Uncovered: The War on Iraq

Uncovered: The War on IraqThe Bush Administration made up its' mind to go to war on September 11th 2001. From that time on, you were dealing with rationalization and justification for the war. You weren't dealing with real causes for the war or real reasons for the war. There was never a clear and present danger. There was never an imminent threat.

Uncovered: The War on Iraq, filmmaker Robert Greenwald chronicles the Bush Administration's determined quest to invade Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001.

The film deconstructs the administration's case for war through interviews with U.S intelligence and defense officials, foreign service experts, and U.N. weapons inspectors -- including a former CIA director, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and even President Bush's Secretary of the Army.

Their analyzes and conclusions are sobering, and often disturbing, regardless of one's political affiliations.

Watch the full documentary now

193
7.78
12345678910
Ratings: 7.78/10 from 18 users.

More great documentaries

23 Comments / User Reviews

  1. rage

    Who terrorized who?
    Who was the terrorist in that war?

  2. Anthony

    Luckily, the first line of the docs description, is a huge red flag for me.

    "The Bush Administration made up its’ mind to go to war on September 11th 2001."

    IMO, nothing could be further from the truth. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld made their decision to re-engage the military industrial complex prior to 9/11. The tragic event that happened on that day was only the means, to justify their end (read as: agenda). Unfortunately for Iraqi Civilians, their homeland happened to be the place where this event would unfold.

    Our move to invade and obviously now occupy Iraq, is yet another feather in the cap for other nations to deepen their hatred for the US. From oil to opium, makes no difference to them... if you've got it, TPTB want it. And, by god they'll take it at all costs.

    It's much more than a conspiracy ran by Governments though. Multinational Corporations are also worthy of a finger pointing.

  3. Jimmy

    Too much power for such an idiot.

  4. Immortal

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but is it not true that when coalition forces entered Iraq, they chose to secure oil fields before nuclear power facilities. I thought WMD's were the top priority?

  5. the loler

    @ Anthony

    I agree, I dont even think the Bush administration ever made up its mind, I think the plan was put down in the late 80s. In old times, before guns and bombs there were ways of attacking fortified places. You attack first from a far, try and burn down as much of the place as you can. Then you stop, surround the fort and sit back. You stop any supplies getting in to the fort and simply sit there and starve them out. When you decide they are no longer capable of putting up a strong resistance you then restart the war and finish the job.

    The first Iraq war they bombed all their power stations, food supplies, communications, hospitals etc, all their means of survival. Then, they blockaded the entire country and stopped any aid going in with sanctions, put the entire country under siege, and sat back. then when they had fallen to bits the went back in for the second wave and finished it. Its a textbook siege, the entire thing is one single plan hatched long ago in the 80s before they batied Sadam into the first battle.

  6. Kurrrt

    Mass viewers have no choice but to believe one sided broadcasting. Government retains it's super power status by masking their intent disreguarding truth and use human life as their resorce. The truth unfolds after the fact, by then their success is complete.

  7. migrantworker

    I ask you all: When you sit across a chess board do you simply tell the opponent what your strategy is?

    There were and are very good reasons to engage the enemy in Iraq and any other place where we can contest their influence.

    The root question remains: Is war necessary?

    To those that contest that war is a creation of primarily economic pressures and ambitions I would ask: What economic gain have you seen in the western world from our engagement in Afganistan? If we are making so much money from conflict, how come war does not fund itself? Do you really expect me to believe that large swaths of Western leadership back the war simply to make a select few wealthy? That Leaders like Tony Blair, who committed political suicide to stand by his decision, did it for some kind of sadistic personal power trip? Please. There is always an economic element to war. You dismiss much if you believe it to be the only reason.

    Most people, even those in the Millitary industrial complex, know that war is the most ugly and evil construct of man. I do not believe we have entered into these conflicts lightly.

    When another people profess a desire to see your way of life ended… Is war necessary? When these people arm political parties and respect only force as a means of governace… is war necessary? When these people, in the name of god, kill innocents on every continent save Antarctica… is war necessary?

    War is never good. But this is the “Good Fight.” I only wish that we were not the ones to have to do it.

