Would the US have ever invaded Iraq a 2nd time if the 9/11 attack hadn't occured?

Search

RX Senior
Joined
Apr 20, 2002
Messages
47,431
Tokens
ya believe theres a few reports out there that say the plans were already on the table. .maybe someone can dig for them
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
80,046
Tokens
I am curious about this...

My current GF's husbnd was killed in the WTC...I have heard some really sad stories ...and have a different perspective, a perspective I really didn't want to know to be quite honest...
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
Rob, I think the military has plans for invading just about every country outside Canada. I don't think the Pentegon had updated an Iraqi invasion plan since Gulf War 1; Franks had to redo the plan from scratch if I remember corrctly.

Journey- No way does Iraq get invaded without 9-11. They may get bombed often, but troops on the ground wouldn't be an option.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
get real, guys: Bush has plans to invade Iraq before 9-11 went down ...

Richard Clarke: 'Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11.


Comment by Larry Ross - June15, 2004

This authoritative article by Bush insider Richard Clarke reveals a lot of truths that Bush and Co would prefer to be hidden from the US public. For example: Clarke said Bush came into office with a hidden plan to make war on Iraq. He never revealed that to the US public beforehand. Clarke said the smoke was still coming out of the 9/11 attack when one would think Bush would focus on bin-Laden and al-Qaeda. That's what people thought. According to Clarke, Bush was plotting the new Iraq war as a top priority. Because of the many doubts and questions about the 9/11 attack, people are now wondering if the 9/11 attack was part of the plot. Bush and cabal could not have initiated the phoney Iraq war and got those billions of US dollars allocated, unless they had a 9/11 attack. So whether it was planned, or was allowed to happen, or just happened out-of-the blue, the Bush administration was very quick to exploit it. As the neo-cons said in one of their pre-war planning documents. We need a new Pearl Harbour. One way or another, they got it.
There's lots in Clarke's article that provides more proofs for our War Crimes Indictment. I think it's important for people to realise that Bush's and his neo-com cabal plotted to begin their war crimes agenda and plotted how to set up the whole state apparatus that would allow them to get away with it, some time before Bush became President in 2000. I think what we are seeing is a very well thought out and orchestrated plan to make the US engage in a number of wars, of which Afghanistan and Iraq were the first two. As well as violating a number of international laws and agreements, Bush and cabal have deeply violated the US Constution and Bush should be impeached. What do criminals do when their deceits and murderous illegal acts are exposed?. I dont think they will capitulate or admit any crimes. They are apt to increase their crimes to new extremes, as a way of justifying themselves and carry on with their war plans. They could cause so much more war and violence, including the use of nuclear weapons, and more severe terrorist attacks as warned. Doing it that way, and with continuing mass media support for Bush crimes, the US public would be even more frightened, confused and ready to support whatever is asked of them, as they did after 9/11.

 
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
22,231
Tokens
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="FONT-SIZE: x-small; FONT-FAMILY: arial,helvetica,sans-serif">
IRAQ WAR WAS PLANNED IN 1998 – FOUR YEARS BEFORE 9/11

Letter Written In 1998 By Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Shows That Their Plan To Preemptively Attack Iraq Was Made Before Bush Took Office

by Samuel A. Stanson
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE id=AutoNumber10 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%"> <TABLE id=AutoNumber31 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="100%">DECEMBER 2, 2003 – It was – and is – called Project For A New American Century. This was a group made up of, among others, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – then not officeholders.

This group sat down and plotted their course of action to dominate the word through use of unilateral preemptive force. On Jan 26, 1998, they sent at letter to then President Clinton which said the following:

“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. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.

Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.

We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.

In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.”


Sound familiar? Sound like exactly what the President said in the build-up to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq?

Yes, make no mistake, it is absolute fact that the plan the preemptively attack Iraq without UN involvement was created not by President Bush, not in response to 9/11, but by a handful of paranoid warmongers four years before 9/11 ever occurred. Other future Bush appointees, such as Abrams, a criminal whose crimes during his last tenure serving his country required a pardon from the first President Bush, were also a part of the group that drew up this plan.

