LAT:Official Says U.S. Rushed to War in Iraq(for Bush reelection campaign)

[DeepModem Mom]

Official Says U.S. Rushed to War in Iraq
A top diplomat accuses the administration of sending the country to war too soon and poorly prepared because of 'clear political pressure.'

By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — A top U.S. official for aid to Iraq has accused the Bush administration of rushing unprepared into the 2003 invasion because of pressures from President Bush's approaching reelection campaign.

Robin Raphel, the State Department's coordinator for Iraq assistance, said that the invasion's timing was driven by "clear political pressure," as well as by the need to quickly deploy the U.S. troops that had been amassed by the Iraq border.

Soon after the invasion, Raphel said, it became clear that U.S. officials "could not run a country we did not understand…. It was very much amateur hour."

Her views appeared as part of an oral history project on the website of the congressionally funded U.S. Institute of Peace. Raphel's account is one of a number that have appeared on the website this year as former officials who were among the first sent into post-invasion Iraq have begun to publicly assess the first two years of the U.S. mission.

Although the officials' views vary widely — and some are positive about the U.S. effort — the accounts make clear that many of the veteran diplomats who were the first to be sent to Iraq had misgivings about the effort from the beginning, with their views foreshadowing criticisms that followed months and even years later....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq22oct22,0,5442173.story?coll=la-home-nation

[4dsc]

1. How damn sad...

EOM!!

[malaise]

13. Sad you call it

It is criminal when politics supercedes international law and human lives. From Moore, it seems to me that there are "...people who sought to cover up the leak when it was merely a secondary consequence of the much greater crime of forging evidence to foment war." That is hardly sad - that is criminal.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051021/fitzgeralds_historic_opportunity.php

[JoFerret]

20. ...and sad

.

[malaise]

24. The question I need answered is

whre did 9/11 fit into the plot.

[shanti]

29. that is crystal clear

they needed a reason to go to war and 9/11 fit well enough ("another pearl harbor"), with a few tweaks. 9/11 also gave them a basis for looting the treasury.

[pretzel4gore]

31. the america we loved, they hated

if i had a neighbor, and loathed them for their antics (loud noises, broken cars, shriekfest parties all time etc) yet they said 'we have a pic of jesus on our wall, guy' that would change everything. they were xians, and any criticism is just sour grapes. even when they kill and eat my cats, it's ok, cuz, well, they wus hungry. (actually, it's my family who's hungry, and ate the cats etc, and the neighbors are quiet dependable people who work hard and keep trying to get my family to change, but we do have jesus pic on the wall, and think out of the box, so them bastards can go to hell, all of em...)

[AlinPA]

2. The 2004 election: the bottom line. It was their plan to have a war to

make him out as the "wartime president". The media wouldn't touch that point in any story or any hint of it until now. It had been "unthinkable" by the media and flag waving 'murcans. We (DU) knew it a long time ago.

Now we need talking heads and "pundits" asking the question.

[Roland99]

3. "Flowers and kisses"...words of idiocy from ideological madmen.

In his oral history, Dunford said he believed the administration didn't adequately plan for a rebuilding because it didn't believe that the job would be a U.S. responsibility.

At the time of the war, there was a "great struggle between the State Department and the Pentagon about who would run post-war Iraq," and the Pentagon eventually won, Dunford said, agreeing with many assessments of administration divisions in the war's early days.

"Basically, their strategy was we would be showered with flowers, and the Iraqis would welcome us and we would turn over power within weeks to a government headed by Ahmad Chalabi," he said. "And we would get out of Dodge."

But Dunford added that "that strategy sort of fell apart as reality set in" and senior U.S. officials came to the view that handing the country immediately to the exile leadership would not work.

Wow...Give it to the ideologues at the Pentagon instead of the pragmatic minds at the State Dept. (a slam at Colin Powell and true conservatives, to be sure).

[Democrat 4 Ever]

9. How do you get the MSM to report on this? Think Russert, Matthews,

Wolfie will ask the questions about this? Of course not.

