UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“So, no conservatives on this board have a response to the fact Colin Powell said their are not WMD's in Iraq? Surely, the man was only the Secretary of State and must be wrong.”

“Silent J - His words were carefully chosen.

Saddam had a very active WMD program. That's a fact. That does not contradict Powell. He told the truth.

WMD's were removed from Iraq. This is what the admin said before the war. There are not WMD in Iraq (that we know of).”

“Get your head out of the sand.

Let me give a short version of what has really happened. There haven't been any WMDs since before the first Gulf War. Even Paul Wolfwowitz, the consumate neocon, admitted that WMDs were chosen as the reason to go to war because that was the only thing the American sheeple might buy into. They didn't exist. Develop plans for WMDs no longer existed either. The Nigerian yellow cake didn't exist. The Iraqi nuclear bomb program didn't exist. It was all disinformation fed to us by Chalabi and other so-called experts (really disinformation agents.) This information was groomed in the Office of Special Plans (OSP) located in the Pentagon and under the wing of Assistant Sec. of Defense Douglas Feith. Do a Google search on the OSP, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfwowitz. The OSP group spoon fed Bush and the Congress out and out lies and half-truths and suppressed opposing viewpoints or information coming from the CIA and other US intelligence organizations. Bush was already spoiling for a fight to make a name for himself in the history books. Put it all together and voila, Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.)

The fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq is being fought to (1) secure the borders of Israel (2) to make Israel the preiminent power broker in the Middle East. (3) to keep the US and the Israelis in oil. (4) to prevent China from gaining control of the oil (5) to prevent the OPEC and other oil producing nations from switching the trading in oil from US dollars to Euros. It's that plain and simple.

You spend some time on the net so the next time you decide to fill your brain with "news" why not go over to several sites that might give you some other opinions on the Iraq war. You'd be surprised who is turning against this fiasco. Even some top Republicans are beginning to see this for what it really is. Here are some sites I like:


http://www.truthout.org/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.antiwar.com/

http://www.amconmag.com/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/

http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml
last edited: 6/25/05 8:56:10 AM”

“LOL sh - You list all these liberal anti-war sites and expect me to read them for "news"!

Look in the mirror pal.

I know what I'm talking about, and I didn't get my information from the web - and certainly not from propoganda sites.

There are so many things wrong with what's in your post I don't even know where to begin, and I won't, because you obviously have your mind made up.

SH - Tell me. Is this where you got your information, from these sites? Is this how you know so much? LOL

You have no clue buddy.

I didn't get my information from "news". I do know what news sources are relatively credible though because I saw what news sources were flat out wrong and/or lying when I did have first hand knowledge of things in Iraq.

I don't need you to preach to me about getting good news sources.

Please, take this time to tell us how you know any of what you are saying to be true, other than you read it somewhere ...

I'm dying to know.”

“LOL - I am still laughing!

You said "Get your head out of the sand" and then you list all these sites whose mission is to promote anti-war agenda!

Dude, you take the yellow cake!”

“Only trouble is Sarge, my sites seem to have a way of proving to be true. No yellow cake. NO WMDs found. Saddam wasn't involved in 911. Downing Street memos. The list goes on and on. And the reasons I stated for the war. I have documents to back me up. All you have is Rush Limbaugh and FOX news.”

“Back this fiasco all you want. I'll have the last laugh if you can consider 1700+ American lives have died in vain a laugh. It makes me sick to think of what has happened because of Bush and people like you.”

“And the American Conservative (fourth site down on the list) is about as conservative as you can get. Pat Buchanan is a paleo-conservative. A real conservative. He's not a Straussian neo-conservative like the guys who cooked up this fake war against Iraqi "terror that is going to A-bomb New York."”

“LOL - I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh because I can't stomach him and I don't even get Fox News. You prove once again you are clueless.”

“I'm going to blow your cover right now buddy! LOL

You just made a complete ass of yourself.

Here's reality for you dude.

You said:

And the American Conservative (fourth site down on the list) is about as conservative as you can get.

This is from that website's about page:

Scott McConnell founded The American Conservative with Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos in 2002. A Ph.D.in history from Columbia University, he was formerly the editorial page editor of the New York Post and has been a columnist for Antiwar.com and New York Press

[snip]

We will question the benefits and point to the pitfalls of the global free trade economy; we will free the immigration debate from the prison to which it has been consigned. And we will discuss, frequently, America’s role in the world, turning a critical eye on those who want to cast aside every relevant American foreign policy tradition—from Robert Taft-style isolationism to prudent Dwight Eisenhower-style internationalism, in favor of go it alone militarism, where America threatens and bombs one nation after another, while the world looks on in increasing horror.

