Yes, The Pentagon did want to hit Iran

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html


By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions.

Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the



threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states by "aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism".
 
This legitimizes my belief that the reason for Iraq was the belief that it would cause a domino effect in the ME...

Of course, I was told I was "insane" by the left. That "they don't look that far"...

This does not say that they wanted to invade Iran.
 
General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.

Clark writes that the list also included Lebanon. Feith reveals that Rumsfeld's paper called for getting "Syria out of Lebanon" as a major goal of US policy.

When this writer asked Feith after a recent public appearance which countries' names were deleted from the documents, he cited security reasons for the deletion. But when he was asked which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."
 
Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states by "aiding local peoples to rid themselves of terrorists and to free themselves of regimes that support terrorism".
 
I saw Feith on with John Stewart the other night. His book is an apologetic for the administration. He says that they had good intentions and that Bush was not planning an invasion of Iraq from the beginning, that they didn't choose which information to give us and which to hold back to make the war an easier sell etc etc. Stewart did a very good job of interviewing Feith and Feith did a good job in the interview. If you go to The Daily Show website they have all 22 minutes of the interview which they edited to get on TV.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168543&title=douglas-feith-uncut-pt.-1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168544&title=douglas-feith-uncut-pt.-2
 
I saw the original broadcast also.

Feith is really trying to avoid the repercussions of history and John did a very good job.
 
We should have hit them along with Saddam. Now, thanks to the pandering, appeasing Bush-hating handwringers, we'll have to wait until they attack us - and they'll be nuclear soon.
 
indisputable said:
We should have hit them along with Saddam. Now, thanks to the pandering, appeasing Bush-hating handwringers, we'll have to wait until they attack us - and they'll be nuclear soon.
Click to expand...

You mean....Bush would have attacked them, but he cared too much about the feelings of the handwringers who hate him?

That would be a first...
 
Onceler said:
You mean....Bush would have attacked them, but he cared too much about the feelings of the handwringers who hate him?

That would be a first...
Click to expand...

He cared enough to give all the handwringers a chance to vote on it and Saddam a chance to get out with his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top