Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Bush planned Iraq war pre-9/11, says ex-aide
HIPPI:
During the 1920s the US and Britain had oil fields in the Middle East after its discovery a few years before. After World War II, OPEC raised the price of oil from $3 to $22 per barrel. That's why Abdel Karim Qassim (Iraqi leader before Saddam) placed all oil fields under the government's control. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger even publicly stated that "Middle East oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs" (That line alone explains the whole Middle East conflict, and why we're there)The CIA attempted several times to assassinate him, but remained unsuccessful, until they found their man, Saddam Hussein. In a coup, Saddam took over the country, and was in full control by 1968. Under CIA direction, he killed Communists and radicals. We provided Saddam with weapons, including chemicals. Similar thing was going on in Iran, where we replaced the ruler who wanted to place all oil under government control, with the Shah. We assisted the Shah with $22 billion between 1972-1976 in weaponry alone. When Iraq went to war with Iran, 55 countries were providing them with resources, 29 of which were assisting both countries. That included the U.S., who claimed that it was assisting neither country. Again, we were playing the double standard to boost our arms industry. After the war with Iran, Iraq was $40 billion in debt. The country was pretty much devastated. At the time there was a limit placed on the amount of oil that each OPEC country could produce. And Kuwait was producing 20% more than it was allowed to, which brought oil prices around the world down, and made the Western world very happy. But, by Kuwait doing that, Iraq lost one-third of its income, at a time it needed it most. Now this is were things got messy. The US continously, publicly claimed that it had no defense of Kuwait. They let Saddam know that they were not backing Kuwait. Saddam fell for the trap and invaded Kuwait. Before Saddam invaded however, according to Gulf War veterans, the US military was already preparing for a fight against Iraq. They were already carrying out routines in the desert, and informed the soldiers that they were most likely gonna fight Iraq. In addition, the US claimed that Iraq sent almost its entire army to Kuwait, which was complete bullshit. The US then went to Saudi Arabia and convinced them with more bullshit that Iraq was planning to invade Saudi Arabia. The US wanted the Saudis to let them into their country, for reasons that Kissinger explained many years before: OIL IS TOO DAMN IMPORTANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF ARABS. We convinced the Saudis that they were going to be under attack. We told them that Saddam had soldiers lined up at the border, but satellite pictures proved otherwise. Satellite photos showed that there were minimal troops (which were always there) along the Saudi/Iraqi border. In fact, most Iraqi troops were to the north, and the majority of the rest were in Baghdad alongside the Republican Guard. Then we bombed the shit out of Iraq. The US military claimed that it was pin-pointing on only military facilities and such. That claim was false. The US bombed reservoires, destroyed their access to clean water, bombed electrical companies, generators, phone companies, food processing plants, and basically anything that was necessary for the survival of people. Children were dying all across the country. Pinpoint? Yeah right. Now comes another catch. People start gathering together and plan a rebellious movement to overthrow Saddam and the Iraqi government. As soon as that happens George Bush calls for an immediate end to the war. General Schwarzkopf informs Bush that in another two days they can gain control of Baghdad and get rid of Saddam and his regime. Bush stays with his decision and wants an end to the war. He ordered US troops out, giving Saddam a chance to crush the rebellion. And that was that.
BTW... guess who had exclusive rights to offshore oil in the Gulf at that time? George W Bush... so daddy was making his crackbaby a lil money.
*About 250,000 Iraqis were killed; 100,000 of which were civilians, half of those being children
*We didn't rebuild what we destroyed, and due to our sanctions placed on them, we didn't give them the chance to do so either
*In the 8 years since the end of the war, 1,500,000 Iraqis have died as a direct result of US/UN sanctions; half of those are kids under the age of 5
*100-200 kept dying daily
*We used 500 tons of depleted uranium bombs and artillery shells. The radioactive dust caused birth defects and cancer to soar
What right did we have? Why did we do all this? Kissinger seemed to have the answer: OIL IS TOO DAMN IMPORTANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS
Sad, sad shit, and now we're there again... I guess all the oil is worth fucking the country up to a greater extent and rebuilding it after....
So, Bush takes office, and now we hear that within the first couple weeks he made the decision to attack Iraq. Just like in the Gulf War, they prepared to attack long before they found a "reason" (excuse). WMDs? LOL. Why are people so dumb, that they can't see the real reason when the U.S. GOVERNMENT told them the reason... OIL IS TOO DAMN IMPORTANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS... this isn't some "liberal media bullshit" like everything anti-U.S. foreign policy statement is to some of you guys.... it was said by the SECRETARY OF STATE. And since the government would never lie to us ( ::)) as some of you seem to perceive, then this should be "believable".
Trauma-san:
The U.S. policy with Iraq, since Clinton's reign, has been a regime change. Clinton wanted this, naturally Bush also wanted this. I see nothing new or surprising here.
HIPPI:
--- Quote from: Trauma Wilson on January 13, 2004, 05:55:53 PM ---The U.S. policy with Iraq, since Clinton's reign, has been a regime change. Clinton wanted this, naturally Bush also wanted this. I see nothing new or surprising here.
--- End quote ---
Since Clinton's reign? LMAO. It's been a looottttt longer than that.
Trauma-san:
Exactly. Point being, it's a u.s. policy, not a george bush policy.
Trauma-san:
LOL the guy that said it is now saying the democrats took it all wrong, and inferred things from snippets from the book that he didn't mean. He also said that any plans Bush had were a continuation of plans CLINTON had. LOL Shot their shit all to hell. Of course, with a democrat, you never admit you're wrong, you just find something else to bitch about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
www.cnn.com
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Posted: 9:55 PM EST (0255 GMT)
O'Neill: "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government ... doesn't do contingency planning."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO
CNN's Dana Bash on the controversy over O'Neill's comments.
PLAY VIDEO
RELATED
• CNN/Money: O'Neill denies use of secret papers
• CNN/Money: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed
• Cabinet members defend Bush
• O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
• U.S. economy chiefs quit
• White House to economic advisers: Resign
• Democrats broaden criticism of administration on Iraq
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Paul O'Neill
National Security Council
Condoleezza Rice
Donald H. Rumsfeld
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published this week in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.
Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.
But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.
He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.
"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.
"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.
Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.
That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.
During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.
Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."
Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version