Yanno ... we have NO idea why we're in Iraq

[Stinky The Clown]

We can all speculate. But that's all it is. Speculation. True enough, there are plenty of dots that have been connected. There are plenty of good theories out there. most of them are even capable of holding substantial amounts of water.

But in the end, we really have no *actual* reason we're in Iraq.

Sure, it could be the PNAC playbook. But where is the hard proof?

Sure, it could be s simple oil grab. No reason not to think that theory will fly. But again, its just a theory.

Sure, it could be the fact that Saddam threatened Poppy. I wouldn't put a dick swinging contest between Idiot Son and his father in the 'stupid theory' bin.

Will historians ever unravel this? I suspect they will. I also suspect I'll never know the reason, although my kids might.

When they're my age.

[sandnsea]

1. For what noble cause

That's why I really wish Cindy had focused like a laser on those 4 words and dismissed everything else out there, even whether or not to withdraw from Iraq.

For What Noble Cause - we all deserve to know.

[mike_c]

2. There. Is. No. Mission.

I've said this a dozen times. No one can articulate an actual mission justifying our occupation of Iraq (except possibly theft/control of natural resources, but that's the mission no one wants to talk about). Otherwise, there is simply no mission.

[SaveElmer]

3. It's what happens when a man with a childlike view of the world...

And a "revelationist" religious philosophy too boot, is made given the keys to the U.S. military. We are there because of W's childlike notion that American style freedom will be embraced everywhere in the world, ignoring small things like world history and culture...

They all want to be like us 'murikans...

[annabanana]

9. "We don't know how to mind our own business

'cause the whole world's got to be just like us.

Now we are fighting a war over there.
No matter who's the winner, we can't pay the cost.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose
he's got our heads into the noose
and he just sits there, watching."

http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html

[Kiouni]

4. Have you read

American Theocracy, this is pretty good account of what's goin' on there.

[Sherman A1]

7. Got it but haven't read it.

I have to take my reading of these books in small doses or I get really depressed. One can only take so much...

[stillcool]

27. the truth is...

fluid, subjective, and illusive. Our present circumstances have made me realize how very little of any persons words I should put stock in. 'I believe' very little.

[Rageneau]

5. Are in Iraq so the BFEE, Halliburton and Carlyle can make zillions.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. That's a theory

A *very* plausible theory. One with lots of supporting evidence.

But still .... just a theory.

[izzie]

6. I have always thought it a stupid thing to do and it was Bush's ego

I think the man would like to be a hero. Looked up to and all that and he sure has been a messed up man in his life. The people who bet on him to make them self feel better about our great power are getting a kick in the teeth that he could not do it. It is not a reason to be there any more to more and more people. It is what happened in Korea, and Vietnam.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Another theory

There's lot's of evidence upon which to base this theory, but at the end of the day, it is still a theory.

[izzie]

19. Well your right about that. I wonder if Bush knows himself.

or if he even really did it. Just went along.

[Dulcinea]

8. Iraq is strategically important.

It's about water & geopolitics, not just oil, even though that's certainly part of it.

Iraq borders Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, & Turkey, & has a coastline on the Persian Gulf. It is within easy missile-striking distance of Israel & Russia. Plus, Iraq controls the water resources in a very dry region of the world.

Whoever controls Iraq could control the entire Middle East. That's why we're building that huge embassy complex, & have no intention of leaving. Ever.

If you haven't read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," it's an incredible book that explains a lot.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Those are valid as the bais for an actual reason, but we have no proof

that any one of them - or all of them - is the *actual* reason we went into Iraq.

[primative1]

10. My Money Is on Saving US Dollar Theory ..

The theory that Iraq had to be attacked to keep Sadaam from pricing Iraqi oil in Euros is my bet for most likly reason.
If you were running a country that was 8 zillion dollars in debt and someone threatened to do something to render the product of your printing presses worthless, then an invasion just might make sense. The other theories would all involve an insanity plea by El Presidente but this one just requires pure evil.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. That's a reasonable bet but once again, there is no proof that this is the

*actual* reason we're there.

[1932]

15. Read Confessions of and Economic Hit-Man and you'll understand why we're

in Iraq.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I have ,,,, and as is true for all the other posts ......

... with respect to the truth of why we're in Iraq .... it is another theory.

I don't dismiss the posits of the book. I believe they're true and realistic. The fcat remians, no one can say with absolute certainty why we're in Iraq except for the innermost inner circle of the cabal .... and they're not talking.

[1932]

28. We're in Iraq to do what we did in Saudi Arabia: all the money that flows

out of the US to pay for fuel needs to flow back in the form of construction contracts, etc.

The entire mechanism is described in CoaEH-M.

