It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Iraq Invasion Planned Before 9/11

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link A damaging revelation from former Treasury Secretary, Paul Oneill. He claims that the invasion of Iraq was planned early in the days of the Bush administration, long before the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. This will be revealed in an interview on CBS's "60 Mintues" on Sunday evening.
From the Drudge Report flash: "The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network." This is sure to be a fire-storm of activity over the next few weeks. For a long time here on, many of our members speculated on this concept, that the Iraq invasion was planned before the 9/11/2001 attack in New York City and Washington, DC. Now we have high-ranking confirmation of our speculation. [Edited on 10-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord] [Edited on 11-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:43 AM
Here is one from July:

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:44 AM
here's another, but this one is pretty good, gives a nice overall picture of the events

[Edited on 1-10-2004 by worldwatcher]

[Edited on 1-10-2004 by worldwatcher]

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:49 AM

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:51 AM

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:54 AM
The above links are three occasions where members on discussed aspects of this type of pre-planning.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:55 AM
Another from July.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 10:01 AM
...SOUR GRAPES and re-alignment of political party loyalty on O'Neill's end...

O'Neill is waging a SPIN WAR in hopes of denting the incumbant''s incredible satisfaction/approval numbers going into the election year.

I would venture to say that there were detailed plans to invade several countries prior to 9/11 and Iraq was simply one of them.

Iraq SHOULD have been one of them. There was no telling when Saddam was going to pop again. It would have been remiss to not have a detailed plan in hand to deal with a situation as volatile as Pre Liberated Iraq.


posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 10:03 AM

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by DipSchnit]

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 10:16 AM

MaskedAvatar "The Iraq War was planned by the neo-cons of PNAC, well before Bush was assisted into being resident of the White House. Whatever was going on with the UN made not a shred of difference to the agenda. "

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 10:22 AM

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "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."

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 10:26 AM
Last summer, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan, no later than October! How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:03 AM

Read the names on the bottom
January 26, 1998

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Husseins regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraqs chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddams secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.


Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:35 AM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

This is sure to be a fire-storm of activity over the next few weeks. For a long time here on, many of our members speculated on this concept, that the Iraq invasion was planned before the 9/11/2001 attack in New York City and Washington, DC. Now we have high-ranking confirmation of our speculation.

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Hey, why don't yoou just say "The Colonel TOLD US that the Iraq invasion was planned long before 9-11."

Let this be a lesson to all of you:

The Colonel is always right.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 11:47 AM
Of what is RIGHT about ATS.

Speculation --> research --> validation.

If anyone wants to question O'Neill's motives, fine. That's what we do. But the process works.

O'Neill's claims may not "prove" anything YET, but they certainly lend weight to theories expressed on ATS.

Time will tell. I predict either Powell or Rice to confirm some suspicions post administration as well.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:20 PM
Seems that the Project for A New American Century lobbied ex-President Bill Clinton while he was in office or serving his term(s):

"Letter from PNAC to President Clinton"

I would also contend that this "plan(s)" was probably handed over by and from the prior administration and that the "plan(s)" has always been in "paper form" giving detail on a "post-Saddam" Iraq. How so? Because the prior administration did sign (Clinton) the Bill that Congress had unanimously ratified:

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338)"

Ex-President Clinton's speech given on the day of signing the Bill:

"The Iraq Liberation Act"
October 31, 1998
Office of the Press Secretary


More information and elaboration on the Iraq Liberation Act:

"Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998"

My point being is that the goal of "Regime Change" in and with Iraq was and has been instituted, planned/formulated, and place "on paper" prior to the Bush Administration taking office. The Policy of "Regime Change" is just that and anyone doubting that the prior adminstration had no "plans for invading and/or removing" Saddam/Iraq needs to rethink this and certainly has no clue as to how this government operates when it comes to matters such as this. This is common US policy and is called: contingent/contingency planning and has been US policy for many decades. To think that the Bush Adminstration and not the Clinton prior administration were the only administration to have such a "contingency plan(s) to invade Iraq" and to remove Saddam (post-Iraq), again, needs to rethink this. Be assured, that the Clinton Administration, with the passing and ratifying of the Iraq Liberation Act, had like or the very same "contingency plan(s)" as the preceeding Bush Administration.
I would also be willing to bet that the US has "contingency plan(s)" for nations such as N. Korea, Iran, Sudan, Yeman, Cuba, for some to many South American nations and countries, France, some to many nations and countries in Africa, probably Canada, Russia, etc.....the list can go on, and is not limited to this administration or any is simple US policy, and one in which "contingency planning", as with military think tanks, has always been done and been in action (the placing of those ideas, goals, objectives, and such on paper).
Anyone who works for the government or the military can vouch for this. The government, as with the military, always plans for everything, in fact, probably too much so. The government has a "contingency plan(s)" for anything and everything.

In such, I see no deviation from Bush's actions or policy(s) from that of the Clinton Administrations stated policy(s), except, maybe, for 'follow-through'.


[Edited on 10-1-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
In such, I see no deviation from Bush's actions from the Clinton Administrations stated policy(s), except for maybe 'follow-through'.

Give credit where credit is due though. Bush 41's pull-out made Clinton plans/sanctions, and Shrub actions necessary. The Bush 41 inspired Shiite uprising (and slaughter) of '91 showed what doing things half-azzed will get you. W is a creation of necessity from his father's failures, not Clintons.

Going further back, we really have Dr. Reagenstein to thank for the monster called Saddam anyway.

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link has archived copies of Pentagon documents dated March 2001, that indicate plans to involve contractors in the oil fields of a "Post-Saddam Iraq" as claimed by author Ron Suskind in his upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty." "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says. Files available here, Obtained from IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf IraqOilGasProj.pdf

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:48 PM
The attacks on Afganistan were also planned way before 9/11, approximatly 6 month before. Kind of makes you think.

(don't have any link, read that in a book)

posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 01:49 PM
Once again you prove why you have that shiny "Way Above of the YEAR Medallion"...

As I stated in my post above ALL I see in this is a PURE political SPIN JOB wherein facts are taken and TWISTED to meet the opposition's desire to impart ANY damage they can on the incumbant's reputation, motives or credibility.

I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that there are invasion plans in great detail for alot MORE countries than you listed in your post.

Considering the volatile nature of Humanity in this age it appears to be very difficult to predict where the next "hot spot" is going to be...

That being said, it seems only LOGICAL and a matter of good stewardship to keep up to date and ready to execute plans for most any potential threat.

I'll say it again, this is PURE SPIN and SOUR GRAPES, IMHO...


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in