Was The Case For Invading Iraq A Deliberate Fraud?

It is by now pretty well known that at the time of the invasion no reasonable person thought that the invasion was justified. Anyone who paid attention to the facts available from the UN, the US and world media could see that, despite the explicit statements of the Bush administration, the case offered in support of invading Iraq was based on misunderstood, misinterpreted and even fabricated evidence.

The question now before you, if you care to take it up, is was this incompetence or deliberate fraud? Did the Bush administration simply make a series of tragic mistakes, or did they let some conscious or unconscious motivation, such as antipathy for the Hussein regime, or a desire for a military adventure in the middle east, .

You don't have to determine that President Bush or anyone in his administration believed that he was lying as he made his case. All you have to determine here is whether the overall behavior of the Bush administration is consistent with an honest and impartial effort to come to whatever conclusion is best supported by the available facts. If it is not, then a conlusion of deliberate fraud is justified.

An accusation of this nature bears a heavy burden of proof. Although you don't have to worry about what went on in people's minds, you do have to be open to any reasonable possibility that the mistakes of the pro-invasion case were honestly made.

Here's a site that argues for fraud.
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

I don't have any anti-fraud links, so if you conclude that the evidence available here does justify a conclusion of fraud, you should be aware that there may be evidence out there, which I don't know about, that actually refutes this conclusion.

On the other hand, if you find a basis for reasonable doubt, you should conclude that no fraud took place.

Links for and against the invasion. Which may or may not be helpful.

For pro-invasion arguments, see Tony Blair
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/784744/posts

For anti-invasion arguments, see The Case Against War

Anti invasion http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=47 especially http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=1582

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/iraq_lies.html

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=487

Also see this reply to Huffington http://www.yetmho.com/Gulf_War_ostriches.html

A debate in Reason Magazine: http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/01/should-we-invade-iraq


There's also an assortment of stuff here http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=1195

If you scaefod Huffington's main argument and one reply to it, that would make a good start.

If your previous stage was pro-war, do the assignment at Simpson/Rangwala


Old links. (mostly bad)

Read The State of the Union Speech and  Remarks to the United Nations Security Council and then read united for peace and Education for Peace in Iraq and maybe U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup (which isn't directly about the present war.) you might also look at If Not Now, When?

Followups: If your previous stage was pro-war, read Zinn and/or Simpson/RangwalaZunes, if anti-war, read Charen and/or Horowitz 
For more information, see.
http://www.cyber-dyne.com/~rsaxton/i6.htm
http://www.tokyotightwad.com/sanctions.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/saddam/transcript.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/analyses/


Alternative Topic - Logical Consistency of After-The-Fact Justification

What justification, if any, is now being offered for the invasion? Is this justification consistent with the rest of US foreign policy?


Copyright © 2004 by Martin C. Young

Next page.

---

This Site is Proudly Hosted By: