A101 wrote:

All your posts have been with the benefit of hindsight, which is different from being on the ground at the time. How many Americans at the time would have even heard of PNAC unless they stumbled on the articles in the WP or their web site, which in the late 1990's was still not a dominate feature for most people

As mentioned by someone else it was the media who also made a big contribution for the push to do something about Hussein in the post 911 world

But one obvious benefit of hindsight is that we use it to cast historical judgment on the "deciders". In this case the deciders lose and it's not really a contest the way you're arguing. We knew 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, and I'm sure when the intel gets released long after I'm dead we'll know that American intelligence could trace the origins of the attack deep inside of the Saudi establishment, we knew that Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It was a scam. No nukes found, no connection to 9-11 found, $2.5T pissed away, tens of thousands dead and and wounded military casualties. We know all of these things with hindsight and the conclusions are ironclad. Bush Jr. didn't really have a clue was what going on, Cheney and hs oil pals laughed all the way to the bank, Rummy and Wolfie got their rocks off and we all had to eat freedom fries instead of french fries for three years. The french fries thing was really irksome to be honest. I like my fries french.

wingman wrote:

A101 wrote:

All your posts have been with the benefit of hindsight, which is different from being on the ground at the time. How many Americans at the time would have even heard of PNAC unless they stumbled on the articles in the WP or their web site, which in the late 1990's was still not a dominate feature for most people

As mentioned by someone else it was the media who also made a big contribution for the push to do something about Hussein in the post 911 world

But one obvious benefit of hindsight is that we use it to cast historical judgment on the "deciders". In this case the deciders lose and it's not really a contest the way you're arguing. We knew 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, and I'm sure when the intel gets released long after I'm dead we'll know that American intelligence could trace the origins of the attack deep inside of the Saudi establishment, we knew that Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It was a scam. No nukes found, no connection to 9-11 found, $2.5T pissed away, tens of thousands dead and and wounded military casualties. We know all of these things with hindsight and the conclusions are ironclad. Bush Jr. didn't really have a clue was what going on, Cheney and hs oil pals laughed all the way to the bank, Rummy and Wolfie got their rocks off and we all had to eat freedom fries instead of french fries for three years. The french fries thing was really irksome to be honest. I like my fries french.

All well and good to argue in hindsight, but place yourself in the shoes of Bush,Blair and Howard at the time. It’s a judgement call and one with hindsight they got wrong.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make

We need to consider what the alternatives were—the sanctions were being undermined by the Russians and French; Saddam and Iraq were a time bomb of ethic strife waiting to happen. Arab Spring in Iraq would have unleashed it. It’s a cost/benefit analysis. Besides, he tried once to invade and control the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. If he succeeded in a second attempt, he’d had the world by the neck. Tacitly, everyone knew that and went along once the war was begun.

If Bush/Blair can be called war criminals, so can Roosevelt/Truman and Churchill. History is amoral and written by the victors and always has been. No one has seriously made a call for any of those leaders to be tried. Doing so is a political signal rather than a serious legal argument.

Interesting article by someone who knows Iraq on the ground.

https://thedispatch.com/article/why-you ... aq-really/

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Besides, he tried once to invade and control the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. If he succeeded in a second attempt, he’d had the world by the neck.

And he hadn't even come close to rebuilding his military from the first time he tried.

Anyway, the alternative was pretty obvious - don't invade Iraq. It was a war of choice not of necessity.

A101 wrote:

All your posts have been with the benefit of hindsight, which is different from being on the ground at the time.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing; I'm describing the events from hindsight. I'm revealing what was unknown by most people at the time.

A101 wrote:

How many Americans at the time would have even heard of PNAC unless they stumbled on the articles in the WP or their web site, which in the late 1990's was still not a dominate feature for most people

Few of the common folk who weren't up to date on neocon activities would have known of PNAC. But the Bush administration was infested with PNAC members and neocon supporters. I'm posting a partial list of members below which will show that the government and the media in the US were both infiltrated by the PNAC. They were manipulating the American government and American public opinion behind the scenes.

A101 wrote:

As mentioned by someone else it was the media who also made a big contribution for the push to do something about Hussein in the post 911 world

Yes, look at the number of people below who had media influence.

Partial list of people associated with the Project For The New American Century.

- People are identified as being connected to the PNAC because either they are listed on the organisation’s web site, or their names appear as authors/contributors on official PNAC documents. Information current to Dec. 2004. [back to main document]

Abramowitz, Morton - Senior Fellow at the Century Foundation.

Abrams, Elliot - National Security Council – top advisor on the Middle East. Alumnus of the Heritage Foundation.
History: As Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs under Reagan, was responsible for covering up war crimes committed by the U.S. backed Contras. Was charged in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, and pled to lesser charges. Was later pardoned by Bush Sr. The British media reported Elliot was behind the attempted Chavez coup in Venezuela.

Allen, Richard V. - member: National Security Advisory Board, and the Defense Policy Board. President of the Richard V. Allen Company (consulting firm). Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute.
History: founding chairman for the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center. Founding member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Former board member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Assistant to the President for National Security affairs during the Reagan administration, but forced from office over suspected financial misconduct.

Anderson, Mark A. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Armitage, Richard - Deputy Secretary of State.
History: Former board member of CACI, the private military contractor whose employees were responsible for torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs during the Reagan Administration. Named by the government as one of the people guilty of supplying weapons in the Iran Contra Affair, but never charged.

Au, Andrew Y. - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Bang-Jensen, Nina - executive director of the Coalition for International Justice.

Bao-Lord, Bette - member of the Council on Foreign Relations (director until 2003). Chairman of Freedom House. Wife of ex-ambassador to China Winston Lord, who is Co-chairman of the International Rescue Committee.

Barnett, Roger - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).
History: Vice President of the National Institute for Public Policy. Professor at Georgetown University.

Bauer, Gary – founder of the Campaign for Working Families, president of American Values.
History: past president of the Family Research Council. Under Secretary of Education in the Reagan administration.

Bennet, William J. – co-director of Empower America, co-director of Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Distinguished Fellow of the Heritage Foundation. Writer.
History: Secretary of Education under Reagan.

Bergner, Jeffrey - study group member of the Commission on National Security 21st Century. Member of the board of trustees for the Hudson Institute, and the Asia Foundation. His lobbying company represents a number of weapons contractors, among other major corporations.
History: Staff Director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the Reagan administration.

Bernstein, Alvin - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Bernstein, Robert L. - Professor at the National Defense University (a government facility).
History: worked at the Naval War College (government facility), and in the Defense Department.

Biddle, George - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Vice President of the International Rescue Committee (allegedly a relief organisation).

Bolton, John R. - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
History: Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs for the Department of State under Bush Sr. Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan.

Boot, Max - Senior Fellow of the National Security Studies. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard.
History: editor of the Wall Street Journal, writer and editor for the Christian Science Monitor.

Bork, Ellen – Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: Transatlantic Fellow of the German Marshall Fund.

Boschwitz, Rudy - Presidential appointee to the Holocaust Memorial Council. One of the top fund-raisers for Bush Jr. in 2000. Founder of Home Valu Inc. Minnesota Senator (1978-1991).

Buckley, William F. Jr. - owner of National Review magazine.
History: CIA agent in the Fifties. Hosted the television show Firing Line.

Bush, Jeb – Governor of Florida.
History: Banned convicted felons from voting in the 2000 presidential election, using an extremely inaccurate system to remove voting rights; allowed ineligible absentee ballots to be counted.

Cambone, Stephen A. - Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Special Assistant to the Secretary and Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation – Department of Defense.
History: Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld just prior to current appointments. Director in the Defense Department during the Bush Sr. administration. Past deputy director in SRS Technologies (Defense contractor).

Carlucci, Frank - Chairman Emeritus of the Carlyle Group, and Nortel Networks. Member of the board of United Defense Inc. Considered a protégé of D. Rumsfeld.
History: Chairman of the Carlyle Group (1993-2000). Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration. Deputy Director in the CIA. CIA agent. Accused of being behind the assassination of Congo Prime Minister Lumumba during the Sixties, but never charged.

Cheney, Dick – Vice President. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Employee(?) of Halliburton – draws a one million dollar per year salary.
History: worked for D. Rumsfeld in 1969. Presidential assistant to Gerald Ford. Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr. Halliburton CEO 1995 to 2000; gains the company 3.8 billion dollars in federal contracts and guaranteed loans. Upon becoming Vice President, Halliburton receives billions of dollars in Iraq contracts not tendered to other companies. Behind installing Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Elliot Abrams into their current positions in government. Wife Lynne is a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Daughter Elizabeth is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.

Clemons, Steven C. - Executive Vice President of the New America Foundation.

Cohen, Eliot A. - professor at Johns Hopkins University. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Previously worked for D. Rumsfeld.

Cropsey, Seth - Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
History: Director in the Heritage Foundation. Visiting Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute. Assistant Editor of the Public Interest (1976-77). Hudson Institute researcher. Deputy Under Secretary in the Department of the Navy during the Reagan administration.

DeConcini, Dennis Webster - Chairman of the Board of Directors for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
History: eighteen years as Senator from Arizona. Member of the Balkan Action Committee.

Dale, Helle - Director in the Heritage Foundation.

Decter, Midge – Writer. Heritage Foundation director. Wife of Norman Podhoretz. Claims to worship Donald Rumsfeld, and has written a book for Rumsfeld admirers.

Dobriansky, Paula - Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.
History: Senior Vice President (Washington office) of the Council on Foreign Relations prior to appointment. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs for the Department of State in the Reagan administration.

Donnelly, Thomas – Deputy Executive Director of the PNAC.
History: Director of Strategic Communication and Initiatives for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor).

Eberstadt, Nicholas - consultant for the State Department, consultant for the Bureau of the Census. Member of the American Enterprise Institute.

Edgar, Robert (Rev. Dr.) - General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ. Ordained as an United Methodist. Former Congressman.

Epstein, David - employee at the Office of Secretary of Defense – Net Assessment.

Etzioni, Amitai - founder of the Communitarian Network, and editor of their magazine. Was Senior Advisor to the White House on Domestic Affairs during the Carter administration.

Fautua, David - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Feulner, Edwin J. Jr. - Heritage Foundation.
History: advisor to President Reagan.

Forbes, Steve – President, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes magazine.
History: campaigned twice for the Republican nomination for president. Directed the dissemination of propaganda on Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty during both the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Fradkin, Hillel - member of the Advisory Committee on International Education – Department of Education. Part of Benador Associates, a publicity firm handling clients such as PNAC members R. Perle, J. Woolsey, F. Gaffney, C. Krauthammer, and M. Boot.
History: Fellow in the American Enterprise Institute prior to government appointment.

Friedberg, Aaron - Vice President’s Deputy National Security Advisor.
History: Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Consultant for the CIA.

Fukuyama, Francis - President’s Council on Bioethics. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Gaffney, Frank – President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, Washington Times columnist, brother of Devon Gaffney-Cross.
History: worked for Richard Perle during the Reagan administration.

Gaffney-Cross, Devon - member of the Defense Policy Board (Pentagon). Member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Sister of Frank Gaffney.

Gejdenson, Sam - owns Sam Gejdenson International. Congressman (D) 1981 - 2000.

Gerecht, Reuel Marc – Senior Fellow of the PNAC, Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
History: former CIA agent (1985 – 1994). CBS News consultant on Afghanistan.

Goldman, Merle - Adjunct Professor for the Foreign Service Institute of the State Department.

Goure, Daniel - consultant for the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. Vice President of the Lexington Institute. Was a Study Team Leader for the Institute of Peace (1990-91).

Halperin, Morton H. - director for the Council on Foreign Relations, and for the Open Society Institute.

Hefferman, John - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Hooper, James R. - Executive Director of the Balkan Action Council.

Ikle, Fred C. – Distinguished Scholar for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Reagan administration.

Jackson, Bruce – President of the Project on Transitional Democracies. President of the Committee on NATO.
Member: Council on Foreign Relations, International Institute for Strategic Studies, Board of Advisors for the Center for Security Policy.
History: Director of Strategic Planning for Lockheed Martin Corp. (weapons contractor). Worked for Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney during the eighties.

Joyce, Michael S. - founder of Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, an organisation created to help push through Bush Jr.’s “Faith-Based Initiative”. Member of the Research Council of America. Was part of the Presidential Transition Team for Reagan.

Kagan, Donald – Hillhouse Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. Writer. Father of Frederick and Robert Kagan.

Kagan, Frederick - Professor of military history at West Point.
History: co-wrote, with his father Donald and other PNAC contributors, “While America Sleeps”.

Kagan, Robert - co-founder of the PNAC. Contributing Editor for the Weekly Standard and the New Republic; columnist for the Washington Post. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Victoria Nuland, Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President.
History: Deputy in the Department of State under Elliot Abrams during the Reagan administration.

Kampelman, Max M. - Lawyer. Member of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Karatnycky, Adrian - member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Freedom House.
History: worked for the New York Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times.

Kemble, Penn - Department of State – Head, Eminent Persons Group, Sudan Slavery Commission. Senior Fellow in Freedom House.

Kennedy, Craig - President of the German Marshall Fund.

Khalilzad, Zalmay - Ambassador to Afghanistan, Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan, and Special Presidential Envoy to the Free Iraqis.
History: Senior Director of the National Security Council (2001 – 2003). Accused by candidates in the Afghan elections of arranging President Hamid Karzai’s victory. Worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department in 1984 – 1985. Advisor to Unocal for their proposed gas pipeline project through Afghanistan (1997).

Killebrew, Robert B. - Colonel (retired)
History: Security Strategies study member for PNAC. Consultant to a variety of army and private institute military projects.

Kirkpatrick, Jeane - on the executive committee of Freedom House, and the board of advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Committee on the Present Danger. Former U.S. Ambassador. Member of the National Security Council under Reagan.

Koh, Harold Hongju - Dean of Yale.
History: Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in the Clinton administration.

Kovler, Peter - Nixon Center Advisory Council. Balkans Action Committee.

Krauthammer, Charles - Presidential appointee to the President’s Council On Bioethics. Columnist for the Washington Post. Contributing Editor for the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard. Member of the Editorial Board for the National Interest, and the Public Interest.

Kristol, William - co-founder of the PNAC. Columnist for (and co-founder of) the Weekly Standard.
History: Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, Secretary of Education Chief of Staff under William Bennett during the Reagan administration.

Lagon, Mark P. - Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.
History: fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. Deputy Director of the House Republican Committee. Senior advisor to Jeane Kirkpatrick - American Enterprise Institute.

Lasswell, James - Employee of GAMA Corporation (war games, military training via software).

Lehrman, Lewis E. - on the Board of Trustees for the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute. President and co-founder of the Citizens for America.

Libby, I. Lewis - Assistant to the President, and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.
History: after graduating law school, went to work for Paul Wolfowitz (1981 - 1985) at the State Department. Hired again by Wolfowitz in 1989, this time at the Pentagon.

Lindberg, Tod - Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute. Editor of Policy Review journal.

Mack, Connie III - Congressman for Florida. Previously served in the Florida House of Representatives (2000 - 2003).

Maletz, Christopher – Assistant Director of the PNAC.

Markey, Mary Beth - Executive Director for the International Campaign for Tibet. Worked in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prior to 1996.

Martinage, Robert - consultant for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

McKivergan, Daniel – Deputy Director of the PNAC.
History: research director for The Weekly Standard (1995 – 1997). Legislative director for Senator John McCain (2000), and for Congressman Dan Miller (1997).

Meese, Edwin III - Heritage Foundation.
History: Attorney General during the Reagan administration. Investigated for his involvement in the Iraq Bechtel pipeline deal (which also involved D. Rumsfeld) - not prosecuted, but resigned.

Meilinger, Phil – U.S. Naval War College.

Muravchik, Joshua - Resident Scholar for the American Enterprise Institute. Member of the Board of Advisors for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Owens, Mackubin - professor at the Naval War College (a government facility).

