Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I don't understand why this is still discussed. Wolfowitz was on TV within a week of 9-11 talking about overthrowing Saddam. (And so was madman Tom Clancy, a buddy of the neocons, for that measure.) There was never any mystery. Never needed a CIA report or the NYT to figure it out.

"President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

"According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy. . . " - from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1185407,00.html

I cna't believe the administration did something so invalid as making decision that war against Iraq was warranted and THEN (only AFTER) trying to garner support for it!!1

no wait I can. after all, at this point why should surprise me?!

I've said it before, I'll say it again, ON 9/11, when I arrived howm from work, I turned on CNN to see a press briefing by Paul Wolfowitz. I remember clearly what he said "...regimes will be destroyed..." Regimes -- plural. I thought "he's talking about Iraq", although it was pretty obvious, even then, that Iraq had nothing to do with this. Right at that point my tinfoil meter kicked in. Then, on Sunday, Cheney gave his interview from the bunker to Tim Russert. Twice he mentioned six planes. "We thought there were six planes." Six?? Where did six come from? I concluded there and then he thought there were six planes because he had the tasking order in front of him, and the plans CALLED for six planes.

By the time, two weeks later, that I saw the neat rows of pictures of the alleged hijackers on the news, I was in full-blown Kevin-Costner's-closing-remarks-at-the-JFK-trial mode -- this thing was a set up. From that point, anything could be justified. When I shared my conspiracy theories, people asked why would our government have complicity in this? It was totally obvious when, 32 months later, congress passes a $475 billion defesne spending bill. We have a new "other". It justifies a new cold war standing -- it's the only way the world makes sense for the cold warriors. I remember that day they announced Rumsfeld's nomination for SOD that we were entering Cold War II. Was there any doubt?

Reminds me very much of what I was saying regarding the following passage from today's NYT:

"It hurts us, there is no question," a senior aide to Mr. Bush conceded on Friday, as the Senate report was published. "We already have the Chinese saying to us, `If you missed this much in Iraq, how are we supposed to believe that the North Koreans are producing nuclear weapons?' It just increases the pressure on us to prove that we are right."

My exact comment at the time to my friend was, "Gee, maybe you should show some interest in finding out whether you're right, instead of being dead set on proving you're right? Though I don't so much doubt that North Korea is up to something, really. But it's revealing about the prevalent mindset there. Not that I had much doubt about that, either."

Didn't the first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill state this was on the agenda form DAY ONE ?

Hey Friends,

We’re looking for 2 to 3 new bloggers at our site PoliticalStrategy.org.

It’s time to take our site to the next level and we would like to make the site a powerful presence in the progressive Blogsphere.

If you’re interested, then please check out the site…browse around a bit and then drop us a line at tball@politicalstrategy.org

Please be sure to tell us:

· How active you would like to be (e.g. posting every day, three times per week, etc.)

· About your background in politics, policy, writing. (Of course no professional experience is required)

· About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.

· Where we can find a sample of your writing (e.g. perhaps at your own site, in a Dkos diary, etc.)

From there we will contact you with further details.

Thank you very much.

It was decided and put in writing on 1/26/1998 by the Project for a new american century

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

Rumsfeld decided immediately

>> “[I want the] best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].... Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS News 9/4/02] <<

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=donald_rumsfeld

War with Iraq became inevitable the moment Bush took office. That's why their ~immediate~ response to September 11 was, "Let's attack Iraq." Remember George "find the connection to Saddam" Bush, and Donald "but there are no good targets in Afghanistan" Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Libby had been clamoring for war with Iraq since the 90s, and I'm sure it didn't take much to get Bush and Cheney to come around.

"...although it was pretty obvious, even then, that Iraq had nothing to do with this."

It was "pretty obvious" in the *evening* of September 11, 2001, that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks?

How was it "pretty obvious"...especially given the fact that Iraq DID have something "to do" with the 1993 attack on the WTC?

How was it "pretty obvious"...especially given the fact that Iraq DID have something "to do" with the 1993 attack on the WTC?

You and that nutjob Mylroie are the only ones who still believe that one.

Doesn't Moore show Bush giving an i-view on 8/6/1 (an hour or 2 after receiving the famous PDB) in which he rants about Saddam?

There was a very long propaganda campaign to paint Saddam as the center of all that's evil in the world, almost from the day Bush took office.

