In the 1994 interview, Richard "Dick" Cheney said that invading Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I do not think it is a fair assessment that the war between Iraq and Iran helped keep Iran in check. Saddam came to power in 1979, when the Iranian resolution took place. Saddam was in power when Iran took hostages and throughout their policy of funding Hezbollah and Hamas which was not kept in check. Also remember the Iran contra scandal, America provided arms to Iran during this war and at the same time also aided Iraq and some have argued that Iraq’s use of Chemical weapons during this war resulted in the Iranians exploring their own WMD programs. It would be a oversimplification of history to argue that the Iran Iraq war kept Iran “in check”

Well simply because I believe that because of the 1990s sanctions and the growing tribal regions in the area no wonder.

I have seen that video in the past, and it is very intriguing! Fact of the matter, Iraq has always been a quagmire. As calamitous as the Middle East is with all the bloodshed and mayhem, but Iraq has a place of its own in all that. It is the melting pot of the Middle East. To put it simply, there are people from all walks of life living side by side with different cultures, political views, languages, religions, and ethnic groups. That alone would make it a quagmire for any nation bent on conquest and occupation. It is a hornet's nest. Dick Cheney knew that back in 1991 during the First Gulf War, and when he sat down for the interview in 1994.

There was no real necessity of taking down Saddam Hussein and his Baathe Regime before 2003. By all accounts the military operation during the First Gulf War was a success and met all of its objectives. Iraqi troops were forced out of Kuwait, the Saudi Kingdom was secured and along with the oil fields, and the Hussein regime had an emerging insurgency to deal with when the Shiites rose up in the south. Then there was the no-fly zone in the north, and the sanctions imposed by the UN which came later. Perhaps Western leaders and military planners thought his military machine was so depleted by the long Iran/Iraq War and Gulf War 1, the no-fly zone, and sanctions that he would collapse under his own weight? So why stir-up things more than they are?

As far as I see it, he was a dictator of convenience for the West. I know that belief will gain objections. However, he was a buffer to Iranian expansion, and cracked down on radicals and revolutionaries. By running a virtual police state, the proliferation of terrorism and radicalization could not proliferate from the center of the region. So it was a matter of convenience to do nothing, and to sit on the matter of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Then came the event of 2001, and the world outrage that followed. The second Bush Administration was high on the public's support at the time, and decided to go after the low lying fruit. Saddam Hussein's regime was teetering, radicalization and extremism was everywhere, oil access was at risk, and Iran was emerging as a strong regional power.

The event in 2001 gave them an opportunity to set up a forward operating base in the center of the Middle East. With that, they would be able to exert more pressure on Iran, protect access to the oil, and groom a pro-West regime. It was all a matter of being in the right place at the right time. World events at the time afforded the Bush administration the opportunity to invade, and occupy Iraq. They were aware of Iraq becoming a potential quagmire in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, and as it was known earlier. Strike while the kettle is hot, and let the chips fall where they may?

Originally posted by Jakes51
I have seen that video in the past, and it is very intriguing! Fact of the matter, Iraq has always been a quagmire. As calamitous as the Middle East is with all the bloodshed and mayhem, but Iraq has a place of its own in all that. It is the melting pot of the Middle East. To put simply, there are people from all walks of life living side by side with different cultures, political views, languages, religions, and ethnic groups. That alone would make it a quagmire for any nation bent on conquest and occupation. Dick Cheney knew that back in 1991 during the First Gulf War, and when he sat down for the interview in 1994.

There was no real necessity of taking down Saddam Hussein and his Baathe Regime before 2003. By all accounts the military operation during the First Gulf War was a success and met all of its objectives. Iraqi troops were drawn out of Kuwait, the Saudi Kingdom was secured and along with the oil fields, and the Hussein regime had an emerging insurgency to deal with when the Shiites rose up in the south. Then there was the no-fly zone in the north, and the sanctions imposed by the UN which came later. Perhaps Western leaders and military planners thought his military machine was so depleted by the long Iran/Iraq War and Gulf War 1, the no-fly zone, and sanctions that he would collapse under his own weight? So why stir-up things more than they are?

