New Details Emerging From Early in the W. House About Plans to Attack Iraq

It was obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence Iraq was their target from the start. Good to see this get out. It certainly lends credibility to everything Mr. Clarke had to say about the motives of the misadministration.

What the fuck does this even mean?

Thanks for translating. But he sure as hell makes no sense when he opens his mouth.

He knows how to talk the lingo. Normal people wouldn't understand.

Too funny! Charlie Murphy stories are the best.

the journalists know full well about PNAC. They wont do a damned thing about skewering Bu$h over it and connect the dots . Theres more journalism done in DU on one day then from actual journalists in 2 years.
and they are sitting on it.
they know, we told them all.

As far as the general public is concerned, PNAC is nothing more than your standard Washington think tank. This is exactly the reason the neo-cons set this up as they did. PNAC represents their plans to anyone interested in looking, yet there is no direct link between PNAC and the administration so you can't link one to the other.

Having said that, journalists COULD point out that MANY members of the current administration literally signed on to the PNAC plan. Still, this doesn't prove that PNAC has any influence over the White House (even though we all know it does).

the timeline is there and the criminals are there ..follow the money and they will get to the real reasons for this fake war.
FOLLOW THE MONEY

A number of PNACers, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, wrote to Clinton in 1998, asking him to go after Saddam.

PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" says that a "catastrophic attack" on US would speed up the "transformation" of the military they called for.

Lieberman (crypto-PNACer) and Cheney debated Iraq in the VP debate.

Bush used the term "weapons of mass destruction" in his inaugural address.

N.B. PNAC "Rebuilding" is a public, sanitized version of a secret plan

Since it will be revealed that they were planning on attacking Iraq from day -100, just waiting for something to happen, like 911...

My distinct impression is that the reason they were shooting is that we had stepped up the flyovers in a deliberately provocative manner.

Therefore, Badger was NOT a response to the flyover shootings, the flyovers were an attempt to provoke an excuse for Operation Desert Badger.

Iraq protested by was ignored so they started shooting at the planes hoping to down one outside of the no-fly zone to bring condemnation on the U.S.

I'll look for an article from the Guardian I read.

That's how I remember it.

.

It seems pretty obvious they were trying to provoke a confrontation. If a plane had been shot down by the Iraqis they could have used it as a "Gulf of Tonkin" type event to start a war.

The bully in the playground looking for a scrap

praying every night that Saddam would shoot a plane down. Saddam didn't oblige, since he probably knew about the Badger.

<http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/18/iraq.sanctions.02/>

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq reported firing on U.S. and British warplanes, an unnamed Iraqi military spokesman told CNN Sunday. He did not say whether the planes struck back at Iraqi targets. U.S. Central Command spokesman Maj. Jeff Blau said he had no knowledge that Iraq had fired at the planes.

However, Blau said he would not know about activity unless Iraqi targets were hit. "I woundn't know unless we struck," Blau said. "I don't know if it took place, but Iraq threatens coalition aircraft routinely."

The action comes two days after air raids aimed at punishing Iraq for threatening planes enforcing "no-fly" zones over its territory.

We attacked with no warning because they were "threatening." What does "threatening" mean? ONE MONTH AFTER GEORGE TOOK OFFICE.

The buildup of troops in the gulf began sometime in early 2002, the pretext at the time was a massive joint force training exercise. CENTCOM was relocated just for this occasion. Anybody who cared knew exactly what the realintentions were, but almost no one cared.

Hardly anybody cares about anything except who is "out" on survivor and how late the walmart is open, so shit like this is easy to pass off on the public. The public has very little in the way of intesections with what is really going on.

talking about kicking Saddam out before he was pRez. No doubt Rove told him to shut up about that stuff. Am I wrong?

There was no need for Badger, much less the Invasion. The job was already being accomplished.

Everyone now knows that from BEFORE Bush became President in January 2001, that the PNAC crowd and George Bush were planning to invade Iraq.

