Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

[LargoWinch]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

So, were you being intellectually naive or were you yourself playing the iTulip members in hopes of sparking another tired argument about the Bush administration (an administration that wasn't much liked by most of the conservatives on this site by the way, but do we really need to re-hash this WMD stuff ad naseum)?

I think this discussion is more relevant than ever. After all, aren't we still at war?

Secondly, this thread already generated superb point of views; simply look at ASH and Medved posts.

[gnk]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I am putting this in the news section as opposed to "Rant and Rave" because I believe that this needs to be discussed -- as to how we the people in the US are manipulated into supporting wrong -- I would go so far as to say evil - policies -- If we as a group do not discuss this honestly, and become fragmented over political partisanship and bickering, then we as a group deserve all that is coming down the pike at us,

This is a blog post from Washington's blog, and I am posting it in full.



And please do click on the last this is why.

I wrote this elsewhere on another message board:

I will play devil's advocate here and say that the Invasion of Iraq, when viewed in the greater scheme of things, may have been worthwile, the jury is still out.

Iraq holds the second largest proven oil reserves in the world - over 100 billion barrels. It also has over 100 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and are located in an extremely important geopolitical area of the world - between the Persian Gulf energy supplies and the Caspian Sea Basin - another area rich in energy resources. Under the Saddam Hussein regime, and the then current framework of UN sanctions, Iraq was not performing at maximum oil production. And to encourage Iraq to produce more would in effect benefit Saddam Hussein - a man that flaunted the "rules" of International behavior.

I am a believer in Peak Oil - and what I mean by that is that we are in an era where the easy to get cheap oil is becoming increasingly scarce. Nonetheless, with China and India's ascension into the global economy, and oil producing regions' increasing consumption of their own oil, production will likely have difficulties in the future with keeping up with demand.

Dick Cheney, as CEO of Haliburton alluded to this in his speech to the London Petroleum Institute in 1999:

"From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously and I’ll talk a little later on about gas, but obviously for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you’ve got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you’ve got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is true for companies as well in the broader economic sense as it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It’s like making one hundred per cent interest discovery in another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year.
For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?
Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

"Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature. We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here. Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality. The degree of government involvement also makes oil a unique commodity. This is true in both the overwhelming control of oil resources by national oil companies and governments as well as in the consuming nations where oil products are heavily taxed and regulated. "
source: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/559


Now let's think this through. If in 1999, they believed that oil demand would increase by such that we need 50 million barrels a day by 2010 (it didn't and won't IMHO due to the depression.) Where would they get that extra production? Obviously from many ongoing discoveries... but one glaring area was of course, Iraq.

When oil production dips below demand, prices skyrocket. Who get's hurt? The entire global economy. And the US, with 5% of the world's population that consumes 25% of the world's annual production, would get hurt the most. This is a serious concern. Such an oil shock would affect the US and world economy by trillions of dollars in productivity and tens of trillions in paper wealth - much more in my opinion, than even the projected cost of the war.

Understand this - that all the numbers we see when we look at balance sheets of banks, corporate profits, and mostly, projected GDP growth of nations - all that is really dependent on cheap and abundant energy. Whereas energy is real, money is merely an abstraction that represents energy. Without cheap energy, every company's budget and revenue expectations collapse. Economies suffer, global trade contracts.

So, did the US go into Iraq to merely benefit a few oil execs and defense contractors? That's a simplistic argument IMHO - one that I used to believe in until I started studying the peak oil view, and how important oil is to our modern economy. My view now is that they did it to stave off an upcoming catastrophic hit to the world economy caused by a severe oil shock.

Did it work? Will it work?

It's too early to tell.

[Shakespear]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

So, did the US go into Iraq to merely benefit a few oil execs and defense contractors?

No exactly. Probable closer to the reasons that are in Cheney's speech.

However, if you realize that you have a finite resource that is getting harder and harder for you to find, I would think that responsible LEADERSHIP would prepare the grounds for moving away from depending on this resource. A War to get Iraq is DUMB leadership. It is an expensive grab which history over and over shows that it will not work. The local population will simply not roll over and pretend all is fine, "Take it, we love you". The other players on the World Stage will also not back off.

Now we are bleeding blood and money for this adventure while the economy is in a tail spin ready to crash and burn.

I recall driving to Dallas and Houston over the years at intervals of 1-2 yrs. and seeing the expansion of freeways/suburbs and wondering what the heck is going on here. Is this preparation for a world where there is LESS oil/gas to go around. Sorry, that for me was a signal of lack of leadership.

