Monday, October 11, 2010

As if we didn't know - Ten years after


THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001


 
 
a hundred year plan

 
U.S. Sets "Decapitation of Government" As Early Goal of Combat
Talking Points for Rumsfeld-Franks Meeting in November 2001 Outline Policy Makers’ Aims for the Conflict and Postwar Rule of Iraq Declassified Documents Show Bush Administration Diverting Attention and Resources to Iraq Less than Two Months after Launch of Afghanistan War -
 
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 326
For more information contact:Joyce Battle - 202/994-7000 jbattle@gwu.edu
Washington, D.C., September 22, 2010 – Following instructions from President George W. Bush to develop an updated war plan for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks in November 2001 to initiate planning for the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government and the empowerment of a “Provisional Government” to take its place.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and President George W. Bush. (Source: Department of Defense)

Talking points for the Rumsfeld-Franks meeting on November 27, 2001, released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), confirm that policy makers were already looking for ways to justify invading Iraq – as indicated by Rumsfeld’s first point, “Focus on WMD.”

This document shows that Pentagon policy makers cited early U.S. experience in Afghanistan to justify planning for Iraq’s post-invasion governance in order to achieve their strategic objectives: “Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas in advance about who would rule afterwards.”

Rumsfeld’s notes were prepared in close consultation with senior DOD officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Among other insights, the materials posted today by the National Security Archive shed light on the intense focus on Iraq by high-level Bush administration officials long before the attacks of 9/11, and Washington’s confidence in perception management as a successful strategy for overcoming public and allied resistance to its plans.

This compilation further shows:

  • The preliminary strategy Rumsfeld imparted to Franks while directing him to develop a new war plan for Iraq

  • Secretary of State Powell’s awareness, three days into a new administration, that Iraq “regime change” would be a principal focus of the Bush presidency

  • Administration determination to exploit the perceived propaganda value of intercepted aluminum tubes – falsely identified as nuclear related – before completion of even a preliminary determination of their end use

  • The difficulty of winning European support for attacking Iraq (except that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair) without real evidence that Baghdad was implicated in 9/11

  • The State Department’s analytical unit observing that a decision by Tony Blair to join a U.S. war on Iraq “could bring a radicalization of British Muslims, the great majority of whom opposed the September 11 attacks but are increasingly restive about what they see as an anti-Islamic campaign”

  • Pentagon interest in the perception of an Iraq invasion as a “just war” and State Department insights into the improbability of that outcome


Rumsfeld’s instructions to Franks included the establishment and funding of a provisional government as a significant element of U.S. invasion strategy. In the end the Pentagon changed course and instead ruled post-invasion Iraq directly, first through the short-lived Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance and then through Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Today’s posting is the first of a three-part series of electronic briefing books detailing the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. This edition covers the critical first year of George W. Bush’s presidency. The following two – featuring newly available British government documents – will treat the question of whether the Bush administration ever seriously considered alternative strategies for Iraq and how the U.S. and Great Britain attempted to sell the war strategy to the world.


In addition to an analytical essay and the documents, today’s EBB includes two research aids – a detailed timeline and an illuminating collection of quotations from key individuals and government documents.




THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?




most certainly

U.S. and British Documents Give No Indication Alternatives Were Seriously Considered
 
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 328
Edited by John Prados and Christopher Ames
Posted - October 1, 2010
For more information contact: John Prados - 202/994-7000
 
Washington, D.C., October 1, 2010 – Contrary to statements by President George W. Bush or Prime Minister Tony Blair, declassified records from both governments posted on the Web today reflect an early and focused push to prepare war plans and enlist allies regardless of conflicting intelligence about Iraq’s threat and the evident difficulties in garnering global support.

Perhaps most revealing about today’s posting on the National Security Archive’s Web site is what is missing—any indication whatsoever from the declassified record to date that top Bush administration officials seriously considered an alternative to war. In contrast there is an extensive record of efforts to energize military planning, revise existing contingency plans, and create a new, streamlined war plan.

This electronic briefing book is the second of three to be posted by the National Security Archive that re-examine several aspects of the run-up to the war. The previous EBB covered the development of President Bush’s thinking during the first year of his presidency. This posting focuses on U.S. planning and preparations for action, and British deliberations over how to respond to the Bush administration, during 2002. It is accompanied by a separate analysis by Archive Senior Fellow John Prados and journalist Christopher Ames that reframes this critical period. The third part of this set will address a parallel effort to create political conditions conducive to carrying out an invasion of Iraq.

