And of course, because Paul O'Neill who was fired by Bush says Bush planned the attack on Iraq before 9/11, it must be true. Probably as true as Dean's statement that Bush somehow knew about the 9/11 attack before it actually occured but chose to do nothing. A statement which Dean later withdrew (sort of).
As far as I'm concerned, O'Neill has simply joined the coterie of Bush bashers and haters in another desperate attempt to bring Bush down. For purposes of discussion, I place all of these people in the category of liberal elitists. These are the people who are convinced that only they know how the world should be run while the rest of us are too unenlightened to run our own lives and make our own decisions. They are the usual suspects and include many academics, some of our media types, a number of so-called celebrities and many left-wing radical democrats who can't stand the fact that they are currently out of power.
In regard to charges that Bush planned to attack Iraq before 9/11, recall that as far back as the Clinton administration, policy was being formulated and plans were being discussed about a possible American action against Iraq if it should become necessary. For whatever reasons, Clinton shelved those plans but the policy and plans remained in place when Bush became President. It would only have been natural for Bush and his administration to have continued discussion of those plans as soon as he took office as a matter of prudency and because the whole topic was already a part of official government policy.
IMO, O'Neill is attempting to create the impression that as soon as Bush took office, he spontaneously, and from out of nowhere, and for no good reason, planned to invade Iraq and decided to lie to the american people about WMD and an Al Quaeda connection in order to justify it. This would imply a large-scale conspiracy in the Bush administation that also involved Tony Blair and parts of the British government. You would have to be a paranoid of the highest order to believe in any of this. I believe the truest, simplest and most likely explanation is that O'Neill is mad at Bush, wants to get even, and so paints him as a brutal warmonger who wanted to savage Iraq quite apart from any connection it had with the terrorists who attacked us. This is a view that will be readily accepted by the hate-Bush constituency that is ready made for his message.
Bush is always painted as a liar by his enemies and opponents, a view I do not share. In my judgement, it is O'Neill who is distorting the facts for the purpose of damaging Bush politically.
02 DX Millenium Red
Keep in mind this was published one year before 9-11.