The latest talking points from the reichwing is that the Dems are at fault because they voted for the war (Fucker Carlson's latest spiel). They are totally ignoring that the repugs were in the majority and they didn't bother to check out anything that came out of this administration. Somehow, it is the Dems fault because they believed the intel coming from the CIA, the State Dept and the National Security Council. They never considered the total corruption of all branches of government by this crooked cabal so it is the Dems fault. Go figure. The Dems are now responsible for going back and double checking our own security intel. It is like they are saying, "Well, you knew we were crooked, so shame on you for not doing something to keep us from going to war."

This needs to be asked of every politician everywhere. When did you learn that Bush took us to war so he could run as a war president? What have you done to get us out of this mess?

I didn't think it possible to be any madder but I was wrong. Bush, Cheney and the whole damn bunch needs to be at the Hague. Killing soldiers for political gain, ruining an economy for political gain, destroying jobs, families, the environment for political gain. But to stand up and say they are the ones who are supporting the military while throwing them to the wolves to win an election is unforgivable.

[raccoon]

19. That is true and it's so disgusting.

On the personal level, that's the equivalent of a substance abuser saying, "Well, you made me drink/drug, because you made me mad."
Or a physically abusive person saying, "It's your fault I beat you up, because you made me mad."

Such TOTAL abdication of any responsibility really pisses me off. And the fact that the MSM lets them get away with it is equally disgusting. They shouldn't be called the MSM any more; we ought to call them something more appropriate, such as the Department of Propaganda for the Reich.

[Peace Patriot]

34. War profiteering corporate news monopolies. That's mine. And I...

...spell it out every time. Not just WPCNM. But: War. Profiteering. Corporate. News. Monopolies.

Like that. It helps me think about it more, and regard each word, and savor it.

They are not even close to being the "mainstream" of opinion and real news in this country. We, at DU, are much closer to being "mainstream" than they are.

And it is a measure of their illicit power and illusion-creation that we tend to think we are not.

[JoFerret]

21. Dems should have known, did know

...but politics has tough forces to buck.
They went along (most of them.)

[Peace Patriot]

36. Here are the ones who didn't...

TOTAL NAYS (133)--House

DEMOCRATS (126)

Abercrombie (HI-01) Hastings, A. (FL-23) Neal (MA-02)
Allen, T. (ME-01) Hilliard (AL-07) Oberstar (MN-08)
Baca (CA-42) Hinchey (NY-26) Obey (WI-07)
Baird (WA-03) Hinojosa (TX-15) Olver (MA-01)
Baldacci (ME-02) Holt (NJ-12) Owens (NY-11)
Baldwin (WI-02) Honda (CA-15) Pallone (NJ-06)
Barrett (WI-05) Hooley (OR-05) Pastor (AZ-02)
Becerra (CA-30) Inslee (WA-01) Payne (NJ-10)
Blumenauer (OR-03) Jackson, J. (IL-02) Pelosi (CA-08)
Bonior (MI-10) Jackson-Lee, S. (TX-18) Price, D. (NC-04)
Brady, R. (PA-01) Johnson, E.B. (TX-30) Rahall (WV-03)
Brown, C. (FL-03) Jones, S. (OH-11) Rangel (NY-15)
Brown, S. (OH-13) Kaptur (OH-09) Reyes (TX-16)
Capps (CA-22) Kildee (MI-09) Rivers (MI-13)
Capuano (MA-08) Kilpatrick (MI-15) Rodriguez (TX-28)
Cardin (MD-03) Kleczka (WI-04) Roybal-Allard (CA-33)
Carson, J. (IN-10) Kucinich (OH-10) Rush (IL-01)
Clay (MO-01) LaFalce (NY-29) Sabo (MN-05)
Clayton (NC-01) Langevin (RI-02) Sanchez (CA-46)
Clyburn (SC-06) Larsen, R. (WA-02) Sawyer (OH-14)
Condit (CA-18) Larson, J. (CT-01) Schakowsky (IL-09)
Conyers (MI-14) Lee (CA-09) Scott (VA-03)
Costello (IL-12) Levin, S. (MI-12) Serrano (NY-16)
Coyne (PA-14) Lewis, John (GA-05) Slaughter (NY-28)
Cummings (MD-07) Lipinski (IL-03) Snyder (AR-02)
Davis, D. (IL-07) Lofgren (CA-16) Solis (CA-31)
Davis, S. (CA-49) Maloney, J. (CT-05) Stark (CA-13)
DeFazio (OR-04) Matsui (CA-05) Strickland (OH-06)
DeGette (CO-01) McCarthy, K. (MO-05) Stupak (MI-01)
Delahunt (MA-10) McCollum (MN-04) Thompson, B. (MS-02)
DeLauro (CT-03) McDermott (WA-07) Thompson, M. (CA-01)
Dingell (MI-16) McGovern (MA-03) Tierney (MA-06)
Doggett (TX-10) McKinney (GA-04) Towns (NY-10)
Doyle (PA-18) Meek, C. (FL-17) Udall, M. (CO-02)
Eshoo (CA-14) Meeks, G. (NY-06) Udall, T. (NM-03)
Evans (IL-17) Menendez (NJ-13) Velazquez (NY-12)
Farr (CA-17) Millender-McDonald (CA-37) Visclosky (IN-01)
Fattah (PA-02) Miller, George (CA-07) *Waters (CA-35)
Filner (CA-50) Mollohan (WV-01) Watson (CA-32)
Frank, Barney (MA-04) Moran, James (VA-08) Watt, M. (NC-12)
Gonzalez (TX-20) Nadler (NY-08) Woolsey (CA-06)
Gutierrez (IL-04) Napolitano (CA-34) Wu (OR-01)


