How Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld got the US to invade Iraq

[KLW]

This is a two part,four hour documentry recently shown on the show Frontline.

This is not some loony lefty documentry saying that 9/11 was a government setup or that Iraq was all about oil.

So please keep that in mind if you feel skeptical to watch this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

[KLW]

The driving Ideology that drove Americans into the Iraq war.

PNAC-The "Project for a new American Century"is a document that came from Cheney,Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to name a few,who want Americans to take advantage of the lack of any opposing superpower so that Americans can relatively control the world's economys.

They miss the Cold war and started by lying about the threat that Iraq possesed and wanted to keep fooling enough Americans so that they can continue to conquer.

Here's their website.

http://newamericancentury.org/

Information about what the group does and wants.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

It all started in the 70's with Cheney and Rumsfeld with Team B

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2822.html

 

[aesop081]

This is a two part,four hour documentry recently shown on the show Frontline.

This is not some loony lefty documentry saying that 9/11 was a government setup or that Iraq was all about oil.

So please keep that in mind if you feel skeptical to watch this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

I watched both parts of the show. I thought it was well done overall but as with everything else on the subject, i am not forming my opinion based solely on this show and am not willing to accept everything they had to say. The Title of "Bush's war" says to me that the creators have a bias against the current US administration, hence why i watched the show with scepticism.

 

[Yrys]

The Title of "Bush's war" says to me that the creators have a bias against the current US administration

I didn't watch it, but it could also be seen as war that was start under Bush administration, or war that Bush and his administration
push for ... Only that title seems a meager clue as the bias of the creator ...

 

[KLW]

Frontline isn't the Enquirer,they've researched everything quite well and don't any kind of bias that I've seen from them except for seeking the truth.

 

[Franko]

Watched the two part Frontline as well. Very revealing as to the way policies are done in the Bush office.

Stunningly sometimes....however my skepticism wasn't swayed one iota.

Regards

 

[aesop081]

Frontline isn't the Enquirer,they've researched everything quite well and don't any kind of bias that I've seen from them except for seeking the truth.

I never said that it was tabloiid TV or that it was not well researched. Read my post carefully. I said i thought it was well done. That being said, all media have some form of bias to some extent. A media, PBS, that is funded by its viewers ( an american public very hostile towards the war and towards the administration) is certainy worth taking with a grain of salt no matter how well researched and how well intended.

 

[KLW]

Bias is irrelevent if what is said is true.

 

[Yrys]

Bias is irrelevant if what is said is true.

I disagree, because light put on truth will make it (truth) seems different, depending of angle ...

Just look at MSM articles vs what people in those 'evenements' are relating afterwads...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Welcome to Army.ca.  

Bias exists and 'truth' is a difficult thing to determine in these matters.  I watched the show and found it interesting if indeed a little biased.  I read "Bush's War" in 2003, so the Afghan aspect wasn't all that new.  People against the Iraq war and worried about neo-cons probably loved the show.  

Are you here to educate us?

 

[ghyslyn]

I'll agree with Yrys here, bias can be created with facts, by presenting only the facts that support a certain view, and/or the way that the facts are presented.

 

[KLW]

Those are then halftruths,and what I've been researching about Bush's and the Neocons objectives coincided with what the Frontline episode reported.

I don't know how someone could make a case with the Frontline report and spin it to make them look like they're good guys looking out for us.

 

[Yrys]

Those are then halftruths

On the risk of my post being erased as not contining anything more then a "+1 " post :


No .

 

[KLW]

Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.

Either you comprehend it or you don't.

It won't make anyone a hippie or commie if you do understand.

 

[PMedMoe]

Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.

Either you comprehend it or you don't.

It won't make anyone a hippie or commie if you do understand.

