Why Did We Invade Iraq?
 

I see a lot of people on these boards saying we invaded Iraq for a lot of different reasons: WMDs, oil, terrorists, hussein is an evil evil man, etc. And of course these are what you're supposed to think. That's what the government told you.

I'd like to introduce you to the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/). Their statement of principles was written in 1997:

I'm sure you will recognize a few of the people who signed this statement:
Other people on this list are in the administration, but not as well known (by me at least).

Now I'd like to show you a letter that the group sent to Bush when he was President and the highlighted people above had already implanted themselves as the makers of foreign policy.

A public letter to the POTUS just 9 days after 9/11 from a "non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership", whose former members list includes Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz says that we should invade Iraq. They knew that 9/11 brought them the opportunity that they had needed since 1997: a catastrophe that would unite the american people in such a way that they would believe anything as long as they were reminded of the catastrophe and its connections.

9/11 = terrorist = bad = hussein = iraq.
Iraq = evil dictatorship with suffering people = { North Korea, Iran, etc. }
The leap is not a large one after what has already happened.

So I say to my fellow war-haters, don't cite North Korea and Iran as reasons to not go to war with Iraq. If the neoconservative members of the PNAC stay in power for another 4 years, we will be at war with both these soverign nations and others in a public "desire to spread democracy and stop terror" and a private "desire to assert american leadership (read dominance) upon the world".

I'm not sure exactly what the motives of the Bush administration are - they very might well be part of the world domination conspiracy theory you have spoken of, or the Halliburton "controversy", but I take all conspiracy theories with a large dose of salt - and sometimes I don't agree with how the war is conducted (read: certain bombing campaigns in Fallujah, failure to appeal to the people of Iraq, or Abu Ghraib), but my own rationalization goes something like this:

(this was written by me for another forum, and has been cross-posted)

1. America has been engaged in Iraq for eleven some odd years before 2003.
2. During this time, America has nearly occupied, shot cruise missiles at Iraq under the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction facilities, established joint no flyzones over their territory with France and the UK, and conducted controversial bombing campaigns. We have denied them aid and then provided money directly to Saddam Hussein to give us oil in the Oil for Food scam. This problem was inherited and had to be solved by the Bush administration.
3. This occurred during the previous two presidents terms of office, and Clinton left the Oval Office convinced that Saddam still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden somewhere (possibly out in the mountains bordering Iran, where they could be kept indefinitely and possibly used at some later date). The most liberal estimate of the destruction caused by airstrikes against Saddam's weapons capacity was in the 70 percent range. Clinton also believed that regime change was the only possible solution.
4. Saddam deceived weapons inspectors, shipped equipment and possibly the weapons away from chemical weapons facilities that inspectors visited.
5. Saddam shot at around 700 planes in the no fly zone.
6. Saddam had made contacts outside Iraq for slipping past the sanctions.
7. He used the Foodscam money to pay for palaces and new weapons while his people starved and the infrastructure of Iraq fell into disrepair.
8. Surveillance showed Saddam always rebuilt weapons facilities after attacks.
9. America and the so-called civilized world is responsible for the deaths of Iraqis that starved under the sanctions, which were put in place to force him to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
10. Osama bin Laden used the Iraq sanctions as his primary motivator in his "kill all Americans" speech in the 90s.
11. Connections to Al Qaeda are tenuous but warrant investigation. I am not convinced that they have been fully investigated and that early dismissal is foolish.
12. Needless to say, Saddam is one murderous tyrant, and his sons, who were likely to inherit the place, were worse. Saddam at least gave moral support to terror in Israel.
13. Iraq is situated geopolitically in a favourable position to disrupting the theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle East. It has vast quantities of fresh water that could be provided to parched Iran in exchange for concessions. It borders on Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which puts it in a position to pressure them into cracking down on the terrorists that ferment within their borders.
14. This, by the way, is the only means of preventing terrorist training in the Middle East that I have come across and am open to less violent suggestions.
15. Iraq was frankly an easy target to begin with. Iran, North Korea and dictators in Africa and such places are both harder to get to and harder to defeat than the flood plains of Iraq, which are easily accessed from Kuwait.

War is not pretty, but isolation is not the answer. Neither are half-witted sanctions that prey on the people of Iraq, but not the regime that controls it. I would have preferred a slower invasion, but that would have provided Saddam with even more time to bunker down.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke

Maybe the Bush administration are not good men, but what were they to do?

rukkyg,

i think your preconceived notions clouded your reading of this. the article says nothing about about invasion, all it does is state the removal of saddam hussein as a valid and necessary objective. invasion is, of course, a method of doing just that... but not the only way. in fact, it provides specific statements concerning backing anti-saddam groups within iraq... suggesting an internal coup rather than an invasion. if you had read this before the war i think you would have derived significantly different conclusions about its intent.

also, people don't "implant themselves" into foreign policy, they are chosen and appointed.

Wolfowitz doctrine...

This war is about oil and colonial interests, just not in the current context as thought by leftie's/anti war people...

Who gets the majority of their oil from Iraq/ South East Asia ( Japan, China), Western Europe (France, Germany). The longterm establishment of an American presence in Iraq will ultimately assure a lower global military build up of troops and interests in the middle east. If we have military dominance in the ME region over the nations that have direct natural resource interests, this will assure a lower military buildup in said nations (Primarly(sp) Western Europe and hopefully China). They will have no exports of global military interests in the ME region because we are there and regulating it.

A fine example of the power of meaning-metamorphosis.
What about this twist on the same words: 9/11 confirmed everbody's worst fears about fundamentalist terrorism? That, in fact, it IS a danger to be dealt with and not only the paranoid delusions of some frantic CIA operative working 20 hours a night in the bowels of the intelligence labs, a la Richard Clarke?? Call it 'having a contigency plan'.

Well you got one out of 4 right but failed to mention other reasons that supercede the obvious selection(s). But I like the way you think.

first of all, many of us had read those papers before the war. And we were the ones explaining to people that the posturing Bush was doing was immaterial--we were definately headed for war.

And we cited those papers as our evidence that the war plans were drafted and waiting for an opening.


Secondly, the way mojo described the war for oil situation is not contrary to leftist positions. He just wants it to be, because it happens to be correct. Depending on how many threads this current version of TFP still has, one can run a search on my name and find a similar, although more in-depth, exposition of the left's position in regards to "war for oil."

I don't know if he lifted those thoughts from that thread, but he certainly didn't appear to agree when many of us posted those same assertions long ago.


In any case, I'm very interested to see the data on freshwater bodies in Iraq. I find that tidbit more interesting and problematic than oil reserves.

Smooth I never argued that the war was about oil, the only time I argued was when people were like...

"No blood for oil1!1!!1111 Bushco is teh ghey and lam50rs!

money, money, money..... no not the average tax payers money. I'm talking money for big buisness.

There's no secret conspiracy here, it's all right in the open. The thing is, hardly anyone has been paying attention.
PNAC was a think tank formed by so-called "neoconservatives" in order to develop a new foreign policy for conservatives in the post-Cold War environment. This policy had nothing to do with countering the threat of terrorism here at home. Instead, it had to do with asserting American power and influence abroad in the hopes of maintaining order and challenging unfriendly regimes.

