1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs

Why didn't the United States plant weapons in Iraq after the invasion?

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Willravel, Oct 15, 2011.

  1. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    It's a simple enough question. The United States, in beating the war drum, insisted that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. They weren't, of course, but that was the case made to both the American people for their general approval and to congress for it's legal approval. We invade, and absolutely no evidence of the weapons is found. Soon, support for the war begins collapsing and the Bush administration has to jump from one foot to the other insisting we invaded Iraq to help the Iraqis who were living under a dictatorial regime. As it stands, in 2001, that invasion and occupation will almost certainly go down in history as a war based on an obvious lie (well, a pair of lies: the WMDs and the supposed links to al Qaeda, which also proved demonstrably false). The Bush administration's legacy will be secured as such, and future wars of aggression for resources with absolutely no merit, such as the proposed war with Iran, will likely not happen because of Iraq. Public pressure to end the war in Afghanistan, it seems, is also influenced by the dishonesty of invading Iraq.

    Personally? I'm glad the truth is out, and I sincerely hope the fumbling of the Bush administration on Iraq will prevent unnecessary future wars. It could even eventually be that the frauds and failures of the Iraq War will be the straw that breaks the military industrial complex's back, though perhaps not likely.

    From the perspective of the Bush administration, however, it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't think to plant evidence to support their assertions. At one point, there was serious talk at the highest ranks of government to paint a US plane to look like a UN plane and arrange for it to be shot down over Iraqi airspace to start a war. Would planting evidence really be so difficult or outlandish? By not planting it, they essentially undermined their entire plan.

    What do you think? Do you think they thought it too big a risk? Do you think they didn't consider it? Or could there be some other reason?
     
  2. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    It could be, given the flawed intelligence actually available at the time, that Bush and Co. truly believed that the weapons of mass destruction did exist. Therefore they saw no reason to hedge their bet with planted evidence. The WMD rationalization may have been more a mistake or misjudgment than nefariously plotted from the beginning.
    In 2001, the revealing light of hindsight was not yet shining brightly.

    Lindy
     
  3. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    It's an interesting question and one I wondered about during the invasion - if they did manage to find WMDs, if what they found had been planted. Hans Blix and his UN inspectors were adamant that they would find nothing, but shaky, inconclusive intelligence and sketchy satellite images won the day. I believe that Bush and Co knew there were no WMDs and had no real interest in proving there were any once they were in. The hunt was basically theater. If it were somehow important to the mission that their justification be borne out, they probably would have found a way to plant evidence. But it wasn't important. The mission went according to plan. They got out of the invasion and occupation what they'd intended.
     
  4. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    Location:
    Temasek
    I like to think that Bush really believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I'd like to believe it was the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld that knew there weren't any but decided to invade anyway.

    There's no way to know this for certain but given that this is all speculation (specifically who knew what when) it's the picture I'd like to paint.
     
  5. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    What amazed me, after the fact, was all the politicians saying " Well, who knew? Really, it all looked so conclusive! Nobody could have guessed this outcome!".

    Really? How about the fucking millions of us yelling it at the top of our fucking lungs before the invasion?!
     
  6. Derwood

    Derwood Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Because Bush was an arrogant cowboy who did whatever the fuck he wanted (or what Cheney/Rumsfield wanted).
     
  7. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    It was a fait accompli. No one really believed it. Congressional members who knew it was a pack of lies ended up supporting it so as to not appear unpatriotic at a time when any disagreement of measures taken in the name of the WoT was deemed as such. It was political suicide to do otherwise, or so the polls led them to believe. They pretty much had to throw their hands up in shock and amazement when the truth was verified - to save a bit of face

    I would tend to agree that Bush may well have been the ventriloquist dummy in the room. He certainly played the part well.
     
  8. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    I wish Bush did think there were WMDs, because at least he could simply blame ignorance (something I imagine he's quite experienced in). The facts are these:

    1) The plans to invade Iraq were drawn up either on or even before 9/11. Before the search for WMDs really started, plans were created to invade Iraq and topple the government. Wes Clark talked about this on several occasions back in Summer of 2007.

    2) Numerous sources inside the intelligence community have come forward to say that Bush ordered the CIA to manufacture a false pretense for invading Iraq. Ron Suskind's "The Way of the World" painted a very clear picture that Bush was informed in no uncertain terms in January of 2003 that Saddam had no WMDs, but decided to knowingly use a forced letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to sell the war.
     
  9. Lindy

    Lindy Moderator Staff Member

    Location:
    Nebraska
    This reminds me of one of those "If you haven't stopped beating your wife yet, why not?" kind of questions. If they planted bogus evidence, they were frauds. If they didn't, they were stupid. Well, there ya go!
    It does give another opportunity for the choir on the left side of the room to sing again some of their old favorite songs.:)
    All together now boys... uh one and uh two and uh...:rolleyes:

    Lindy
     
  10. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I think this is an unfair evaluation of the position. I think you're missing something.

    What part of "no evidence," "specious information," and "invading a sovereign nation" don't you understand?
     
  11. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    what i've been amazed about is there there has been no actual inquiry into this. no chilcot commission. nothing. it's a massive example of how the american system cannot self-correct.

    personally, i thought from the outset that one of the primary neo-con ideas behind the invasion was to tell the united nations to fuck itself. it was obvious from what the project for a new american century had been saying and writing since its formation just after the first gulf war that they saw in the united nations, particularly in iraq round 1, an unmanly obstacle to manly man exploits. they collectively thought it was a Bad Thing that the cowboy ending of john wayne-ing it to baghdad 1 did not happen.

    so it made sense that they would roll over what the un weapons inspectors said and fabricate evidence to allow it to happen. my sense is that the administration also actually believed the wolfowitz "strategy" that would have made iraq into a very quick piece of theater for the american military hegemon---flower-strewn streets in welcome for the Liberators and all that. so the pretext didn't really matter--it could have been anything---whatever sold.

    the throw of the dice came with the action itself. except it didn't go as planned.

    i think the neo-cons dreamed of iraq as a way to settle an old political score and alter the global balances of power in the direction of an american super-power/military machine that was outside the rules that bound merely mortal countries.

    it turned out to be a complete disaster, something almost out of a greek tragedy, the beginning of the end of the american empire, particularly with the second bush-term...which was then compounded by the derivatives disaster. the implications of all this are still being felt.

    that's basically why there was no effort to cook up wmd "proof"---it was a pretext and nothing more. the action itself failed to stick to script. had things gone otherwise, it's hard to say what would have been the outcomes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    I'm not saying they were stupid for not planting evidence. I'm guessing at why they didn't.
     
  13. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    If they got caught by the media, Bush would have been impeached.

    Now, right after 9/11, they probably could have got away with it, and if someone had caught them, it would be on the 'conspiracy theory' level.

    You also should understand that not everyone in the Intel Community/Military is going to support Bush if he wants to do something like that.
     
  14. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    This, I think, is the most likely and logical summation of what happened.
    WMD were a shadowplay that would be irrelevant once the laurel wreath was placed upon our collective noble brow.
     
  15. mixedmedia

    mixedmedia ...

    Location:
    Florida
    what is more puzzling, only to crazy liberals I suppose, is why the utter dearth of WMD (as well as no evidence of involvement in the 9/11 attacks or international terrorism of any kind) didn't de-legitimize the invasion of Iraq. It seems to me that anyone who is really concerned with getting results from the GWOT, should be totally pissed off at the damage the Iraq invasion did to 'the cause.' So much waste of life, time, resources, reputation. This country is totally ass-backwards when it comes to balancing emotion with reason in their own best interest. We have a dysfunctional relationship with ourselves.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. martian

    martian Server Monkey Staff Member

    Location:
    Mars
    I don't see any great mystery here. The pretext of WMD's was to justify going in. Once they were there, the pretext was no longer needed, so it was 'whoops! Our bad, no WMD's. But we've already smashed the country to pieces, so we'll have to stick around anyway.'

    Whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq was immaterial after the invasion took place, so there was no need to pretend that WMD's were still a factor over there.
     
  17. the_jazz

    the_jazz Accused old lady puncher

    Willravel - it seems overly obvious to me that there was high risk and low reward for your concept. I think that ASU2003 is right - if they'd fabricated something and been caught, Bush (and possibly Cheney) would have been impeached and those with any knowledge of it would have been immediately dismissed from whatever position of power they held (assuming they weren't elected officials). All of our allies would have immediately abandoned the field.

    And if they had done it, what would it have accomplished anyway? The on-the-ground situation wouldn't have changed. The Bush Administration was clearly not overly concerned about international opinion. It would have been a show staged for non-Americans, most of whom didn't really matter to the administration. The best case scenario that I could imagine would be a "told ya so" moment for Europe to perpetuate the myth of American Exceptionalism.
     
    • Like Like x 1