NEWS: Iraq Invasion Planned Before 9/11

Springer.....my thanks but the thanks was not needed, really.

I am one of the few here that have tried to stand for what I have believed for quite some time.
I think my efforts have been mostly and mainly dismissed, but then again, this is a 'conspiracy' site and thus I have not gone the flow of 'conspiracy ways of thinking.'

My efforts are invein, even when I am not "defending" this f_cked-up administration! Sometimes, I wonder.....


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 10-1-2004 by Seekerof]

"The enlightenment of the few is the hope for the many."

While I agree this administration is FAR from perfect I, like you, will not stand by while falsehoods and twisted perceptions motivated by the LUST for power are presented as facts...

It seems to me that the more loony the premise the more receptive some folks are to it. A bizarre circumstance to be sure.

Yours is a gift of articulating LOGIC in a concise yet easy to follow manner. NEVER give up the good fight old Bean!

PEACE...
m...

I think the issue will end up being the reasons given to the public and congress for going to war. We appear to have a disconnect between what the administration planned, and their public reasons for those plans. I don't disagree that Saddam needed to be dealt with, however, lies or deception wasn't the way to get it started.

I agree with that SkepticOverlord...
and in the 'spirit' of conspiracy theories.......
I noticed Dreamz post concerning the names of those who signed the PNAC letter to then President Bill Clinton in 1998.

Most have varying connection within governement and with Bush, but in such, so did Bill Clinton.
Strangely enough, Bill Clinton was and is a reputed member of the "Skull and Bones" of Yale secret organization.
Now, if this is true, and it is known that GW Bush is also a member of the reputed "Skull and Bones" (Hall of Fame member, at that), then wouldn't both be seen as "blood brothers" of the same 'fold'? In such, wouldn't there "agendas", perhaps in relation and with regards to Iraq and the policies in and with the Middle East, be seen as "working towards the same goal"?

Again, would this not make a "connection" likely between the Clinton Administration's plans for removing Saddam in Iraq and the post-Iraq agendas in the same likely hood as those of the current Bush Administration's agendas and goals? Let's say that Bush Sr. set the stage on Iraq but didn't remove Saddam, for various reasonings....
Clinton comes into power and continues the 'silent' policies towards and directed to Iraq and Saddam. In such, in 1998, the Clinton Administration, along with Congress, sign, pass, and enact the Iraq Liberation Act, which then sets the stage for the PNAC agenda, "which began from a recycled conception put forward in a Pentagon strategy document in 1992."
Clinton is impeached and/or ends his term(s) and the now current Bush Administration continues and ultimately fulfills the above mentioned main agenda: "the military securing of the Persion Gulf Region?"
Link to some of the above mentioned comments/ideas.
www.wsws.org...


Again, as I mentioned, I see no deviation by the current Bush Administration from that set forth by the previous Clinton or the Bush Sr administrations.......



regards
seekerof

And again, to prove my point on the fact that 'conspiracy' theorist here only see or ignore what they wish.....this article was released, in varying titles and contents with the same striking simularities, early this month and reinforces my argument on "contingency planning":

"Invasion Scenario: '73 memo: U.S. looked at seizing oil fields"
Link:
www.newsday.com...

Excerpt:

"London - The United States gave serious consideration to sending airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi during the 1973 Arab oil embargo, according to a top-secret British intelligence memorandum released Wednesday evening.

The document, titled "Middle East - Possible Use of Force by the United States," said that if faced with conditions such as a breakdown of the cease-fire between Arab and Israeli forces following the October 1973 Yom Kippur War or an intensification of the embargo, the administration of President Richard M. Nixon would prefer "a rapid operation conducted by themselves" to seize the oil fields."



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by SeekerofAgain, as I mentioned, I see no deviation by the current Bush Administration from that set forth by the previous Clinton or the Bush Sr administrations.......

Neither do I... but there is an interesting angle of "conspiracy theorization" that has been a significant part of ATS discussion over the past two years that compares well against the basics of this recent mainstream press. There's good reason for this new-news to spark discussion, and recall old discussions. No matter what anyone's stance is on the "conspiracy" aspect of this information, two issues will be interesting to watch as this develops: 1) What, if any, political fallout occurs for the Bush campaign in this election year (certainly, as Springer points out, strong motivation for the timing of this story). 2) What, if any, questions arise over the truthfullness of the administration's motives for invading Iraq. Something that has had minor buzz in the news for months, might now become more pronounced. Despite any alternative theories of conspiracy, these two issues are poised to have a profound effect on the year's campaign craziness!

Despite any alternative theories of conspiracy, these two issues are poised to have a profound effect on the year's campaign craziness!

Could not agree more, which is why I find it so revolting that O'Neill would puke this up now.

Whatever threads of honor American politics once had have been abolished.

I truly beleive the coming election is going to have the highest entertainment level of any to date.

I use the word Entertainment specifically here because that's all any of this is, IMHO...

Sad how many take it to heart inspite of the obvious games being played. Those who actually beleive either party gives a rat's behind about ANYTHING other than more power are sadly mistaken IMHO and have bought the sales job Hook, Line and Sinker...

Let the GAMES BEGIN!

PEACE...
m...

More developments... On January 12, 2003: www.post-gazette.com O'Neill made clear he preferred to avoid direct criticism of Bush, even though it has been suggested their parting was less than amicable. "I was never angry with the president," he said, when asked about his abrupt departure. "I was happy to leave." A year later... January 9, 2004 news.yahoo.com In an excerpt of the book released by CBS, O'Neill said that a lack of real dialogue characterized the Cabinet meetings he attended during the first two years of the administration and gave O'Neill the feeling that Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

More from Drudge www.drudgereport.com... New York � Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME�s White House correspondent John Dickerson, former Treasury Secretary Paul O�Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I�ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence." TIME�s new issue will be on newsstands Monday, Jan. 12th.

I really can't see the timing of this being important. I can't think of any time since the intention of invading Iraq was first made public that wouldn't have been considered tactical timing. In fact, if he'd really wanted to cause maximum damage he would have released it just before the war started, so it could be said he held off for the sake of the war, not that I believe that to be the case but it�s just as valid as saying it was released at this time as a tactical measure.