"Secret" Air Base for Iraq War started prior 9-11

This is great investigative work, and further evidence that Bush and the neocons were planning pre-emptive military action long before September 11th, and no matter what WMD intelligence revealed--Chris

With a small ceremony on April 26, 2003, control of Prince Sultan Air Base was handed back to the government of Saudi Arabia. Since the mid-nineties it had been the premier US air base in the region and the nerve center for all air force operations in the Gulf.  As the home of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), the base was the primary command and control facility responsible for orchestrating the air campaigns for both Operation Southern Watch in Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.  

The timing of the closing of PSAB seemed odd, coming just weeks after the official start of military actions in Iraq.  It should have, at the very least, caused unwanted logistical problems for the Pentagon and regional commanders, but it didn't. A contingency plan had long been in the works, not only for Prince Sultan Air Base, but also for the entire map of the Middle East, including Iraq.

Long before the US pullout, a new home for the operations had secretly been built in the deserts of Qatar.  What had been in October 2001 "nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses", the Al Udeid Air Base was transformed in a few short months into one of the largest air bases in the world.  

Published reports and official DOD statements claimed that the amazing transformation was the result of the heroic response of US servicemen to the tragedy of 9-11.  A determined military had beaten indeterminate odds to transform a barren wasteland into a state of the art military base in order to "take the war to the terrorists".

The true story of the building of Al-Udeid is actually quite different. The planning for the mammoth base had in fact taken place long before Sept. 11, and actual work on the base began as early as the spring of 2001. The building of Al Udeid turns out not to be a "miracle in the desert" in response to a heinous attack, as touted by the military, but rather a required step on the path to regime change in Iraq.

It has long been accepted knowledge that the Bush Administration was working feverishly towards regime change in Iraq during the 18-month period between 9-11 and the official start of the war in March of 2003. The Downing St Minutes confirmed that the Administration was set on a path to war at least as early as mid-summer of 2002. The accounts of Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke verified that Iraq was a front burner issue for the Administration from the very first day, and only intensified after the attacks. Yet finding hard evidence to prove that planning for the war in Iraq was taking place prior to 9-11 has been hard to find. A look at the building of Al Udied can provide that evidence.


THE BUILDING OF AL-UDEID (THE OFFICIAL STORY)

According to published reports, the groundwork for what would become Al-Udeid Air Base was first laid at a cost of over one billion dollars in 1996 in an attempt by the Qatari government to lure the American military to set up shop in the small Gulf nation.  At the time it was built, Qatar had not yet acquired as much as a single airplane to call the base home. Although they would later purchase an air force comprised of 12 French Mirage fighter jets, they would never actually station them at Al-Udeid. They were simply playing a waiting game, hoping that eventually the volatile nature of the region would bring the Americans knocking at their door. The Qatari's gamble paid off with the events of Sept. 11. In response to the attacks, the US presence in the region needed to increase exponentially. By Sept. 29, 2001, according to the official records, the first military teams arrived to begin looking the base over in preparation for Operation Enduring Freedom.

On October 2, 2001 a rapid-response team of civil engineers, the 823rd RED HORSE Squadron whose specialty is to repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas, arrived. According to the accounts of the 823rd, the Qatar base "was nothing more than a runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses". Since there was no room in the warehouses for the RED HORSE airmen to sleep, they moved into an expandable shelter on the flightline and lived and worked out of there

They had come to begin the largest construction project ever undertaken by a RED HORSE team; a $9.1 million military construction project that consisted of building a 1,240- foot by 630-foot concrete ramp with taxiways, shoulders and lighting. While waiting for funding and approval for the ramp project, the RED HORSE troops spent two months doing other base projects, like building the operations center and helping set up the tent city. Finally in January 2002 ramp construction began. The completed ramp, as big as 8 football fields, was finished in late March.

As March 2002 began, the airfield was still classified as "Secret".


Only a handwritten "Army Camp" sign marked its entrance. By the middle of the month, several thousand new American troops were now stationed at the base. Many of these troops were supporting the large complement of US aircraft, which included F-16 fighters, JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft, and KC-10, KC-130 and KC-135 aerial tankers. The rapid growth of the base made Qatar's Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani decide he had to let his people know about extent of the American presence in their country. It was agreed that the best way to announce the presence of the base was to have Vice President Cheney visit on March 17, 2002.

Within ten days of Cheney's visit, reports were coming out of Saudi Arabia that the US was moving communications and computer equipment from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al-Udeid in anticipation of a base closing.  US military trucks had been seen leaving the base 50 miles south of Riyadh, and arriving at the border with Qatar in the second week of March. It was speculated that a move was being made in response to the Saudi government's refusal to allow air raids on Afghanistan to be launched from its soil. Additionally, in the event of a Saudi refusal to collaborate in a second phase of the US "war on terror" against Iraq, the move would be needed to allow the US to effectively conduct an air campaign.

At the time US central command spokesman, Major Ralph Mills confirmed the equipment movements but insisted they represented business as usual. Mills told reporters, "This is not uncommon. This is status quo. We are moving stuff from point A to point B, this is an ongoing process." Dick Cheney also denied there were any plans to close Prince Sultan AB, claiming no decision had made to change military positions with respect to Saudi Arabia.

By June of 2002 the work on the first phase Al Udeid was nearing completion.


The US military had quietly moved munitions, equipment and communications gear to the base from Saudi Arabia. The base was now home to 3,000 troops. A huge tent city had been erected with warehouses and miles of security barriers. Miles of freshly paved runways and acres of new aircraft parking ramps showed up on satellite imagery from the period.  Newly built hangers, munitions supply areas and control facilities had been hardened with concrete to withstand aerial attack, and the base now boasted the longest runway in the region at over 15,000 feet. It had become as one military analyst said; "The most capable base in the Gulf region."

On August 7, 2002


the Saudis announced that the US would no longer be allowed to fly combat missions in Iraq out of Prince Sultan Air Base in support of Operation Southern Watch. The Saudi decision had no effect on US war plans by that time, as Al Udeid was more than prepared to pick up where the Saudis had left off. A year later, Prince Sultan was closed after all Command and Control was moved to Al Udeid.





 A HIDDEN HISTORY OF AL-UDEID  (PAVING THE ROAD TO WAR IN IRAQ)

As the Bush Administration came to power in January 2001, the sound of war drums began beating along the Potomac. Numerous accounts from the period tell of an increased emphasis on the need for regime change in Iraq. As the political wing of the administration worked on setting the stage for policy change, the military began to deal with the practicalities of waging war. With the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia in general, and the possible need replace Prince Sultan AB in particular; the DOD began to make moves to find a replacement.    

