Sure he had WMD'S..we gave them to him to use when Iraq was fighting Iran...but we needed more Military bases for our future imperialist dreams..so Saddam had to be the bad guy. Even the cause for the first Gulf war was bullshit...Kuwait was slant oil drilling into Iraq's fields and Saddam asked the U.S. about it and told us that he would attack them.

The U.S. said that it was his business...then all of a sudden..we have to "save Kuwait"

All the proof is here, if you want to know the truth..But it seems that you may not want to as the red haze of global hegemony is all powerful...

The Master Plan

In 1992 Wolfowitz authored a DoD plan that called for a policy of preemption rather than containment. The draft, officially known as the "Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-1999," is classified but was leaked to the New York Times.


Key aspects of the plan were: to prevent the emergence of a rival superpower, through military and non-military means, in order to maintain the "new world order;" to safeguard U.S. interests, including "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil;" to "encourage the spread of democratic forms of government;" and, to be prepared to take unilateral military action as necessary.


There is no mention of cooperative action through the United Nations in the draft.
Key excerpts of the plan can be found at

frontline: the war behind closed doors: excerpts from 1992 draft 'defense planning guidance' | PBS

and the original text from the New York Times article at

http://www.911truth.org/readingroom/...?article_id=86

Clinton Rejects the Plan

Wolfowitz's plan was adopted by the right-wing think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), upon its founding in 1997. (Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are founding members of PNAC.) The plan was refined and proposed to President Clinton shortly thereafter.

An open letter to Clinton outlining key portions of the plan regarding Iraq can be found at

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

The heart of the letter is summarized in this excerpt:

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means
removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power."

Clinton rejected the plan, as did H. W. Bush six years earlier.

Bush II Adopts the Plan

Three years later, George W. Bush became president and Dick Cheney vice president. Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense. More than a dozen other members of PNAC were also appointed to key administrative positions, including Richard Armitage, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Elliott Abrams.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Bush announced his adoption of the policy promoted by PNAC. Initially the potential for preemptive strikes was limited to terrorists and to "those who harbor them." Later it was expanded to include any rogue state engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. This radical new foreign policy was dubbed the Bush Doctrine.

A 9/11 Connection?

In retrospect it is clear that the doctrine taking us to war with Iraq had been formulated long before 9/11, and in fact had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. The only questions remaining are

1) when exactly did President Bush decide to adopt the doctrine

2) did Bush and his administration intentionally use the 9/11 attacks to mislead Americans into supporting the doctrine?

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill claims that President Bush was intent on eliminating Saddam Hussein from the very beginning of his administration, and was looking for a way to justify it.

Richard Clark, former White House counter terrorism coordinator, has said that Bush was looking for a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 almost immediately after the attacks took place.

Aside from these allegations, and a handful of enigmatic White House memos discussing plans for of post-Saddam Iraq, there is little evidence Bush had adopted the PNAC plan prior to 9/11. But neither is there evidence against it.

In his several speeches and statements following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush repeatedly implied connections between the perpetrators of the attack, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein.


On a number of occasions, primarily in local speeches, he made more explicit claims. Dick Cheney was consistently more direct in his assertions, stating that there had been "long established ties" between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and "overwhelming evidence" of those ties. For the most part, however, Bush and Cheney avoided tying Saddam himself directly to the 9/11 attacks.

But some of their statements crossed that line. For example, Bush in May, 2003 told the troops on the aircraft carrier, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

The implication was that Iraq had funded Al Qaeda, but there is no evidence supporting this claim.
Even more pointed is what Cheney told Tim Russert on Meet the Press in September 2003. "If we're successful in Iraq," he said, "then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Mass Deception

It's no wonder, with statements like these, that 65% of Americans in 2003 thought Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. What is striking is that, with such widespread misperception, the Bush Administration has made virtually no attempt to straighten the record.

And in fact seems intent on keeping the misconception alive. Americans who supported the war in Iraq wonder aloud why the vast majority of those outside the United States didn't support the war, a war that seemed so just.

The answer is simple: While Americans were under the impression we were avenging the deaths of 3000 Americans, the rest of the world was wondering why we were attacking a country that had done us no harm.


cheap fodder for the brainless peasant fucks that think an endless war and martial law would be great!

