It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
General Admits to Secret Air War
By Michael Smith
The Sunday Times UK
Sunday 26 June 2005
The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.
The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
The Smoking Bullet in the Smoking Gun
by JEREMY SCAHILL
It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.
But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002--a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.
Relatives of some troops killed in Iraq seek hearings on Downing Street memo
By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Friday, June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON — Several parents of soldiers killed in Iraq visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday to ask for congressional hearings on the Downing Street memo, which one mother called President Bush’s “Watergate.”
Critics say the document, which contains minutes from a meeting in July 2002 between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and top aides, shows that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and ignored evidence that showed the country had no weapons of mass destruction.
“Military action was now seen as inevitable,” the memo reads. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11
It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The actions that we now knew our government to take were illegal, basically. It was in preparation to invade Iraq in the spring... or whenever they could push the world into it.
There were no WMD. We all know that now, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This invasion was envisioned and planned before 9-11 even. This adminstration should be charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. A member or two of the cabal should be tried for treason and handed over to the International Criminal Court. I say that as a formerly staunch opponent of the ICC.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Yes, but is that, in and of itself, impeachable?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam Hussien did not abide by the terms of surrender. He tested the no fly zones repeatedly, he expelled inspectors (and why the hell did he do that if there was nothing to hide?), and his military has attempted to target US and British aircraft in the no fly zones.
A minor point of correction- there were no WMD recovered. If he had destroyed them in complaince with his surrender he could have proven it and saved his butt.
The fallback point for your position is that they weren't the real reason for the invasion. This is quite possible, but can't entirely be proven either.
The question still remains as to whether or not Bush thought for some reason, WMD or other, that attacking Saddam was good for America.
So the question here, in my opinion, is this: Are we going to impeach every president we ever have, the first time he makes a horrible decision? Lying and manipulating the public are in fact often a lamentable but necessary part of implementing policy.
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
At any time we could have taken action against Saddam because of his refusal to live up to the agreements that stopped the first war. This being the case, softening the jerk up for the attack is hardly an impeachable offense.
As far as the chem/bio agents and weapons, we know for a darned-good fact that he had them.
He used them against his own countrymen, as well as the Iranians.
WE know he refused an unfettered inspection of his facilities, andthought that playing shell games was cute.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.
The New York Times reported, "On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead." However, the numbers given by Clinton and his administration have been proven false. The official NATO body count of the events in Kosovo was 2,788 (not all of them were war crimes victims)
Because of our access via the No-Fly zones and our will to enforce provisions in the terms of surrender, Saddam Hussein was NO threat to the United States. He could not make a move without us being all over him. So the very idea of WMD being in his possession was simply preposterous to begin with.
I know sometimes the truth ain't sexy as reality, but for the record, he and the inspectors destroyed those weapons that the west gave him, after Desert Storm. Scott Ritter and other credible sources determine that by 1998 Iraq was clean of any viable WMD.
I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program
Look into the fact that Saddam switched his oil currency to the Euro in 2000. That's the best place to start for a rational and plausible REAL explanation for the invasion (Third phase of the Gulf War). The other place to look is straight into PNAC. There you will find your final reason.
If you think Dubya has ever given you or me an ounce of thought, I got some beachfront property for ya.
Causing the death and destruction on the scales Bush is tipping, based on outright LIES, should be punishable.
If you lost someone you loved dearly b/c he/she believed in lie, how would you feel?
Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Well, there's a show-stopper if I've ever seen one.
Who do you work for, the Encyclopedia Brittanica?