Owens, Wayne - Deceased (December 18, 2002).
History: eight years as Congressman (D) for Utah.

Peretz, Martin - owner and Editor-in-Chief of the New Republic magazine.

Perle, Richard N. - Pentagon Policy Advisor (resigned February 2004), member – Defense Policy Board.
Member: Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, American Enterprise Institute associate. On advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan. FBI suspected Perle of spying for Israel in 1970 - not prosecuted.

Pletka, Danielle - Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy for the American Enterprise Institute.
History: senior staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (1992-2002).

Podhoretz, Norman - member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Husband of Midge Decter, father-in-law of Elliot Abrams.

Porter, John Edward - member of the RAND board of Trustees.
History: Congressman until 2000.

Quayle, J. Danforth - was Vice President under Bush Sr.

Rodman, Peter W. - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
History: Staff Director of State Department Policy Planning under Reagan.

Rosen, Stephen P. - Harvard professor.
History: professor at the Naval War College. Director in the National Security Council under Reagan.

Rowen, Henry S. - member of Department of Defense Policy Board. Presidential appointee to the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
History: Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs under Bush Sr. RAND Corporation president 1967–1972.

Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense.
Member: Hoover Institution board of trustees, RAND Corporation, Empower America board, Freedom House board, Balkan Action Committee, Committee on the Present Danger, Center for Security Policy.
History: Congressman from 1962 to 1969. Member of Nixon’s cabinet. Member of Gerald Ford’s cabinet and Secretary of Defense. Chaired Ballistic Missile Threat (“Rumsfeld”) Commission in 1998.

Scheunemann, Randy – on PNAC Board of Directors, U.S. Committee on NATO Board of Directors. Treasurer for Project on Transitional Democracies. Lobbyist.
History: Office of the Secretary of Defense - Consultant on Iraq Policy (2001).

Schmitt, Gary – Executive Director of the PNAC. Consultant to the Department of Defense.Member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO. Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institute. Adjunct Professor at John Hopkins University.
History: Executive Director of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan.

Schneider, William Jr. - Chairman of the Defense Science Board for the Department of Defense. President of International Planning Services, works for the lobbying company Jefferson Consulting Group. Previously served on the “Rumsfeld Commission”.

Shaw, Sin-Ming - resident scholar at Oxford University’s Oriel College.

Shulsky, Abram N. - Director: Defence Department’s Office Of Special Plans, a division created by Paul Wolfowitz.
History: Worked for the RAND corporation. Worked under Richard Perle in the Defense Department during the Reagan administration.

Shultz, Richard - Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School. Holds Chairs at the Naval War College and the U.S. Military Academy. Fellow at the Institute of Peace.

Simon, Paul - Deceased (Dec. 9/03). Former Democratic Senator.

Sokolski, Henry - Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Education Center.
History: was Resident Fellow in the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. Was a Senior Legislative Aide for Senator Dan Quayle.

Solarz, Stephen J.- vice chairman of the International Crisis Group. Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: Congressman for New York (1975-93)

Sonnenfeldt, Helmut - Brookings Institution.
History: member of the National Security Council. Advisor to President Nixon.

Sussman, Leonard - executive director of Freedom House. Was a journalist in New York.

Sweeney, John J. - President of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Taft, William Howard IV - Chief Legal Advisor to the Department of State.
History: assistant to Casper Weinberger in the Nixon administration.

Thornburgh, Dick - Lawyer. Past governor of Pennsylvania. Attorney General in the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Tkacik, John - Heritage Foundation. President of China Business Intelligence. Worked in the State Department during the Reagan administration.

Turner, Ed - unable to verify biographical information from multiple sources (other than PNAC involvement).

Vickers, Michael - Director of Strategic Studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Creator of “Future Warfare 20XX” games. Former CIA agent.

Waldron, Arthur - board member of Freedom House, member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
History: professor at the Naval War College (1991-97).

Wallop, Malcolm - Heritage Foundation. Founder and Chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom.
History: part of the Rumsfeld Commission. Senator for Wyoming (1977 - 1995).

Watts, Barry D. - Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation – Office of The Secretary of Defense.
History: before government appointment, was a director in Northrop Gruman (weapons contractor).

Webb, James - was Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration.

Weber, Vin - member of the National Commission on Public Service. Member of the German Marshall Fund – board of trustees. Co-founder of Empower America. Partner in Clark & Weinstock.
History: Congressman for Minnesota 1980 – 1992.

Weigel, George – Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
History: co-founded National Endowment for Democracy.

Weinberger, Caspar W.– writer.
History: past publisher and chairman of Forbes magazine. Secretary of Defense under Reagan. Indicted on felony charges for his participation in supplying missiles to Iran, but pardoned by President Bush Sr.

Weyrich, Paul M. – President of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation. National Chairman of Coalitions for America.
History: co-founded Heritage Foundation. Co-founded the Moral Majority. Past treasurer of Council for National Policy.

Williams, Christopher A. - Department of Defense – Special Assistant to Donald Rumsfeld. Lobbyist for Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corporation (weapons contractors).
History: member of Pentagon’s Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board during Bush Jr. administration.

Windsor, Jennifer L. - Executive Director of Freedom House.
History: previously held various positions at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Wolfowitz, Paul - Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Assistant to the Vice President.
History: Head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff under Reagan. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs under Carter.

Woolsey, R. James - member of the Defense Policy Board, member of the Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel, and member of the National Commission on Energy Policy. Trustee for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Freedom House. Honorary Co-Chair of the National Security Advisory Council.
History: Director of the CIA during Clinton administration.

Wortzel, Larry - Director in the Heritage Foundation.

Zakheim, Dov S. - Member of the advisory board for the American Jewish Committee, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Adjunct Scholar for the Heritage Foundation. Under Secretary and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense (resigned April 15, 2004).

Zoellick, Robert B. - U.S. Trade Representative and member of President’s Cabinet.
History: Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff in the Bush Sr. administration.

The war to topple Saddam was based on a number of factors, some valid and some not.

1. The history of Saddam's brutal and despotic dictatorship, both within Iraq and with his neighbors.

2. Saddam's established efforts to acquire WMD, which included chemical and nuclear weapons. As well as his resistance to inspection regimes to assure his compliance with agreements at the end of the Gulf War.

3. Saddam's involvement in an assassination plot on Bush Sr. This was taken very personally by Bush Jr and the people who served under Bush Sr (Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc). As well as public criticism that the job was left unfinished in the Gulf War. That provided popular public support for action.

4. The belief as fostered by Iraqi exiles, that toppling Saddam would result in quick embrace of an Iraqi democratic government and society.

5. Intelligence that Saddam was resisting the inspection regimes, because he was was still actively engaged in WMD development and acquisition. As well as nebulous ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, which were viewed as consistent with the assassination plot.

In hindsight, and with investigation, the first 3 factors were substantive, the last 2 were not.

In reality, Iraq was a boiling cauldron of religious, political, and regional alliances, which Saddam had kept under a heavily enforced lid of oppression, for decades. To convert that into a peaceful democracy as planned, would have required a full military occupation for at least a generation, to plant the seeds of democracy and allow them to flower.

In addition the failed state of Iraq became a magnet for jihadists, just as Syria would a decade later, and Afghanistan had a decade before. And Iran also saw a clear opportunity to neutralize and potentially subjugate a long-standing adversary. Thus adding immeasurably to the internal turmoil that already existed.

Then, we also know now that Saddam's resistance to the inspection protocols was only bravado to save face, which is an important attribute in Middle Eastern culture. And similarly that he had only passing contacts with Al Qaeda, whom he regarded with suspicion and as a threat to his domination in Iraq.

In the end, the acceptance of the last two factors by the US, was a classic case of confirmation bias. You heavily weight the factors that support your hypothesis, and ignore contravening evidence.

It was further fostered by the bedrock US belief that people will always choose freedom & democracy, if given the opportunity. But this ignores the deep societal foundations built upon those principles, which is required for them to prevail.