__________________
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives."

Hi justme,

I don't know whether or not GWB deliberately lied about the existence of WMDs, I think most people thought that he had something (maybe left over from the 80s)...including myself....although I never bought into the "mushroom clouds" and "stock piles of the worst weapons ever know to mankind" statements. Saddam's military infrastructure was pretty darn weak in 2003...and had been for a while.

However, I do think the GWB and his team deliberately built up the threat and scared the living shit out of people...and I think they did on purpose to get their war. No way was Iraq anywhere near the threat that they painted it as....with or without the WMD. That's the part that angers me the most about this whole thing....not to mention we still had unfinished business in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

Apoyo esta declaración. Gracias señor.

>>>I didn't know whether or not Saddam had WMDs. I do know that we should have done a little investigating before we allowed Bush to bull rush us into that war with his 'mushroom cloud' nonsense. There was no need to start that war when we did, except that Bush wanted to be known forever as the neo-crusading and Defender of Jerusalem.

Hello Norman,

As we've discussed before, with the benefit of hindsight, you won't find me defending the Iraq invasion. I do believe the "Bush lied" mantra has interfered in actually working towards finding solutions that would prevent such unnecessary attacks in the future. Mainly in the intelligence gathering arena.
It may be perception based on our differing political beliefs, but listening to the President and reading many sources during the build-up, I never felt Bush was trying to scare the shit out of anybody. I saw it as...heres the deal...heres what COULD happen...heres what we're gonna do about it.
The article which started the thread shows that Saddam himself, as a matter of deterrence with Iran, claimed to have the weapons. It seems logical to me when you have the leader of the country saying he has the weapons, and you have many different intelligence groups saying he has the weapons, theres a good chance he has the weapons.
As far as the "unfinished business," I'm sorry, I believe the military that fought on a global scale in WW2 is capable of fighting on more than one front 60 yrs later especially given the advances in technology. You can argue the tactical decisions were wrong, but the implication that one caused the other to fail doesn't seem correct.
I'll admit I have no first hand knowledge of the Iraqi military ability in 2003. But I do remember opponents making statements about the need for "...tens of thousands of body bags..." for our soldiers when they reached Baghdad. So it seems not everyone viewed the Iraqi military as the non-threat they were shown to be.
My thought is that the intelligence that lead to both sides arguments...Iraq is a threat and Iraq is no threat...was flawed. I believe the "Bush lied" mantra has caused attention to be drawn from that.
Regardless of who the next President is, (D) or (R), I would like to believe when they say "intelligence reports show...", that the intelligence is factual. I don't want the next President, or any President, to be hampered in their efforts to defend and secure the country by partisan efforts to undermine available intelligence based solely on political alliances.
I'm reminded of a question Cord posed on a thread about the NIE...basically , it was why some would choose to believe the NIE report showing Iran was now a good citizen in the global community when they claimed the earlier report regarding Iran as a threat was wrong?
I simply don't think intelligence geared to ANY partisan belief is best for the country. It should be facts. Simple.

Hi justme,

I try to avoid the "Bush lied" bandwagon....because let's be honest....politicians can certainly mislead people on purpose....and many have done so. In the 90s, Clinton said many of the same things about Saddam/Iraq that GWB would later say leading up to March 2003....and I think much of it was politically motivated. Of course, the big difference to me was that Clinton (and Bush I) didn't pull the trigger.
I have to disagree with you here, justme. I think there was a deliberate attempt to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq....and one of the best motivators is fear...especially in the wake of 9/11. A good example of this were the many statements made by the Administration that include both Iraq/Saddam and Al Qaeda in the same sentence....insinuating a link. I have to call bullshit on that. It was far from a consensus that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in bed together....or even on speaking terms.
Well, actually, he never claimed he had them...but, he never claimed he didn't. And he played a game....which looking back on it....made sense from his perspective.
I thought he had some WMDs, justme....although I didn't buy the "mushroom clouds", "stock piles of the worst weapons know to mankind" statements, but I thought he would something. But, you know what, justme...who cares?? I mean really....did that really matter or justify the last five years??? Chemical weapons have been around for years....and lots of countries have them including Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.

