Plan for Iraq before 911

[Avatar4321]

You know, i cant seem to figure out why people would think its such a scandal that Bush would have a plan to deal with Iraq before 911. I mean the US policy on Iraq has been for Regime change since 1998. Im sure Clinton had some plans to deal with Iraq before 911 too. What kind of irresponsible President wouldnt have plans to take out possible threats in the world if they had to? I hope they have plans to take out N Korea, Syria and even China, even if they dont plan to do them immediately. If you know you will have to face possible confrontation you are going to want to have some plans that wont be last minute. Come on people.

 

[Comrade]

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[Avatar4321]

Dont know what the link leads to but it doesnt work.

 

[Comrade]

The Bush administration's plan for Iraq is only one component of a national security strategy published in Sept. 2000 under a Republican think tank, "The Project for the New American Century", aka PNAC.

PNAC White Paper in 2000 = Bush 2001 Policy


The detailed procurement schedule is indistinguishable from Bush's 2001 request submitted and approved by congress, right down to the details about which programs were to be canceled (Crusader) and which were revived (National missile defense, Osprey, Bunker busting Nukes, etc.).

The final tally per PNAC:

Nevertheless, we believe that, over time, the program we advocate
would require budgets roughly equal to those necessary to fully fund the QDR force
– a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product.

Bush 2001 defense budget = 3.8% of GNP


Details on Iraq doctrine now adopted as current policy are easily verified by a search from the home page, at:


PNAC Home Page


This open letter to the Clinton administration prior to his 1998 state of the union is so similar to what Bush in 2002 delivered you might think his staff wrote it. And you'd be right.

1998 Letter to President Clinton from Key Bush Cabinet

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.
…..
As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminishe
……
. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
…….
American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

You can readily see that the “Invade Iraq” appeal is signed by both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, now #1 and #2 in our military command. Armitage as #2 Secretary of State. Cheney as a principle founder is signed to many other documents as well. Hell Jeb Bush is even a signatory to the founding principles. No sigs from those who have been since been appointed under Bush, per protocol. But you want neo-con, this is where they all hung out.

What I’m saying is that our administration had not just a contingency plan to depose Saddam, but a firm conviction to do so, LONG before 9-11. Now before anyone gets the wrong idea about me being a raving lib I have actually read through a great deal of these papers, and regardless of 9-11 the idea was and is still sound.

I’m suggesting that if you want insight into every detail and motive of the Bush administrations national defense strategy, I’ve yet to find anything published through this think tank that has not been established as concrete policy. It's the de-factor source for truly understanding our current War on Terror, one which anticipated the threat from this axis so accurately that you will find that the occurance of 9-11 did not change the basic strategy to address it . The ideas explained in it's many documents are quite brilliant, and a great read.

FYI, Bill Kristol is now the chief figurehead behind the organization, yet you can verify there is still no difference between what is published and what is eventually demonstrated as White House policy. It's the penultimate "Kristol ball" into the future of our administrative direction, given its former members and founders are now implemeting its unchanged politic.

 

[William Joyce]

They're all Jews, and they all need to go. Look, nothing against Jews personally. I've met good ones. But the guys behind the war are Jews, Jews, Jews. It ain't a white man's business, people! If Jews have a fight with Arabs, they should have the balls to fight them, hand-to-hand, by themselves. But they instead manipulate O'Connor and Rodriguez to do it for 'em.

Just like they manipulated Pilate to knock of Jesus. Shit ain't changed in 2000 freakin' years, gentlemen.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Bush is a Jew?

Give it a rest, Adolf.

Also, check this out:

In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.

Link

 

[Avatar4321]

Again. I dont see why its bad that He had a plan and was willing to take out Saddam. There are a few more tyrants he needs to take out. Since the policy towards Iraq was regime change since 98, why is this a surprise or bad at all? President Bush has said of course he had a plan for Iraq. It only makes sense.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've said this before. There are majors and colonels who work at the Pentagon whose only job is to come up with war plans for every conceivable war we could fight. I'm sure there are plans to invade Iran and North Korea, India, Kenya, even Canada, Britain, and Israel. So it's no surprise that there would have been plans to invade Iraq, one of the biggest belligerents from the last decade.