Question- Would Shrub have gotten his "Iraq War" if he didn't lie?

[cthrumatrix]

This is the question that I get after reading the O'neill book. SHrub had a plan to go to war and divvy the oil from day 10 in his first NSC meeting...we now know that as a FACT.

SO...if this is fact...why didn't he share this day ten? We know that Rummy was looking for an "incident" which could spark a "war" to accomplish shrub's PNAC goal.

Obviuosly, he can't have it both ways...was it regime change or not? If so...why did you not go to the UN and to America with this?

Answer: he could not get it done. That's why Rummy was looking for a trigger incident....so he HAD TO LIE with WMD accusations.

So could he have gotten his war approved w/o lying?

[aquart]

1. No. It goes against our self image.

WE don't attack sovereign nations which haven't attacked us. WE are the boyscouts, the defenders of right and freedom.

Of course they had to lie. The question Americans need to ask, is how badly they wanted that perfect excuse to go to war. What were they willing to do for it?

On 9/11, I said Reichstag. I wasn't sure I believed it, but I said it. Now, I believe it.

[Military Brat]

2. No, he could not. Fear was the factor, not humanitarian reasons

That's the way they're trying to spin it now, that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people.

I really really wish I had kept the link, but I remember reading about a poll that was taken long before this became an issue, and Americans were absolutely against an invasion of Iraq merely to remove Saddam because of his despotism and cruelty.

Look at the crap flung at Clinton for his war to remove Milosovec. Look at how the people of Kosovo adore Clinton. Contrast that with bush and the anger of the Iraqis now, and the quagmire we're in.

Honesty is still the best policy.

[Wickerman]

5. a sizable number of Americans were actually looking to ease sanctions

on edit - I didn't intend to write this as a reply to the previous post - sorry - I should know how to not do that. :eyes:

because we recognized the damage they were doing to the citizens of Iraq. Saddam was well-contained, and it was worth exploring other methods of continuing to contain him that didn't involve the blockade of medical supplies and foodstuffs to the populace. Bush* took all that discussion off the table by re-demonizing Saddam for ancient history and faulty intelligence (as we now know).

Worse than any of that, by Bush*, for whatever reasons, focusing on Saddam, we have made no progress, and perhaps slide downhill, in the struggle to protect ourselves from a possible repeat of terror events like S-11.

[Columbia]

9. How would you do that?

We did not blockade the medical supplies and food to the populace, Saddam did. He withheld these supplies to garner international support to lift sanctions. Would you have appeased him by lifting the sanctions?

[MrSlayer]

3. Nope, not a chance.

This is a point I keep trying to impress on these war supporters. If this administration had gone to the UN and said "We want to take Saddam out, he's a bad guy." they would have been laughed out of the building because you simply can't invade sovereign nations for no reason other than dislike of the leader. If that were the case most of the world would invade us.

[cthrumatrix]

4. thank you...I agree whole heartedly -- so why can't America wake-up?

We were lied to...we were manipulated and they let it go?

[cthrumatrix]

6. Therefore....doesn't this make this a PNAC agenda action...w/o debate

[Cat Atomic]

7. Not a chance. The only proof you need is to listen to

them talk about how arabs "only understand force", or how they're "stuck in the middle ages", or how we should just "nuke those towelheads".

Are those the sorts of people that would be willing to fight to liberate an arab country? Certainly not. All that bullshit about liberating the oppressed Iraqi people is a joke and they know it- even if they don't admit it to themselves.

[cthrumatrix]

8. what percent of repugs do you think see this LIE and are disgusted

I see alot of people that just don't have the facts layed out.

IF and when a Dem candidate has months to share that this war was "a choice" and talked about for 8 months before 911...which Iraq has no connection...maybe they will wake up.