Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BREAKING - Earliest Documentation on Iraq Planning? 10/2001

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:12 PM
Original message
BREAKING - Earliest Documentation on Iraq Planning? 10/2001
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/162043/385

This afternoon, the National Security Archives at George Washington University released some stunning documents, that seem to further corroborate the Downing Street Minutes, as well as buttress the argument that there was precious little post-war planning in the rush to topple Saddam. Among them is this State Department powerpoint slide:



Digest the date in the first bullet point for a moment. 10/2001 - barely one month after the events of September 11th, when all efforts of the U.S. government should have been focused completely, and without hesitation, on finding Osama "Who?" Bin Laden.

There's a full list of the document dump today by the National Security Archive after the jump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LTRS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Doesn't look like news to me...
This says nothing about war planning. Congress had voted previously to support regime change, not war, through economic means and through financing resistance within the country by Iraqis and exiles. Not that W didn't lie his ass off to get us into war, but there's nothing stunning or new here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldavid Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Documentation that military plainning began in oct 2001 is news

as is State Department experts warning CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005: Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

In a February 7, 2003, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTRS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This document doesn't say that war was planned in Oct 2001
.... and neither does that bit you posted. We already knew they were planning the Iraq war in 2003.

Don't get me wrong, I know for a fact that they started planning this war much sooner than they admitted. But we reduce our credibility when we make shit up and purport that something is proof when it is nothing of the sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldavid Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. No, it does not say the war was planned in oct 2001...
but it does says that they STARTED planning for what to do after regime change in october of 2001(not that it did a damn bit of good). True, what I posted does not prove anything. I cant prove it, only help other gather information. Go read the 31 page memo for your self. It IS about the iraq war. One of the objectives for this group, as stated on page two is "practical planning - what can be done between now and regime change" and no one is making shit up, just getting information out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTRS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. You seem to be missing the fact that....
Congress passed a resolution supporting and funding efforts toward "regime change" while Clinton was still in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldavid Donating Member (197 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. You seem to be missing the fact that
You seem to be missing the fact that "regime change" does not equal aggressive war. And so what if Republicans passed an act supporting "regime change" what matters is that the american people know that they were lied to. BUSH LIED! Period. America is starting to get the picture because pieces of the puzzle like this keep coming out. Publicly bush said war was a last resort and necessary because of Saddam's WMD's. Behind the curtain, he was planning for war with Iraq from day one. Problem is these same documents also show they didn't plan too well for the post Saddam stages. Had things gone well, no one would care about these documents because the iraqi's gave us all those rose petals to walk on. You see.... bush wanted to go, no matter what, but didn't think it through, and now americans troops are dying years after Saddam's statue came down. This is not a "Smoking gun" but its a hell of a lot more evidence then bush had against Saddam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Don't forget the funding that was diverted from Afganastan in violation
of Congressional Approval. Here's another piece showing that they were doing all this work prior to getting the money approved in late 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LTRS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. No, sorry
Congress had appropriated money for the exiles to advance "regime change" long before Bush even came into office.

Yes, they were planning to go to war in Iraq come hell or high water right from the start, but this document doesn't prove that at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
halobeam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. ooo boy here we go again......
more to feed the fires of hell, and no one here will be surprised. I find myself the slightest bit relieved to see more proof, question is, what will be done about it? I want to scream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. that site doesn't allow deeplinking, here it is
although, I can't say I blame them

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. I think the first public admission by George W. Bush that we would go
to war with Iraq was 9/13/2001 speech to the nation.

Where the nation did a collective :wtf: as * said "The Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and Osama bin Laden".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libertypirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. Check out who was saying what around this time
http://miawmdwtfw.blogspot.com/

11 September 2001
Bush administration officials tried to implicate Saddam on 9/11/01

Former General Wesley Clark tells Tim Russert on Meet the Press that Bush administration officials tried to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks, beginning on the day of the attacks. Clark states:“There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. Well, it came from the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
“Media Silent on Clark's 9/11: Comments Gen. says White House pushed Saddam
link without evidence” FAIR. 20 June 2003. Available:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842




17 September 2001
Begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq

President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.
Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq
Has Puzzling Past, Washington Post,
January 12, 2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushwick Bill Donating Member (605 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-05 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. Go Back to September 2000.
"Indeed the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search='PNAC%20Rebu ilding%20America's%20Defenses'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC