BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq

Subject: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM

TOMORROW night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush's prime-time address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are congenitally short, it's an eternity. That's why a revisionist history of the White House's rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same "bad intelligence" before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion's aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. "If only I had known then what I know now ..." has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration's case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.

By the time the ides of March arrived in March 2003, these warning signs were visible on a nearly daily basis. So were the signs that Americans were completely ill prepared for the costs ahead. Iraq was largely anticipated as a distant, mildly disruptive geopolitical video game that would be over in a flash.

Now many of the same leaders who sold the war argue that escalation should be given a chance. This time they're peddling the new doomsday scenario that any withdrawal timetable will lead to the next 9/11. The question we must ask is: Has history taught us anything in four years?

Here is a chronology of some of the high and low points in the days leading up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week [with occasional "where are they now" updates].

March 5, 2003

"I took the Grey Poupon out of my cupboard."

— Representative Duke Cunningham, Republican of California, on the floor of the House denouncing French opposition to the Iraq war.

[In November 2005, he resigned from Congress and pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors. In January 2007, the United States attorney who prosecuted him — Carol Lam, a Bush appointee — was forced to step down for "performance-related" issues by Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department.]

March 6, 2003

President Bush holds his last prewar news conference. The New York Observer writes that he interchanged Iraq with the attacks of 9/11 eight times, "and eight times he was unchallenged." The ABC News White House correspondent, Terry Moran, says the Washington press corps was left "looking like zombies."

March 7, 2003

Appearing before the United Nations Security Council on the same day that the United States and three allies (Britain, Spain and Bulgaria) put forth their resolution demanding that Iraq disarm by March 17, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reports there is "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.". He adds that documents "which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." None of the three broadcast networks' evening newscasts mention his findings.

[In 2005 ElBaradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.]

March 10, 2003

Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks tells an audience in England, "We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Boycotts, death threats and anti-Dixie Chicks demonstrations follow.

[In 2007, the Dixie Chicks won five Grammy Awards, including best song for "Not Ready to Make Nice."]

March 12, 2003

A senior military planner tells The Daily News "an attack on Iraq could last as few as seven days."

"Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness?"

— John McCain, writing for the Op-Ed page of The New York Times.

"The Pentagon still has not given a name to the Iraqi war. Somehow 'Operation Re-elect Bush' doesn't seem to be popular."

— Jay Leno, "The Tonight Show."

March 14, 2003

Senator John D. Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, asks the F.B.I. to investigate the forged documents cited a week earlier by ElBaradei and alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium transaction: "There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq."

March 16, 2003

On "Meet the Press," Dick Cheney says that American troops will be "greeted as liberators," that Saddam "has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization," and that it is an "overstatement" to suggest that several hundred thousand troops will be needed in Iraq after it is liberated. Asked by Tim Russert about ElBaradei's statement that Iraq does not have a nuclear program, the vice president says, "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong."

"There will be new recruits, new recruits probably because of the war that's about to happen. So we haven't seen the last of Al Qaeda."

— Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism czar, on ABC's "This Week."

[From the recently declassified "key judgments" of the National Intelligence Estimate of April 2006: "The Iraq conflict has become the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."]

From the NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 02:56 PM

"Despite the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to give Congress or the Pentagon specific information about the amounts of banned weapons or where they are hidden, according to administration officials and members of Congress. Senior intelligence analysts say they feel caught between the demands from White House, Pentagon and other government policy makers for intelligence that would make the administration's case 'and what they say is a lack of hard facts,' one official said."

— "U.S. Lacks Specifics on Banned Arms," by Walter Pincus (with additional reporting by Bob Woodward), The Washington Post, Page A17.

March 17, 2003

Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, writes the president to ask why the administration has repeatedly used W.M.D. evidence that has turned out to be "a hoax" — "correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear weapons from an African country, Niger."

[Still waiting for "an adequate explanation" of the bogus Niger claim four years later, Waxman, now chairman of the chief oversight committee in the House, wrote Condoleezza Rice on March 12, 2007, seeking a response "to multiple letters I sent you about this matter."]

In a prime-time address, President Bush tells Saddam to leave Iraq within 48 hours: "Every measure has been made to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it." After the speech, NBC rushes through its analysis to join a hit show in progress, "Fear Factor," where men and women walk with bare feet over broken glass to win $50,000.

March 18, 2003

Barbara Bush tells Diane Sawyer on ABC's "Good Morning America" that she will not watch televised coverage of the war: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it's going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[Visiting the homeless victims of another cataclysm, Hurricane Katrina, at the Houston Astrodome in 2005, Mrs. Bush said, "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this — this is working very well for them."]

In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal writes, "There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda members."

[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House's use of prewar intelligence, The Journal wrote, "Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war."]

In an article headlined "Post-war 'Occupation' of Iraq Could Result in Chaos," Mark McDonald of Knight Ridder Newspapers quotes a "senior leader of one of Iraq's closest Arab neighbors," who says, "We're worried that the outcome will be civil war."

A questioner at a White House news briefing asserts that "every other war has been accompanied by fiscal austerity of some sort, often including tax increases" and asks, "What's different about this war?" Ari Fleischer responds, "The most important thing, war or no war, is for the economy to grow," adding that in the president's judgment, "the best way to help the economy to grow is to stimulate the economy by providing tax relief."

After consulting with the homeland security secretary, Tom Ridge, the N.C.A.A. announces that the men's basketball tournament will tip off this week as scheduled. The N.C.A.A. president, Myles Brand, says, "We were not going to let a tyrant determine how we were going to lead our lives."

March 19, 2003

"I'd guess that if it goes beyond three weeks, Bush will be in real trouble."

— Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel teaching at Boston University, quoted in The Washington Post.

[The March 2007 installment of the Congressionally mandated Pentagon assessment "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" reported that from Jan. 1 to Feb. 9, 2007, there were more than 1,000 weekly attacks, up from about 400 in spring 2004.]

Robert McIlvaine, whose 26-year-old son was killed at the World Trade Center 18 months earlier, is arrested at a peace demonstration at the Capitol in Washington. He tells The Washington Post: "It's very insulting to hear President Bush say this is for Sept. 11."

"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections after three and a half months," when Iraq's government is providing more cooperation than it has in more than a decade.

— Hans Blix, chief weapons inspector for the United Nations.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans support going to war in Iraq, up from 59 percent before the president's March 17 speech.

"When the president talks about sacrifice, I think the American people clearly understand what the president is talking about."

— Ari Fleischer

[Asked in January 2007 how Americans have sacrificed, President Bush answered: "I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night."]

Pentagon units will "locate and survey at least 130 and as many as 1,400 possible weapons sites."

— "Disarming Saddam Hussein; Teams of Experts to Hunt Iraq Arms" by Judith Miller, The Times, Page A1.

President Bush declares war from the Oval Office in a national address: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure."

Price of a share of Halliburton stock: $20.50

[Value of that Halliburton share on March 16, 2007, adjusted for a split in 2006: $64.12.]

March 20, 2003

"The pictures you're seeing are absolutely phenomenal. These are live pictures of the Seventh Cavalry racing across the deserts in southern Iraq. They will — it will be days before they get to Baghdad, but you've never seen battlefield pictures like these before."

— Walter Rodgers, an embedded CNN correspondent.

"It seems quite odd to me that while we are commenced upon a war, we have no funding for that war in this budget."

—Hillary Clinton.

"Coalition forces suffered their first casualties in a helicopter crash that left 12 Britons and 4 Americans dead."

— The Associated Press.

Though the March 23 Oscar ceremony will dispense with the red carpet in deference to the war, an E! channel executive announces there will be no cutback on pre-Oscar programming, but "the tone will be much more somber."

March 21, 2003

"I don't mean to be glib about this, or make it sound trite, but it really is a symphony that has to be orchestrated by a conductor."

— Retired Maj. Gen. Donald Shepperd, CNN military analyst, speaking to Wolf Blitzer of the bombardment of Baghdad during Shock and Awe.

["Many parts of Iraq are stable. But of course what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everyone."

— Laura Bush, "Larry King Live," Feb. 26, 2007.]

"The president may occasionally turn on the TV, but that's not how he gets his news or his information. ... He is the president, he's made his decisions and the American people are watching him."

— Ari Fleischer.

[The former press secretary received immunity from prosecution in the Valerie Wilson leak case and testified in the perjury trial of Scooter Libby in 2007.]

"Peter, I may be going out on a limb, but I'm not sure that the first stage of this Shock and Awe campaign is really going to frighten the Iraqi people. In fact, it may have just the opposite effect. If they feel that they've survived the most that the United States can throw at them and they're still standing, and they're still able to go about their lives, well, then they might be rather emboldened. They might feel that, well, look, we can stand a lot more than this."

— Richard Engel, a Baghdad correspondent speaking to Peter Jennings on ABC's "World News Tonight."

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:10 PM

On the eve of the war, in a meeting I attended, Jim McDermott, Washington State's Congressional Representative from the Seventh District (which includes Seattle) said that ". . . this will turn into the same kind of quagmire as the Vietnam war. And I can see us eventually having to leave Baghdad the same way we had to leave Saigon:   frantically scrambling aboard helicopters from the roofs of buildings."

That hasn't happened yet, but so far, everything that Jim McDermott has said about this war has been right.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 03:24 PM

John Young, columnist, New York Times News Service, 2/23

"By the time the public really focused on it, the decision to go to war had already been made." Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Ricks in his new book 'Fiasco'.

Quote: Fiasco ought to be required reading for every policy maker and every high schooler.

In his book, Ricks recounts how "... specious claims about weapons of mass destruction got upgraded to fact, first by Vice President Dick Cheney at a veterans convention in Nashville in 2002, then by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then by President Bush."

Quote: From Ricks' and others' accounts, including those of Bob Woodward, it is beyond disingenuous for Americans to be told that bad information is why we went to war. The truth is that in the buildup, facts were secondary.

Quote: "When the House debate began, there was just one reporter in the press gallery, writes Ricks. At their most intense points, the debates in both the House and the Senate attracted less than 10 percent of each body's members."

Quote: The media and the Congress, had decided to cede the fact-vetting and war-making functions to political operatives who told us we had no choice, no choice whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Barry Finn
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:19 AM

So what's up about the longer road home?

"The road to hell is short, the road out is under construction" (me)

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:09 AM

I prefer to think that the road *to* hell is under construction. Since we create it ourselves, we have the choice at each intersection to turn off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:51 PM

the one difference betw Iraq and Vietnam, was that there were huge rallies and protests all over the world against the Iraq war right at the start, with Vietnam it wasnt until much later.

the republican line of supporting the troops is starting to wear thin,
after the shoddy treatment of veterans at walter reed, also the fact that military does not recognise ptsd - rather they call it a personality disorder such as bipolar etc so they dont have to pay anything.

also the private security companies such as blackwater, recruit all over the world - (when CBC 'dispatches' - interviewed a blackwater recruiter in Fiji, he said there is a large payment in case of death, however its never been paid because the people recruited ended up switching to other security companies so all they do now is just return the body..
meanwhile other Fijians who served and returned were not paid anywhere near as promised, the response was 'go to Britain and deal with the head office of Blackwater'

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

You're right, petr, misdiagnosis of vets is a fairly commmon way of discharging service personnel and a way to avoid providing benefits for PTSD.

"Military records show that since 2003, 4,092 Army soldiers and another 11,296 men and women in other branches of the armed services have been discharged after being diagnosed with the disorder."

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/aas0.html

I just heard Bush urge patience. He says it will take months, not weeks. Doesn't he realize it has already taken years since the day he proclaimed, "mission accomplished"? Just another another media blip. Meanwhile, the insurgents have switched the focus of their attacks to Kirkurk. So much for the possibility of Kurdish independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

After all the carefully choreographed lies and fear campaigns so skillfully condensed by Amos, Don, Barry, Petr and Ebbie came the penultimate speech.

The last speech before W launched the bombs on Baghdad he spoke before the families of all the prominent neo cons in a room that had the look of a real town meeting. George said "I don't want a war, nobody wants a war, but its up to Saddam now."
He went on to way to say something like he would order a surprise attack on Iraq at prime time Eastern Standard Time on a dark of the moon Tuesday.

IMMEDIATLY following the "speech" a patriotic song and dance extravaganza by the Bishop of American wars of adventure, Billy Graham.
For 90 minutes they waved the flag and beat the drums for war, for God and for country.
It was choreographed so patrioticly as to make elementary students proud.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM

From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.
Related Links

    * Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

    * Violence slashed as troop surge hits Baghdad

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. "There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today's poll," she said.

What further proof does one need to recognize clearly both the Democrats in the US Congress and the Liberal World view are dependent on defeat in Iraq? If their Party and their philosophical movement are to remain remotely relevent then they must hope for ruin and further tragedy for Iraq and the Iraqi People.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:03 AM

Donuel - 19 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

"After all the carefully choreographed lies and fear campaigns"

What complete and utter crap - on examination, all the supposed luminaries that you mention and applaud have only been able to parade opinion so far and all tend to buckle, cut and run when actually pressed to provide any real proof of evidence to back up their markedly flawed and baseless contentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:12 AM

Donuel,

"George said "I don't want a war, nobody wants a war, but its up to Saddam now."
He went on to way to say something like he would order a surprise attack on Iraq at prime time Eastern Standard Time on a dark of the moon Tuesday."



"On March 19 at 9:34 p.m.—two days after demanding that Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq within 48 hours—the U.S.-led coalition begins bombing Baghdad."

Big Surprise!

http://www.time.com/time/2007/iraq/1.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:19 AM

btw, UNR 1441 was 8 Nov 2002. With a 30 DAY time limit ( not met) for compliance.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement


So, over 4 months time to hide evidence, and YOU call it a "surprise".

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:32 AM

Teribus, I respect your opinion and your relentless challenge of editorail opinions like mine that are not merely statements of facts.
Unlike many others you do not dismiss facts as insane opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:58 AM

The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early "shock and awe" bombing campaign with chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.

A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: "The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone's heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge."

By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.

He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents' car. He began to hallucinate.

In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, "Don't you know your brother's a murderer?"

Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize. ...

---

In the end, the story goes on, he hung himself with a garden hose in the cellar of his parents' home.

This is the kind of brutal end that is embraced by those who choose invasion and war as the first-line option. It is the price they don't see, like a teenager going crazy with a 17% credit card. The thing is, though, that those who don't know how the world works should not be entrusted with life-and-death decisions about it. It gets too ugly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:26 PM

A thoughtful analysis on the present situation in Iraq, its roots and remedies, can be found in PDF format at this page. It is published by the Council on Foreign Relations and is called "After the Surge".


A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:35 PM

The story of one mother willing to go to extremes to protect her son from being returned to Iraq when already brain-damaged from his first two tours can be found here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:36 PM

Amos,

A worthwhile article, BUT you should point out

"After the Surge: The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq is premised on the judgment that the United States is not succeeding in Iraq and that Iraq itself is more divided and violent than ever. It concludes that the administration's decision to increase U.S. force levels will fail to prevent further deterioration in the situation—and that there is no alternative policy with the potential to turn things around."

If one apriori agrees with the premise, fine- but one can write something based on an invalid premise and I doubt you would let it ride... ( unless it supported what you wanted to believe.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

I couldn't find what I had read this morning but this article comes close. The other one spoke of how difficult it had been to poll the Iraqis (Citizens who said they were afraid to talk were excused). My point in posting this is that it has a remarkably different slant than that given in the Washington Times from which Dickey posted

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A14

Poll Shows Dramatic Decline in How Iraqis View Lives, Future


"In the more comprehensive ABC News poll, conducted in partnership with the German television network ARD, the BBC and USA Today, Iraqis were asked whether the country was involved in a civil war; 42 percent said it was. Of the 56 percent who said the country was not in a state of civil war, more than four in 10 said such a conflict was likely.

"About half of the Iraqis in the ABC News poll -- 49 percent -- said that bringing more U.S. forces into Baghdad and volatile Anbar province would worsen security. Twenty-nine percent said it would improve the situation in those areas, and 22 percent said the troop increase would have no effect. President Bush has authorized the deployment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to Baghdad and Anbar to support a nearly five-week-old security plan.

"Sixty-nine percent of the Iraqis surveyed said the presence of U.S. forces in the country makes the overall security situation worse, but just 35 percent said U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now." Thirty-eight percent said the forces should stay until security is restored; 14 percent said the forces should remain until the Iraqi government is stronger; 11 percent said they should stay until Iraqi forces can operate on their own.

"Fifty-one percent said they thought it was "acceptable" for "other people" to attack coalition forces. In the 2004 survey, 17 percent said such attacks were acceptable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900421.html

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:22 PM

An interesting piece of history concerning Rumsfeld orders to include Saddam in the planning immediately 9-11 occurred. Taken from here:

"On July 23, 2005, I submitted an electronic Freedom
of Information Act request to the Department of Defense
seeking DoD staffer Stephen Cambone's notes from
meetings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on
the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone's notes
were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report's
reconstruction of the day's events. On February 10,
2006, I received a response from the DoD which
includes partially-redacted copies of Cambone's notes.
The documents can be viewed as a photo set on Flickr.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld's 2:40
PM instructions to General Myers to find the "[b]est
info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News' Sept. 4, 2002 report "Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted Rumsfeld's notes as stating: "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward's Plan of Attack, and to my knowledge, have not been independently confirmed by any other source. After the Rathergate fiasco, I wondered if CBS had been fooled into publishing a story that, from a publicity perspective, seemed too good to be true.