Since the first Gulf War, the US had had limited military agreements with Qatar. In 1992, a Defense Cooperation Agreement was signed that permitted "access and prepositioning" of US assets in the country. In November, 1995 another agreement to host "several Air Expeditionary Force deployments" was reached. Yet as of 2000, Al Udeid had been mostly ignored, but that was about to change.  

In 2000 the US planned to to use Al-Udeid as a munitions storage facility


according to The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) 2000 report released in the fall of that year.

ICBL Report 2000: Qatar

Additionally, based on U.S. Air Force plans for its war reserve ammunition stockpiles in the Persian Gulf region, U.S. Gator antipersonnel mines, as well as Claymore mines, may be introduced and stockpiled at the Al Udeid area in Qatar in the near future. U.S. Air Force documents indicate that the Al Udeid storage facility will eventually contain 142 CBU-89 Gator mine systems, each with twenty-two antipersonnel mines, and 141 M18/M18A1 Claymore mines

The ICBL 2001 report, which was completed just prior to 9-11 confirmed that the munitions storage plan had in fact gone into effect. Located in the remote desert region of Qatar, Al-Udeid was a perfect candidate for this kind of usage. But munitions storage facility would not last long. As the Bush administration came to power they had new plans for the air base, plans that would clear the path to war with Iraq.

By March 2001 the Air Force began investigating moving operations to the Al-Udeid.

According to a Congressional report given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the airfield was now being looked at as potential US base. In his annual Allied Contributions to the Common Defense Report , Rumsfeld stated:

"Since November 1995, Bahrain and Qatar have both hosted several Air Expeditionary Force deployments in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH, and the United States Air Force recently established a limited prepositioning facility at Qatar's Al-Udeid Airbase and is investigating moving to the airfield. Qatar also hosts prepositioned U.S. Army assets at As-Saliyah."

This was the first time the use of Al-Udied as a potential base for US air operations was officially acknowledged. Back in April 2000, then Defense Secretary William Cohen had been asked about the use of Al-Udeid at a press conference in Kuwait. He acknowledge that he had "discussed ways in which Al-Udeid may be used in the future, in a crisis situation" with the Qataris, but no agreement could be reached. Obviously the new administration had more luck with the Qatari negotiations then its predecessors.

In June 2001 communications capabilities were completed at Al Udeid


According to his online biography archived at a website for those who had served at Prum Air Station in Germany, Bill Goodman (USAF Ret) states that communications work began at Al Udeid sometime before June 2001. Towards the end of his long and distinguished military career, Goodman says that while working for Air Force Central Command, he oversaw the installation of "communications capability" at Al Udeid in the spring.

"In June of 1996 ...I accepted a position on the United States Central Command Air Forces Staff. I was a Project Manager and Communications Systems Manager for Southwest Asia. I got to spend much time traveling throughout the Middle East. Most significant, and my last official duty in the Air Force was that I was project manager for an initial communications capability at Al Udeid Air Base in QATAR. I completed everything in June of 2001 and am pretty proud of what I helped accomplish there and feel like I made a difference."

Around the same period, Alaswar Technology Group Co (aka.Al-Aswar Electronic) of Hawally Kuwait supplied and installed two "60 foot guy masts, microwave dishes and allied works" in Qatar; one at the Saliyah Army Base, the other at Al-Udeid. Whether these communication dishes were part of the work Bill Goodman was doing cannot be known. What is known is that the US military had personnel working at Al-Udied long before the Sept 29, 2001 date always claimed to be the first time US servicemen set foot at the base.

In the Summer of 2001 construction contracts for the airbase began to go out for bids.


By the summer of 2001 plans to expand Al Udeid into a large-scale installation were well under way. The bidding process for contracts to do the work had all ready begun.

On August 9, 2001 bids went out for a "contractor owned-contractor operated" fueling station for both fighter and cargo planes as well as a diesel and automotive gasoline facility for ground vehicles. Also in the bid was a fueling station for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles and a commercial tank truck receiving facility.  

COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 13, 2001 PSA #2913


SOLICITATIONS

X -- COCO SITE AT AL UDEID

Notice Date

August 9, 2001

Contracting Office

Defense Logistics Agency,
Logistics Operations,
Defense Energy Support Center,
8725 John J. Kingman Road,
Fort Belvoir, VA, 22060-6222

Solicitation Number

SP0600-01-R-0117

Response Due

October 5, 2001

Description

COCO Site at AL Udeid, Qatar 1. An aircraft hydrant fuel system capable of servicing both fighter and cargo aircrafts. 2. Approximately 72,000 barrels of JP8 storage capacity. 3. A ground products dispensing facility for Diesel Fuel and Automotive Gasoline. 4. A truck fill stand capable for mobile aircraft refueling vehicles. 5. A commercial tank truck receiving facility (i.e. tank truck off loading heads).

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010813/XSOL001.HTM (D-221 SN50U5O6)

(Contact info edited)

On Sept 7, 2001, according to company news releases, a contract was awarded GSCSGulf to build "administration facilities, a worker break room, ablution facilities, an outside storage area, a loading dock, FMSE facility, and a generator run up." Later in the month GSCSGulf was awarded two contracts farmed out from DynCorp. One was for a Fuel Receiving Point, the other for a Bulk Fuel Storage facility. "The projects (were) to be built under expedited construction schedules in order to ensure fuel systems (were) in-place for incoming USAF tanker squadrons deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom."


Although the press release from the 30th of September mentions "Operation Enduring Freedom", bidding on the contract had to have been completed long before that date. As the release states GSCSGulf had won the contracts from DynCorp, one must assume they competed for them.

GSCS Chosen to Build WRM Support Facilities


(7 September 2001) GSCS has won a contract to simultaneously construct 10 minor construction projects in support of the US Air Force War Reserve Material (WRM) program at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Individual projects include: administration facilities, worker break room, ablution facilities, outside storage area, loading dock, FMSE facility, generator run up

DynCorp Selects GSCS to Construct USAF Fuel Systems


(30 September 2001) GSCS has won two contracts with DynCorp International for the construction of a Fuel Receiving Point and a Bulk Fuel Storage Point, both at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The projects are to be built under expedited construction schedules in order to ensure fuel systems are in-place for incoming USAF tanker squadrons deployed as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

GSCSGulf was awarded two more contracts during this period. Both had been won competitively, hence bids had been taken. Although it is impossible to know how the events of 9-11 affected the bid review and acceptance process, even under expedited conditions it seems highly unlikely that any but the last contract would have been initiated after 9-11 given the DOD's usual 60 to 120 day turn around time.

GSCS Wins Tent-City Site Preparation Contract


(3 October 2001) GSCS has been competitively awarded a contract for the emergency preparation of 61 acres of outside open area in support of a US Air Force tent city to be erected at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar. Work includes: excavation, backfilling, soil compaction, trenching for electrical cables, application of rock aggregate, construction of drainage ditches, access roads with culverts, parking areas, interior access corridors and perimeter earth berms.

