Bush Flip-Flopped 20+ Times on Iraq War

[Foix]

A UIUC graduate political science student--hopefully not the same one who gave Powell his information on the supposed Iraqi WMD threat--has written a thesis charting over two-dozen successive rationales put forth by administration officials for the invasion of Iraq. Article here; thesis and summary here. Though I can't say that I am any great fan of Kerry, I have been galled by the Bush campaign (not to mention administration officials like McClellan who are on the taxpayer's dime) hypocritically making an issue of his supposed 'flip-flopping,' when Bush and company have rarely been able to stick to a story for more than a month. Kerry's wandering opinions, though they are rarely well-phrased and sometimes reek of logic-chopping, at least seem to be the product of thoughtful consideration. Bush endlessly states that he sticks to his guns while doing nothing of the sort; yet people believe him because he seems to possess the vacant earnestness of an Oliver North.

To take one recent example, at his press conference following Ariel Sharon's visit and in the days leading up to the most recent assassination of a Hamas leader, Bush affirmed American support for the continued Israel occupation of certain settlements on the West Bank; one week later, in the face of unexpected Arab outrage at supposed American complicity in the assassination, he stated his support for complete Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank. In the oldest political trick in the book, his campaign projects Bush's own failings onto Kerry, so that the Kerry campaign's expected response of 'You do the same thing!' will seem a pathetic riposte. I would rather they stick to unintentionally ironic attacks like Bush's comment in Ohio that Kerry was lying when he said he wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class, because you can't raise spending without increasing taxes. At least that addresses, however disingenuously, an actual campaign issue.

(Full disclosure: I'm most likely going to vote for Kerry this November, as I'm in the ABB camp, though I don't believe there is any chance whatsoever of his losing my home state of Connecticut and my enthusiasm for him is about the same as it was for Al Gore in 2000 (tepid). His veep choice will likely determine the extent to which I'll warm to his campaign.)

[daveNYC]

Cthulhu 2004!!!

[Flashman]

I don't understand the point. She makes it sound as if shes uncovered something when everything she points to has been clear to anyone with a pulse since 9/11.



Congrats to her! She got a senior thesis out of looking shit up for a couple hours on lexis/nexis. Real tough.

[Foix]

I don't understand the point. She makes it sound as if shes uncovered something when everything she points to has been clear to anyone with a pulse since 9/11.

"The dead have risen and are voting Republican!"

[Riggswolfe]

The funniest thing I ever saw was a skit on the daily show which was a debate between Gov. Bush and Pres. Bush. They would ask how he felt about nation building and show clips. Gov. Bush would be going on about how he didn't believe in it, Pres. Bush would be talking about how we'll make a better Iraq. Quite funny.

[Flashman]

The funniest thing I ever saw was a skit on the daily show which was a debate between Gov. Bush and Pres. Bush. They would ask how he felt about nation building and show clips. Gov. Bush would be going on about how he didn't believe in it, Pres. Bush would be talking about how we'll make a better Iraq. Quite funny.

Well, something did happen between then and now.

[Riggswolfe]

Well, something did happen between then and now.

Yep, Bush got elected. Don't make a mistake, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. 9/11 made a convenient excuse to do something he already wanted to do. That said I won't mourn Sadam or his regime at all. Like most sane people however, I am wondering how this will all play out.

[Flashman]

Well, something did happen between then and now.

Yep, Bush got elected. Don't make a mistake, 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. 9/11 made a convenient excuse to do something he already wanted to do. That said I won't mourn Sadam or his regime at all. Like most sane people however, I am wondering how this will all play out.

So, if 9/11 hadn't happened we still would have invaded Iraq? Why? Also, doesn't that go against what you just said in your other post?

Have any evidence to support this or just a gut feeling? Because everything I've read indicated that the move pre-9/11 among the administration was to begin to get rid of the sanctions regime and start normalizing relations. And please don't say it's for the oil....

[Foix]

Because everything I've read indicated that the move pre-9/11 among the administration was to begin to get rid of the sanctions regime and start normalizing relations.

So the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz troika that shapes the administration's Iraq policy thought in 1998 that there was no alternative but to overthrow Saddam Hussein  but changed their minds by 2001?

[cevik]

So the Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz troika that shapes the administration's Iraq policy thought in 1998 that there was no alternative but to overthrow Saddam Hussein  but changed their minds by 2001?

Only to change their minds yet again after 9/11.  Man, now that's some flip-flopping.

[Comstar]

So, if 9/11 hadn't happened we still would have invaded Iraq? Why? Also, doesn't that go against what you just said in your other post?

Have any evidence to support this or just a gut feeling? Because everything I've read indicated that the move pre-9/11 among the administration was to begin to get rid of the sanctions regime and start normalizing relations. And please don't say it's for the oil....

Pardon? Did you ever read about the report called "A new American Century"? (may be wrong on title). The one writtin by 1/2 people now in power in the mid 90's?

Hecko, Cheny was arranging to go to war BEFORE 11/9/2001 with a hair brain scheme to take the southern oilfields in Iraq.

You're 2nd paragraph makes even less sense. You're saying BushCo wanted to begin to  "normalizing relations"!?!?! With IRAQ!?!? You're not thinking of Libya are you?

