Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

[friendly_jacek]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Some people in the white house thought there were WMD, some people in the white house thought it was a solution to peak oil, and some people friendly with the white house would profit immensely from the war. It was good (short term) for the sagging economy and Bush' PR. Then there was also some proding from Israelis and Arabs in the decision process. I would not also be surprised that some of the "evidence" was fabricated by Iran.

Too many people in power would benefit from the war and thus it had to happen. This is what happens when the political system is too corrupt and non-transparent.

[raja]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

U.S. Continues to Steal Iraq Oil Proving Bush Critics Right
RAJA News Service

At the onset of the Iraq War, critics worldwide attacked the Bush Administration vociferously proclaimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was motivated by oil. Some of these critics feared that the U.S. would remain in Iraq and keep the oil fields, while others believed that the U.S. would control the fields economically, by installing a puppet government that would award oil contracts exclusively to U.S. companies.

Now, there is undeniable proof from credible sources of the secret U.S. plot to steal Iraqi oil:

Iraq Oil Field Goes to Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas
By REUTERS Published: December 11, 2009

Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas of Malaysia won the rights Friday to develop one of the world’s largest remaining untapped oil fields, as Iraq held its second auction of oil contracts since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003.


Chinese daring wins another chunk of Iraq oil
By REUTERS

BAGHDAD, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Chinese state oil firm CNPC won the right to develop yet another lucrative Iraqi oilfield on Friday, as the Asian powerhouse's need to secure future energy supplies drove it to make aggressive bids for contracts.
The contract is the third big deal CNPC has secured in Iraq. It was the first to sign a major oil deal since the war with a contract for the Ahdab oilfield. In June, it formed part of a BP-led (BP.L) consortium that won the only contract awarded at the first round to develop the supergiant Rumaila field.


Lukoil, Statoil Win West Qurna, Prize in Iraq Bidding (Update3) By Anthony DiPaola and Kadhim Ajrash

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- OAO Lukoil and partner Statoil ASA won the rights to develop the second phase of Iraq’s “super giant” West Qurna crude deposit, the largest offered to foreign investors in today’s second round of bidding.
Lukoil, the Russian producer with the most oil assets abroad, beat out teams headed by London-based BP Plc, Paris- based Total SA and Kuala Lumpur-based Petroliam Nasional Bhd. Lukoil committed at the auction in Bagdad to increase output at West Qurna, 65 kilometers northwest of Basra, to 1.8 million barrels a day for a fee of $1.15 a barrel.

:eek: ;)

[medved]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

U.S. Continues to Steal Iraq Oil Proving Bush Critics Right
RAJA News Service

At the onset of the Iraq War, critics worldwide attacked the Bush Administration vociferously proclaimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was motivated by oil. Some of these critics feared that the U.S. would remain in Iraq and keep the oil fields, while others believed that the U.S. would control the fields economically, by installing a puppet government that would award oil contracts exclusively to U.S. companies.

Now, there is undeniable proof from credible sources of the secret U.S. plot to steal Iraqi oil:

Iraq Oil Field Goes to Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas
By REUTERS Published: December 11, 2009

Royal Dutch Shell and Petronas of Malaysia won the rights Friday to develop one of the world’s largest remaining untapped oil fields, as Iraq held its second auction of oil contracts since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003.


Chinese daring wins another chunk of Iraq oil
By REUTERS

BAGHDAD, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Chinese state oil firm CNPC won the right to develop yet another lucrative Iraqi oilfield on Friday, as the Asian powerhouse's need to secure future energy supplies drove it to make aggressive bids for contracts.
The contract is the third big deal CNPC has secured in Iraq. It was the first to sign a major oil deal since the war with a contract for the Ahdab oilfield. In June, it formed part of a BP-led (BP.L) consortium that won the only contract awarded at the first round to develop the supergiant Rumaila field.

:eek: ;)

No just any 'critics'. You need to be somewhere on the leftist lunatic fringe to believe, US wanted Iraqi oil all for themselves. US wants stable oil flow through the Gulf, period.

Whoever develops or buys oil without disrupting the market, will be accepted. Another piece of commie propaganda is (and has always been) anti-war movement. Where is it now with the daily body count and hysteria in the MSM? Democrats will not let the gulf out of US grip no matter their propaganda. After all it was Carter/Brzezinski that developed the Carter doctrine. It is still there and will not disappear overnight.

By the same token you need to be on the right lunatic fringe to believe US invaded Iraq because of WMD, to fight Al Qaeda or bring democracy to the Middle East.

If we wanted to get rid of WMD, GW should have invaded Iran (and, maybe, Obama will). Al Qaeda has presence and support all over the muslim world. There will be no democracy in the Middle East for the next 300 years.

[raja]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

No just any 'critics'. You need to be somewhere on the leftist lunatic fringe to believe, US wanted Iraqi oil all for themselves. US wants stable oil flow through the Gulf, period.