GSCS Wins RMS Contract for USAF Aircraft Parking Apron Materials


(28 December 2001) Readiness Management Support L.C. has competitively awarded GSCS a contract for the rapid supply of base course aggregate (42,184 metric tons) and sub-base aggregate (73,482 metric tons) in support of construction of a new US Air Force concrete aircraft-parking apron at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar.





October 2001 satellite images showed extensive work had already been completed at Al-Udeid


The Oct 2001 images of runways, structures and roads show an air base far more advanced than the official story would have us believe, revealing that the base was certainly more than one month old. If this construction was part of the original Qatari project, or new US additions cannot be known. What is known is that the base was not "a simple runway and a field of sand covered by two-dozen tents and a few warehouses". Satellite images from Jan 2002, and the following June, show the rapidity with which base was completed. The clock on war with Iraq was running, and the military was in a race to beat that clock.

THE ROAD TO WAR WAS PAVED WITH PROPAGANDA

As any chess player can attest, the game is most often won or lost in the first few moves. The Bush Administrations plan for regime change in Iraq was much like a chess game, each piece needed to be in place before the gambit. Although the grand schemes were hatched in the plush offices of right wing think tanks and corporate boardrooms, the heavy lifting was done by simple pawns in the hot deserts of the Southwest Asia, long before the first rumbles of shock and awe were ever heard.

Able to use the smoldering embers of the World Trade Center as a canard to sell a "global" war on terror to not only the American people, but to those who would fight it, the Administration was able to cover their tracks with a web of misinformation. Al-Udeid was never intended as a frontline in a war against the terrorists of 9-11. It was planned as the frontline for something far different; the "War on Terror", which was nothing more then a clever repackaging of the plans for Iraqi regime change that began with the first Gulf War.

The level of misinformation can be illustrated with a simple story coming from the building of Al Udeid:

According to the official DOD history of Al Udeid, the first fatality of Operation Enduring Freedom was a civil engineer, Master Sgt. Evander Earl "Andy" Andrews who died on Oct. 10, 2001 in a construction accident. To honor Andrews, the sprawling tent city at Al-Udeid was christened "Camp Andy". The story of "Camp Andy" is oft told in press accounts about the base and is a cornerstone in the façade of the official account.

Left out of the official story is the fact that since the existence of the base was classified at the time, the military initially announced only that the fatality occurred somewhere in "Southwest Asia", and his parents waited months to find out what had really happened to their son.

Just as Master Sgt. Andrews parents were not told the truth about their sons' death in Qatar, the American people were never told about the planning and execution of the war in Iraq. The history of the building of AL Udeid demonstrates that the Military planners were on a path to war long before the events of that fateful September morning "changed everything".

This is the first in a three part series by the IRAQFACT working group on military activities prior to Congressional approval for war



Display:


Great work. (none / 0)

Recommended. Well done :-)
by afs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:35:38 AM EST

Thank you (none / 0)

For taking the time to read this. It is my belief that the best way to catch Bush and his friends in their lies is not to listen to their words, but rather follow their actions

Recently much time has been spent trying to uncover evidence as to when this or that decision was made, or "who said what to whom and when".

Although I believe that that line of reasoning is quite valid, and will in fact eventualy yield results, I think that actions really do speak louder than words, and uncovering those actions is another vital path to the truth.

If we look at the actions of the Administration, particularly in regards to what they did militarily prior to the war, we will see clearly that the plans were put in motion long before 9-11, WMD, or any of the other false excuses that were given

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good work . .. BUT . . . (3.00 / 2)

It's not really a surprise or even exceedingly relevant.

One of the secondary goals of the Iraq War was to end most of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia.  The US had become uncomfortable with the militancy there, and the Saudis saw it as an irratant that would eventually trigger civil war (because they're under the misapprehension that the Saud family isn't the problem).

Plus, let's face facts: the minute Al Gore conceded the 2000 election, every man woman and child on this planet knew we were going to attack Iraq.

It wasn't a secret.  It was the subtext of half of the foreign policy discussion during the Gore-Bush debates.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:00:18 AM EST

Sorry, but I refuse to accept that (3.00 / 1)

That's the BS that the GOP is trying to sell the M$M now that their motives have been exposed by the DSM.

The American People never would have accepted a war in Iraq had they not watched the WTC collapse replays 24/7 and ben told by Bush in a State of the Union address that they had evidence that Iraq was preparing nuclear weapons.

There was one thing and one thing only that moved the American people into a willingness to invade Iraq. The threat of a mushroom cloud over American soil from a nuke detonated by Saddam.

by afs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry, but I refuse to accept that (none / 0)

Recommended but ...

Look, you can blame the Republicans or face the facts: The plan for invading Iraq was hatched way before Sept. 11 and way before Bush was elected.

In fact, it was during the Monica situation, when Clinton cooked up plans to invade Iraq. Don't you remember Bill Cohen, Madeline Albright, and Sandy Berger going on the "Invade Iraq Tour" to college campuses only to be booed each one, over and over again, by anti-war activists?

So, whether Gore won or Bush won, there was a good chance that Iraq was going to get it. Those are the facts. It was only after Bush stupidly went to war that Gore realized that the policy was fraudulent and foolish and he spoke out against it. But, in all honesty, all the political players - from both parties - wanted to invade for their own selfish and vicious reasons.

http://politizine.blogspot.com: A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music and modern times.
by politizine on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton wasn't dumb enough to enter Iraq quagmire (3.00 / 1)

Say what you want about Clinton being a political creature, but Clinton was never a stupid person. Clinton had already seen the potential for one quagmire in Somalia and got the hell out of there quick. Clinton refused to commit troops in Kosovo for the exact same reason. Clinton was not about to get himself in a situation with the quagmire potential that Iraq had. Bush doesn't read history. Clinton does. Clinton saw what a mess Iraq was for the British earlier in the century, and wanted no part of that.

There's 25 million people in Iraq. You need a WW2 level full mobilization to occupy a nation with that many people. Clinton saw that Iraq would be N. Ireland on a far more massive scale. RAND studies have always stated millions of troops would need to be available to successfully occupy a nation that big. Clinton wanted no part of a mess like that.

by afs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton wasn't dumb enough (none / 0)

So, are you suggesting that Clinton advocated it but didn't mean it? That is kind of a stretch. His advisors were floating the idea; they wouldn't have done that without approval from upstairs. Which means, however stupid Clinton wasn't, he was contemplating it. Period.
http://politizine.blogspot.com: A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music and modern times.
by politizine on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton never contemplated invading Iraq. (3.00 / 1)

Every single military action Clinton authorized in his Presidency demonstrates the exact opposite aspects in use of force by Clinton.

