Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911
Yet another ex-administration member is now on record saying that Donald Rumsfeld said that we must bomb Iraq right away . . . he said so on 911
He said this despite knowing that it was Al Quaida and that Al Quaida was not in Iraq but in Afghanistan.
I think that the number of people from within the administration that have come out with this same statement should seal it: The Iraq war was started for long standing ideaological reasons . . . NOT the stated reasons that were presented to the American People and the world.
These are not left-leaning ideologues these are ex-admins (Richard A. Clarke, in this case, Paul O'Neil, and ex Pentagon staff, Col. Kwatkiawski . . as well as others who escape me at this moment)
I think it is time that people reconsider the notion that we were not mislead deliberately (but you all knew that coming from me . . . but what about coming from these long time Conservatives . . .hunh?)
LINKY
and from the article:
and more:
Now there is ANOTHER interesting revelation in this article: mainly concerning a telling quote from Bush, where he says to Bob Woodward, a journalist, that he wasn't going to allow the previouse admin (meaning his father's people) "dictate a rational course for a new war," - -
I mean, you can't get any clearer than that . . . it simply wasn't rational, apparently, because they didn't want it to be rational!!!!! ----
From the article:
. . . what can you say about a statement like that?
Did he mean to say that they were not going to let previouse experience dissuade them from their Irrational plans for war?!?!
perplexing indeed . . .
\
Clark will be on 60minutes this Sunday
He said this despite knowing that it was Al Quaida and that Al Quaida was not in Iraq but in Afghanistan.
I think that the number of people from within the administration that have come out with this same statement should seal it: The Iraq war was started for long standing ideaological reasons . . . NOT the stated reasons that were presented to the American People and the world.
These are not left-leaning ideologues these are ex-admins (Richard A. Clarke, in this case, Paul O'Neil, and ex Pentagon staff, Col. Kwatkiawski . . as well as others who escape me at this moment)
I think it is time that people reconsider the notion that we were not mislead deliberately (but you all knew that coming from me . . . but what about coming from these long time Conservatives . . .hunh?)
LINKY
and from the article:
Quote:
Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame.
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan."
Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame.
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan."
and more:
Quote:
He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; [ . . . ]
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said [ . . . ] "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."
He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein; [ . . . ]
"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said [ . . . ] "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."
Now there is ANOTHER interesting revelation in this article: mainly concerning a telling quote from Bush, where he says to Bob Woodward, a journalist, that he wasn't going to allow the previouse admin (meaning his father's people) "dictate a rational course for a new war," - -
I mean, you can't get any clearer than that . . . it simply wasn't rational, apparently, because they didn't want it to be rational!!!!! ----
From the article:
Quote:
Bush told reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he decided not to heed advice on Iraq by some officials who also had served his father's administration during the first Gulf War.
"One of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for a new war" Bush told Woodward for his 2002 book, "Bush at War.
Bush told reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he decided not to heed advice on Iraq by some officials who also had served his father's administration during the first Gulf War.
"One of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for a new war" Bush told Woodward for his 2002 book, "Bush at War.
. . . what can you say about a statement like that?
Did he mean to say that they were not going to let previouse experience dissuade them from their Irrational plans for war?!?!
perplexing indeed . . .
\Clark will be on 60minutes this Sunday
Comments
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
And yet Clinton wanted Iraq during his whole presidency but didnt have the balls to do it.
Hasn't it been pretty mush understood that there is a difference between contingency plans based upon a general desire for the downfall of a tyrant, and, constant misleading propaganda in order to "pre-emptively invade" another country?!
Misleading propaganda does not 'take more balls' . . it is a sign of deep immorality . . .
Lying to the American people in order to go forward with a plan that has been hatched in private and long-held is not a sign of 'manhood' . . . maybe for 17 year old boys who haven't had their first date . . but it shouldn't be for the leader of a great and powerful country!
BTW, Derailing this thread is not a responsible way of dealing with the issue.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
And yet Clinton wanted Iraq during his whole presidency but didnt have the balls to do it.
Why do we always bring up Clinton? Face it, The dude is out of office. He can't bother you anymore and the sooner Republicans realize this the quicker we can get to addressing the issues at hand.
Democrate Clinton had different policies that did not include sending troops to Iraq. Clintons policies included attacting (ie from ships in the Gulf using Tomahawk's and by using F-16's) Iraq and aiding preexisting factions within Iraq. Bush I, and Clinton BOTH saw the follie of the march to Baghdad. Why didn't daddy Bush hit a homerun when he had a chance? Why didn't Reagan sanction Iraq for using chemical weapons? Why did Donnie Rummsfeld greet SH as a friend in '83'? Why did Ollie North go to Jail? Hmmm, seems to me there's a whole lot morre to the story than people want to look into. But I guess it's easier to blame the previous administrations for NOT getting us involved in a war that had nothing to do with OBL than to ask the current administration why we didn't use that $87 Billion to improve relations with diplomacy with the Arab world. It's easier than asking WHY are we using 130,000 troop in Iraq instead of focusing on catching the figure-head leader of Al Quida.
edit I hit submit instead of Preview... I had a whole other thought to convey.