Even in the US, we see that there are factions which would willingly give up freedoms and democratic values, in return for promised security and benevolence of their leader. So it's not an assured outcome, anywhere. It has to be first valued, and then striven for, by the people. In the absence of that, it will not be the outcome. We've seen this in Afghanistan as well.

Avatar2go wrote:

The war to topple Saddam was based on a number of factors, some valid and some not.

1. The history of Saddam's brutal and despotic dictatorship, both within Iraq and with his neighbors.

2. Saddam's established efforts to acquire WMD, which included chemical and nuclear weapons. As well as his resistance to inspection regimes to assure his compliance with agreements at the end of the Gulf War.

3. Saddam's involvement in an assassination plot on Bush Sr. This was taken very personally by Bush Jr and the people who served under Bush Sr (Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, etc). As well as public criticism that the job was left unfinished in the Gulf War. That provided popular public support for action.

4. The belief as fostered by Iraqi exiles, that toppling Saddam would result in quick embrace of an Iraqi democratic government and society.

5. Intelligence that Saddam was resisting the inspection regimes, because he was was still actively engaged in WMD development and acquisition. As well as nebulous ties to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, which were viewed as consistent with the assassination plot.

In hindsight, and with investigation, the first 3 factors were substantive, the last 2 were not.

In reality, Iraq was a boiling cauldron of religious, political, and regional alliances, which Saddam had kept under a heavily enforced lid of oppression, for decades. To convert that into a peaceful democracy as planned, would have required a full military occupation for at least a generation, to plant the seeds of democracy and allow them to flower.

In addition the failed state of Iraq became a magnet for jihadists, just as Syria would a decade later, and Afghanistan had a decade before. And Iran also saw a clear opportunity to neutralize and potentially subjugate a long-standing adversary. Thus adding immeasurably to the internal turmoil that already existed.

Then, we also know now that Saddam's resistance to the inspection protocols was only bravado to save face, which is an important attribute in Middle Eastern culture. And similarly that he had only passing contacts with Al Qaeda, whom he regarded with suspicion and as a threat to his domination in Iraq.

In the end, the acceptance of the last two factors by the US, was a classic case of confirmation bias. You heavily weight the factors that support your hypothesis, and ignore contravening evidence.

It was further fostered by the bedrock US belief that people will always choose freedom & democracy, if given the opportunity. But this ignores the deep societal foundations built upon those principles, which is required for them to prevail.

Even in the US, we see that there are factions which would willingly give up freedoms and democratic values, in return for promised security and benevolence of their leader. So it's not an assured outcome, anywhere. It has to be first valued, and then striven for, by the people. In the absence of that, it will not be the outcome. We've seen this in Afghanistan as well.

The war to topple Saddam was based on a single factor: George Bush's decision to go for it.
How Bush's pea brain was swayed was no doubt multi-faceted, with different people in his inner circle working on different aspects.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

We need to consider what the alternatives were—the sanctions were being undermined by the Russians and French; Saddam and Iraq were a time bomb of ethic strife waiting to happen. Arab Spring in Iraq would have unleashed it. It’s a cost/benefit analysis. Besides, he tried once to invade and control the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields. If he succeeded in a second attempt, he’d had the world by the neck. Tacitly, everyone knew that and went along once the war was begun.

If Bush/Blair can be called war criminals, so can Roosevelt/Truman and Churchill. History is amoral and written by the victors and always has been. No one has seriously made a call for any of those leaders to be tried. Doing so is a political signal rather than a serious legal argument.

Interesting article by someone who knows Iraq on the ground.

https://thedispatch.com/article/why-you ... aq-really/

The crime was using terrorism and 9/11 as pretext to the public when any of the factors you describe would have been taken more seriously. Saudi gets off Scot free for links to the event while a major potential threat to them is eliminated without any effort beyond making some air bases available. And that’s before the Iraq power vacuum invites the decade-long proxy war between them and Iran in Yemen, which we also got dragged into.

It seems to me that some people here are mixing up, or enmeshing, how the decision was made to invade Iraq with how the war was sold to the public.

Vintage wrote:

It seems to me that some people here are mixing up, or enmeshing, how the decision was made to invade Iraq with how the war was sold to the public.

I think it's a complex issue with many facets and viewpoints. The best most of us can do, is narrow it down to the factors we think were most significant. Yourself included. But that doesn't mean everyone else will see it the same way.

I have learned a lot from reading here, including from your posts, and would hope my own post offered a different perspective to others. But I don't demand or expect agreement. I don't think there is a singular "correct" perspective, there are instead many.

I remember myself being mostly supportive in the beginning, but then becoming increasingly disillusioned as time went on. Which I suspect was typical of many Americans.

I had friends who were fiercely opposed from the beginning, and also some who were fierce advocates. I was in the middle, I wanted Saddam gone if it could be done quickly and precisely. Which at first, seemed to be the outcome. But then things degenerated pretty quickly, and it became clear that vision would not be fulfilled.

Aaron747 wrote:

The crime was using terrorism and 9/11 as pretext to the public when any of the factors you describe would have been taken more seriously.

Would they, though? Looking at all of GalaxyFlyer's arguments in turn, we have:
-Sanctions on Iraq being undermined by third parties. Well, China is undermining sanctions on North Korea, Russia is undermining sanctions on Iran, and pretty much everybody is undermining sanctions on Cuba, but that doesn't make an affirmative case for starting a war with any of them.
-Iraq might make a second go at Kuwait... despite not controlling half of its own airspace?
-Iraq under Saddam was a time bomb of ethnic strife waiting to happen. Clearly true, because as soon as we invaded and removed him, the ethnic strife went ahead and happened anyway.

Avatar2go wrote:

Vintage wrote:

It seems to me that some people here are mixing up, or enmeshing, how the decision was made to invade Iraq with how the war was sold to the public.

I think it's a complex issue with many facets and viewpoints. The best most of us can do, is narrow it down to the factors we think were most significant. Yourself included.

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

Vintage wrote:

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

That represents a singular viewpoint, to which you are entitled. I'm not disputing your view. But you can hardly demand agreement by others here, or imply that all other viewpoints are incorrect. That would be completely unreasonable. Which was my point.

This isn't a subjective assertion, it is cold hard fact.

The decision to invade Iraq was made by George Bush, exactly what his thought process was in coming to that decision is unknown and always will be; he isn't an honest enough person to help shed any light on that. The selling of the war to the media and the public was a separate issue.

Vintage wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Vintage wrote:

It seems to me that some people here are mixing up, or enmeshing, how the decision was made to invade Iraq with how the war was sold to the public.

I think it's a complex issue with many facets and viewpoints. The best most of us can do, is narrow it down to the factors we think were most significant. Yourself included.

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

I agree with @Avatar2go it is complex issue and involved more than just the US.

The french Russia China all who opposed had their own interests to do so. looking at it from hindsight is easy than being at the table with conflicting views. we are never going to know exactly what happened for another 20 30m years and then people will still have different views.

Yea, obfuscaters will obfuscate.
We know that.

A101 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think it's a complex issue with many facets and viewpoints. The best most of us can do, is narrow it down to the factors we think were most significant. Yourself included.

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

I agree with @Avatar2go it is complex issue and involved more than just the US.

The french Russia China all who opposed had their own interests to do so. looking at it from hindsight is easy than being at the table with conflicting views. we are never going to know exactly what happened for another 20 30m years and then people will still have different views.

I assume you mean 20-30 years.

Personally I think that is optimistic.

I suspect much will never see light of day.

A lot more will only see light of day when we are all dead and buried.

You refer to hindsight, but my view was that much of this was known at the time, but those at the top kept the rest of us in the dark, and are still doing so.

