Bush planned Iraq attack before 9/11 _

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.

.......

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."



Full article http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...bush/index.html

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040110_838.html
O'Neill: U.S. Planned Iraq War Pre-9/11
Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill Says U.S. Planned Iraq War Just Days After Bush Took Office

The Associated Press



CRAWFORD, Texas Jan. 10 Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 more than two years before the start of the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein.
"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's "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired Sunday night.

The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.

But O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, said he had qualms about he asserted was the pre-emptive nature of the war planning.

"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," according to an excerpt of the interview that CBS released Saturday.

The administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks but officials have said they had to consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even larger scale-strike against the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam "was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11."

"It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people," McClellan said in Texas, where the president is staying at his ranch.

O'Neill's interview was part of his effort to promote a new book about the first half of Bush's term, "The Price of Loyalty," for which O'Neill was a primary source.

The administration began sending signals about a possible confrontation with Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001.

In July 2001, after an Iraqi surface-to-air missile was fired at an American surveillance plane, Bush's national security adviser put Saddam on notice that the United States intended a more resolute military policy toward Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration," Condoleezza Rice said at the time.

Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December 2001, after the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, that "with respect to what is sometimes characterized as taking out Saddam, I never saw a plan that was going to take him out."

According to the book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the Bush administration began examining options for an invasion in the first months after Bush was inaugurated.

I won't "debate" in this thread, i merely wish to see the responses.
 
(omg) lol that's serious s***. the prez. might get own3ed! God I hope we don't look like total asses...
 
Good! Our President came in with a goal and achieved it. Good for him. I wish I could achieve my goals as easily as he did.
 
saddam hussein never had anything to do with al-queda, I love how the media just leaves out the fact that al-queda bombs the s*** out of iraq, syria, saudi arabia, any non-islamic government (that is to say it is secular, albiet the majority of it is comprised of muslims)
 
Vulcanon said:
saddam hussein never had anything to do with al-queda, I love how the media just leaves out the fact that al-queda bombs the s*** out of iraq, syria, saudi arabia, any non-islamic government (that is to say it is secular, albiet the majority of it is comprised of muslims)


That is interesting considering Al-Queda has since been linked to several attacks on US soldiers in Iraq since the Operation started.

I believe the thing to remember here is that the war on terrorism was to go after countries that allow terrorists to live there. Iraq, being one of them...
 
well, if that's the rationale, what are we going to do about the school of the americas in georgia, where the u.s. military trains south american guerillas how to overthrow their democratically elected governments in covert and u.s. funded attacks?
 
Not to start a total internet debate, but learn something more about the SOA than what you read on the internet or hear from your liberal friends before you make statements like that.

Have you been to South America? I don't know too many legitimately"democratically elected" goverments down there. How many overthrows of officially recognized governments have there been in the last few years? Obviously they are teaching other things these last few semesters. .

I did a study showing that the reported number of crimes (violent victim crimes per capita) from known SOA graduates was in fact less than the number of those that graduated from the average American State Colleges.

We need to stop the American State Colleges before they start to overthrow the government...


Britt
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not gonna bash, or get too political, but I wasn't really much for the invasion of Iraq from the start, but maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
 
StuttersC said:
That is interesting considering Al-Queda has since been linked to several attacks on US soldiers in Iraq since the Operation started.

I believe the thing to remember here is that the war on terrorism was to go after countries that allow terrorists to live there. Iraq, being one of them...

Yes and the simple reason behind this is that Al-Queda now sees the U.S. as an invader of yet another Arab country. With the war came serious Iraqi border control problems and a massive influx of terrorist suicide bombers. Not just from Al-Queda.

And to think Saddam and Osama were buddy buddy before this would be insane, being that Osama has said numerous times that Saddam was an infidel, due to his leadership (women being allowed to study, work etc).

So yeah, the war on terror is to go after countries who allow terrorists to live there. So I guess we basically created another place for terrorists to cause terror by going to war there. Interesting! :rolleyes:

When I see hard evidence that terrorists were living and receiving training in Iraq before we planned on destroying that country, I'll shut up. But just like WMDs, that most likely will not happen.

Chris
 
DooMer_MP3 said:
Yes and the simple reason behind this is that Al-Queda now sees the U.S. as an invader of yet another Arab country. With the war came serious Iraqi border control problems and a massive influx of terrorist suicide bombers. Not just from Al-Queda.

And to think Saddam and Osama were buddy buddy before this would be insane, being that Osama has said numerous times that Saddam was an infidel, due to his leadership (women being allowed to study, work etc).

So yeah, the war on terror is to go after countries who allow terrorists to live there. So I guess we basically created another place for terrorists to cause terror by going to war there. Interesting! :rolleyes:

When I see hard evidence that terrorists were living and receiving training in Iraq before we planned on destroying that country, I'll shut up. But just like WMDs, that most likely will not happen.

Chris

What do you consider the Fedyahin (SP?) to be? The group of "Iraq freedom fighters" that have been in Iraq for who knows how long, and supported by Saddam, that killed the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south...

I would suppose there tactics would be considered guerilla in nature, however, more and more guerilla tactics are also used by terrorist organizations. And if you look at the goals and principles that terrorist organizations tend to follow, I would argue that they tend to be in line with those.

That would lead me to believe that the Fedyahin are a terrorist organization.

