This fits in pretty well with my own spedulation that what's happening in Iraq is a (primarily) Republican-driven, but also bipartisan, foreign policy. Just a little browsing on the Internet led me to believe our policy to overthrow Saddam goes back at minimum to 1985. It's pretty clear that Clinton didn't push the policy very hard. He maintained the blockade around Iraq and not much more.

I'd still like to know precisely when the idea of overthrowing Saddam came into being and whose idea it was.

Remember, an Air Force report said that after the Cold War we could turn Iraq into our enemy and create an argument that we needed to spend lots of money on the military to fight Saddam.

Maybe it all comes down to just money, plain and simple.

OT (but this is the closest current thread)

Those interested in 9/11, Sibel Edmonds etc. may find this of interest:

"Ex-State Department Security Officer Charges Pre-9/11 Cover-Up"
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn03092006.html

MarkH #1 --- Without a doubt it is all about the money. "The love of money is the root of all evil," so the Big Guy said. Apparently He knew what He was talkin' about.

But I don't see how the goal of throwing Saddam out of power over decades of Iraq policy can be labeled as "bipartisan" in any way whatsoever. As Ritter says, the seeds of the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein were deliberately sown in the Reagan administration (as you had long suspected), and were underway in earnest throughout the administration of Bush 41. Just because the sanctions continued under Clinton doesn't necessarily equal a "bipartisan" plan.

Did Clinton ever articlulate or advocate for anything beyond containment of Hussein? I don't recall ever hearing, seeing, or reading that Clinton had any other designs on Iraq. If you have a link to refresh my memory, please post it.

I just don't know that it is true to say, "the Democrats did it too!" in this case. Or that it helps to illuminate how we got into the mess, or how we get out of it --- yet such statements give the neo-cons unearned cover in their disastrous and immoral policy goals.

It is bittersweet how innocent we all were back then --- I would never have thought the U.S. would invade another country, advocate torture, or hold the lives of America's finest so cheap as to put politics, money, greed, or whatever ends these means were intended to justify.

Why is it that so many people buy into these conspiracy theories? I am sure that for all of these there is a "contra-conspiracy theory out somewhere. I don't like what is happening, but in my eyes this is just another sledge hammer attack on the current government. What is it with this Republican-Phobia that has infected so many people? What our country needs, is people who come up with suggestions, or better yet, with solutions to improve all the mistakes and dilemmas that we hear and talk about on a daily basis. So far, all those who keep complaining and buying into this conspiracy paranoia, be it on TV, on a blog site, among our "outspoken" politicians, have not come up with anything productive. Fussing and complaining is not going to get us anywhere. Jumping onto every "bash the current government" band wagon, is not making anything better. I wish our Democrats would excel in improving US politics, not in joining into the "let's bring Bush down" chant. Can't we do better than that? It is depressing to watch how much time is spent on pointing the finger, when in fact, both parties knew about a lot of the issues that hit the media currently.

Leni
That's why there should be a campaign to get independents on ballots. But even Ralph Nadar couldn't get on the ballot in all 50 states. How is that? Is that democracy? Not in my opinion. We need a strong third party but it seems that the republicans and democrats have effectively shut out any opposition to their political dominance. They know they can't be held to account because there is no alternative and we, the people, just have to take their crap. There are some but few in congress now that truly care about democracy and the country. It has become all about money and power. So what do you suggest? I say pay attention to this year's election. It will be very telling. And if there are improprieties in the count, there will be hell to pay.
As far as Scott Ritter goes, he's a patriot. He knows what's happening and what has happened. He's taken all the crap from the right and he's still standing. Good for him. We need more people like him to stand up to the machine behind these career politicians.

I haven't read Scott's book yet, but I will, and soon. I have always believed Scott Ritter because he has been right all along. He was off a little on the date that we attack Iran, but we will, and soon. The reason is this- this month, Iran will begin pricing its oil in Euros, switching from the US Dollar. Saddam had also planned to do this, but Shock and Awe got in the way. When Iran will only accept Euros for its oil exports, buyers will have to exchange their US Dollars for Euros before exchanging the Euros for oil. The resulting selloff in Dollars will weaken the Dollar significantly, sending shocks through the US economy. Interest rates will rise, stock markets will drop, things could get pretty shaky. Very shaky, in fact. I have predicted that the USA would not tolerate Iran trading its oil for Euros and sure enough, the very month they switch, here goes Dick Cheney making not too veiled threats about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Damn them.

17 UN resolutions to no avail. I wanted Clinton to do something about Iraq but he only cared about his popularity and poll numbers. I voted for Bush because I knew that Saddam needed to be stopped. I knew Bush would do it. I also know that Bush said that there is an Axis of Evil, and so far, he is dead on. Invading Iraq changed the mind of another bitter enemy - Libya.

Just wait, sometime between April and October, Israel is going to strike Iran's nuke facilities. They do not put up with that kind of crap.

> I don't recall ever hearing, seeing, or reading that Clinton had any other designs on Iraq.

Other than bombing them! How many missiles did he send? 1000?

My father-in-law has repeatedly said that this is not about oil. He has been in the business for years and frequently travels to Dubai and Saudi Arabia.
If we really want oil, we could just take over Saudi Arabia. That would be easy. They have a tiny army. The war in Iraq is not about oil. If the war costs 200 billion, it would take Iraq 20 years to produce oil to equal 200 billion. That is a lousy return on investment. So, it is about Terrorism and preemptive strike and the Bush Doctrine.

If someday we all find out that WMDs were moved to Syria (as some have already said), everything will change (including no more "Bush lied about WMDs") and Syria will be the next target. They are Israel's biggest enemy but are remaining fairly quiet for the moment.

> I would never have thought the US would invade another country, advocate torture, or hold the lives of America's finest so cheap as to put politics, money, greed, or whatever ends these means were intended to justify.

Unless there is a War on Terrorism and the rest of your statement is not true.

#7 BAAOP --- if i had the energy, i would point out the lies and distortions in every line of your post, not to mention that apparently you didn't read what i actually said.

it is not a true dialogue of ideas or facts that you are after, so it isn't worth the effort.

Go tell it to the Freepers; they love that brand of B.S.

I think it is more simple than convoluted diatribe intended to muddy the waters.

The issue is simple.

The republican controlled congress and the republican white house, along with the republican Pentagon, republican Secretary of Defense, republican Secretary of State, and republican everything else, would like to have us believe.

Believe that Iraq had WMD's. Believe the republican spread lies about mushroom clouds from Sadaam. Believe the republican lies about Niger uranium, aluminum tubes, and republican lies about Sadaam and bin Laden being bosom buddies.

Believe republican lies about Katrina, republican lies about torture, global warming, UAE, Dubai, and the republican NSA spying on America.

The republican lie machine can forget about telling me any more ... tell it to the hand.

The republicans in power, like all other political parties who make great strides to destroy the well-being of this nation, must be taken out.

They have already qualified and their reward is in the mail. No more bu$hit needed to convince me.

Bush's Approval Rating Falls to New Low
By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer
1 hour ago

WASHINGTON - More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq _ the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote Republican. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues _ port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

Read the rest of the article on the AP

Leni #4

Check out the link that I posted in #2. Pulling apart the tangled ball of string that forms a conspiracy is tedious but important. It's hard to recommend constructive actions if you can't see clearly how it formed and what problems need to be addressed.

Many of the problems' causes are obvious (e.g. corrupt election systems, corrupt political systems, pay-for-play election campaigns, profit-oriented media that will publish anything they're told in exchange for ongoing access, etc.). But it is far more convincing once one has got the specifics, otherwise one is doomed to "conspiracy theory" wilderness.

heh,

since we dont believe middle eastern people should be trusted i find it interesting that ritter is getting any attention. he writes a column on occasion for aljazeera.com.

thats fair and balanced for ya.

#7 BANNED,

You said:
>>My father-in-law has repeatedly said that this is not about oil. He has been in the business for years and frequently travels to Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

Respectfully, this hardly qualifies your father as a neocon insider!

>>If we really want oil, we could just take over Saudi Arabia. That would be easy. They have a tiny army.

Again, an incorrect assertion. Saudi Arabia ALREADY supplies oil to the US; Iraq did not. If we will need MORE oil (which we will - do a google search for "peak oil" and go to www.peakoil.org), we FIRST go after the countries that do not currently supply oil to the US. The neocons' plan is that, AFTER we have taken over ALL of the non-friendly oil countries in the region, we will take over Saudi Arabia. This is why Rumsfeld and Condi Rice are out there bashing IRAN (our next "oil enemy" right now.) This is part of the Neocons' "Project For A New American Century." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/...the_New_American_Century

>> The war in Iraq is not about oil.

