When Bushs Treasury Secretary, Paul ONeill decided to collaborate with writer Ron Suskind to expose serious faults that Bush exhibited ONeill titled the story The Price of Loyalty. ONeill knew Bushs thoughts and mannerisms first hand. ONeills book would dominate media coverage until ONeill appeared on 60 Minutes. That interview would be conducted by Leslie Stahl and was broadcast January 11, 2004. Following that interview the mainstream media turned out the lights on any issue ONeills story raised. What happened at President Bushs first National Security Council meeting is one of ONeills most startling revelations, claims Stahl. Keep in mind that ONeill was one of a significant number of NSC members who had all heard the same issue. Not one of them (Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, etc.) ever came forward to dispute Bushs objective now being revealed by ONeill. From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go, says ONeill, who adds that, going after Saddam was topic A 10 days after the inauguration eight months before September 11. Ron Suskind, the author of ONeills story added, From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth. Treasury secretary, ONeill was a permanent member of the NSC (National Security Council). 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 says ONeill. For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide is a really huge leap. ONeill added that, The discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
I think there were multiple reasons coming at Bush II from multiple players. Here's what I think are four of reasons, not necessarily in the order of their importance. 1. Bush wanted to show his dad he was as good (or better) than he was 2. There's a shitload of money to be made by supplying a war effort 3. OIL OIL OIL OIL 4. US geopolitical hegemony in central Asia.
I think Bush wanted to recreate the region by some Bush Doctrine. Use the military to force democracy on Afghanistan and Iraq and the people in surrounding countries would revolt wanting their own democratic government.
What Bush thought didnt really matter. He was a patsy. He was steered by Cheney and his right wing cabal of buddies. He was their willing tool. I have the book and bought it when it first came out. I watched O Neil make the book rounds and was stunned that at one point he just disappeared form the airwaves. All of the sudden no one was talking about the book anymore. That is when the phrase "disgruntled employee" was pumped fast and furiously all over the right wing mouths. Bush then had a series of "disgruntled employees". They used to be called whistle blowers but now the whistleblowers are treated like criminals. Now where are all the Obama "disgruntled employees" ?
In one form or another; you repeat every post you make. It proves you're a flaming dumbass. Go back to prison with your lovers.
America can't change presidents in the middle of a war. That's the stupid theory for the conservatives. Conservatives love child molester priests, they stay in the Catholic Church. After the child molesters the Catholic Church should have dissolved. They are all conservatives and they stayed in the child molester church. Keep writing stupid shit for the record to prove all conservatives are assholes and traitors.