Among other findings from the documents, the posting’s editors conclude that the Bush administration sought to avoid the emergence of opposition to its actions by means of secrecy and deception, holding the war plan as a “compartmented concept,” restricting information even from allies like the United Kingdom, and pretending that no war plans were being reviewed by the president.

President Bush and his senior advisers were so intent on pursuing their project for war, the documents show, that they refused to be deterred by early and repeated refusals of cooperation from regional allies like Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt; or from traditional allies such as France and Germany.


Bush administration disdain for a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iraq’s potential for developing weapons of mass destruction is further evidenced, the editors conclude, in early resistance to a multilateral solution through the United Nations (UN), in a preference to substitute direct U.S. control for a UN monitoring regime, and in the difficulty encountered by both America’s closest ally, the United Kingdom, as well as the U.S. State Department, in inducing President Bush to agree to try a UN initiative.




THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate



duped by the axis of evil

U.S. and British Documents Show Transatlantic Propaganda Cooperation Joint Drafting & Editing of White Papers “Fixed the Facts”
 
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 330
Edited by John Prados and Christopher Ames
Posted - October 4, 2010
For more information contact:
John Prados - 202/994-7000
 
Washington, D.C., October 4, 2010 - For nearly a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair collaborated closely with the George W. Bush administration to produce a far starker picture of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) than was justified by intelligence at the time, according to British and American government documents posted today by the National Security Archive.  

With the aim of strengthening the political case for going to war, both governments regularly coordinated their assessments, the records show, occasionally downplaying and even eliminating points of disagreement over the available intelligence. The new materials, acquired largely through the U.K. Freedom of Information Act and often featuring less redacted versions of previously released records, also reveal that the Blair administration, far earlier than has been appreciated until now, utilized public relations specialists to help craft the formal intelligence “white papers” about Iraq’s WMD program. 

At one point, even though intelligence officials were skeptical, the British went so far as to incorporate in their white paper allegations about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions because they had been made publicly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

  • From early 2002 both governments were seeking regime change, but Prime Minister Blair and his officials were very conscious of the need to make a case for war, based on claims about Iraqi WMDs.

  • From March 2002 – the very beginning of the process – the U.S. and U.K. administrations were concerned to achieve consistency in their claims about Iraqi weapons, often at the cost of accuracy. In the spring of 2002 the two countries began to produce in parallel the white papers on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that they published that fall. At least two drafts of the respective white papers were exchanged from either side in order to avoid providing grist for “opponents of action.”

  • Officials working on the parallel papers took part in a number of secure video conferences to avoid inconsistencies between the documents. Both sides accelerated the drafting of their white papers in September 2002 as part of a coordinated propaganda effort.

  • Officials re-drafting the U.K.’s white paper or “dossier” in September 2002 were told to ensure that it “complemented” rather than contradicted claims in the U.S. document. A draft of the U.K. dossier was brought to Washington by intelligence chief John Scarlett for U.S. input.

  • In addition, U.K. officials examined the draft U.S. white paper closely and sought to match its claims. The U.S. paper has been described by one of its authors as intended “to strengthen the case of going to war with the American public.”

  • The U.K. white paper was amended to incorporate a number of claims about Saddam’s alleged nuclear ambitions that intelligence officials found questionable but were included because President Bush and Vice President Cheney made public reference to them, for example the allegation that Iraq could obtain a nuclear weapon within a brief one- or two-year timeframe.

  • The U.S. paper, which had omitted the same claims from an early draft, also included them after the President and Vice President’s public references to them.

  • In addition, the U.K. dossier was heavily influenced by Blair advisers and public relations experts, including Alastair Campbell, Blair’s director of communications. Its drafters were also willing to change it to fit in with public statements from British government advisers, whether or not those statements were true.


                                                  ________________________
As always I thank and appreciate GWU and the FOIA NS Archive

20 comments:

  1. Yes...as if we didn't already know.

    What do people want, confessions?

    They aren't "sure" the criminals are criminals despite overwhelming evidence unless there are 'confessions'???

    Like 9/11 like JFK; "We'll probably never know the truth," is this common refrain, AS IF the "government has to admit it is true" before we can figure the truth out for ourselves...
    jeeeeeze.

    It's a wonder most Amerikans can even tie their own shoes.

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  2. so they were planning for an invasion of Iraq since day one. We knew this.

    Could the masses have been sold on the invasion without 911? No way.

    So they knew 911 was coming. How did they know? They were planning it.

