You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #14: This article is a major smokescreen! Please read the enclosed links... [View All]

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. This article is a major smokescreen! Please read the enclosed links...
Bush Advisers Planned Iraq War Since 1990s
< >

"Oct. 1, 2002, 17:00 PDT (FTW) -- The George W. Bush Administration's intentions of removing Saddam Hussein from power are not a recent development by any stretch of the imagination. Top White House officials affiliated with conservative think tanks and past administrations have been developing strategies for removing the Iraqi leader since the 1990s.

One such think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published a report in September 2000 recommending policies for preserving and expanding U.S. dominance in world affairs, including an aggressive policy for deposing Saddam Hussein. Members of this group include Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, convicted Iran-Contra perjurer and current National Security Council (NSC) staffer Elliot Abrams, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff and assistant for national security affairs."

Rumsfeld Urged Iraqi Invasion A Day After 911
< >

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President George W. Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, a former senior administration counterterrorism aide says.

In a forthcoming book, Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts 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-Qaeda was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

'Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq,' Mr. Clarke said. 'We all said, But no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.'

Mr. Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Mr. Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that 'there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.'"

Cheney's Role In 911 Put On Center Stage By British MP
< >

"Meacher affirmed that 'the catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called 'war on terrorism' is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider U.S. strategic geopolitical objectives.' Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: 'To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on Sept. 11' (Times, July 17, 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time magazine, May 13, 2002).

In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the U.S. government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that 'the U.S. remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.' Submitted to Vice President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., 'military intervention' was necessary (Sunday Herald, Oct. 6, 2002)."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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