Clinton smelled quagmire in Somailia. Got out instantly. Clinton refused to authorize even a small force of troops to stop a real genocide in Rwanda. Clinton hemmed and hawwed on Bosnia until another genocide was almost completed there. Clinton still refused to send ground troops into Kosovo even though half of the leaders of Yugoslavia had war crimes indictments.

Clinton wanted NO PART of even small scale military entanglements. Clinton NEVER would have considered for a second to send a massive invasion force anywhere. Albright? Maybe. Clinton's SecDef? Republican Cohen? Yep. Berger? Maybe.

Maybe there was a little organized uprising at in the cabinet, and those three (probably lead by Cohen) decided to float the Iraq trial balloon themselves while Clinton was distracted. Clinton never approved it, and never would have considered it for a second, and sat on it immediately when those three went public with it.

by afs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton never contemplated invading Iraq. (3.00 / 1)

With regards to Somalia and Rwanda,
the Black Hawk Down disaster initiated the withdrawal from Somalia, and made Clinton far more reluctant to act in Rwanda.

Definitely, the biggest mistake of the Clinton Administration was the failure to act in Rwanda.
And the consequences were grave, to say the least.

by v2aggie2 on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 01:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Last point. Two words. Cole bombing (3.00 / 1)

Clinton had all the justification he needed for military adventurism in the Middle East when the USS Cole was bombed. Yemen would have been a much more managable occupation for the US military to conduct. Yemen is much more strategically located. Yemen has lot of oil to make the Texas oil boys happy. A Yemen invasion after the Cole bombing turns 2000 election into a coronation of Gore.

Clinton passed.

If Clinton passed on an invasion after a blatant provocation like the Cole bombing, Clinton never would have considered attempting a reach like an Iraq invasion.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/yemen.html

by afs on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good point (none / 0)

I never liked Clinton too much in office, and I certainly like him a lot more now.  I he always seemed like a corporatist bastard, and he didn't have enough sense to keep his stuff where it goes.  He also payed for that particular mistake about 1M times over.  In retrospect, I have a lot more respect for what he did, and some decisions he made.

That being said, I have to agree that now I see what afs sees: a politically astute man who weighed what was right against what was politically advantageous, and pretty much stayed away from major military efforts.

But I'm pretty sure that Clinton would have considered such a plan. I agree that he would never act on it.  He just seemed to consider everything in a near machiavellian manner, but was extremely selective in his actions as public figure.

So I can believe that there were plans being made, but in no way does that mean that Al Gore would have invaded Iraq!  That idea just seems like its from another universe, possibly the one where Al Gore has a goatee.

by teknofyl on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:02:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What a load of crap (3.00 / 1)

all the political players - from both parties - wanted to invade for their own selfish and vicious reasons.

Talk about making shit up! Jeeesh. Would you care to provide some links or is your head wedged too far up your rectal cavity to google for facts?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a load of crap (none / 0)

Hmm. Let's go to the vote to invade. Lots of Republicans. How many Democrats voted against that resolution? Kerry? Voted Yes. Hilary? Voted Yes. Edwards? Voted Yes. Lieberman? Voted Yes. Gephardt? Voted Yes. Many of them also voted for expanded funds for Iraq.
"I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it ..."
As I said before, Clinton's advisors wanted to invade Iraq during the Monica stuff. They all said so. Some of you believe that Clinton didn't approve it or really didn't mean it. Well, we'll never know but what we do know is that his advisors were advising it and openly advocated it until they were brought down by the anti-war movement.
Those are all heavy political players from both sides of the aisle. All voted for war or promoted war when the Democrats were in power and when the Republicans were in power. Don't be stupid. Don't be blind. Don't repeat the same mistakes.  
http://politizine.blogspot.com: A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music and modern times.
by politizine on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 10:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Enough (none / 0)

Can we have a link to ONE Clinton Administration member openly calling for the invasion of Iraq or regime change prior to 2001. I can go here and see almost the entire future BUSH administration calling for it in the late 90's. If you can back up your assertions fine....... you're right... if not there's no reason to continue this debate.
Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Google ... (none / 0)

Wait a minute! You can selectively change the rules. If you go to PNAC and say, "almost the entire future BUSH administration calling for it in the late 90's ..." Why can't I go back to the late 90s when Democrats like Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright were calling for it to get Monica off the front page? Come on. Don't be such a partisan hack. The simple fact is that Clinton and his folks were attempting to use Iraq to save their asses and Bush openly wanted to attack Iraq to help his friends. In my mind, both evils are evil.

Here is a section and a quote from Madeline Albright from April 2003 in the Portland Phoenix:

Albright, who is in the midst of finishing up a memoir on her time at the State Department, has been in touch with Gephardt. Her influence is magnified because she has been hosting dinners for many of her former foreign-policy underlings, events that, taken together, some in Washington have labeled a " government-in-waiting. " But even this quasi-opposition government supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein. ( " I have all along supported the `why' of the war, " Albright said at a speech in Texas last Thursday. " I did and do believe in regime change. But the question I've had is, could more have been done to get more help? " )

Her comments are hollow by adding the "why" question. She supported the policy to invade a sovereign nation which our government - Democrats and Republicans - helped arm, which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people, including women and children.

Here is more from that article about Berger:

Berger, meanwhile, has been talking to both Gephardt and Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman. Like Albright, Berger supported the Bush administration's aims in Iraq, but opposed its methods. ("I think some European leaders have used this politically. I think others have been more concerned about controlling the American Gulliver than the threat posed by Saddam Hussein," Berger said on MSNBC March 6. "But I think on our side we've been dismissive of the allies.")

Again, with all due respect, Berger supports the policy. He did when he was in power and did when Bush did it. You can read the entire article here, link, as requested:

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/talking_politics/documents/02831950.htm

Another link, from CBS News, shows Berger support for regime change, with the caveat of more international support:

CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller says that while the U.S. could clearly win any war with Iraq, allied support is "critical" for the long-term.

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser, told Knoller, "The risks will be less, the prospects of success will be greater, and we'll have allied not only in the war, but, perhaps more importantly, in the peace, which is going to be costly, difficult and protracted."

Again, not "This is a bad idea ..." which is what I hear defenders of Democrats say the Clinton's advisors policay was, it is Berger's position that regime change is needed. They would just disagree with the amount of tinkering to the policy.

Then, there is this, from the campaign, when the words of Kerry's advisors smacked them right back in the face:

While Sen. John Kerry has accused the Bush administration of misleading America by falsely claiming there were operational ties between Iraq and al Qaida, two of Kerry's top foreign policy advisers are on the record contending that Saddam Hussein helped Osama bin Laden in his quest for chemical weapons.

