[snip]At George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat at the top of his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there.[/snip]

[olivebranch]
I have been trying to tell people since November 2002 that there is something odd about the reasons for being in Iraq, or wanting in to Iraq as the case was at the time. I found the idea of WMD in a country that could barely smuggle food in under the ever watchful US nose absurd.

Though oil was traded both legally and illegally, through the oil-for-food programme and illegal exports to Russia, this was allowed by the US because if this export slowed down, the demand on other suppliers would increase, forcing prices higher which would ultimately hurt the US economy. But the US would surely not permit the smuggling of WMD's in and out of Iraq, and Iran certainly wouldn't help them with it either.

So that leaves us with Syria and Saudi Arabia. Syria has its eyes on Palestine and Lebanon, and is hoping to god Iraq turn out OK. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is playing the game, influencing Iraq and BOMBING the USA on September 11.

Fear and war drives up oil consumption, war keeps their biggest buyer the USA consuming petrol, the resistance destroying Iraq's oil pipelines and limiting the flow from Iraq increases the demand on the Saudi's oil revenue's, and they in turn churn out more oil at higher prices.

If George W Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein on Jan.30 2001, could it be possible that the plan involved the thousands of US troops at the time still stationed in Saudi Arabia? This meant the plan would have to have Saudi backing... Could it be possible that the Carlisle Group's potential profits meant money for the US economy, the Saudi Royal's and the Bin Laden Group?

What made the Saudi's turn around? Was it when the American's started to slaughter Afghani's? When The Bin Laden clans most religously respected son, Osama was being hunted as the number 1 enemy of the US Government? Or was it that they realised, when and if the US ever DID claim victory in Iraq and enstate a US-friendly government as they wished, that there would be no need for Saudi Oil exports to the US anymore?

Or maybe it was just when the public discovered the connection between the two ruling elitist groups, through the Carlisle Group.

Read the below articles confirming the GEORGE.W.Bush had ANNOUNCED his TOP PRIORITY was the TOPPLING OF SADDAM HUSSEIN on JANUARY 30, 2001. Long BEFORE the WAR ON TERROR.
[/olivebranch]

[snippette]
Another link to verify this can be found at http://www.progressivetrail.org/

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

by Ray McGovern

published by TomPaine.com

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."




Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents�this time authentic, not forged. Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document.

Dearlove notes "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

At George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat at the top of his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there.

O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam. CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion then proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb.

Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

[/snippette]