It's ALL about oil.

>>If the war costs 200 billion, it would take Iraq 20 years to produce oil to equal 200 billion. That is a lousy return on investment.

Banned, your numbers are a little off. Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes recently presented a paper estimating the cost of the Iraq War at upwards of $2 trillion. Try writing out 2 trillion: $2,000,000,000,000.00 (lots of bux! See: http://www.csmonitor.com...06/0110/dailyUpdate.html) This is far higher than earlier adjusted estimates of $100-200 billion.

Remember that:
* Bush's "rose colored" expectation was that, after we toppled Saddam's regime, we would be greeted as liberators and the people of Iraq would shower us with flowers. He expected our invasion to be no more than a few months, and that the cost of the war would be paid by Iraqi oil.

* Rumsfeld originally thought the Iraq mission might cost $50 billion or less. Paul Wolfowitz once opined that Iraqi OIL REVENUES of $50 - $100 billion, INSTEAD OF U.S. TAX DOLLARS, would pay for the occupation and reconstruction.

* Wolfowitz criticized Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's estimate that it would take hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to occupy and subdue Iraq as "wildly off the mark." But it's been the administration that has been wildly off the mark when it comes to the price of Iraq.

>>So, it is about Terrorism and preemptive strike and the Bush Doctrine.

There were NO terrorists in Iraq threatening the US before we invaded the country. (Osama hated Saddam because Saddam was not an islamic fundamentalist.) In fact, most of the people attacking the US & our allies are (in their minds) fighting the hostile occupation of their country. We would do the same thing if, say, China invaded the United States. (And, in fact, we did precisely that --- It was called "The Revolutionary War.")

Pran

SCOTT RITTER TALKS ABOUT IRAN
-----------------------------------------------------
Read the full article at:
Ritter (9Mar06)

Iran War Looming
Ritter noted that after the three-year U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, the next challenge to the American people is finding the truth about Iran’s nuclear energy program.
Though he is skeptical of Iran’s claim that its civilian energy program is peaceful, Ritter said that no one has yet to supply hard evidence to the public that shows Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Still, he said he supports a presence of viable, capable U.N. weapons inspectors as an alternative to rushing “hell nell” toward armed conflict with Iran.
However, Ritter said he fears that the Bush administration has already gained the support of the American people who follow him to a new war without question.
“This is where we the people have failed yet again because when you take a poll of the American people, 80 percent believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Why?” He asked. “Because they have failed their responsibility in citizenship. They accept at face value everything they hear from Fox News, from CNN, from The New York Times. And they still don’t engage that little brain matter between their earlobes to think for themselves. It’s the mistake we made in Iraq.”
Signs of War
Ritter went on to say that the United States military is already gearing up for armed conflict with Iran as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld drums up the support from countries that have airbases surrounding Iran. Another sign of war, Ritter noted, is that U.S. aircraft are being used to scout future missions for U.S. troops.
“We’re over flying in Iran and we’re taking photographs. Is this peaceful?” asked Ritter. “If the Cubans were flying over our nation with reconnaissance aircraft taking photographs of facilities they were getting their troops ready to target, we’d shoot their planes down, and we’d say we have to right to protect our national defense.”
To drive his point home, he added: “If the Cubans were taking Cuban Americans in the United States and forming them into operational groups to go around blowing up bridges and assassinating politicians, we’d call it an act of terror. Not only would we hunt down the perpetrators, but we’d probably blow Cuba off the face of the earth in the process because they’re attacking us. But we’re doing the same thing (to Iran).”
Ritter suggested that to stop a war with Iran, Democrats must be elected to take control of at least the House of Representatives in the 2006 election. This way, said the self-described registered Republican, a healthier amount of skepticism will check and balance the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government.

Banned
It's not about the PRICE of oil, it's about access. If the US military has the oil fields, they have the ability to keep the war machine running. If we are actually running out of oil (which we may not be but I know about the peak oil thing; not totally conclusive but..) then access to what is available becomes an even greater issue. They don't care about the debt because like all the treaties America signed on to, they'll just say 'too bad. we're not paying it.' The politicians will have everything they need as well as the military and everyone else can go to hell.
And then there's Iran. China gets a lot of their oil from them. If our military can cut China off from that oil, their military will be weakened and not a major threat. Or so my theory goes. At present Iran is calling us out and I'm afraid Bush might respond with the only thing he knows how to do, act tough and put military lives on the line. Dickhead.

Jo #11

Bush thinks that leading is equal to being unpopular. Perhaps he should read some history. Unpopular presidents, like Nixon, were making bad decisions. That is why they are unpopular in polls.

It is not a question of leading, it is rather a question of bad leadership or good leadership. But Bush thinks he should be judged as to whether he is leading or not, instead of whether his leadership is bad or good.

He cares little for what the people think, i.e. polls, and will not follow what the people want. He thinks that is not leading.

A very strange and conflicted man who cares little that Americans do not like being spied upon by their employees (link here)!

Great interview and great comments.

Ritter shows pretty convincingly that the policy of mis-using the intelligence community was bi-partisan.

This makes me wonder what the specific influences were that came down on Clinton once he was elected into office. The CIA told him that they (CIA) were going to stick to the Saddam has WMD message. What was it that was preventing Clinton from controlling the CIA?

Who is in control of the CIA, actually? Assume that none of the presidents any longer have control over the CIA, as appears to be the case. Who is really calling the shots?

Catherine A #17

While there may have been incidents of messing with the stuff during other presidencies, those are de minimus by comparison.

What president lied in public so he could invade? Lets face it, the prior Bush I only invaded to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Big difference.

There were no lies in that sense, and the US did not go on into Baghdad. And the US left quickly.

This ignores the scope of Bush facts that this, in the words of the president, Atty General, and Spectre of the Judicial Committee in the Senate, unpresidented spying has only been going on for about four years. Unpresidented everything.

And it is not debated that President Bush is the one who ordered it by issuing an executive order.

The Clinton administration always submitted to the FISA court. The two admins are not equal in this.

Don't you know that if Bush could be cleared Senator Roberts of the intelligence committee, who killed the NSA investigation of the committee he chairs, would have had hearings if Clinton could have been blamed?

They would love to do a "democrats do it too" tirade in that committee, but for obvious reasons they were afraid to expose Bush.

They are still stalling on the Phase II which has been promised in public over and over, then not done over and over.

It is as simple as who has been lying the past six years, who invaded, and who refuses to leave?

The rest is a calculated distraction and will aid those who want to rubber stamp the administration.

Intelligence, or the lack thereof, is what gets people to Guantanamo Prison.

Even innocent people.

But once it has been determined they are innocent of being an "enemy combatant", they have no relief according to one federal court.

This is because the republican congress has removed such relief. So now the innocents stay at Guantanamo as if they were guilty (link here, PDF).

The Katrina brain is everywhere ....

Under Clinton we bombed Iraq repeatedly. Never made any headlines, but all through the Clinton years we were dropping bombs on Iraq. I don't think Clinton made the policy.... but he sure went along with it. He signed NAFTA. He trimmed back the social safety net.

Don't get me wrong, he's a world away from Bush. But it's not like he's some kind of saint.

#20

Everytime bad news was hitting the papers Clinton bombed them so he had no real policy.

#8

Thanks Des for your non-reply.

#13

www.peakoil.org is a poorly done webpage. I have known for a long time about the oil in the Gulf, near my state.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/..._bi_ge/mexico_oil_find_1

I read much of the following and I have to say that I agree with most of it. I understand the argument from both sides -

http://en.wikipedia.org/...the_New_American_Century

I also enjoyed reading about Neo-Conservatives. "Neo-con" is way over used especially by the Brad Blog. I agree with the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con:

Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"

Relatively few of those identified as neoconservatives embrace the term.

Critics of the term argue that it lacks coherent definition, or that it is coherent only in a Cold War context.

The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:

Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as meaningless label, saying:

[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.

Jonah Goldberg and others have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neocons" despite the fact that both men have ostensibly been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has been vocally supportive of the ideas of Irving Kristol). Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism.

Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of the "neocons." Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."

So it's OK for people that think like you to call us 'liberals', using the term as an epithet but calling conservatives that have strayed far from the true conservative agenda, which in it's purity is a good agenda, neo-cons is a poor and innacurate description? How about this. Let's stop ALL the labeling and discuss the issues like adults.

I am very interested this theme, with attention I will read following informations.