Fringe?

Perhaps it's because these anti-Bush critics were very vocal, but I got the impression they numbered about half the U.S. and a lot of Europe.

[gnk]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

No just any 'critics'. You need to be somewhere on the leftist lunatic fringe to believe, US wanted Iraqi oil all for themselves. US wants stable oil flow through the Gulf, period.

Whoever develops or buys oil without disrupting the market, will be accepted. Another piece of commie propaganda is (and has always been) anti-war movement. Where is it now with the daily body count and hysteria in the MSM? Democrats will not let the gulf out of US grip no matter their propaganda. After all it was Carter/Brzezinski that developed the Carter doctrine. It is still there and will not disappear overnight.

By the same token you need to be on the right lunatic fringe to believe US invaded Iraq because of WMD, to fight Al Qaeda or bring democracy to the Middle East.

If we wanted to get rid of WMD, GW should have invaded Iran (and, maybe, Obama will). Al Qaeda has presence and support all over the muslim world. There will be no democracy in the Middle East for the next 300 years.

I agree 100% = but for your 300 yr estimate. The world does not have 300 yrs of oil left, not at current or future consumption.

But yes, a stable flow of oil ensures reasonable oil prices. The US economy consumes about 25% of the global output, thus the US has the most incentive to ensure that oil comes out of the ground at a decent flow rate.

Peak oil is becoming a greater threat. A larger percentage of US oil is coming from South America. Watch the US-Colombia relationship flourish. At the same time, Venezuela and Brazil will feel greater insecurity as a result.

[Prazak]

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. I do think that the Bush Administration hijacked patriotic sentiment following 9/11 to pursue a pet foreign policy objective in Iraq. I think they were victims of confirmation bias when assessing the intelligence presented to them, and I think they cynically over-sold their certainty about WMD and Al Quaeda connections to the public. This was manipulation, and I do think it extended to presenting 'intelligence' they knew to be bad, for the purpose of engaging public support. Further, I don't think current Iraqi WMD capabilities were the actual focus of their war aims. I think the war was about (a) the combination of sanctions and the no-fly zones slowly failing, (b) eliminating Saddam as a potential future threat to oppose American interests, and (c) expanding and consolidating American influence in the Middle East [because of the oil]. None of these objectives have the heft or immediacy required to justify war in the eyes of the people, so yes -- an immediate security threat was sold as the justification for what was actually an elective war, using 9/11 as an opportunity. However, the intelligence about WMD was mixed, and I'm pretty sure the Bush Administration really did expect to find some WMD in Iraq... enough, at least, to provide the fig leaf they needed for public relations. I also believe that the Bush Administration honestly did connect the vulnerability of the homeland demonstrated by 9/11 to Saddam's potential as a future threat -- the same way they worried about future threats from Iran and North Korea. It's just that North Korea wasn't touchable; maybe Iran would have been next if Iraq had gone better. Regardless, however much sense pre-emptive war makes, it is a tough sell politically, and can be disastrous if you are wrong. Instead, no WMD were found, and this turned into a huge debacle for the Bush Administration and the Republican party in general. As I wrote above, in my mind, the fact that no WMD were fabricated to meet the PR necessity speaks volumes about the limits of duplicity in high places. Alas, competence seems to be limited, as well.

Great posts here, great discussion, reminds me of how much I appreciate EJ for giving birth to this forum.

ASH, I think you've hit it on the head here. Also worth noting is the series of fascinating interviews Saddam gave to an FBI investigator who managed to gain his trust, in which he said that he deliberately conveyed the impression of having WMDs, including during the UN-enforced inspections phase, as an element of deterring his enemy and neighbor in Iran. In short, he attempted to bluff his enemies into believing he had WMD, and efforts to convey privately to the U.S. that he did not have such weapons, in a last-ditch attempt to avoid an invasion, were rebuffed.

There was probably a mix of considerations motivating the Administration to invade Iraq. The need to secure oil, if not for the U.S. at least for world markets, had to be one of them. But I don't doubt that the Administration did believe that Iraq possessed WMD. What ASH describes as confirmation bias is undoubtedly correct -- I was guilty of it myself and, as Raz notes correctly, so was much of the foreign policy establishment, across the political and ideological spectrum. Even Chirac believed it, notwithstanding his own cynical motives in positioning France as the head of the opposition. It seemed lost on everyone that Saddam wasn't so much intransigent in his pursuit of WMD as he was bluffing his adversaries from a position of weakness. (Maybe Texans aren't such great poker players after all.)

