TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- O'Neill: Bush planned war in Iraq before 9/11
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
O'Neill: Bush planned war in Iraq before 9/11
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...bush/index.html
If Bush was so focused on getting rid of Saddam, days after he took office, doesn't that show signs of revenge?
Well, so which is it Paul? His quote yesterday said that George Bush was detached from his Presidency. Today, the quote is that he was actively planning to invade Iraq. Nevermind that Paul O'Neill is the former Treasury secretary. I'm sure he knew all about George's plans for war. 
Paul O'Neill was always the odd man out in the cabinet. He wasn't in office for a year before it was widely known that he would be "asked" to leave. This is just sour grapes, and a ploy to sell more books. This trip was probably the last straw for him:
I find this pretty interesting. The parallels to WWII are remarkable. Prior to Pearl Harbor, 94% of Americans were opposed to actively entering the war, much like Americans opposition to active Iraqi involement prior to 9/11. Much like the UN sanctions against Iraq, America had its own sanctions against the Axis prior to direct involvement in the war. Both took an event on American soil to turn public opinion enough to allow the president to act militarily. It will be fun to see how history records this most recent attack on Iraq and if it will be in the same light as the events after Pearl Harbor.
*grumbles to self about pnac*
white house didn't really deny it so it could be true...
wouldn't surprice me if it was...
- So much about War on Terror and War on Iraq was the cause of change since 9/11.. blaaah Bush Bushy Bushon.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono I find this pretty interesting. The parallels to WWII are remarkable. Prior to Pearl Harbor, 94% of Americans were opposed to actively entering the war, much like Americans opposition to active Iraqi involement prior to 9/11. Much like the UN sanctions against Iraq, America had its own sanctions against the Axis prior to direct involvement in the war. Both took an event on American soil to turn public opinion enough to allow the president to act militarily. It will be fun to see how history records this most recent attack on Iraq and if it will be in the same light as the events after Pearl Harbor. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok This is just sour grapes, and a ploy to sell more books. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Both took an event on American soil to turn public opinion enough to allow the president to act militarily. It will be fun to see how history records this most recent attack on Iraq and if it will be in the same light as the events after Pearl Harbor. |
| quote: |
| This comparison is completely flawed, given that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Yeah, because Italy and Germany bombed Pearl Harbor. |
Quoted from Boortz this morning. I have to agree. Anti-Bushies are grabbing on to this like they've found the holy grail or something. Should people really be surprised? The White House has tons of hypotheticals and strategy plans drawn up for all sorts of potential situations. Hell, there's probably a plan in there for what to do if the South re-secedes from the Union! They have think tanks that do nothing else but spend time strategizing for potential events-it's not new stuff. Intelligent people realize that it's better to have a plan in place before something terrible happens--I believe they call it 'war readiness' in the military.
Does anyone think Paul O'neil is just pissed because he got fired and is trying to make some noise? Has anyone ever given 2 shits about Paul O'neil's opinion anyway? It's not like anyone listened to him when he was still on the White House payroll! And since when is a fromer Secretary of the Treasury the most enlightened source on foreign policy issues?
| quote: |
| The big news over the weekend is that long-lasting temper tantrum that Bush's first Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, put in writing in his new book. O'Neill stalked away from the Beltway and back to Pittsburgh a while back after getting the pink slip from his boss. I guess the part of O'Neill's book that the media is going to obsess over the most would be that statement that the Bush White House was drawing up plans for regime change in Iraq during Bush's first year in office ... which would be months before 9/11. Wow ... pretty powerful stuff, isn't it? Old Paul is really stirrin' the puddin' now, and the Democrats are just loving it. Hold on a minute. Is this really such a big deal? The informed rational person would be more concerned if he learned that the Bush White House was not drafting those plans. Now that would be news! Bulletin: Bill Clinton's White House also had operational plans for the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of Saddam Hussein. Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy from about 1997 on. Let's see if Brokaw shares that little bit of news with you this week. |
Follow up comments from Boortz. I couldn't get the UN Resolution links to work, so I couldn't post the actual resolutions in this thread (They're probably way too long for anyone to want to read anyway!).
