Bush planned Iraq war BEFORE 9/11

do not know what to say really, I was kinda shocked when I read it. Comes from his ex-aide Paul O'Neill.

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

 

There have been plans to take Saddam out since after the first War. Plans!

Even Clinton thought he had WMDs.

yahoo

Throw in that he had been ignoring the UN since at least 1998 I would think a plan had to have been drawn up by the military under Clinton as a just in case. Of course CLinton did nothing but drop a bomb here and there.

If I remember Bush talked about Clinton's inaction in Iraq during his campaign, so you would think he would look into doing more when he became President.

It is not surprising to anyone that Iraq was a focus for the US even before 9/11. This is nothing but a fired and embarrassed employee striking back while trying to sell his book (he is the main source). I think most people think he should have been taken out back in first war, but first Bush thought the coalition with the other arab nation/partners was more important.

Also as a few Democrats will have everyone believe Saddam was not involved in terrorism, there is no chance in hell of him being linked to 9/11 or even to Atta, and there is no chance of finding any banned weapons, so what should it matter to them if the planning took place before or after 9/11.

 

Before I respond, here are a few of my biases...

(1) I don't like Bush as a person. In general, I am biased against those who inherit wealth and power. I think it's too easy for them to become hypocrites.

(2) I could never be a Republican as long as the party caters to the religious-right. I think people should be free to do what they want as long it does not hurt others.

(3) While I am a registered democrat, I'm no longer comfortable with the Democratic party as it caters to minorities who are not willing to do the work it takes to be part of the main-stream.

(4) I think it was a sound decision for the US to go into Iraq militarily.

With that said, here's my response to your attached article...

I agree with the article that the Bush Team went into office with an agenda that called for overthrowing the Iraq government. While any prudent administration would plan contingencies that included unilateral military action, with the Bush administration it was much more. In fact, key cabinet members, not much after the first gulf war, began writing extensively and formulating a policy that would be consistent with a US military presence in the middle east.

As far a lying to the American people --- Yes, I think the Bush administration did regarding their middle-east goals, but they are not the first. FDR insisted right up until Pearl Harbor that the US had no plans for war and "would not let the lights go out on peace." Eisenhower lied about the U2 spy plane until the Soviets produce a downed pilot. And the list goes on. That still does not excuse Bush, but more on that in a bit.

With all this said, here's why I think our involvement is the right thing:

(1) The Western world is dependent upon oil and without middle-east oil, we would be in a mess which I would rather not describe. The middle-east and particularly Saudi Arabia is very unstable. The governments of the middle-east countries that support us and sell oil to us are by and large corrupt (especially in Saudi Arabia) and in danger of falling to forces that see the West as inherently evil. I think that Iraq is viewed by the Bush administration as a "beach head" to the middle-east. A US military force in Iraq has the potential to both bring stability to Iraq, but also to the rest of the middle east. While, our involvement offers no clear cut victory in the short term, I think that without our involvement, we would almost certainly lose the middle-east.

(2) Keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is important if for no other reason than to keep Israel from preempting their nuclear program as they did Iraq's. Another war between Israel and the Arabs could be devastating in both human life lost and energy to the West. With a US military presence, we have a chance of stopping the development of WMDs in the middle-east. Without it, it's a forgone conclusion that they will develop weapons that will eventually find their way to the US. Lybia's recent willingness to forgo developing WMDs was no coincidence.

(3) Finally, even though I have two sons (15 & 19) and would be terrified to have them go to war, it's time that the US does our own dirty work. We have tried supporting thugs (including Sadam) just because they are enemies to our enemies and ultimately, they turn on us or are overthrown. If it's really in the interest of the US to have a reliable flow of energy and relative safety from terrorists developing WMDs then we should do it ourselves and Iraq is a good place to begin.

Back to lying to the American people. I'm not sure that Bush told any complete lies, he and the administration (not to mention the previous Clinton administration) were certain that there were WMDs in Iraq. It would have been lying to plant evidence which to Bush' credit he did not. What I deplore is that the Bush administration was not straight with their agenda which sees Iraq as a battle in a much larger war. For democracy to function, leaders must debate the issues, but I'm afraid that free and honest debate is not valued by American leadership or for that matter, the general electorate.

 

This information fits in with a lot of other facts we know about the invasion of Iraq. We know that the CIA never told Bush that Saddam was linked to Al Qaida or that he was any kind of threat to anyone. We know that Bush was told by the CIA that they did NOT believe Saddam was trying to make a nuclear bomb.

Bush lied to the American people in his State of the Union speech when he said Saddam was making a nuclear bomb. Colin Powell thought this was not true and, despite other lies he told to the UN to justify war, flat refused to repeat Bush's lie about the nuclear bomb.

Bush and Cheney are on record as saying that there is no evidence whatsoever of a link between 911 and Saddam Hussein. Bush lied about the threat he claimed Saddam posed. He made up an excuse to go to war.

We know that Bush knew that Saddam had no army left to speak of and that we would only face token resistance, which is what we faced. This great military charge to Baghdad was against, what any WWII veteran might consider, laughable resistance.

At Tora Bora in Afghanistan Bush did not send in thousands of Marines and paratroopers to surround Osama Bin Laden, but was so afraid of high casualties, that he sent in Afghan mercenaries, who allowed Bin Laden to escape.

Bush attacked, not because he thought Saddam was strong and a threat, but because he knew he was weak, the invasion would be easy, and he would have few casualties.

