Iraq - Not about WMDs or Bush's Daddy

[flacaltenn]

OK.. The can of worms is now open.. I harbor only one real conspiracy theory and that has to do with why we chose to invade Iraq and remove Hussein. I never bought the rhetoric that it was about oil, or that it was because Bush's Daddy needed revenge. Likewise, it's obvious that intelligience was misused, amped up and apparently manufactured to lie to the American people..

Don't know if I have time to defend this theory. It covers a lot of ground. And I don't want to dump tons of notes, links and research on this site. So let's just pick up where I commented on another thread on the choices America had after 12 years of failing "containment" of Saddam Hussein.

1) Continue containment on our own. A genuinely stupid, cruel and ineffective plan.

2) Release the keys to the Iraqi economy and let Saddam out of the box with "revised" sanctions targeting military goods.

3) Remove Saddam by force and allow the Iraqis to reorganize.

We obviously chose #3. I (and most of Europe) favored #2. The justification for invasion was sooooo phoney after the fact, that something didn't smell right. And being a news junky, I started to think about REAL motivations for taking Hussein out..

First of all, there was the plot to assassinate Bush's dad:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ssination.html

During the former president's visit to Kuwait to commemorate the coalition's victory over Iraq in the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 people allegedly involved in a car bomb plot to kill George H.W. Bush. Through interviews with the suspects and examinations of the bomb's circuitry and wiring, the FBI established that the plot had been directed by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. A Kuwaiti court later convicted all but one of the defendants.

In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented."

Here's a potential point for the lefties who claim it was all about revenge for Bush's Daddy. Even tho I discount a personal vendetta as SUFFICIENT justification for lying and going to war -- it did get me thinking..

Any ONE or more of the following shady events could ALSO be tied to Iraq and Saddam.. Take your pick..

************************************************** ****

1) World Trade Center Bombing -- The FIRST ATTEMPT.. Closely woven into the plot are several curious people with definate Iraqi ties. Ramsey Yousef and a guy named Yassin in particular. If you look up Yassin, you'll find that he was key to recruiting, assembling and executing the plot. The FBI under Clinton was given the investigatory lead on this and it was never SHARED, REVIEWED, or ASSISTED by our intelligience agencies because of the Clinton admin insistence on treating it as a civil law matter. We lost all ability to trace ties to state sponsors on this one. In fact, the judge REFUSED to admit any testimony pertaining to state-sponsored ties in the course of the trial.

2) Flight 800 downing off of Long Island -- I'm doing this now from memory, but this is the flight that "exploded" close to shore after take-off from NYC. Hundreds of witnesses described a missile rising from the water to intercept the plane. It went down (don-de-don) on Iraqi Independence Day. Within days, NSA (of all people) generated a cartoon video depicting how those witnesses were mistaken and actually saw parts of the plane RISING after the explosion. (I know a couple things about NSA. Part of my sordid past. And their involvement here was a huge red flag to me when it happened). Explosive residue found on recovered seats. Piles of excuses from the FBI that didn't pan out. FBI FORCED investigation to focus on "non-missile" causes of the crash. No FAA evidence of "central fuel tank" problems due to heating in the world fleet. Investigation and excuses stinks still to this day.

3) Anthrax Mailings --- You remember this one. "Weapons grade" anthrax mailed and delivered to multiple addresses. Short list of countries that might have manufactured it included Iraq. Middle rank angry scientist fingered as prime suspect. Years later he commits suicide after being informed that the FBI is finally ready to charge him. No concrete evidence. Not much else. Case closed right?

4) Oklahoma City Bombing -- Yeah, it's a stretch, but I threw it in. Terry Nicholls was suspected of meeting with Ramsey Yousef (Yes sir -- the guy from WTC 1) in the Phillipines.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_86233293/

The retirement of career FBI Special Agent Danny Defenbaugh, accused by defense attorneys and plaintiffs in the Oklahoma City bombing case of withholding key evidence, wasn't the only dramatic development in the continuing controversies surrounding the April 19, 1995, attack that killed 168 people.

INSIGHT has learned that the widow of Philippine-government intelligence agent Edwin Angeles has provided audiotaped testimony to an investigator working for the American victims' families that directly ties Iraqi intelligence agents to Terry Nichols, the man sentenced in 1998 to life in prison for his role in bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building seven years ago.

In addition -- early FBI reports indicted additional suspects "of Middle Eastern origin" present at the time of bombing. (this is weaker but interesting). Judicial Watch actually filed suit against the govt of Iraq on behalf of the survivors and relatives. They outlined the alledged connections to Saddam Hussein.

************************************************** *

All of these stories are fertile conspiracy factories in themselves. I strongly suspect that Iraq was NAILED for at LEAST one of these. And that the govt (would have been primarily Clinton) suppressed the state connection at the time to pre-empt a neccessary war.

My favorite choice would be Flight 800. During the 2004 campaign, Sen. Kerrey TWICE in one month included Flight 800 in a list of terrorist attacks on the United States while being interviewed on TV. Georgy Stephanopolous also made this slip on national TV. I'll never be convinced this was a standard FAA/NTSB investigation or that the it was a defect in the "center fuel tank".

Next favorite is the WTC 1 attack. Almost CERTAINLY Yousef was an Iraqi - directed agent. Any of these could have been suppressed and kept suppressed because Bush inherited the decisions that were made under Clinton. And there is no elegant way to suddenly blurt out the truth. Furthermore, there's no political reason to do that unless you want to completely destroy voter faith in BOTH parties.

So --- instead of revealing the REAL reason(s) why Iraq was a threat, Bush made some up in order to choose #3 in my list above. I believe senior Congressional leaders were all briefed into the secret (such as blabbermouth Kerry). And that also explains why the Dems in the Senate were largely repeating the "bad intelligience" lies.. It wasn't because they were hawks. And it wasn't because they didn't want to look weak after 9/11.. I believe they were looking at a different, non-public, report on Saddam Hussein and Iraq..

Can't rattle on here. I only have to be right about ONE of these. The odds and the evidence are good enough for that... Could actually be MORE than one. No--- I don't have walls full of browning newspaper clippings in my office.
I just have a need for reasonable explanations..

[Fast_Eddie]

I'm not sure I agree with any of the scenarios you laid out, but I do wonder what the whole Iraq thing was really about. They were dead set on going in there and there's a good deal of information that indicates they were working on it before 9/11. Since we're talking about conspiracies, the fixation with Iraq is probably one of the reasons they missed 9/11 even after the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".

Here's what we clearly do know. The Bush folk felt one way about Iraq. The Clinton folk felt a different way. We saw both approaches demonstraited. I'll let history decide which was in our best interest.

I'm also curious why you think mutual containment was so seriously flawed.

[finnbow]

I'm firmly convinced that the Iraq invasion was a NeoCon wetdream to restructure the Mideast, via the domino theory, into a peaceful region compliant to our (and Israel's) geopolitical interests.

The whole WMD threat was nothing more than a "bureaucratic" justification that they thought would work in the wake of 9/11, and Wolfowitz said as much.

Saddam was a convenient boogeyman and the WMD/terrorism rationale was a threatening enough reason to justify their big adventure in the sandbox. The Downing Street memo cast further light upon this (as did the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha). The NeoCon's had a compliant nincompoop in the White House (with a grudge), an strong ally there as well (Cheney), and a cabal of NeoCons in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith) and a weak, easy to roll National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

Sincerely, I have no doubt about this being the case. However, America is unwilling to admit to itself that we spent so much in blood and treasure on such a cynical misadventure.

[flacaltenn]

Fast Eddy:

Of course -- they were working on it before 9/11.. So was the Clinton admin. BOTH had plans developed to remove Saddam. The facts indicate that the Clinton admin didn't see Iraq much differently as a threat.

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-17/p...on.iraq_1_nati

Clinton == February 17, 1998

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21stcentury. They
feed on the free flow of information and technology.They actually take
advantage of the freer movement of people,information and ideas.
And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to buildarsenals of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and themissiles to deliver them.
We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than SaddamHusseins Iraq. His
regime threatens the safety of his people, thestability of his region and
the security of all the rest of us.

Clinton -=- December 16, 1998 (night before impeachment for cryin' out loud)
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-16/p...ripts_clinton_

Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strikemilitary and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined byBritish forces. Their mission
is to attack Iraqs nuclear,chemical and biological weapons programs and its
militarycapacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of theUnited States, and
indeed the interests of people throughout theMiddle East and around the
world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighborsor the world
with nuclear arms, poison gas or biologicalweapons.

Over and over again for 8 years Clinton pounded Iraq with bombs and missiles, starved the Iraqi people, denying them any semblence of a normal economy and justified it all with the SAME DAM crap as the Bush neo-cons. In fact, he sent his 3 top (Jewish, and I mention that for the sheer irony of 3 Jews drumming up support for war with an Arab country) advisors on a national road show tour to justify further military action against Iraq.