As far as I see it, he was a dictator of convenience for the West. I know that belief will gain objections. However, he was a buffer to Iranian expansion, and cracked down on radicals and revolutionaries. By running a virtual police state, the proliferation of terrorism and radicalization could not proliferate from the center of the region. So it was a matter of convenience to not do anything, and sit on the matter of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Then came the event in 2001, and the Bush 2 administration. They were high on the public's support at the time, and decided to go after the low lying fruit. Saddam Hussein's regime was teetering, radicalization and extremism was everywhere, oil access was at risk, Iran was emerging as a strong regional power. The event in 2001 gave them an opportunity to set up a forward operating base in the center of the Middle East. With that, they would be able exert more pressure on Iran, protect access to the oil, and groom a pro-West regime. It was all a matter of being in the right place and the right time. World events at the time afforded the Bush administration the opportunity to invade, and occupy Iraq. At that time, they were aware of Iraq becoming a potential quagmire as they were earlier. Strike while the kettle is hot, and let the chips fall where they may.

The reason why the no-fly-zones was set up by the U.S. and it's allies in order to keep madmen aka Saddam from watch. UNSCR 688 said that Saddam was not allowed to kill it's people. During the 1991 uprising in Iraq, Kurdish and Shia muslims rebels were trying to overthrow Saddamm's Hussein regime with US promise support. Instead, the US left them in the swing of the Desert as the Saddam's strongest unit the Republican Guard slaugetered them in the Desert and buried as result. It's one of the reasons why the no-fly-zones was set up so that Saddam won't oppress the Kurds with WMDs which he had done in 1988 from the air. Any of the Iraqi forces went into restricted areas of the Kurds and Shia Islams, they get bombed as a result. They were 22 resolutions against Iraq and they violated 17 of the 22 resolutions. Of course they signed an agreement that Iraq agree to depose his WMDs under UN inspectors eyes. Instead Saddam booted them out whether they tired to check his WMDs. The UN didn't do anything about it either eithet they're stupid or being bribed by Saddam.

Anyways i still hold my belief we should have went into Baghdad in 1991. The 2003 war was botched up because we had noo coalition, poorly planned and executed, poorly managed by George Bush junior.

BTW please reply to my thread i just started today too as well. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by Jakes51
I have seen that video in the past, and it is very intriguing! Fact of the matter, Iraq has always been a quagmire. As calamitous as the Middle East is with all the bloodshed and mayhem, but Iraq has a place of its own in all that. It is the melting pot of the Middle East. To put simply, there are people from all walks of life living side by side with different cultures, political views, languages, religions, and ethnic groups. That alone would make it a quagmire for any nation bent on conquest and occupation. Dick Cheney knew that back in 1991 during the First Gulf War, and when he sat down for the interview in 1994.

There was no real necessity of taking down Saddam Hussein and his Baathe Regime before 2003. By all accounts the military operation during the First Gulf War was a success and met all of its objectives. Iraqi troops were drawn out of Kuwait, the Saudi Kingdom was secured and along with the oil fields, and the Hussein regime had an emerging insurgency to deal with when the Shiites rose up in the south. Then there was the no-fly zone in the north, and the sanctions imposed by the UN which came later. Perhaps Western leaders and military planners thought his military machine was so depleted by the long Iran/Iraq War and Gulf War 1, the no-fly zone, and sanctions that he would collapse under his own weight? So why stir-up things more than they are?

As far as I see it, he was a dictator of convenience for the West. I know that belief will gain objections. However, he was a buffer to Iranian expansion, and cracked down on radicals and revolutionaries. By running a virtual police state, the proliferation of terrorism and radicalization could not proliferate from the center of the region. So it was a matter of convenience to not do anything, and sit on the matter of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Then came the event in 2001, and the Bush 2 administration. They were high on the public's support at the time, and decided to go after the low lying fruit. Saddam Hussein's regime was teetering, radicalization and extremism was everywhere, oil access was at risk, Iran was emerging as a strong regional power. The event in 2001 gave them an opportunity to set up a forward operating base in the center of the Middle East. With that, they would be able exert more pressure on Iran, protect access to the oil, and groom a pro-West regime. It was all a matter of being in the right place and the right time. World events at the time afforded the Bush administration the opportunity to invade, and occupy Iraq. At that time, they were aware of Iraq becoming a potential quagmire as they were earlier. Strike while the kettle is hot, and let the chips fall where they may.

The reason why the no-fly-zones was set up by the U.S. and it's allies in order to keep madmen aka Saddam from watch. UNSCR 688 said that Saddam was not allowed to kill it's people. During the 1991 uprising in Iraq, Kurdish and Shia muslims rebels were trying to overthrow Saddamm's Hussein regime with US promise support. Instead, the US left them in the swing of the Desert as the Saddam's strongest unit the Republican Guard slaugetered them in the Desert and buried as result. It's one of the reasons why the no-fly-zones was set up so that Saddam won't oppress the Kurds with WMDs which he had done in 1988 from the air. Any of the Iraqi forces went into restricted areas of the Kurds and Shia Islams, they get bombed as a result. They were 22 resolutions against Iraq and they violated 17 of the 22 resolutions. Of course they signed an agreement that Iraq agree to depose his WMDs under UN inspectors eyes. Instead Saddam booted them out whether they tired to check his WMDs. The UN didn't do anything about it either eithet they're stupid or being bribed by Saddam.

Anyways i still hold my belief we should have went into Baghdad in 1991. The 2003 war was botched up because we had noo coalition, poorly planned and executed, poorly managed by George Bush junior.

I am aware of why the no-fly zones were established. It was to protect vulnerable groups from air raids and atrocities like the one hatched by Saddam Hussein in the 80's against the Kurds, and the brutal crack down of the Shiites after the First Gulf War. Why Bush senior did not go into Baghdad is simple. It was not part of the missions objectives, and if he would have decided to push forward coalition support would have ended.

As for not supporting the Shiites in the south, and especially after the President publicly supported them? That is a mystery, but I think they may have thought support would have come from Iran who are closely aligned with the Shiites in Iraq? Again that is merely my opinion, but the Iraq military machine was severely pounded by the First Gulf War, and that may of had a role in why no one came to the aid of the Shiites in the south. Perhaps, they thought it could have been handle by them personally or with support from Iran? If they had aligned themselves with the rebels in Iraq after the war in 1991, it would have been like Libya on steroids.

About the weapons inspectors? That is another hairy subject, and it is widely believed that Saddam Hussein had some shady dealings with the UN and international corporations through bribes and other illicit political affairs. The Oil for Food program was wrought with fraud. The true scope of it is still a mystery, and we have only really seen the tip of the iceberg on that.

As for march on Baghdad in 1991. That is a mixed bag for me. Still, I think there was no military necessity to push further and risk losing international support in the melee that would follow like what happened after the 2003 invasion. By all accounts every military objective was met by the First Gulf War, and with minimal casualties on the part of the coalition and depletion of resources. Saddam was sent home along with his army with their tales between their legs, and why risk a long scale campaign which would have followed if invasion and occupation happened in 1991? It would have been at an enormous cost in lives and treasure. That is my opinion on the subject.

Originally posted by Jakes51

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Originally posted by Jakes51
I have seen that video in the past, and it is very intriguing! Fact of the matter, Iraq has always been a quagmire. As calamitous as the Middle East is with all the bloodshed and mayhem, but Iraq has a place of its own in all that. It is the melting pot of the Middle East. To put simply, there are people from all walks of life living side by side with different cultures, political views, languages, religions, and ethnic groups. That alone would make it a quagmire for any nation bent on conquest and occupation. Dick Cheney knew that back in 1991 during the First Gulf War, and when he sat down for the interview in 1994.

There was no real necessity of taking down Saddam Hussein and his Baathe Regime before 2003. By all accounts the military operation during the First Gulf War was a success and met all of its objectives. Iraqi troops were drawn out of Kuwait, the Saudi Kingdom was secured and along with the oil fields, and the Hussein regime had an emerging insurgency to deal with when the Shiites rose up in the south. Then there was the no-fly zone in the north, and the sanctions imposed by the UN which came later. Perhaps Western leaders and military planners thought his military machine was so depleted by the long Iran/Iraq War and Gulf War 1, the no-fly zone, and sanctions that he would collapse under his own weight? So why stir-up things more than they are?