    “Expect the blambe of those you better and the hate of those you guard” -Kipling

  8. darktechca

    Strategic and military presence in that area which was earlier controlled by the USSR is another reason to invade Iraq, Iran, Afglanistan..sens troops to Kirghistan etc. As mafalda says, in life there is no just money, there are also checks...and credit cards wold I add :)

  9. RileyRampant

    the laughable amount of reflection, support & effort which went into the planning for the post-war occupation show that the leadership which insisted upon leading us & our youngsters into war, whatever their motives, was not up to the job.

    watch the late sen. robert byrd's speeches for an example of what a reasonably intelligent person could anticipate going in, and match that against what the defense & state dept. put forward.

    bush, and clinton before him, were corrupt 2nd-raters. bush I was a corrupt 1st-rater.

    obama, it appears, is more like the elder bush than his son, but an equivocater entirely beholden to the corporate elite, nevertheless, like all since & including reagan.

    you can pick your party, but the can that comes out of the machine tastes pretty much the same.

  10. who_me_yeah_you

    There were no nuclear power facilities. there were however waste dumps from the decommissioned program with nasty waste. the US did rush for the oilfields and the oil ministry 1st. Then the pipeline and access routes and didnt have much manpower to spare after that. After repeatedly doing nothing about the Nuke waste Greenpeace or some similar organisation arranged the securing of the dump and return of drums taken for water storage etc.

  11. Tadgh Wade

    I have to reply to migrantworker post:
    your view is so tattered and full of weak arguments. Tony Blairs ratings actually went up due to war after the 7/ 11 bombings. Similar to Bush and the timely 9/11 strikes. What the hell has strategy got to do with it. This person totally doesnt understand what type of globalsied world we live in. In fact the these armed political parties that he/or she talks about is so ridiculous. Who funded al queda. Yes thats right the US did against the soviets. What happens when you give guerilla fighters weapons...... you get armed parties. America creates policy so it can manipulate the outcome. You just must be so blind to the outside world or probably more likely you either represent interests of the US government.

  12. Mark Golding

    Your observation ties in with what European leaders have been doing for centuries, what Kings and Princes have always done since the Iron Age, who have forged coalitions with any ragbag militia or rogue state that wins them and their sycophantic merchant class any extra territory or wealth as an outcome. When fortunes change and former defeated nations rise up to challenge the world order suddenly the government that had once published through its media a call to arms to defeat the evil enemy will, in a next moment, sign a euphemistic 'non-aggression pact' with that enemy that includes joining forces in the event of either one being attacked by another nation. Such coalitions between war making retards has given the world a permanently blood stained landscape. Hitler, Stalin and Churchill presided over the carving up of Poland which involved gagging the media and distorting the truth.
    The situation in Afghanistan is nothing like what has been presented by the ever condescending mainstream media. It has been one great big whitewash. The country has descended into chaos, sectarian rivalry has escalated since the injection of money (hard cash) into the local arms industry, via CIA payoffs to War Lords early in 2003 naively to win their co-operation in the rounding up of terrorists, has produced arms caches for militants and mad Mullahs to use against American and British troops. The National Coalition of ethnic groups is a sham and corruption and nepotism in Kabul is rife. The situation has been brought about by a handful of neocons under Clinton, Bush, Obama who haven't a single working brain cell between them.

  13. Glen Hale

    WMD's War Mongering Dopes, Dumbasfelt et al have made USA the laughing
    stock of the World.
    There will always be wars because big banks win that's why the Federal Reserve in not owned by the USA government they can finance both sides.

  14. Rixar13

    Thanks mountainmike....

  15. sophie

    this film was very interecting with facts i didn't know

  16. Jon

    The Iraq War happened because there was something amiss with the manner Saddam prospered under supposedly oppressive UN Sanctions. The UN Sanctions were implemented as a compromise for the US need to take Saddam to a court of justice after his failed military invasion of Kuwait. There were chemical and biological weapons used against the US military that were likewise blamed for the massacre of rebels that the UN Security Council sacrificed or ignored to keep Saddam in power.

    For Republicans, Saddam was an unfinished business in an effort to serve Justice where it is due.

    The UN Security Council meanwhile tolerated the loss of lives and damage to property that Saddam inflicted in his attack on Kuwait. Its refusal to provide a resolution to allow the US military to remove Saddam from power can be argued as a way to conceal the secret deals where Council members were given concessions by Saddam that defy the sanctions. Saddam built not one but two palatial homes furnished with the finest French and German wares money can buy.

