I have often wondered about the Bush Administration's plans to invade Iraq. With all the evidence piling up -- courtesy Dick Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Wes Clarke, Karen Kwiatkowski, not to mention the pre-WH writings of many key WH/Pentagon advisers -- there really isn't much doubt that from the first day of the Bush presidency Iraq was a target for invasion. The question now is how was the WH going to get the American people to accept the invasion.
We know of course that the Mother of all Excuses, 9/11, fell right into their laps (sadly, like manna from heaven for the NeoCons). But what if 9/11 had never happened? What "Remember the Maine" event would the WH, Faux and NeoCon braintrust have used to gin up a conflict in a non-terrorized America?
Well, here's an interesting tidbit I caught in the WaPo's Dana Priest's online chat today, which points us in the right direction. A question was posed to her, asking about Operation Desert Badger (talk about an aptonym):
"In January, 2004, in responding to Paul O'Neill's book, President Bush said "we were busy dealing with Desert Badger". At the time, no one knew what he meant. It now seems that Desert Badger was a plan to escalate the no-fly zones into a full-on war on Iraq by provoking Saddam into shooting at our planes. What impact do you think this will have on the current discussion?
Dana Priest: I love this question. My answer is: It could potentially have an impact if I can find out much more about the operation. So---if there's anyone out there who can help, call (334-4490) or write (priestd@washpost.com). Thanks."
So there ya go. You want a smoking gun for the admin's plans in Iraq, the answer "may" be to just find the answer to what is Operation Desert Badger. Something tells me however, that those who know anything about this Operation are probably no longer "with us."
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/r_nation_loebpriest033104.htm