Finally, these documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time" line, Cambone's notes from the conversation read: "Hard to get a good case."

In addition to being available as a photo set on Flickr, you can download the documents in PDF format below. BitTorrent users can also download a 6.9 MB zip file containing PDFs of all the documents. [Torrent / Prodigem torrent details page]

Notes from 12:05 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 12:05 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
Notes from 2:40 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 2:40 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
Notes from 9:53 PM meeting [PDF]
Notes from 9:53 PM meeting (negative) [PDF]
DoD's FOIA release letter [PDF]
Raw scan of page 3 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 5 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 6 of notes [PDF]
Raw scan of page 9 of notes [PDF]

(Edited on 2/19/06 to include BitTorrent link, and on 2/23/06 to correct a typo and add another link to the Flickr photo set. Subsequent related posts: The Guardian Covers Cambone's 9/11 Notes; "Hard to get a good case": Early Attempts to Link 9/11 and Iraq)"

Innerestin'. It is pretty plain that Rummy was intent on the invasion of Iraq well before WMD ever loomed as an issue, and to use 9-11 as an excuse.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:03 PM

Well, okay, I'll admit that Bush was right about one thing and that was "bad intellegence"... Porblem is that it wasn't as much at the CIA but at the White House...

Why won't Cheney release his notes of his copnatcts at the CIA during the mad-dash-to-Itaqmire??? Well, I'll tell ya' why... Because they would show incessant pressure on analyists to sing the company fight song...

Why didn't Bush care much about the dissenting opinions in his daily reports from the CIA??? Well, I'll tell ya why... 'Cause it didn't play into Karl Rove's strategy for the Republicans to hold power in '04...

Why was Bush in such a hurry to invade Iraq given the Hans Blix report in January to the UN that Iraq was indeed now cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors??? Well, I'll tell ya' why... 'Cause had the weapons inspectors been able to continue their jobs then Karl Rove's plans to hold power whould have gone down the drain...

BTW, Why were Bush's attorneies in the 2000 Election so Hell-bent on gettin' to the Supreme Courth as fast as they could??? Fir a hint see last question... Oh, too hard??? Well, I'll tell ya' why... 'Cause like the weapons inspectors being pulled early these lawyeres felt that if the recount were to continue then their client would be "harmed" in losing the election... (I'm seein' a pettern here...)

Then there's this amtter of all the outright lies that Bush and his people were tellin'... Okay, on another thread there is a suggestion that if Bush didn't actually know he was liein' that the lies don't count... In other words, if Bush was so predisposed to going to war that any time he saw the "truth" coming toward him he'd stick his head in the sand so it really isn't lieing, is it??? Bullfeaathers.... He knew what he was doing... This a man so steeped in partisan politics that unless his IQ was under 80, he knew... He knew there were millions of folks in the streets accross the world sayin', "Hey, pal, slow the heck down... What's the big hurry" yet he pretended to stuick his head in the sand so he could later say, "Geeze, I musts got me some bad intellegence..."

Yeah, Goerge, you got that part right... You got some serious b ad intellegence but not to worry... There are a plenty rich folks and rich folks stooges (three of them here in Mudville) whyo are prefectly willing to turn yer worst prsident ever administration into some heroic afministration...

We have folks comparing you to Ronald Reagan...

Well, yeah, I can see the resemeblence... Alzheimiers, false calims of big victories and record deficits....

Tell ya what, folks, and especially to the 3 Stooges here in Mudville... Their ain't enough whitewash in the world to whitewash over Bush's war crimes against humanity... You won't be able to revise this guy's legacy... It is chizzeled in stone... There is no avoiding it any more than avioding death (pun intended) and tax cuts to the rich folks (pun intended)...

Yeah, 3 Stooges just thinkin' "Oh, here's another Bobert rant..." and dismiss the reality of their support for this anti-human adminstration and, fine, that is the perogative of any or all of the 3 Stooges to do... Might of fact, if they didn't dismiss it then I would be encouraged that one or all of the 3 Stooges might have had a little "Come to Jesus" and be willin' to confront the fact that they have been supporting war crimes against humaniity... But I doubt that will happen 'casue there's always revisions...

Problem with revising history while it's still warm is that it's hard to convince the folks who have just witnessed what they saw as being wrong about what they saw so...

...best of luck to the 3 Stooges here and all the stooges out there who think they can rewrite the legacies of their leaders or their support for these leaders decisions...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:22 PM

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic

I'd need to know a lot more about the way those people were selected, the circumstances in which the poll was carried out, and the actual questions asked before I'd trust that claim.

Sadam Hussein used to get 100 per cent backing in anything of that sort, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:22 PM

and an earlier British survey found only 2% Iraqis see US troops as liberators...
they waltzed right into OBLs plan, so far the only known connection between Iraq war and Alqaeda is that it has become a cause celebre for them..
damned if they leave and damned if they stay..

what should have been one of the easiest invasions in history by the largest military power - has become a monumental failure.
and teribus and others would have us believe they would have gone into Iraq if the worlds oil supply was in south america and the main product of Iraq was dates..

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM

From today's Washington Post:

..."When the argument over invading Iraq was publicly joined in summer 2002, many mainstream Republicans were queasy. That September, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) told me his constituents were "concerned about a go-it-alone strategy," and Rep. Thomas Petri (R-Wis.) said voters in his district expressed "concern about whether we know what we're doing or how we're going to do it."

The concerns of those good citizens were never answered because the administration was so successful in creating a lock-step mood, trumping doubters with extravagant claims about perils emanating from mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes.

The process of twisting the facts continued for four years. Every setback in Iraq was first ignored, then denied and then explained away as temporary. Some new strategy was always hyped as the beginning of a successful end. It's no wonder the war's remaining supporters get so little traction when they claim that the surge is working and that Bush should be given one more chance to get the war right. Patriotic skeptics have heard it before.

Foreign policy hawks fear an "Iraq Syndrome" involving a pathological wariness about the use of American force and an unhealthy mistrust of every word coming out of the White House.

On the contrary, this botched war is far more likely to lead to what might properly be called the Post-Bush Awakening. It is an awakening to the danger of viewing critics as traitors, to the costs of making everything about politics and to the sad tendency of establishmentarians to seek refuge within the boundaries of prevailing opinion.

It is also an awakening to the wise skepticism of everyday Americans toward ideologues who believe that optional wars of their design can miraculously change the world.

Here's what Vice President Cheney said in late August 2002 about the transformative potential of a war with Iraq: "Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

The uneasy constituents whom Camp and Petri were meeting with around the time Cheney spoke were too realistic to accept this nonsense whole. Next time, they will insist that their questions are answered and their doubts allayed before their sons and daughters are sent off to war.

None of this means that American opinion has become isolationist. The country's determination to defeat terrorism has not slackened. Most Americans still believe the war in Afghanistan was a proper response to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and wonder why it was left unfinished so the ideologues could go off in pursuit of Utopia on the Euphrates. The men and women who wear the nation's uniform have never been so popular.

But those who spent the past four years hyping threats, underestimating costs, ignoring rational warnings, painting unrealistic futures and savaging their opponents have been discredited. This awakening is the first step toward rebuilding our country's influence and power."...

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:27 AM

Not at all petr, if Iraq's main product had been dates instead of oil, it is highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein and Iraq would have have posed any threat to anybody. I doubt very much if the Soviet Union would have armed him in exchange for rights/options on date crops, as opposed to arming him to the teeth in exchange for oil as they did.

Bobert Fact - Hans Blix report in January to the UN that Iraq was indeed now cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors

Now here is what Dr. Hans Blix DID say in his Reports to UNSC in both January (where Bobert invented his fact from) and February:

Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to UNSC 27th January 2003

"The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

In this updating, I'm bound, however, to register some problems. The first are related to two kinds of air operations. While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we plan to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety unless a number of conditions are fulfilled.

As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in Resolution 1441 and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our requests. I hope this attitude will change.

Another air operation problem, which was so during our recent talks in Baghdad, concerned the use of helicopters flying into the no-fly zones. Iraq had insisted on sending helicopters of their own to accompany ours.

This would have raised a safety problem.

The matter was solved by an offer on our part to take the accompanying Iraqi minders in our helicopters to the sites, an arrangement that had been practiced by UNSCOM in the past.

I'm obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of an intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites. The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. Inspectors went without U.N. insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we received protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not.

Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq with initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional, and at the same time correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint, they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can.


Dr. Hans Blix Reporting to the UNSC - 14th February 2003

"Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided.

Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if and I quote "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming."

Doesn't sound like full pro-active co-operation to me, Bobert, by your own description within your family - you are telling lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:51 AM

Oh, please, Teribus. Now you're trying to blame the Soviet Union for supplying arms to Saddam as if the U.S. or Britain would never do something like that. Accountability does not mean blaming someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

The Americans arm the Saudis to the teeth in exchange for oil. Why shouldn't the Russians have chosen to arm Iraq to the teeth in exchange for oil? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Arming people is one thing. Invading them is another. The significant invasions in relatively recent times in that general area have been, in sequence:

Israel invades Lebanon.
Iraq invades Iran.
Iraq invades Kuwait.
USA coalition partially invades Iraq during Gulf War (in response to Kuwait invasion).
USA-led coalition invades Afghanistan after 911 and occupies whole country (ostensibly to catch Osama Bin Laden...).
USA-led coalition invades Iraq in 2003 and occupies whole country.
Israel invades Lebanon again in 2006, then pulls back after not doing as well as they'd hoped.

I regard the launching of outright invasions of sovereign countries as a far bigger problem in the world than merely arming people who you happen to be doing business with. I also regard it as a far bigger problem than isolated acts of terrorism by shadowy groups like Al-Queda or paramilitary organizations like Hamas. It kills a lot more people, and it does a lot more damage. It is also the equivalent of governments themselves engaging in what really is terrorism...on a much larger scale than is possible for those who are normally labelled "terrorists" in the media.

It's a double standard. All the combatants, whether they know it or not, are committing terrorism. The effect is the same. They spread terror by force and by the threat of force.

Subject: RE: BS:
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:38 AM

"Reviewing the Road to Iraq"

Bush: "Where the hell's that road map again?"

VP: "Shit commander, we don't even know which country were in, do we!"

Bush: "Aren't we supposed to be headed to Israel?"

Lost With Out A Clue. Coming to a theater near you. Soon!


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:16 AM

Here are the figures Dianavan for the period 1973 to 1990:

Soviet Unionand Warsaw Pact - 68.9%
France - 12.7%
China (PRC) - 11.8%
United States - 0.5%
Egypt - 1.3%
Others - 4.8%
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

Little Hawk - 21 Mar 07 - 01:06 AM

1) "The Americans arm the Saudis to the teeth in exchange for oil."

Eh, Little Hawk, I think that you find that the Saudi's go to the open market for Defence Procurement and they pay cash - They can afford to. So your statement above is incorrect.

2) "Why shouldn't the Russians have chosen to arm Iraq to the teeth in exchange for oil?"

Why indeed, all I was saying in response to petr was that they would not have done the same (i.e. supplied Saddam with 68.9% with all his weapons over the course of 17 years) in exchange for dates.

The significant invasions:

Israel invades Lebanon - Provocation supplied by ???? - Self-defence.

Iraq invades Iran - Absolutely no provocation at all, in fact at the time Iraq and Iran were engaged in talks to resolve their differences over the Shat-al-Arab. Classic example of naked opportunistic aggression.

Iraq invades Kuwait - Absolutely no provocation at all, another classic example of naked opportunistic aggression.

