Bush Planned to Attack Iraq before 9/11?

[freeflydrew 0]

I think that this is one of the more f&cked up things I have read about Bush...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration

Saturday, January 10, 2004 Posted: 7:21 PM EST (0021 GMT)


Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet.

(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."


This is a dirty Administration...
(My own opinion, not from cnn)

[Gravitymaster 0]

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

[kiltboy 0]

Of course such plans exist. I'm pretty sure it's a common exercise in command staff to draw these things up.

The interesting point of the story for me was how to sell the plan and it looks like they settled on WMD.
The authors were let down by the diplomatic effort to get international backing and the ppost war Iraq is the result.

I did read that they have recently found 36 chemical rounds that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Not what I would describe as a threat to the UK or international security.

David

[Gravitymaster 0]

I did read that they have recently found 36 chemical rounds that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Not what I would describe as a threat to the UK or international security.***

How many more would they have to find for you to consider it a threat? 50, 65, 75, 80, 100,??? Add this to the missles found that were capable of reaching Israel, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc..

Oh, sorry I forgot. They are just Arabs and Jews. They don't count as being International Security concerns.

[leroydb 0]

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

***

I don't have so much a problem with the press's accuracy in reporting what O'Neill said in the book. I do question Oneill's motives and his access to information.

O'Neill was the Treasury Secretary who was fired because his economic policies weren't working. I remember the lefties screaming for GWB to do something about the economy and calling for O'Neill's resignation. Now they are so quick to believe a humiliated former Treasury Sec. with an ax to grind had some kind of unlimited access to discussions regarding national security and foreign policy.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack almost everywhere, even our allies. That is totally different from an administration having political aims to invade a sovereign nation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

***

I don't have so much a problem with the press's accuracy in reporting what O'Neill said in the book. I do question Oneill's motives and his access to information.

O'Neill was the Treasury Secretary who was fired because his economic policies weren't working. I remember the lefties screaming for GWB to do something about the economy and calling for O'Neill's resignation. Now they are so quick to believe a humiliated former Treasury Sec. with an ax to grind had some kind of unlimited access to discussions regarding national security and foreign policy.

There's a difference between being ineffective and being a liar.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

Remember Watergate? Who was lying over that, Nixon or Woodward and Bernstein?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,131]

If it was planned far in advance, how come our troops weren't equipped with adequate body armor, and armored Humvees?

From the Chicago Tribune:

"How could all this happen? It's not as though the Iraq war came as a surprise: The administration had been planning it for more than a year. And the postwar violence didn't strike like lightning from a blue sky. Experts commissioned by the State Department, among others, had warned that the occupation might face widespread unrest.

"So didn't the people in charge make sure every American soldier had the best possible chance of survival? That was the question asked of Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, when he appeared before a congressional committee in September. "I can't answer for the record why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply," he admitted. Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee said, "Events since the end of major combat operations in Iraq have differed from our expectations."

"Some members of Congress are not accepting such pathetic excuses. A spokesman for Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a West Point graduate who served in the 82nd Airborne, told The New York Times, "The senator believes the administration failed to understand the mission." Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says the failure is "totally unacceptable."

"Unacceptable to him, maybe, but not unacceptable to everyone. As yet, there has been no concerted push to find out why these lethal mistakes were made, who made them, and who should be held accountable. For now, many of our soldiers are exposed to unnecessary risk. But the people responsible have kept their own bottoms covered."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack almost everywhere, even our allies. That is totally different from an administration having political aims to invade a sovereign nation.

***

If politics were the sole motive, why didn't GWB wait until now to invade. I find your argument on this kind of weak although I'm glad we agree on the contingency plans.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

***

I don't have so much a problem with the press's accuracy in reporting what O'Neill said in the book. I do question Oneill's motives and his access to information.

O'Neill was the Treasury Secretary who was fired because his economic policies weren't working. I remember the lefties screaming for GWB to do something about the economy and calling for O'Neill's resignation. Now they are so quick to believe a humiliated former Treasury Sec. with an ax to grind had some kind of unlimited access to discussions regarding national security and foreign policy.

There's a difference between being ineffective and being a liar.

***

I disagree. Many people lie because they ARE ineffective and are trying to obfuscate their deficiencies. Ever worked outside of Academia?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

Remember Watergate? Who was lying over that, Nixon or Woodward and Bernstein?

I would say there was some lieing going on both ways. You really believe "Deepthroat" was a single person?

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

Quote

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack almost everywhere, even our allies. That is totally different from an administration having political aims to invade a sovereign nation.

***

If politics were the sole motive, why didn't GWB wait until now to invade. I find your argument on this kind of weak although I'm glad we agree on the contingency plans.

