Saddam options 'discussed a year before Iraq war'

[sabra]

Source: UK Independent

British officials privately discussed the prospect of "regime change" in Iraq in late 2001 - more than a year before the invasion - the Iraq War inquiry was told today.

Giving evidence on the first day of public hearings, Sir William Patey, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official, said the idea of ousting Saddam Hussein had been discussed in an internal FCO paper.

...

The inquiry heard that even in early 2001, elements of the new US administration of President George Bush were already discussing the possibility of "regime change" in Iraq.

Sir Peter Ricketts, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), said there was concern in both London and Washington that the strategy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was "failing".

...

He said that if the 9/11 attacks had not happened, Britain would continued to have pursued its policy of strengthening sanctions through the UN Security Council.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/saddam-options-discussed-a-year-before-iraq-war-1826635.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. long before that

people have short memories. It was all about countries' interests in Iraq's national resources and position in the ME and they are interested in Iran's too. The US and UK were pals with Saddam Hussein. Rent a Shah.

[Sinti]

2. Long before that - before 2000 they were already pushing

This letter was written to President Clinton on January 26, 1998 from the PNAC persons signed below.

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.

**snip**

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.

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

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

[sabra]

3. from the article: "He said that if the 9/11 attacks had not happened..."

kind of like a Pearl Harbor type of even mentioned in the PNAC letter...

[Sinti]

4. When Bush was elected

my household said collectively, and nearly simultaneously, we're going to war in Iraq. The Brits have long been an army that attacks for purposes of resource acquisition - Iraq has strategic oil reserves, I'm sure they realize why they're there - Big Oil wanted them, without having to pay the price they would have been charged.

The "oil benchmark" legislation, signed by our Congress, stated that Iraq will be considered non-cooperative and we will continue killing people until they privatize this oil and give it to our corporations. There's no reason to believe we went there for anything else, or would have hesitated to go there without 9/11, they simply would have found a different reason. Reasons for war are always bull$#1!.

It was a Pearl Harbor type event, as called for in the The Rebuilding America's Defenses paper:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

edited for typo

[Raster]

5. Boy-oh-boy, that 9/11 Pearl Harbor-type event sure opened the floodgates.

It is *amazing* how many national policies in the US and Britain were contingent on that "event." It's almost like certain parties had vested interests or something...