to spin this presidents sagging polls. They had plenty of operations that were much larger, no wonder they didnt want any reporters there.

cc bcc
Mar 17, 2006, 07:39 PM
20 million a day, 2400+ dead, many thousands limbless and Iraq is a bigger mess then when we went in. We were lied to many, many ,times. The agenda wasnt the agenda of the people. We have a 9 trillion dollar debt and growing. Best thing we can do is vote out all the incumbants, Everyone of them is tainted by special Interests. We also have to eliminate 100% the lobbiest who control govt with their election $$$.

Even today they are saying this swarm is the largest operation in Iraq, another Lie to spin this presidents sagging polls. They had plenty of operations that were much larger, no wonder they didnt want any reporters there.

2400? I think you forgot about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died. It's a nation wide trauma for generations of people, so very often (conveniently?) unmentioned.

Dont Hurt Me
Mar 17, 2006, 07:56 PM
True , we really dont how many Iraqi's have died and everyone of them has family members. I know i would be very pissed if someone killed a family member. Then I would be labeled a ...Insurgent? or some other spin. The President was 100% wrong but stay the course stay the course, 400 billion dollars later. Unless this president is prepared to remove the Koran from that country he is wasting our time,our lives,our money.

mactastic
Mar 18, 2006, 10:40 AM
Ah yes, but when the lies were about sex it was time to bring out the impeachment stick...

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2006, 11:39 AM
You know, I read (somewhere) recently that Saddam purposefully bluffed with regards to Iraq having WMDs as leverage against Iran - in terms of regional strategy.

I posted an article about this a couple of years ago, I think it was. It could probably be located in the archives. Saddam was reportedly surprised to discover that the U.S. didn't know that he didn't have any WMD.

cc bcc
Mar 18, 2006, 11:46 AM
I posted an article about this a couple of years ago, I think it was. It could probably be located in the archives. Saddam was reportedly surprised to discover that the U.S. didn't know that he didn't have any WMD.

You think they didn't know? It was never about WMD's, they just hoped to find some.

miloblithe
Mar 18, 2006, 11:51 AM
I especially like the insane estimates by Rumsfeld and the others about the cost and difficulty of the war ahead. There are two possible interpretations:

These people have absolutely no understanding of the complexity of international affairs and military operations.

Or they just didn't care and were happy enough to lie to the American people about their intentions.

tristan
Mar 18, 2006, 07:55 PM
So why didn't Saddam let the weapons inspectors in?

Mike Teezie
Mar 18, 2006, 08:12 PM
You know, I read (somewhere) recently that Saddam purposefully bluffed with regards to Iraq having WMDs as leverage against Iran - in terms of regional strategy.

Interesting. I'd like to see that blackfox.

So why didn't Saddam let the weapons inspectors in?

Maybe because Iran would have been able to call his bluff then. And as bf said, he just underestimated Bush and co.'s zest for war. It's just insane when you think of where we are now with Iraq.

IJ Reilly
Mar 18, 2006, 08:33 PM
So why didn't Saddam let the weapons inspectors in?

A better question is: Why did George Bush kick them out?

zimv20
Mar 18, 2006, 11:35 PM
So why didn't Saddam let the weapons inspectors in?
he did.

tristan
Mar 18, 2006, 11:50 PM
Saddam kicked out UNSCOM in October 1998 and didn't let inspectors return until November 2002, 5 weeks after congress had already authorized war and UN 1441 had been passed with its own "serious consequences" language. Why did he do this?

In Dec 2002, Iraq submitted a 14,000 page declaration stating that Iraq had no banned weapons. Yet within two months, UN inspectors had discovered empty chemical warheads and missiles that exceeded the range limitations (Al Samoud). Hans Blix reported to the UN that he was very critical of Iraq's cooperation. Why didn't Iraq disclose the banned weapons and cooperate more fully?

Did Saddam just not get the danger he was in? It seems to me like he could have easily prevented the gulf war with a little more cooperation up front.

zimv20
Mar 19, 2006, 12:19 AM
It seems to me like he could have easily prevented the gulf war with a little more cooperation up front.
the gulf war? in 1991?

tristan
Mar 19, 2006, 01:13 AM
the gulf war? in 1991?