A101 wrote:

wingman wrote:

A101 wrote:

All your posts have been with the benefit of hindsight, which is different from being on the ground at the time. How many Americans at the time would have even heard of PNAC unless they stumbled on the articles in the WP or their web site, which in the late 1990's was still not a dominate feature for most people

As mentioned by someone else it was the media who also made a big contribution for the push to do something about Hussein in the post 911 world

But one obvious benefit of hindsight is that we use it to cast historical judgment on the "deciders". In this case the deciders lose and it's not really a contest the way you're arguing. We knew 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, and I'm sure when the intel gets released long after I'm dead we'll know that American intelligence could trace the origins of the attack deep inside of the Saudi establishment, we knew that Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It was a scam. No nukes found, no connection to 9-11 found, $2.5T pissed away, tens of thousands dead and and wounded military casualties. We know all of these things with hindsight and the conclusions are ironclad. Bush Jr. didn't really have a clue was what going on, Cheney and hs oil pals laughed all the way to the bank, Rummy and Wolfie got their rocks off and we all had to eat freedom fries instead of french fries for three years. The french fries thing was really irksome to be honest. I like my fries french.

All well and good to argue in hindsight, but place yourself in the shoes of Bush,Blair and Howard at the time. It’s a judgement call and one with hindsight they got wrong.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make

Seems excessively generous.

A judgement call means you made a decision for the right reasons and it went wrong.

Deciding what you were going to do, then selling it to the public and their representatives based on a skewing of the facts to justify the decision you had already made doesn't really count.

In my view, that is closer to reality.

A101 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think it's a complex issue with many facets and viewpoints. The best most of us can do, is narrow it down to the factors we think were most significant. Yourself included.

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

I agree with @Avatar2go it is complex issue and involved more than just the US.

The french Russia China all who opposed had their own interests to do so. looking at it from hindsight is easy than being at the table with conflicting views. we are never going to know exactly what happened for another 20 30m years and then people will still have different views.

Of course, how could I forget, it was all the fault of those back stabbing French.

Best regards,
Jonas

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

A101 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I don't accept being lectured by you.
And I believe saying " it's a complex issue...." is a copout.
It's not complex, unless one enmeshes the decision to go to war with the selling of the war.

Two different things.

I agree with @Avatar2go it is complex issue and involved more than just the US.

The french Russia China all who opposed had their own interests to do so. looking at it from hindsight is easy than being at the table with conflicting views. we are never going to know exactly what happened for another 20 30m years and then people will still have different views.

Of course, how could I forget, it was all the fault of those back stabbing French.

Best regards,
Jonas

Perhaps they were not convinced about the WMD.

bennett123 wrote:

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

A101 wrote:

I agree with @Avatar2go it is complex issue and involved more than just the US.

The french Russia China all who opposed had their own interests to do so. looking at it from hindsight is easy than being at the table with conflicting views. we are never going to know exactly what happened for another 20 30m years and then people will still have different views.

Of course, how could I forget, it was all the fault of those back stabbing French.

Best regards,
Jonas

Perhaps they were not convinced about the WMD.

To me WMD was the biggest issue of the campaign, how they integrated nuclear weapons as the only WMD after he used WMD's on the Kurds, in time it would be interesting to know who came up with that narrative for the media blitz, to simply WMD's versus specific WMD's as if none were in-country and had been used.
I guess lessons were learned as the Syrian campaign seemed to have gone differently in relation to WMD's versus poison gas.

A101 wrote:

wingman wrote:

A101 wrote:

All your posts have been with the benefit of hindsight, which is different from being on the ground at the time. How many Americans at the time would have even heard of PNAC unless they stumbled on the articles in the WP or their web site, which in the late 1990's was still not a dominate feature for most people

As mentioned by someone else it was the media who also made a big contribution for the push to do something about Hussein in the post 911 world

But one obvious benefit of hindsight is that we use it to cast historical judgment on the "deciders". In this case the deciders lose and it's not really a contest the way you're arguing. We knew 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, and I'm sure when the intel gets released long after I'm dead we'll know that American intelligence could trace the origins of the attack deep inside of the Saudi establishment, we knew that Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It was a scam. No nukes found, no connection to 9-11 found, $2.5T pissed away, tens of thousands dead and and wounded military casualties. We know all of these things with hindsight and the conclusions are ironclad. Bush Jr. didn't really have a clue was what going on, Cheney and hs oil pals laughed all the way to the bank, Rummy and Wolfie got their rocks off and we all had to eat freedom fries instead of french fries for three years. The french fries thing was really irksome to be honest. I like my fries french.

All well and good to argue in hindsight, but place yourself in the shoes of Bush,Blair and Howard at the time. It’s a judgement call and one with hindsight they got wrong.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make

I disagree. Almost everything we know now, we knew in 2002. We knew there wasn’t compelling evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. None was presented. There still hasn’t been. “The WMD” were speculated about, but never found. Nothing changed there either.

And even if he had WMD, it would not have justified the invasion. Britain has WMD. France has them. We didn’t bomb them.

LCDFlight wrote:

A101 wrote:

wingman wrote:

But one obvious benefit of hindsight is that we use it to cast historical judgment on the "deciders". In this case the deciders lose and it's not really a contest the way you're arguing. We knew 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis, and I'm sure when the intel gets released long after I'm dead we'll know that American intelligence could trace the origins of the attack deep inside of the Saudi establishment, we knew that Bin Laden was being harbored by the Taliban and that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. It was a scam. No nukes found, no connection to 9-11 found, $2.5T pissed away, tens of thousands dead and and wounded military casualties. We know all of these things with hindsight and the conclusions are ironclad. Bush Jr. didn't really have a clue was what going on, Cheney and hs oil pals laughed all the way to the bank, Rummy and Wolfie got their rocks off and we all had to eat freedom fries instead of french fries for three years. The french fries thing was really irksome to be honest. I like my fries french.

All well and good to argue in hindsight, but place yourself in the shoes of Bush,Blair and Howard at the time. It’s a judgement call and one with hindsight they got wrong.

That’s the only point I’m trying to make

I disagree. Almost everything we know now, we knew in 2002. We knew there wasn’t compelling evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11. None was presented. There still hasn’t been. “The WMD” were speculated about, but never found. Nothing changed there either.

And even if he had WMD, it would not have justified the invasion. Britain has WMD. France has them. We didn’t bomb them.

You don’t see a difference between UK and France versus Iraq? Really?

Amazing some people on here trying to defend this invasion.

I used to travel through Atlanta airport and I would see loads of soldiers travelling to Iraq and I felt sorry for them. Imagine getting horribly maimed or killed or even having to live knowing that you’ve killed people all for nothing.

Duped by your own goverment

mad99 wrote:

Amazing some people on here trying to defend this invasion.

I have not seen anyone defending the invasion, just different opinions

mad99 wrote:

I used to travel through Atlanta airport and I would see loads of soldiers travelling to Iraq and I felt sorry for them. Imagine getting horribly maimed or killed or even having to live knowing that you’ve killed people all for nothing.

Those are the risks when you join

mad99 wrote:

Duped by your own goverment

No one duped it’s a voluntary process to join.

One of the worst legacies of the Invasion of Iraq was the destruction of the day to day working government. Many Iraqis citizens ransacked, looted government offices. bureaucrats were killed or chased out due to connections to Saddam Hussein who many Iraqis hated but couldn't opposes and wanting money, something they could sell to reduce their poverty. Without a functioning government, the US and allies in Iraq had to rebuild but that was difficult as any invader would face.

Why did we invade Iraq ? The cover was WMD's, developing nuclear weapons, being anti-Israel, keep them from being friendly with Russia, but more likely to get back 'Western' government and private oil company's control of the oil there. If they didn't have oil, we wouldn't have cared.

One of the biggest losers besides the US Taxpayers and our soldiers lives was the Kurds. The Kurds backed the Invasion hoping with SH deposed they could seek an Independent state in Northern Iraq (as well as parts of Turkey, Iran). Of course due to pressure from Turkey and other factors, we screwed the Kurds.

In the end, it was a massive failure, causing more hate in the world, especially from the Islamic world, toward the USA.

A101 wrote:

mad99 wrote:

Amazing some people on here trying to defend this invasion.

I have not seen anyone defending the invasion, just different opinions

mad99 wrote:

I used to travel through Atlanta airport and I would see loads of soldiers travelling to Iraq and I felt sorry for them. Imagine getting horribly maimed or killed or even having to live knowing that you’ve killed people all for nothing.

Those are the risks when you join

mad99 wrote:

Duped by your own goverment

No one duped it’s a voluntary process to join.

