Great program on the evolution of the Iraq agenda

The frontline programs are usually really great. I didn't see this one, but I'm checking the website and it seems very thourogh. Thanks for the link.

 

I saw this program on PBS a few weeks ago. It should be required viewing for all Americans. This war has been in the planning for a decade and they've successfully abused 9/11 to push people towards their policy agenda.

 

Damn straight.

 

So Clinton was planning this war and now Bush is carrying out Clinton's plan? Interesting. Aren't they both Freemasons or part of the Trilateral Commission or something? That would explain alot.

 

Actually, I think Clinton was a robot put in place by the oil companies so that the Bush family & Co. could rule the world.

 

Politicians are scum.

When it comes down to it, they are in it for themselves. They could care less about the taxpaying citizen, after all, we're simply collateral.

I wonder how fast this country becomes China when we've had enough and revolt?

 

Actually if you watch the program you'll see how right wing hawks tried to persuade Clinton into invading Iraq and tried to persuade Bush in 1991 to adopt a policy of pre-emptive war.

 

All this stuff about people planning for this war for 10 years seems to hit home, after seeing Lawrence Eagleburger from the first Bush administration on Crossfire tonight. I won't go into it here because I started a new thread about it, but after seeing that and reading the info from the crossfire program, I'm scared about a number of people surrounding our president.

 

Can anyone explain to me why they didn't take Saddam out of power at the end of the original Gulf War?

 

Maybe those people are right. If they had had their way, 9/11 would not have happened. Should be fun explaining that to all the surviving friends and families of now-dead Americans and ... what was it... something like residents of 79 nations from around the world.

Saddam should have been ousted back in 91 or anytime subsequently prior to 9/11. Too many Iraquis and now Americans have lost their lives.

 

Out of deference to the Arab partners in the coalition.

 

Tree huggers make me sick! I don't want war anymore than the next person but there comes a time when you have to back up your authority or you might as well have never gotten involved in the first place. SoDam Insane has had 12 years to comply and thats long enough. T

 

One word: Iran.

 

When evidence is shown that administration officials have conspired to wage this war for a decade just ignore it and call people tree huggers!!!

 

Actually it was probably Gore that was a robot, he is the one who lost the election when the economy was so great
I've always equated Gore with a tree, but maybe he is a robot

 

Which administration? America is not Cuba where you can have one "administration" for decdades. Rumsfeld and co. are perfectly entitled to formulate and express their own opinions on this issue during the 1990's. I've never seen a consipiracy so conspicuous. You'd think the Republicans learned something since Watergate.

 

A wooden robot. there you go.

 

I'm not sure who might have been involved in the Clinton administration however when the Bush administration left office several members created some kind of organization that strategized on foreign policy called the Project for the New American Century. In 1998 they sent a signed letter (like 30 signatures) to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq. I found a copy actually. Also, when people say this isn't about oil I highlighted a section that says differently. Nowhere in this letter does it talk about Saddam's ties to terrorism or the liberation of Iraqis.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick