When was Iraq first mentioned?

I've been desperately trying to remember when Iraq was first mentioned as a possible target for invasion after 9/11? It was definately being talked about in August 2002, but when it first popped up i'm not sure.

Bush made it known within the first three months he was in office that he wanted a regime change in Iraq. Yes, that was even before 9/11.

[edit on 11/16/04 by Kidfinger]

Febuary 5, 2003 was the day Colin Powell went to the UN accusing Iraq of having weapons of Mass destruction

slate.msn.com...

Edit for wrong button

[edit on 11/16/04 by Kidfinger]

In February of 2001, air strikes were carried out against Iraq.
President Bush said this was for two reasons:

whitehouse.gov Feb 22, 2001
The mission was twofold -- one was to send him a clear message that this administration will remain engaged in that part of the world. I think we accomplished that mission. We got his attention.

And secondly, the mission was to degrade his capacity to harm our pilots who might be flying in the no-fly zone. And we accomplished that mission, as well.

While bombing had been taking place for years, the Feb 2001 strikes seemed to be a step up from previous strikes.

BBC: Mid East reacts to Iraq bombing, Feb 17 2001

Here are some more articles on a lead up to the offensive in Iraq:

Review of Iraq Policy Under way, DoD Official Says, Aug 21 2001
WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2001 -- Will the United States and its coalition partners patrolling the no-fly zones continue to play aerial "cat-and-mouse" with Iraqi anti-aircraft missiles and guns in the months ahead?

Stay tuned, a senior DoD official said.

"We have not forgotten about Iraq," Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said to reporters at the Pentagon Aug. 21. Rodman noted that the Bush administration and several government agencies, including DoD, are now reviewing defense security policy and strategies concerning Iraq.

Pentagon Attention on Iraq Is Long-standing, Rumsfeld Says Feb 12 2002
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2002 -- President Bush raised public speculation about U.S. military involvement in Iraq when he called that country part of "an axis of evil" during his Jan. 29 State of the Union address.

But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the Pentagon's concerns over Iraq are not a recent shift. "This building has always been attentive, � for at least more than a decade now, toward Iraq," Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters

Rumsfeld: Iraq Lying About Not Having WMD, June 10 2002
Rumsfeld said he hopes to see Hussein ousted during his tenure as defense secretary. "I would think most of the people in the region and in the world recognize that the world would be a better place without that regime," he said.

The Bush administration has repeatedly said it favors a change of regime in Iraq. Toward that end, Rumsfeld said, the United States and other coalition nations are working to enforce sanctions and no-fly zones in the north and south of the country.

PNAC. January 26, 1998.

The neo-cons that infiltrated the Whitehouse through the Supreme Court appointment of puppet Bush, put pen to paper long before in a powerful approach to then president Clinton to urge the invasion of Iraq to secure American interests in the stability of the region and in US-strategic resources.

All there for you to read:

www.newamericancentury.org...

Note the signatories.

Bush after September 11 2001 referred to the worst national security failure in US history as the last leg of the "trifecta" he needed to implement the neo-cons' agenda.

Keep retracing, but note that this is all a predetermined agenda, with "facts", fraudulence and fabrication being selectively used to dupe you into fear, terror and nationalistic pride in foreign incursion, all along the way.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
PNAC. January 26, 1998.

The neo-cons that infiltrated the Whitehouse through the Supreme Court appointment of puppet Bush, put pen to paper long before in a powerful approach to then president Clinton to urge the invasion of Iraq to secure American interests in the stability of the region and in US-strategic resources.

All there for you to read:

www.newamericancentury.org...

Note the signatories.

Bush after September 11 2001 referred to the worst national security failure in US history as the last leg of the "trifecta" he needed to implement the neo-cons' agenda.

Keep retracing, but note that this is all a predetermined agenda, with "facts", fraudulence and fabrication being selectively used to dupe you into fear, terror and nationalistic pride in foreign incursion, all along the way.

[edit on 16-11-2004 by MaskedAvatar]

Yep, he's got that right. Clinton's cigar got him in a heap of trouble and so he bombed an aspirin factory...of course, MA, with his anal fetish and apparent memory lapses - combines with his absolute relinquishing of logic to support his obsession with American Politics - always against the Republican personalities involved - has led us now to this distorted recollection. But for those of us that were watching we realize...

You now have pissed away any ability to circle around and use this in a pro-Clinton approach to terrorism now, haven't you? Damn the two-edged sword.

[edit on 11-16-2004 by Valhall]

Rather than trying to interpret anything that was just said above, readers might choose to read the letter from the neo-con think tank to Clinton instead.

It's a good synopsis of their position and it is why 9/11 was used in part to justify further deception by the Bush admin about WMDs and a rotating litany of lies as the reason for invasion.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

It's a good synopsis of their position and it is why 9/11 was used in part to justify further deception by the Bush admin about WMDs and a rotating litany of lies as the reason for invasion.

Actually, what might be a better idea is to read the historical record...versus a "think tank" postulation. The historical record (both concerning Clinton as well as you) tend to speak well for themselves. On Clinton's part...he bombed an aspirin factory...and spun up a level of resentment in bin Laden that led to 9/11...but then, you brought this up first, now didn't you?

Originally posted by Valhall

It's a good synopsis of their position and it is why 9/11 was used in part to

Actually, what might be a better idea is to read the historical record...versus a "think tank" postulation. The historical record (both concerning Clinton as well as you) tend to speak well for themselves. On Clinton's part...he bombed an aspirin factory...and spun up a level of resentment in bin Laden that led to 9/11...but then, you brought this up first, now didn't you?

I am far from a Democommie but this is nothing more than spin .. You might need to read UBL's own words as to why he resents the Bush administartion. He has not mentioned Clinton directly since 9/11 but he has very little regard to the Bush clan or the adminstrations under them.

America was bombed because bin Laden KNEW that bush and company would let it happen to further their agenda.
Criminals who pre-meditate a crime usually strike when they deem it is reasonably safe to strike, as opposed to any other point in time ... No?

And he also knew the economy would be destroyed at the hands of some ego maniacs.... He killed two birds with one stone ...
And now Bush can't seem to kill him with hundreds of thousands of bombs ...

Talk about david and goliath man ....?

That is the x-tian story Bush should be reciting to his flock ....

Yup i'll say it and you cannot write-off what I say as liberalism, fact is I am of a conservative nature, bush is no conservative... Bush and Co. knew about and/or were complicit in the 9/11 attack on AMERICANS ...

Human nature itself supports the notion ....
All through history thousands of ordinary people have been 'sacrificed' for the good of the cause that they were living in. Those in positions of power either endorse or turn a blind eye towards these crimes.

All that changes are the names, and it should be of no surprise how many times even the names remain the same ...

I probably should add, I do not think Bush is any worse of a person than myself. I am sure there are things we should both repent of, once we can quit doing them.

The major difference in us being that I do not have 59 million enablers to my vice handing me 'political capital' to spend on my vice of choice...

Those words should scare a body half to death, imo...

They are a good way to say, " it's my way or the highway" ...

~peace














[edit on 16-11-2004 by ShawNee922]

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Bush made it known within the first three months he was in office that he wanted a regime change in Iraq. Yes, that was even before 9/11.

[edit on 11/16/04 by Kidfinger]

but CLINTON signed it into law!

1998 I think....Bush was implementing Clinton foreign policy

[edit on 16-11-2004 by edsinger]