From the archive, lest we forget: Israel To U.S.: Don't Delay Iraq Attack (August 18, 2002)

[Purveyor]

ByDan Collins CBS August 18, 2002, 2:47 PM

Israel is urging U.S. officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein, an aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday.

Israeli intelligence officials have gathered evidence that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, said Sharon aide Ranaan Gissin.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Gissin said. "It will only give him (Saddam) more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of weapons of mass destruction."

The United States has been considering a military campaign against Iraq to remove Saddam from power, listing him as one of the world's main terrorist regimes. However, there is considerable world opposition to a U.S. strike.

As evidence of Iraq's weapons building activities, Israel points to an order Saddam gave to Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up its work, Gissin said.

"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.

more...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-to-us-dont-delay-iraq-attack/

[still_one]

1. In all fairness bush would have invaded regardless

[Purveyor]

2. I'm not certain that and you can't be either. eom

[renegade000]

4. well either way

I don't think it diminishes your point, which is a good one. The Israeli government has engaged in fear-mongering rhetoric in the past, which turned out to be overblown, so why should we be credulous now in the face of similar rhetoric? Boy who cried wolf and all that.

[still_one]

9. Of course. No different then Powell sitting before the UN making the

argument for the invasion, or LBJ lying us into Vietnam Nam, or the CIA overthrowing the Democratically government of Iran in 1953, or nixon's involment in Chilie and South America along with Reagan

My point being the US never needed the urging of another country to find an excuse to invade or overthrow the government of another country, they did it quite well on their own self motivation

Blaming another Country's urging for our actions doesn't cut it

[still_one]

5. Yes I can. He was doing everything in his power to find and excuse to go into Iraq. Oil, pushing

the WMD theme, and wanting to show his father "he could do the job his father didn't finish"

You can blame Isreal for a lot of things, but it is BS to say they were the reason we invaded Iraq the second time.

Bush and his cronies were looking for a reason to do that, and 9/11 was the perfect recipe. It was the "Pearl Harbor" event they were looking for

They had already mapped out which oil fields would be controlled by which companies.

As part of their plan around the bush administration also sabatouged the sunshine talks between north and South Korea

They had an agenda that was planned long before we invaded Iraq

[BainsBane]

10. You're evoking a long-standing tactic

but subtle enough to get away with it. Your intent is nonetheless perfectly clear, and of course you are counting on that.

The US is not an empire because we dance to our supposed Israeli masters. We manage all on our own, just like your hero Putin manages to build his empire without having his strings pulled by the great Zionist conspiracy. The quest for power and wealth is motivation enough for empire building.

You are at least consistent, I'll hand you that. Pro-Putin, anti-"Israel" (wink, wink). Most people on this site are highly critical of Israeli foreign policy. Earlier today, I got into a pretty hated exchange with a Bibi defender. However, most don't find it necessary to evoke the protocols to make their case.

[sheshe2]

11. Yes!

On Fri Apr 3, 2015, 10:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You're evoking a long-standing tactic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6456775

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

You are at least consistent, I'll hand you that. Pro-Putin, anti-"Israel" (wink, wink).

Just what is BainsBane suggesting here that isn't a 'personal attack'.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Apr 3, 2015, 10:28 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.



Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another misguided attempt to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Nothing I would hide though.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I suggest you ask that question of BainsBane, not the jury. FYI, this is a discussion board.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: pro-Putin/anti-Israel characterization of original post is over wrought. We don't need these kind of attacks on people posting historical articles. These kind of posts quickly devolve into more personal attacks from both sides.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[BainsBane]

12. Thanks

Too bad juror 4 didn't read the rest of my post, where I pretty clearly say I'm critical of Israel policy and had just had a run in with a Likud defender on the subject. As I pointed out, many--most of us--are critical of Israeli foreign policy. What we don't do is claim that Israel controls the US. That evokes a long-standing conspiracy theory.

[sheshe2]

13. You are very welcome, BainsBane.

Sadly some are reading impaired here. Lol~ I was #6.

[procon]

3. He might have fantized war, but without the heavy push

From the encouragement of PNAC signers, the religious right, the rightwing chickenhawks, and the loud drumbeat of Israeli fearmongering, that gave rise to our enabling media and their conspirators in the military industrial complex, Bush didn't have the chops to strike on his own.

They provided him with the veil of legitimacy, the thin veneer that he was acting for the common good against the scary forces of evil incarnate. There were multiple opportunities to check his mad schemes, but every system failed. We are still on the upward slope of that mutli-generational catastrophic fail.
Lt

[still_one]

6. That is a different point. PNAC and the new American century were

Part of the bush administration and had it all planned

Rumsfeld, wolfwitz(sic), Bolton, Cheney, and more were all part of the strategy

They had a willing participate in bush who not only wanted to avenge the attempted assignation attemp on his father, but control the flow of oil

No this was part of their agenda before he took office. He didn't need to be pushed, just needed an excuse which he used fear from 9/11 as the excuse

[Rex]

7. True, even if Congress would had turned down the IWR. Dubya would have found a way.

They were hellbent on getting that oil and killing off Saddam.

[PCIntern]

8. Oh yeah...

it was the Israelis..of course…let's blame…the….Israelis…you know…the People who inhabit the territory in between all of your beloved states like Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and your new BFF Iran..you know..all those countries with democratic governments and an independent judiciary.


The Bush Administration got its marching orders from a much higher region. Whom are you trying to kid?