As far as I see it, he was a dictator of convenience for the West. I know that belief will gain objections. However, he was a buffer to Iranian expansion, and cracked down on radicals and revolutionaries. By running a virtual police state, the proliferation of terrorism and radicalization could not proliferate from the center of the region. So it was a matter of convenience to not do anything, and sit on the matter of ousting Saddam Hussein.

Then came the event in 2001, and the Bush 2 administration. They were high on the public's support at the time, and decided to go after the low lying fruit. Saddam Hussein's regime was teetering, radicalization and extremism was everywhere, oil access was at risk, Iran was emerging as a strong regional power. The event in 2001 gave them an opportunity to set up a forward operating base in the center of the Middle East. With that, they would be able exert more pressure on Iran, protect access to the oil, and groom a pro-West regime. It was all a matter of being in the right place and the right time. World events at the time afforded the Bush administration the opportunity to invade, and occupy Iraq. At that time, they were aware of Iraq becoming a potential quagmire as they were earlier. Strike while the kettle is hot, and let the chips fall where they may.

The reason why the no-fly-zones was set up by the U.S. and it's allies in order to keep madmen aka Saddam from watch. UNSCR 688 said that Saddam was not allowed to kill it's people. During the 1991 uprising in Iraq, Kurdish and Shia muslims rebels were trying to overthrow Saddamm's Hussein regime with US promise support. Instead, the US left them in the swing of the Desert as the Saddam's strongest unit the Republican Guard slaugetered them in the Desert and buried as result. It's one of the reasons why the no-fly-zones was set up so that Saddam won't oppress the Kurds with WMDs which he had done in 1988 from the air. Any of the Iraqi forces went into restricted areas of the Kurds and Shia Islams, they get bombed as a result. They were 22 resolutions against Iraq and they violated 17 of the 22 resolutions. Of course they signed an agreement that Iraq agree to depose his WMDs under UN inspectors eyes. Instead Saddam booted them out whether they tired to check his WMDs. The UN didn't do anything about it either eithet they're stupid or being bribed by Saddam.

Anyways i still hold my belief we should have went into Baghdad in 1991. The 2003 war was botched up because we had noo coalition, poorly planned and executed, poorly managed by George Bush junior.

I am aware of why the no-fly zones were established. It was to protect vulnerable groups from air raids and atrocities like the one hatched by Saddam Hussein in the 80's against the Kurds, and the brutal crack down of the Shiites after the First Gulf War. Why Bush senior did not go into Baghdad is simple. It was not part of the missions objectives, and if he would have decided to push forward coalition support would have ended.

As for not supporting the Shiites in the south, and especially after the President publicly supported them? That is a mystery, but I think they may have thought support would have came from Iran who are closely aligned with the Shiites in Iraq? Again that is merely my opinion, but the Iraq military machine was severely pounded by the First Gulf War, and that may of had a role in why no one came to the aid of the Shiites in the south. Perhaps, they thought it could have been handle by them personally or with support from Iran? If they had aligned themselves with the rebels in Iraq after the war in 1991, it would have been like Libya on steroids.

About the weapons inspectors? That is another hairy subject, and it is widely believed that Saddam Hussein had some shady dealings with the UN and international corporations through bribes and other illicit political affairs. The Oil for Food program was wrought with fraud. The true scope of it is still a mystery, and we have only really seen the tip of the iceberg on that.

As for march on Baghdad in 1991. That is a mixed bag for me. Still, I think there was no military necessity to push further and risk losing international support in the melee that would follow like what happened after the 2003 invasion. By all accounts every military objective was met by the First Gulf War, and with minimal casualties on the part of the coalition and depletion of resources. Saddam was sent home along with his army with their tales between their legs, and why risk a long scale campaign which would have followed if invasion and occupation happened in 1991? It would have been at an enormous cost in lives and treasure. That is my opinion on the subject.

It's true that Bush Sr didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because we would have lost support from the coalition. Congress only authorized Bush Sr. to go under UN control. Also after the successful Liberation of Kuwait, Bush Sr. did requested the United Nations Security Council that he pushed into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime from power. Britain and Australia agree with us but rest of it's coalition allies said the objectives was done. We didn't mind going in but we would be viewed that we just as bad as Saddam if we rushed into Baghdad in 1991.