When they worked for the Clinton administration, Kerry advisers Sandy Berger and Jamie Rubin argued that Iraq helped al Qaida make deadly VX gas at a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant - an argument they used to justify President Clinton's decision to take out the facility in an Aug. 20, 1998, cruise missile attack.

In a 1998 op-ed to the Washington Times, then National Security Advisor Berger defended the attack on Khartoum's al Shifa pharmaceutical plant, contending:

"Other products [besides VX gas] were made at Al Shifa. But we have seen such dual-use plants before - in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted in chemical weapons activity in Sudan."

As State Department spokesman at the time, Rubin and his boss, Madeleine Albright, backed Berger's position on the attacks.

On Friday, Weekly Standard editor Stephen Hayes, who first noted the Kerry-Berger/Rubin contradiction, confronted Rubin on the issue during an interview on CNBC.

The Kerry adviser admitted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein played footsie with each other," but he insisted that ultimately "they came to a decision, and the decision was 'We are not going to become allies.'"

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=99005

Then, there are all these quotes, which were thrown back at Democrats and used against them in the previous two campaign cycles:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
  - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here.  For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
   - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

   - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
   - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
   - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.  Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.  In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
   - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Senator. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
   and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.  He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
   - Senator. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

   "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
  - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
 - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
   - Senator. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.  We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.  Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
   - Senator. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Senator. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Senator. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"  Rep.
   - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
  - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
 - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

So, there are your links and quotes and they come from the VERY FIRST PAGE of Googling "Sandy Berger, backing invasion of Iraq"

My point? Whether you support regime change because you want oil profits or support regime change to get a scandal out of the papers or your support regime change because of your own personal religion or support regime change for the hell of it, you still support regime change and it is wrong. All evils are somewhat the same. It is up to the Democrats - at the beginning - to stand up to the nonsense, bad intelligence, unending wars and death, and try something different. For a change!

http://politizine.blogspot.com: A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music and modern times.
by politizine on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 09:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Google ... (3.00 / 1)

"ONE Clinton Administration member openly calling for the invasion of Iraq or regime change prior to 2001."

We can do better than that , can't we?

The first sets of quotes are in 2003. They are irrelevant to the question. During the lead-up to the war post 9-11 the majority of both Republicans and Democrats bought into the Bush propaganda and mis-direction. That wasn't the question.

The pre 2001 quotes look like they back your argument at face value, but they really don't. While most talk about the belief in Iraqi possession of WMDs,  none call for military invasion of the country.

You argument falls into that familiar Republican meme: "Regime change was the stated US policy towards Iraq since the Clinton Administration and we were the only ones with the testicular foritude to do something about it".

The flaw in this argument is that regime change has been the stated US policy towards scores of countries over the past fifty or so years... yet we didn't invade them or use military force to enact that change. For nearly 50 years our official policy towards Cuba has been that of a desire for regime change. Yet no President has been foolhardy enough to launch a full-scale invasion. The same could be said of the Republicans current favorite "bad boy turned good" Libya. Certainly few other countries were more deserving of US wrath, yet we didn't see Bradley fighting machine rolling down the streets of Tripoli.
Then of course ther is the mother of all "regime change" policies: the Cold War. For more than fifty years the chief goal of ALL US foreign policy was to attain regime change in the former Soviet Union and it's satellite states. Can you imagine if the "shoot and ask questions later" philosophy of the current administration was applied to that situation? I doubt we'd be here today even having this discussion.

Calling for regime change, and working towards that goal, is far different from using the full force of the US military to remove the offending leader.I  think we can all differentiate the difference.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Google ... (none / 0)

Well, I stand by my comments. Just because it is policy doesn't mean it is right. It's wrong; and I hate voting and supporting people who are wrong.
http://politizine.blogspot.com: A political fanzine containing random musings about politics, music and modern times.
by politizine on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 01:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a load of crap (3.00 / 1)

Let's play make believe and make shit up. It sounds like you are asking us to assume that if Kerry had won the election he would have made exactly the same policy choices as Bush so we shouldn't criticize Bush for being an idiot and a warmonger.

John Edwards would have been as much of a warmonger as Dick "Blood Thirsty Beast" Cheney, so we shouldn't criticize Bush.

Gee, maybe Kerry would have also tried to privatize Social Security and this very minute would be insisting on an up or down vote for John Bolton, his nominee to be UN Ambassador.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Relevancy . . (3.00 / 2)

I couldn't disagree more.

As to your first point that the US move out of Saudi Arabia was in some way a capitulation to the Saudi royal family in order to relieve internal  pressure on them, we have somewhat of a " chicken or egg" argument there.  But, I believe if you look at the timing you'll see that it was most likely more of a US initiated move.
Although first used by US forces during Operation Desert Storm, it wasn't until after the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 that the Prince Sultan AB became the main US base of operation in the region. It was felt that its location, far from populated areas, made it a much more easily defended area. The US reaction to the growing resentment to their presence in the region was not to leave, but rather to consolidate its operations in a more secluded and secure location. It is only after the installation of the Bush administration does there seem to be a policy shift. Although as early as the late nineties military policy makers were quietly questioning Saudi commitment, it was only after  the realization that the US ability to project massive military power in the area if there were a wish to engage in a large-scale operation in Iraq or Iran that serious alternatives were looked at.

Your second point about relevance is easily debunked.
During last Thursdays "Basement meeting" on the DSM, congresswomen Marcy Kaptur (D-Oh) posed a very important question. She asked if anyone on the panel could match their timeline of events to any hard evidence of troop, equipment, or material movements prior to Congressional approval. She believed, as I do, that this kind of hard evidence would be incontrovertible in proving to the American people that were they lied to. It would more importantly prove that action had been taken by this administration that was unconstitutional and illegal.

It's not about what we all "believed" would happen: it's about the legality of this administrations actions.      

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:57:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Relevancy . . (3.00 / 1)

Marcy Kaptur (D-Oh) posed a very important question. She asked if anyone on the panel could match their timeline of events to any hard evidence of troop, equipment, or material movements prior to Congressional approval.

The military doesn't do anything without requisition orders.

In the US a project like that would require years of planning and development. Even in the Middle East there must be some sort of permit process and contractors have to be notified. Unless the US military has their own cement plant, they would need to order huge amounts of concrete for a 1200 X 600 foot runway.

On October 2, 2001 a rapid-response team of civil engineers, the 823rd RED HORSE Squadron whose specialty is to repair and build structures such as runways and roads in remote areas, arrived.

Did the 823rd fly over their own concrete? Are there cement plants in Saudi Arabia that can supply enough concrete for a runway overnight?  How much advance notice would local Saudi suppliers need to ramp up production and provide material? Since the Bin Laden family is heavily involved in the construction business, it is highly likely that word of a project like this could have come to Bin Laden's attention almost as soon as implementation plans were put into play.

I would look for military requisition orders for the construction materials needed to build the runway. It's possible that there are requisition orders that were initiated several months before 9/11 or almost as soon as Bush 43 was sworn in.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

We know from the last GSCSGulf contract that they supplied the aggregate for the parking apron project. They're based out of the UAE with branches in Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen and various other Gulf localities.

Readiness Management Support L.C. has competitively awarded GSCS a contract for the rapid supply of base course aggregate (42,184 metric tons) and sub-base aggregate (73,482 metric tons) in support of construction of a new US Air Force concrete aircraft-parking apron at Al-Udeid Air Base, Qatar.

I would tend to think that most of the supplies came from those "friendly" gulf nations as opposed to the Saudis who would have possibly questioned the acquisitions. Without a doubt the supplies as well as much of the labor was contracted locally. With the huge amount of construction going on in that part of the word, the purchase of what would seem to be huge amounts of construction material would be an every day occurrence. Qatar and the UAE have been for quite some time engaged in some of the largest building projects in the world.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point (none / 0)

having been to al udied i can tell you that the sattelite images you saw of the base in the early stages, were actually when the base was under french control. the ready hagners and runways were all built by the french and not america. we started to move to the base actually in 1999 or 2000, signing a 99 year lease with the qatar govt. we will be there for a very long time.
by redskin on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow (none / 0)

Have I got a million questions for you (if you don't mind).

When were you at Al Udeid ?

What can you tell me, if anything about the 1999-2000 period?

What kind of work was being done during that period?

Just how much of the base was built by the French or Qaataris before we came?

I'll stop at four, but boy it would be great to get a first hand account. ( French?, I didn't see anything about the French while researching this. Wow!!!! good stuff.)

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Under French Control? (none / 0)

Can you verify that the French were in "control" of Al Udied. I know that some of the original 1994-96 construction  was done with French imput and asistence. (They are a major weapons supplier for the area) In fact SOCIETE D'ETUDES TECHNIQUES ET D'ENTERPRISES GENERALES S.A. ("SODETEG" was a consultant on parts of the project.

BUT, nowhere have I found any info on the French Government or military ever using or being in "Control" of the base.

If you are refering to the October 2001 satalite images of hangers and runways, we know that some of them were not American built, they were part of the original Qatari project.  The point was that THEY WERE BUILT, and this wasn't just a backwater sandpile that the US built up post 9-11 to fight AlQaeda.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 07:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or sooner (3.00 / 1)

Op plans are often decades in advance.

Don't forget that the entire Pacific War (WWII vs Japan) was planned right after the Washington Treaty was concluded.

Ironically, it still lead to a cluster-fuck of a decisive battle at Leyte Gulf.

Point being that the US military plans wars decades in advance.

1996 to 2003 is pretty damned short notice, actually.

by jcjcjc on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something Does Not Jive (none / 0)

So the United States had already planned to leave Saudi Arabia before 9-11?

How strange for bin Laden to order an attack, us to appease him (in his mind) by leaving PSAB, only to get "back to work" on regime change in Iraq.

It makes perfect sense that the US would upgrade Al-Udeid after 9-11...before would suggest there's something really heady in the soup.

by risenmessiah on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 03:53:38 PM EST

That's assuming Bin Laden would have known (none / 0)

The upgrading of Al-Udeid was "secret" until after 9-11, when it could be masked by the "war on terror".
The first reports of equipment being moved out of Prince Sultan don't show up in the Arab press until March of 2002, 8 to 10 months after work on Al Udeid began.

The only way Bin Laden would have known about the move would be if he (and the Saudis as well) were privy to top DOD planning early on in the administration.  Now if that's the kind of thinking you're entertaining, it opens up a huge bag of worms, although I would find it hard to believe.

I see Bin Laden's attack more like the neo-cons serendipitous "Pearl Harbor" they were wishing for back in 1998. Iraq would have happened anyway, 9-11 just made it easier. Did they ignore the warning signs intentionally, now that's something we could discuss

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's assuming Bin Laden would have known (3.00 / 1)

Well the most important consideration is that the World Trade Center attack (and related extra-cirriculars in the Beltway) did not occur in a vacuum.

I was pretty sure in 2000 because of military cutbacks that something embarrassing would happen internationally that if Gore won the Presidential race that year would cost him his job four years later. Still, everyone can be an armchair historian.

If you look at Khobar Towers, the African embassy bombings, the interdiction of people like Ahmed Ressam... it seems clear that the intelligence community had to have known who was going after them and what they wanted.

Nevertheless, if the necons wanted a "Pearl Harbor" why did they plan to dismantle PSAB, which was the major lightning rod Al Qaeda was using in oppressed Arab neighborhoods? I'm sure you aware that he volunteered to protect Saudi Arabia in 1990 from Iraqi aggression only to be told by the royals that they were calling in Gee Dub the Elder to put Saddam in his place.

Ergo, if we already planned to leave PSAB in 2001 there are two likely reasons...both scary as hell a) our intelligence community already knew a major attack was being planned and wanted it to go forward, either to stop them in the act or to trigger a "War on Terror" or b) we didn't want to pay the high price of dealing with the Saudis (or Israelis) and therefore sought to invade Iraq, recognizing that an American-backed government in Baghdad would wrest precious leverage back from Riyadh and Jerusalem in the Middle East.

by risenmessiah on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BINGO on #2 (none / 0)

"we didn't want to pay the high price of dealing with the Saudis (or Israelis) and therefore sought to invade Iraq, recognizing that an American-backed government in Baghdad would wrest precious leverage back from Riyadh and Jerusalem in the Middle East"

I have long felt that this war has far more to do with realpolitik power shifting in the region, than any of the reasons coming from either the administration or its opponents. The "no blood for oil" argument is just too simplistic. This war is all about US hegemony, power balancing, and realignment. You're dead on about replacing the Saudis and eventually the Israelis as our main partners in this region.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 06:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BINGO on #2 (3.00 / 1)

Well, except we've been there before.

The whole goddamn point of tossing out the Iraqi democracy in 1968 and allowing the Baath to control Iraq was because we wanted a "chip" to preven Russian advances into the Gulf and to have a strong military power.

Still, we can replace the old dictator with a new one but the situation hasn't changed. We can replace Sadat with Mubarak, See Seko with Kabila, Hussein with Allawi, but our future remains as tenuous. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, Pakistan does.

So if it really is to reassert a Cold War era of leverage, we're stuck. That ship has sailed, and we have to lead the world in other ways.

by risenmessiah on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No blood for oil (none / 0)

I think that slogan is right on. No matter how you define the strategy for global hegemony, the only reason to include the Middle East is oil. In 10 or 15 years the only significant reserves of oil are going to be in the Middle East. Whoever controls the oil supply of the entire world, will effectively control the world economy.

