The real reason Bush attacked Iraq

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by miller, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. miller
    Offline

    miller BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    462
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bridgeport, CT
    Ratings:
    +17
    When Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill decided to collaborate with writer Ron Suskind to expose serious faults that Bush exhibited O’Neill titled the story The Price of Loyalty. O’Neill knew Bush’s thoughts and mannerisms first hand. O’Neill’s book would dominate media coverage until O’Neill 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 O’Neill’s story raised.

    “What happened at President Bush’s first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations,” claims Stahl. Keep in mind that O’Neill 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 Bush’s objective now being revealed by O’Neill.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that, “going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before September 11.”


    Ron Suskind, the author of O’Neill’s 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, O’Neill 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 O’Neill. “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.” O’Neill added that, “The discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.”
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    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.
     
  3. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,476
    Thanks Received:
    19,872
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,506
    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.
     
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    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" ?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. miller
    Offline

    miller BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    462
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bridgeport, CT
    Ratings:
    +17
    You repeat the propaganda. It proves you're in a trance.
     
  6. miller
    Offline

    miller BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    462
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bridgeport, CT
    Ratings:
    +17
    You repeat the propaganda. It proves you're in a trance.
     
  7. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    37,569
    Thanks Received:
    4,551
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,069
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. miller
    Offline

    miller BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    Messages:
    462
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bridgeport, CT
    Ratings:
    +17
    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.
     
  9. ginscpy
    Offline

    ginscpy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,950
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +216
    Woulde the region be better off today if Saddamn were still in power??????????????
     

Share This Page