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.


US 'discussing Iraq regime change' two years before war

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:17 AM

US 'discussing Iraq regime change' two years before war

Elements of the new US administration of President George Bush were already discussing "regime change" in Iraq two years before the invasion of 2003, the official inquiry into the war was told today.

"In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that."

He explained Foreign Office policy at the time: "We didn't think Saddam was a good thing, and it would be great if he went, but we didn't have an explic
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:17 AM

The inquiry heard that those in Washington who supported containing Iraq would have had a stronger argument against the pro-war hawks if the UN Security Council had agreed on a revised list of controlled goods for export to Iraq in 2001.

Interesting article
At the end of the day you can't blame everything on Bush
This is something or an Idea that really stemmed from the Clinton Administration.

Interesting article nonetheless (visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Actually, PNAC was putting pressure on Clinton even before Bush was elected. And it probably goes back waaaaaaaaay further than that.

Here you go...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 08:25 AM
That's because none of our Presidents really change anything. All they do is follow the trail of breadcrumbs -- or in this case money and oil -- that was left behind by the previous guy.

Obama -- who some had tauted as such an independent thinker looking to completely turn Washington DC on its head -- change! change! change! -- has done very little to change any of the wheels already set in motion by Bush. Instead, he's merely become an extension of one of the most hated administrations in recent history.

Ironically though, Obama supporters overlook the continuation of these policies and projects and instead argue that Obama has no choice but to follow the course that Bush left for him.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

Yes. The signers of PNAC ended up in the Bush administration. The question (even in the Clinton years) always was, HOW was regime change to be effected. For PNAC, the change was going to be through military might.

9-11 gave the perfect cover for war as the method of regime change.
Even Paul Wolfowitz admitted in the Vanity Fair article

Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. ...
Wolfowitz: ...
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy...

So as Wolfowitz would admit, the wmd was the reason all could agree on and the one they went with as a way to rally support to send America's men and women to war.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:44 PM
Yes, this goes decades back (see Iraq-Iran War in which Russia and the U.S. supplied weapons). To the best of my understanding, we paid Saddam a lot of money for his cooperation. Since he flitted away the cash and did not do what we asked, he was sacked behind the line of scrimmage. Although I don't see a problem with that per say, I do wish the government would've been forthright and told us clearly and directly that this was going on. The voters are, after all, adults. The smoke and mirrors thing was a bad call. If I'm wrong on any points, by all means feel free to correct me.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by saint4God]

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 10:57 PM
If only daddy Bush had finished the job the first time, a lot of what has happened since 2003 might have been avoided.

We are paying a heavy price for that mistake.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by ~Lucidity

It did occur with Clinton.
He was presented the document and refused to sign onto it.
Oklahoma and WTC93 were merely attempts at changing his mind.
That failed.

The hidden people then had to assure themselves that the next president would be onboard no matter what..
But they had a problem, Gore would whitewash anyone, as Clinton was seen as the ideal president.

So, they had to taint Clinton and his party.... Clinton knew this, which is why he warned Monica.

Bill Clinton informed Monica Lewinsky that their phone sex conversations had been recorded. At the same time, Clinton ordered the FBI to cease the hunt for an Israeli mole known to be operating inside the White House itself!

new topics

top topics


log in