When 9-11 occurred, these guys saw their opportunity and tried to use the threat of terror against the United States as an excuse to push their unrelated agenda. Afghanistan was merely a launching pad from which to begin their previously determined plans in Iraq. Even though they said that a "key goal" should be to "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", they were all too ready to move onto goal #2 before the primary mission had been accomplished. As a result, they severely compromised the War on Terror.

It would be alright if the War in Iraq would have made us safer or at least benefitted us in some way. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqi people who can now live without fear of Saddam, I really am. But I'm also sad for the 1000 American soldiers who have lost their lives, the thousands more who have been maimed beyond repair, and the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been caught in the crossfire. I'm sad that my children and potential grandchildren will have to pay off the $200 billion and counting bill. All for what? I don't think anyone knows, not even PNAC.

Any way you look at it, this war was a mistake, a colossal mistake. If this is the new American century, I want no part of it. Some like Pat Buchanan are saying that the neocons are out, but I don't believe it. Not as long as Cheney, Wolfowitz, and their ilk roam the White House. The only way to get them out is to vote for John Kerry this November and so that's what I'm doing.

$120 billion.

I would not say this is a conspiracy theory at all.

Cheney was picked for vice president. Then he influenced Bush to pick a few of his buddies from the PNAC. They all believe that the only way to continue in the world is to assert american dominance on the rest of the world, in effect, advancing america at the expense of anyone who doesn't agree with our values.

I'd be the first to say that *I* think our values are the best, but I don't think that everyone should be forced at gun- or cruise missle-point to accept them as well.

Thanks for pointing that out jconnolly, i had quickly tried to get an estimate of the cost of the war and all i could find was what Kerry said.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

if you read the project for a new american century site through, you can see what i think is a more coherent vision that underpinned war in iraq: it was the theater across which the american state, in its military expression, was to be inserted as lone hegemon, not answerable or bound to international law, represented by the un.

the motives for the second war link directly to the neocon understanding of the first.

i have thought from the outset that this adversarial relation to the un explained the shabbiness of the administration's case--it does not take much to see in it an expression of contempt for the institution itself--a contempt that the neocons might have thought vindicated if the war in iraq had gone as they fantasized it would.

i think the wolfowitz crowd had a vision, believed it, threw the dice on the basis of that vision, and lost--horribly, completely, entirely.

in a rational world, this gamble and loss should spell a parallel, ignominious defeat for the adminsitration as a whole in the next election---much of what i have been posting over the past week or so has been directed at trying to point out how the political culture being developed by the right is geared toward making it possible to explain away this fiasco.

a capacity for collective denial which is itself a kind of horrifying glimpse of what a future would look like should this political tendency become dominant for any period of time. if these people retain power long enough to enforce their view of the world, their version of history, and of politics onto children via the political instrument of education, then future historians will find themselves having to explain the early phases of a collective retreat into fantasy as the first phase of the collapse of the american empire, and the passage into a different arrangement. they will probably look to questions like lead in the wine to explain it.

what no-one wants to say, but what seems obvious, is that american troops have died in numbers now over 1000 and 12-15,000 iraqis have died---all for a hallucination of american global military hegemony--the primary function of which was to keep the world safe for the increasingly outmoded entity known as the nation-state, and that only--and i mean only--because the right in particular (traditional and neocon alike) cannot think of how it could possibly operate outside that framework.

lots of people are dead because the bush administration chose to indulge this absurd attempt at political self-preservation engineered by a particular rightwing faction.

there is a way to link the war to oil as well, but i think it explains less about the administration's actions than does the nationalist project.

The purpose of invading Iraq was to cement, in the minds of state leaders, that they will pay a price for open or covert support of terrorist actions against the US. Without regard to UN or other "allied" positions the US would, in the future, act to defend itself by going on the offensive.

If there was another state who stood so blatantly in opposition to the US for decades and supported terrorism regardless of the presence of oil we would have invaded them as well. Look at Libya as an example. We attacked them on several occasions with the trigger very nearly being pulled on invasion when the Marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon. A key decision that shaped US response to terrorist acts was made in those days. That decision was one of not going tit for tat with terrorists. Deny them a resonse and a world stage and they would slink away. Since then states sponsoring terrorism and terrorist networks themselves learned the US would take being bloodied with only the mildest and most ineffective response and they learned that they could take the world stage by inflicting massive injury on innocents.

Denying terrorists safe havens and unobstructed support is the first step in protecting the US. Allowing terrorist organizations to fester and grow with no serious constraint resulted in the exponential growth in audacity and civilian death tolls we've seen over the last 3 decades.

except that iraq had no connection to the war on terrorism....

iraq was a central agenda item for the project for a new american century folk from 1991--check out their letter to clinton from 1998--same rationale, point for point, for attacking iraq.

every inquiry has pointed out that there was no such link between hussein and "terrorism" as is presently defined.
if this is the case, then why do reasonable people continue to float this argument?

The reason I don't believe your scenario, onetime, is because I do not agree with the premise: that nations believed that the US would remain idle while they supported attacks against the population.


I look at things like the fact that we have secured a springboard on one side of Iraq and are currently working to secure one on the other side. That one springboard is literally on an incredible resevoir of oil, and that our current military depends on oil to operate, leads me to recognize the long-term, stategic import of our actions.

However, I disagree that our current reliance on military aggression was the only, or even the best, method of securing safety for our citizens.


I find most disturbing (and this is the issue I am most upset about in regards to being opposed to the war) that the plans as laid out for the military planning were not described to the people. Not only could the citizens decide, on an informed basis, whether they wanted to support those plans, the issue is not even part of the official canon.

So when people like roachboy or myself raise them, we look like loons screaming in the wilderness. Some conservatives have agree with this mini-analysis, but argue that the safety of the public hinges upon some secrecy in government.

I don't agree with that. That is when this boils down to ideology for me. The other issues, if allowed to be discussed in public discourse (as of yet, they are not due to our own government's obfuscation of the underpinnings) are discussable rationally.

Finally, an intelligent non-ranting discussion. Kudos to everyone involved.

Roachboy has produced the clearest analysis I have read. The rationale of the pre-emptive strike falls apart completely due to our utter failure of connecting Saddam Hussein to terrorist acts. It was the basis of an entirely new doctrine and it failed!
If it were not for Americans new belief that "the only thing we have to fear... is everything" there would be a political reckoning. Going to war to show other countries you can't be messed with is the worst possible case for war. Would you give your life for such a rationale?

We can debate the links between Iraq and terrorism to no end but the simple fact is it doesn't matter.

Iraq was the prime example of the "worst" that could happen to states who stood in opposition to the UN and US. The net result? Saddam's lifestyle didn't change. His money didn't go away. His power remained virtually in tact. Even when invading and dissecting a sovereign neighbor Saddam ended up losing his military and control of his airspace. Hardly a significant price to pay given the potential gain he would have seen if the world allowed his invasion of Kuwait to stand. Hell he even tried to assassinate the first President Bush and he still enjoyed his many palaces and cars.