[end]

It's an anti-war site buddy. Just like the rest of them.

"as conservative as you can get" LOL -- except that they are anti-war among other things!

Like I said, those are anti-war sites and you now have no credibility.
last edited: 6/25/05 9:23:02 AM”

“The thing is that the programs Saddam had were no imminent threat at all and the Bush bunch were talking about an imminent threat from Saddam's WMD.

Has anyone looked at the Carnegie commission report?”

“"It's an anti-war site buddy. Just like the rest of them.

"as conservative as you can get" LOL -- except that they are anti-war among other things!"
Sarge

Question: You infer that being anti-war, that site cannot be conservative.

All conservatives, then, are pro-war?”

“Do you have a link, Ped?”

“pedxing - What Rumsfeld said continually before the war was what was a threat was Saddam's WMD program. When asked, he said it could be 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, but it's coming.

le Subtil - No. Why?”

“We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003”

“Man what planet is Sarge from? If the majority of the country is as clueless as this bozo then we and this sad republic are truly doomed.

I'm beginning to think it's time to start looking at immigration to New Zealand. If not for me at least for my children.”

“Phaedrus - Was that quote directed at me in response to anything I said?”

“Phaed:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1435&prog=zgp&proj=znpp”

“SH - So .... You think that "anti-war" sites are credible sites for determining if a "war" is worthy, and you ask what planet I'm from?!?!

LOL

You're a true genius solitary hiker!”

“Sarge taht sounds like a significant misrepresentation of what Rummy said:


"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03


"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02”

“scrapples satires tries to make excuses... and comes close to being funny


January 24, 2004
Report: WMD Gone Before War, Rumsfeld Says 'My Bad'
by Scott Ott

(2004-01-24) -- Within hours after David Kay, the outgoing head of the Iraq Survey Group, told Reuters news agency that Saddam Hussein "got rid of" his WMD stockpiles before the March 2003 invasion, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued an apology and announced plans to return Mr. Hussein to his presidential palace.

"It's clear now that Saddam Hussein was in full compliance with all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I accept the blame for the misguided ouster of Mr. Hussein. I should have known that Clinton-era CIA reports were wrong, especially because we still have President Clinton's CIA director on board. I misinterpreted Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors. I should have known that when someone appears to be hiding something, it means they don't have anything to hide. Even though the United Nations tried in vain for 12 years to get Mr. Hussein to disclose his banned weapons activities, and he failed to produce evidence of the destruction of previously acknowledged WMD stockpiles...despite that, I should have felt in my heart that Mr. Hussein had destroyed all his WMD."

Asked if President Bush shouldn't take the blame for these errors in judgment which led to an ill-advised invasion of Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld patted his chest with his hand and said simply, "My bad."

"Other than WMD, there was no good reason to interrupt Mr. Hussein's 25-year benevolent reign, which by all accounts had stabilized the region and served as a beacon of peace and freedom for the Arab world," said Mr. Rumsfeld. "I have done a great disservice to the Iraqi people and the entire region. I'm sorry."

He also issued "a heartfelt apology" to France, Germany and other nations which "like Howard Dean, lead with their heart not their head and stood with integrity against ousting Mr. Hussein."

The secretary said Mr. Hussein would be returned to one of his presidential palaces as soon as U.S. troops complete the repairs and renovation.
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001524.html
last edited: 6/25/05 1:34:39 PM”

“pedx - Please tell me what was not true about any of those quotes you provided 2:31:54PM.

If I misunderstood, and you're not claiming they're not true, then why did you post them?
last edited: 6/25/05 1:42:16 PM”

“For once I agree with you Sarge. When Powell said, "the thing we got completely wrong was that we thought he had stockpiles of these weapons." I believe he was carefully choosing his words as well. He carefully said 1. their were no WMD's and 2. the administration was wrong. Now we just need to decide who's going to apologize for our beligerance in the global community.”

“Wow. The Carnegie report is pretty scathing.”

“Silent J - 2 things: (1) Focus on the word "stockpiles", which is not something necessary to kill millions of people, and (2) Can you find a quote by them saying the WMDs were not moved to Syria or another country? No? Hmm. Ask yourself, what can I find them as quoted saying.”

“Phaedrus - Do you have kids at home that user your computer? If so, considering they're old enough to type and link to images, they're either very immature for their age or baby-geniuses. Which is it?”

“Do you beat your wife or are you gay?”

“Maybe your not understanding the context of the statement. Here's a link to the video of the interview. As you'll see, he defends the administration, and the war. He does however admit that we were wrong about the WMD's. The only spin on this is anybody still clinging to the belief these weapons exist.

Colin Powell on the Daily Show

the movie is about 23MB so it's not for dial up users.

If you just want a transcript:

Colin Powell/Daily Show transcript

Here is the exact quote as well:

Powell: Everything we were being told by the intelligence community —

Stewart: Right.

Powell: — was very disturbing with respect to his intention, his capability, but also his history. I had beeen to the places, I have been to the villages in northern Iraq where he slaughtered people. I have been to the place where he had gassed 5,000 people one morning, and killed 5,000 people in one morning. So this wasn’t some, you know, academic exercise. This was a guy who had done that. And we knew that if he was ever free from sanctions we were concerned he would do that again. Now where we got the intelligence wrong — dead wrong — is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles, and now we know that those are not there.

Seems pretty straight forward. Their are not, and were not, WMD's in Iraq. While Powell still agrees with the war atleast he can admit the intelligence was wrong - dead wrong.
last edited: 6/25/05 3:12:39 PM”

“Sarge - the reason why I posted them was because they contradict your characterization of what Rumsfeld was saying.

However, what wasn't born out and what contradicts Powells statement is the notion that Iraq, at the time the quotes were uttered - had WMD's that posed an imminent threat.”

“Thanks! It's about time people, especially you, recognized that I was a genius savant. And I can wholeheartedly say that most of us have known from day one that you were an idiot.

WMD indeed! Just like Iran is close to dropping an A-bomb on NYC.”

“Solitary Hiker - Hey genius, most geniuses would know the difference between the words "Phaedrus" and "solitary hiker". They're not anything alike.

If you want to offer any real evidence other than obviously biased website links, feel free. Otherwise the phrase "genius" is generally reserved for people who can think for themselves.”

“Silent J - I am already familiar with the context of the quote, thank you. What you aren't understanding is that he purposefully used the word "stockpiles". Don't believe me if you choose not to. That's your decision. You can believe what angle you want, but I'm here to tell you there is another "angle" on it which you are just refusing to acknowledge. I'm not talking out my arse because I want to cling onto some dream the Bush is a god. I have my reasons for believing what I believe, and I'm assuming you have very good reasons for believing what you believe. Do you? I hope so, because you sound pretty sure of yourself.”

“pedx - I disagree that there is any contradiction there whatsoever. Maybe you could be more specific. Thanks.

Your last sentence is completely false as well. I think you are making the same mistake as Silent J and getting hung up on this "right now there are stockpiles of WMD" thing. I don't think you'll find a quote before the war started where somebody from the administration said, in essence, "Saddam has stockpiles of (insert WMD type here) right now and he can use them at any moment against the U.S."

Let's break it down some truths which anybody really following this will not dispute, liberals included, and don't contradict anything said:

1. Saddam had WMD.
2. Saddam used WMD.
3. Saddam had a WMD program.
4. Saddam's old facilities he used to make WMD were still capable of making WMD.
5. Saddam was pursuing additional WMD.
6. Saddam was allowing terrorists to train in his country.
7. Terrorists were pursuing WMD.
8. Saddam was ordered to account for his WMD (which the UN knew he had because he was using them)
9. Saddam played cat and mouse with the inspectors and never complied with the inspection process.
10. Saddam shipped large amounts of *something* to Syria.
11. The U.N., including all major players against the war for Iraq, were illegally making deals with Saddam.

Do you want to dispute any of those points pedxing?”

“Silent J - Put stress on the bolded words if it helps: " ... is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles, and now we know that those are not there."

That doesn't mean he didn't have them. It means they're not there.

Why not?

There isn't just one option to that question.

You could say "he never had them", but you could also so "they were moved".
last edited: 6/25/05 4:55:28 PM”

“Silent J -

Here's a "hypothetical" for you.

Let's assume the following for this "hypothetical":

1. Saddam had WMD and moved them to Syria before the liberation of Iraq.
2. We knew that.
3. Syria is uncooperative, but we don't want to handle them "just yet".
4. We have plenty of intelligence to know what's going on in Syria ... i.e. - we've got a good eye on them. They're not doing anything we don't know about.
5. We got other "missions" right now and don't want to stress ourselves too thin.

If you were in charge of this, would you go on national television and say "Hey world, Syria's got the WMD and we know it", knowing that the only way in there is through military action?