USA coalition partially invades Iraq during Gulf War (in response to Kuwait invasion) - Incorrect there was NO US Coalition it was a United Nations Coalition - TRUE?

USA-led coalition invades Afghanistan after 911 and occupies whole country (ostensibly to catch Osama Bin Laden...) - Incorrect, there was NEVER a US invasion of Afghanistan, US and other NATO forces were invited into Afghanistan at the request of the Interim Afghan Government and the UN. They remain there to date under exactly the same conditions, i.e. at the request of the duly elected and recognised government of Afghanistan and under UN Mandate.

USA-led coalition invades Iraq in 2003 and occupies whole country.
- Justification for their actions being failure on the part of Iraq to honour the ceasefire conditions that they had agreed to at Safwan in 1991 and being in material breach (at least on seven counts) of UNSC Resolution 1441 - Iraq's last chance. Their continued presence in the country is at the specific request of the duly elected Iraqi Government and under UN Mandate.

Israel invades Lebanon - Provoked by Hezbollah rocket attacks on civilian targets within the internationally recognised sovereign State of Israel. This Little Hawk is what is called self-defence which is every country's inalienable right.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:52 AM

T, you are a piece of work. We're in Iraq at the invitation of their Government? Meaning if they asked us to leave we would? I doubt that. Oh and the UN Coalition -- meaning the US was just going along with the gang, and was not instrumental -- not to say primary -- in making it occur? These are flimsy rationalizations laid out on top of some really messy bad decisions to make them seem palatable.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Scrump
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

Wasn't Dorothy Lamour in this one?


...I'll get me coat.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

I'd need to know a lot more about the way those people were selected, the circumstances in which the poll was carried out, and the actual questions asked before I'd trust that claim. (McGrath)

Here you go

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:56 PM

ha ha ha ha ha teribus, youre kidding yourself..
the middle east/persian gulf region has always been strategically important for the US, Kennan made the point after WWII, Eisenhower talked about it, even Carter back in the late70s..
which is why the French and British carved it up - and later the US came and got cozy with the Saudis, engineered a coup in Iran when a democratically elected government threatened to nationalize the oil industry... and if we started using solar power today it would still be the place to control, because you can deny it to others..

in the case of Iraqs naked aggression toward Iran,, (the US actually helped Saddam with satellite reconnaissance -) and didnt care much about the gassing of the Kurds either.

regarding all the UN quotes you may have, when Iraq started cooperating on the WMD inspections, BUsh changed tack and wanted a regime change.
and withdrew the vote from the UN security council as they knew it would be defeated...

hey? did they ever find any wmds? whatever happened to them.
and finally why didnt they go after NKorea if theyre the worst member
of the axis of evil that admits a wmd program..
oh I forgot, ,they already have the bomb..

(and oddly enough no one questioned the basic contradiction that two of those members of the evil axis are avowed enemies)

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:13 PM

Good heavens petr what a strange recollection of history you have - must have something to do with growing up behind the iron curtain.

Point 1.
"the middle east/persian gulf region has always been strategically important for the US,"

Not as much as you would think, more a case of essential to the UK during WWII and to other allies during the time of the Cold War. More a case of denying it to the Soviets than anything else.

Point 2.
"which is why the French and British carved it up"

Well no petr, they didn't. The break-up of the Ottoman Empire was overseen by the League of Nations AND the USA.

Point 3.
"in the case of Iraqs naked aggression toward Iran,, (the US actually helped Saddam with satellite reconnaissance -)"

Well let's see, the Iran/Iraq War was kicked off by Saddam Hussein in 1980 and ended in a stalemate in 1988, exactly as the rest of the international community wanted it to. The US had no contact at all with Iraq until a private citizen was asked by his President to act as his special envoy to sound out the situation with Saddam in order to provide some non-military assistance as it looked as though Iran was going to win, that was in the Spring of 1984 (War four years old at this stage). Diplomatic ties were not effected until November of that year. All the other Gulf States helped Saddam a great deal more than the US did. The French provided strike aircraft and pilots for Saddam (I know, some very good friends of mine nearly got blown up by them off Kharg Island). While the US provided intelligence to Iraq, it provided military hardware to Iran in exchange for American hostages. If you are going to highlight something petr tell the whole story not just the part you like.

Point 4.
"when Iraq started cooperating on the WMD inspections"

That never happened according the good Doctor. Go and read his reports, the lack of full pro-active co-operation theme is common to them all - matter of record. And remember with Iraq's final chance came the proviso that that full, unconditional and pro-active co-operation had to delivered from Day One - never happened petr, because Saddam's trading partners, Russia, China and France (all permanent members of the UN Security Council) were telling Saddam that they would forestall any moves by the US and veto anything that looked to be too serious in the Security Council - in short America is not going to do anything - how wrong could they be, that might have worked with Clinton in office, but certainly not with Bush.

Point 5.
"Bush changed tack and wanted a regime change.
and withdrew the vote from the UN security council as they knew it would be defeated..."

What a pity for your reasoning petr that regime change in Iraq was made official US Government Foreign Policy a full two years before George W Bush came to be President of the United States. You are absolutely correct, the second draft resolution was never tabled because France had already said that they would use their veto to block it. Pity you didn't mention that part of it petr.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:22 PM

An invasion is an invasion. All kinds of fancy toe-tapping and blithering on about the U.N. changes nothing. An invasion is still an invasion, and it kills a lot more people and wrecks a lot more stuff than some scattered acts of terrorism.

My point was simple this: When national armed forces are used against another country in an invasion, they end up doing a lot more harm than is done by paramilitary groups and terrorist cells. They almost never do it in genuine self-defence. They do it because they think they see an opportunity for self-gain. This was true in the case of all the invasions I have cited above. How inconvenient for you, Teribus, that we actually agree that Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait were unjustified! ;-) Otherwise you would have 2 more points in my post to try to pick at with some petty technicalities.