Is there any single factor that has a bigger impact on the US economy than the price of a barrel of oil? Think about what the economic equation will look like in 20 years.

One issue that the wingnuts try to use to confuse the issue about whether this war is about oil is the price of gasoline. They point to the high prices and say "See! If Bush did this for oil how come the prices are going up instead of down?"

They assume that Bush did this for lower prices instead of strategic control of oil supplies for the rest of the century. High oil prices are bad for the economy, but great for oil companies. Bush and the theocons could care less what a gallon of gas cost.

Trading the blood of American GIs for future strategic control of oil reserves is exactly what the Iraq war is about.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No blood for oil (none / 0)

You're absolutely right.
I use the "no blood for oil" term as representative of an oversimplification of a complex issue. Of course our overwhelming interest in the region is solely based upon oil, and the large multinationals have a large say in the policy decisions for the region.  It is the belief that American policy would be to simply "take over the oil fields" by military force and hand them over to big oil companies I question with the "no blood for oil" reference. Nothing in the middle east is quite that simple.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 09:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No blood for oil (none / 0)

Agreed. Point taken.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blood for Oil?!? (none / 0)

Yes, undoubtedly there is a temptation to assume the reason for the Iraq war is having our hand on the spigot.

But...that's not why we are there for some. The reason we engage in wars like these is because the social constructs that analysts and policymakers within our government have an old paradigm in their heads. They don't understand that in a completely market-driven world everyone would sell you the oil anyway.

So why still go in? Because the Beltway crowd is fascinated with foreign policy like they are 13 year olds playing RISK. They invented the Cold War instead of actually dealing with Communism. They created the War on Terror to justify this rudderless attempt at international control. The State Department and the Defense Department are preoccupied with using countries as pawns on the chessboard.

I say this because, notice, we went after the leader of state instead of the leader of a stateless enterprise, a multinational corporation of terror. If that does not give you pause, I don't know what will.

by risenmessiah on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blood for Oil?!? (none / 0)

I don't grasp your distinction. I agree that the Monolithic Global Terrorism construct is as phony as the Monolithic Communist Menace.

The State Department is not traditionally a warmongering organization. There was tremendous resistance from the State Department to Bush's war. Colin Powell chose to ignore it. Even with Condi at the helm there will be resistance from the career professionals at the State Department to theocon plans.

I am not saying there is not a strong imperialist streak at the State Department, but they prefer more sophisticated methods to illegal wars to accomplish the agenda and it is probably far less expansive than the theocon agenda.

There are also plenty of warmongers in the Democratic party, but they are not as aggressive or as expansive as the theocons. I'm not sure exactly where or why we disagree about oil as an important strategic factor in the phony Iraq war and the phony WOT.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blood for Oil?!? (none / 0)

The distinction is tough, I admit, but I'll try.

The way that the US Government looks at foreign policy is state-to-state. That thinking handicapped them in a war against a borderless, stateless enemy. Or if you prefer, all radical Islam.

So while they think about the strategic value of this country or that country...what is ignored is how irrelevant many of these post-colonial mismash states are. The Arab world is in crisis, and there's reason to think that the upheaval seen thus far is a mere taste of what will happen. Just as Europe recast itself from kingdoms to empires and then into nations...so is there a real danger that we're conquering maps, not Cold War era puppet regimes in our Saturday night game of RISK.

Oil is important but so is water and other resources like timber. Canada has liberal immigration laws hoping that it will be able to fend us off when we become so desperate as to invade them to take their raw materials and freshwater. Even if Iraq is "blood-for-oil" it's a sucker's bet. We're spending too much to get too little. Iraq is about returning to the Cold War because it's "safe" for us, it's easy to be the shining light in the world when you have an enemy.

And this bears itself out with Bush. Running against Kerry, he could look great. Now that the election is over, and it's all on his ass suddenly he looks like the fool he is. And so does Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other chimpanzees in the Administration. As long as their were "terrorists", "liberals", "Democrats", "evil" they knew who they were. Now that they can't use that social construct anymore (because of their own success ironically) all they have is the throne of skulls. These people are losers, and the worst kind of losers. Someone who has no life, and who defines himself or herself by who they are not.

We are losing in Iraq not because we failed to defeat the regime of Saddam Hussein or neutralize the infrastructure. It's because we cannot kill a ghost, and that is all we find in Iraq...the ghosts of the Cold War.

by risenmessiah on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 02:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's assuming Bin Laden would have known (3.00 / 1)

>>I was pretty sure in 2000 because of military cutbacks that something embarrassing would happen internationally that if Gore won the Presidential race that year would cost him his job four years later. Still, everyone can be an armchair historian.

Well, the GOP won both houses of Congress in November '94, and remained in control through 2000. The bulk of the cutbacks had been put in place by the policy approved by Bush and then-SecDef Cheney. Clinton proposed marginally more cutbacks, and the Republican Congress added funds, which Clinton signed, as well as the many supplementals.

Taking the army down a million, and retiring full air wings, was what Bush/Cheney ordered through the '90s. The GOP Congress had 5 years to change this plan, and they didn't.

by sofla on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 02:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting article at Raw Story (3.00 / 1)

Contract that spawned Guantanamo prisons awarded to Halliburton during Cheney's tenure as CEO:Experts say firm may have built secret camps.

I've got some excerpts in my Downing Street vs. Swiftboat Liars diary

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:02:33 PM EST

Re: Interesting article at Raw Story (none / 0)

Thanks, thats good stuff.

An excellent example of how if we can "follow the money" so to speak, we might finally get to the bottom of this web of lies.
The neocons didn't make this war overnight. It took careful planning,huge movements of money and materials, and a massive propaganda campaign to pull this off.This was not done "on the fly", it was put in motion long before it appearded on our radar.

Makes you think about what's going on right now that we're not fully aware of? Iran? Syria? Gods knows what else.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 05:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting article at Raw Story (none / 0)

God and the guys in the Pentagon requisition department know exactly what's going on and where the material that's needed to do it are being sent. Heck, they probably know what's going on before the Four Stars do.
by Gary Boatwright on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 08:47:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pre-Planning (3.00 / 2)

I lived in the Sierra Nevada during 9/11, and within a few days of that date, while we were still under commercial flight lock-down, there were big long trains headed west on the union pacific railway under cover of darkness of night loaded with hundreds of brand-new bradley fighting tanks.....I saw them with my own eyes!  Those of us who saw this were alarmed - obviously something had been planned for in advance - no one can manufacture this kind of stuff overnight! Coincidence? NOT!
by scoobydoo on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 07:41:10 PM EST

Re: Pre-Planning (none / 0)

Interseting.

