Iraq II:The Road to War (Again)

No link between Iraq and Al Qaeda

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/ns/us_news-security/t/report--iraq-link-refuted-days-after-attack/#.T65dwOg7WAg

So why did we attack and occupy

Iraq?

PNAC 1: The Project for a New American Century

On the fifth floor of the building of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington are the offices of the Project for a New American Century, the group that in the 1990s developed what , would become President George W. Bush’s foreign policy plans. Its members were all neoconservative, or “Neocons” who shared an ambitious plan for America in the 2000s.

PNAC 2: The Players

“[George W. Bush’s] Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with [Bush’s foreign policy team such as] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

PNAC 3: The Plan

According to the Neocons, to make America secure in the 2000s, the plan was to:

• Create “regime change” (take out old leaders and put in different ones) in countries with unpopular leaders who do not support the US—especially in the oil-rich Middle East. (It was strongly suggested that Iraq would be first, and Iran would be next.)

• Use the wars needed for regime change to establish a permanent US military presence in the Middle East (Especially in countries with a lot of oil.)

• Plan on being greeted warmly as liberators by grateful citizens of these nations for getting rid of their hated leaders.

PNAC 4:The Problem

However, the neocons agreed in the PNAC report, that getting both Americans’ and the world’s approval of wars for “regime change” would be nearly impossible “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.“

(PNAC)

PNAC 5: The Chance

According to General Wesley Clark and others, as early as the evening of September 11, 2001—just hours after the attacks—President Bush ordered members of his staff to somehow link the attacks to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19255

Prelude to a War 1:The reasons…Between September 2001 and 2003, Bush and Vice President Cheney gave the following reasons (see next slide) why the US needed to invade Iraq even though we had not yet captured Osama bin Laden or stabilized Afghanistan.

Every single one of these stated reasons turned out to be false…knowingly false. (See handout “14 Appalling Lies…)

Prelude to a War 2:The “Reasons” for War

This is what the American public was told. None of it turned out to be true.

• Iraq possessed, and was making and hiding “Weapons of Mass Destruction”—chemical, biological and nuclear weapons,

• Saddam Hussein was actively trying to buy materials for nuclear weapons,

• Iraq had the capability of attacking the United States without warning, and was probably planning to do so,

• Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and supported terrorist attacks on the US,

• Saddam Hussein supported and had connections to Al-Qaeda,

• The Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and support an invasion.

Prelude to a War 3:American Support

Despite a strong protest movement, the war was generally popular as Americans believed the President and were terrified of more attacks so soon after 9/11.

The rest of the world was strongly against the US and its allies’ invasion of Iraq…especially as Iraq had not directly threatened the US.