So if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, they can't comprehend what's going on?
Wow, you really are here to educate others.  :

 

[Red 6]

I watched this program and thought it was very interesting and informative. It was especially interesting to hear about the differences in what Rumsfeld thought was needed in terms of troop level and force structure for the initial assault into Iraq and what the military commanders wanted. (I didn't hear thius mentioned, but as I understand it, this was the prime reason why General Shinseki, the Army CoS, was sent packing.) If nothing else, it puts done to the myth that the administration lets the military execute their missions how/when/with what forces the military commanders see fit.

I agree that facts can be presented in a leading way to influence what you think. Find a person who doesn't know anything about WW2, then show them a bunch of pictures of dead French citizens that were killed by allied bombing and pictures of ruined French cities. Explain that all and then explain to him all these losses were due to Allied military powers. Then, ask him to form an opinion based on this information. You haven't told him a single lie, but with no other information, you've painted a picture that can't help that person to conclude that our campaign in France was a brutal, destructive war.

I'm an American and my feeling about OIF are complex. To be frank, I haven't sorted out exactly how I feel. But I know one thing. I'm not going to let any TV show, no matter how well presented, make my decision for me. The ex-Iraqi government did an awfully convincing job to make the world believe they had WMD programs and capabilities. I also know how brutal and repressive the ex-Iraqi government was. I saw the proof with my own eyes in 1991 and to me, a world without Saddam Hussein is far preferable to one with him in it. And I don't want us to lose. If we cut and run, regardless of how anyone feels about the war, it'll be a long, time time before we find another real ally willing to stand with us.

Just for the record, I'm a democrat and have been for many years. But as an American, I know we cannot just leave Iraq. What troubles me is how many people want us to lose the war. I just don't understand that.

cheers, Mark

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am more interested in what people feel would have been the likely future of Iraq had Bush not have pressed for an invasion. I am still awaiting people to explain to me how & why the US/UK were going to maintain a 200,000 man army in the field to counter Saddam and if that military force was withdrawn how the UNSC was going to maintain compliance? The US/UK were spending billions to maintain the no-fly zones to protect Iraqis from Saddam, were they expected to do so for the next 20 years? Hans Blix’s reports to the UNSC were quite clear, Saddam was not being helpful and was trying to circumvent sanctions. The sanctions themselves were collapsing, France, Russia, China were all owed huge amounts of money by Saddam and the only way he could pay them off and obtain new equipment was to give them access to the oil fields and cheap oil. It was in the interests of those countries to maintain him in power despite his horrible human rights record and his incredibly and huge bad environmental destruction, caused during his invasion of Kuwait and the suppression of the Marsh Arabs. Please explain to me in detail how you saw the next 20 years play out without this event, what do you think about Saddams sons succeeding him, was condemning the Iraq people to perpetual misery a viable option? Saddam also spent most of his time in power in conflict with someone, did you expect that to change and why?

Red 6 you should read Corba II, it talks quite a bit about Rummy's ideas.

 

[aesop081]

Those are then halftruths,and what I've been researching about Bush's and the Neocons objectives coincided with what the Frontline episode reported.

And my time reading up on all this has taught me to never take anything at face value. Its not because this show agreed with you thoughts that it makes it the absolute truth.

Yes,you can say I like to educate others,especially those who can't comprehend what's going on.

Either you comprehend it or you don't.

I comprehend the politics of all this quite well thank you very much. I neither need nor want to be "educated" by you. You expressed your opinion of the show as i have mine. I dont need / wish for you to agree.

As far as bias is concerned, your "Obama" comment in another thread points to yours.......

 

[1feral1]

Bias is irrelevent if what is said is true.

Sounds like you have a agenda which is not so hidden.

 

[Bane]

(I didn't hear thius mentioned, but as I understand it, this was the prime reason why General Shinseki, the Army CoS, was sent packing.)

Hey Red 6,
Just to clarify.  Shinseki wasn't sent packing.  He had a disagreement with the administration to be sure, however, if you look at his term of service, he did a full 4 year term which is far and away the standard for an Army CoS (the last guy to do more than 4 years was Marshall I believe, ending in 1945). It just seemed like he got punted because of the timing of everything.