This group sat around – seething about Clinton being President – back in 1998 wishing they could invade Iraq, go it alone without the UN.

So when you heard the President telling you 9/11 was why we were invading Iraq, that was a provable lie. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and their Project for a New American Century envisioned making the next century one of bullying war and preemptive attacks undertaken without UN participation.

They seized on 9/11 to implement their long-held plan. They planned a generation of war – not against Osama and the terrorists who threatened us, but against Iraq going around the UN structure.

Why President Bush and Dick Cheney insulted the world, didn’t even attempt to work with the UN in a useful manner, and went from hunting Osama to launching us into Iraq becomes very clear. The group running their Defense Department, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, had just been looking for an excuse.

Yes, you had heard the rumors about this. Now you have the facts. You can see the Project For A New American Century for yourself – they are on the web. The full text of the above letter is there, as is another interesting document.

There are two statements about post-war Iraq posted on the site. In the second statement, the group issues the asinine commentary: “Of particular concern, the effort to rebuild Iraq should strengthen, not weaken transatlantic ties. “ It was their plan to flip off even our closest allies, insult them as useless and “irrelevant” (as Cheney referred to Europe all summer long.) Yes, it didn’t take them long to realize we actually needed our allies, that their claim that working with our allies was “misguided” was a disastrous, stupid idea and miscalculation.

Now, we are in Iraq without an actual coalition and with no plan beyond “removing Saddam from power.” Remember, that was their “long term” plan. Nothing beyond removing Saddam.

Which explains exactly where we are now. Saddam got removed. Now what is the plan? Oops, forgot to think about that.

Good to know this mess wasn’t the result of rushed planning in response to 9/11. No, this planless, unilateral, preemptive invasion of Iraq was drawn up over 4 years before it actually occurred. Half a decade, and all they could come up with was telling our allies to screw off as we depose Saddam without a plan for what to do afterwards – on top of lying and pretending 9/11 had anything to do with this to sell it to the nation

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Even dumba*s Drudge ran a story on this ...



[size=+1]FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL ONEILL SAYS INVASION OF IRAQ WAS PLANNED IN THE FIRST DAYS...[/size]
<SMALL>Drudge ^ | 1/10/04 | Drudge</SMALL>


<SMALL>Posted on 01/10/2004 6:44:24 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection</SMALL>


The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill.

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book.

Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Journeyman:

The PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org; see the Statement of Principles for a list of signatories) has been after Saddam since their inception. They wrote the now infamous letter to Clinton (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) urging him to oust Saddam. To say this group was 'preoccupied' would be an understatement. In the document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, they acknowledge that building up a huge military, and exerting American 'influence' (including, but not limited to, the ousting of Saddam) would take a 'cataclysmic event, like a new Pearl Harbour.'

But would Bush have invaded in April of 2003 absent 9/11. Probably not. More than likely he would have aided a Shi'ia uprising à la post-Gulf I, or some other form of overthrow.

(The 'convenience' of 9/11 is what fuels most of the conspiracy theories out there.)
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,730
Tokens
Hell Lander...you picked the one time in his life Drudge was wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."

....

Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
81
Tokens
xpanda said:
Journeyman:

The PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org; see the Statement of Principles for a list of signatories) has been after Saddam since their inception.

Of the six signatories I'm familiar with (Rumsfeld, Perle, Abrams, Bennett, Perle, and Wolfowitz) NONE of them have combat experience, despite all of them being young men during the Korean or Vietnam eras.

I guess they aren't as anti-communist as they are anti-Saddam.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Welcome to the forum, Berlino.

Wolfowitz wrote a piece in which he comments on the anti-war dissidents as he writes a term paper from his dorm. He commented specifically on how these types support the draft dodgers.

I found that most amusing.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,122,621
Messages
13,615,695
Members
101,359
Latest member
mytmofficial
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com