That's how a well-designed propaganda campaign works. And I think we're now in the early stages of another one for the election. Who leaked word of the letter passed from the election official to Homeland Security to the J Dept.'s office legal counsel? The Newsweek article doesn't read like it came from a mid-level staffer in the chain.

Iraq was on the menu as early as 1998, when Clinton got Congress to pass a law declaring that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States.

Iraq was on the menu as early as 1998, when Clinton got Congress to pass a law declaring that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States.

Iraq was on the menu as early as 1998, when Clinton got Congress to pass a law declaring that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States.

Iraq was on the menu as early as 1998, when Clinton got Congress to pass a law declaring that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States.

I wrote, "How was it "pretty obvious"...especially given the fact that Iraq DID have something "to do" with the 1993 attack on the WTC?"

Basharov replied, "You and that nutjob Mylroie are the only ones who still believe that one.

Well, USA Today--the paper with the largest circulation in the world, as far as I know--reported that documents indicated that Iraq sheltered Abdul Rahman Yasin after the 1993 attack:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-17-iraq-wtc_x.htm

Do you think that:

1) Abdul Rahman Yasin was not involved in the 1993 attack?

2) The report is mistaken...that Iraq did not shelter and give money to Abdul Rahman Yasin after the attack?

Further, do you:

1) Doubt that Ramsi Yousef came to the U.S. on an Iraqi passport?

2) Think that Iraq's government just thought Ramsi Yousef was a tourist?

3) Think that Ramsi Yousef wasn't involved in the 1993 attack?

"Clinton got Congress to pass a law..."

That's sort of like the CIA forced bad intelligence on the Whitehouse.

There is sure a lot of scrambling to rewrite history. I hope something good comes from it. Maybe once it's rewritten we'll all be on the same side.

David wrote, "Clinton got Congress to pass a law..."

dennisS responded, "That's sort of like the CIA forced bad intelligence on the Whitehouse."

Do you think that the Clinton administration was opposed to the law? If the Clinton adminstration was opposed to the law, why didn't Bill Clinton veto it? Why did he sign it into law?

Signing it, being opposed to it, and "getting Congress to pass it" are three different things. What's the point of using a veto to undo something that's meaningless without the administration's active participation. It was one of those chest-thumper laws that sanctified a bit of covert spending already happening and made a bunch of intellectual "giants" feel good about themselves. I bet you knew all that already so why you taking us down this rathole?

In order to believe Mylroie and Bahner's version of the first WTC bombing, you have to believe that almost everyone working on the case was either completely incompetent or part of a coverup or both.

"Mary Jo White, the no-nonsense U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted both the Trade Center case and the al Qaeda bombers behind the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, told me that there was no evidence to support Mylroie's claims: "We investigated the Trade Center attack thoroughly, and other than the evidence that Ramzi Yousef traveled on a phony Iraqi passport, that was the only connection to Iraq." Neil Herman, the F.B.I. official who headed the Trade Center probe, explained that following the attacks, one of the lower-level conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin, did flee New York to live with a family member in Baghdad: "The one glaring connection that can't be overlooked is Yasin. We pursued that on every level, traced him to a relative and a location, and we made overtures to get him back. We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government."

Mylroie

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

1) Do you know that Ramzi Yousef had dozens of false passports ?

2) Do you know that Iraqi passport he was provided with was fake ?

3) Do you think that Iraq would be stupid as to supply him with an Iraqi passport if he was indeed an Iraqi agent ?

4) Do you know that AFAWK Yousef had never been to Iraq and in fact spent far more time in the UK, Pakistqan etc. ?

5) DO you know that Yousef was actually captured in Pakis

Could it be postponed until the end of War on Terror?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44676-2004Jul12.html : The Homeland Security Department said today it has informally asked the Justice Department to review the legal issues involved in possibly postponing the presidential election if it risked being disrupted by terrorism.

I believe that Ramsi Yousef entered the USA *without a passport see "Against All Enemies" page 77 "'Well two of the guys showed up at JFK last yuear without any documents or even false docs. On of the two was detained because he had 'How to Make a Bomb' manuals on him.' The other man was Ramzi yousef.
'So let me get this straight, we let a guy go who was with a bomb builder, we let him get into a cab at JFK even though he shows up here without a passport?'"

Now since the US did not allow my then 5 year old daughter to enter with a recently expired passport, this is hard to believe, but, you know, things were different before 9/11.

The US "sheltered" Yousef and Abdul Rahman Yasin before the attacks. "He's been there" and "the government of that country was part of the plot" are very different assertions.

BTW, Mark, have you read the 1998 law? You can find it here:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

As you read it, or reread it, you will discover that the purpose of the Act was to provide support to "Iraqi Democratic Opposition Organizations," that "Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the United States Armed Forces...in carrying out this Act."

"Neil Herman, the F.B.I. official who headed the Trade Center probe, explained that following the attacks, one of the lower-level conspirators, Abdul Rahman Yasin, did flee New York to live with a family member in Baghdad: 'The one glaring connection that can't be overlooked is Yasin. We pursued that on every level, traced him to a relative and a location, and we made overtures to get him back. We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government.'"

Good God, do we really have such stupid people in the federal government?! Let me guess...Mr. Herman is a Democrat, right? :-/

Does Mr. Herman seriously expect us to believe that a man right in the middle of frikkin' Baghdad, with a $25 million reward for his return to the U.S. for trial, isn't being protected by Saddam Hussein?

A man right in the capital of Saddam Hussein's totalitarian Iraq--who was interviewed by frikkin' Sixty Minutes, by the way--is completely out of Saddam Hussein's grasp?

Is anybody really stupid enough to think that?

When Bush took office, the only theatre of operations in which Americans were being routinely shot at was ....

Iraq.

And we are surprised that he wanted to react to that? Really?

"BTW, Mark, have you read the 1998 law?"

I think I may have glanced at it quite a while ago.

"As you read it, or reread it, you will discover that the purpose of the Act was to provide support to "Iraqi Democratic Opposition Organizations," that "Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the United States Armed Forces...in carrying out this Act.'"

Well, that's interesting, and I'd forgotten it, but it's not relevant to what David was writing, or what I was writing.

David merely wrote that, "...Clinton got Congress to pass a law declaring that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the United States."

And my point was that Bill Clinton signed that bill. He could have vetoed it.

So both David's point and my point are still valid. Regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States from 1998 onward, and that U.S. policy was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

We know from Paul O'Neil's book that removing Saddam was on the agenda as of January 2001. Tony Blair made an incredibly stupld strategic error (from the standpoint of the UK) in thinking that the US would prevail in Iraq. So he hopped on board in September hoping to make a silk purse of a sow's ear. Stupid, stupid man.

The more fundamental problem is the neocon belief that absolute security is possible. The deep flaw in the whole project -- which would have involved us in war with China (on the original agenda) -- was that belief. Some people can't live with uncertainty. It seems to destroy them. To eliminate it, they are ready to destroy everything and everyone else. It's a very sick, but unfortunately very common attitude. The good news is that the Iraq fiasco has taken that project off the agenda. History will eventually determine whether it was worth a thousand American lives (and countless Iraqi ones).

"Regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States from 1998 onward..."

It's also been the official US policy toward Cuba since, what? 1960? What wasn't official US policy was getting the whole US army tied down in one giant 21st century version of Lebanon circa 1985.

"...are we suprised..."

Yes. After 9/11, very surprised. We had and still have more important things to do. No American died in the Iraqi "theatre" since way before Al Qaeda became our largest threat.

Mark, you've forced everyone here to ask ourselves a few questions.

The main one is, "Is Mark Bahner credible enough that I should spend several hours folowing the leads that he and Laurie Mylroie give me? Or should I conclude that the editors of the Washington Monthly, and their sources, got it about right?"

Nothing you've said and nothing I know about you, and you've been around for awhile, tells me that your endorsement of Mylroie's theory should make me reassess the negative evaluation she's generally given.

One thing that you did that makes you seem like a shitflinging hack is your attempt to prove that Clinton agreed with Bush. This is only partly true,* has only a little to do with the main point here, and is furthermore based on the assumption that everyone here has an enormous admiration for Clinton, which I for one don't.

When you throw in the kitchen sink, people doubt your other arguments too.

*One theory about Saddam's lack of WMD programs is that Clinton had destroyed them with a missile strike. In which case, his earlier belief that Saddam had a WMD program was accurate, whereas Bush's later belief to the effect was wrong. (But now I'm throwing kitchen sinks too!)

The fact that the US had a policy that advocated regime change in Iraq does not imply that US should have moved ASAP to effect a regime change in an immoral, stupid and self-defeating way.

... that seems to me to be an obvious point which is lost on some people here.

