Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

[King Tech Quadafi]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.

Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.

Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or [Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.

(Inter Press Service)

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

That's an even better reason to attack...

[Don Rizzle]

That's an even better reason to attack...

how did i guess u'd be the first reply to this topic? israel is not a good country to be supporting maybe if there wern't so many jews in washinton and they didn't have such a powerful lobby group things would be differnet

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

That's an even better reason to attack...

how did i guess u'd be the first reply to this topic? israel is not a good country to be supporting maybe if there wern't so many jews in washinton and they didn't have such a powerful lobby group things would be differnet

Israel is the perfect country to support...Israel, the only Jewish country, has a piece of land half the size of Los Angeles, while Arab nations can combine for over %100000 more land...Wisen up...PeACe

[Woodrow]

"Israel is a tiny liberal democracy surrounded by a sea of fascist, totalitarian, Islamic dictatorships, where woman are property (teenage girls are raped and then executed for 'adultery'), minorities have zero rights, and an oligarchy controls all the wealth and uses theology as a cloak to enslave their people, keeping them uneducated and in poverty, and these leftists are bosom buddies with these societies, yet froth at the mouth with hatred for Israel. Israel has .0016 the amount of land that the Arab nations have, and have had to defend themselves against four aggressive imperialist wars by the Soviet-armed Arab nations, and yet Israel is the colonialist imperialist power."

You do the math

[King Tech Quadafi]

"Israel is a tiny liberal democracy surrounded by a sea of fascist, totalitarian, Islamic dictatorships, where woman are property (teenage girls are raped and then executed for 'adultery'), minorities have zero rights, and an oligarchy controls all the wealth and uses theology as a cloak to enslave their people, keeping them uneducated and in poverty, and these leftists are bosom buddies with these societies, yet froth at the mouth with hatred for Israel. Israel has .0016 the amount of land that the Arab nations have, and have had to defend themselves against four aggressive imperialist wars by the Soviet-armed Arab nations, and yet Israel is the colonialist imperialist power."

You do the math

1. there are no Islamic dictatorships in the middle east. The rest of the leaders are for the most part supported, funded and in some cases propped up by the US of A

2. what does the fact that the arab countries are useless and backwards have anything to do with the fact that Israelis occupy land, oppress and deprive palestinians of basic human rights and basiclly control the US congress? What does the fact that Arabs occupy whatever fuckin percentage of land have to do with the fact that Israeli should not own the land it does. Classic concept. Changing the subject, reverse the roles, in an attempt to cover up one's own transgressions

3. "Four agressive imperialist wars" I'll give u "imperialist" for the case of Jordan, since they ended up occupying the west bank in the 48 war. But cmon, arab countries attacking a foreign imposed israeli presence is not imperialism. The 1967 war? You do know that Israel fired the first shot in that war right? You know they used the pretense of Egyptian troop mobilization to launch air strikes that completely wiped out the Egyptian air force. Third, the 1973 Yom Kippu war, how was this an imperialist war when the Israelis them selves occupied their land illegally, and the Arab attack was simply to reverse this scenerio. I dont think you have a rational understanding of imperialism. Look up US Foreign Policy.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

You do know that at first Israel was willing to split Israel...Half to the Jews and half to the Palestinians, but Palestinians declined.

[Woodrow]

1. there are no Islamic dictatorships in the middle east. The rest of the leaders are for the most part supported, funded and in some cases propped up by the US of A

"Except Turkey, and Egypt, no Muslim majority country has a sustained democratic tradition. But most Muslim populations look up upon Islamic dictatorships or monarchies.

"Theocratic dictatorships include Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan (despotic monarchies), Syria, Iraq, Chad, (dictatorships) Iran (nominal democracy under strain from clerics), Kuwait (nominal democracy under emirate), UAE, North Yemen (and occupied South Yemen which had a sort of democratic set up earlier), Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria (Military rule of secularized military), Pakistan, Uganda (a Christian majority country that had a taste of Islamic dictatorship under Idi Amin), Afghanistan (theocratic dictatorship of the Taliban) etc"

2. what does the fact that the arab countries are useless and backwards have anything to do with the fact that Israelis occupy land, oppress and deprive palestinians of basic human rights and basiclly control the US congress? What does the fact that Arabs occupy whatever fuckin percentage of land have to do with the fact that Israeli should not own the land it does. Classic concept. Changing the subject, reverse the roles, in an attempt to cover up one's own transgressions

"Under international law, a land can only be "occupied" by attacking and overcoming a sovereign nation.  The disputed territories in Israel were never part of a sovereign nation.  These lands were conquered by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 after the British vacated the area.  Both Jordan and Egypt have rescinded their claim to these lands.  There has never been a Palestinian state or a "Palestinian" people who had sovereignty over these lands.  

In addition, these lands were gained by Israel in 1967, in a defensive war.  Thus it is impossible to define these lands as "occupied" territories.

97% of all Palestinians in the disputed territories are under Palestinian Authority rule.  Due to Israeli concessions, the Palestinian Authority has its own police force and controls municipal affairs for almost the entire Palestinian population.  No Palestinian needs to see an Israeli unless he chooses to leave the area controlled by the PA and enter into Israeli territory.  This situation is identical to any other bi-national border."

