Bush began planning for Iraq before 9/11

B

bamthin

Guest
O'Neill: Iraq Plans Began at Start of Bush's Term

Saturday, January 10, 2004



CRAWFORD, Texas — Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (search) 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 (search) 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 what 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 (search) 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 (search) 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.


-Bam
 
There are military officers in the Pentagon whose sole purpose in life is to draw up war plans to invade pretty much any country in the world. Why would Iraq be any different, especially since the official US policy from Clinton's administration was "regime change?"
 
O'neill sure is a reputable source :rolleyes:

How many National Security meetings do you think the treasury secretary attended?
 
Originally posted by jones
Hes a great source! right out of the administration, the insider.

YAY!! I just found it on CNN.! I cant believe it, they're actually reporting "NEWS".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

He's about as useful as the janitor when it comes to knowledge about national security. What makes you think someone in treasury would be privy to national security meetings?
 
He goes to the meetings.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings
 
There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. . . . What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

He said everything is run with a political arm. Machiavellis. :cool:
 
Originally posted by jones
He goes to the meetings.

He was not referring to security meetings!

Do you really think the treasury secretary was present at security meetings that outlined plans to ouster Saddam?
 
He knows how the place works. You don't know anymore than I do. Actually I take that back, I know more about your party and this degenerate administration than most here will ever know.
 
Originally posted by jones
He knows how the place works. You don't know anymore than I do. Actually I take that back, I know more about your party and this degenerate administration than most here will ever know.

You know more about this administration than most here? How can you be so confident in that statement?

Over the past few weeks you have posted nothing that shows you are any type of authority on the Bush administration. In fact, you haven't posted anything other than primarily conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated rumors. You scour tha anti-Bush sites and then report back to other boards about this 'credible' information.

I will thank you though, you've saved me $1.99 for every issue of The Globe that I no longer needed.
 
I dont get news from national media. Nuff said.

Watch what they DO, and not what they say.

I know that the founding fathers wouldnt even CONSIDER these men in office to be american citizens. They would be exiled, or hung VERY quickly.
 
You still haven't answered the question

You know more about this administration than most here? How can you be so confident in that statement?

I'm eagerly awaiting this explanation.

I dont get news from national media. Nuff said.

Watch what they DO, and not what they say.

How do you know where we all get our news from? I have about 50 news sources bookmarked. Some mainstream, some not. Some in the USA, some not. Some liberal, some conservative. This doesn't even take into account the thousands of sites I have been to through links and headlines.

So, please do tell us how you can make a statement claiming to have more knowledge about this administration than others.
 
I know their true intentions, most here dont. Thats really all I need to say.

I understand the national media is full of crap.

I understand what our founding fathers warned us about.

I know peace is not war, and freedom is not death.

I know that now for the first time in our history we have 2 oil men running this country.

I know what PNAC is.

I know when paul wolfowitz gave a speech and some univerisity and got that award for debating. People stood up and chanted at him that they will stop him from killing and that the war is unjustified.
His reply was a story about saddam cutting off water and starving a section of iraq.
Those students should have said that was NOT the reason we went to iraq. It was WMDS, the iminent threat.
Wolfy couldnt even make an argument.
I know that jeb bush went to the flying school shortly before 9/11 and gathered a bunch of records. Was the school one of the terrorists attended. He didnt explain why he was there.

I know that Bush took his largest vacation right up untill 9/11

I know that cheney got some sort of memo before 9/11. And then he started doing very strange things while traveling, dont know the specifics right now.

I know that the patriot act was not supposed to protect us from terrorist after 9/11. It was made previous to 9/11

I know that Clinton admin made it VERY clear that their # 1 national security risk was osama bin laden and al Q.
They ignored them. Furthermore, Condeleeeeeza Rice said they NEVER thought terrorists would hijack planes to attack us. We were already aware of this threat.

I know that MANY MANY people all around all our communities and abroad are very pist off. And polls lie, very much lie.

I could go on, and on, and on.
 
I know that the war is unjustified in every way.

