Yes, and if McCain is elected he will invade Iran.
Hard to say – but certainly a valid opinion.
The fact that America passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 – 2 years before this administration took office – certainly had an influence. This official US policy act basically called for the removal of Saddam – this act was passed during Bill Clinton’s last term in office.
After 9/11, the UN inspections fiascoes, the doctored and cherry picked intelligence, Saddam’s own history of using WMD’s against his own people and the fact that a democratically controlled Congress voted 77-23 to authorize an invasion – all of these things put the war machine into motion, and, like a snow ball gathering mass and speed on down a hill, it became inevitable that Iraq was the next target.
It would be very difficult to put an exact time line on the policy to attack Iraq – but it is known that both the CIA and the Pentagon were ill prepared for this war – so a lot of covert planning certainly wasn’t in play prior to 9/11.
It was certainly was on the to do list under Bush Jr and his handlers if he was elected. It was considered unfinished business from Daddy’s days as President. All that was needed was an excuse that would be acceptable to the American people. And that was the sticking point.
9/11 gave this administration the perfect excuse even though they knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.
It sure worked even though they had to mislead and lie to everyone.
Plans, probably not. Desire, definitely. Look at his speeches from before 9/11. he mentioned Iraq over a hundred times, Al-Queda and Bin Laden maybe once or twice (I forget the actual number. It may actually have been none). He had it in fro Saddam not because of any violations of UN sanctions or WMD programs, but because Saddam a) tried to have his father killed and b) helped cost his father the 1992 election by still being in power after we invaded. While that was the correct decision by George HW Bush, it was politically unpopular in the States. Along with the tanking economy, it helped make him a one-termer.
Yes. The neo-con think-group, Progress for the New American Century (PNAC), which numbered Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among its small membership, laid out plans to invade Iraq and establish bases to control oil production in the Middle East even before GWB was elected.
Of course they did. The President of the United States, in fact EVERY President, has contingency plans constantly being drawn up and modified by the pentagon to address any and all potential situations affecting the United States. One plan was most assuredly the invasion of Iraq. Hey, guess what! We also have a plan for the invasion of South Africa, Nigeria, Columbia and even Canada! Amazing, huh? But the question is, did he intend to implement that plan prior to 9/11 and the answer to that is ‘No’.
That was proven with the ‘Downing Street Memos’ that the Bush Administration was looking for excueses to invade Iraq from Day 1.
Formal plans, no. But Paul Wolfowitz and other Neocons were crusaidng for just such an invasion as soon as Guld War 1 ended. Unfortunately many of them got influential roles in the Bush Administration. As soon as 911 hit, they were all, “We’ve got to hit Saddam!”
Actual completed Plans… maybe not
Were there plans in the works…. definately… those plans were in constant development… there are also preliminary plans for Iran, Syria, Lebenon, Pakistan, N. Korea and many other countries we don’t considser as allies. I imagine we have some plans in case we need to go into Central Asia (China). Hopefully we don’t wait for something to happen before we think it through.
Plans or not… Bush set his gaze upon Iraq before he was elected.
Invade? We beat them in a war and they had surrender agreements! HELLO! Enforce the peace through force to get a maniac out of power. Don’t lose a war and get good peace conditions, BREAK THEM and then expect the victors to just let you do anything you please. Learn about the spoils of war. The American victory plans are unusual throughout war history.
There is evidence that supports that idea. There is more then enough evidence to make a strong case. Of course if you mention it then your accused of being a conspiracy theorist and after that no one will listen to anything you have to say. I have to admit I am impressed by that system. Our leaders can commit a wrong and anyone who bothers to even half way look can see it but our society is programmed to completely dismiss anyone who dares to point it out. Sort of the emperors new clothes in reverse.
I think so but having said that I know that anything more I say will be automatically dismissed by most. Now I can say water is wet and people will call it a nutty idea.