To address the thread isself, this SHOULD come as NO suprise to anyone who's been watching the news over the last oh--year or so. But I know there are those out there who will refuse to accept this as truth.
Now do I feel it was wrong for Bush to have a plan? No, but it was wrong to act on it using half-truths and deceit to get us there.
I always wonder this, "Why did Iraq not let the inspectors in if they had nothing to hide, which it seems is partly true?"
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
It is common knowledge that William Jefferson Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.
I always wonder this, "Why did Iraq not let the inspectors in if they had nothing to hide, which it seems is partly true?"
Why do we always bring up Clinton? Face it, The dude is out of office. He can't bother you anymore and the sooner Republicans realize this the quicker we can get to addressing the issues at hand.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
It is common knowledge that William Jefferson Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.
I always wonder this, "Why did Iraq not let the inspectors in if they had nothing to hide, which it seems is partly true?"
Because SH had enemies in the area and enemies outside the area. As long as he made people believe he had the weapons then people would be less inclined to attack SH. Moreover, the posturing was to prevent the Kurds, and Shi'a from rebelling against his weakened republican guard. It was about keeping power, not about attacking the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Why do we always bring up Clinton? Face it, The dude is out of office. He can't bother you anymore and the sooner Republicans realize this the quicker we can get to addressing the issues at hand.
Right, but my point is that this is not just some republican/Bush hatched plan. There is more to it than a father/son vandetta against Hussein.
Originally posted by faust9
Because SH had enemies in the area and enemies outside the area. As long as he made people believe he had the weapons then people would be less inclined to attack SH. Moreover, the posturing was to prevent the Kurds, and Shi'a from rebelling against his weakened republican guard. It was about keeping power, not about attacking the rest of the world.
Good argument.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Right, but my point is that this is not just some republican/Bush hatched plan. There is more to it than a father/son vandetta against Hussein.
Yes but the key distinction is that Clinton had a contengency plan that was oriented toward overthrow from within. Bush had A plan and acted on it. Look at who is in this administration and read some of their own writings. They firmly felt that invading Iraq would change the world. That is why they invaded. To invade on ground as shakey as "we thing things will improve" would never fly with the population, so they linked OBL with SH. This linking in most cases was by association with statements thant included OLB, Al Quida, and SH in the same sentence. Though the dots where not connected outright except in a couple of isolated incidents, the implication was SH == OBL. That is why this is an issue. Also, the administration stated they did not have a plan, but it comes to light that they did. Why is that. Why did they lie about that?
Messiahtosh, or any other Pro-War advocates out there. Have you ever read the book Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo? If you haven't yet then you should because this book tells a story about the consequences of war. I first read it when I was on a spec-Op (I was in the military) and it changed my perspective.
Now if you do decide to read it or have read it then you should compare the writers ideas about war (summed up in the last ten pages or so) with current casualty figures. I know this has been a low casualty conflict on both sides, but a lot of people have been hurt http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx . The wounded number here is low compared to other sources. NPR did a story a couple of months ago that had the total wounded figure near 10,000. The figure listed on this site is only accounting for "severe" casualties i.e those requiring amputations or the like. The NPR number included all evacuated personel including those sufferning frommental illness, disease, and less than "severe" injuries still resulting in evactation from the arena.
Here's another link to some casualty information, this time concerning Iraqui civilains, and coalition military: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm .
A times article explaining how pretty wars can get.
FROM: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/in...l?pagewanted=2
For Iraqis in Harm's Way, $5,000 and 'I'm Sorry'
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: March 17, 2004
AGHDAD, Iraq, March 16 ? Nearly a year ago, Ali Kadem Hashem watched his wife burn to death and his three children die after an American missile hit his house.
Last week, he got $5,000 from the United States government and an "I'm sorry" from a young captain.
Mr. Hashem sat for a few moments staring at the stack of bills, crisp $100's.
"Part of me didn't want to take it," he said. "It was an insult."
But the captain, Jonathan Tracy, insisted. "A few thousand dollars isn't going to bring anybody back," he explained later. "But right now, it's all we can do."
It has been nearly a year since the war in Iraq started but American military commanders are just now reckoning with the volume of civilian casualties streaming in for assistance. Twice a week, at a center in Baghdad, masses of grief-weary Iraqis line up, some on crutches, some disfigured, some clutching photographs of smashed houses and silenced children, all ready to file a claim for money or medical treatment. It is part of a compensation process devised for this war.