True leadership would have been to say "We need alternate mode of transportation, build/produce in the US, scale back the military, make it damn expensive to have a MacMansion (tax higher than smaller homes) , relearn the lessons learned regarding the Great Depression etc.".

Can someone honestly tell me that looking at a graph of average savings in the US 5-9 years back would have not been an alarm bell to the coming disaster? It takes no genious to see the implication of that.

Globalization and these wars benefit the few, but then maybe we do live in the land of Pharaohs.

PS: Woodie Guthrie lyrics are spot on and timeless. :-)

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I'm going to rant and rave if I write about this at any length, so I'll limit this to two points.

First, the intelligence was mixed. Citing some of the intelligence which happened to be right after the fact doesn't prove that anybody 'knew' anything -- it merely proves that the right information was mixed in with the wrong information, and our decision-makers went with the wrong information. How can you tell the difference between someone who knows the right information pretending to believe the wrong information, and mere confirmation bias?

Second, if you really believe that the Bush Administration were a bunch of competent Machiavellian geniuses rather than a clutch of irrational, idealistic morons, ask yourself this: why did they build their entire public case for the war on WMD and then fail to 'find' any? If this was all about manipulation, and they are so evil, why wouldn't they have fabricated WMD to 'find' in the invasion?

For what it's worth, here's what I believe. ...

Excellent. I totally agree.

The only thing missing is the Bush/Rumsfeld level of hubris, which is apparently infinite.

But I'm sure the Left will continue to overlook any of the multi-year statements of Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Teddy the Kennedy and all the others who spoke of Saddam and his WMDs. After all, Bush is the very Son of Satan and the Republicans are all Warlocks and Witches that must be incinerated. That's the highest priority of all.

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
-Mark Twain

I've always liked Samuel Clements.
And I would totally agree with this statement if the word "statesmen" could be exchanged for "politicians".

[ricket]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I like to look at these things from a financial perspective. Our country has obviously been hijacked for quite some time now by the financial elite. The only decisions that are made are decisions that benefit those at the top. Anyone else who benefits just happens to be "collateral damage".

Lots and lots of institutions benefited greatly from the invasion of Iraq. You don't invade a country like that without a financial motive. Safety? Security? Terrorism? It's all BS. There was an agenda allright, and it was all about money. Anytime your company can be allocated billions (and maybe trillions) of dollars in *any* endeavor, there is always a chance to skim off the top and steal as much money as you want. How come people find this fact so hard to accept??

We can sit and argue about who did what, when, and why all day until we are blue in the face. We can point fingers at each other and call everyone else partisan hacks, but that wont get us anywhere.

It's usually difficult for me to type out anything meaningful because I have so much rage at the state that our country has fallen into, that I have to walk away from the computer. I put in a lot of effort in enacting political change during the last election, only to find the populace too stupid and lazy to give a damn about anything that was somewhat related to the truth. If my views didnt fit into their worldview or wasn't something they could comprehend (e.g. compound interest, fractional reserve banking), then I was completely wrong or a nutcase. So for me at this point, I have given up. I will wait until the time is right to enact change and unfortunately, that time is now after the currency collapses. Only after that happens will meaningful change take place. That will be the time to act to make sure someone like Sarah Palin doesn't get elected and we really head to a totalitarian state.

Rajiv, you may have hoped that this thread would be an intelligent discussion about learning from recent history and being manipulated by our political leadership, but your choice of example (Bush/WMD's) was certain to bring-out a completely different argument.

Stop whining about stuff being moved to rant and rave. It's rather tiresome. You're actually the only one who is bringing the quality of this thread down. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread then ignore it. Rajiv has posted excellent content many times here at iTulip and is a responsible poster. I hate your kind of attitude towards discussing sensitive topics. "WHHHHHAAAA theyre biasssseedddd, so we cant talk about it at all wahhhhh wahhhh"

This topic needs to be discussed. Failure to do so shows either extreme bias or intellectual laziness.

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I like to look at these things from a financial perspective. Our country has obviously been hijacked for quite some time now by the financial elite. The only decisions that are made are decisions that benefit those at the top. Anyone else who benefits just happens to be "collateral damage".

Lots and lots of institutions benefited greatly from the invasion of Iraq. You don't invade a country like that without a financial motive. Safety? Security? Terrorism? It's all BS. There was an agenda allright, and it was all about money. Anytime your company can be allocated billions (and maybe trillions) of dollars in *any* endeavor, there is always a chance to skim off the top and steal as much money as you want. How come people find this fact so hard to accept??

We can sit and argue about who did what, when, and why all day until we are blue in the face. We can point fingers at each other and call everyone else partisan hacks, but that wont get us anywhere.