[Riggswolfe]

You're the only person I've ever heard say that Bush and Co. weren't planning to hit Iraq before 9/11. Even Rush Limbaugh conceeds plans were made but tries to blame it on Clinton. (IE Bush was only following policy set by Clinton. )

I think we still would have invaded even without 9/11. Bush just would have had to come up with some other excuse. Hell, the true cynic in me wonders if 9/11 wasn't allowed to happen in much the same manner that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. I doubt if anyone, even the terrorists knew it'd be as devestating of a strike as it was.

[DarkDryad]

You're the only person I've ever heard say that Bush and Co. weren't planning to hit Iraq before 9/11. Even Rush Limbaugh conceeds plans were made but tries to blame it on Clinton. (IE Bush was only following policy set by Clinton. )

I think we still would have invaded even without 9/11. Bush just would have had to come up with some other excuse. Hell, the true cynic in me wonders if 9/11 wasn't allowed to happen in much the same manner that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. I doubt if anyone, even the terrorists knew it'd be as devestating of a strike as it was.

Well technicalt Clinton did initiate an American Policy of regime change but it was in no way legaly binding as he tries to proclaim. Clinton had just as many problems with Sadam as Bush. Bush just moved on them a great bit more militarily.

Lets not forget we were still at a defacto state of war with Iraq for the past 12 years. He only had been given a conditional cease fire and didnt comply with the conditions for 12 years. IMHO he got what he deserved.

[Riggswolfe]

I agree. Sadam got what he deserved. Sadam was an evil motherfucker and I will shed no tears for him. Had Bush said "You know what? We gave him 12 years to cooperate, he hasn't done so, we have to do what's necessary" I'd have said fine.

He didn't for the most part. He said Sadam supported terrorists, was linked to 9/11 (which oddly enough that one book I mentioned on one of these threads also claims, with proof)  and had WMDs. So far, all of that is looking like it is probably false. Not only that, but Bush knew it was false. So he lied to start a war.

THAT is my issue with the Iraq war. I love the objective (Sadam deposed) I just don't like the appointed President of my country lying to the people about something like a war. Lie to me about sex, fine. Lie to me about something that'll get people killed. Not so fine.

[DarkDryad]

Sorry for the Brucing of this but its nessisary:

I agree. Sadam got what he deserved. Sadam was an evil motherfucker and I will shed no tears for him. Had Bush said "You know what? We gave him 12 years to cooperate, he hasn't done so, we have to do what's necessary" I'd have said fine.

Acctually he did it just wasnt the only reason.

He didn't for the most part. He said Sadam supported terrorists,

He did . He made payouts to the families of mass murdering terrorist bombers.

was linked to 9/11 (which oddly enough that one book I mentioned on one of these threads also claims, with proof)

Havent seen any acctual proof but his support for other terrorists and the total ignoring of US demands may have had an effect on the attitude of said terrorists

 and had WMDs.

Most likely did We know for a fact he had x amount. We know for a fact he destroyed y amount. X does not =Y in this equasion so where are the rest of them? If I have 10 apples and crush 5 of them it stands to reason I have 5 left  

So far, all of that is looking like it is probably false. Not only that, but Bush knew it was false. So he lied to start a war.

I honestly think he made the best choice he could given the information he had at the time.  None of us were privy to it all and I'm fairly positive that Congress saw something they felt we needed to act on or else we wouldnt have had enough votes to ratify the measure. Keep in mind folks the President cant start a war all by himself.

THAT is my issue with the Iraq war. I love the objective (Sadam deposed) I just don't like the appointed President of my country lying to the people about something like a war. Lie to me about sex, fine. Lie to me about something that'll get people killed. Not so fine.

[daveNYC]

 and had WMDs.

Most likely did We know for a fact he had x amount. We know for a fact he destroyed y amount. X does not =Y in this equasion so where are the rest of them? If I have 10 apples and crush 5 of them it stands to reason I have 5 left  

Or they rotted.  Depending on the weapon type in question they can degrade.

[Foix]

We know for a fact he had x amount. We know for a fact he destroyed y amount. X does not =Y in this equasion so where are the rest of them? If I have 10 apples and crush 5 of them it stands to reason I have 5 left

1. None of the international arms inspectors claim that Saddam was likely to have had WMDs after the time he was said to have disposed of them. Hans Blix has explicitly denied it on a number of occasions, including in his book on the WMD investigations.

2. The Bush administration no longer claims publicly that Saddam had WMDs after the time he was said to have disposed of them. When asked about them in interviews, Bush only mentions that he used chemical weapons on the Kurds in 1991. Cheney has said that they might still exist somewhere, but finding them hardly seems to be an administration priority.
3. Knowing what we do of Saddam, if he still had a cache of WMDs during the American invasion, why didn't he use them? Given their destructive potential, why haven't Baathists or other guerrillas used them during the insurgency? If massive amounts of chemical and biological agents still exist, how is it that absolutely no one in Iraq has the slightest notion of where they went?

I am therefore led to believe that Saddam likely did dispose of his chemical and biological weapons as of 1995. However, do I think the continued existence of WMDs would have been a sufficient rationale for the United States to invade? No, because Saddam had no delivery vehicle to attack the United States with them; therefore they were no threat to us. And the old claim that Saddam might hand over WMDs to Islamic terrorists totally misrepresents the relationship that existed between Saddam and groups like al-Qaeda. The only time that Osama bin Laden, for instance, has publicly voiced an opinion on Hussein, was to declare him a 'socialist,' an 'unbeliever,' and to call on Iraqi Muslims to overthrow him.