Outside the room where the captain was saying he was sorry, a long line of people waited. One was Ayad Bressem, a 12-year-old boy scorched by a cluster bomb. His face is covered by ugly blue freckles. Children call him "Mr. Gunpowder."
"I just want something," the burned boy said.
"Come back later," a guard told him. "You'll get some money. But we're busy."
Military officials say they do not have precise figures or even estimates of the number of noncombatant Iraqis killed and wounded by American-led forces in Iraq.
"We don't keep a list," said a Pentagon spokeswoman, Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell. "It's just not policy."
But nonprofit groups in Iraq and the United States say there were thousands of civilian casualties. According to Civic, a nonprofit organization that has surveyed Iraqi hospitals, burial societies and hundreds of families, more than 5,000 civilians were killed between March 20, when the war started, and May 1, when major combat operations ended. "It says a lot that the military doesn't even keep track of these things," said Marla Ruzicka, Civic's founder.
The Project on Defense Alternatives, a nonpartisan arms control think tank in Cambridge, Mass., tracked Iraqi civilian casualties through hospital surveys and demographic analysis. The group estimated that the number of innocents killed in heavy combat was between 3,200 and 4,300.
Whatever the true figures, the list is growing. Since May 1, many Iraqi civilians have been cut down by American forces in checkpoint shootings and crossfires, accidents and mishaps. Last week, a 14-year-old Kurdish girl was killed by an American mortar round near the northern city of Mosul. Army officials said soldiers fired the mortar at terrorists. It fell short. A few months ago, according to an official with the Iraqi Interior Ministry, American soldiers shot and killed a man driving in his car because he had a hole in his muffler and the sputtering exhaust sounded like gunfire.
"The Americas are so jumpy," said Jameel Ghani Hashim, manager of homicide statistics for the Interior Ministry. Mr. Hashim has a five-inch-thick stack of reports detailing civilian casualties. He said preliminary figures indicated that about 500 Iraqi civilians had been killed by American-led forces during the occupation. Mohammed al-Mosawi, deputy director of the Human Rights Organization of Iraq, said more than 400 families had filed reports of wrongful deaths at the hands of American soldiers.
American commanders declined to quantify how many Iraqi civilians had been killed by their forces during the occupation. "We do keep records of innocent civilians who are killed accidentally by coalition force soldiers," said Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, assistant commander for the First Armored Division, which patrols Baghdad. "And, in fact, in every one of those innocent death situations, we conduct internal investigations to determine what happened."
Nonprofit groups tracking civilian casualties said the military had learned some lessons from the conflict in Afghanistan, in which hundreds of civilians were killed after faulty intelligence steered bombs into the wrong villages. The groups credited the military with doing a better job in Iraq of selecting targets to minimize civilian casualties.
But many groups faulted the military for its continued use of cluster bombs, explosives within explosives that sprinkle hundreds of soda-can size "bomblets" over a wide area. Steve Goose, an arms expert at Human Rights Watch, an organization that published two reports on civilian casualties in Iraq, said that while the Air Force showed greater restraint using cluster bombs, the Army did not. "The Army is still using older weapons and firing them into heavily populated areas," Mr. Goose said.
A Pentagon spokesman defended the use of cluster bombs, saying, "Coalition forces used cluster munitions in very specific cases against valid military targets."
One of the problems with cluster bombs is that some bomblets do not explode right away. That is what disfigured Ayad, the boy whose face looks as if it was tattooed. Ayad said that on April 25, he was tending cows in the village of Kifil, south of Baghdad, when a bomblet in the grass burst open. It embedded bits of metal in his face, leaving him blind in one eye and coating his skin with dark dots that look like pencil stabs.
His mother, Nazar, rushed him to the village doctor. Ayad was in a coma for weeks. When he emerged, his mother looked down at a face she barely knew. "He used to be so beautiful," she said. His father, Ali, went to dozens of Army hospitals and bases. Army doctors said Ayad's cornea was scarred and that rehabilitation would be difficult.
Ayad is a smiley boy but sometimes he flies into rage. "He beats me for no reason," his mother said. "He threatens to cut my throat. But I don't care. I am his mother."
This week, Ayad and his father took a bus to Baghdad. Ayad wore sunglasses and a scarf over his face. He does that often, even when it is boiling hot. "The children tease him," his father explained.
When the two arrived at the center run by Captain Tracy, there was a crowd pressing against the doors. On Sundays and Thursdays, Captain Tracy sits in a room on the second floor of the convention center and doles out stacks of cash to civilian casualty victims. The Army calls them "sympathy payments."
Captain Tracy also helps process claims under the Foreign Claims Act, which covers damages and wrongful deaths but only in noncombat situations. Captain Tracy checks each claim a civilian files against a database of military incident reports. If they match, the military pays the civilians, but does not issue a formal apology or claim of responsibility. Of 540 claims filed, he said he had paid 261. While occasional payments were made to families wrongly bombed in Afghanistan, there was nothing this formalized before.
