BREAKING - Earliest Documentation on Iraq Planning? 10/2001

[BR_Parkway]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/162043/385

This afternoon, the National Security Archives at George Washington University released some stunning documents, that seem to further corroborate the Downing Street Minutes, as well as buttress the argument that there was precious little post-war planning in the rush to topple Saddam. Among them is this State Department powerpoint slide:



Digest the date in the first bullet point for a moment. 10/2001 - barely one month after the events of September 11th, when all efforts of the U.S. government should have been focused completely, and without hesitation, on finding Osama "Who?" Bin Laden.

There's a full list of the document dump today by the National Security Archive after the jump.

[LTRS]

1. Doesn't look like news to me...

This says nothing about war planning. Congress had voted previously to support regime change, not war, through economic means and through financing resistance within the country by Iraqis and exiles. Not that W didn't lie his ass off to get us into war, but there's nothing stunning or new here.

[pauldavid]

4. Documentation that military plainning began in oct 2001 is news

as is State Department experts warning CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans for post-war Iraq security

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005: Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

In a February 7, 2003, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

[LTRS]

7. This document doesn't say that war was planned in Oct 2001

.... and neither does that bit you posted. We already knew they were planning the Iraq war in 2003.

Don't get me wrong, I know for a fact that they started planning this war much sooner than they admitted. But we reduce our credibility when we make shit up and purport that something is proof when it is nothing of the sort.

[pauldavid]

9. No, it does not say the war was planned in oct 2001...

but it does says that they STARTED planning for what to do after regime change in october of 2001(not that it did a damn bit of good). True, what I posted does not prove anything. I cant prove it, only help other gather information. Go read the 31 page memo for your self. It IS about the iraq war. One of the objectives for this group, as stated on page two is "practical planning - what can be done between now and regime change" and no one is making shit up, just getting information out there.

[LTRS]

10. You seem to be missing the fact that....

Congress passed a resolution supporting and funding efforts toward "regime change" while Clinton was still in office.

[pauldavid]

11. You seem to be missing the fact that

You seem to be missing the fact that "regime change" does not equal aggressive war. And so what if Republicans passed an act supporting "regime change" what matters is that the american people know that they were lied to. BUSH LIED! Period. America is starting to get the picture because pieces of the puzzle like this keep coming out. Publicly bush said war was a last resort and necessary because of Saddam's WMD's. Behind the curtain, he was planning for war with Iraq from day one. Problem is these same documents also show they didn't plan too well for the post Saddam stages. Had things gone well, no one would care about these documents because the iraqi's gave us all those rose petals to walk on. You see.... bush wanted to go, no matter what, but didn't think it through, and now americans troops are dying years after Saddam's statue came down. This is not a "Smoking gun" but its a hell of a lot more evidence then bush had against Saddam.

[BR_Parkway]

6. Don't forget the funding that was diverted from Afganastan in violation

of Congressional Approval. Here's another piece showing that they were doing all this work prior to getting the money approved in late 2002.

[LTRS]

8. No, sorry

Congress had appropriated money for the exiles to advance "regime change" long before Bush even came into office.

Yes, they were planning to go to war in Iraq come hell or high water right from the start, but this document doesn't prove that at all.

[halobeam]

2. ooo boy here we go again......

more to feed the fires of hell, and no one here will be surprised. I find myself the slightest bit relieved to see more proof, question is, what will be done about it? I want to scream.

[DS1]

3. that site doesn't allow deeplinking, here it is

although, I can't say I blame them

[zbdent]

5. I think the first public admission by George W. Bush that we would go

to war with Iraq was 9/13/2001 speech to the nation.

Where the nation did a collective :wtf: as * said "The Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, and Osama bin Laden".

[libertypirate]

12. Check out who was saying what around this time

http://miawmdwtfw.blogspot.com/

11 September 2001
Bush administration officials tried to implicate Saddam on 9/11/01

Former General Wesley Clark tells Tim Russert on Meet the Press that Bush administration officials tried to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks, beginning on the day of the attacks. Clark states:“There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein. Well, it came from the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, ‘You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein,’ I said, ‘But–I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence?’ And I never got any evidence.”
“Media Silent on Clark's 9/11: Comments Gen. says White House pushed Saddam
link without evidence” FAIR. 20 June 2003. Available:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842




17 September 2001
Begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq

President Bush signed a 2½-page document marked "TOP SECRET" that outlined the plan for going to war in Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against terrorism.
Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq, senior administration officials said.
Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq
Has Puzzling Past, Washington Post,
January 12, 2003

[Bushwick Bill]

13. Go Back to September 2000.

"Indeed the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf#search='PNAC%20Rebu ilding%20America's%20Defenses'