Raz, you're right that we don't hear many people on the left explaining their own errors in judgment. But at the end of the day it was Bush and his coterie who were in possession of all the information, all the intelligence, and the executive authority to assess the situation and determine a course of action. It was their responsibility to avoid confirmation bias in the decision to commit blood and treasury. It was their decision to rush forward with the invasion notwithstanding that the facts on the ground weren't confirming those biases. It was their decision to dismiss the Iraqi's efforts through back channels to let the U.S. know they were bluffing, that there were no WMDs. The failure of judgment may have run across the spectrum, but the failure of decision-making, of execution, belongs to Bush and his circle.

[friendly_jacek]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Great posts here, great discussion, reminds me of how much I appreciate EJ for giving birth to this forum.

ASH, I think you've hit it on the head here. Also worth noting is the series of fascinating interviews Saddam gave to an FBI investigator who managed to gain his trust, in which he said that he deliberately conveyed the impression of having WMDs, including during the UN-enforced inspections phase, as an element of deterring his enemy and neighbor in Iran. In short, he attempted to bluff his enemies into believing he had WMD, and efforts to convey privately to the U.S. that he did not have such weapons, in a last-ditch attempt to avoid an invasion, were rebuffed.

There was probably a mix of considerations motivating the Administration to invade Iraq. The need to secure oil, if not for the U.S. at least for world markets, had to be one of them. But I don't doubt that the Administration did believe that Iraq possessed WMD. What ASH describes as confirmation bias is undoubtedly correct -- I was guilty of it myself and, as Raz notes correctly, so was much of the foreign policy establishment, across the political and ideological spectrum. Even Chirac believed it, notwithstanding his own cynical motives in positioning France as the head of the opposition. It seemed lost on everyone that Saddam wasn't so much intransigent in his pursuit of WMD as he was bluffing his adversaries from a position of weakness. (Maybe Texans aren't such great poker players after all.)

Raz, you're right that we don't hear many people on the left explaining their own errors in judgment. But at the end of the day it was Bush and his coterie who were in possession of all the information, all the intelligence, and the executive authority to assess the situation and determine a course of action. It was their responsibility to avoid confirmation bias in the decision to commit blood and treasury. It was their decision to rush forward with the invasion notwithstanding that the facts on the ground weren't confirming those biases. It was their decision to dismiss the Iraqi's efforts through back channels to let the U.S. know they were bluffing, that there were no WMDs. The failure of judgment may have run across the spectrum, but the failure of decision-making, of execution, belongs to Bush and his circle.

Well said. Also there was one more reason. One of the first objects destroyed in Bagdad was this hotel lobby floor mosaic:

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

Great posts here, great discussion, reminds me of how much I appreciate EJ for giving birth to this forum.

ASH, I think you've hit it on the head here. Also worth noting is the series of fascinating interviews Saddam gave to an FBI investigator who managed to gain his trust, in which he said that he deliberately conveyed the impression of having WMDs, including during the UN-enforced inspections phase, as an element of deterring his enemy and neighbor in Iran. In short, he attempted to bluff his enemies into believing he had WMD, and efforts to convey privately to the U.S. that he did not have such weapons, in a last-ditch attempt to avoid an invasion, were rebuffed.

There was probably a mix of considerations motivating the Administration to invade Iraq. The need to secure oil, if not for the U.S. at least for world markets, had to be one of them. But I don't doubt that the Administration did believe that Iraq possessed WMD. What ASH describes as confirmation bias is undoubtedly correct -- I was guilty of it myself and, as Raz notes correctly, so was much of the foreign policy establishment, across the political and ideological spectrum. Even Chirac believed it, notwithstanding his own cynical motives in positioning France as the head of the opposition. It seemed lost on everyone that Saddam wasn't so much intransigent in his pursuit of WMD as he was bluffing his adversaries from a position of weakness. (Maybe Texans aren't such great poker players after all.)

Raz, you're right that we don't hear many people on the left explaining their own errors in judgment. But at the end of the day it was Bush and his coterie who were in possession of all the information, all the intelligence, and the executive authority to assess the situation and determine a course of action. It was their responsibility to avoid confirmation bias in the decision to commit blood and treasury. It was their decision to rush forward with the invasion notwithstanding that the facts on the ground weren't confirming those biases. It was their decision to dismiss the Iraqi's efforts through back channels to let the U.S. know they were bluffing, that there were no WMDs. The failure of judgment may have run across the spectrum, but the failure of decision-making, of execution, belongs to Bush and his circle.

I agree with you.

It really irritated several of my friends in 2003 when I told them this invasion was going to be a BIG mistake - even if we found evidence of WMDs. Saddam Husein was hardly a committed Muslim; he only cared for his power, palaces and his progeny (Qusay and Uday).
He wasn't going to commit suicide by attacking the United States. It was also telling that the Saudis, Omanis and others among the Gulf states opposed the invasion because they saw the real threat as being Iran. I always said that Iraq would be a "tar baby", and we would have our very own West Bank - only ten times larger.