Republicans in power at the time lied about why we needed regime change in Iraq. WMDs and 9/11 and the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud. Go get them there before they get us here. We were lied to. Everyone who opposed the war were unpatriotic and were spitting on the graves of those who died on 9/11. When soldiers came back and told us there were no WMDs and the people of Iraq didn't greet us as liberators, we knew for certain we had been lied to. Some people still felt they had to support the war out of obligation. Gotta support our troops. Defend freedom and all that.

We were lied to. Soldiers confirmed it.

There were many people in the U.S. who stood against the propaganda coming from Cheney/Bush. Unfortunately it was not enough. I am so proud I stood against this unlawful invasion that republicans marketed. It was such an awful time for so many people under Cheney/Bush and Republicans. Things had not been so bad since the 1980s and Reagan in the U.S. I was so grateful for Obama.

This video shows the truth of what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc were planning with Iraq. In reality it should have led to war crime prosecutions.

Wesley Clark was one of the highest ranking US Army officers, former Supreme Commander of NATO, so a source who would know the truth of the Pentagon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Knt3rKTqCk

Just a few days after the WTC Attacks in 2001 and Clark confirms a decision had already been made to invade Iraq. Everything in 2002 and early 2003, the "WMD" scare and talks about weapons inspectors and UN votes was just a smokescreen to justify an already planned invasion. Bush, Cheney and co made their minds up early and weren't going to be swayed.

By October 2001 a decision had already been made to "take out" 7 countries in 5 years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Iraq was invaded in 2003, Syria was the product of US military intervention in the 2010s, Lebanon was invaded by Israel in 2006, Libya was attacked in 2011, Somalia and Sudan have been subject to US drone attacks and special forces/CIA paramilitary operations, and the US has always had a deep seated goal to overthrow Iran.

As various administrations have come through the Pentagon the plan has swayed back and forth (Obama signed the Nuclear deal with Iran, Trump ripped it up and assassinated an Iranian General in a drone strike). The end result is, after 20 years of US war and blundering in the Middle East the region has turned toward China to be the regional powerbroker, with the Saudi-Iran resumption of diplomatic relations brokered by China a very significant step for China to establish itself as a more peaceful, diplomatic and fair negotiator than the Americans.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

The end result is, after 20 years of US war and blundering in the Middle East the region has turned toward China to be the regional powerbroker, with the Saudi-Iran resumption of diplomatic relations brokered by China a very significant step for China to establish itself as a more peaceful, diplomatic and fair negotiator than the Americans.

If that’s the case, then why isn't China making progress with ending the war in Ukraine? They keep presenting themselves as “fair” and “neutral”, but they’ve double-downed taking Russia’s side throughout this whole ordeal. Hardly the look of a “fair negotiator”.

If nothing else, this thread shows that conspiracy theories about the Iraq war are still alive and well. Probably always will be.

It was not done for oil, and mistakes and confirmation bias in assessment, are not preplanned lies. No serious historical scholar claims these things, nor is there any evidence to support them.

It can be understood in terms of the varying goals of all the participants, and how those evolved over time. As well as serious errors in evaluation, assessment, and expectations. As well as events and developments that no one foresaw, nor could foresee.

It was an extreme high-risk gamble, for which the Bush administration thought they could beat the house, as well as long established tradition in the region. But they lost the gamble and it turned into a painful period in Western & Iraqi history.

Avatar2go wrote:

If nothing else, this thread shows that conspiracy theories about the Iraq war are still alive and well. Probably always will be.

It was not done for oil, and mistakes and confirmation bias in assessment, are not preplanned lies. No serious historical scholar claims these things, nor is there any evidence to support them.

It can be understood in terms of the varying goals of all the participants, and how those evolved over time. As well as serious errors in evaluation, assessment, and expectations. As well as events and developments that no one foresaw, nor could foresee.

It was an extreme high-risk gamble, for which the Bush administration thought they could beat the house, as well as long established tradition in the region. But they lost the gamble and it turned into a painful period in Western & Iraqi history.

If nothing else, this thread shows that at least one person here remains in deep denial.

If you think the decision to invade Iraq wasn't made for hidden (from the public) reasons (aka preplanned lies), you're the one who is buying into conspiracy theories: the theories that were sold to you and people like you by George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz , Bill Crystal, Robert Kagan et al.

Try to open your mind to the fact that virtually all neutral historians are in complete agreement that PNAC was behind the decision to go to war and that Israel was behind PNAC. Israel was later behind the 'think tank', aka lobbying group Foreign Policy Initiative which continued lobbying for war with Iran after the Iraq war went sour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

Nothing occurred in Iraq that couldn't be foreseen by anyone with a clear head and knowledge of the region - such as the CIA who had to be ordered to go along, or such as General Eric Shinseki who was sacked after he testified before congress that the plan underestimated the mission and a couple of hundred thousand more troops were needed.

Your scholar's tone is far out of place when coupled with the message you're trying to sell.

Vintage wrote:

If nothing else, this thread shows that at least one person here remains in deep denial.

If you think the decision to invade Iraq wasn't made for hidden (from the public) reasons (aka preplanned lies), you're the one who is buying into conspiracy theories: the theories that were sold to you and people like you by George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz , Bill Crystal, Robert Kagan et al.

Try to open your mind to the fact that virtually all neutral historians are in complete agreement that PNAC was behind the decision to go to war and that Israel was behind PNAC. Israel was later behind the 'think tank', aka lobbying group Foreign Policy Initiative which continued lobbying for war with Iran after the Iraq war went sour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

Nothing occurred in Iraq that couldn't be foreseen by anyone with a clear head and knowledge of the region - such as the CIA who had to be ordered to go along, or such as General Eric Shinseki who was sacked after he testified before congress that the plan underestimated the mission and a couple of hundred thousand more troops were needed.

Your scholar's tone is far out of place when coupled with the message you're trying to sell.

To be honest, despite having read extensively on the subject, I had never heard of the PNAC theory until your posts here. I'm willing to allow they played a role in supporting the war. But am still doubtful that this was all a grand conspiracy. For that, there remains no evidence that I can see.

Much more likely, is that they all drank the same Kool aid, and thus all were susceptible to the same confirmation bias, by only looking at the evidence that supported their case.

The evidence for this, is their absolute conviction that they were both correct and successful, as exemplified by the infamous "Mission Accomplished" stage show. I don't think they would have done that if they didn't believe in their own narrative. It would make no sense to put on that show, knowing as you claim that it was about to blow up. They set themselves up for a major fall.

I think the reality is that intelligence is a murky game, for which only a fraction of the gathered information is actually valid. In scientific terms, the aliasing rate is very high. It all has to be vetted over a long period of sampling to resolve the signal from the noise.

In addition, someone is always willing to sell you the information you want to hear. So that has to be presumed as a motivation, until you can show that the information is actually correct. Same thing happened with the Steele dossier.

In this case, those checks did not happen. Instead the information that supported the case for invasion, was accepted, and given to Colin Powell to present, as the honest broker and the face of the US. As Powell himself said, he looked the CIA director in the eye, and said give me your absolute assurance that this information is correct. He got that assurance, but it was all Kool aid, not truth.

The rest is history, we all know what happened afterwards. And it aligns with the Kool aid theory, as they initially were in denial about the unrest that was developing. Thus we got the Donald Rumsfeld haiku about "known knowns", and descriptions of the media coverage as "willy nilly", and Condoleezza Rice asking what would coverage of post-conflict Germany and Japan have been like with a 24/7 news cycle?

All of which were valid points, but still ultimately a failure to recognize what was happening. A further case of confirmation bias. That really didn't change until they started having to resume security & combat operations. At that point, it couldn't be denied any longer. Mission not so accomplished.

If they were really that inept, perhaps we should have taken the guns away and given them a box of crayons.

Avatar2go wrote:

Vintage wrote:

If nothing else, this thread shows that at least one person here remains in deep denial.

If you think the decision to invade Iraq wasn't made for hidden (from the public) reasons (aka preplanned lies), you're the one who is buying into conspiracy theories: the theories that were sold to you and people like you by George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz , Bill Crystal, Robert Kagan et al.