    Apparently Russia built a pipeline to Syria which allows Saddam market access for oil sales that was COMPLETELY kept secret from the USA. While Russia and Germany seem to absorb the loss of their investments, French and US relations soured. The US later had to emphasize they got a providential constitution with a democracy far from aristocratic. In contrast, France appears to justify opulent lifestyle in its support for palatial living of Saddam amid powerty of the population and the death and suffering of children directly blamed on oppressive santions by the UN which both France and the USA are members.

    Leason is expect no honesty among countries which try to outdo one another in secret. The truth is the USA was no opponent of Saddam prior to the UN Resolution for US military intervention in Kuwait. But the UN Security council failed to act like one the moment Saddam gave concessions to its members sans the USA.

  17. Eric Lawson

    Wow it is hard to believe that Saddam Hussein was once given the key to the City of Detroit. He was the USA s man in the middle east. Fighting and keeping at bay the Iranians Army for 10 years. He and his army were given military help by the free world for their battle against Iran. To when it became convenient to become such an enemy of the US. Yes he was crazy to think he could take over Kuwait without some kind of response from the USA. After all Kuwait is where the oil is. We all need Oil in this day and age.looking back is 20 20. It is just hard to believe that an entire administration could get things so wrong. So many lies. So many lives lost. Surely Saddam could have been made to bend. War should always be a last resort.. Lets hope now that the current administration will get it right. Protect vital interests yes. But let the religious battle. Between the Sunni and the Shia run its coarse. No more innocent lives. Keep everything above board. This should be interesting to see how things are handled. Especially with an election just around the corner !!! .

  18. Jon

    Had America been ruled by a dictator for life, these allegiances would not have changed over time.

    FYI, it was the UN Resolution that made Saddam an opponent of the US. But the UN in gwb time was already imposing itself like a One World Government. There were occasions aired on media that its officials even wanted to arrest the US President for defying UN policy and take him to court. But come to think of it, the UN is a body of representatives from several member countries, many of which are autocratic and completely opposed to popular democracy.

    Even the environmental movement rooted from the pledge of countries to implement UN Agendas is basically removing power from the people for self governance.

  19. Eric Lawson

    Thank you for your reply. Never new that Peace!!!

  20. awful_truth

    You know, I could list an endless amount of facts, and reasons why the U.S was never justified for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. It is far more effective to just ask the right questions.
    1) How can you impeach a president for lying about a blowjob, when you can't impeach a president for outright lies that resulted in a million deaths, and the displacement another 4 million people?
    2) How can the U.N support an illegal pre-emptive strike against Iraq that was in contravention of 21 U.N resolutions, (supposed WMD)
    while Israel was in contravention of 64 U.N resolutions? (real WMD)
    3) How can Milosevic, and Hussein be brought before the world courts for crimes against humanity when far more heinous crimes of Bush, and Cheney go untouched? (note: America does not recognize the world court's authority)
    4) How can the American public support leaders that steal elections, violate every international law, the Geneva Convention, suspended Habeas Corpus, willingly tortured innocent people, yet demand the right to bear arms to protect themselves from said government? (oh yeah, real patriotic defenders of democracy)
    5) Last, but not least, how can the Pentagon leaders misplace 2.3 trillion dollars they cannot account for, yet be trusted for their analysis of intelligence to go to war?
    P.S: I apologize to any American people who did not support this modern day fascist dictatorship. (not your fault) This is directed at the media outlets, and people who willingly chose not to think critically, were to cowardice to speak up, or exercise their voting right to remove any in congress who did support it. Take care, and best wishes everyone!

  21. mountainbikerz

    Many, if not most, people don't want to believe that their country can do evil, that the leaders lie, that "national interests" may not be something they approve. Probably those of us, who watched this documentary, already have lifted the veil of primary and secondary school conditioning. When I speak out on these topics, I get pushback. But I continuously plant the seeds of another point of view of the government. The coming generation appears far more skeptical of government than my generation.

    I've copied your questions and share your dismay that high crimes go unpunished. Any prosecution must originate outside the USA, as power protects power. For example, Obama wants to look forward not back (to war crime prosecutions) and continues many Bush policies.

  22. mountainbikerz

    U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

  23. awful_truth

    Thank you for your response, and thoughts. I completely agree that Obama has merely continued Bush's policies, and philosophy. Question: How can the American public be so polarized regarding Republican/democratic politics if they are both doing the same thing? Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest there is only 1 party with 2 factions. (illusion of choice)

Leave a comment / review: