<p>Mini, wasn’t the genocide started by Bush 1?</p>
<p>In two words, yes and (mostly) no. Yes, in that the bombing of wastewater treatment plants and electrical plants started under Herbert Walker. No, in that the sanctions against simple medical equipment, antibiotics, anti-diarrheal medications for children, and water purification equipment were purely a Clinton/Albright creation.</p>
<p>There is no evidence that Herbert Walker intended the death of children, and certainly didn’t experience it, en masse. In Clinton/Albright’s case, the facts are otherwise.</p>
<p>Didn’t more children die in Iraq before 1998?</p>
<p>That’s the whole point - the vast majority between 1992-1996. Clinton’s Christmas Bombing in 1998 followed his having to back down on the genocide campaign. And, for that, they had to cook the intelligence books into a “slam dunk”.</p>
<p>FUNDING FATHER: Without a “shred of proof” that plans were in place to go to Iraq before 9/11? This took me about 5 seconds to find on the internet, testimony from a former Administration official. </p>
<p>But I know: this particular source, like a thousand others, has no credibility with you… I guess it has to come out of the mouth of Bush himself, and then you’ll say that he was taken over by aliens perhaps? </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml</a></p>
<p>And what happened at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations. </p>
<p>“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. </p>
<p>“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” </p>
<p>As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” were never asked. </p>
<p>“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” </p>
<p>And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. </p>
<h2>He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. </h2>
<p>Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth. </p>
<p>He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts,” which includes a map of potential areas for exploration. </p>
<p>“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”</p>
<p>““From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.”</p>
<p>Clinton held exactly the same opinion. The question was whether it could be effected without a military invasion. Clinton hoped that the genocide would result in the general’s revolting, and with the military intact, a new puppet regime could be installed to protect U.S. interests. When that failed, even after a million dead, he thought that perhaps bombing military installations might have that effect, and, if he got lucky, might hit Saddam Hussein himself. </p>
<p>"“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’” says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.” </p>
<p>This is precisely what Clinton did. But he was shrewd enough to stop short of a military invasion. I think any fair long-term look would see the essentially bipartisan nature of Iraq policy, and that support of the invasion by the Dems was no accident, and wasn’t simply created in the few months leading up to it.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>There are two key issues with pre Bush invasion Iraq intelligence:</p>
<p>a) We didn’t have reliable human intelligence operatives in Iraq (or elsewhere in the middle east).</p>
<p>b) It is impossible to prove a negative. The CIA knew that there was no credible evidence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program. They knew that the inspectors had been granted widespread access, including trips to see buried containers of old nuke technology. However, they could not prove that a nuke program did not exist.</p>
<p>You are mischaracterizing Tenant’s “slam dunk” incident. Tenant repeatedly went back to the CIA after his daily meetings with Bush and said, “They’ve already decided they are going to invade Iraq.” He knew that his job was to provide intelligence to support that decision. It created tremendous friction within the agency because the pros at the CIA knew the evidence didn’t exist.</p>
<p>None of the stuff pitched to Feith by Chalabi (the aluminum tubes, the Niger yellowcake) was being featured in the real CIA reporting in Iraq. It was in the reports, but discounted as unreliable.</p>
<p>There were specific memos to Powell from the CIA, including a revised copy of Powell’s speech the before Powell’s UN appearnce with the “mobile bio labs” references crossed out, with the notation that the reports were specifically unreliable. The sole source for that info was a German intelligence informant and the Germans had told the CIA that the source was mentally unstable, unreliable, and probably lying. In fact, the CIA’s European station chief (who had sent memos to Powell) assured his German counterparts the day before the speech that Powell would not be presenting that “information”.</p>
<p>So why did we go into Iraq?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and no. The desire to get rid of Sadaam was certainly bi-partisan. However, the Chalibi channel was to the Bush neocons and the new “evidence” feed to the neocons by Chalibi was the rationale for escalating the Sadaam issue from long-term irritant to immediate pressing emergency status. This new evidence was packaged by the Bush administration to create the perception that Sadaam was suddenly months away from nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>There is a substantive difference between sanctions and a sporadic bombing response to no-fly-zone violations and a ground invasion. There was a fundamental sea change in foreign policy philosophy when Cheney/Rumsfeld took charge of national security under Bush. They actually believed that US military power could be used to impose democracy on the Middle East.</p>
<p>From Mini:</p>
<p>“This is precisely what Clinton did. But he was shrewd enough to stop short of a military invasion.”</p>
<p>Uh, Mini, isn’t that really the whole point of much of the discussion about the Iraq War? It was a stupid war to have started. Shrewd are those who avoided doing so. </p>
<p>I hope you don’t mind if I point out how cockamamie it sounds to criticize someone for being shrewd enough to not invade and equating the non-invader with those who started the Iraq War. To resist invading Iraq was indeed a shrewd thing. To have invaded Iraq was a stupid misadventure.</p>
<p>In the case of war – this case – the President proposed, the Congress disposed. It’s really that simple. If Clinton (your War Criminal) was shrewd enough to resist doing exactly what Bush I also resisted doing, he should be praised for it, not criticized it.</p>
<p>Your logic is really rather sloppy, implying that inaction and action are really all the same.</p>
<p>“So why did we go into Iraq?”</p>
<p>Control of the oil pipelines, and establishment of permanent military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. On this,the neocons (Wolfowitz) didn’t lie. </p>
<p>"There is a substantive difference between sanctions and a sporadic bombing response to no-fly-zone violations and a ground invasion.:</p>
<p>No. Just escalation of same, after Clinton’s genocide had failed to bring about the desired changes. But there are substantive differences. One killed far, far fewer people. (The occupation is another story.)</p>
<p>"There are two key issues with pre Bush invasion Iraq intelligence:</p>
<p>a) We didn’t have reliable human intelligence operatives in Iraq (or elsewhere in the middle east)."</p>
<p>Yup. That’s exactly why Tenet and Co. had to make it up, and feed it to senators and congresspeople of both parties (but especially the Dems) prior to the Christmas bombings. That was the origin of the later “slam dunk”.</p>
<p>“The President proposes, the Congress disposes. It’s really that simple. If Clinton (your War Criminal) was shrewd enough to resist doing exactly what Bush I also resisted doing, he should be praised for it, not criticized it.”</p>
<p>I don’t praise individuals who preside over genocides larger than that which occurred in Rwanda-Burundi, much as I don’t praise Idi Amin (who killed far fewer, anywhere from only a tenth to a third as many). I met too many Iraqis with dead children. (Some feel differently.)</p>
<p>Well, Mini, then I suppose you stood against the invasion of Iraq in the first place. I would not argue that there weren’t a lot of deaths in Iraq during the Clinton years. I would argue that Clinton was extending the state of affairs that he inherited when he won his first presidential election. Remember, he wasn’t in power when we went to war against Iraq the first time.What happened during that time (the time of sanctions) reflected the difficulty of maintaining sanctions when the world begins to see the human effect of them. But remember what started it in the first place: Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and over time during the sanctions regime he was getting more and more ornery about the sanctions regime that was imposed on him. Equating Clinton with Idi Amin or the Radical Hutus of Rwanda is uselessly hyperbolic, not perhaps in terms of numbers of people who died, but as a meaningful analogy for what was done and for what reasons.</p>
<p>And anyway, why don’t you stop grinding on it and look at what is happening now? Do you read the number of deaths everyday in Iraq?</p>
<p>At this point, seeing no useful options in Iraq that we can effect sustainably to set the country on a better path, I say it’s us for ourselves now: let’s pull out and just pray that there isn’t as bad a bloodbath as there is likely to be. And this bloodbath, by the way, would occur whether we pulled out now or 5 years from now, in my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No it wasn’t. The so-called “slam-dunk” consisted of three elements:</p>
<p>a) The Niger yellowcake: The initial meetings that were falsely characterized as being yellowcake sale discussions didn’t even take place until June 1999. The forged documents that served as the basis for the Niger yellowcake “intelligence” were not turned over to the US diplomats until 2002.</p>
<p>b) Aluminum tubes: These were not even ordered until late 2000 or early 2001 through a Jordanian trading company. The first shipment was dated May 26, 2001.</p>
<p>c) Mobile bio labs: The intelligence from “Curveball” (the alcoholic, unreliable source discounted by German intelligence) didn’t even start until 2000 - 2001.</p>
<p>This stuff was all fed to the neocons (and later Feith’s off the books Defense Department intelligence group) through Rumsfeld and Cheney’s boy, Chalabi who had been working the neocons at AEI and elsewhere for several years.</p>
<p>Was there concern about Sadaam restarting a nuke program during the Clinton years? Of course. That’s why there were off and on UN inspectors. But, there was a quantitative escalation of (false) intelligence through the Defense Department in the early days of the Bush administration and plenty of intelligence experts who questioned the reliabiity of this evidence all the way up to the highest levels of the government. For example, State and CIA sent one of the aluminum tubes they acquired to Oak Ridge where our own uranianium enrichment experts said that the tubes would not work in enrichment centrifuges.</p>
<p>All the things that interesteddad said with regard to the origin of “slam dunk” are true. Another factor is that George Tenet himself was a syncophant who wanted to keep his job and be a yes man; he didn’t listen to the consensus of his own analysts.</p>
<p>There was supposed concern the entire time of the Clinton administration about WMDs (despite the fact that they’d long been destroyed). That was one of the reasons they used in expanding the sanctions. But the point was not to get rid of the WMDs (and it wasn’t for Bush either) but to overthrow Saddam Hussein and, by doing, establish U.S. control over the oil pipelines, and make way for permanent U.S. military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. Same goals as Wolfowitz, et al. </p>
<p>“Clinton was extending the state of affairs that he inherited when he won his first presidential election. Remember, he wasn’t in power when we went to war against Iraq the first time.What happened during that time (the time of sanctions) reflected the difficulty of maintaining sanctions when the world begins to see the human effect of them.”</p>
<p>No. If you read the work of Denis Halliday (now Swarthmore prof, I believe), you’d come to opposite conclusion. The sanctions imposed by Clinton were quite specific - against shipments of antibiotics, simple medical equipment, anti-diarrheals, water treatment equipment. They were specifically aimed at the civilian population - NOT at the military, and not at Saddam Hussein. The aim was genocide, nothing less, as the impacts were not only foreseeable, but embraced (“we think it is worth it,” said Albright). </p>
<p>“Equating Clinton with Idi Amin or the Radical Hutus of Rwanda is uselessly hyperbolic, not perhaps in terms of numbers of people who died, but as a meaningful analogy for what was done and for what reasons.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t belittle it with “a lot of deaths”. A million deaths, half of them children (most under age 5), is not “a lot of deaths”. Clinton attempted and succeeded at killing a very, very large number of people for specific political ends (which might actually make him worse than Idi Amin who, from the little I know, was simply insane.) He knew what he was doing, and he knew the impact, and was prepared to continue it until called on the carpet by the Europeans. </p>
<p>“And anyway, why don’t you stop grinding on it and look at what is happening now? Do you read the number of deaths everyday in Iraq?”</p>
<p>I do - the result of a hostile and aggressive occupation, but not the war itself. But the war couldn’t accomplish the policy end (even with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) much as the Clinton genocide couldn’t - the U.S. still needs control of the oil pipelines, and permanent military bases. Had they dealt with Sistani in 2003, they could have had both. </p>
<p>Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after the Rumsfeld handshake had sanctioned the use of chemical weapons against Iran. Being the megalomaniac he was, I think he was surprised that the U.S. didn’t actually support him in doing so. </p>
<p>Be that as it may, the point is that while Iraq policy has evolved, it has been essentially bipartisan policy for almost 20 years, at the least. The Democratic and Republican aims were essentially the same; Clinton hoped to achieve them through genocide (and the military revolt), Bush through invasions. The “cooking of the intelligence books” began under Clinton, and continued (with the same director of the CIA, it must be remembered) under Bush. It wasn’t the neocons who said it was a slam dunk, it was George Tenet, a Clinton political appointee. The Dems bought it hook, line, and sinker.</p>
<p>“George Tenet himself was a syncophant who wanted to keep his job and be a yes man; he didn’t listen to the consensus of his own analysts.”</p>
<p>He knew what Clinton needed to cover his crimes; Bush, too.</p>
<p>Mini, we wouldn’t have had a war in Iraq if the Demos were in charge.</p>
<p>The aims of the democrats and republicans may have been the same, I don’t believe they were, but the democrats would not have given us this war.</p>
<p>The neocons want to transform the middle east into a society that looks more like us. It’s not just about oil. That also played a part in the war movement.</p>
<p>It’s a good point. The neocons put out as a goal “creating democracy in Iraq” - I don’t think the Dems or Clinton ever saw that as a goal. Whether the neocons actually believed it can be argued (I think some of them really did, and for some it was just rhetoric.)</p>
<p>No, I don’t think the dems would have gone to war (or at least not in 2003), or at least a ground invasion (remember, they did have a bombing campaign, as well as the genocide), though they were quite okay about supporting it, having been set up by the early cooked Clinton intelligence. I guess you (like most Americans) are more upset by war than by genocide, and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.</p>
<p>The big question for Dems (one that remains unspoken) is whether they are willing to abandon the Clinton/Bush goals of control of the pipelines, and the establishment of permanent military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I don’t think they’ve thought it through.</p>
<p>The reason this is all relevant is that it causes one to ask what are Democratic and Republican goals regarding Iran. Up until now, they have been “bipartisan” in seeking the overthrow of the Shia state, despite the repeated overtures from Iran, including support of the war against the Taliban, and refusal to harbor or support Al Qaeda. It may not matter, with the U.S. being toothless at this point, a ground war against Iran is unthinkable (Saddam Hussein couldn’t defeat a much, much weaker Iranian state even with the use of U.S.-sanctioned chemical weapons). There are better ways, starting by sending Carter to Iran, and having him get down on his knees and apologize to every torture widow.</p>
<p>“The big question for Dems (one that remains unspoken) is whether they are willing to abandon the Clinton/Bush goals of control of the pipelines, and the establishment of permanent military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I don’t think they’ve thought it through.”</p>
<p>I don’t think they’ve thought it through either.</p>
<p>I’m not thrilled with the war or genocide. I’m sick of countries selling weapons to other countries and then finding out that problems occur.</p>
<p>The fact that the demos would not have gone to war (in my opinion), and are quicker to see the war as a mistake (even if it is for political reasons), leads me to favoring the demos in this issue.</p>
<p>So I don’t see the republicans and the democrats as equivalent.</p>
<p>If my choice was Bill Clinton or George Bush for president, I would choose Clinton.</p>
<p>I would almost never choose Bush over anybody. I would choose Bush over Cheney. :)</p>
<p>I don’t think highly of Jimmy Carter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a Democrat in the Senate (I’m not including Joe Lieberman) who wants permanent military bases in Iraq. They want out.</p>
<p>Note: the exception to that sentiment is that, I assume, many of the Democrats would endorse the Brookings Institute’s policy recommendations for an all-out Iraq civil war following a US pull-out. Specifically, Brookings recommends the creation of humanitarian refugee camps, inside Iraq, along the Saudi and Syrian borders.</p>
<p>Abandon the pipelines, too? Hmmm.</p>