The fate of Hussein was the very worst that states who sponsored terrorism would face. Now that fate has changed. Now they are absolutely aware that the things these state leaders have worked for most of their adult lives, power and position, can be taken away without following the normal political channels that can drag on for decades.

One word... Oil.

Oh wait... one more...

Vendetta.

And how does the US make out with Iraqi oil? Is it similar to how we made out with Kuwaiti oil?

onetime: i suspect that we are actually close to agreement at the level of content, in your response to my last post--i would frame it differently and derive different conclusions--but i think you can, if you are so inclined, insert your last analysis into the logic of the post about the pnac project and see for yourself.

Kerry this morning in a speech: "Saddam was indeed a devil who deserved to go to hell."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Iraq & the UN....
"In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members — including France, Russia and China — voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time."

"The resolution warned of “serious consequences” should Saddam fail to comply this time."

What kind of ridiculous game is it when a world body such as the UN has to warn an aggressive dictator 17 times to come into compliance?? It is unfortunate that the UN lacked the resolve to enforce any 17 of their own resolutions. Which brings up the question: What credibility does the UN 'Security Council' have when it fails to live up to responsibilities it sets out for itself? What kind of security does it provide to the world - what type of example does this set to those behaving illegally - when it has proven itself too weak to carry out its own rules?

A list of the 17 UN Security Council Resolutions broken by Hussein.
Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq

Grounds for punishment were laid out by the UN, and carried out by the US.

pnac? :confused:

Nevermind got it.

Not sure why you think my first post doesn't also coincide then.

So when is the US going to invade Israel? How can you keep touting this violation of UN resolutions as being a justification for war when Israel has the worst record of all nations in flouting Security Council resolutions with the express aid and approval of the US? Surely by your reasoning both Israel and the US should be "punished" as well?

I was under the impression that Israel hadn't violated any Security Council resolutions. Am I mistaken?

onetime---all you would have to do is excise the link to terrorism and substitute the neocon nationalist agenda, and we would be in parallel places. i would maintain that the "link" is fictional, as was the rest of the case bush presented...but apart from that, the logic you outlined in the post i referenced is not far from the neocon position as i interpret it.

sorry about the acronym...

Israel has indeed ignored Security Council Resolutions, which is quite a surprise considering the veto power of the US:

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf

Here are some of the other Security Council Resolutions that would've passed had it not been for the US vetoing them. In almost all the cases the US is the only Security Council member to vote against them:

http://freepalestine.com/US%20Vetoes...0Palestine.htm

Great links Happy....

I particularly like Resolution 1172.
"1998. India/Pakistan. Calls upon India & Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles." Yeah, when Hell freezes over. :lol:

I would address the situation this way: It is in the best interests of the US (and don't forget that every country only ever does anything out of self-interest) to see a democratic ally like Israel firmly rooted in a resource-critical area like the Middle East which is otherwise populated by unstable governments run by oligarchies (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships (Syria), religious theocracies (Iran). The fact that these entities sit upon - and thus control - the rest of the world's oil supplies is troubling to say the least. In this context, supporting Israel as a Democracy, a deterrent, a spy, an ally is geopolitically desireable.

Thanks for the links, I stand corrected.

As far as why we're not invading them, Israel's continued existence (or the current leadership's control of the state) does not encourage other states to attack the US or dismiss UN wishes without fear of retribution. At least not IMO.

Israel's mere existence does not encourage attacks on the US, but Israel's current leadership (who is one of the most hated figures in the Muslim world, even before he was elected to power) and the US's support of him, does.

Anyway, the reasons for the invasion seem to have shifted again. Are you now saying that it was Saddam's public hatred of the US that was the justification for the invasion?

I am not "now" saying it, I've been saying it from the beginning. Hussein's regime stood as a shining example to all nations that the "worst" punishment they'd see from the US and UN from any action the took was to be sanctioned and allowed to rule indefinitely while controlling income from programs like "oil for food". Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change. That's a significant motivator for nations not to be caught working to undermine US stability or supporting terrorism.

That has to be the most disgraceful reason for invasion that I've yet heard.

"Don't say nasty things about us or we'll invade your country (and prove you wrong???)"

To be quite honest, I'm shocked.

What are you talking about? "Saying nasty things about us"? It went a hell of a lot farther than that. Do you not know anything at all about the last decade?

In your previous post you were talking about "Now, the worst punishment nations who support terrorism or "threaten" the US can face is regime change."

What did Saddam do to the US in the last decade that I can't remember right now?

How about continually locked on to planes in the no-fly zone, and firing AA guns and SAMs at them?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1817943

it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states.
what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative about american unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from teh first, not from anything in between. hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun the second time around.

the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests.

when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed teh caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds.

it does not matter, really, whether hussein did not did not threaten to united states.

what matters, as i argued above, is that the neocons saw in the first gulf war a nasty precedent in which the agreement about extent of engagement fashioned amongst the members of the coalition limited what they saw as the johnwayne narrative of american interests, which was about legitimating unilateral military action---again, the second iraq war follows from the first, not from anything in between.

hussein was a symbol, whose importance and actions had to be inflated so that he was understood as important enough to warrant a rerun of the first gulf war.

the neocons saw hussein as violating the rules of the game as they understood it--but without the first gulf war framing the matter, he would have been of no consequence, his actions overlooked, as the americans are wont to do with dictators whose general politics are convenient for the americans and their interests.

when i agreed in general terms with onetime, i posed the caveat that the agreement was predicated on inserting the narrative he outlined into the framework outlined by the project for a new american century, for example--which enables onetime's narrative to operate, but with all the terms for understanding that narrative switched to other grounds.

Hussein continually thwarted weapons inspectors, attempted to assassinate former President Bush, used oil for food programs to import banned technology (missile parts, dual use chemicals and equipment, banned weapons, etc), attempted to shoot down American planes in the no-fly zones, continued to build his military capabilities, modified missiles to extend their range(s), and continually claimed he wasn't doing any of these things. Each time he would be given a deadline, it would pass, then, when confronted with irrefutable proof, he'd admit to his violations and claim that now he needed time to comply with the aforementioned terms of the cease-fire. He did this for the better part of a decade with the world knowing full well what he was doing.

And yes, now countries do face the prospect of regime change. In the last 30 years the US hasn't put its military at substantial risk to achieve political ends. That's no longer the case. Of course, it's unlikely we'll be doing it again in the near future but there was most assuredly a price paid by Hussein's regime and by the leaders of the Taliban.

People here actually standing up for Saddam Hussein.
I've lived to see everything.

This is just going around in circles. We are presented with a bunch of reasons to go to war and when those reasons are shown to be bogus, we are presented with some other reasons and the previous reasons are just ignored. Yesterday some idiot on TV was even saying that the war in Iraq was necessary because there are more terrorists in Iraq than in any other country in the world, conveniently ignoring the fact that the terrorists are only in Iraq because of the invasion.

What it boils down to is that Saddam was supposed to have presented a threat to the US, but no matter how long this argument goes on, not one credible threat has ever been produced. Missiles that can fly 200km are not a threat to the US. Paying money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is not a threat to the US. Violating UN Security Council resolutions is not a threat to the US and is hypocritical. Using the oil-for-food money to build new palaces and buy funky sound systems is not a threat to the US. And using an alleged plot to kill Daddy Bush as a justification, a plot that has never even been proven to have existed, is just not even worth going into. Although given that the US has made it no secret that they'd like to assassinate Saddam, I'm sure you'd be understanding if Iraq invaded the US in return.

So basically the US invaded Iraq because Saddam shot at their planes in the no-fly zone.

DJ Happy,

Don't you know that facts have no place in this argument. Saddam was a bad man (forget that we supported him during his worst massacres of the Kurds). Surely you don't like bad men? Besides, questioning the war in unpatriotic, no matter how many pretexts have disappeared or been torn to shreds.

As evidenced by the complete ignoring of my point about Iraq standing as a symbol of the "worst" that could be done to a "rogue" nation by the international community and the restatement of my post(s) into the succinctly inaccurate "So basically the US invaded Iraq because Saddam shot at their planes in the no-fly zone." :rolleyes:

This is one of those threads where I see I've responded to questions posted by someone that had absolutely no interest in the answer(s) or in discussion. Of course, if people who really don't want to discuss things stop posting in politics there would only be about 4 or 5 posters. So I guess we will just have to continue to take the loads of bad for the occasional good.

So you're now saying that Iraq was invaded so as to make an example of them? That is hardly a better reason, especially as before you were citing the threat they posed to the US as the reason fopr the invasion.

By the way, the "international community" didn't invade Iraq. In fact, the "international community" voted not to invade. The US and the UK invaded with some rag-tag forces from inconsequential nations making the sandwiches and orange squash for half-time.

You have this strange need to change my statements into DJ Happy speak. My position has remained consistent from the time of the invasion. Your interpretation of, not only my position, but the situation as a whole is sorely lacking in context and historical fact. I don't see a reason to continue it.

Even if we accept the fact that the invasion of Iraq was justified on some level, an argument that I happen to disagree with, I feel that the doctrine of preemptive attack has lost much of it's credibility with the American people. I don't think the public is quite so interested in policing the world any longer now that they've had a reminder of just what war is all about. The saber rattling from our dear leader has definitely quieted down. I haven't heard any Republicans advocating the invasion of Syria for quite a while, an idea that was getting quite a bit of play early in the Iraq invasion.

I don't think the doctrine has lost its credibility with the public but I do think they would be unwilling to continue into another country while we are still embroiled with Iraq.

You talk about my arguments lacking "context or historical fact," yet you present us with a reason for the war that I've not heard mentioned by anyone else and you talk constantly about the war being about making an example of countries that support terrorism. In fact, there is more credible evidence to show that Saddam refused Bin Laden's request for assistance than there is that he harboured and supported terrorists. Not even the Bush administration has tried to justify the invasion in this way, yet you present it as fact.

You say that any country that supports terrorism, regardless of the presence of oil, would be invaded, yet there are plenty of other countries (that don't have oil) that have been named by the Bush administration as being countries that harbour and support terrorists that were not invaded. And at least one of them has nukes. Yet the real problem were Saddam's missiles that couldn't even leave Iraqi airspace unless they were launched at the border and his refusal to help Bin Laden?

I'm sorry, I just see no logic or reason behind your justification of the invasion. So I would agree that maybe we shouldn't continue on this.

Although they did propose a resolution in the UN Security Council ordering Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon which was subsequently passed I believe. An attempt to get support for an invasion of Syria? Maybe. They probably won't want to do it alone again. Anyway, there's no oil in Syria so they might as well get someone else to do it.

Of course, the fact that Lebanon requested the presence of the Syrian troops to begin with matters not a jot to Bush.

So now I talk of it constantly when in the last post I was suddenly bringing this point up? Whatever.

This sums up why the topic of why it isn't being pushed as "the" reason we invaded Iraq...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=68583&page=5

Hmmm, I have a hard time believing that all of the WMD nonsense was just a smoke screen by the Administration. Why would they humiliate themselves in front of the world? This is the administration that coined the doctrine of preemption...would they really be coy about the "example" motive?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Don't forget who has profeted the most from this war.

Halburton!!!! And who gets lots of kickbacks from Halburton? Bush & Cheny!

That's not what I'm saying at all. The vast majority of countries believed that there was a high likelihood that Iraq had wmd's and they had a desire for nukes. Combining the two with terrorist support is not something you can gamble with. This was not the only argument to invade Iraq however. Making an example of this "rogue" was certainly on the list.

Can anyone give a reasonable example of how the US (and the world) could dissuade state sponsors of terrorism from such support with only the threat of economic sanctions in their bag of options?

Feel free to offer any evidence whatsoever of this Rekna.

Well, that or just go apply to be a producer at CBS. ;)

Many analysts in the CIA and other branches of government knew that the WMD claims the Powell made before the UN were a product of wishful thinking. Josef Wilson himself debunked the uranium claims. The terrorist connections were also internally contested prior to the invasion. All in all, invading Iraq had little to do with security.

This is a tough question, but it can be argued that the sanctions had successfully contained Saddam. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both made statements prior to 9-11 confirming that Sadaam's threat had been contained. This all changed after 9-11 when the administration realized that the public would now support an invasion, allowing them to fulfill that long-simmering neocon fantasy (a stable foothold in the Middle east and oil...what could go wrong?).

What we appear to differ on is whether or not the invasion of Iraq has done anything to make us more secure or the world more stable. I would argue that we've badly damaged our global credibility and steeply worsened our position in the Middle East. We certainly provided lots of fodder for Islamic extremists as we have confirmed all of their rantings about American imperialism.

What's the best way to deal with terrorist states? There are no easy answers, but sanctions or engagement with moderates within those countries probably wouldn't cause as much global angst.

Its irrelevant to me who takes care of the logisitics of managing the war, of feeding and housing soldiers, rebuilding projects, water supplies, etc. Somebody's got to do it, and Haliburton is one of only a few (the only?) companies that has the experience and infrastructure to handle such an undertaking. The war effort is obviously massive, with what, 130k some soldiers over ther, so it stands to reason that some service-oriented company is going make big bucks. But, really, its like attacking Wal-Mart or Target.

I disagree. I think the threat of a US invasion of rogue states/sponsors of terrorism is now much more credible. I know that's not what you mean, but I'm 100% certain the worlds leaders now know US foreign policy is different after 9/11.

I doubt the extremists really care about Iraq. It's just an excuse to them. They would have used Afghanistan if Iraq wasn't there.

I don't give a crap about global angst when it comes to state sponsors of terror. Sanctions and engagement is not any way to deal with terrorist states. There is only one way: the Afghanistan way. If you are a state sponser of terrorism then you don't get a state anymore. Period.

State sponsors of terror can not be allowed to exist. I believe there is pretty much global agreement on THAT point.

The predominant thinking in all intelligence services at the time of the Iraq invasion was that there was a high probability that Saddam was hiding wmds, had the desire to build nukes (as evidenced by the neatly tucked away programs found since the invasion all set to be started again once international focus faded), and violating the constraints of the deal that ended the first Gulf War.

