New Documents Show Bush Planned War in Iraq Well Before Sep 11

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hermit, Sep 24, 2010.

  1. All of us knew it but couldn't prove it. Now we can prove it. Newly declassified documents published at the National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq as early as January, 2001, and were making strategic plans and resource allocations as early as November, 2001.

    January 30, 2001 – Bush administration principals (agency heads) meet for the first time and discuss the Middle East, including Bush’s intention to disengage from the Israel-Palestine peace process and “How Iraq is destabilizing the region.” Bush directs Rumsfeld and JCS chairman Hugh Shelton to examine military options for Iraq; CIA director George Tenet is directed to improve intelligence on the country. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke are both struck by the emphasis on confronting Iraq, an aim consistent with Rumsfeld’s hiring of Wolfowitz and later Feith, well known for their bellicosity on the issue, for high-level Pentagon
    positions. (Source: EBB/Franks Timeline (PDF))

    When did we invade Afghanistan? Oh, that's was October 7, 2001.

    Walking through these documents makes it clear that the Bush Administration -- from Day One -- intended to invade Iraq at some point in their reign of terror. Here is a memo (PDF) dated January 23, 2001 outlining the "Origins of the Iraq Regime Change Policy". This was requested by Vice President-elect Dick Cheney before taking office, presumably as a way to justify policy formation around aggressive US efforts for "regime change" in Iraq.

    This memo (PDF) written on November 27, 2001 should send cold chills up and down your spine. It is a list of talking points from Rumsfeld to Franks about how to handle a run-up to a full-scale Iraq invasion. November 27th, 51 days after Afghanistan was invaded. And check this talking point:

  2. 377OHMS


    Bush? He isn't running for office anymore. You guys can stop campaigning against him.

    You might want to actually state what positive things the radical left has accomplished, while there is still time.

    Everytime you people mention George Bush it reminds everyone that you folks have had power for 2 years and have nearly destroyed the country in that short time. The Bush thing isn't workin for ya anymore, just sayin.
  3. National Security Archive prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Bush administration planned to topple Saddam Hussein and invade Iraq

    Without reading through all the bs, does it actually say that or is this just war games and scenarios?

    NSA probably has "invade" scenarious for every country in the world. It would be prudent to do so.
  4. This is really old news. If you read Paul O'Neill's The Price of Loyalty, it is all there.
  5. It was known but now there is proof, Ron Paul has been saying it for years.
  6. 377OHMS


    You behave as though it were a conspiracy.

    Iraq was shooting missiles at USAF aircraft for *years* in the no-fly-zone before 9/11 and so there was a plan to kick his ass.

    You leftists are such pansies.
  7. You kicked ass alrite! Thousands dead, more maimed for life and billions in debt because Saddam was shooting missiles in his backyard.
  8. 377OHMS


    Yeah, figures you would have no regard for US service-members.

    Lets see, Saddam is dead, Uday and Qusay are dead and Iraq is now struggling to figure out which political party will run the western-style democracy that has replaced Ba'athist terror.

    Clearly a defeat for the USA lol.
  9. Right, putting service members on harm's way after starting a senseless war using propaganda is the ideal way to have regard for them.

    And between, regime change was not even the war aim. But as far as fringe benefits go, those 100 thousand dead Iraqis are surely enjoying the western style democracy.
  10. 377OHMS


    I see, the service members being shot at in the no-fly-zone pre-war aren't the same as the army and marine service members shot at in Baghdad during the war. You morally equivocate...unless it suits you not to.

    Those 100 thousand dead Iraqis were bad-guys who lacked the sense to forego attacking a tank in little-white-pickup-trucks or didn't understand the concept of stopping at an armed checkpoint. Others thought it would be a good idea to lob mortar rounds and fire RPGs at the USMC with predictable results there.

    Didn't serve, did you? :D I didn't think so.
    #10     Sep 24, 2010