I think by 1998 however, the Clinton Admin had at least a couple secret, non-public reasons to want to continue the pummeling of Iraq. Clinton didn't want to take him out then because of the impeachment. But I believe he would have if he hadn't gotten caught diddling the women.

[flacaltenn]

FinBow:

The fact that Wolfowitz has a weak moment and admits the lying rhetoric was "bureaucratic convienience" or whatever -- doesn't weaken my theory. I'm allowing that none of WMD threat ever really existed. SOMETHING ELSE was the real motivation for both Admins.

If you want to believe that the US went to war to test some dumbass neo-con theory about rainbows and unicorns in the Middle East, have at it. But first tell me why

a) The majority of DEM leadership offered virtually no resistance.

b) Clinton didn't choose to follow the European leaders insistence that the sanctions were over because of lack of justification from the Weapons Inspection teams. In other words, my #2 option above.

c) What the neo-con plan was when they rolled thru that country and can't find a TRACE of the stuff they claimed was there? They knew they'd have to bear that humility and degrace.. What made it worth it?

My theory answers all three of those...

[finnbow]

a) The majority of DEM leadership offered virtually no resistance.

Dem's are perpetually afraid of being labelled as weak on national security and the WMD story had found fertile ground in the American imagination.

b) Clinton didn't choose to follow the European leaders insistence that the sanctions were over because of lack of justification from the Weapons Inspection teams. In other words, my #2 option above.

I simply don't follow where you're going with this point.

c) What the neo-con plan was when they rolled thru that country and can't find a TRACE of the stuff they claimed was there? They knew they'd have to bear that humility and degrace.. What made it worth it?

I think they started to believe their own story about WMD's (and their lame intelligence allowed them to). In Washington, if your boss continues to tell a story and seems to believe it, you start believing it as well.

If we chose to attack because of TWA Flight 800, why the hell didn't we use that rationale? The country would have jumped on it like white on rice. In all honesty, your explanations/theories don't explain a thing, but confuse a lot.

[d-ray657]

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

[JonL]

I don't believe that even the most trigger-happy administration would go to war over a largely failed bombing attempt and the downing of a single airplane in a terrorist attack. If they had evidence, or could even concoct seemingly credible evidence linking Iraq to these events, the response would be severe but measured. A limited airstrike on military targets, a tightening of sanctions, even covert ops... but not the all-out war we waged. I think Finnbow's got it right:

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm firmly convinced that the Iraq invasion was a NeoCon wetdream to restructure the Mideast, via the domino theory, into a peaceful region compliant to our (and Israel's) geopolitical interests.

The whole WMD threat was nothing more than a "bureaucratic" justification that they thought would work in the wake of 9/11, and Wolfowitz said as much.

Saddam was a convenient boogeyman and the WMD/terrorism rationale was a threatening enough reason to justify their big adventure in the sandbox. The Downing Street memo cast further light upon this (as did the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson brouhaha). The NeoCon's had a compliant nincompoop in the White House (with a grudge), an strong ally there as well (Cheney), and a cabal of NeoCons in DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith) and a weak, easy to roll National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice.

Sincerely, I have no doubt about this being the case. However, America is unwilling to admit to itself that we spent so much in blood and treasure on such a cynical misadventure.

I totally agree with this post. ^^^

Originally Posted by d-ray657

None of the other terrorist attacks indicated the type of sophisticated weaponry that would be able to take out an airplane from the sea. To the extent that the visual and forensic evidence suggests a rocket, how would terrorists have been in position to launch such a weapon from a little bit off of the coast without being detected?

The distrust of the government exhibited in your initial post sounds like some of the statements that people were nailing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for making.

Regards,

D-Ray

As a resident of Long Island, I don't think the missile theory is so far fetched. The planes fly very low over the Atlantic very close to shore on their approach/departure from JFK. There's plenty of open water out there where someone could easily fire a smallish anti-aircraft rocket from a decent sized recreational boat, of which there are many out there on any given day. I'm not saying I believe the theory, but I don't see it being at all impossible.

[piece-itpete]

I think it's all part of it. The reality is, everyone knew Iraq was a problem. At least the leadership. Look at top Dems statements about Saddam before they could blame Bush.

Sanctions, bah. For Iraq they obviously failed. Cop out.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

We're wondering off topic a bit, but I don't think anyone has ever argued that Sadam was a problem. Clearly our policy for years indicates that. But to imply that Clinton would have done the same thing Bush did is really grasping at straws. Clinton was never shy about using the military. But he was smart enough to see what a lot of people said before Bush went in - it would be a disaster. And it was. The other difference is Bush clearly lied and took us to war for reasons he never disclosed to the American people.