DSM confirms Iraq was invaded for Republican election advantage

[muriel_volestrangler]

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

It won't surprise you to know that British people don't normally give dates among themselves relative to foreign elections. The defence secretary (Geoff Hoon, by the way - a complete waste of space, but he still has a job in Blair's cabinet) had obviously been talking to Republicans who were eager to time the invasion for their maximum electoral advantage. Suspects would be Rumsfeld, his counterpart, or maybe Rice or Cheney.

The "spikes of activity" were enthusiastically joined in by Hoon:

During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.

However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.

By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone.

Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

[shraby]

1. I thought that point about the elections

was one of the more damning points. Trying to influence an election with a war is horrible. They deliberately put lives at stake for political gain. That's murder no matter how you look at it.

[Poiuyt]

9. I am absolutely certain that Bush used war for political gains

He saw how popular his father was during the first Gulf War but it slipped when the war was over. Jr. wasn't about to make that mistake. He started a war to gain political power, and then kept it going so that he could be re-elected.

I also seem to recall Karl Rove saying something about how the 9/11 attacks should be used for political gains.

[kansasblue]

2. What election in January/Feb?

"to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."


I'm lost.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I think that means the timeline started with the Congressional Resolution

authorising the invasion of Iraq. That actually started on October 2nd, 34 days before the elections, as far as I can tell. Bush needed that before he could send a lot of troops to Kuwait. When UN resolution 1441 was passed, and Saddam allowed the inspectors in (somewhat to the surprise of Blair, it seems from these memos), the actual invasion was delayed while they hoped Saddam would refuse to cooperate.

[LightningFlash]

3. What a surprise......Not.

And the 2002 elections in March... (not January) was how the rest of these republicans stole their way into congress.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Exactly

Disgusting filthy pigs. If you can't rig the vote just start a war.

[wookie294]

4. Here's another interesting quote

In 2001, Cheney publicly stated that it was "confirmed" that Mohammed Atta had a meeting with Saddam's intelligence service in Prague. But in 2002, Paul Wolfowitz privately told British intelligence that "there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence."

IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

[tex-wyo-dem]

6. No question about it. You might also remember ...

the siege on Fallujah being held off until after the election. I had a sneaking suspicion that this was being done on purpose to discourage any challenge to the election. If Kerry demanded recounts, etc. he could be accused of putting soldiers and the war at risk.

[rateyes]

7. Can anyone say..

"tail wagging the dog?!"