If you did, you'd be foolish ... in this "hypothetical" situation.

There is nothing you know of that says that that particular situation is impossible, right?

The only thing keeping you from recognizing that possiblity is your hatred of George W. Bush.

Think about it.

Now, back to your anti-war websites which I'm sure have people very knowledgeable as to what's going on in our military.”

“That is much easier than thinking about stuff, ain't it Phaedrus? Thinking's hard, right Phaedrus? Better just to try to be funny.”

“Solitary Hiker, you seem like a smart guy, but I've *never* seen your Zionist conspiracy crap hold up under debate. Why do you cling on to something that makes you look like a nut? I know, I know, because it's the "truth". Really, if you just dropped that out of your argument, you'd have a much more solid foundation from which to debate. You seem to have a point with the dollars/Euro thing. But, I mean, really - "secure Israel's borders" - LOL! You blow all credibility right off the bat with that....”

““Let's assume the following for this "hypothetical":

1. Saddam had WMD and moved them to Syria before the liberation of Iraq.
2. We knew that.
3. Syria is uncooperative, but we don't want to handle them "just yet".
4. We have plenty of intelligence to know what's going on in Syria ... i.e. - we've got a good eye on them. They're not doing anything we don't know about.
5. We got other "missions" right now and don't want to stress ourselves too thin.

If you were in charge of this, would you go on national television and say "Hey world, Syria's got the WMD and we know it", knowing that the only way in there is through military action?

If you did, you'd be foolish ... in this "hypothetical" situation.

There is nothing you know of that says that that particular situation is impossible, right?”

It is an accident that your musings on Syria fit exactly into the plans that Israel has for the United States and its military showdown with Syria? Sarge you are buying into the whole Israeli gameplan hook, line, and sinker. The following is the entire text of a policy paper written for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. I have done you a favor by highlighting some of the important parts. It makes for difficult reading given the way it shapes up on the TT format so if you prefer go to any one of numerous sites that will give you the text in a very clear form. You might also take note of the authors of the piece. Two of special interest are Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. You might want to do a Google search on them, David Wurmser, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. After you have read the paper reflect back on the kind of statements the Bush administration is making regarding Syria and Iran. Look at what is happening in Iraq right now. Then ask yourself if Iraq really has the potential to be more stable in the future than it was under Saddam? Anyone who answers than question honestly must know that the situation in Iraq will never be stable with four competing ethnic groups and no strong autocratic regime in power. This is exactly what is proposed in the very first bulleted point in this paper. Sarge quit being a dupe for the neo-con Israeli Firsters than infest Bush’s administration. Start doing some real research and you will see what is going down in this country.


"A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

>Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

>Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

>Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

> Striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

> Paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

> Striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:
We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security AffairsCharles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political StudiesMeyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University”

“Your sayanim diversions are getting old. Spouting Stratfor lies (which is nothing more than a disinformation service of the neo-cons)is getting old too. In every case your game in TT has been to divert attention away from the real story playing out in Washington and the Middle East.”

“Here's a great three part article by Karen Kwiatkowski out of the Pentagon. It outlines what went down in the Pentagon when under Douglas Feith, the Office of Special Plans was set up. The article first appeared in The American Conservative but apprears here at militaryweek.com


http://www.militaryweek.com/kk120103.shtml

http://www.militaryweek.com/kk121503.shtml

http://www.militaryweek.com/kk011904.shtml”

“Thanks SH - I'll check it out this afternoon.”

“This message was sent from Donald Rumsfeld to the American troops in Iraq. I'm not sure of the date but if we invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and from the "fifteen months ago" quote in the article I would guess it was issued in June/July of 2004. What is interesting is that this article is still posted on the Department of Defense site today June 26th, 2005. So Rumsfeld is still trying to past this off to the gullible as true. Its title was "Why We Fight in Iraq." Foremost in the reasons listed is an attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the events of 911. This is patently false.


"More than 15 months ago, a global coalition ended the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and liberated the people of Iraq.

As in all conflicts, this has come at a cost in lives. Some of your comrades made the ultimate sacrifice. For your sacrifices, our country and the President are deeply grateful.

In a free, democratic country we have vigorous debates over important public policy issues – none more heated than a decision to go to war. But this should not distract us from the mission at hand or lessen the magnitude of your accomplishments.

The threat we face must be confronted. And you are doing so exceedingly well. Indeed it has been an historic demonstration of skill and military power.