But, that's just me.
 
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
 
I am amazed at how regardless of the increasing evidence that the Iraq war was based on a sham, there are still such steadfast supporters of Bush. It's almost as if he could have come right out and said, hey, I want to go into Iraq because he pissed on my dog, and there would still be rabid supporters for his cause. Are you such war mongerers that you think any time we go to war for any reason you are behind it? Does it matter to you that our people are dying because we invaded a country without just cause?
 
shinzen said:
I am amazed at how regardless of the increasing evidence that the Iraq war was based on a sham, there are still such steadfast supporters of Bush. It's almost as if he could have come right out and said, hey, I want to go into Iraq because he pissed on my dog, and there would still be rabid supporters for his cause. Are you such war mongerers that you think any time we go to war for any reason you are behind it? Does it matter to you that our people are dying because we invaded a country without just cause?

The search for WMD is still on. The Dutch found some mortar shells containing chemical weapons, "supposedly."

The war in Iraq is not a sham. To say that means the people who have died over there was for no reason what-so-ever...

I was there. I did Mortuary Affairs. I saw the dead up close and personal, and sent them home.

If you enlist in today's military, specifically the Army or the Marine Corps, you should expect to be sent over-seas. Active duty personal have been deployed more often to more places since the Clinton administration than ever before.

By going to a foreign country with the intent of doing anything military in nature, you should expect that you will get shot at. A natural consequence of getting shot is death.

If you can't deal with that, then you should not enlist in today's military. It is your choice. If you enlist in today's military and then whine about being sent over-seas for some conflict, then you should not have enlisted in the first place.

The people who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom died for this country...And I am proud to have served with them while I was there. And I am proud that I was given the opportunity to make sure they were sent home...
 
StuttersC said:
What do you consider the Fedyahin (SP?) to be? The group of "Iraq freedom fighters" that have been in Iraq for who knows how long, and supported by Saddam, that killed the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south...

I would suppose there tactics would be considered guerilla in nature, however, more and more guerilla tactics are also used by terrorist organizations. And if you look at the goals and principles that terrorist organizations tend to follow, I would argue that they tend to be in line with those.

That would lead me to believe that the Fedyahin are a terrorist organization.

But, that's just me.

I guess, now I'd consider them a terrorist organization with a threat to U.S. troops in Iraq. But before the war, they meant nothing to us. It still seems to me like we created a terrorist problem in Iraq for ourselves by going to war with Iraq... U.S. soldiers would not have to worry about the Fedayeen (equally confused on spelling :p) had they not invaded that country. The Fedayeen had nothing to do with 9/11. There still is no proof that Iraq was housing terrorists.

If your point is that the Fedayeen were terrorists, and being housed. I guess you are technically correct. But I guess we can start calling a lot of types of people terrorists nowadays. The term is getting overly misused. My point still stands that the pre-war allegations that there were known Al-Queda ties have never been proven. This and WMDs were the two main reasons for going over there. They have not yet been proven, and IMO will never be. After the public realized this, it became a humanitarian mission.

As I said before, I hope the U.S. doesn't **** up like they normally do and leave Iraq in utter chaos.

Chris
 
DooMer_MP3 said:
I guess, now I'd consider them a terrorist organization with a threat to U.S. troops in Iraq. But before the war, they meant nothing to us. It still seems to me like we created a terrorist problem in Iraq for ourselves by going to war with Iraq... U.S. soldiers would not have to worry about the Fedayeen (equally confused on spelling :p) had they not invaded that country. The Fedayeen had nothing to do with 9/11. There still is no proof that Iraq was housing terrorists.

If your point is that the Fedayeen were terrorists, and being housed. I guess you are technically correct. But I guess we can start calling a lot of types of people terrorists nowadays. The term is getting overly misused. My point still stands that the pre-war allegations that there were known Al-Queda ties have never been proven. This and WMDs were the two main reasons for going over there. They have not yet been proven, and IMO will never be. After the public realized this, it became a humanitarian mission.

As I said before, I hope the U.S. doesn't **** up like they normally do and leave Iraq in utter chaos.

Chris

I think you're correct on the spelling. I read most of the Dune books and get all messed up with those guys in the book and what I dealt with over there. They sound the same...

Now, I'd argue that the problem had been there before we invaded Iraq this time. In the Gulf War, we entered into Iraq and were taking the invasion of Kuwait to them. But the UN stepped in and we had to sit there, and watch as Iraqis were murdered by these guys.

It was going to happen anyway...They presented a threat to us then, and have since they were organized. It was just a matter of time before they started trying to get over here.

However, that is probably a paranoid view point on my behalf...
 
I dont usually hop in on these political discussions, but Iraqi ties to Al-Quaeda were never the reason for the war. They (bush admin) tried to make a connected but the one they advanced was weak and eventually disproven. The war was sold entirely on WMD. So far these have not been found and it looks as if they will not be found. I agree that bush had an agenda from the start, but thats not really shocking, as saddam had been flaunting UN resolutions for years, and The Useless Nations never did anything about it.

Having said that, Im no fan of the bush admin and am planning to work on regime change in 04, at the polls. :)
 
What sucks about the upcoming election is that there are really no good candidates. The ballots should be changed to "Who do you hate the least?" :p.

Chris
 

New Threads and Articles

Back