Whether it was "wishful thinking" or not is kind of a ridiculous argument IMO. Do you really think that Bush wished it to be true when he was about to invade the country? The prospect of embedded reporters detailing the grisly deaths of young Marines overcome by biological and chemical agents is hardly a rosy election picture. A more accurate statement perhaps is "feared it was true" or "couldn't risk the chance that they did exist or were being developed".

My whole point about sanctions is that they were not discouraging to state sponsors. Hussein retained power. Retained control over Iraq's oil. Continued to enrich himself and his cronies. Did pretty much whatever he wanted. Engaging "moderates" or others opposed to the regime in power resulted in how many dead in Iraq? The solutions you outlined have been tried for 30 years in the face of terrorism against the US and they have failed to limit its spread or remove terrorist minded leaders from power.

I find it interesting that you have changed position from protesting the sanctions to saying that the sanctions contained Saddam when it suits you.

cthulu protested the sanctions based on humanitarian reasons--not because they were ineffective.

Besides, pointing out that Powell and Rice argued that sanctions had been effective in containing Hussein is not arguing for their appropriateness.

I watched a documentary called "Uncovered" that dissected the build up to war in Iraq and featured career analysts from the CIA and State Dept who ridiculed the WMD "evidence" used to justify invasion and detailed the pressure that was brought to bear on intelligence agencies to come to the "right" conclusions. The White House formed the Office of Special Plans to cherry pick their own intelligence to justify the invasion, so obviously they felt that the existing intelligence wasn't good enough. Dick Cheney made multiple trips to Langley to pressure the CIA into massaging the data that they had. All in all, saying that the WMD threat was conventional wisdom in our intelligence agencies is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure that Bush & co did believe that the WMDs existed, and they weren't going to let a little thing like a lack of evidence dissuade them.

So far preemptive invasion hasn't done much to stop the spread of terrorism, turning a former terrrorist cold spot into a global focal point. Do you feel any more secure? The old methods may feel inadequate, but they are far more attractive than eternal war. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a major sponsor of terrorism...Afghanistan was, but we've bungled that invasion in the rush to grab Iraq.

Doesn't it seem suspicious that a current administration official co-authored a document calling for the invasion of Iraq a decade ago, for reasons that had nothing to do with terrorism or the "threat" of Saddam? Is it just a happy coincidence that we turned our attention to Iraq so soon after 9-11 gave Bush a blank check with regard to foreign policy? Why did we put 10x the amount of troops into Iraq than we did into Afghanistan, where we knew the terrorists were? It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to start to put the pieces together here. I, for one, think that history will take a very dim view of this administration and it's insanely arrogant doctrine.

What Smooth said :)

Although I do not like the effect the sanctions had on Iraq, I think that this war has been even worse. As I said before, I hope for the best but things are not looking good. We'll be lucky if that coutry doesn't devolve into a 3 way civil war.

OK, so let's list the coutries that were sponsors or harborers of terrorism that no longer do so....hmmm, well Afghanistan isn't run by them anymore, but they're still there. Iran hasn't budged. How about Sudan? Nope. Syria? Nyet. Well, what about Libya? They seem to be behaving better, but there was that assassination plot against the Saudi royals. Shit, maybe someone can help me out because I'm at a loss here.

Even if we do accept that the ONLY way to deal with states that harbor terrorists (and any other state that the administration dislikes, ie Iraq) is via invasion, how many countries and deaths will it take? As Gore Vidal said, the war on terrorism equates to eternal war waged for eternal peace.

I would say, change your sources of information. It is a documented fact that Hussein used WMD in the Iraq-Iran war and he used them in Northern Iraq on the Kurds. The whole world knew he had them, but they wanted to continue with appeasement and containment instead of regime change.

I'm talking about the period preceding the war, not twenty years ago when Donald Rumsfeld said that Saddam was a "man we can work with." Geez. You're talking about "appeasement" during an era when WE sold him weapons.

I count 0. Iran, Syria, the Sundan and Libya are ALL behaving better, and it's because of two reasons: Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been naughty in the past, but no more. We will never see a long term state sponsor of terrorism again; the world sill simply not allow it to happen.

How many deaths? Well now, thats up to the, now 0, state sponsors, now isn't it? If a state gives aid and comfort to terrorists then its government get changed. That is the only way to deal with this one particular problem.

the americans knew about the wmd systems iraq used during the iran iraq war because they sold many of those systems to iraq.
the americans said nothing about the gassing of the kurds when it happened--only later did the right begin to feign horror----later when it was convenient for other political purposes to feign horror.

the linkage between those events and the present war is totally specious--it leaves about the un inspections regime--in order to erase the fact that the bush administration did not have a case for war, that they failed to persuade the security council of its case, that the majority of the security council was simply not convinced by the "Evidence" bush's team presented, and was convinced by the case put forward by hans blix and al-baradi--which is not surprising, if you think about it--the entire bush case has turned out to be false---and it was obviously false at the time, even to people who were not in a position of power, with access to classified sources.

the link between hussein and terrorism is also not proven--if anything the contrary is the case.

the supporters of the war have nothing to stand on at this point--not a single element of their justifications for unilateral action holds even the slightest water.

i am amazed that the debate still goes on on this thread--the poitns above are not questions of belief---they are simple matters of fact. i do not understand why the right, why those who support the war, simply cannot acknowledge the reality their boy bush has put them in.

Lets see some evidence to back that up, because I haven't seen anything that supports your statements. And zero deaths from state sponsored terrorism? REally? If anything, terrorism is on the rise these days. There have been bombings all over the globe and platitudes of faith to our President's policies do nothing to change that.

You misunderstand. 0 state sponsors of terrorism. (which could also be interpreted as 0 deaths because of state sponsored terrorism)

You really believe that the governments of Iran and Syria are sending money to Al-quada and letting them set up training camps in their countries? They have in the past but I'm sure they are not doing that now. Libya bombed Pan Am 103 and a disco in Germany. Do you think Libya would do that again?

It's called Hezbollah, and the PLO.

The PLO/PA sponsoring Hezbollah, or the PLO and Hezbollah as groups?

BTW: The following is an excellent site, although you have to be carefull with their terminology.
http://cfrterrorism.org/home/

PLO and Hezbollah being two terrorist groups/organizations that are state sponsored by Syria and Iran.

so following this "logic" the americans should invade both iran and syria, without support of the international community and without the sanction of the un?

seems like we are back in the fantasy world of the project for a new american century. look where that crock got us.

You didn't just admit that Iraq had WMD did you?
Please say it isn't so.
Did Hell just freeze over?

j/k ;)
I got nothin but love for the Left.

HAD is the operative word.

um, powerclown--you do recognize a gap in time when it is indicated in a post, yes? that years can go by between the reagan administration and 2002, yes?
that the rest of the post said the situation during the iran-iraq war was not compatible with that of the present war?

jesus. sometimes i do not know why i waste my time with this.