3. "Four agressive imperialist wars" I'll give u "imperialist" for the case of Jordan, since they ended up occupying the west bank in the 48 war. But cmon, arab countries attacking a foreign imposed israeli presence is not imperialism. The 1967 war? You do know that Israel fired the first shot in that war right? You know they used the pretense of Egyptian troop mobilization to launch air strikes that completely wiped out the Egyptian air force. Third, the 1973 Yom Kippu war, how was this an imperialist war when the Israelis them selves occupied their land illegally, and the Arab attack was simply to reverse this scenerio. I dont think you have a rational understanding of imperialism. Look up US Foreign Policy.

Let's look at some of the arab leaders quotes from the time period:

Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Nasser:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

What were those supposed to mean? That the Arabs weren't going to attack?

You can say that Isreal fired the first shot all you want, but anybody with basic knowledge of warfare would tell you that it wasn't unprovoked. You've got armies lining up on your borders and rhetoric like that coming your way, what are you gonna do? Sit back on your laurels and wait to get attacked? Come on. You seem to think you're a smart guy, why don't you act like it?

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^^Thank you.

[Woodrow]

Tech:

[King Tech Quadafi]

1. there are no Islamic dictatorships in the middle east. The rest of the leaders are for the most part supported, funded and in some cases propped up by the US of A

"Except Turkey, and Egypt, no Muslim majority country has a sustained democratic tradition. But most Muslim populations look up upon Islamic dictatorships or monarchies.

"Theocratic dictatorships include Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan (despotic monarchies), Syria, Iraq, Chad, (dictatorships) Iran (nominal democracy under strain from clerics), Kuwait (nominal democracy under emirate), UAE, North Yemen (and occupied South Yemen which had a sort of democratic set up earlier), Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria (Military rule of secularized military), Pakistan, Uganda (a Christian majority country that had a taste of Islamic dictatorship under Idi Amin), Afghanistan (theocratic dictatorship of the Taliban) etc"

2. what does the fact that the arab countries are useless and backwards have anything to do with the fact that Israelis occupy land, oppress and deprive palestinians of basic human rights and basiclly control the US congress? What does the fact that Arabs occupy whatever fuckin percentage of land have to do with the fact that Israeli should not own the land it does. Classic concept. Changing the subject, reverse the roles, in an attempt to cover up one's own transgressions

"Under international law, a land can only be "occupied" by attacking and overcoming a sovereign nation.  The disputed territories in Israel were never part of a sovereign nation.  These lands were conquered by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 after the British vacated the area.  Both Jordan and Egypt have rescinded their claim to these lands.  There has never been a Palestinian state or a "Palestinian" people who had sovereignty over these lands.  

In addition, these lands were gained by Israel in 1967, in a defensive war.  Thus it is impossible to define these lands as "occupied" territories.

97% of all Palestinians in the disputed territories are under Palestinian Authority rule.  Due to Israeli concessions, the Palestinian Authority has its own police force and controls municipal affairs for almost the entire Palestinian population.  No Palestinian needs to see an Israeli unless he chooses to leave the area controlled by the PA and enter into Israeli territory.  This situation is identical to any other bi-national border."

3. "Four agressive imperialist wars" I'll give u "imperialist" for the case of Jordan, since they ended up occupying the west bank in the 48 war. But cmon, arab countries attacking a foreign imposed israeli presence is not imperialism. The 1967 war? You do know that Israel fired the first shot in that war right? You know they used the pretense of Egyptian troop mobilization to launch air strikes that completely wiped out the Egyptian air force. Third, the 1973 Yom Kippu war, how was this an imperialist war when the Israelis them selves occupied their land illegally, and the Arab attack was simply to reverse this scenerio. I dont think you have a rational understanding of imperialism. Look up US Foreign Policy.

Let's look at some of the arab leaders quotes from the time period:

Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Nasser:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

What were those supposed to mean? That the Arabs weren't going to attack?

You can say that Isreal fired the first shot all you want, but anybody with basic knowledge of warfare would tell you that it wasn't unprovoked. You've got armies lining up on your borders and rhetoric like that coming your way, what are you gonna do? Sit back on your laurels and wait to get attacked? Come on. You seem to think you're a smart guy, why don't you act like it?

1. Out of all those countries u listed, the only middle eastern countries with a claim to being an Islamic dictatorship is Libya, and their Islamic legitimacy has crumbled years ago. Islamic extremism has been a thorn in Qadhafis side for a while now. The Saudi Regime is a monarchy, and Iran ceased being an Islamic dictatorship since Khomeini died. So I dont see a use for this info

2. Again, the fundemental issue is not being adressed here. What does "international law" mean to a Palestinian that was kicked off his land. Lost in all this talk of intenational law, and borders, and sovereignity is the fact that Palestinians were pushed off their land. Very simple man. Second despite the informative nature of your point, it was irrelevent to the discussion. "Israel occupies palestinian land, deprives them of basic human rights, and controls the US congress." This is what I said, but its not what you responded to amigo.

3. Youre quoting Nasser and Assad. Their elegent speech made up for horrible economic policies. You do know that Nasser was off on some rant every week on Free Arab radio right? You do know that symbolic rhetoric with some Islamic or Arabic historical reference is as much a mainstay of Arab politics /(especially from that era) as petro dollar spending emirs. Cmon man, youre talkin, but you aint sayin nuthin maaaan.