Captain Tracy, 27, said he had absorbed a lot of grief in that little room. "I'm getting pretty burned out," he said.
He is limited in what he can pay. Guidelines set the maximum sympathy payments at $1,000 per injury, $2,500 per life. With the daily patter of bombings, rocket attacks and inadvertent killings, life in Iraq may seem cheap. But many Iraqis say it is not that cheap.
"This war of yours cost billions," said Said Abbas Ahmed, who was given $6,000 after an American missile killed his brother, his sister, his wife and his six children. "Are we not worth more than a few thousand?"
In the cases of Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Hashem, whose wife and three children were killed, military officials acknowledged the victims' houses had been hit by allied missiles.
Ayad's family say they need money to pay for eye surgery. But by the time Ayad and his father reached the front of the line, Captain Tracy was closing for the day. While Ayad pleaded with a guard, his father held up a small piece of paper to the glass doors. "I have a serious problem," it read. "I need help. I wish I have a translator."
Nobody responded. A few hours later, the two were back on the bus, headed home
In the end, war should be reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, not to suit the ideological whims of some rich white men most of whom have never worn fatigues, or dungarees.
I get misty-eyed just thinking about it.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
It is common knowledge that William Jefferson Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.
Actually, the clinton policy was backing the INC, NOT invading Iraq.
Originally posted by pfflam
Yet another ex-administration member is now on record saying that Donald Rumsfeld said that we must bomb Iraq right away . . . he said so on 911
He said this despite knowing that it was Al Quaida and that Al Quaida was not in Iraq but in Afghanistan.
I think that the number of people from within the administration that have come out with this same statement should seal it: The Iraq war was started for long standing ideaological reasons . . . NOT the stated reasons that were presented to the American People and the world.
These are not left-leaning ideologues these are ex-admins (Richard A. Clarke, in this case, Paul O'Neil, and ex Pentagon staff, Col. Kwatkiawski . . as well as others who escape me at this moment)
I think it is time that people reconsider the notion that we were not mislead deliberately (but you all knew that coming from me . . . but what about coming from these long time Conservatives . . .hunh?)
LINKY
and from the article: and more:
Now there is ANOTHER interesting revelation in this article: mainly concerning a telling quote from Bush, where he says to Bob Woodward, a journalist, that he wasn't going to allow the previouse admin (meaning his father's people) "dictate a rational course for a new war," - -
I mean, you can't get any clearer than that . . . it simply wasn't rational, apparently, because they didn't want it to be rational!!!!! ----
From the article: . . . what can you say about a statement like that?
Did he mean to say that they were not going to let previouse experience dissuade them from their Irrational plans for war?!?!
perplexing indeed . . .
Clark will be on 60minutes this Sunday
As I was saying
Originally posted by dmz
Wow, just think, we could still have Blix pulling his hair out, UN inspectors running around aimlessly, daily airstrikes, UN sanctions, starving kids, and a giant open sore in the Mideast.
I get misty-eyed just thinking about it.
Sources? Daily air strikes? UN inspectors running around as aimlessly as US inspectors because SH didn't have the weapons?
Make no mistakes, SH was a bad guy. The child mortality rates were significantly higher in souther Iraq where SH handeled the distribution of food as compared to the mortality rates in the North (I googled this: There are more reliable sources out there as well unicef did a write up comparing the net mortality rate and compaerde the rates pre 98 and post 98 when the FFO program was changed) http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...=3&s=cortright .
The above reasons you stated were not the bill of good sold to the US. We were sold a war based on WMD. We were sold a war based on terrorist ties. Then, every now again the administration would throw out the "Oh, SH is a bad man" argument.
Originally posted by dmz
Wow, just think, we could still have Blix pulling his hair out, UN inspectors running around aimlessly, daily airstrikes, UN sanctions, starving kids, and a giant open sore in the Mideast.
Saddam's hold had been getting weaker and weaker. Your statement assumes there was no other way he could have been removed from power.
But the Day after... "It's Clinton's Fault"..."Gays and the ACLU's fault"
now we're hearing "It's Kerry's Fault!"
anyway... check this out.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/031704A.shtml
And the NeoCons are saying Spain has gone soft on terrorism because they want to pull out of Iraq... when everyone knows... Iraq has so little to do with terrorism that it's a DISTRACTION from fighting al-qaeda.
10k US troops in Afghanistan... +100k in Iraq.
Bush always had their eye on the ball... it was just the wrong ball.
Originally posted by pfflam
[B] The Iraq war was started for long standing ideaological reasons . . . NOT the stated reasons that were presented to the American People and the world.
well the world forgets tooo easily. long before 911, there was an articlesin TIME, i think it was an interview with Colin Powell, and it said the Bush adm wanted to attack Iraq and how Powell was at odds with the adm about that