Yes it was a good post Van, but we are not in Iraq only because of WMD, which I assume you are referring to when you mention "false information". This post is not intended to be “piling on” you Van, but rather I am taking the opportunity to write something that has been on my mind of late.
We live in an age of "sound bites" and it seems the media has a desire to water issues down to one sentence. Now that stockpiles of WMD have not been found many people feel we should not be in Iraq or came under false pretenses. I often hear people say, “I don’t know why we are there”. I wish everyone would take the time to go online and read the resolution that Congress enacted which authorized the war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
WMD was only one reason given for the war. I have summarized 10 other reasons:
1. Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors thereby violating cease-fire terms of the first gulf war.
2. Iraq's violation of 17 UN resolutions.
3. Iraq under Saddam had shown a willingness to use WMD against other nations and its own people and available intelligence showed he had WMD.
4. Brutal repression of the Iraqi people by Saddam-certainly one of the most powerful arguments when you consider as many as one million could have been murdered during his years in power.
5. Iraq had aided international terrorists.
6. The official policy of the US government was removal of Saddam as per the Iraq Liberation Act passed by Congress. This fact is not widely known by Americans in my opinion.
7. It is in the national interest of the US to restore stability to the Persian Gulf region.
8. Iraq’s 1993 assassination attempt against the first President Bush.
9. Thousands of instances of US planes being attacked by Iraq in the “No Fly Zone”.
10. Members of Al Qaeda were in Iraq.
Now, WMD were a major reason given certainly but not the only reason. In addition there are other unstated reasons for going into Iraq:
1. Look at a map. Iran, which is probably the biggest current threat to the US and Israel, is sandwiched between Afghanistan (now mostly under US control) and Iraq. It doesn’t take a genius to see that our strategic position in the terror war is strengthened greatly by having a “base” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2. If we can win in Iraq, Iran will be at a disadvantage. Not only will we have troops there, but we will have the Iraqi troops as our ally as well. This will be a powerful deterrent to Iran if they should consider an attack on Iraq since the Iraqi troops would be highly motivated by memories of the Iran/Iraq conflict.
3. Syria, a prominent supporter of terrorism borders Iraq, again making Iraq of great importance strategically.
4. Any terrorists taken out in Iraq will be fewer we have to deal with later.
There are several other points worth mentioning here. As Simple Simon said, there is never one reason for going to war and in this case there are at least 10 others. As far as anyone “lying” or misleading about WMD, it didn’t happen. The CIA and all other available intelligence said there were WMD stockpiles. All the leading democrats said there were existing WMD:
http://farrightchatroom.blogspot.com/2006/03/blast-from-past-wmd-quotes.html
We know Saddam used WMD against the Kurds and the Iranians so it is beyond dispute that he had them. And if you know a guy like Saddam has WMD and you believe he will use them you would be remiss if you did nothing as President in my view. And if you are acting on the best information you have you are not “lying” whether you are talking about Bush or the Democratic leaders.
Van, you make the point that we have vast open borders on the north and south here in the US so we are unsafe. You are right and that is why we need to take the fight to the enemy on their turf which is basically anywhere in the Middle East. What is the difference if the battleground is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran as long as it is not in the US? The fight is still against the same enemy-Islamic Terrorism or whatever name you prefer to give it.
Now, anyone can make the argument that we should have fought the war differently and that is a valid concern. I would have favored a “declared war” against all countries known to support Islamic terrorism while we had the commitment from the American people. And you can say that Rumsfeld’s strategy has been wrong. But it was his policy from the time he took office to “downsize” the military and he carried this over to Iraq. He could make the argument that fewer troops in harm’s way mean fewer causalities.
But the point here is there are/were plenty of reasons to be in Iraq and they are still valid today three years later.