He didn't invade "now", he invaded 10 months ago. Your comment is naive anyway.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Quote

Quote

not all stuff the press says is true... remember they are out to make oney.. they are not our friends

Remember Watergate? Who was lying over that, Nixon or Woodward and Bernstein?

I would say there was some lieing going on both ways. You really believe "Deepthroat" was a single person?

What you believe may have been the situation with Deepthroat, and was was a proven situation with Nixon, are quite different animals. The Washington Post came out clearly as an instrument of truth in the Watergate affair, and Nixon was proven to be a liar.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[slug 1]

>>The Washington Post came out clearly as an instrument of truth in the Watergate affair, and Nixon was proven to be a liar. >>

If Nixon was a liar what was Mr Clinton just confused about the definition of sex? Mr Reagon had some medical problems befor he ever retired from the white house, I wonde what he did at whirte house meetings.

GW already raised $120,000,000 for his reelection campaign. No comment on the last election or his military record, his personal wealth etc.

As far as the ex Sec of the treasury wasn't he the goofball wall street attorney that wanted his office elevated to a cabinet position?

Truth, honesty, intelligence, from a politican? Jimmy Carter gets my vote. The rest imo were just "team players".

I support our troops, but there was a serious FUBAR in military planning to rid Iraq from the Butcher of Bagdad. Dumsfeld IMO reminds me of Bagdad Bob.

We know the press is confused about skydiving, and USPA is USPA. Why is this any different? The media will do their thing and the white House via the PIO & spinmeisters will do theirs.

Lets just settle down support our enlisted troops and their families and watch history in the making. Don't like whats going on? So what? vote GWB in spite of his reelction campaign funds out and elect another politican like Mr Carter to replace him.

To bad so sad ain't going to happen. Lets just relax and smoke a cigar.

R.I.P.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Read Gen Clark's book - he walked into the Pentagon before 9/11 and the GWB admin had told them to come up with a detailed plan on how to attack Iraq and oust SH. They were also told to come up with plans for several other countries that were eventually listed in the "axis of evil" speech. These were to be a series of quick wars to overthrow the leaderships of several countries - all would be pre-emptive attacks. Clark mentioned that they couldn't be quick wars, but everyone in the Pentagon felt they would be.

Clarks response in the book? He was surprised at how detailed the plans were, and at which countries that had chosen. He felt that if they were going to do this, they should plan an attack against Saudi Arabia and secularize that country.

Warmongers, the bunch of them.

Edit to add - this is going to be one of the ugliest presidential campaigns we have ever seen IMHO.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

Quote

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

The Pentagon has contingency plans to attack almost everywhere, even our allies. That is totally different from an administration having political aims to invade a sovereign nation.

***

If politics were the sole motive, why didn't GWB wait until now to invade. I find your argument on this kind of weak although I'm glad we agree on the contingency plans.

He didn't invade "now", he invaded 10 months ago. Your comment is naive anyway.

My response may seem naive to you because you failed to read and comprehend it. I never said GWB invaded "NOW",read my response and try again. If you get it right this time, you get your choice of Teddy Bears.

• Quote

[FallRate 0]

Gravitymaster 1
Kallend 0 (and three penalty minutes for the insult)

FallRate

[freeflydrew 0]

I think the issue in the article isn't that there was a plan of attack for Iraq, but rather that the administration was already planning it's attack on Iraq before 9/11.


Forget about Deepthroat, forget about ex-politicians being bitter... These are just disractions from the real issue. That issue is whether or not this administration is doing the best things for the people of America, and its economy. Being Lied to is just the tip of the iceburg.

Axis of evil?
45 minutes away from a nuclear strike?
Active WMD Program?
Ties with Al-Qaeda?
Tax cuts for everyone?

There's a serious trend here that's simply undeniable... But hey, what do I know? I'll just stir the pot with my ignorance.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Gravitymaster 1
Kallend 0 (and three penalty minutes for the insult)

FallRate

Asinine comment. This is not about me, it's about a possibly lying, conniving administration.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

These plans have probably existed for over 15 years as do plans exist for other countries. Remember during the Clinton Administration, SH was firing missles at U.S. planes in the No-Fly Zone set up after the 1st Gulf War.

On a side note, I find it laughable that the lefties criticized Bush for not having a plan in place before going into Iraq and now we find out they had been working on it even before Sept 11. Guess there's no pleasing those who are quick to criticize without any facts.

The criticisms that I've heard regarding George not having a plan have dealt specifically with the lack of an exit plan. That George might have been planning to invade Iraq since he entered office doesn't mean he had an exit plan, and the mess that has ensued since he declared victory suggests quite strongly that he didn't.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[FallRate 0]

Ahh, Kallend, you gonna squirt a little?

FallRate

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Ahh, Kallend, you gonna squirt a little?

FallRate

Thanks for bringing this a little closer to being locked...

[Beerlight 0]

In before the lock.......PW extraordinare.........