Try to open your mind to the fact that virtually all neutral historians are in complete agreement that PNAC was behind the decision to go to war and that Israel was behind PNAC. Israel was later behind the 'think tank', aka lobbying group Foreign Policy Initiative which continued lobbying for war with Iran after the Iraq war went sour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative

Nothing occurred in Iraq that couldn't be foreseen by anyone with a clear head and knowledge of the region - such as the CIA who had to be ordered to go along, or such as General Eric Shinseki who was sacked after he testified before congress that the plan underestimated the mission and a couple of hundred thousand more troops were needed.

Your scholar's tone is far out of place when coupled with the message you're trying to sell.

To be honest, despite having read extensively on the subject, I had never heard of the PNAC theory until your posts here. I'm willing to allow they played a role in supporting the war. But am still doubtful that this was all a grand conspiracy. For that, there remains no evidence that I can see.

Much more likely, is that they all drank the same Kool aid, and thus all were susceptible to the same confirmation bias, by only looking at the evidence that supported their case.

The evidence for this, is their absolute conviction that they were both correct and successful, as exemplified by the infamous "Mission Accomplished" stage show. I don't think they would have done that if they didn't believe in their own narrative. It would make no sense to put on that show, knowing as you claim that it was about to blow up. They set themselves up for a major fall.

I think the reality is that intelligence is a murky game, for which only a fraction of the gathered information is actually valid. In scientific terms, the aliasing rate is very high. It all has to be vetted over a long period of sampling to resolve the signal from the noise.

In addition, someone is always willing to sell you the information you want to hear. So that has to be presumed as a motivation, until you can show that the information is actually correct. Same thing happened with the Steele dossier.

In this case, those checks did not happen. Instead the information that supported the case for invasion, was accepted, and given to Colin Powell to present, as the honest broker and the face of the US. As Powell himself said, he looked the CIA director in the eye, and said give me your absolute assurance that this information is correct. He got that assurance, but it was all Kool aid, not truth.

The rest is history, we all know what happened afterwards. And it aligns with the Kool aid theory, as they initially were in denial about the unrest that was developing. Thus we got the Donald Rumsfeld haiku about "known knowns", and descriptions of the media coverage as "willy nilly", and Condoleezza Rice asking what would coverage of post-conflict Germany and Japan have been like with a 24/7 news cycle?

All of which were valid points, but still ultimately a failure to recognize what was happening. A further case of confirmation bias. That really didn't change until they started having to resume security & combat operations. At that point, it couldn't be denied any longer. Mission not so accomplished.

If they really believe what they are saying then it is always curious that the evidence is always on a need to know basis.

It is always a case that we are expected to simply take their word for it.

bennett123 wrote:

If they really believe what they are saying then it is always curious that the evidence is always on a need to know basis.

It is always a case that we are expected to simply take their word for it.

Once again, that is the nature of intelligence. If everyone knew the information and could evaluate for themselves, it wouldn't be intelligence.

The reality is that intelligence is a vulnerable area in government. Thus has it ever been, and so shall it always be. We rely on the agencies to evaluate properly and not make mistakes. But the nature of the work is that mistakes are always possible, if not probable. It's like anything else with inherently low reliability. A breakdown is not a question of if, but when.

Increasingly these agencies are using the blue team, red team approach. Each team is charged with proving or disproving the information, and the assessment must consider both bodies of evidence. That is about the best we can do, to avoid mistakes. But is still not assured.

Avatar2go wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

If they really believe what they are saying then it is always curious that the evidence is always on a need to know basis.

It is always a case that we are expected to simply take their word for it.

Once again, that is the nature of intelligence. If everyone knew the information and could evaluate for themselves, it wouldn't be intelligence.

The reality is that intelligence is a vulnerable area in government. Thus has it ever been, and so shall it always be. We rely on the agencies to evaluate properly and not make mistakes. But the nature of the work is that mistakes are always possible, if not probable. It's like anything else with inherently low reliability. A breakdown is not a question of if, but when.

Increasingly these agencies are using the blue team, red team approach. Each team is charged with proving or disproving the information, and the assessment must consider both bodies of evidence. That is about the best we can do, to avoid mistakes. But is still not assured.

IMO, the public knew the information, (the bits we were told) many were not convinced at the time.

We were basically patted on the head and told not to worry because they knew better.

Avatar2go wrote:

To be honest, despite having read extensively on the subject, I had never heard of the PNAC theory until your posts here. I'm willing to allow they played a role in supporting the war. But am still doubtful that this was all a grand conspiracy. For that, there remains no evidence that I can see.

That is unbelievable knowing that you have posted so impressively on many disparate subjects here, always with a deep knowledge of subject matter. You'll remember that I sent you a PM in the past complementing you on your seemingly encyclopedic knowledge. If you never heard of PNAC, I suspect that you are the only poster here that hasn't heard of them, and I invite any such persons to speak up if they exist (aside of A101).

You never heard of the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter demanding President Clinton undertake the “removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime”?
That's also hard to believe. Of 18 signatories to that letter, 11 later held positions in President Bush's administration:
Elliott Abrams,
Richard Armitage,
John R. Bolton,
Paula Dobriansky,
Francis Fukuyama,
Zalmay Khalilzad,
Richard Perle,
Peter W. Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz, and
Robert B. Zoellick.

That topic got a lot of coverage.

Until this last post of yours I was unaware that AIPAC had a program to whitewash the PNAC / Israeli involvement in the Bush administration's war. But from now on I will watch for these kind of denials and use them to make known what the Israel lobby wants to hide.

I did know that CBS's 60 minutes had pulled it's episode where it outlined the runup to the war and brought PNAC front and center with videos of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz including the time and places of the meetings. But now it seems a much broader effort to spin the story.

Vintage wrote:

That is unbelievable knowing that you have posted so impressively on many disparate subjects here, always with a deep knowledge of subject matter. You'll remember that I sent you a PM in the past complementing you on your seemingly encyclopedic knowledge. If you never heard of PNAC, I suspect that you are the only poster here that hasn't heard of them, and I invite any such persons to speak up if they exist (aside of A101).

You never heard of the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter demanding President Clinton undertake the “removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime”?
That's also hard to believe. Of 18 signatories to that letter, 11 later held positions in President Bush's administration:
Elliott Abrams,
Richard Armitage,
John R. Bolton,
Paula Dobriansky,
Francis Fukuyama,
Zalmay Khalilzad,
Richard Perle,
Peter W. Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz, and
Robert B. Zoellick.

That topic got a lot of coverage.

Until this last post of yours I was unaware that AIPAC had a program to whitewash the PNAC / Israeli involvement in the Bush administration's war. But from now on I will watch for these kind of denials and use them to make known what the Israel lobby wants to hide.

I did know that CBS's 60 minutes had pulled it's episode where it outlined the runup to the war and brought PNAC front and center with videos of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz including the time and places of the meetings. But now it seems a much broader effort to spin the story.

To clarify, I did know about PNAC, I just had not read that there was an organized conspiracy among them to deceive the public. Based on the many members you have listed, they sound like they all have similar political views, and they all would have advocated for the war, based on that alone.

Paul Wolfowitz for example, openly said that post-war Iraq would be like post-war France. A statement which was ridiculous, in hindsight. So was he lying to force the West into a war, knowing it would be a disaster, or did he really convince himself that this was true, such that he truly expected that outcome? I would say it was the latter.

This is the difference between leaders who know they are grifting, as opposed to those that totally buy into their own narrative. Again I would say the Bush administration fell into the latter category, based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

After the Gulf War, many critics claimed that Bush Sr had erred in not invading Iraq and removing Saddam. That would include many on your lists, but it certainly was not exclusive to them. Yet after the Iraq war, that criticism evaporated, for obvious reasons.

But it's something people will debate forever, I'm sure. I personally subscribe to Hanlon's law:

Never ascribe to malice, that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

Avatar2go wrote:

To clarify, I did know about PNAC, I just had not read that there was an organized conspiracy among them to deceive the public. Based on the many members you have listed, they sound like they all have similar political views, and they all would have advocated for the war, based on that alone.

