Was the decision to go to war in Iraq made even before 9/11?

Question

The Project for a New America (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank that is credited with developing the concept of preemptive use of our military forces, penned a letter to President Clinton in January 1998. In this letter, PNAC (led by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) presented Clinton with various reasons U.S. military force should be used in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Four years later, and only a few months after 9/11, President George W. Bush expressed the need to go into Iraq, citing the same reasons outlined in the letter to President Clinton in 1998. A major addition to those reasons listed in the letter was the alleged connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

The following letter can be found at the Project for a New America website.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Please read the letter before making any comments.

Answer 1

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/041006_kristol_youtube.html

(VIDEO) Kristol talks all about 9/11 and Iran and tries to defend himself. People get arrested for asking questions

William Kristol, chairman of the Project for a New American Century (founded in 1997) spoke at the University of Texas in Austin about the current political climate and the "new order" or "new world" that emerged after 9/11. He was confronted by a large number of protesters who carry banners and question his role in 9/11. The event was covered by the Daily Texan.

Pg. 51 of the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (published in September 2000, which otherwise calls for the dramatic build up of military forces and for a climate of multi-theater wars) states: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Answer 2

On his first day in office, Bush is reported to have told his intimates that one major goal of his administration was going to be the removal of Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam had put out a contract on Daddy's life at the time of the Gulf War. Sonny Boy wanted vengeance. He used 9/11 as the reason. There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Saddam was scared of al Qaida and would not have offered them any help. (see the interview with Saddam on 60 Minutes from a number of years ago) The whole Iraq war is nothing more than vengeance and a vendetta on the part of Bush.

Answer 3

PNAC is simply a conservative national security oriented think tank. Do you have any idea how many different think thanks there are? It is not some grand conspiracy by the right.

That being said, I think it is fair to say that after 9/11, Bush 43 strongly believed that even if Iraq was not necessarily involved in 9/11, they supported terrorism and had an active WMD program, which I think anyone would agree is a bad combination. So yeah, after 9/11, he was looking for an excuse to do something about Iraq.

Of course we know now that Iraq's WMD program was pretty much in shambles, but that's 20/20 hindsight.

Answer 4

Iraq did the first 9/11, ie, the 'ninety 3 attack on the international commerce middle, and then the assassination attempt on Pres. Bush Sr. in addition they funded and presented terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians for most many years. In late 2002, the U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly for the regime replace of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. After the regime replace, the United international locations welcomed the eliminating of Saddam Hussein, cautioned the recent constitutional repbulic of Iraq, and requested the U.S. to grant militia safe practices for the Iraqi authorities till such time that they could do it independently. And that's been shown that there have been many communications and agreements between Iraq and Al Qaeda previous to 9/11, in simple terms as Bush Jr were saying on the on the spot. The above is a simplied answer for your effortless question. you're welcome.

Answer 5

George W. Bush and his administration used poor judgment, their reasoning for the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of the USA,, their reaction to the 9-11 attacks was a result of their inaction before the attacks occurred,, to go on the hunt for Osama bin Laden was Americas decision,, which was marred by the Bush war

Answer 6

Yes,but what you don't refer to is that Clinton's policy was one of regime change in Iraq, and after 9-11, Bush had no choice, given what was in the letter. Vulnerable countries {us} are readily attacked.To sit by and hope nothing would happen well wouldn't that be like betting on your life?

tell where bush said Iraq was connected to 9-11, please,I keep hearing people say this but can't find what you refer to.

Answer 7

George W. wanted to go to Iraq ever since he got into office. He was just looking for a reason to do it. It didnt matter where, because he believed one would lead to the other. Thats why i believe 9-11 was an inside job that the president set up himself. There is major proof of this and it all makes perfect sense.

Answer 8

I believe the US government 'think tank' had certainly considered the acquiring of Iraq'a oil & gas...............n made a number of strategic & tactic plans to do just that.

Iraq had not the slightest connection with 911 or Osama.

I am sure many people out there would agree with what I say!

Saddam Hussein presented Bush with the opportunity & the right excuse to execute what had been planned for a long time..........

.............n Saddam was a perfectly obliging idiot.............as he has more muscles than brains & of a sub-standard mental development....................by not seeing & thinking ahead of the US.

If Saddam is to be executed.............he should not be deemed to be evil & murderous...............he should be blamed by the Iraqis for letting the US do to Iraq what he was elected (or his dictatorship) to prevent!

Saddam had failed miserably to defend the sourveignty of Iraq & prevent the most well armed thief in the world to 'steal' Iraq's national treasure.........oil!

For that.......the Iraqis' anger is not going to be diminished by executing Saddam...............civil war or war on the US occupation..............it will continue until such time the Iraqi national pride...........n independence (....n freedom of occupation) is fully restored.

Georgie Bush & his poodle....... Tony Blair...... can go and fcuk themselves for the lies they told to the world...................n they both should join Saddam in the fcuking dock!

The world, besides the Muslim part, is totally fed up with the ongoing & continuing mess the US & their stooges had created & continue to sustain!!!

Answer 9

It is common knowledge that Bush intended to go after Iraq once he got into office. When he was first "elected" I got a phone call from a friend that was odd. She said that Saddam better run for cover. Initially, I was confused, but now after all that has happened I can see what she meant. This administration has used any and all means of twisting reality into excuses for their agenda. It is terrifying, to say the least.

Answer 10

It was established as an official US policy to remove Saddam from power during Clinton's administration - however, the republicans were too busy at the time trying to roast Clinton, who was too busy worrying about his legacy - and the media was too busy following Monica around to consider the ousting of another country's leader as news worthy - hence, nothing got done.

Sad, eh?