The method and timing of Bush's regime change in Iraq was wrong and counter-productive. That is a different issue from whether a policy of encouraging regime change was justified.

Maybe I will try to figure out how to say this one syllable words, in case some people still can't understand it.

Mark Bahner wrote, "It was 'pretty obvious' in the *evening* of September 11, 2001, that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks?"

No, but it was pretty obvious that it was *_a priori_* very unlikely that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks, because (a) they had little to gain from such attacks, (b) as a state, they could be retaliated against very easily, unlike al Qaeda.

And what jml said.

Surpising that the Times even mentioned that it was THEIR reporter, never mind the name! All the bologna that’s fit to print... But then, of course, this present NYT story is yet another sourced deflection.

Funny how we’re now being inundated by stories from all angles, heading towards a preponderance of evidence that our lil’ Bushie was misled about the urgency! Then he himself comes out and says “but it was still a good idea to get rid of Saddam.”

So psychologically they have set up: (1) my intention was correct but (2) I didn’t mean to lie to you all. Golly, we would have waited for major backing from our allies at the U.N., but this made us think it was urgent.

Next on the To-Do list: explain the disastrous occupation.

Zizka/John writes, "Nothing you've said and nothing I know about you, and you've been around for awhile, tells me that your endorsement of Mylroie's theory..."

I didn't "endorse" anyone's "theory." I asked questions. And you certainly haven't answered them.

Specifically:

Do you think that:

1) Abdul Rahman Yasin was not involved in the 1993 attack?

2) Iraq did not shelter Abdul Rahman Yasin after the 1993 attack?

And I know WHY you haven't answered those questions, John. Because you and I both know that Abdul Rahman Yasin WAS involved in the 1993 attack, and that Iraq DID shelter him after the attack.

Or do you dispute those facts?

"liberal" writes, "No, but it was pretty obvious that it was *_a priori_* very unlikely that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks, because (a) they had little to gain from such attacks, (b) as a state, they could be retaliated against very easily, unlike al Qaeda."

Complete BS.

Was it "very unlikely" that Khadafy blew up a discotheque with U.S. soldiers in it, or that he was involved in blowing up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie?

Was it "very unlikely" that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, even though it very easily could have resulted in his death from U.S. bombs, or his being deposed (which will almost certainly also lead to his death, at least after a trial).

Was it "very unlikely" that Saddam Hussein protected Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was involved in the 1993 WTC attack whose goal was to topple one or both of the WTC towers?

Was it "very unlikely" that the Taliban not only gave Osama bin Laden shelter--and a government position, by most accounts--BEFORE 9/11, but even AFTER 9/11?

Stupid and egotistical people do stupid and egotistical things. There's virtually no doubt that Saddam Hussein is stupid. If he wasn't, he'd almost certainly still be in power. And there's also no doubt that he's egotistical.

Mark, the citation I gave you explicitly accepted the two facts that you gave. It rejected your conclusion from those facts.

The stuff you're saying is exactly the same stuff, as far as I can tell, that Mylroie's been saying all along. Her credibility is pretty well gone, for various reasons, among everyone but some on the far right. A few minutes' Googling got me to the point where I decided that I didn't need to go any further. Everybody involved in the case seems to have come up with different conclusions than you and Mylroie.

You really **should** take this personally. Your opinion does not have enough weight for me, based on my past experiences of your thinking and your research abilities, to make me want to follow up on the clues you are giving.

Your kitchen sink argumentation technique kills you. Ramsi Yousef had a lot of passports, one of them a **forged** Iraqi passport. You didn't mention some of those details to start with -- someone called bullshit on you, and you shut up about on that particular charge. But I'm sure that you'll use it again in the future.

Actually Mark is right about one thing -- we could not have completely excluded Iraq being responsible for the attack on 9/11 the evening of that day. Within 2 weeks, we should have more than enough information to be clear on that. And now, all but the Mylroie nutcases know that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and other than sheltering Yahsin after his crime, seems to have had nothing to do with 1993 as well. Certainly in 2001, there had been 7-8 years where no terrorist attack on the US was plotted by Iraq, and where all terrorist attacks were either home grown (Mc Veigh) or Al Qaeda.

Prudence would have required examining Iraq. Prudence would not have required invading it at such massive costs.

Bush, Cheney and CO. most go for their lies and exaggerations. \

6973 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

6683 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

1463 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

2323 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com