    Their "New Pearl Harbour" would give cover for a phony "War on Terror".

    I know we all are aware of this, just wanted to reitierate the basics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don'tcha kinda get a kick out of all this Camus? I mean it's like a sci fi movie, fikin surreal...anytime you might turn on TVNews it's an episode of the Twilight Zone.

    Since it's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I keep lookin' around for Dana Winters, what a hot yummy shebee. I gotta catch her before she fall asleep, I figured out a way to keep her awake all night (grin).

    But seriously folks. I was on the web right away the morining of 9/11. One of the first things I came across was a revealment of the Unical deal given to the 'Taliban' in July of 2001>> "Either accept the offer and enjoy a carpet of gold, or reject it and enjoy a carpet of bombs."

    This had to do with the pipeline deal...they were already amassing troops for the invasion months in advance to the "New Pearl Harbor".

    Now let us all get on our knees and quiver over the looming Sharia Laws about to decapitate us...surely the Crimson King will save our sorry ass.

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  4. I estimate somewhere around 1991. The Bush Box gang and Clinton plan to start the official WOT. Clinton working the homeland terrorist and Bush Sr. on the foreign front.

    The 1993 WTC was a trial run as was the future OK City, Ruby Ridge and Waco events. A merging of ideologies to connect the two and still merging the two groups.

    What do they have in common? Deep rooted religious commitment. What do the terrorist committee have in common? Satanism and a deep rooted hatred for Gods children.

    Time to wake up to planned eugenics being beyond population and green agenda as it has nothing to do with that. But as the WOT was created in the dialectic, so goes the eugenics Genesis 6 agenda.

    As the Strawmen of Hussein, Osama, Koresh, and all the other MK-fantasies go, so goes the green beast. What GW fraud and all the other bullshit point to is really the dust bunny under the bed. That is death, torture and suffering which are the fuel for their very exisitence.

    Vaccines, Depleted Uranium, Pharma, Chemtrails, Food and Water doused with a barage of media and EM poisoning is working just fine. What is so spectacular about this is that American mutton are so anesthesized as not to realize they have been under a soft kill terror attack for twenty years.

    What chance do they have? LESS THAN ZERO.

    Someone asked me" Why would they kill themselves too by doing all these soft kill pogroms?" I just have to say that they are already dead.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wondering at what other sites my fellow COTO peeps have enjoyed stimulating debates re: 911

    I would really appreciate you guys(willy, Patrick, everybody) stopping by at democraticunderground.com

    I've been banned under 3 names. Now both my computers are tagged, I guess.

    In the "lobby" they have a 911 room.

    Infested with the most annoying bunch of Official Fairy Tale apologists u can imagine.

    They gang up on truthers and try to imply their numerical advantage proves something.

    I know I should just forget them, but like a junky, its hard to break the habit....but then I read something ridiculous and.....aahhhrrrgggghhh....cannot respond.

    So, please, consider dropping by. It's pretty easy to join.

    In return I would be glad to visit sites you may have run across that are likewise in need of more Truth.

    Finding sites that A) allow any discussion thereof and B) are not all Truther or all Liars....is not so easy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well hey thar Camus,

    I'll be glad to go take a look see. If it is as dumb as SodaHead....I kaint promise an attendance.

    Yea...I'd like a some to come on here and challenge us from time to time, not yuk joints, but something actually challenging.

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  7. A good explanation of why the sheeple continue to graze is this example from Chris Hedges latest article:

    "For a considerable length of time the normality of the normal world is the most efficient protection against disclosure of totalitarian mass crimes," Hannah Arendt wrote in "The Origins of Totalitarianism." "Normal men don't know that everything is possible, refuse to believe their eyes and ears in the face of the monstrous. ... The reason why the totalitarian regimes can get so far toward realizing a fictitious, topsy-turvy world is that the outside non-totalitarian world, which always comprises a great part of the population of the totalitarian country itself, indulges in wishful thinking and shirks reality in the face of real insanity. ..."


    Hmmmm "normal men don't know everything is possible."

    Well guys, I think that explains why we are coto and they're not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry Camus, I just don't like the format or the quality of the posters I saw there.
    Reminds me of SodaHead, playing jax on the sidewalk with chalk and chewing bubble gum.

    Tell you what, go to James Randi's site JERF or something like that. Here you will be confronted with what I can only call, 'Fanatical Scientism'--academically programmed dogmatic zumbuts. You will also find their game is rigged with dog-piling and clusterfucking.