Ohhh, so you want to fess up too, eh?
You're making my job here very difficult you know. :suave:

Joking aside, if the article referenced above is to be believed, ie., "almost all of the WMDs could fit in a two-car parking garage" the chances of finding anything (if theres anything left to find) are pretty slim.

Maybe he had a squadron of vicious, Muslim attack unicorns as well. If evidence isn't a factor in determining the truth then that's my vote for most frightening Saddam weapon 'o terror.

Sorry but if there was evidence of cherry picking the intelligence for Iraq Kerry would be screaming it from every rooftop. Opinions from a couple of intelligence "experts" is hardly significant enough to convince me that this happened. Additionally, the intelligence about Iraq was insufficient. I doubt anyone will say otherwise. It's easy to make decisions a year after the fact with free access to all areas of the country but quite another to make such decisions with no clear cut answers.

You claim that pre-emptive invasion hasn't worked (after just a year of trying it) but think that the methods used for the last 30 years which have proved ineffective since the beginning are our best option? Afghanistan was bungled? The Taliban is not exactly ruling the country and Al Qaida is not operating there with impunity any longer. These were two of our main goals and they've been achieved. They are on the verge of national elections but this is somehow a failure. The only failure in that regard is the capture of Bin Laden. And I'd love to hear how it was the invasion of Iraq that resulted in his continued freedom. And I do feel safer because we are more aware of the threat and hundreds (if not thousands) of Al Qaida operatives are dead or captured. I seriously doubt that their recruitment has improved significantly while on the run resulting in more fighters than are being killed or captured. But it's fine if you want to believe that since there is no evidence either way. I'm basing my belief on the simple fact that they are most likely in turmoil given the losses they've suffered. It will take them some time to regain the level of sophistication they had while they acted with impunity over the last decade or more.

It doesn't seem suspicious at all to me that members of the administration authored plans for Iraq. If that criteria eliminated someone's suitability to serve in an administration then I guess we'd have to get rid of all policy experts for every region of the world since they all have their own opinions and plans for the regions they've studied and focused on.

It is not the only way to deal with them but when dealing with them you need to have something to bargain with. As stated for the hundredth time, states don't fear international sanctions. If that's the worst you can threaten them with then you're out of luck when you step to the bargaining table.

You are right that sanctions do not always have the desired effect. Military action is always in the background as an option during negotiations with tyrants, a la Serbia, but preemptively striking a country without any sort of global support or credible justification is dangerous and reckless.

But no country with a significant military force took the threat of military force seriously. The UN certainly has no stomach for a real fight as they barely show up to keep the peace in places already committed, in some form, to decreasing violence.

Additionally, the threat of sanctions is almost completely ineffective because states know the process that such approvals need to go through. It can be years between the threat of sanctions to the first implementation of them. And the process can be delayed by any number of simple concessions on the part of the to be sanctioned country or back room deals with UN member countries.

Now the US has proven that there could be a real militaristic threat. We can debate whether this is a good or bad thing but the invasion of Iraq has underlined that our strategy for dealing with "rogue" nations may run the gamut from international sanctions to more "unilateral" (if you consider Great Britain, Australia, Turkey, et al all pawns of the US) action that doesn't follow the same old easily manipulated process of approval through the UN.

To say that "no country with a significant military force took the threat of military force seriously" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. How, exactly, do you know this? It could easily be argued that the US actions in Serbia prove that UN sanctions can result in significant military pressure.

Yes, America has shown that we are willing to back up our threats with actions regardless of global opinion (and I would bet that the citizens of GB, Austrailia and Turkey aren't quite as supportive of our actions as their governments are) but we have yet to see any real rewards for this shift in policy. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm not aware of any lessening of state supported terror or any increase in global stability. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have yet to be corrected.

Because when it comes to our national security, what other nations think is most important.

Serbia was a "peacekeeping" mission not an invasion. They did not have to fight to gain ground and the situation was far different from what would happen in the case of a country dedicated to defending its borders.

Libya has disclosed and disbanded their attempts at building nuclear capabilities. Iran for a time, before they clamped down on reformists and it became more apparent that the US would not open another front in Iran anytime soon, became more open with disclosures about their arms building. Pakistan is helping us in more ways than ever before. The Phillipines are cracking down on terrorist groups (with the help of US forces) more than before. The Indonesian government is more committed to rooting out terrorists in their midst.

I absolutely see a link between these actions and the US change to a more aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and "rogue" nations.

Huh? I don't understand this comment.

The difference is not so apparent to me. Although the original UN peacekeeping mission generally involved no armed conflict, the US bombings there, as well as on the ground enforcement of UN regulations, were harsh and immediate. The situation is not exactly the same, but it does illustrate that UN actions can involve significant military actions.

Pakistan, Indonesia and the Phillipines are all allies of ours and have been for quite some time. The governments of Indonesia and the Phillipines would like nothing better than for their extremists to disappear, so they can hardly be considered state sponsors of terrorism. Iran is a country in flux, but it is far too soon to say that our actions have had a positive effect there.

I was pointing out how a large criticism of the pre-emption doctrine, something that concerns American sovereignity and security, is labeled bad or wrong because of what other nations think about it.

Iraq is a perfect example.

"Involving significant military action" and invading a country to enforce international law are very different. The force level commitments are vastly different and the likely number of dead and wounded substantially higher. Something like 38,000 UN forces were deployed for the peace keeping mission versus about 150,000 US forces for Iraq.

Pakistan was hardly helpful to us prior to our plans to invade Afghanistan. The Phillipines and Indonesia were not committing very many resources toward shutting down their terrorist groups. It wasn't until the US increased pressur on all governments with terrorist groups operating and training within their borders that they upped the search.

I agree with you about Iran. It's far too soon and they seem to now have taken the tack of developing nukes to help insure that they won't face military invasion. It's purely a gamble on their part. They hope that they can develop nuclear capabilities in the next few years while we are tied up in Iraq because they are convinced (by the well documented force constraints on our military and the political opposition stateside) that we do not have the will or ability to open another front until we are either out of Iraq or Iraq is well on its way toward self rule.

Musharraf has proven to be a very willing ally in our "war on terror"...whether this is a product of fear or a desire to align itself with us is not very clear to me.
Indonesia and the Phillipines may have stepped up efforts to reduce terrorism, but they are our allies and did not require threats to do so. I don't think that they fear American invasion very much.

Major_PeiPei,

I disagree with the preemption doctrine, as do most of it's opponents, not because of it's international popularity but because I consider it reckless, dangerous and strategically flawed.

Most aren't as well informed and articulate as you though, thats my only problem.

Also Pakistan is siding with America because Musharraf is trying to retain power in light of growing cultural and religious "radicalism". The same people we are fighting in Afganistan are the same people Musharraf is fighting in the Pushtan region, the same people that have attempted 3 assassination attempts in a year.

You declare that "There's no secret conspiracy here", as if it was fact.
Then....you write as if it is also accepted fact that 9-11 "occurred",
apparently with no pre-knowledge, approval, collaboration, co-operation,
or conspiracy on the part of the Bush executive branch, the neocons, or our military.
Note that the attack on the pentagon was on the least populated section
of that complex, all of the airliners involved seemed to have fewer than average <br>passengers aboard, and the twin towers were attacked at a time of
day when terrorists were certainly aware that they would not be populated <br>with anywhere near the maximum number of workers and visitors.
Compared to a peak number of 50,000 in the WTC, only about 2450 of
the 2711 total WTC dead were not the 43 police or 340 firemen killed !
All coincidences, or, especially when coupled with Rumsfeld's alteration
of the standing airliner shoot-down order/procedure to military pilots in
June, 2001, and Ashcroft's sudden personal avoidance of commercial flights,
should we ignore noting who gained the most in terms of authority, prestige,
and reputation in the days and months after the 9-11 attack ?

<a href="http://liberty.hypermart.net/voices/2003/When_Democracy_Failed_The_Warnings_of_History.htm">Was 9-11 America's "Reichstag
Fire"?</a>

Wow, that may be the greatest run-on sentence that I've ever read. Heroic lack of sentence terminators aside, I give absolutely zero credence to the idea tha Bush somehow set up or allowed 9-11 to occur. Conspiracy theories like this, never backed up with any kind of evidence, do much harm to those who are trying to use legitimate arguments to discredit Bush. Could a conspiracy that immense really stay secret for very long? If you have some evidence, I'd love to see it.

I did not realize that I actually posted that version. I scrubbed it in the
final version that I thought I was posting for the first time.
Anyway....this is more fact laced food for thought than "evidence":
(Link is a .pdf file)
<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth.pdf">
From: ADDRESS OF MICHAEL C. RUPPERT
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB – SAN FRANCISCO
TUESDAY AUGUST 31, 2004</a>
<i>
TO DATE, THE CASE THAT 9/11 WAS PERPETRATED SOLELY BY OSAMA
BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED, EVEN TO THE
MOST RUDIMENTARY STANDARDS. IN FACT, SOME 35 MONTHS AFTER
THE ATTACKS THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE SUCCESSFUL 9/11
PROSECUTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. THE ONLY CONVICTION
THAT HAD BEEN SECURED, A GERMAN PROSECUTION AGAINST MOUNIR
EL MOTASSADEQ, CHARGED WITH AIDING THE SO CALLED HAMBURG
CELL OF MOHAMMED ATTA, WAS OVERTURNED IN 2004 BECAUSE THE
US GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO PRODUCE KEY WITNESSES SUCH AS
KHALID SHAIKH MUHAMMAD OR RAMZI BIN AL-SHIBH AND OTHER
EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CHARGES. EVERY DEFENDANT IN A
WESTERN CRIMINAL CASE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE
USED AGAINST HIM AND TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES.
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL AS TO THE 9/11 RESEARCH
COMMUNITY, THE MYSTERIOUS AND INEXPLICABLE FAILURE OF THE
NATION’S AIR DEFENSES THAT DAY REMAINS THE MOST GLARING AND
GAPING HOLE IN THE KEAN COMMISSION’S ACCOUNT AND IN THE
GOVERNMENT’S VERSION OF EVENTS. SCRAMBLING FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT WAS A ROUTINE OCCURRENCE FOR YEARS BEFORE 9/11.
30
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS TOLD US THAT FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WERE
SCRAMBLED AND FLYING BESIDE ERRANT COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE
AIR TRAFFIC WITHIN MINUTES OF THE SLIGHTEST DEVIATION SOME 67
TIMES IN THE CALENDAR YEAR PRECEDING JUNE 1 2001. THIS IS ONE
OF MANY AREAS WHERE THE KEAN COMMISSION NOT ONLY FAILED TO
LOOK BUT ACTUALLY ALTERED EVIDENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF ITS
FINAL REPORT.
FOR ME, THE PIVOTAL EVIDENCE ABSOLUTELY DEMONSTRATING
DIRECT GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY IN, AND MANAGEMENT OF, THE
ATTACKS WAS FOUND IN A NUMBER OF UNDISPUTED, YET VIRTUALLY
UNADDRESSED WARGAMES THAT I WILL SHOW WERE BEING
CONDUCTED, COORDINATED AND/OR CONTROLLED BY VICE PRESIDENT
DICK CHENEY OR HIS IMMEDIATE STAFF ON THE MORNING OF
SEPTEMBER 11TH. THE NAMES OF THOSE WARGAMES ARE KNOWN TO
INCLUDE: VIGILANT GUARDIAN, VIGILANT WARRIOR, NORTHERN
GUARDIAN, NORTHERN VIGILANCE, AND TRIPOD II. ALL HAVE BEEN
REPORTED ON BY MAJOR PRESS ORGANIZATIONS RELYING ON
UNDISPUTED QUOTES FROM PARTICIPATING MILITARY PERSONNEL.
THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY NORAD PRESS RELEASES. ALL,
EXCEPT FOR NORTHERN VIGILANCE AND TRIPOD II HAD TO DO WITH
HIJACKED AIRLINERS INSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES,
SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE NORTHEAST AIR DEFENSE SECTOR WHERE
ALL FOUR 9/11 HIJACKINGS OCCURRED.
ACCORDING TO A CLEAR RECORD SOME OF THESE EXERCISES
INVOLVED COMMERCIAL AIRLINE HIJACKINGS. IN SOME CASES FALSE
BLIPS WERE DELIBERATELY INSERTED ONTO FAA AND MILITARY RADAR
SCREENS AND THEY WERE PRESENT DURING (AT LEAST) THE FIRST
ATTACKS. THIS EFFECTIVELY PARALYZED FIGHTER RESPONSE
BECAUSE, WITH ONLY EIGHT FIGHTERS AVAILABLE IN THE REGION,
31
THERE WERE AS MANY AS 22 POSSIBLE HIJACKINGS TAKING PLACE.
OTHER EXERCISES, SPECIFICALLY NORTHERN VIGILANCE HAD PULLED
SIGNIFICANT FIGHTER RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST U.S.
– JUST BEFORE 9/11 – INTO NORTHERN CANADA AND ALASKA. IN
ADDITION, A CLOSE READING OF KEY NEWS STORIES PUBLISHED IN THE
SPRING OF 2004 REVEALED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT SOME OF THESE
DRILLS WERE “LIVE-FLY” EXERCISES WHERE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT, LIKELY
FLOWN BY REMOTE CONTROL – WERE SIMULATING THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIJACKED AIRLINERS IN REAL LIFE. ALL OF THIS AS THE REAL ATTACKS
BEGAN. THE FACT THAT THESE EXERCISES HAD NEVER BEEN
SYSTEMATICALLY AND THOROUGHLY EXPLORED IN THE MAINSTREAM
PRESS, OR PUBLICLY BY CONGRESS, OR AT LEAST PUBLICLY IN ANY
DETAIL BY THE SO-CALLED INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION MADE ME
THINK THAT THEY MIGHT BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF 9/11.
THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE.
ONLY ONE WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, WAS MENTIONED
IN A FOOTNOTE TO THE KEAN COMMISSION REPORT AND THEN IT WAS
DELIBERATELY MISLABELED AS AN EXERCISE INTENDED TO INTERCEPT
RUSSIAN BOMBERS INSTEAD OF A HIJACK EXERCISE IN THE
NORTHEAST SECTOR. EVEN THEN, A DELIBERATE LIE WAS TOLD TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS NORAD COMMANDER RALPH EBERHART
TESTIFIED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE EXERCISE ACTUALLY
EXPEDITED US AIR FORCE RESPONSE DURING THE ATTACKS.
WHEN MICHAEL KANE, A BRILLIANT YOUNG NEW YORK ACTIVIST AND
BUDDING INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER APPROACHED GENERAL
EBERHART ON AN FTW ASSIGNMENT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
COMMISSION’S LAST PUBLIC HEARING AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION
32
ON THE OTHER EXERCISES, EBERHART’S ONLY RESPONSE WAS, “NO
COMMENT.”
AND AN ADDITIONAL NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE CALLED
TRIPOD II, BEING “SET UP” IN MANHATTAN ON SEPTEMBER 11TH WAS
UNDER THE DIRECT COORDINATION OF FEMA AND – BY WHITE HOUSE
DIRECTIVE – THE IMMEDIATE CONTROL OF THE VICE PRESIDENT. THE
SET UP FOR THAT EXERCISE CONVENIENTLY PLACED A FULLY STAFFED
FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMAND POST
ON MANHATTAN’S PIER 29 IN TIME FOR IT TO BE CONVENIENTLY USED
AS THE COMMAND POST AFTER THE TWIN TOWERS HAD COLLAPSED.
THERE ARE MANY, MANY AREAS WHERE THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT AND
THE FINDINGS OF THE KEAN COMMISSION ARE CONTRADICTED BY
HARD EVIDENCE, OFFICIAL RECORDS, MAINSTREAM NEWS
INVESTIGATIONS AND EVEN SWORN TESTIMONY. BOTH THE LOS
ANGELES TIMES AND THE NEW YORK TIMES HAVE NOTED SOME OF THE
LESSER, BUT NO LESS GLARING, INCONSISTENCIES. IN MY BOOK I WILL
PROVIDE YOU WITH MANY MORE.
IN MY BOOK I WILL MAKE SEVERAL KEY POINTS:
1. I WILL NAME RICHARD CHENEY AS THE PRIME SUSPECT IN THE MASS
MURDERS OF 9/11 AND WILL ESTABLISH THAT, NOT ONLY WAS HE A
PLANNER IN THE ATTACKS, BUT ALSO THAT ON THE DAY OF THE
ATTACKS HE WAS RUNNING A COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMMAND,
CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM WHICH WAS SUPERCEDING
ANY ORDERS BEING ISSUED BY THE NMCC, OR THE WHITE HOUSE
SITUATION ROOM. TO ACCOMPLISH THAT END HE RELIED ON A
REDUNDANT AND SUPERIOR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM MAINTAINED
BY THE US SECRET SERVICE IN OR NEAR THE PRESIDENTIAL
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER – THE BUNKER TO WHICH HE AND
33
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR CONDOLEEZZA RICE WERE REPORTEDLY
“RUSHED” AFTER FLIGHT 175 STRUCK THE WTC’S SOUTH TOWER. I WILL
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SECRET SERVICE POSSESSED RADAR
SCREENS WHICH GAVE THEM, AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHOSE SIDE
THE NEVER LEFT, WITH REAL-TIME INFORMATION AS GOOD AS OR
BETTER THAN THAT AVAILABLE TO THE PENTAGON;
2. I WILL DEMONSTRATE THAT IN WHAT ARE CALLED NATIONAL SPECIAL
SECURITY EVENTS THE US SECRET SERVICE IS THE SUPREME US
AGENCY FOR OPERATIONAL CONTROL WITH COMPLETE AUTHORITY
OVER THE MILITARY AND ALL CIVILIAN AGENCIES.
3. I WILL ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT IN MAY OF 2001, BY
PRESIDENTIAL ORDER, RICHARD CHENEY WAS PUT IN DIRECT
COMMAND AND CONTROL OF ALL WARGAME AND FIELD EXERCISE
TRAINING AND SCHEDULING THROUGH SEVERAL AGENCIES,
ESPECIALLY FEMA. THIS ALSO EXTENDED TO ALL OF THE CONFLICTING
AND OVERLAPPING NORAD DRILLS ON THAT DAY.
4. I WILL ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TRIPOD II EXERCISE BEING
SET UP ON SEPT. 10TH IN MANHATTAN WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO
CHENEY'S ROLE IN NUMBER 3 ABOVE.</i>
*********************************
Stanley Hilton was formerly Senator Bob Dole's Chief of Staff -
<center><font size=3>
<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1536">Stanley Hilton Sues Bush Cabal for 9-11 Conspiracy</a> <i> by SURFINGTHEAPOCALYPSE.COM</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1459">FBI Conspiracy Cover Up by 9/11 Commission</a> <i> by SIBEL EDMONDS</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1424">9/11 Commission: Making World Safe for Conspiracy</a> <i> by URI DOWBENKO</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1406">Dov Zakheim: The Mastermind Behind 9/11?</a> <i> by STEPHEN ST. JOHN</i><br>