All the invasions I cited above were naked, opportunistic aggression. All of them used various flimsy excuses to justify doing what they wanted to do anyway. Not one of them has really succeeded in achieving what it was hoped it would, however, which should prove something...aggression is not only criminal, it is ultimately self-defeating.

"Provocations" can and will always be found (or invented) by an administration that seeks a war of aggression. Even if those provocations were quite insignificant and very limited in their effect, be assured that the war which follows will not be. War goes way beyond mere provocation. Those who launch wars are fully responsible for the results, and they should be brought to trial for it by an international tribunal.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:26 PM

And the US provoking Japan into attacking Pearl Harbour, so we could invade them? And Britain sending troops against Germany? The allies invaded Germany: Other than the Channel Islands, when did Germany ever invade Britain or the US???

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:27 PM

pont 3 -

"In addition, to intelligence, there was money and [the] contention, [according to a former US official], that "the US aspect of Iraq's war effort...must be somewhere in the neighborhood of .0001% of the total" vastly understates the US role in helping Iraq. All told, the Reagan and Bush administrations provided Saddam with more than $5 billion in loan guarantees.

"Even after the August 1988 cease fire between Iran and Iraq, even after the State Department told James Baker that Iraq was working on chemical and biological weapons, and even after discovering that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, President Bush pressed for a billion dollars in agricultural loan guarantees, and waived congressional restrictions on Iraq's use of the Export-Import Bank."

Craig Unger is the author of House of Bush, House of Saud (Scribner 2004)

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:34 PM

The Germans delivered an official declaration of war to the USA the day after Pearl Harbor. Did Iraq ever do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:00 PM

I said, "Bearded Bruce", that "those who launch wars are fully responsible for the results".

That includes Japan for invading China and later attacking the USA, Britain, and the Dutch East Indies (regardless of what Roosevelt did, and, YES, he certainly did provoke them). The Japanese military government had led them into a series of unjustified aggressions which eventually got them into a huge mess they couldn't get out of.

Germany was informed in absolutely clear terms by the UK and France in 1939 that a declaration of war by the UK and France on Germany would follow a German attack on Poland. Hitler chose to ignore that and he brazenly invaded Poland anyway. He tried to call what he foolishly took as the British and French "bluff". He was therefore fully responsible for the disastrous results...which eventually included Allied counter-invasions of German-occupied continental Europe and of Germany. Once a war is underway, one invasion may certainly follow another, depending on who is winning, right? I'm saying that he who launched the first invasion in the series is primarily (if not exclusively) responsible for the mess that follows.

In a similar sense, Saddam was responsible for the mess that followed his attacks on Iran and Kuwait (although the USA certainly took advantage of the situation anyway for their own gain in that region...and they may have deliberately helped to sucker Saddam into thinking he could get away with attacking Kuwait, but who knows?).

Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the Israelis are primarily responsible for the mess that they made in Lebanon....twice now. I do not for a moment buy the excuse that some pinprick, puny little attacks by Hezbollah were the real reason for Israel's recent drive into Lebanon...they were the excuse for it, that's all. It did not pay off nearly as well as expected. Another miscalculation on someone's part.

Some historical comments, just as a matter of interest:

Germany never invaded the UK or North America simply because they were never effectively able to. They didn't have the naval strength necessary to pull it off. The Allies never invaded mainland Japan, because it turned out not to be necessary to do so in order to secure total victory. Who needs an invasion when the other guy has already agreed to an unconditional surrender??? ;-)

Why, gosh, if the British had just unconditionally surrendered to Hitler in 1940...then the Germans could have occupied Britain without ever invading them too! ;-) About as likely as the moon turning into green cheese, but it's fun thinking about hypotheticals, isn't it?

While there is often some wrongdoing and much hypocritical posturing on both sides in the leadup to a war...I am saying that the power which launches the first all-out conventional military attack(s) or invasion(s) in that war is the power primarily responsible for what follows.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:11 PM

"Germany was informed in absolutely clear terms by the UK and France in 1939 that a declaration of war by the UK and France on Germany would follow a German attack on Poland. Hitler chose to ignore that and he brazenly invaded Poland anyway. He tried to call what he foolishly took as the British and French "bluff". He was therefore fully responsible for the disastrous results..."

Saddam was informed in absolutely clear terms by the US and Britain in 2002 that a military occupation to dismantle his WMD programs would follow his failure to comply with the UNR 1441 and previous resolutions. HSaddam chose to ignore that and he brazenly refused to comply with the UNR that were imposed because of his attack upon Kuwait. He tried to call what he foolishly took as the British and US "bluff". He was therefore fully responsible for the disastrous results...

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM

Oh...you mean he didn't dismantle his WMD programs?

No wonder I have been so confused -- I have been under the impression all this time that neither the inspectors or the troops under the invasion had found any.

Dang. Why wasn't I told?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:39 PM

No, BB, Saddam was asked to prove a negative. He was asked to prove that he didn't have WMDs. No one can prove a negative, therefore Saddam was asked to do the impossible.

He couldn't do it. Too bad for Saddam! ;-) (That's the way Bush planned it...you've got 'em by the shorthairs when you ask 'em to prove a negative, because a negative cannot be proven.)

Saddam did not invade anyone in 2003. He sat there like a helpless punching bag, waiting to get punched, because he couldn't prove a negative.

Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, starting a shooting war that ended up killing millions.

Hitler did what he did out of strength. Saddam suffered what he did out of weakness.

If you can't see the difference, it's just because you don't want to. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

LH,

If you can read

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/index.html

and state honestly that you think Saddam did NOT have a program of WMD and prohibited systems development, far be it for me to differ with you.

Saddam WAS in violation of UNR1441, his "last chance" to comply with the UNR that were imposed on Iraq for his invasion of Kuwait.

He was given the chance, and failed to even allow the inspectors the unlimited access that UNR1441 specified. He failed to allow unannounced inspections of sites of interest, as specified in UNR1441, and he refused to allow the required access to personnel for interviews, also as specified in UNR1441.