It's not a big mystery.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. All the theories are correct imo

PNAC is a documented fact. The members laid out their goals in writing back in the '90s. And if that weren't enough, guys like Wes Clark, Sy Hersch and other reliable sources have recounted conversations with key neocons to confirm that Iraq was just a piece of an overall plan, and that there was a window of opportunity between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the next super-power rival.

Dubya is certainly shallow and insecure enough to think that taking down Saddam when Daddy failed would prove he is "a real man" and not the failure that most of his career has proven him to be.

Dick Cheney wanted to make a whole bunch of money for Halliburton and his oil buddies. I don't doubt Dubya had a few debts to pay off as well.

Karl Rove wanted a "war president" to run with in 2004. Especially once it became clear that OBL would be either 1) hard or impossible to kill and/or 2) not really a good idea to catch.

Don Rumsfeld and many of his MIC cronies wanted to test their half-baked theories of high-tech warfare.

Some folks, Powell for example, may have even believed Saddam was a threat that had to be neutralized before he rebuilt his military, or resorted to aiding al Qaeda.


Different people in the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq for different reasons, and some of the reasons probably appealed to members of several various groups. We can argue about whether some reasons were more important than others, who ultimately made the decision to go for it, and which reason may have been some sort of final straw. But what would be the point? For whatever reason, they all agreed that it was the thing to do, and were willing to manipulate the media, exploit 9/11 fears, lie to the people and to Congress, all most likely with the grand notion that the end would justify the means.

I think it helps to remember that even the most evil people tend not to see themselves as evil.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. All valid .......

..... but at the end of the day, that's your opinion and the theories are just that - theories.

There is no credible facutal reason that's ever been identified as to why we're there.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've stated. I believe it all just as much as you do. I agree that there were/are several reasons for us being there.

But as all of the above, there is no hard and fast irrefutable proof as to why we're there. Which is my point.

Why is NO one asking this question? People speculate and make the case from their perspective - for and against us beign there.

But why is this country happy to accpet theory when fact is what matters?

I know our side has been asking for the reasons. In the absence of that, we do the speculation based on known facts. But no matter how overwhleming the evidence, there is no one stated, honest, clear reason that's ever been given.

[Jai4WKC08]

20. Why is NO one asking this question?

No one?

I remember Clark asking it during his 04 campaign, over and over again. Yeah, he too would speculate about why he thought we were there (he favors the political/Rovian reason, I think), but then he'd say we don't really know and we have a right to know and by golly Bush owes us an explanation.

I also remember Clark asking again as a Kerry surrogate. Would have been in March 04, because Kerry was on vacation and Clark did the Dem response to a Bush speech on the anniversary of the invasion. It was the first time I heard Clark use the expression "low hanging fruit."

Not saying Clark is the only one who's asked the question. Just pointing out that he most certainly has. I often hear folks at DU complain, no one is saying this or no one is doing that, when in fact lots of Democrats are. I dunno... if the words don't get into the media enough for John Q Voter to hear, perhaps "no one" is talking... in the sense that a tree falling in the forest makes no noise if no one hears it.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure you can put all the blame on our Democratic leaders. If the media won't cover them, then it's up to us to ask the questions. And not just here at DU where everyone pretty much agrees already, but in LTTE, on talk radio, to our congress-critters, to our family, neighbors and co-workers. Because ultimatelly that's what it's gonna take.

Now, if we can re-take the House in Nov, I 'spect guys like John Conyers will do some asking, and with supeona power to boot, which should make it much harder for the media to ignore. But he won't get there is we don't do a lot more asking now.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Jai, you're right, of course ........

.... that from time to time, many have asked the question.

Most of them ask it more for rhetorical purposes. I'm not crticizing the rhetorical tone, but the fact is, this is another issue we should be using in this campaign season.

I was prompted to make this post after being inspired to do so by ....... Chris Matthews. Over the last few days and weeks, he's been challenging pretty much every 'stay the course' guest on this very point. And every damn one of them has NO ANSWER. They stumble, they stutter, they sewat, they look either clueless or nervous. And for good reason.

**They don't know the reason, either!**

And rest assured that *no one* wants to offer yet another reason. They know there have been a whole series of later-debunked offical 'reasons' and they know that no one buys them anymore.

The fact is, no one knows why we're there except for, as I said above, the innermost of the inner circle.

[Donna Zen]

29. Exactly: a confluence of reasons

And therein lies the difficulty of pinning down this down to one reason. There are many groups with different reasons. The CATO came on board for economic reasons; the Iraq exiles spun their tales of "cake walk" for personal reasons. The so-called mission had to shaped to keep the various groups in this coalition from hell, just to satisfy all of the actors. In the end, the only common theme was "let's bomb Iraq." BTW, in 1992 Powell helped write one of the early versions of the PNAC plans although he was known as a subtle imperialist.

Summery: One can't identify one reason because there was more than one reason all aimed at one action.