And I accept your point that the failure belongs to "W". As Truman said, "The Buck stops here."
As for Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Clinton et al, I guess being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

For those who haven't done so I suggest reading War is a Racket by ret. Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler. It was written in the 1930's.

[Rajiv]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

pdf found here - War Is A Racket by Major General Smedley Butler

[lalla]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

why are people talking about what they BELIEVE. any research at all comes up that invading iraq was planned before 9/11, they knew they pushing propaganda. i believe it was the aluminum tubes , either that or the niger document, were known to be bogus by the cia. has anyone seen the the frontline program about the cia? there were good honest men at the cia who were forced to back this propaganda effort and were sick about it. if anyone cares i can find it.
people here are still conforming to the article rajiv posted in the beginning. no one researches the other side, they read according to their prejudices. no one wants to believe our government is not ours anymore. when i realized the nytimes, the newyorker, and the washington post, lied us into war, that was it for me and public media. WAKE UP!!! apply the rigor you profess to have towards the economy and push past your stuck thinking.
check out the people who visited gwb in texas before he was nominated. check out the people who were pushing pushing pushing a military adventure in the middle east. find out for yourself.

[lalla]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

thank you for this post rajiv. yes, it is time people grew up and started grappling with the truth. this is so far beyond left, right, republican, democrat . and no, it is not about george bush, or obama. isn't it obvious there is very little difference? don't we have the same programs ? ( except for the sop of health care obama threw at us to distract us from his ongoing war plans, and removal of civil liberties) obama is nicer and a better speaker. he is more amenable to the intellectuals . it is tragic that people are getting bogged down in a political fight of phantoms when our country has been stolen from us.
france was more interested in arguing about communism versus fascism, than preparing itself against the obvious looming threat of germany. they could not unite, they were divided against themselves. i cannot help but feel that this is the way "someone" wants it. them. and i don't know who "they" are. but "they" put an empty suit in the white house.

all i can say is "here, here" rajiv.

if someone is still confused about wmds check out the "the dark side" . frontline, just google it.

[Rajiv]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

The Dark Side -- Frontline 55 min

[Prazak]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

And I accept your point that the failure belongs to "W". As Truman said, "The Buck stops here."
As for Kennedy, Kerry, Biden, Clinton et al, I guess being a Liberal means never having to say you're sorry.

I'm no liberal, Raz, so please don't mistake this as a defense of Kerry, Biden, et al. But it is fair to add to your comment that those who were most responsible for the decisions to invade Iraq: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Addington, and their enablers on the Hill and in the media, were mostly on the right end of the political spectrum. I don't hear any of them saying they're sorry. Indeed they are defiantly, at times thunderingly, unapologetic.

If anyone owes Iraq, the U.S., the world, an apology for being wrong -- not just for being incorrect in its analysis and incompetent in the execution, but for being wrong: wrong in over-hyping the intelligence, wrong in manipulating a fearful body populace, and wrong for using the war as an electoral stick to beat the opposition party as insufficiently patriotic -- it is the right wing of the political spectrum, not the left.

The most vocal of the opposition, after all, came from the left. It was shrill, it was conspiratorial, and much of it was in my view rooted in suspicion of the Bush Administration and its tactics rather than on the merits. A just war, one might think, would be just whether or not those carrying it out have hands fully clean. But in retrospect the suspicion among many on the left was well-founded.

So yes, let's call out those on the left who are hypocrites. But let's not lose sight where the burden of apology lies -- and where the silence is much more pernicious.

[Raz]

Re: Everyone Knew that Iraq Didn't Have WMDs

I'm no liberal, Raz, so please don't mistake this as a defense of Kerry, Biden, et al. But it is fair to add to your comment that those who were most responsible for the decisions to invade Iraq: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Addington, and their enablers on the Hill and in the media, were mostly on the right end of the political spectrum. I don't hear any of them saying they're sorry. Indeed they are defiantly, at times thunderingly, unapologetic.

If anyone owes Iraq, the U.S., the world, an apology for being wrong -- not just for being incorrect in its analysis and incompetent in the execution, but for being wrong: wrong in over-hyping the intelligence, wrong in manipulating a fearful body populace, and wrong for using the war as an electoral stick to beat the opposition party as insufficiently patriotic -- it is the right wing of the political spectrum, not the left.

The most vocal of the opposition, after all, came from the left. It was shrill, it was conspiratorial, and much of it was in my view rooted in suspicion of the Bush Administration and its tactics rather than on the merits. A just war, one might think, would be just whether or not those carrying it out have hands fully clean. But in retrospect the suspicion among many on the left was well-founded.

So yes, let's call out those on the left who are hypocrites. But let's not lose sight where the burden of apology lies -- and where the silence is much more pernicious.

In the matter of the War in Iraq you are certainly correct. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and above all Bush bear the responsibility.
But on political matters in general, the Left seems to avoid almost all accountability.

I should have made that distinction.