It might be interesting to see if we could track down just how much of the equiptment and supplies that started moving towards that region right after 9-11 actually made to the Afgan theater. May guess would be a small percentage. I'm not even quite sure if we used that much mechanized armor in that area.
I'm going to have to check that one out
thanks

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 10:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Planning (3.00 / 1)

I was able to find out that supposedly the firm that mfg. the tanks had a big order outstanding to "upgrade equipment" - still, the timing of these huge shipments seemed odd, and the fact that they were being shipped stealthily across the country in the dark at night when few people would see the trains moving across the Sierra. I hadn't seem a trainload of tanks like that since the Vietnam War era - when I saw them in broad daylight in upstate New York. I believe they did use these fighting vehicles in Iraq.
by scoobydoo on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pre-Planning (none / 0)

Your gut feeling is right.
This is very odd.
I spoke with one of the guys who helps me out with military stuff and he's not sure about the use of mechanized armor in Afghanistan.
 He was under the impression that most of the movement of forces (initially Green Berets, then the 10th Mountain div., or Rangers for example) was done via choppers due to mountainous nature of the country.
Also, it must be noted that the size of our initial forces was small and wouldn't require that kind of mechanization.
(Remember the stories of our forces riding horses to chase down the Taiban)
If ( and that's a big if)  mechanized armor was used at all, it was much later on in the campaign, when it came time to patrol the cities.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 07:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

U-2 Plane crashes in S.W. Asia? (3.00 / 1)

Yahoo news, 24 minutes ago, U.S. Spy Plane Pilot Dies in Asia Crash:

I'm not sure why the lead sentence specifies Afghanistan:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane involved in a mission in Afghanistan crashed while returning to its base in the United Arab Emirates, killing the pilot, the military said Wednesday.

U.S. Central Command said the crash occurred in "southwest Asia," a term that can be a substitute for the Middle East.

Or why the location of the crash is classified:

The location of the crash could not be released "due to host nation sensitivities," U.S. Air Force Capt. David W. Small, a Central Command spokesman, said in an e-mail when asked for more information.

In Washington, Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a     Pentagon spokesman, said the plane had completed a mission related to Operation Enduring Freedom and crashed while returning to its base.


I suspect that wherever the plane crashed, the locals know what country it crashed in. Bush and the Pentagon may want to keep the location secret from the American people more than anyone else.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 12:28:05 PM EST

Re: U-2 Plane crashes in S.W. Asia? (none / 0)

There's an interesting discrepancy between the Yahoo story date-lined 1PM EDT and a Star Tribune article date-lined 9:30AM EDT this morning.

U-2 spy plane crashes in Asia, possibly in UAE
June 22, 2005 SPY0622

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A U-2 spy plane crashed Tuesday night in southwest Asia, the Defense Department said today, specifying an area where U.S. aircraft support missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is the first U-2 crash in that region.

Military officials who were briefed on the crash said early indications suggested the plane crashed on landing at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, the plane's home base.

There were no indications of hostile fire, they said.

The cause of the crash and status of the pilot are not known, the Pentagon said.
One official said the location of the crash was not released because "host nation sensitivities'' were involved.

"The specific location is not releasable due to host nation sensitivities,'' U.S. Air Force Capt. David W. Small, a Central Command spokesman, said in an e-mail when asked for more information.

New York Times

Obviously the Emeratis(sic?) got to DOD spokesman and had them nix the crash at Al Dhafra Air Base part of the story.

(sorry the trib.link requires signup, but its free)

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 02:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pre-war moves for Afghanistan too! (3.00 / 1)

Mainstream newspapers in India and Japan reported c. June of 2001 that US officials touring the region had briefed the regional powers as to an intended multinational military assault on the Taliban, designed to remove them from power, to commence by mid-October. If agreed to already by the parties to the hostilities, and sufficiently planned by that date to brief allies in the region, it must have been in the works long before  June.

We did not go from a standing start to making war in just one month's time (coincidentally meeting the time table reported above as the planned timing)-- we had a running start. We had already arranged fly over, and landing rights, at the various  '-stan' countries. We had troops there on the ground in pre-arranged training missions, and had already begun to create the needed infrastructures.

Some of these arrangements dated back to the Clinton term, and can plausibly be related to encircling China and Russia with allied countries and American forward bases. Putting all of eastern Europe into NATO and then having strategic relations with the Islamic former Soviet republics almost completes the process. Doesn't mean Clinton had any intention to use them to invade a country and shatter its government, and I doubt that. Too cautious for that, which would have required ground troops, not just antiseptic high altitude bombing runs.

But those pre-arranged relationships and assets existed, and more were moved into place. In Operation Bright Star, and several others that day, the largest joint British and American naval exercise in history lay anchor in the international waters near Afghanistan, and some 45,000 British and American troops were moved to near theater, in Oman. On that same day, National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice placed an order for Bush's signature at his desk, constituting a course of escalating actions against the Taliban, up to a fully formed war plan for a military removal. That day was September 10, 2001.

Now, it's interesting to ask what pretext of a cause of war they were planning to invoke, to invade a sovereign nation brutal hellhole across the world, for... for... what, blowing up huge Buddhist statues? They simply hadn't done the propaganda demonization yet on them (or even OBL, really) to show why we had to go to war because they were the next Hitler. And by the late start they still hadn't got, it would have had to be only a 30 day campaign before war. Hard to figure, unless... hey, wait a minute. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Somebody challenged any Clinton administration link to regime change in Iraq. Of course there was. He made it our official policy. That was what was phony about the sanctions policy. It had nothing to do with WMD. We made it clear that they would continue so long as Saddam remained in power.

That was Clinton's political half a loaf to the neo-cons. The usual suspect names, William Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al., had written a joint public letter, calling for Clinton to remove Saddam if necessary by force. I think he never would have contemplated such a move, because he was a realist and could do the math. Shinseki's estimate of (at least) 200,000 required for occupation was actually 300,000, by standard analysis. Doing it right by doctrine made it logistically impossible with the current force structure, mooting even considering it.

The other thing Clinton did is profoundly underestimated. His air campaign in Operation Desert Fox usually passes without credit. Fully 600 cruise missiles were the opening salvo in 3 days of pounding, which levelled hundreds of the most suspect sites, including literally dozens of suspect royal palaces.

And he engineered the inspector dispute to make it happen. He ordered CIA agents onto the inspection teams, and Saddam rightfully protested, freezing cooperation until that was resolved. Clinton himself got the inspectors out on that pretext of non-cooperation was a cause for war, and commenced this air campaign.

by sofla on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 01:45:23 AM EST

Re: Pre-war moves for Afghanistan too! (none / 0)

Really good stuff!!!!

Do you got any links to the stories in the Indian or Japanese press? I'd really like to look into this further. This sounds VERY INTERESTING.

Migra Matters - Progressive Immigration Reform
by Duke1676 on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 09:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

good (none / 0)

Good story!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
by kevinliao on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 11:32:07 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.