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Are we not men? We are coto..."

    Now you got that Devo song goin'round my brain...Lol

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  10. I haven't recovered from Kattle Kall circus yet. I don't think I'm up to it CR.

    See like JG said in the post below, they got nothing. Self loathing blue pill heads bashing the right and they can't see even the slightest hole they are in. HuffPooPoo, OPED spews just did me in bro.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As per Patrick's last post,

    It is my inner counsel that tells me that I am to bear witness.
    This, what I do here is my testament.

    The wheel of fate driven by cause and effect has a predictable outcome...the circle limit manifested in bindings of convoluted error compounded exponentially. A totally bound system freezes up. "The center cannot hold, things fall apart".

    The system is a psychoshank radiating and infecting all in its range. Critical mass will be reached--the signs abound.

    Perhaps if we were to accept this as our rightful position--that what we do here as witnesses to this era is a most worthwhile endeavor.
    I think the work and effort puts into this is most highly praiseworthy. What more can be asked of one person?
    No, the light still shines from Patrick, he's not "burnt out".

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  12. “The center cannot hold, things fall apart” - like the theory of angular momentum, skaters closest to the center are barely moving while those at the end of the chain flail wildly about. My immediate sphere of home and family makes sense, but moving outward its a bizzaro world run amok.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter that sums it up for me too. My family is what keeps me sane and also keeps me vigilant. I want them to live the life they deserve not what I see coming at them like a devastating tornado. If it weren't for the ones I love, I wouldn't give a damn about what's happening here. I'm ready to face the storm but I don't want them to have to endure it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually after I wrote it Will, it reminded me of "I'm Chevy Chase and you're not!" lol

    ReplyDelete
  15. Camus I've been round that track way too many times. It does become an addiction. However, after years of it, you tend to just throw your hands up and wallk away from such arguments.

    Those people are either total idiots, govt plants or ostrichs with their heads in the sand who refuse to do their own research because they are too afraid of what they will find. These people are unreachable. The only ones worth discussing 9/11 with are the fence sitters who have doubts and are willing to listen. I'm wondering though, how many of those can possibly be left now?

    ReplyDelete
  16. COTO {re}searchers: in my estimation there is tremendous value in the service we perform for humanity. That is...applying critical thinking skills and common sense applications to the world swirling around us.

    Apparently, much of mankind is no longer capable or interested in "knowing what there is to know" about their world and how it works. The inquiring process we participate in and share, is like planting "seed corn" in the minds of our fellows. We do not know where and when it will sprout and grow into the nourishing food folks must have to eat and survive; but we are sure that they must have it or die of starvation, soft kill, brain blight, or other freedom killing manifestations.

    Especially in our families, children, friends, and culture we should be concerned for their welfare. If not us...who? I have witnessed astounding close-mindedness and truth-illiteracy in those close to me. Common sense seems to have escaped their DNA...or something. I have no explanation. It is befuddling and frustrating. That doesn't mean I stop my own work of educating myself or them whenever possible.

    Once an individual achieves COTO awareness they can never stick their head in the sand again unless they cop out on what it is to be a sentient being.

    Yes, we all get older everyday and hopefully smarter and wiser. But the next generation must not be left in the 'dark ages' so to speak -- baffled by the bull shit. Interestingly, COTO truth does not grow in bull shit fertilizer. It pulls the nutrients it needs out of fresh air, clean water, and a pure environment unpolluted by propaganda and mind control.

    So, we're it brothers and sisters. Truth seekers sharing the seeds of knowledge acquired by rigorous digging. That quote about Truth being revolutionary in an insane world (or something to that effect) hold true.

    We don't want to be lumped with the insane lumpen oblivious to their scripted fate.

    Spread the corn. KornisKing. Not jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am -- stuck in the middle again. Ignorance is piss, not bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great comments here this morning. JG,Pudster,Boom...

    I just recieved an email from a woman I had about a three week discussion with a couple of months ago.
    She had followed my argument up to a point, and suddenly, she bolted...was frightened by what was coming into focus. She ended with some lollipop final message making it clear the conversation was no longer welcome, it was put gently. I said fine--that was it.


    The email I got from her today began; "I am beginning to see what you mean..." she added an article she was reading that began with pointed reference to HEGEL, the dialectic and it's ongoing synthesis.

    A sprout...from seeds planted some time ago. Just shows to go ya {grin}

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fortes fortuna adiuvat

    \\ll//

    ReplyDelete