It's usually difficult for me to type out anything meaningful because I have so much rage at the state that our country has fallen into, that I have to walk away from the computer. I put in a lot of effort in enacting political change during the last election, only to find the populace too stupid and lazy to give a damn about anything that was somewhat related to the truth. If my views didnt fit into their worldview or wasn't something they could comprehend (e.g. compound interest, fractional reserve banking), then I was completely wrong or a nutcase. So for me at this point, I have given up. I will wait until the time is right to enact change and unfortunately, that time is now after the currency collapses. Only after that happens will meaningful change take place. That will be the time to act to make sure someone like Sarah Palin doesn't get elected and we really head to a totalitarian state.



Stop whining about stuff being moved to rant and rave. It's rather tiresome. You're actually the only one who is bringing the quality of this thread down. If you have nothing to contribute to the thread then ignore it. Rajiv has posted excellent content many times here at iTulip and is a responsible poster. I hate your kind of attitude towards discussing sensitive topics. "WHHHHHAAAA theyre biasssseedddd, so we cant talk about it at all wahhhhh wahhhh"

This topic needs to be discussed. Failure to do so shows either extreme bias or intellectual laziness.

You not only had my attention but my agreement as well - until you savaged rjwjr. You and I carry biases, Ricket, and so does everyone else; rjwjr wasn't interested in another "Bush is the Son of Satan" thread, and neither am I.

The issues are far more complex than a dumbass like "W" and the stakes are far higher: the possibility of completely losing our nation to a totalitarian structure.

I don't want to see Sarah Palin as President, and never did. The woman is not even remotely qualified to be POTUS; not to mention that she would be putty in the hands of the NeoCon nitwits who have taken a tough situation and turned it into a total 'friggin disaster.
But neither do I want to see an unqualified lightweight like Obama as POTUS.
Nor a hardcore, inflexible idealogue of the Left or Right.
I told a couple of my "Yellow Dog Democrat" in-laws that he would prove to be corrupt - he comes out of nowhere to the Illinois Legislature and is catapulted into the Senate by the most corrupt political machine of any large US city, and you think you're going to get "Honest Abe"?

We need a Third Party. The RepubliCrats are simply incapable of reform.
The rot is too deep.

[Rajiv]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

The reason I put this topic up was not to rehash an old topic. But the fact that an honest discussion of the issues surrounding Peak Oil did not take place. A series of missteps starting late in the Carter administration, and continuing on into the current one.

But a common thread through all of this has been the continuing dissembling, and the lack of an honest discussion of the facts, both to the public, and within each subsequent administration. Facts were hidden, and scapegoats were found, and business continued as usual.

Through all this, the North American public slept, lulled by the seductive illusions spun by the entertainment industry, and the mainstream news media that sought to emulate that entertainment industry. Added to this were the illusions that one could borrow and spend to heart's content -- the money spinning machine running amock.

So the question I have is how do we get back to "truth speaking" as a way of life rather than an elusive concept that is "forever over there somewhere"

To me the Iraq war is symptomatic of the disease, and to me is a good case study to discuss and analyze, and one in which to bring "truth speaking" to -- without shirking any of the areas it leads us to.

[flintlock]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I think it is human nature to rationalize things to fit our needs. I think Bush wanted Iraq to have WMDs. (It suited his agenda, which is another debate). Then selectively "listened" to the info that suited what he wanted. Humans also like to have their cake and eat it too. So the fact that invading Iraq would also be very profitable to some "friends" of Bush was icing on the cake.

For the record I initially supported the invasion. I was duped. Then I went to the notion that although duped, it was for the best. Now, thanks to some contributors on this site that helped me open my mind, I think the whole stinking mess is a bad idea. Now I am of a Ron Paul/stay out of foreign entanglements philosophy.

Anyone who thinks any of these politicians give a damn about "the people" is a fool. It is all about them. Always has been, always will.

[pianodoctor]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I'm no defender of U.S.-Iraq policy/war, or the Bush admin or much else from our Fearless Leaders.

But there is a 'None of the above' aspect that has been forgotten here.

Before we started the war with Iraq, there was the period when we were supposed to be inspecting Iraqi facilities, and Saddam was putting all kinds of roadblocks in the way of inspections and making it appear he was obviously hiding weapons. It was done on purpose.

My analysis of this is that he was in fact posturing to his own people, showing he was a big tough guy who doesn't cooperate with the requirements of the west. But he also thought the U.S. would not actually invade over such a thing- that they would depend on more concrete proof.