The Administration successfully painted WMDs as this nasty unacceptable boogey man, but, in reality, were they? In the bigger picture...no...no way.

We can, justme; in fact, it's in the planning guidance, but for shorter periods of time. Our military is not structured to fight and insurgency for five years and counting with 150K+ troops...it's not. Remember, this is an all volunteer force.....you can't just draft more people to replace them. It is not designed to do what it has been doing in Iraq...and the Bush Administration knows this. They never thought or planned we would still be in Iraq...in force...five years after the invasion....not even close.
I don't know who these "opponents" were, but anyone who said that was clueless. I was in the Gulf in 1999 during the No-Fly Zones and it was clear to everyone that Iraq was weak and getting weaker. They were not rebuilding their conventional forces at all...in fact, they were losing them...especially their air defense.

When we began the invasion, I predicted we would be in Baghdad in about three weeks....I was pretty close. And I also said that I was most worried about Phase IV....the occupation.

Conventionally, Iraq was not threat and there was no intelligence that said otherwise. The WMD focus was the supposed threat...and you already know my opinions on that one.
I agree, but I hate to say it, justme....politics always plays a role in decision making...it always had and probably always will. Hopefully, Iraq has taught the need for much more pragmatism during the decision making.
I don't know, justme. In my mind, any report....especially an intel report....needs to caveat and quantify their uncertainty. The very nature of intelligence makes in inherently uncertain....more in some cases and less in others. And this often depends on the sources. They should say....this is our best guess, but it could also be X, Y, & Z....and, hopefully, this gives policy makers a full picture and a range of options.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

Bandwagon? the 900 some lies thing was counted. There isnt any logic in assuming he had these weapons. The other thing is. There was no Delivery systems in teh country. He could sit ona fucking moutain of that shit and with no SS missiles no fucntion airplanes and no Artilery...it woudnt mean shit. The conventional wepaons estimates were so insane it was laughable.

You military wannabe types should learn concepts of teh occupation you lie about being in. Power Projection. The concept of being able not only to transport but suply from home a military outside your borders. Not very many countries can do that. Quess wich ones can. Well fuck me. Its those rascals from the WW2 Allies - the commies thankfully...AGIAN!!!!! Thats three nations bungholes. Iraq aint one of them.

This shis is not pulled out of your ass. YOu cant build this shit in a sink, garage or basement. Those were all bold face lies. Its is a 100 percnet irrfutable fact the bush admin dint mislead...dint play politics...dint spin. They lied like a motherfucking rug.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

***************************************
StormanNorman: you are far too reasonable and logical to be on this site! What a breath of fresh air: you actually admit there are some things that you do not know as a fact; that you can not read the president's mind; but that there are some things that cause you to suspect and question the reason & wisdom & method of going to war in Iraq when GWB eleted to do so. Now the "unfinished business in Afghanistan & Pakistan" you mention continues to grow more omnious by the day. I do not know if GWB deliberately lied about the WMDs back then; I do think the entire matter & method of going to war when he did was then & is now questionable at best. I do know that the American people should never have to question weither or not a war was necessary; I do know that there are/were an awful lot of questions & events & decisions & actions by the GWB-Cheney-Rice-Rhumsfield-Rove-Gonzalles-Ashcroft gang that are very disturbing, unbalancing and damaging to our basic form of shared power government. However, I also know that the executive did not do this alone: AWOL was "we the people;s" guardian Congress through out all of this: probably at best asleep at the wheel, more likely hiding under their desk. Of course Big Business & Big Money in all Forms have done so very well through out all of this. Anyway Storman, it was good to find your resonable read, thanks! ..pjwky

DUUUUUUUDE!!!! " I dont know if Bush Lied about WMD" Holy what drugs you got batman" Look if theres one thing you SHOULD KNOW FOR SURE..its that.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When congress gave up it's Constitutional right to declare war it left the country open to be lead by a president with an agenda to have a war at any cost. Until Congress gets some balls any president left or right can lead us further down a path of destruction.

__________________
My karma tells me you have been fooled again.
If you let them do it to you, you have got yourself to blame.
Pete Townsend