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:

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

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*

___________________

[ Romans Chapter 1, Verse 6: And you are included among those Gentiles who have been called to belong to Jesus Christ. ]

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.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok This is just sour grapes, and a ploy to sell more books.

That's what I'm thinking as well.

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.

This comparison is completely flawed, given that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.

Attacking Iraq because of September 11 is like bombing Indonesia after Pearl Harbour.

___________________

quote:

This comparison is completely flawed, given that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.

Yeah, because Italy and Germany bombed Pearl Harbor.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yeah, because Italy and Germany bombed Pearl Harbor.

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.