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.

[noonereal]

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.

this is the correct ansewer

Bush's daddy revenge simply served as an emotional prod to the boy king to go along with the neocon dream.

[Mr. Lin]

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 have to quote finnbow here and say I think he's summed it up perfectly, and accurately. These things unfolded over the last seven years, and AFAIC it's now glaringly obvious how things turned out the way they did. I should also note that many of the things finnbow describes above became obvious almost right away to anyone unwilling to swallow what the White House and media were feeding the American public, and look a little, just a little, deeper into what was really happening. Scary, and so very frustrating.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lin

I have to quote finnbow here and say I think he's summed it up perfectly, and accurately. These things unfolded over the last seven years, and AFAIC it's now glaringly obvious how things turned out the way they did. I should also note that many of the things finnbow describes above became obvious almost right away to anyone unwilling to swallow what the White House and media were feeding the American public, and look a little, just a little, deeper into what was really happening. Scary, and so very frustrating.

My son, who was thirteen at the time, recognized the duplicity right off. The night after the invasion of Iraq he questioned why an attack based on WMD's was suddenly called "Operation Iraqui Freedom." He also did a pretty good job of questioning my authority for a few years after that.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lin

I have to quote finnbow here and say I think he's summed it up perfectly, and accurately. These things unfolded over the last seven years, and AFAIC it's now glaringly obvious how things turned out the way they did. I should also note that many of the things finnbow describes above became obvious almost right away to anyone unwilling to swallow what the White House and media were feeding the American public, and look a little, just a little, deeper into what was really happening. Scary, and so very frustrating.

Actually, this stuff was all in place a decade before the actual war began. Read a very interesting, well documented and researched book on it, called Rise of the Vulcans (I think. Will double check. And not the green ones with the pointy ears either!). The Iraqi invasion was basically in the cards before the Bush cabal actually got into power. They just forgot to tell the American people of the plan...

[Mr. Lin]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Actually, this stuff was all in place a decade before the actual war began. Read a very interesting, well documented and researched book on it, called Rise of the Vulcans (I think. Will double check. And not the green ones with the pointy ears either!). The Iraqi invasion was basically in the cards before the Bush cabal actually got into power. They just forgot to tell the American people of the plan...

I actually discovered that personally after the fact, but what I mostly meant was that the highly questionable (to put it lightly) nature of the given justifications for going to war were there to be seen by anyone at the time, and largely weren't because of the unstoppable tide of fervent nationalism.

So it had all been planned years before it actually happened, and that could have been seen too - but I think one would be giving the average person too much credit in assuming most people could have put it together themselves, even with some of us insisting something was very wrong.

Man, I got into some nasty fights with certain close family members back then. It was like arguing with a brick wall. Since I was a college student at the time, people just assumed I was the stereotypical "angry young man," full of conspiracy theories, speaking of conspiracy theories...

[noonereal]

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.

No other post is necessary on this subject.
This clearly explains exactly "why" to anyone rational and semi well read.

[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.