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
| quote: |
| Over the weekend I sat down and read a few documents that you might find interesting. United Nations resolutions. More particularly, UN Resolution Numbers 678, 687 and 1441. Just click on the resolution number and you can read them for yourself if you like. Maybe you ought to just go ahead and do that right now so that you can be sure I'm not lying to you. You know how us "neocons" will lie about something like this, don't you? But ... If you're not so inclined, you can just listen to my show today and I'll give you a quick rundown on what you'll find in these UN Resolutions. Sadly, there are a few folks out there who read the Nuze every day who can't hear the show. For you, this briefest of explanations: Resolution 687, passed in 1991, is the centerpiece here. This is the resolution passed after the United States had liberated Kuwait and while our troops were poised to advance to Baghdad to take care of business with Saddam. Saddam agreed to a plan whereby he would surrender or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and all implements, machinery and whatnot associated with those weapons programs, forthwith. Saddam's first obligation under Resolution 687 was to provide the UN with a "declaration on the locations, amounts and types of all (WMDs) and agree to urgent, on-site inspection(s)" as specified in the resolution. Saddam's deadline under 687 was fifteen days. He didn't make it. In fact, in 2002 ... about 4000 days past his 15-day deadline, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 putting Saddam on super-secret probation and giving him one last chance to do what he was supposed to do eleven years earlier. Wait! I forgot Resolution 678! Forgive me! Resolution 678, you see, is specifically incorporated into both Resolutions 687 and 1441 by reference. Resolution 678 was passed in 1990, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. This resolution told Saddam to get the hell out, and authorized "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait ... to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660 merely demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. Iraq didn't. George H.W. Bush made him.) So ... even if you went to a government school; hell, even if you vote for Democrats you can see that under Resolution 678 the United States, a Member State of the United Nations, has the authority under that resolution, and under 687 and 1441 to kick Saddam to the curb. Thus endeth all claims that the United States violated international law by invading Iraq. We weren't violating international law, we were enforcing it. Back to Paul O'Neill's claim that our mean, spiteful and inattentive president was making plans to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Two words: So what? So was Bill Clinton! Recognizing Saddam for what he is, taking into account his past attempts to build nuclear weapons, his invasion of Kuwait, and his gassing of tens of thousands of his own people, how could the United States not develop a working plan for the invasion of Iraq. Did Bush have any reason to expect that Saddam was going to see the light and toe the UN line? Hardly. Years of appeasement and UN inaction had emboldened Hussein. He was more dangerous than ever, and it would have been presidential malfeasance not to have a working plan to take him out if the need arose. The hatred of George Bush in our mainstream media is strong. Accordingly, O'Neill's book (out this week) is being greeted as a 100% fact-based truth-telling document. Just another case of lazy journalists letting their socialist political leanings get in the way of objectivity. Some of O'Neill's other pearls of wisdom that have his panties in a knot: the tax cuts were breaking the budget and there was no justification for invading Iraq because Saddam was not a threat to anyone, and everything was just hunky-dory in Iraq. Well isn't that nice. Of course, tax cuts don't create deficits, spending does, and the current economic recovery is being driven by the very tax cuts O'Neill is whining about. As for Saddam's WMD, he had them, used them, and Danish troops have discovered a cache of mortar shells in Iraq believed to contain chemical agents. But back to O'Neill's bombshell charge .. that George Bush was making plans to oust Saddam Hussein almost as soon as he got into the White House. This is Paul O'Neill's moment of true fame. He has startled a nation and thrilled the left with his gutsy revelation that George Bush was actually doing his job! Only after eight years of Bill Clinton could such a revelation become a news story. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka And since when is a fromer Secretary of the Treasury the most enlightened source on foreign policy issues? |
I'm always tickled by the "we were enforcing UN Resolutions" argument. Indeed, there are many UN Resolutions that are not being enforced to this day. So my question is, when will we be invading Israel?
When are the conservatives going to stop making excuses for Bush's actions, and just admit that the neo-cons pulled his strings for invasion from the very beginning? This administration lied and distorted evidence from the CIA and other intelligence to convince the public and Congress of Iraq being a threat. How on earth can anyone deny this?
Why didn't they just level with us in the first place? What were they afraid of? If their argument was for stability in the Middle East, why not just come out and say that, rather than distort evidence for a scare tactic?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 When are the conservatives going to stop making excuses for Bush's actions, and just admit that the neo-cons pulled his strings for invasion from the very beginning? This administration lied and distorted evidence from the CIA and other intelligence to convince the public and Congress of Iraq being a threat. How on earth can anyone deny this? |
If what Mr. O'Neill is saying is indeed correct then I have a very poor outlook on this adminstration and its innerworkings, in this I mean that I placed a sense of trust in supporting this administration in its actions in Iraq, as did a lot of Americans. To know that they were interested in removing Saddam Hussein at all cost, above and beyond that of WMD's or not is truly not in the best interest of the America that I am about. I sincerely doubt that the statements by Paul O'Neill was mere sour grapes and I as a nominal supporter of Bush in Iraq really feel that this adminstration thinks of itself as a law unto itself. Maybe they need to be reminded that they answer to the American people
This is from an article by Laurie Mylroie, terrorism analyst. Looks like O'Neill is referencing a document that doesn't say what he thinks it says.