<a href="channel.cfm?channelid=101&contentid=1288">What? And Why? The 9/ 11 Conspiracy Continues...</a> <i> by JOHN KAMINSKI</i><br>
</font></font></center>

Hmmm, well the lack of trials could have something to do with the facts that all of the hijackers died and any individuals involved with the plot that have been captured are undoubtedly rotting in Guantanamo. No trials for "enemy combatants," right?

Most everything in the piece is filled with conjecture that will be proven at a later point. War games! 22 hijackings! Inactive fighter jets! Of course, there are no sources for any of these stories. Conspiracy theories are like the white rabbit...they will lead you on a chase without ever giving anything back. Why not focus on what we already know that can be proved? It's pretty damning stuff in and of itself.

Edit: It also doesn't help that the article is written in all caps, the internet equivalent of violently shouting on street corners.

the bureaucracy of our gov't makes such a sweeping conspiracy nearly impossible to pull off. and in general, i think conspiracy theorists give our leaders too much credit. being so crafty and evil takes more time and effort than you'd think, especially when you're trying to do your "regular" job simultaneously. but come to your own conclusions. the 911 report answered the few nagging issues that i had with the attacks.


back to the original poster's comments, i'd like to add that PBS Frontline covered the neo-con ideas before the war started. it was great to have some perspective on the motivation of the war, although people sometimes looked at me strange when i tried to explain it to them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/iraq/view/

i originally watched this back in march of 2003, but i think the information is still relevant. this is a pretty good news show...i think i'll check through some of the recent archived episodes.

sweet sweet

<a href="http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php">http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php</a>

Moonbats.

Gotta love them.

Oh btw I have a related story at home bookmarked knowing some day this moonbat theory would come up again. The rescue dogs used at the 9/11 site, have shown NO negative effects to the exposure. If there were problems you would expect to see it in the dogs first.

Why did you post that host, it is related to Iraq how, this really belongs in tilted parinoia.