Paul O'Neill is no ideologue, he is a true patriot

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
You mean to tell me the president had officials look into military options against a country that we have had problems with for 9 years at the time? Tell me it isn't so, what an illogical thing to do.



As opposed to claiming to have documents of proof? Speaking of which, you haven't answered me yet - why haven't these documents been released? When will they be released? Wouldn't that make sense to avoid all the confusion? I'm wondering why he hasn't done so yet.

You seem to be missing the main point here by focusing on the details. Two people have come out that were on Bush's National Security Council and said that Bush was developing plans for a ground invasion of Iraq BEFORE 9/11. This was in stark contrast to the Clinton strategy of regime change through other means like perhaps, organizing a coup, etc.

If all this is true, then it becomes much more reasonable to assume that Bush, in his agenda to actually invade Iraq, would mislead the American public to meet his desires. This also brings into question the possibility that Bush would use the unfortunate events surrounding 9/11, to serve his ulterior motive to launch a ground invasion of Iraq by misleading the American public to beleive the two were connected.


As each day goes by, there is more evidence to support this theory and substantially less to refute it. Perhaps you need to look a little closer at the situation as a whole and try and put your political biases aside. If Clinton did this, would you be OK with it? I know I wouldn't. I don't like being misled or lied to in a matter that has cost so many young Americans their lives.



-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,"

is a far cry from

Bush was developing plans for a ground invasion of Iraq BEFORE 9/11.

As each day goes by, there is more evidence to support this theory and substantially less to refute it.

What evidence has been reported? Theories, maybe, but no evidence.

All that remains outside of that is Paul O'neills words. He could easily resolve the doubt that the American public has by showing what proof he has. Anything short of that is unacceptable and amounts to no more than unverified gossip.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,"

is a far cry from

Bush was developing plans for a ground invasion of Iraq BEFORE 9/11.



What evidence has been reported? Theories, maybe, but no evidence.

All that remains outside of that is Paul O'neills words. He could easily resolve the doubt that the American public has by showing what proof he has. Anything short of that is unacceptable and amounts to no more than unverified gossip.

One isn't very much different from the other, in reality, however, to be on the fair side of this it truly does make sense. Look at what we were doing for the last 12 years, running flights, throwing bombs and missiles, and generally spending alot of money and not really accomplishing the goal of regime change.

While the war was quick, the occupation is definitely experiencing a painful and expensive growth process.

As far as showing proof goes, thats a two way street. So far neither O'neill or Bush has shown substantial proof to back up their claims about the invasion.

 

[jimnyc]

One isn't very much different from the other, in reality, however, to be on the fair side of this it truly does make sense.

You really think exploring options and actually planning an offensive aren't that different? One is intel related while the other is actual strategic planning. I'm glad you agree it makes sense. I think they've probably already done the same thing with North Korea as well. It's better to be prepared and informed.

While the war was quick, the occupation is definitely experiencing a painful and expensive growth process.

Agreed, but not fully unexpected.

As far as showing proof goes, thats a two way street. So far neither O'neill or Bush has shown substantial proof to back up their claims about the invasion.

What proof specifically are you speaking about in regards to Bush?

 

[DKSuddeth]

What proof specifically are you speaking about in regards to Bush?

the massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction for one.

You really think exploring options and actually planning an offensive aren't that different? One is intel related while the other is actual strategic planning.

Yes, Jim, I do. They truly are not that different. Exploring options means you actually begin SOME planning. Now, as you had put it, do I think they were having offensive strategy sessions for troop placement? No. Not only would that be premature but also a huge timewaster.

 

[jimnyc]

the massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction for one.

I wouldn't call this evidence. He went on the intel that was given to him. A mistake? maybe. But not a lie, at least not one that has been even remotely proven.

If intel said one thing and he reported another, then I would agree.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I wouldn't call this evidence. He went on the intel that was given to him. A mistake? maybe. But not a lie, at least not one that has been even remotely proven.

If intel said one thing and he reported another, then I would agree.

I wonder if he'll learn the lesson of verification before reporting as fact.

technically, in a legal sense, it could be argued that he didn't lie, after all, if another president can redefine a blow job as not being sexual contact then anything is possible

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I wonder if he'll learn the lesson of verification before reporting as fact.

technically, in a legal sense, it could be argued that he didn't lie, after all, if another president can redefine a blow job as not being sexual contact then anything is possible

You're forgetting, Clinton's was an outright lie. At most, Bush is responsible for passing along faulty and/or outdated intel. Assuming that every last detail that crosses the presidents desk to be personally verified is crazy thinking. He relied on evidence handed to him and acted upon it. I won't debate you if you disagree with the action he has taken (we've done enough of that), but to call what he did a lie is premature, and at this point wrong.