I know that 9/11 was preventable. According to the official 9/11 commision. And they were pointing fingers inside the whitehouse, laying blame. But then took back a the WHOLE report, just a few short hours later. Who got to him?

I know that our democracy is only healthy when there is a balance, and not when all branches of our goverment are controlled by one party.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
O'neill sure is a reputable source :rolleyes:

How many National Security meetings do you think the treasury secretary attended?

Probably alot since he was on the National Security Council.

:D

-Bam
 
You've again shown NOTHING to lead me to believe you are more informed about the current administration. Does not subscribing to your theories make us clueless? You act like you have superior knowledge, and yet you can't even formulate a decent argument with this information.

I know their true intentions, most here dont. Thats really all I need to say.

What are their "true intentions" and where did you get this information from?

I understand the national media is full of crap.

Some news is fact, some is opinion. Some are more credible than others. I don't understand your point here and how it relates to you being more knwledgeable than us.

I understand what our founding fathers warned us about.

You mean you drew your own conclusions from prior words and apply them when you feel like ranting. These words are there for all to see, how does this make you more knowledgable?

I know peace is not war, and freedom is not death.

Then how come you can't understand that theory is not fact?

I know that now for the first time in our history we have 2 oil men running this country.

And also career politicians, what's your point? Was this some hidden secret that 'we' weren't knowledgable about?

I know what PNAC is.

That doesn't surprise me. Would you like a biscuit?

I know when paul wolfowitz gave a speech and some univerisity and got that award for debating. People stood up and chanted at him that they will stop him from killing and that the war is unjustified.
His reply was a story about saddam cutting off water and starving a section of iraq.
Those students should have said that NOT! the reason we went to iraq. It was WMDS, the iminent threat.
Wolfy couldnt even make an argument.
I know that jeb bush went to the flying school shortly before 9/11 and gathered a bunch of records. Was the school one of the terrorists attended. He didnt explain why he was there.

There was more to the war than just WMD. I guess you knew that though, since you're more informed than the rest of us. I guess it's not that he didn't have an argument, but rather that you couldn't comprehend it.

I know that Bush took his largest vacation right up untill 9/11

And what's your point with this one? Maybe he was with Al Qaeda planning the attacks? :rolleyes:

I know that cheney got some sort of memo before 9/11. And then he started doing very strange things while traveling, dont know the specifics right now.

What the hell are you talking about? And you say WE aren't knowledgable? Did the tooth fairy tell you about this activity? You can't say "I know" and then end your sentence with "don't know the specifics right now". You are rambling.

I know that the patriot act was not supposed to protect us from terrorist after 9/11. It was made previous to 9/11

I don't care if it was made during the ice age, it helps protect our country. Enough of your theories, provide facts.

I know that Clinton admin made it VERY clear that their # 1 national security risk was osama bin laden and al Q.
They ignored them. Furthermore, Condeleeeeeza Rice said they NEVER thought terrorists would hijack planes to attack us. We were already aware of this threat.

You make me laugh when you repeatedly bring this up. Sudan offered Osama to Clinton on a silver platter on at least 3 different occassions, why did Clinton pass on the offer if Osama was such a security risk?

I know that MANY MANY people all around all our communities and abroad are very pist off. And polls lie, very much lie.

There are ALWAYS people angry over war, it's always been that way. And yes, I agree about the polls, it's a conservative conspiracy. :rolleyes:

I could go on, and on, and on.

On and on with what? You've still shown NOTHING that makes me believe you are more knowledgable than us about the Bush administration. Shit, your pathetic attempt at making it look like Clinton was so well informed and warned the Bush administration is laughable.
 
Originally posted by bamthin
Probably alot since he was on the National Security Council.

:D

-Bam
'
Then explain this quote from the article:

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
'
Then explain this quote from the article:

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."


Who said that? Tell me who that was and let's examine exactly how and why the person making that statement is qualified to make that statement. In what capacity is that official employed?

I am waiting for the info, thanks.


-Bam
 

Forum List

Back
Top