On September 11, 3,000 citizens were killed by extremists determined to frighten and intimidate our people and civilized societies. The future danger is that, if the extremists gain the potential, the number of casualties would be far higher. Terrorists are continuing to plot attacks against the American people and against other civilized societies. This is a different kind of enemy and a different kind of world. And we must think and act differently in this new century.

These extremists think nothing of cutting off innocent people's heads to try to intimidate great nations. They have murdered citizens from many countries – South Korea, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and others – hoping to strike fear in the hearts of free people.

Theirs is an ideology of oppression and subjugation of women. They seek to create radical systems that impose their views on others. And they will accept no armistice with those who choose free systems.

They see the governments of the Middle East, the United States and our stalwart allies all as targets.

Consider the background. In the span of 20 years, Hussein's Iraq invaded two neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, and launched ballistic missiles at two more. He employed poison gas against soldiers in Iran and against Kurdish villagers in his own country.

The United Nations and the U.S. Congress shared the view that Saddam's regime was a threat to the region and the world. Indeed, in 1998, our Congress passed a resolution calling for the removal of the regime. And over the years the U.N. passed 17 resolutions condemning Saddam's regime and calling on him to tell the UN about his weapons programs. He ignored every one.

Information gathered since the defeat of Saddam's regime last year confirms that his last declaration to the United Nations about his weapons programs was falsified. The U.N. resolutions had called for "serious consequences" should Saddam not comply. He did not.

The President issued a final ultimatum to Saddam to relinquish power to avoid war. Saddam chose war instead.

By your skill and courage, you have put a brutal dictator in the dock to be tried by the Iraqi people and restored freedom to 25 million people. By helping to repair infrastructure, rebuild schools, encourage democratic institutions and delivering educational and medical supplies, you have shown America's true character and given Iraq a chance at a new start.

But most importantly, your fight – and ultimate victory – against the forces of terror and extremism in Iraq and the Middle East will have made America safer and more secure.

You are accomplishing something noble and historic – and future generations of Americans will remember and thank you for it.

Donald H. Rumsfeld"

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/n07262004_2004072601.html”

“I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Saudi Arabia was the reason we invaded Iraq as outlined by the Friedman/Stratfor piece. I really want to hear this.”

“Right, more tin-foil hat conspiracy from you. Oh sure, Stratfor is nothing more than a propaganda tool of the "neocons". That really helps its corporate consumers plan overseas business. Yeah, the bulk of their intelligence is economic in nature, and that, too, is propaganda, because that's what businesses want instead of honest, objective analysis.

And of course you know that Janes basically came to the same conclusions as stratfor. I guess they're in on your conspiracy, too. the premier intelligence service is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece of the Bush admin. Sure.

Solitary, sorry to be rude, but you're a laughably pathetic fringe nutcase. You seem to have a few good thoughts, but they're lost among your delusional conspiracy theories. Pity, that.
last edited: 6/26/05 10:22:12 AM”

“Solitary, in a nutshell, before the war, SA was overtly resistant to American requests to cooperate on cracking down on extremists. Iraq gave us the leverage to threaten them, and indeed SA did cooperate, and as a result they've been fighting a low-level civil war. Haven't you been keeping up with the news?”

“Here are some interesting articles on Neo-Con/Israeli connections. Perle was investigated for passing secrets to Israeli intelligence when he worked for Sen. Scoop Jackson back in the early 70s. Wolfwowitz has been investigated in the past as has Ledeen and Feith. Wolfowitz has moved on to the World Bank where he can work his neo-con magic and Feith has recently resigned "so that he could spend more time with his family". Bush is in so deep he has to cover their tracks.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60497-2004Sep3.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040824-102938-1916r.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0901-20.htm

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/spies_in_pentagon.html


A Forward.com prespective

http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?id=2465”

“Everyone who criticizes the foreign policy objectives of Israel and the neo-cons is a "tinfoil hat wearing nutcase" nowadays. That's all you have left when calling everyone an anti-semite or Nazi won't silence the crowd anymore. Trouble is for you, the tinfoil hatter crowd is growing by the day. And the SA reason given by you/Friedman/Stratfor is so far down the list of reasons for invading Iraq it ain't funny if not an outright joke. This is disinformation. Any pressure the US can put on the Saudis by invading Iraq will not stop what is going to happen there when the king dies. Our military is having enough trouble just trying to hold down Afghanistan. The US has no real control over Iraq. And the Israelis want us to start wars with Iran, Syria, and religious fanatics in SA too? Enough of your lying bull$hit.
last edited: 6/26/05 11:12:29 AM”