Bush Planned Iraq Invasion Before 9/11

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

From Reuters

 

Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.

 

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.

 

He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."

 

To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-September 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found.

 

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday. "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."

 

CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.

 

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

 

"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

 

Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

 

BENT ON WAR

 

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

 

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O'Neill's remarks.

 

"We appreciate his service. While we're not in the business of doing book reviews, 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," he said on Saturday.

 

O'Neill also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neil told "60 Minutes."

 

Suskind's book, whose full title is "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill", uses interviews with O'Neill, dozens of White House insiders and 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill.

 

O'Neill, who was fired due to disagreements over tax cuts, spent a difficult two years in Washington, joining the Bush administration with a background as a no-nonsense corporate executive.

 

While its clear this man may well be bitter from being fired, if it is true, then Bush better find a better hiding place than Saddam!

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Conspiracy theories galore!

[Guest JMA]

Well, I didn't (and still don't) agree with the whole WMD pitch, but overall I am glad we went into Iraq. I feel the US (and any other democratic country for that matter) should have the right to oust a dictator from power (as long as they don't replace him with another dictator). I'm surprised we haven't liberated Saudi Arabia yet.

[BUTT 0]

This isn't really surprising. While I agreed with getting Hussein out of power, I think it's pretty obvious that he had been planning the war with Iraq for a long time.

 

Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?

 

CBS News reported that the defense secretary was making notes about invading Iraq even before the fires from Flight 77 had been extinguished on the other side of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H." - Saddam Hussein - "at the same time. Not only UBL" - Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

 

http://www.gvnr.com/71/editorial.htm

[tommytomlin 0]

Well duh.

[Justice 0]

I agree with the above sentiments. I could have sworn he made some saber rattling comments right after the Chinese Fighter/Navy Recon plane incident.

[Vern Gagne 0]

From Reuters

 

Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.

 

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.

 

He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."

 

To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-September 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found.

 

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday. "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."

 

CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.

 

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

 

"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

 

Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

 

BENT ON WAR

 

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

 

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O'Neill's remarks.

 

"We appreciate his service. While we're not in the business of doing book reviews, 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," he said on Saturday.

 

O'Neill also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neil told "60 Minutes."

 

Suskind's book, whose full title is "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill", uses interviews with O'Neill, dozens of White House insiders and 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill.

 

O'Neill, who was fired due to disagreements over tax cuts, spent a difficult two years in Washington, joining the Bush administration with a background as a no-nonsense corporate executive.

 

While its clear this man may well be bitter from being fired, if it is true, then Bush better find a better hiding place than Saddam!

Hiding from what? He did something that should of been done 12 years ago.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This isn't really surprising. While I agreed with getting Hussein out of power, I think it's pretty obvious that he had been planning the war with Iraq for a long time.

 

Why were Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials so quick to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks?

 

CBS News reported that the defense secretary was making notes about invading Iraq even before the fires from Flight 77 had been extinguished on the other side of the Pentagon. Rumsfeld wrote that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H." - Saddam Hussein - "at the same time. Not only UBL" - Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

 

http://www.gvnr.com/71/editorial.htm

Rumseld was doing is job. He never said Hussein was involved in 9-11. Just looking to take out all possible threats to the U.S.

 

This is a nothing story that will be the talk of Washington for about 2 days, and by next Wednesday it will forgotten.

[Dr. Tom 0]

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday.

That's an absolutely correct viewpoint.

 

Postulating that the President might need a place to hide is not.

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

But, if it is accepted that the war on Iraq was the right thing to do and the Government wanted it from the start, why did they do their best to link it to 9/11 when OBL and Saddam have no links?

 

Thats what I don't understand - they way they tried to justify it all.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My guess is that it was like hearing a favorite song of yours and trying to connect the lyrics to happenings in your own life, no matter how vague, so you can say "This song is SO me!"

[Guest MikeSC]

But, if it is accepted that the war on Iraq was the right thing to do and the Government wanted it from the start, why did they do their best to link it to 9/11 when OBL and Saddam have no links?

 

Thats what I don't understand - they way they tried to justify it all.

O'Neill is a disgruntled ex-employee. I take his statements with worlds of salt.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Even if he is telling the truth, Bush was just playing politics to convince people who would never find justification in decades of horror to do the right thing.

 

I've long questioned Bush's attempts to win over the unconvertable, but never his decision to go into Iraq.

[CanadianChris 0]

O'Neill is a disgruntled ex-employee. I take his statements with worlds of salt.

-=Mike

So you think it has huge significance, then? Because, you know, WORLDS of salt would be quite huge, whereas a single grain of salt would be pretty tiny.

 

On topic, Bush did what needed to be done, even if he wasn't quite above board in selling it to the public.

[NoCalMike 0]

How is this even NEW news? Have THAT many people on this board not read PNAC yet?

 

 

PNAC

[Guest Cerebus]

June 3, 1997

 

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

 

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

 

 

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

 

 

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

 

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

 

 

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

 

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

 

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

 

 

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

 

 

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

 

 

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

 

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

 

I don't see the word "Iraq" in that thing at all. In fact, that is 1997 which was well before the start of the Bush Administration.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't see the word "Iraq" in that thing at all. In fact, that is 1997 which was well before the start of the Bush Administration.

I hope you have read more of the page then that. Did you click on the Iraq/middle east tab?

[Guest Cerebus]

I did but I still don't see your point. So they were for toppling Saddam's regime as far back as 1997. So what? Clinton said as much in 1998.

[Swift Terror 0]

O'Neill should know that Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, stating that it was U.S. policy to pursue regime change in Iraq and establish a democratic government. How shocking that Pres. Bush should follow that policy and plan options.