Richard Clarke's sworn testimony, Paul H. O'Neill's book, "The Price of Loyalty", have now confirmed this truth.

Further, Judicial Watch has revealed that the Vice President's early "energy meetings" had maps of Iraqi Oil Fields.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT's "news story" should simply read as follows:

"Within weeks of coming into office, President Bush approved war plans for a massive retaliatory attack on Iraq."

INSTEAD OF:

"Frustrated that Iraqi gunners were shooting at American planes, within weeks of coming into office, President Bush approved war plans for a massive retaliatory attack on Iraq if a U.S. pilot had been shot down."

The latter falsely ascribes a favorable motive to Bush's early determined warmongering and which is shameful on the part of CNN, the network that allowed their anchor, Aaron Brown, to call the first night of bombing in Baghdad, "Great fun! Great fun!"

This "new story" is just more public relations spin to paint a "good reason" for Bush's wanting to make war against the people of Iraq.

Bush's early obsession was clearly only about three things:

1.) Personal revenge to make up for his father's failure to take out Saddam Hussein in the first war;

2.) Oil profiteering by the Cheney cronies;

3.) A gift to Ariel Sharon who foolishly believed that a War with Iraq would make Israel safer, instead of creating the vacuum and civil war and terrorist quagmire that Iraq has now become.

else, no matter how creeped out about bush you were prior to 9-11, just have a feeling in your gut that the WH was totally obsessed with Iraq after 9-11? Myself, I've NEVER trusted bush, but the call to war with Iraq seemed to come out of nowhere and be attached to nothing that had been occuring at the time. As the decision to attack got red-hot I felt in my gut that we were headed down the wrong path. It's almost hard to put into words what I was feeling.

was in his first major speech after 9-11 (a day or two later - after he stopped running around the country). He used language that expanded beyond the event and terrorists and, if I recall, was even broader than "countries that harbor terrorists" (which would have referred to Afghanistan.) I turned to my mother, with whom I was listening to the speech, and said... "he is going to go after Iraq."

It hadn't occurred to me prior to that moment - and I am not sure why that was my immediate reaction. Suggests that the lower level indications (language, etc.) must have planted that impression in my mind. Perhaps - that suggestion was from paying a little bit of attention to stories such as the one's linked in this thread.

right after he was (s)elected. I was visiting a friend in the Bay Area and said, "He's going to start a war just like his dad did." Like me, I'm sure you were 100% positive when the thought hit you.

exactly as you suggest. Complete clarity.

looks like we got the transparency in the government that we all wanted...

The question is, what comes next? Because we all know there's a Chapter 2.

"the previous administration was for regime change."
I seem to recollect that they adopted that policy at the urging of several advisors following a letter that was received from - guess who - the same people that we now know were instrumental in the formation of the pnac plan of pax americana. It would be interesting to learn more about the rationale and circumstances preceding the adoption of this policy by the clinton admin. Is it just another case of subliminally planting the "dont blame us they started it" strategy by the Bushies?

Whenever I hear some shittohead say that I always ask:

"How many madmen invaded Iraq while Clinton was in office?"

Were these even legal under international law? I remember trying to find mention of them in the UN resolutions to no avail.

U.S. planes violated Iraqi airspace regularly and DIDN'T expect to be fired upon? Did Iraq not have the right to protect its own sovereignty?

Clarke testifying to the 911 Commission that taking out Iraq's air defense systems was a common event under Clinton. The Bushies are desperate.

no-fly zone. He said the policy was to obliterate the places the missiles came from and the radar sites that directed them.Avoid civilian targets. Evidently their planes' electronic equipment can tell the place from which the missiles came.

Shortly before the war, his assignment became to bomb everything in the northern part of the country that was NOT identified as totally civilian, PLUS bomb all electric transmission facilities, water facilities, etc. He became VERY upset because he knew he was bombing civilian stuff.(a war crime) This was softening up Iraq for the invasion.

Gin

That's is, by far, the lamest thing I've ever heard. Who the f**k is afraid of a badger?