BUT let's switch it here: The UN and it's allies agree to go into Iraq. We already developed plan for Iraq by then. When U.S./UN forces invaded Kuwait and southern part of Iraq in 1991, Al-Qaeda didn't attacked us then. When we invaded most of Iraq in 2003, Al-Qaeda already attacked us by then.

See in 2003, our technology made up for the number of troops we used in 1991. Well hi-tech is great for a rapid victory and Donald Rumsfeld said 140,000 troops(compare to 540,000 troops deployed in the Gulf War 1990-1991) was enough because our technology would make up for it. However we were short of troops in 2003 for a couple of reasons. We planned an invasion from the south and north. But Turkey would not let us invade from the north. So our forces had to be redirected, and the clock was ticking, so we went with just half of an invasion basically. We also didn't count on the enemy falling apart so fast. So not enough troops and the total collapse of the Iraqi army left a void was filled by Al-Qaeda insurgents.

Also in 1991, we had a large number of Arab forces in the coalition. An occupation in 1991, conducted with Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish forces would have been less distasteful to the Iraqis. Also there was a large anti-Saddam forces waiting and willing to help in 1991. They were not there in 2003, because Saddam had slaughtered them in the desert. 34 nations would conduct an occupation giving it less chance for insurgents to arise and keep more than 900,000 Coalition troops in check of Iran. Iraq would have been a country like Kuwait instead of a civil war.

The 2003 Iraq war didn't have that kind as it was in the Gulf War. They were 34 Nations that were with us during the first Gulf war. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, they were only three countries that were with us: Britain, Australia, and Poland with no coalition support. Plus Bush Jr. rushed in without a post-invasion plan. That's why i hated him. With not enough troops on the ground to slam the lid, civil war aroused.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
It's true that Bush Sr didn't go into Baghdad in 1991 because we would have lost support from the coalition. Congress only authorized Bush Sr. to go under UN control. Also after the successful Liberation of Kuwait, Bush Sr. did requested the United Nations Security Council that he pushed into Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime from power. Britain and Australia agree with us but rest of it's coalition allies said the objectives was done. We didn't mind going in but we would be viewed that we just as bad as Saddam if we rushed into Baghdad in 1991.

Do we have a source for this? Even though it was a coalition Bush Sr was calling the shots not the UN. He pretty much pulled the plug after the images of the Iraqi Army division that was caught out in the open and slaughtered on the highway of Death were being plastered all over the News services.

General Schwarzkopf said "had they wanted" to go to Baghdad there really wasn't anything left standing in their way. Bush Sr never requested to go to Baghdad from the UN. I'm sorry but that sounds like a bit of historical revision to me.

reply to post by Paulioetc15


Very good points! This back and forth can go on all night. You have brought up some good points and significant validation of them. Still, what happened happened. Could of, should of, and would of does not get us anywhere. It is what it is. However, for me personally, I have no real opinion on going into Iraq in 1991 or not.

The crust of my responses are only mere speculations from observations I have made of the situation, and how they may have played a role in what took place after the Gulf War. Perhaps, if things had went down as you say, the world be a lot different? We will never know? I appreciate your well thought out responses, and you may be on to something here?

Originally posted by Jakes51
reply to Originally posted by Paulioetc15

 

Very good points! This back and forth can go on all night. You have brought up some good points and significant validation of them. Still, what happened happened. Could of, should of, and would of does not get us anywhere. It is what it is. However, for me personally, I have no real opinion on going into Iraq in 1991 or not.

The crust of my responses are only mere speculations from observations I have made of the situation, and how they may have played a role in what took place after the Gulf War. Perhaps, if things had went down as you say, the world be a lot different? We will never know? I appreciate your well thought out responses, and you may be on to something here?

edit on 28-8-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

I can see your point. As for the rebels in 1991, I think that Bush Sr. told the Iraqis to take the matter of their own hands. The Kurds i don't mind because we helped them and do not cause civil wars. I think the real problem is that that that there was the Shia Islams and fear of Islamic insurgents cause Bush Sr to back off and Saddam murdered them. Yet i checked the internet around and that people still blamed him for not support them. It's classic example of damn if we do and damned if we don't. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SLAYER69 reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

Do we have a source for this? Even though it was a coalition Bush Sr was calling the shots not the UN. He pretty much pulled the plug after the images of the Iraqi Army division that was caught out in the open and slaughtered on the highway of Death were being plastered all over the News services.