Sigh... obviously I was referring to the second gulf war...

zimv20
Mar 19, 2006, 01:18 AM
Sigh... obviously I was referring to the second gulf war...
sorry, i'm not trying to be annoying. the term "gulf war" makes me think of desert storm. "iraq war" seems to be the popular moniker for the current action.

imo, saddam's actions w/ the inspectors had precious little to do with gw bush's desire for war. i don't think there's any action saddam could have taken, perhaps self-exile, that would have stopped bush's war.

mkrishnan
Mar 19, 2006, 01:23 AM
sorry, i'm not trying to be annoying. the term "gulf war" makes me think of desert storm. "iraq war" seems to be the popular moniker for the current action.

I'll take the bait... we've been heading down an inevitable path towards the useless loss of American and Iraqi life ever since the 90s, when I was in high school, and this foolishness started. This should never have been allowed to get as far as a long-term military presence inside / over around Iraq. The elder Bush, of whom I am not a big fan, but whom I do not hate, did not do enough to stop this. Clinton did not act decisively to right this wrong. And now we've passed the fire extinguisher on to a pyromaniac.

joepunk
Mar 19, 2006, 03:03 AM
What's interesting to me is that many of these same areas where wars have been fought in the last 2000 years are still being fought over today.

solvs
Mar 19, 2006, 06:04 AM
Did Saddam just not get the danger he was in?
He was trying to bluff us, and Iran. He didn't think we'd invade so quickly, underestimating GW's resolve and America's zeal for revenge after 9/11. Even though there were plans for the Iraq war even before 9/11 apparently. When he realized we were serious, he got scared and began to want to cooperate. Seems pretty similar to what Iran is doing now. Not saying we could have fully trusted him, but we definitely did rush to war and planned things very poorly. Obvious at this point, but hindsight is 20/20, and even the most skeptical of us didn't realize it would get this bad.

There was a time when I chalked this up to incompetence, but it's obvious now that it's not that simple. At best they cherry picked the intel that supported what they had already planned to do, ignoring everything that didn't fit the agenda. At worst... well, I don't even want to think about that. The real reasons for this war could be even worse than most of us are thinking. Far worse. Hopefully it's just about oil, because the alternatives are terrifying.

pseudobrit
Mar 19, 2006, 08:32 AM
Saddam kicked out UNSCOM in October 1998...Why did he do this?

Because we were using our inspectors to spy on his government.

mactastic
Mar 19, 2006, 10:12 AM
So why didn't Saddam let the weapons inspectors in?
As noted, the CIA was using UNSCOM to spy on Saddam's government. Also, allowing weapons inspectors in would have illuminated the deception he was trying to pull off in convincing his neighbors that he had WMDs and would use them if he had to.

Also, inspectors were let in before the war started, which was supposedly the whole point of the AUMF resolution in Congress. That resolution was supposed to be a tool to allow Bush to pressure Saddam into allowing weapons inspectors in -- yet Bush used it as a declaration of war, as well as the underpinning for his 'unitary executive' theory that allowed him to (among other things) data-mine vast quantities of American communications, and torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention.

IJ Reilly
Mar 19, 2006, 02:05 PM
Here's that thread, from October 2004.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=92629

Well worth taking another look, if you're wondering why Saddam kept his cards so close to his vest.

skunk
Mar 19, 2006, 02:14 PM
Those were the days.

blackfox
Mar 19, 2006, 05:24 PM
Those were the days.
a phrase rife with meaning, on so many levels.

Shame I don't understand any of them.

IJ Reilly
Mar 19, 2006, 05:25 PM
Those were the days.

We thought they'd never end.

skunk
Mar 19, 2006, 05:30 PM
We thought they'd never end.And we were right.

solvs
Mar 19, 2006, 05:37 PM
Here's that thread, from October 2004.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=92629
A year and a half later and we're still there. And we still don't really know why we invaded. At least more people are asking questions now, which isn't such a good thing for BushCo.