He thought he could have it both ways but he was wrong. What was meant to be a bluff to his own people was read by the U.S as a signal that he must really be hiding WMDs.

So in the end, he gambled and lost, the U.S. gambled and lost, and everyone was the loser.

[ricket]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

You not only had my attention but my agreement as well - until you savaged rjwjr. You and I carry biases, Ricket, and so does everyone else; rjwjr wasn't interested in another "Bush is the Son of Satan" thread, and neither am I.

And I wasnt interested in another "Oh goodness, here's another one of those silly Iraq debates that brings out the kooks, nothing to see here, moving right along, moving to Rant and Rave because no one cares *yawn*" style threads.

So in the end, he gambled and lost, the U.S. gambled and lost, and everyone was the loser.

Except for oil companies, the defense industry, 24 hour news media, and the entire military-industrial complex. The profit margin difference for private contractors in Iraq versus the regular military is drastic. It's amazing that most people do not realize that a significant cost of this war goes to private businesses performing most of the same functions as the military. The real soldiers fighting in Iraq are just there to give an official face to what amounts to nothing more than the fascist imperialistic capture of the United States government by the financial elite that use force to continue the financial dominance of the entire world.

[pianodoctor]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

True enough. And I don't want to minimize the influence of the self-interested who want war to happen.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I'm no defender of U.S.-Iraq policy/war, or the Bush admin or much else from our Fearless Leaders.

But there is a 'None of the above' aspect that has been forgotten here.

Before we started the war with Iraq, there was the period when we were supposed to be inspecting Iraqi facilities, and Saddam was putting all kinds of roadblocks in the way of inspections and making it appear he was obviously hiding weapons. It was done on purpose.

My analysis of this is that he was in fact posturing to his own people, showing he was a big tough guy who doesn't cooperate with the requirements of the west. But he also thought the U.S. would not actually invade over such a thing- that they would depend on more concrete proof.

He thought he could have it both ways but he was wrong. What was meant to be a bluff to his own people was read by the U.S as a signal that he must really be hiding WMDs.

So in the end, he gambled and lost, the U.S. gambled and lost, and everyone was the loser.

I think you analysis is exactly what happened. Too many of us, including me, try to put a conspiracy behind everything that is going on in this world.

[oddlots]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I don't see this as a partisan issue at all. The reference to the Carter Doctrine and to the fact that Ron Paul is tapping into a deep root of conservative values by taking a non-interventionist stance on foreign policy shows how effectively the question cuts across the left / right divide. Ditto the fact that a purportedly Left wing government in Britain is on trial at the moment, accused of having deliberately misled the public in order to sell a Neo-Con war.

The question that is implicit here is one that I have struggled with for ages:

a) if, as Ash and GNK effectively argue, there is a legitimate interest in controlling the oil in the Middle East on realpolitik grounds

b) and such a rationale is not sufficient to sell the war to the public

c) can it be legitimate to deliberately mislead public opinion?

Can democracy co-exist with the practical concerns of power exemplified by realpolitik?

The threat of Palin that has been referred to above strikes me as in some ways an unconscious awareness of the above: once the lie becomes acceptable strategy in a political culture, the next stop may well be a kind of populist dictatorship.

So Rajiv's asking, shouldn't we care about whether we are being lied to seems a very legitimate question to me.

My question to Rajiv would be, are you sure that the world can work without some form of realpolitik reasoning (if this is not an unfair characterisation of what you are implicitly saying)?

[zmas28]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I am putting this in the news section as opposed to "Rant and Rave" because I believe that this needs to be discussed -- as to how we the people in the US are manipulated into supporting wrong -- I would go so far as to say evil - policies -- If we as a group do not discuss this honestly, and become fragmented over political partisanship and bickering, then we as a group deserve all that is coming down the pike at us,

This is a blog post from Washington's blog, and I am posting it in full.



And please do click on the last this is why.

Rajiv, IMHO your post presents some good documentation and should serve as a warning to us to seriously question the call to war when it arises again. IIRC our media did not play a very helpful role in the runup to the Iraq invasion.
But what actually surprises me is that there is so much question about these issues and labels of "conspiracy theory". This is as clear as the nose on your face. And this kind of government behavior, is not restricted to the Bush administration or to the US administration for that matter. History has shown this to be the same from time immemorial: demonize or blame your enemies prior to invasion; a "causus belli" is needed to lay the groundwork for invasion. I believe that is the term that Colin Powell used in testifying before different committees, as I watched on CSPAN several months before the actual invasion. How soon can we forget how often we have been led down the garden path under false pretext?