U.S. Official: Iraq Invaded to Protect Israel

[northernsoul]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

<snip>
WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.
</snip>

[denverbill]

1. Does anyone in that administration have even a tiny brain?

'All signs point to NO'.

[bobbieinok]

2. what is the number for this reason for the war on Iraq??????

[billybob537]

3. Ridiculous

They're grasping at straws. they haven't a clue that this is worse than going in to Iraq for oil

[JHB]

7. Straws named PNAC

[fryguy]

4. if you really believe this crap

then you're probably re-reading your well worn copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mien Kampf.

The US certainly supports Israel militarily, but would any right thinking individual seriously believe that smirk & co (or any legitimate or illegitimate president) would sacrifice over 600 US soldiers and expend over $100 billion for an invasion of a foreign nation for the sake of Israel? Even in Israel's darkest moments during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the Egyptian army had crossed the Suez and Syrian armor was poised to push toward Haifa and Tel Aviv, the US chose not to interfere with troops to aid Israel. (We did, however, provide replacements for the lost aircraft, etc., but did not put personnel in harms way) The prospect that shrubs sandbox war was waged for the purpose of safeguarding Israel is just one more example of the NeoCon's attempts to confuse the purpose of why we're there - and will be there for quite some time.....

[JHB]

6. You forget that the PNAC Gallery is running foreign policy now...

...and they (regardless of religion) have always taken a "smash Israel's enemies" line.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Israel is an ally

It is unsurprising that some wish to smash the enemies of our allies.

[redqueen]

10. I think Ron Paul (R-TX) has noted

the Zionist tendencies of the neo-cons running our foreign policy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. Ron Paul is not exactly a reference source

Sort of like the GOP's Lyndon Larouche.

[denverbill]

9. wtf are you talking about?

Are you disputing that Philip Zelikow made the comments, or that he is a White House intelligence official? AFAIK the Asian Times isn't an anti-Semitic newspaper.

[fryguy]

16. not disputing that he made the comments

but that they're patently untrue.....

thats wtf i'm talking about!

[denverbill]

23. It's hard to dispute that this administration lies constantly.

However, usually they lie to cover up their true motivation with a more socially ethical excuse. For example, they might claim we invaded Iraq to bring them democracy and rescue them from tyranny, while in fact, the real reason was to get oil equipment contracts for Halliburton.

It just doesn't make sense that the administration would have an open anti-semite on staff, much less let him speak publicly. Plus, when he blamed Israel for the invasion, you would think they would repudiate him rather than remain silent.

[fryguy]

24. true, however....

They also might have remained silent in order not to call attention to the comments. After all, they're only coming to light now, about a year after they were made instead of when he actually said it. Had they jumped up to discredit it at the time it would have gotten a whole lot more press.

Further, could it be that it is coming to light now to discredit him as a member of the commission in anticipation of whatever they ask condi? Would you hold it past these guys to attack someone, or pave the way for their public demise? Or, perhaps it is yet another smoke-screen put up to obfuscate the criticism being heaped on them?

[redqueen]

5. Not news

This has been said by many for the longest time.

Think about it... Iraq was not a threat to us.

Who was Iraq a threat to?

[Jim Sagle]

11. Nobody. They couldn't beat a high-school football team.

Zelikow is engaging in misdirection.

Some of these neo-cons don't really have Israel's interests at heart. They use the issue as a smoke-screen for other interests such as oil, defense contracts, and petty personal revenge ("He tried to kill my dad.)"

[redqueen]

13. If not, then why was Israel lobbying us to invade Iraq? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

14. Were they? Or was Sharon "lobbying" to help his friend w?

Things are not always what they seem - especially with the right wing.

[redqueen]

15. How was that supposed to help?

It turned some Republicans against the war.

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. And probably turned Democrats for it

Last time I checked, * had all the votes he needed for the war. So something worked.

[redqueen]

19. Why was Israel lobbying for us to invade Iraq

if Iraq was no threat to them?

[fryguy]

20. I'm sure Israel didn't mind the war

and was probably pretty much for it (the leaders that is, not the citizenry - sound familiar?) But just because some Israeli leaders were for the invasion, and the invasion happened, does not mean that one was the result of the other - the cause and effect line that is made is faulty. It is quite ridiculous to believe that smirk and his NeoCon masters would submit to a war BECAUSE of Israel. Strong as the Jewish lobby might be considered in America, its a fallacy to believe its that strong.....

[Jim Sagle]

22. Thank you. That's exactly what seem folks overlook.

[Jim Sagle]

21. To help out Sharon's friend w.

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Of course they saw Iraq as a threat

Let's see, Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait, sent missiles attacking Israel and attacking American forces for 10 years.

No, no threat at all.

[redqueen]

26. This should have been the response to post #11, then

That was the reason I was asking.

[JohnyCanuck]

18. The Israelis did seem to play a role in providing bogus intelligence

Guardian mentioned this in a story on Rummy's Office of Special Plans.

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html