It makes no sense that he feared the political results of high casualties at Tora Bora, but was willing to risk tens of thousands of American corpses exposed to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush knew the war would be easy and we would have few casualties.

Lying to start a war is pretty close to the worst thing a President can do. It is tantamount to treason.

We still do not know the real reason Bush conquered Iraq. That will become clearer and clearer as time goes by.

 

What he said.

 

Nothing the FDR did, or Ike did, or even Nixon did in Southeast Asia is remotely comparable to what Bush did.

It is not even close.

What subsequent events have proven is that the UN and the rest of the world were dead right that Saddam was no threat to anyone. The sanctions had worked and defanged him.

There was no need to go to war. They were right and Bush and his lying right wing wackos were wrong.........IF...

....IF you believe them about the reasons they "claimed" they used to go to war. BUT.....

....We did not go to war for any of the reasons they stated. We went to war for other reasons. Bush lied to the American people about why we went to war.

Now we are saddled with paying out tens of billions of our taxdollars to prop up the Iraqi economy and govt for the next few years.

Bush insists on maintaining sole control over Iraq, will not let the UN in, even though it is costing us plenty, and I feel sure that he is angling the "caucus" elections next summer so that he will have a puppet government.

He clearly has plans for Iraq. Right wing nuts like Bush and Cheney do not invade countries because a bunch of Arabs are being mistreated by their govt. They invade because that country has something they want.

 

you arent interested in credibility are you? mass murderers would be considered threats to others. don't you think?

maybe if you call me racist, what i say won't be true anymore. give it a shot.

 

Cotton Bowl 66 is just a bitter, angry little person, that's all.

 

In response to CottonBowl'66...

I agree with much you have said, particularly...

1 of 2: "He clearly has plans for Iraq. Right wing nuts like Bush and Cheney do not invade countries because a bunch of Arabs are being mistreated by their govt. They invade because that country has something they want."

2 of 2: And while I think "lie" is too strong of a word, I agree that Bush mislead the American people and agree with you that, "We did not go to war for any of the reasons they stated. We went to war for other reasons."

Nevertheless, I think it is imperative to ask the following two questions...

(1) What are our plans for Iraq and the middle-east?

(2) How is the democratic process affected when leaders are anything less than completely candid?

FIRST: Iraq is not viewed as an end in itself. It is a battle in a global war. The existing world order favors the US and the administration's policy is to protect that world order. So the question is, "Protect it from what?" and the answers with regards to the middle-east are...

(A) Interruption Of Energy Resources to the US and the west due to political changes within middle-eastern trading partners.

(B) The development and disbursement of WMDs;

(C) The safety of Israel if for no other reason than if Israel was seriously threatened, it would retaliate in a way that would disrupt the middle-east (and energy to the west) for many years to come.

I believe that the administrations view was and is that all three of the above points are seriously in jeopardy of coming to pass and they viewed the best way to reverse unfavorable trends is to establish a large US military presence in the middle-east to police the area. How affective this new US policy will be remains to be seen.

So in short, to answer your question, "What does Iraq have that the US (Bush Administration) wanted...

(1) A Base for US Military Operations to serve not only to stabilize Iraq, but to be able to quickly bring pressure to bear on other hot spots in the middle-east.

(2) A lot of oil. It's a fall back in case we loose Saudi oil production.

I think that if Bush was right here and being candid, he would agree with you... He would say, "You're absolutely right, Iraq was a cake walk, that's why we went in. Where else could we go? Iran? No way, that would have surely seen massive US casualties. Better to go into Iran, set-up a beach head and then threaten the rest of the middle-east from a position of power."

Now you might say to Bush, "Well, Mr. President, do you really think that we can succeed with your plan?" and he would respond (again assuming that he is being candid) "I don't know, but I'm sure if we don't try it, then we will loose Saudi Arabia and Israel will wind up blowing the whole thing up and I don't want Billy Gram to be right about his end of the world stuff."

This brings us to my SECOND POINT: How is the democratic process affected when leaders are anything less than completely candid? It's destroyed! I think that Bush is truly doing what he perceives as what's best to protect the country, but I am terribly concerned that is does not value democracy.

 

Bush is surrounded by super pro Israel Zionists, who seemingly care more about Israel than they do about the United States.

Israel is not going to "blow everything up." But these super pro Israel hawks, like Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Paul Wolfewicz, and others, want America to support Israel's policy of eventually seizing the West Bank, and perhaps with the eventual intention of expelling all the Palestinians who live there.

Fanatics like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who think all the blame falls with the Palestinians, and that they are apparently the embodiment of evil on this earth, also support this ultra support of Israel. As long as the US is giving Israel billions, she wil not negotiate.

I would favor cutting off all US aid to Israel. We give them at least $6 billion in handouts every year, sometimes even more, and that is what is funding Israel's hardline position in suppressing Palestinians. If you wonder why the Arabs are so angry at the US, this is the reason.

We are funding the occupation of the West Bank.

Of course this is really about oil. One day, perhaps even before the election in November, if Bush thinks he needs the boost, there will be an announcement that the Iraqi government, "of its own free will," has decided to enter into an agreement to supply America with the bulk of its oil, at a favorable price to the US, for the long term.

Count on it.

That means that we invaded Iraq for the same reasons that Japan invaded Southeast Asia and the Indonesia--oil. We did not invade to set anyone free. We invaded to get the oil.

It is a national disgrace. It was unnecessary and makes us an aggressor nation.

The reaction of the American people, which will no doubt be positive, since they believe the lies Bush has told up until now, will show just how countries can become imperialist powers and exploit other nations for their own interests.