How could you know about PNAC without knowing it's purpose? You continue to write as if you have no idea who the people that were members of PNAC were or what PNAC's purpose was. How could the idea of a organization who's purpose was to induce the United States to go to war, not pique your interest then or now?

Your "Never ascribe to malice" ignores the fact that this group's publicly stated intention was to involve the US in multiple wars. It's as if you are intentionally avoiding understanding the obvious - or you want to influence others to not see what is written in black and white so clearly in so many places.

I have to ask, have you ever donated money to CAMERA or AIPAC?

Vintage wrote:

How could you know about PNAC without knowing it's purpose? You continue to write as if you have no idea who the people that were members of PNAC were or what PNAC's purpose was. How could the idea of a organization who's purpose was to induce the United States to go to war, not pique your interest then or now?

Your "Never ascribe to malice" ignores the fact that this group's publicly stated intention was to involve the US in multiple wars. It's as if you are intentionally avoiding understanding the obvious - or you want to influence others to not see what is written in black and white so clearly in so many places.

I have to ask, have you ever donated money to CAMERA or AIPAC?

As I stated, there are some who hold the conspiracy view, but a conspiracy is not required for that group (or others) to advocate for removing Saddam. There were many critics of Bush Sr who said the same.

Some political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Purposes "received high level positions in the Bush administration," but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy."

I think you get into trouble when you start insisting that conspiracy is the only explanation. And further, when I disagree with you, you start implying that I am part of the conspiracy. Which is plainly not true as I have criticized those decisions here. But that demonstrates a conspiracy-centric point of view.

The reality is, plenty of people and organizations over the years, have advocated for policies that turn out to be wrong. We see that ongoing today as well. There will never be a time when that isn't the case. But it doesn't necessarily mean that these people are all conspirators, plotting to deceive everyone. Sometimes people are just wrong.

Avatar2go wrote:

Vintage wrote:

How could you know about PNAC without knowing it's purpose? You continue to write as if you have no idea who the people that were members of PNAC were or what PNAC's purpose was. How could the idea of a organization who's purpose was to induce the United States to go to war, not pique your interest then or now?

Your "Never ascribe to malice" ignores the fact that this group's publicly stated intention was to involve the US in multiple wars. It's as if you are intentionally avoiding understanding the obvious - or you want to influence others to not see what is written in black and white so clearly in so many places.

I have to ask, have you ever donated money to CAMERA or AIPAC?

As I stated, there are some who hold the conspiracy view, but a conspiracy is not required for that group (or others) to advocate for removing Saddam. There were many critics of Bush Sr who said the same.

Some political scientists, historians, and other academics have been critical of many of these claims. Donald E. Abelson has written that scholars studying "PNAC's ascendancy" in the political arena "cannot possibly overlook the fact" that several of the signatories to PNAC's Statement of Purposes "received high level positions in the Bush administration," but that acknowledging these facts "is a far cry from making the claim that the institute was the architect of Bush's foreign policy."

I think you get into trouble when you start insisting that conspiracy is the only explanation. And further, when I disagree with you, you start implying that I am part of the conspiracy. Which is plainly not true as I have criticized those decisions here. But that demonstrates a conspiracy-centric point of view.

The reality is, plenty of people and organizations over the years, have advocated for policies that turn out to be wrong. We see that ongoing today as well. There will never be a time when that isn't the case. But it doesn't necessarily mean that these people are all conspirators, plotting to deceive everyone. Sometimes people are just wrong.

The 'conspiricy theory' is the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld version of events. The PNAC plan was quite public all along.

TheSonntag wrote:

The biggest issue: The US invaded a souvereign country. This, unfortunately, set the standard and precedence for states like Russia. It brought the illegal invasion back on the table. The US, so to speak, set the axe to the UN charta.

This is very unfortunate since the US still are advocate for democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and personal freedom. Therefore, there is still a difference between the west und autocratic states, but we kind of lost our "moral" justification. This hurts for decades to come.

Well put. But not just the US, there were a few countries who marched into Iraq alongside them. In my county we had a pathetic little man who was leader of the opposition who said that our soldiers should "probably" be marching into Iraq alongside the US, not because the premise of the war was correct, but to help our relationship with the US. Thankfully the bloke seems to have since come to his senses and seems much wiser when it comes to approaching AUKUS and 'containing China'.

mxaxai wrote:

Blair, Bush and others involved should have been charged in court for what they did to Iraq and their own countries.

This is what is just incredible to me; the lack of accountability for those at the top who made such reckless decisions. More concerningly the lack legal of mechanisms in place to hold people in power to account when they get such terrible decisions wrong. If you get a decision as big/important as sending your country to war wrong, you should be jailed for that for a decently long term. That is not a decision that should be able to be messed up.

You'd attract a far better caliber of politicians to the top job if prospective Prime-Ministers/Presidents knew that they could spend the rest of their lives in jail if they messed up badly on something like handling COVID or sending their country to war.

seb146 wrote:

Of 900 inspections at 500 different sites, they found nothing. That's why we went to war: nothing.

It's the cold hard truth which people can't just try and dance around.

Newark727 wrote:

-Sanctions on Iraq being undermined by third parties. Well, China is undermining sanctions on North Korea, Russia is undermining sanctions on Iran, and pretty much everybody is undermining sanctions on Cuba, but that doesn't make an affirmative case for starting a war with any of them.

Sanctions are always undermined by someone - it's fairly basic economics. When sanctions make a product scarce in one locations, arbitrageurs will step in to try and meet the demand.

AirbusCheerlead wrote:

Of course, how could I forget, it was all the fault of those back stabbing French.

Best regards,
Jonas

I'm impressed at how often the trope is brought up.

ltbewr wrote:

One of the worst legacies of the Invasion of Iraq was the destruction of the day to day working government. Many Iraqis citizens ransacked, looted government offices. bureaucrats were killed or chased out due to connections to Saddam Hussein who many Iraqis hated but couldn't opposes and wanting money, something they could sell to reduce their poverty. Without a functioning government, the US and allies in Iraq had to rebuild but that was difficult as any invader would face.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a terrible idea when trying to maintain rule of law. I listened to a Podcast from Rory Stewart recently who was put into place as the Vice-Governor of an Iraqi province post-invasion. He mentioned that the Provisional Authority was more focused on dismantling local trade unions (presumably with the intention of turning Iraq into some neo-liberal paradise) than basic stuff like making sure that the electricity worked, which I feel says a lot.

One thing I've always got the impression of is that a lot of people in the west probably didn't appreciate how "westernized"/developed much of Iraq was at the time? Thus had the outlook whereby destruction of infrastructure was often seen as issues that would be relatively easily fixed/replaceable. It's hard to articulate this well.

zkojq wrote:

If you get a decision as big/important as sending your country to war wrong, you should be jailed for that for a decently long term. That is not a decision that should be able to be messed up.
and:
You'd attract a far better caliber of politicians to the top and others job if prospective Prime-Ministers/Presidents knew that they could spend the rest of their lives in jail if they messed up badly

There are two things here that need to be addressed:

Threatening heads of state with criminal prosecution is a bad idea, that would be a great way to insure the country will soon have its government overthrown and have a current leader become a leader for life. Nobody should be prosecuted for an honest mistake, and it wasn't honest mistakes that brought the US into invading Iraq.

How can I stress this enough? My prior posts don't seem to be getting through.

The Bush inner circle, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfolitz, Fife and others knowingly sold that war on false pretenses. They knew Saddam had nothing to do with AQ, They had been told by the CIA and the UN inspectors that Saddam had no nuke program, the reasons given for the war were a fraud from day one!

They had a plan to conquer the entire Middle East and Iraq was to only be the first step!!

zkojq wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Of 900 inspections at 500 different sites, they found nothing. That's why we went to war: nothing.

It's the cold hard truth which people can't just try and dance around.

Wrong! We went to war to conquer the Middle East; WMD's were a strawman!!!