Sddam, after 4 MONTHS time to remove evidence, some of which activity was observed by satellite or overflights, was given 48 hours to remove himself from Iraq, which the US felt would allow a chance to determine, and remove, the prohibited weapons systems programs. He refused, and the US with other coalition forces, went in.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:18 PM

ok , so teribus is saying...

the middle east/persian gulf - has no strategic importance for the US
(despite the fact that Kennan, Eisenhower, Carter all plainly stated so)
wonder why the coup in Iran? pure coincidence probably that Iran wanted to take control of its oil resources.
(seems to me its you whos got the odd sense of history)

regarding the regime change bit..
whether that became policy 2 years before Bush, it wasnt part of the UN resolution regarding Iraq.
and they knew full well it would be defeated because France threatened to veto - I didnt leave it out because it was a known fact..
but so what, how many times has the US used its veto.

And after all - the security council veto is the ultimate form of non-compliance
(why did the US veto any space weapons agreement, and then complain about China doing away with one of its satellites - when the US did the same thing 20 years ago)

of course you conveniently omitted the point about North Korea
(the worst of the socalled axis of evil - why not go after them,
oh yeah, they already got the bomb)

and the other two members of the evil axis are avowed enemies.
(does that make any sense?)

but then 'the decider' didnt even know the difference between SHiite and Sunni two months before invading IRaq , 'I thought they were all muslim' he said..

fyi the Shiites are the ones that hang down from the cave...

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

In other words, bb, it was not up to the U.S. to go it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:46 PM

We did not go alone, we had a coalition of countries. The ones in the security council that objected are the same ones who declared that Darfur is not genocide, so they could avoid sending forces there, as well. Do you support THAT decision, as well?

IMO, the US should have acted in regards to Darfur ( and Rwanda, and Bosnia) rather than waiting for the Security council to decide enough people had been killed that they could send someone in- although it was NATO in Bosnia, and no-one in Rwanda...

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:18 PM

BB, I simply do not believe that Saddam was ever again capable of being a credible threat to anyone outside his own borders after the Gulf War was over. His days of being a military threat to his neighbours were long over in 2003. Therefore any posturing on the part of the USA, the UK, the U.N. Security Council or anyone else to that effect was just a lot of smoke-blowing and cynical propaganda calculated to fool the American public and (hopefully) world opinion into support an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Seems like they fooled you.

It was total BS, and that is now obvious. It was even obvious at the time to most populations in the world, but not to at least half the American population, who will usually believe just about anything they are told by Big Daddy....for awhile...until it turns out it really wasn't true.

I laugh at the bogus PR campaign leveled at Iraq in 2002-2003. It was the most classic case of the aggressor labelling its next helpless victim as the threat that I have ever seen in the modern era. It was ludicrous, inane, transparent, and outrageous. It equals the utter gall of people such as Hitler and Goebbels, who always claimed to be defending Germany too, if you recall...not to mention their idea that they were defending "western civilization". It's typical for such liars to pretend that they are defending decent values when they gobble up small countries.

Lawyers' technicalities and legal games, BB, do not excuse unprovoked and illegal invasions of other countries. And that's all that the noise at the U.N. and in Washington in 2003 was...word games conducted in order to fool and manipulate public opinion and stick a fig leaf on a US/UK policy of naked aggression.

A superpower whose economic and military clout gives them a means of blackmailing just about any small country in the world will always be able to cobble together some kind of wretched "coalition of the willing" (ha ha) to tag along as it does its dirty work. Hitler, for example, had Rumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Finland, Hungary, and the Croatians as allies...my, my, really confers legitimacy on the Reich, doesn't it? So nice to have a "coalition of the willing" on your side. ;-) The Soviets had all their East bloc satellites. England had its commonwealth.

Such coalitions prove nothing about moral right and wrong. They only demonstrate the effects and uses of grand imperial power.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:29 PM

"I simply do not believe that Saddam was ever again capable of being a credible threat to anyone outside his own borders after the Gulf War was over."

IF the UNR had been implemented, you would have been correct in your belief. The FACT that they were not, and he WAS rebuilding his military is well know- just look at the ( conventional) weapons and manpower that he had under arms when the coalition attacked. As long as members of the Security council were making LARGE amounts of money by selling him prohibited material, the UN was not going to do anything to enforce the UNRs.

Hitler also made good roads- So I suppose you don't want the Canadian government to make roads anymore, either? He was a vegetarian, as well- so we should object to that.

The reason I brought up the other countries was dianavan's "it was not up to the U.S. to go it alone. " She seems to think that if other nations agreed it would be ok to attack Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:45 PM

I'm not sure I follow your points about Hitler's roads and vegetarianism, BB. LOL! Look, man, I never think of anyone as all-bad, Hitler included. Bush included. You and me included. I know that people are a mixture of good and bad tendencies, and the same goes for a country or a given administration.

I cannot fault Saddam for rebuilding his military after the Gulf War. Anyone else in his position would have tried to do the same. His country was being bombed off and on ever since the Gulf War, and was not even allowed to use 2/3 of its own air space...which was given over instead to enemy aircraft which were bombing him whenever they wanted to! What would you do if someone did that to the USA for ten years? Would you NOT attempt to fight back? Would you NOT attempt to restore your military to full strength?

Iraq had every right to defend its own land, reclaim its airspace, and rebuild its own military. It did not have the right to invade someone else's land.

Anyway, it's nice to have you to play political ping-pong with, BB. Keeps me out of mischief, eh? ;-)

Your serve...

Subject: RE: BS: Reviewing the Road to Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:44 AM

"It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

That is totally incorrect. If that were the case there would be someone on hand to "sign" for the UN. There wasn't, there never is. Any ceasefire agreement is signed by all parties involved in the fighting (That may or may not mean all coalition members). If ANY signatory of the ceasefire breaks the terms of that ceasefire, it can be deemed as being broken by any other signatory.

The terms agreed at Safwan in 1991 were agreed by Saddam, who had no intention of keeping them.