REPUBLICANS (6)
Duncan (TN-02) Houghton (NY-31) Morella (MD-08)
Hostettler (IN-08) Leach (IA-01) Paul (TX-14)

INDEPENDENTS (1)
Sanders (VT-AL)

----------------------------


Senate Nays : 23 Members

DEMOCRATS:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul David Wellstone (D-MN)--God rest his soul!
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)

--------

And, for the record, that's 132 more people in the House voting against this unjust war than voted against that other one, Vietnam.

We really MUST understand that progress HAS been made in Americans' desire for peace and justice, and that is WHY they took away our right to vote with the SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations, in the new electronic voting systems.

The only way you can drag Americans kicking and screaming into unjust war now is by stealing elections.

[librechik]

23. they won't . They're accomplices! n/t

[High Plains]

30. Nah, the Democrats were totally innocent...

Yes, this is a Republican-led war. Yes, there is a Republican majority in Congress.

But that doesn't mean we let off the hook those Democrats who gave Bush a blank check by voting for his war resolution. And this excuse that "everybody" believed the Bush bullshit is just that, bullshit. You and I and anyone who was watching knew that Bush wanted this war, would do anything, say anything to get it, and the Democrats who voted for that resolution are at best enablers.

To demand accountability from the people who are supposed to be representing us is not a "reichwing talking point."

[NightOwwl]

32. Unbelievable, isn't it?

They really are trying to spread this talking point. It's the Dems fault we are at war with Iraq, because they didn't "do their job" and oppose the administration. :eyes: Un-effing-believable.

Edited to say, I wish they had done their job and opposed the war. But laying total blame for "I'm a war pResident"'s disaster on the shoulders of the Dems is a bit much, to say the least.

[rodeodance]

4. It was very much amateur hour." --this 'hour' has lasted years!

[peacebird]

5. recommended.

I hope MSM picks this up and runs with it. Middle America will be most unhappy to learn their sons and daughters were slaughtered for bushco's re-election. Especially this weekend when the american death toll will likely top 2,000......

(the Iraqi civilian death toll is already tens of thousands higher than that, not that Joe 6pack cares)

:cry:

[OKNancy]

8. Los Angeles Times is pretty mainstream

Looks to me that MSM has picked it up.

[peacebird]

26. True - but I meant MStvMedia. Too many folks don't read the news

and only hear what is spoon fed to them on tv

[pretzel4gore]

6. like being surprised by broken glass

after the bull gets in the china shop....
911 was to prevent the fact bush never won the 2k election from entering the national consciousness, which the slated publication of the NORC results in late september would have done (the publication was postponed after sept 11th beccause the country was too 'traumatised' the piggy said; amazingly, everybody forgets that :shrug:) it sorta dwarfs the whole iraq horrorshow nonsense into insignificance, imho

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. I haven't forgotten that Pinhead's approval rating was in the toilet

in the summer of '01 and that NORC was on the verge of revealing the results of their recount, proving that he didn't win the election, and then Pinhead** "hits the trifecta" :tinfoilhat: fits pretty good.

[rodeodance]

7. nominated ---spread this far and wide.

[berni_mccoy]

10. One more official comes clean...

At first, by reading the headline, I thought this was Powell's aid. I'm half pissed at these people for coming clean now. The war was the same quagmire last year as it is this year. Did these people really need another thousand soldiers to die before they confessed?

[dkofos]

11. This story is 2 yrs. late

[LynnTheDem]

12. Ya mean bush KICKING OUT the weapons inspectors 90 days

before they were finished was RUSHING TO WAR! I am SHOCKED! That never EVER occured to me!

:sarcasm:

Rightwingnuts; stupidest MFers on the planet.

[robbedvoter]

14. They also had to rush before it became clear there were no WMD!

But, yeah, it was reelection too - so how idiotic do the Democrats voting for it look now? Our sterling 2004 ticket? Putzes!

[DeepModem Mom]

15. Oh, wow, you're right about the Dems voting for it.

The power of the Rove/media machine was operating at full throttle; Dems thought they couldn't do otherwise, politically. I hope they think hard about this as a tragic lesson learned.

[IndianaGreen]

35. The DLC advised the Congressional Democrats to vote for IWR

so that they could concentrate on economic issues. The morality of the war, and the possibility of large number of civilian casualties never were part of the DLC's equation.

This is the one issue that divides us more than any other: we care about human rights, they care about political triangulations.

[Peace Patriot]

37. See my post above: The list of Dems who thought they COULD do...

...otherwise--and did!

[DeepModem Mom]

39. There are more than I remembered -- thanks, PP. nt

[MGKrebs]

16. Unless he's got an email or a memo

from Rummy that says something like "we are going in before the election", it's just his opinion.

Which isn't worth nothing, but a piece of paper would be so much better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. The Downing Street Memos talked about the timing relative to US elections

and the only reason for a British politician to be talking about that is if his American counterpart had raised it.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

[AlCzervik]

22. i just looked her up, i saw many references to her as being

"The face of Unocal" regarding the pipeline in Afghnistan prior to 9/11.

[Roland99]

25. Interesting....and this article, too. Hmmm....

http://www.sw-asia.com/JBOC/jboc9997.htm

NEW DELHI : US documents declassified on Friday have confirmed what the world long suspected - Pakistan provided millions of dollars, arms and "buses full of adolescent mujahid" to the Taliban in the 1990s.

But they throw little light on the encouragement given to the outfit by US officials like assistant secretary for South Asia , Robin Raphel, and her successor, Karl Inderfurth.

The documents obtained by the Washington-based National Security Archive, a NGO located in George Washington University , also reveal that Pakistan stepped up its aid to the Taliban in the wake of its May 1998 test in order to pressure the West to ease the sanctions.

But it was not the volume of the aid that was of concern. As US ambassador to Islamabad Thomas Simons noted in an August 1997 cable to Washington, "the trucks and buses full of adolescent mujahid crossed the frontier shouting ‘Allahu Akbar'... with a day or two of weapons training."

And this one as you point out:

http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=45798

In the early 1990's Prince Turki al Faisal, chief of Saudi intelligence until 2001, advertised the Taliban as "liberators" to the U.S. Dana Rohrabacher, a prominent member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California, recently stated that he believed that the U.S. entered into an agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the early 90's to allow them to dominate Afghanistan. American response to the advent of the Taliban and the events in Afghanistan during the mid 1990's, suggest acquiescence to the group. In 1995, Unocal, a U.S. oil company, vocally backed the Taliban,
stating that they would bring stability; making the pipeline project
feasible. Unocal executives even held several meetings with the Taliban regarding the implementation of the pipeline. Robin Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, echoed American interests in the Unocal pipeline and U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simmons, encouraged Prime Minister Bhutto to give Unocal exclusive transit rights.