General Schwarzkopf said "had they wanted" to go to Baghdad there really wasn't anything left standing in their way. Bush Sr never requested to go to Baghdad from the UN. I'm sorry but that sounds like a bit of historical revision to me.

I';m pretty sure that was the main reason for the surrender but too many in the public was crying because of it and that's why he backed off. PLus since the Iraqi Army got out, Bush Sr. said that Kuwait is liberated since it's the main objectives. I just saying what my points said up there and my suggestions about going into Baghdad in 1991.

I know that General Schwarzkopf said it because there wasn't support from the coalition. We backed off because of it. all i'm saying if that if the UN and our coalition supported the invasion of Baghdad as well as conduction a proper occupation with more troops, Iraq would have been like Kuwait.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Do you agree with him that 1991 invasion of Baghdad would result a civil war like the one in 2003?

In 2003 invasion, what went wrong? I heard that was wasn't enough troops on the ground in 2003.

I think it probably would have, especially if conducted the way it was in 2003. It might have been over somewhat sooner, though, given that we had them on the run in '91, routed and in disarray. If the pressure had been kept on, it would have likely disrupted subsequent organization for a "civil war"

Another factor may have been that the abrupt about face and pullout we did back then was viewed as a weakness, and gave encouragement for the resistance in the later war. We had them panicked, and they knew it, and for us to cut and run like that would likely have been seen as an encouraging sign that they panicked US, too, and made them bolder for the resistance in the second war.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Paulioetc15

Do you agree with him that 1991 invasion of Baghdad would result a civil war like the one in 2003?

In 2003 invasion, what went wrong? I heard that was wasn't enough troops on the ground in 2003.

I think it probably would have, especially if conducted the way it was in 2003. It might have been over somewhat sooner, though, given that we had them on the run in '91, routed and in disarray. If the pressure had been kept on, it would have likely disrupted subsequent organization for a "civil war"

Another factor may have been that the abrupt about face and pullout we did back then was viewed as a weakness, and gave encouragement for the resistance in the later war. We had them panicked, and they knew it, and for us to cut and run like that would likely have been seen as an encouraging sign that they panicked US, too, and made them bolder for the resistance in the second war.

We should have been marching into Baghdad in 1991. Could be because i provided some reason like i did up there.

reply to post by Paulioetc15


Yes, we should have been, rather than leaving a war half done. That's half-assed, and why I consider the first Gulf War a political loss, although it would have been a military cake walk, We were within 8 hours of Baghdad, and had met NO opposition worth speaking of, and "King George I" just called in the dogs and pissed on the fire. leaving the country to fester.

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Paulioetc15

 

Yes, we should have been, rather than leaving a war half done. That's half-assed, and why I consider the first Gulf War a political loss, although it would have been a military cake walk, We were within 8 hours of Baghdad, and had met NO opposition worth speaking of, and "King George I" just called in the dogs and pissed on the fire. leaving the country to fester.

Can't call it a political loss. It was both. Saddam lost militarily and politically too though. Heck he was kicked out of Kuwait. The UN mandate only allowed the Liberation of Kuwait, not to go in and depose Saddam Hussein's Government.

We even let the UN to monitor Saddam Hussein instead UN made off a lot of money off the oil-for-food scandal.

The neo-cons wanted Iraq invaded all through the Reagan-Bush-Clinton=Bush years. This is but one example of them trying to turn the worm. Bush-41 did not exactly agree (as he is not of that contingent...he and Clinton are more CFR-oriented than neo-con oriented). Bush-41 leaving Iraq after Desert Storm pissed them off royally, and hence he served only one term. The neo-cons also—via their brain trust, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) pressured Clinton (see their letter here) and then speaker Gingrich and Lott (see their letter here). Tip of the iceberg, most of this stuff. It goes back even further than this. The neo-con influence and push has been at this Iraq/Iran/Syria/et al thing for a while now, long before 9/11, which just happened to assist nicely with their plans, and which, by the way, are still in process in the underworld of our government. Cheney didn't sign these letters. Wise man. But he was in the thick of it...bet your bottom dollar. Oh wait, we already did that.