Why We Invaded Iraq

[RTK]

I wish could remember the amount of paper I'm owed by various people for things like that....

I have a tracking journal.

[Gian P Gentile]

I liked it. I thought he made his case very well based on available evidence. What is it about the piece that is drawing such strident condemnation from SWC members?

[Ken White]

I liked it. I thought he made his case very well based on available evidence. What is it about the piece that is drawing such strident condemnation from SWC members?

He outlines most of the process items well, better than any I've seen and I credited him for that but he accords the Neocon positions more force than I think can be justified and lapses into political or ideological based condemnation -- his prerogative, no question but IMO it detracts from what could have been a balanced assessment and dissertation.

I suggest the fact that Bush decided on regime change in Iraq early on is true and that all the factors Record lists and quite a few more like changing the international oil trade to Euros, long term basing to influence events in the ME, response to 20 plus years of provocations emanating from the ME (and NOT the poor and disenfranchised...), catching AQ off balance and more all contributed to the decision. My belief is that Bush did not adopt the neocon agenda, he adapted facets of it that fit his agenda because he (a) believed that a response to probes and attacks from the ME merited a response separate and distinct from the reaction to the attack on the WTC; (b) knew there was no way to secure the borders of this large, diverse nation with porous borders and like any Politician, he had to be seen doing something in response; and (c)wanted to do something concrete in the event he did not get a second term and out of fear that his successor might not have the fortitude to act.

We'll likely never know. If Bush writes a memoir, he may or may not be totally honest and even if he is fairly honest, later events can color the memory. I strongly doubt anyone else really knows what drove his decisions. So all of, us including Record and future historians are or will be speculating to an extent. Mayhap the 2033 declas will provide more...

I'd also point out that it appears neither State or DoD had at 9/11 a plan that dealt with Iraq and the ME on long term basis (or not in the terms that Bush desired). There were people in both places (and others) that had ideas but there was no coherent plan or program -- the neocons OTOH had some ideas that were the bare bones of a program and it seems to me those were grasped and fleshed out -- poorly -- to provide the effort the Prez wanted.

[bourbon]

We'll likely never know. If Bush writes a memoir, he may or may not be totally honest and even if he is fairly honest, later events can color the memory. I strongly doubt anyone else really knows what drove his decisions. So all of, us including Record and future historians are or will be speculating to an extent. Mayhap the 2033 declas will provide more...

NBC News correspondent Richard Engel interviewed President Bush last year, reportedly he had some pretty candid comments.

Among the excerpts of the interview captured in Engel’s new book, “War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq”:

- “‘This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years,’” [Bush told Engel]. “Bush said in forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy.”

- Bush admits to Engel that going to war was a decision based on his personal instinct and not on any long-range strategy for the Mideast:

“I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don’t care if it created more enemies. I had to act.”

In the tidal wave of memoirs soon to be unleashed, there is only one potential book that I would really be interested in reading: Cheney’s. As Brent Scowcoft’s comment illustrates best: "The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney…..I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." What’s the story there?

[Ken White]

...In the tidal wave of memoirs soon to be unleashed, there is only one potential book that I would really be interested in reading: Cheney’s. As Brent Scowcoft’s comment illustrates best: "The real anomaly in the administration is Cheney…..I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for 30 years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." What’s the story there?

I'd trust Cheney's version about as far as I could throw the Capitol. Devious dude -- and a very poor VP and SecDef IMO. I worked under every SecDef except the very first and the last three. Rumsfeld was a piece of work but he, much as I despise micromanagers, across the board did a better job than Cheney. Louis Johnson was hands down the worst, followed closely by McNamara, Charley Wilson, Lovett, Gates and Clifford. Rumsfeld is in the middle of the pack but he's ahead of Cheney...

I think Cheney was the big Republican donors price for supporting Bush and the baggage he brought with him in the form of Wolfotwits and Feith among others has not been beneficial.