 

Favorite O'Neill line:

 

"It was clear to me that there was a conviction that Saddam was a bad person and that he needed to go." (Breathless look on Leslie's face, followed by a slight moisture in panties.)

 

Amazing, there was a conviction that Saddam was a bad person.

[2GOLD 0]

But, if it is accepted that the war on Iraq was the right thing to do and the Government wanted it from the start, why did they do their best to link it to 9/11 when OBL and Saddam have no links?

 

Thats what I don't understand - they way they tried to justify it all.

 

Because they knew America would never approve something just because it was the right thing to do. We have to be bitter and mad before we agree to war.

 

Which is sad.

 

If he just said "We are going in cause he kills his own people and is a monster" odds are high America would have said "NO! It's none of our business that he's killing his own people. Let him. It doesn't effect me any."

 

Toss in 9/11 and Weapons that might kill us and the people are all for the rescue. Torturing and raping innocent people, that's ok. Weapons that may hurt us, well now we care.

 

I really hope I'm wrong about that but the way people talk....

[Guest OctoberBlood]

I would hope so.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Again, Izzard said that Stalin and Polpot (sp.?) weren't touched because they killed their own people. Hitler killed his neighbors, and we took him out (but only AFTER he declared war on the US).

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I don't think a democratic nation has the right to invade any nation with a dictator as head of government.

 

In a dream world maybe that'd be good but in a world where it may very well make the situation even worse it's not worth it.

 

Anyway if America (or anyother nation) invaded Iraq because of the fact it was lead by a "bad" man then half the nations on earth deserve to be invaded.

 

No nation(s) have the right to play god with another nation.

[Justice 0]

I don't think a democratic nation has the right to invade any nation with a dictator as head of government.

Well fuck, then let's go back in time and stop WWII while we are at it. That comment doesn't make much sense, man.

 

In a dream world maybe that'd be good but in a world where it may very well make the situation even worse it's not worth it.

 

Well, explain to me how it is that much worse in Iraq today than it was when Saddam was in power and you'll have a valid point. Otherwise...

 

Anyway if America (or anyother nation) invaded Iraq because of the fact it was lead by a "bad" man then half the nations on earth deserve to be invaded.

 

...

...

...

 

A "bad" man? Are you dense? The guy has gassed his own people, committed numerous heinous acts such as torture, murder, rape (Uday picking girls off the street for this one), terrorizing his population, funding suicide bombers, and growing rich off black market trading that violated UN Orders while keeping his people in incredible poverty. This man has killed 1 Million people abroad and even more in his own country.

 

And you only call him "bad"?

 

The fact that you can't see this man is a bit beyond the normal "Bad" guy? God, some people...

 

No nation(s) have the right to play god with another nation.

 

So basically you are saying we should never, under any circumstances, try to root out tolitarian governments that constantly commit horrible acts, let alone one that could easily destablize a region that is unstable already?

 

Are you Dennis Kucinich?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

not what I'm saying at all. and my use of "Bad" was more sarcasm then anything else. Hussein was evil there's no doubt.

 

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler (obviously an arguement can be made that he would have if he had the power hitler did but that's neither here nor there).

 

Huessin didn't pose a serious threat to America. Saddam was a threat to his own people. He didn't have the capability to pose a threat to the rest of the world as shown by the lack of WMD's found. and he didn't have any links to Al quedya (sp?).

 

My point is that if we went after every leader like Saddam America would be spread out all over the world. Sometimes we have to let other people sort out their own Internal problems.

[Guest MikeSC]

not what I'm saying at all. and my use of "Bad" was more sarcasm then anything else. Hussein was evil there's no doubt.

 

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler (obviously an arguement can be made that he would have if he had the power hitler did but that's neither here nor there).

 

Huessin didn't pose a serious threat to America. Saddam was a threat to his own people. He didn't have the capability to pose a threat to the rest of the world as shown by the lack of WMD's found. and he didn't have any links to Al quedya (sp?).

 

My point is that if we went after every leader like Saddam America would be spread out all over the world. Sometimes we have to let other people sort out their own Internal problems.

You mean we shouldn't have interfered with Milosevic?

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

not what I'm saying at all. and my use of "Bad" was more sarcasm then anything else.  Hussein was evil there's no doubt.

 

But there's a big difference between him and what caused WW2. Hussein wasn't conquering other nations left and right like Hitler (obviously an arguement can be made that he would have if he had the power hitler did but that's neither here nor there).

 

Huessin didn't pose a serious threat to America. Saddam was a threat to his own people. He didn't have the capability to pose a threat to the rest of the world as shown by the lack of WMD's found. and he didn't have any links to Al quedya (sp?).

 

My point is that if we went after every leader like Saddam America would be spread out all over the world. Sometimes we have to let other people sort out their own Internal problems.

You mean we shouldn't have interfered with Milosevic?

-=Mike

i have to admit that i'm pretty ignorant over alot of details about the Kosovo crisis...but yeah.

 

 

I mean it's awful awful sad and horrorific and I sound like a unsympathetic monster saying it but yeah america (and canada) shouldn't have gone to Kosovo. It didn't have a direct impact on us or our allies. Slobo is an evil man and I hope he gets beaten to death but it's not our place to interfere.

 

I''m sure i'm proving myself woefully ignorant here and open to flaming, but that's okay because Im willing to see the error of my ways.

[AboveAverage484 0]

All I know is there are 500 dead Americans at the hands of Iraqis since we invaded, compared to zero before.

[AboveAverage484 0]

All I know is there are 500 dead Americans at the hands of Iraqis since we invaded, compared to zero before.

[Guest MikeSC]

All I know is there are 500 dead Americans at the hands of Iraqis since we invaded, compared to zero before.

There were deaths before.

 

Do a little research and see the death tolls for Allied troops in Japan AFTER World War II ended.

-=Mike