Very interesting.

I wonder if she's linked to any PNACers or WINEPers and is now trying to distance herself a bit now?

[leftchick]

27. AFP:US diplomat points to neocon ideology behind actions in Iraq

This is a good article as well...

<snip>

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A veteran US diplomat who served as a government adviser in Iraq says US policy in the country at the initial stage of the occupation was driven by neoconservative ideology rather than careful preparation and clear understanding of issues.

Ambassador Robin Raphel, who has been with the foreign service since 1977 and once served as assistant secretary of state, delivered her unusually candid remarks in a July 2004 interview for a relatively obscure history program at the US Institute of Peace.

It has remained unnoticed until now, when increasing numbers of Americans began to question the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq.

<snip>

"What one needs to understand is that these decisions were ideologically based," the diplomat argued. "They were not based on an analytical, historical understanding. They were based on ideology. You dont counter ideology with logic or experience or analysis very effectively."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051022/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqraphel_051022131713

[DeepModem Mom]

28. Thanks, leftchick!

[IndianaGreen]

33. Common Dreams picked up the AFP version

It is a clear indictment:

Raphel, who served as a trade adviser to the Iraqi government from April to August 2003, took particular issue with decisions by then administrator Paul Bremer to launch debaathification of the country and disband Saddam Hussein's military.

"What one needs to understand is that these decisions were ideologically based," the diplomat argued. "They were not based on an analytical, historical understanding. They were based on ideology. You don't counter ideology with logic or experience or analysis very effectively."

She said political pressure on professional foreign service officers was "huge" and "pervasive."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1022-06.htm

It is that "huge" and "pervasive" political pressure on professional foreign service officers that led to Plamegate and, hopefully, to the indictment of top Bush regime officials.

[Peace Patriot]

38. 58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war before the invasion,

even before all the lies were exposed, and the full horror and costs of it were known. Across the board in all polls. Feb. '03. 58%!

That number dipped only once, in the first weeks of the invasion with U.S. troops at max risk, then went right back up to nearly 60% where it stayed throughout the election. It's over 70% today.

This is a common mistake of reporting--and it surprises me in AFP--that the American people are somehow only NOW awakening to the injustice of this war. The great majority of Americans never supported this war. Never!

It is only the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who are being forced into reporting criticism, now that Bushites are about to be indicted, and with Bushite spending and looting heading us toward financial meltdown, and Republicans jumping ship to try and save themselves, who make it APPEAR--an illusion!--that there was once widespread support for this war that is now, somehow, crumbling.

THEY are yakking about this; THEY are suddenly allowing some criticism--because it serves their interests (they want a new VP to be Diebolded into office in '08), NOT because there has been any change in American public opinion. They don't give a crap about American public opinion, on the war or anything else.

The same is true on Bush's torture policy, and every other Bush policy, foreign and domestic. The great majority of Americans disagree with all of it, way up in the 60% to 70% range, and have for at least two years. Read the issue polls! You'll be amazed!

The American people--and the progressive MAJORITY--have been disempowered and DISENFRANCHISED. THAT's the truth--NOT that there has been any significant change in what we think.

It's the chattering class of well-paid, wrongfully empowered, rightwing political pundits and centrist lapdogs who have "begun to question the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq," and, because, in their arrogance, they PRESUME themselves to be the "mainstream," they foment the ILLUSION that THEY represent US. They do not!

--------------------

"...until now, when increasing numbers of Americans began to question the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq." --AFP

[whirlygigspin]

40. the Anthrax Congress was scared into it

ummmm...I seem to remember Congress and the Press being "terrorized" by Anthrax letters...conveniently for the PNAC agenda


Oh, did they ever find out who did that Mr.Cheney?

must be just a coincidence, never mind.