quote:

Originally posted by Shakka And since when is a fromer Secretary of the Treasury the most enlightened source on foreign policy issues?

The Secretary of the Treasury is on the National Security Council, which makes him a pretty reliable source.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by davedresden oh my fucking god i die, dave

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?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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?

Somebody posted something a long time ago from the Baltimore Sun that showed that the neo-con segments of Bush's cabinet were pushing the Iraq sometime in March 2001. Bush more or less blew them off until 9/11 and then they started gaining his ear.

At any rate, I don't doubt that Iraq came up in national security meetings prior to 9/11. I just don't think Bush really took the matter seriously (as he campaigned against the whole Clinton-esque nation building) until following 9/11.

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

___________________
Trance = Heart, Mind, Body and Soul all in 1

Current fav. Global Experience = Madras

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.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

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.

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.

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

Oh, so if Bush declared a country to be a terrorist sponsoring nation without any real proof, then it's ok to attack it?

___________________
1+1=10

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.

That's my beef with him. Either he's a complete idiot and was manipulated by data presented by Cheney, rummy, and whoever, or he knowingly nudged the CIA to escalate threat estimates in order to make the case for a war whose true purpose were for different reasons than WMDs alone. Now perhaps if he had made the case of war with Iraq with his actual reasons and let congress decide from that, then I would cede him credibility. As it is now, however, I cannot afford him the benefit of the doubt.

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."

It's about time that the U.S. stood up for herself and took a few swings back. God bless this country!