POLITICS: Secret Documents on TV Anger Treasury Department

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
"....International Tribunal is just around the corner, huh?

Maybe, maybe not, but highly doubtful.
Yes, the current policy was that instituted by the prior administration in the Iraq Liberation Act....read it, closely.

The contingency planned and continued planning of the "Policy of Regime Change" mandated by the ILA signed by the then president, Bill Clinton.

As qouted by the Washinton Post:
"President Clinton has said that getting rid of Saddam is a major U.S. objective."

This is and has been US FOREIGN POLICY since the ILA.

Further indications?
"According to Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, "The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was passed by an unanimous Senate and a near-unanimous House," after which Mr. Clinton certified it as the law of the land with his signature.....

According to a report in Newsweek just three months ago, after Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, "the U.S. government convened a conference with the [Iraqi National Congress] and other opposition groups in London to discuss 'regime change.'"......

In Jan. 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even appointed a special representative for transition in Iraq, Frank Ricciardone, who reportedly had "a mandate to coordinate opposition to Saddam."

Said Albright at the time: "He will be assisted by a team that will include both a military and a political adviser with extensive on-the-ground experience in the region . . . With the aid of Frank Ricciardone and his team, we will persist in helping the Iraqi people re-integrate themselves into the world community by freeing themselves from a leader they do not want, do not deserve and never chose."....

Two months later, the Clinton administration's plans for a post Saddam Iraq were already well underway, with State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin explaining to reporters: "What we're trying to do . . . is strengthen an Iraqi opposition movement that can lay out solid plans for the post-Saddam recovery in all sectors of national life."

Link: (as already posted and obviously not read)
www.newsmax.com...



regards
seekerof




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
apnews.myway.com... Interesting read.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Yes, that was enlightening to read, but here's an even more interesting read and turn of events:

"O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account"
Link:
www.cnn.com...

Amazing how many hyped this up to be the levels of an Enron or 9/11 theories...
Seems that all that is happening now is a form of 'back-peddling'.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I have seen the supposedly classified document on the net. The document itself is not classified - it is a coversheet which describes a number of attached documents and files.

The coversheet (correctly) identified one of the attachemtns as being classified SECRET. This in of itself does not make the coversheet classified (unless the title of the docuemnt attached was classified - which it was not).

The actual classified attachment was apparently not included with the other files......



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I think we can al blame Clinton for this....again



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Being an apologist for an administration that is suspect at every turn must be highly taxing!

Funding & training Iraq opposition forces is not the same thing as a large scale invasion using US forces almost exclusively and bearing the full cost exclusively.
I've read the 1998 law. In the real world, adults do make contingency plans, even get the proper channels greased should those plans need to be enacted.
To postulate than ANYONE in office that voted or sign the 1998 initiative intended that it be conducted as the Bush team has done it, in support of PNAC, is a bold & complete lie.
Funny how Bush now mouths the words of Clinton legacy & legitimacy on this issue, huh?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join