| quote: |
In his appearance this evening on "60 Minutes," Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement. Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts." He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraqi oil (CBS's promotional story also contains that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ble592330.shtml But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes. And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?) And what are we to make of O'Neill's bigger claims, including that the Iraq war was planned from the first days of the Bush administration (cited by Wesley Clark today to buttress his assertion that there was no need for the war, it was all political)? In late 2000 and early 2001, the Iraqi regime was trying increasingly hard to shoot down US planes enforcing the no-fly zones. That may well have opened up discussion about overthrowing Saddam in January and February 2001, as Suskind claims, but "Iraq News," which followed the issue very closely at the time, doubts very much that any decision was made to do so then. Perhaps tellingly, Suskind doesn't claim that those discussions continued beyond February. Finally, O'Neill's statement to Time magazine, "I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," is bizarre. From 1995 on, UNSCOM reported that Iraq retained major elements of its proscribed weapons programs. That was the consensual view within the US intelligence community on the eve of the war, as well as every other country engaged in the issue. |
| quote: |
| Um, I guess what you are trying to say here is that regardless of the fact it was not Iraq that did the 11.9. thing, they still had strong ties with Al Quaeda? Well, you're certainly wrong on that one, since Saddam hated islamic groups as much as they hated him. Your analogy is completely flawed, and a good representation of how the general american public believes the fallacious phrases of its leaders. |
I believe I will concede to a certain degree the counterarguments against O'Neil's findings on Bush wanting to go to war days after his inaugeration. It may certainly be possible that those plans were more or less common drawn-up plans just as Clinton may have had. I honestly think more concrete evidence needs to be given to indicate Bush wanted a full-blown attack from the very beginning. It certainly seems conceivable that he did push the neo-con plan on the backburner until immediately after 9/11.
That does not, however, excuse Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney for distorting and misleading Congress and the public to assert their view of Saddam being a "serious" and "clear and present danger" threat to us. While there has been some evidence that Saddam MAY have had WMD in the past (imokruok's article cleverly points out), and that many had believed in the possibility - what is undeniable is the fact that when the need for concrete evidence came about to go to war, it was a very difficult task to perform. In fact, it was impossible. But that didn't stop Cheney and Rumsfeld to pressure the crap out of the CIA and create their own intelligence group.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono No, it really doesn't matter whether or not you believe Iraq had ties with Al Queda. If you remember the whole "Axis of evil" speech given by Bush after 9/11, you'll see that at that time he gave a list of "terrorist" countries, not necessarily those with ties to Al Queda. Iraq was part of the "Axis of evil," analagous, even in terms, to the "Axis" of WWII. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 That does not, however, excuse Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney for distorting and misleading Congress and the public to assert their view of Saddam being a "serious" and "clear and present danger" threat to us. While there has been some evidence that Saddam MAY have had WMD in the past (imokruok's article cleverly points out), and that many had believed in the possibility - what is undeniable is the fact that when the need for concrete evidence came about to go to war, it was a very difficult task to perform. In fact, it was impossible. But that didn't stop Cheney and Rumsfeld to pressure the crap out of the CIA and create their own intelligence group. |
Well, if you're looking for some modern Three Power Pact between the countries of the Axis of Evil, I agree you won't find it. However I'm speaking in terms of analogy, not literally. We could argue all day, as many of us have in the past, whether or not Iraq is a "terrorist" nation. However, they were put in a conglomerate of countries, much like the Axis of WWII, in which they were grouped according to their threat, or percieved threat, against the US. Much like Pearl Harbor, the events of 9/11 acted as a turning point, after which it was politically acceptable to go after these countries to which the US saw a threat.
Given a lot of the political leanings of people on this board, I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but:
The case to go to war against Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power was made LONG before Bush was elected and 9/11 occurred. 9/11 was just a catalyst that put a lot of things in motion on a quicker pace. Technically, 1441 wasn't even necessary to take action against Saddam, but the members of the U.N. were unwilling to take action--it's obvious that nobody wanted conflict, but by rejecting conflict, it showed that nobody wanted to own up to any responsibility. Even with 1441 getting passed, then not being upheld by Iraq, the U.S. was faced with France (and Germany) saying that they would veto ANY new resolution regardless of what it said. At that point, the deal was sealed. Saddam had it coming to him for the last 12 years. Bill Clinton was too much of a pussy to do the right thing, not to mention being too busy engaging in shenanigans in the Oval Office. Would it take another 9/11 to actually convince some people that there are actually countries out there that despise the USA and want to see bad things happen to the country and its citizens? Hell, it seems like a majority of posters on this board HATE the USA anyway.
Perhaps it's because a large majority of posters here are a bit younger and therefore lack a lot of historical perspective that you don't get by reading history books. After all, it's pretty well conceded that all history books are biased because by nature, they are written by the winner--writing history is essentially a spoil of war.
Here's something I've been meaning to post for a while for those who think that this whole "terrorism" concept is just some term invented by the "neo-con" Bush administration.
| quote: |
...that's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years. America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start. Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnaped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourned her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues to slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept. Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war! The Wake Up alarm is louder and louder. The emboldened terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again. Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks then goes back to sleep. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep. And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, if you're looking for some modern Three Power Pact between the countries of the Axis of Evil, I agree you won't find it. However I'm speaking in terms of analogy, not literally. We could argue all day, as many of us have in the past, whether or not Iraq is a "terrorist" nation. However, they were put in a conglomerate of countries, much like the Axis of WWII, in which they were grouped according to their threat, or percieved threat, against the US. Much like Pearl Harbor, the events of 9/11 acted as a turning point, after which it was politically acceptable to go after these countries to which the US saw a threat. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.