Here is a Twist on Why Bush Wanted an Iraq War.

[The Lone Liberal]

On August 2, 1990 when Saddam swept into Kuwait, he also launched three divisions towards the Kuwait-Saudi border. The House of Saud was in split over what action to take, the royal family was inclined to allow the US to use Saudi Arabia as a launching platform for US forces. The Wahhabi clerics were incensed at the thought that infidels would use the holy ground from which to fight a war.

Once again Prince Bandar was called and met with Cheney and Powell. Cheney and Powell presented overhead photos to show the disposition of Saddam’s forces. Powell informed Bandar that Saddam had the necessary forces to swept in Riyadh which was only 275 miles away.

A few weeks later Cheney followed up with a flight to Saudi Arabia and a meeting with the royal family. The message had been clearly understood by King Fahd and he agreed to the US request for basing.

The threat poised by Saddam was perceived by the Saudis as being so grave that, according to James Baker in his autobiography “ Politics of Diplomacy,” ”(the Saudis) didn’t just want Saddam ejected from Kuwait; they wanted him destroyed.” Baker went on to say, “ For them, the only solution was an American-led war that would annihilate Saddam’s military once and for all.”

Could this have been the driving force for Cheney and Bush. We must ask, is the current administration so tied to the House of Saud that it is will to expend American blood to carry out the commands of the Saudi royal family? Would that explain the need to share secret war plans with Prince Bandar? Was that what prompted Cheney to declare, “this time when it starts, Saddam will be toast?”




Basis for this comes from book, the House of Bush, the House of Saud. Craig Unger.

[Must_B_Free]

1. The untapped econimic power of Iraq is a threat

#1 threat to Saudi's dominance.

[saracat]

2. This is a more

then credible explanation for the war.Add Haliburton to the mix as well as Carlyle Group and Hey! Presto! Instant War! With Cheney as the Hoodini who puts it all into play.

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. This is giving me a mental image of Poppy and numbuts...

...with a Saudi gas nozzle shoved up their you-know-whats. Excuse me! I know that is gross.

[alfredo]

4. Remember, the photos of Iraqi's by the SA border

were faked. Other countries doing imagine in the same area saw no forces where we said they were.

[The Lone Liberal]

5. That does not surprise me

One of the people meeting with Bandar the day the overhead photos were presented was one, Paul Wolfowitz, and one other that needs watching, Richard Haass currently President, Council on Foreign Relations.

[RafterMan]

11. Not sure about that

The investigation of Soviet photos to which you refer only covered Kuwait, as far as I can tell. The whole border area is huge, with a major road just inside it on the Saudi side. The Iraqis could have been anywhere along there.

Further, it seems an absurd risk to lie to the Saudis over such a major issue when they could so easily verify the American claims for themselves.

[RafterMan]

6. Interesting

That is the exact opposite of what I had always taken the Saudi position to be. I wonder what their notion of a post-Saddam Iraq was back then.

[peacetalksforall]

7. The statement of Baker does not agree with what I read at the time....

I understood that we didn't 'take out' Hussein because it was not the thing to do within the culture of the Middle East. The other leaders in the area would not accept the removal of another leader. It would seem this was true no matter how distant or close the relations between them. It was my understanding that we would not get support for such an action and could ruin relationshoips with them.

I understood that our military considered the establishment of bases in the ME to be essential. Our ties with SA royalty and the phonied up Gulf War 1 was an excuse for a lot of things, mainly the protection of the takeover of the wells in Kuwait owned by Bush and friends.

Gulf War 1 was a corporate war just like Gulf War II. But some, including soldiers with a ruined immune system and possibly shortened lives and infected blood descendency, don't believe it.

[The Lone Liberal]

8. Not that I trust Baker

But even confirmed liars accidentally give insight into the truth. I am inclined to think this might have played some part into a thing that is inexplicable, an enigma.

Unger does not support my thoughts, nor do I say that this is the definitive explanation, just that it is possible that the Saudis are playing a larger role than we can imagine.

[The Lone Liberal]

10. One other thing that we should remember

as John MacArthur states in "Second Front" there was twenty public relation firms working on the media during that time. Everything we read was manufactured and in all likelihood false.

[Hornito]

9. I'm not buying it.....

Seems geared more to draw heat from another ME country, one that WAS actively promoting and clamoring, both from within the Bush regime, and from without, for an invasion of Iraq. If any outside country had an influence on the decision to invade, it was Israel. Period.

This explanation (the Saudi rationale) is also being circulated by the Hoover Institution ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/25/INGA1684PJ1.DTL ), so excuse me if I toss it in a bin with all the other right-wing crap.

[The Lone Liberal]

12. I don't believe Unger is a Right-wing

and I don't particularly trust anything out of the Hoover Institute, it would seem that the author of the piece you offer is saying that


"Bush wanted to send a message to WMD proliferators, he picked Iraq as his target. The message was clear: Defying the international community in your quest to acquire these weapons is enough to bring attack."


He calls oil, Saudis, Israel all myths as far as being considered reason for the war. Maybe I read it wrong, could you clarify?

Oh, yes, the author of the piece was a research fellow with the Hoover Institute.