[welshTerrier2]

21. we don't need no stinkin' facts ...

you can drop an apple off a tower and it will descend ... you can even "know" what its rate of descent will be ... you can boil water and "know" the temperature at which it will turn from liquid to gas ... and so on ... we've developed very accurate instruments that can measure such things ...

but with human conduct, not so much ...

so, you ask for "facts" as to why we are in Iraq ... and theories, as you correctly point out, are not facts until there is proof ...

but what standard of proof could exist in such circumstances? would the testimony of insiders suffice? if they testified that bush went into Iraq to cater to Big Oil, would this suffice? if we had tapes of bush actually saying that would that suffice? in the course of human events, many things become accepted as "truths" because we find the theories credible ... often, we cannot "know" the intent of those directing policy ...

and, on this, i would not accept the requirement to have "facts" as the standard ... or, more accurately, i would not require "facts" to define the motivations of those in power ...

Big Oil has had all-time record profits since the invasion of Iraq took place ... can i cite that fact and then automatically link that to bush's motivation? not by the standard of proof you've defined ... on the other hand, wouldn't we be fools to not accept the likelihood of that linkage?

and i could cite this article: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0823-28.htm that makes a pretty clear case for GREED and MONEY and the MIC being the motivation for the war ...

here's an excerpt:

While Americans understand that making money motivates McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and some are concerned about businesses donating large sums to influence politicians, most are unaware of how the profit motive helps shape U.S. foreign policy.

so, take a case where the guy pushing the agenda has a major conflict of interest because he's pushing a corporate agenda ... and extend the argument to show a clear linkage between campaigns he helped finance and how those reps eventually voted ... is there absolute proof or any "facts" that prove that those reps did NOT believe the invasion of Iraq was really necessary? the answer is that we cannot know what was in their heads regardless of what they've said or who funded them or anything else ... in the end, they either went to war for a purpose they considered to be in the national interest or they understood they were catering to special interests ... there are no facts that can determine their "private" beliefs and thoughts ... maybe if we could invent some kind of brain scanner ...

in the end, then, we are left to make our judgments on what we believe ... we use a "preponderance" of the evidence ... as the article in the link i provided suggested: follow the money ... when i see an administration flush to the gills with oilmen, when i see record oil profits, when i see soaring poll numbers for bush right after the invasion, when i see Democrats cowering because they could not criticize during a time of war, when i see a complicit media because to do otherwise was unpatriotic and would have jeopardized careers, when i see coffins hidden from public view to supress the truth, and when i see all power flow to one party and the voices of dissent effectively stifled, then, at least for me, i have all the preponderance i need ...

facts? we don't need no stinkin' facts ...

[Stinky The Clown]

25. My OP was intentionally obtuse.

As were many of my answers to replies.

No matter what the real reason, what's of value right now is that no one on the opposite side can give a credible answer. When asked for a reason they **always** deflect with something like 'It doesn't matter why, what we need to do now is ....... '.

My point is to push them to *answer the fucking question*.

They can't.

And when they can't and when they're called on it, they look like the liars or sycophants or clueless tools they are.

The 'official' reason has been spun and morphed and just plain changed findamentally so many times that no one is buying it. To press a Repub to *answer the fucking question* is to put him so far off balance he can tipped over with a gentle puff of air.

Do I, personally, want an answer to the question? Of course. But I'm perfectly happy to wait until we can get to where **I** think the real answer lies ...... in Cheney's files from the time immediately before and after his energy policy meeting.

Right now ..... just asking the question wins us points - even among those who might have been predisposed to support the other side.

[MontanaMaven]

22. To Take Back the Senate - Thom Hartmann's theory

"They Died So Republicans Could Take Back the Senate."is a great piece written by Thom Hartmann in June 2005. It was all about control of the conservative agenda which included permanent tax cuts for the uber rich, dismantling of the New Deal like workers' rights and Social Security and eliminating the SEC and restraints on "predatory corporate behavior".
It was basically to create a corporatist state. It was for "political power". "Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing patriot act powers, easy manipulation of the media- all could only come if pollitical power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles." "The Bush admnistration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple."

[leesa]

23. The hard proof of the PNAC playbook will be Cheney's Energy Papers

Will we ever see them? Who knows. So many Democrats are involved in this evil business that I can't imagine we'll ever have the legal clout.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Personally, I agree with you ... the energy meetings hold the secret .....

.... but as I posted in other late replies to this thread, the reason I brought this up is to point out that asking the question and pressing for an answer, to not allow any weaseling or obfuscation, is to make the person being asked look like a damned fool.

They simply can NOT answer the question because they don't know it.

They just don't know it.

But they support it. Think about how hat makes them look!

Every time we ask this question and press for an answer, we win.

Its just that simple.