Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Britain has ready-drafted plans for invading Ireland, France and Germany. What point is being made?

[The Andy-Man]

I suppose this guy is trying to make a buck by attacking bush or something

[PLATO]

So much for the "Rush to war" school of thought. As I have said many times before...The WMD argument was the only one available to obtain UN participation. Stupid French...we were going no matter what you did...You could have been a great unifying force in the world, but you chose to be divisive.

The hole purpose of what we did was to change the face of the Middle East. Does anybody really think that the ME was heading down a path that was best for the people there? At least now there is a chance for freedom and self determination that an area of historic dictators and kings has never seen before.

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

So much for the we didn't have a plan crowd.

Once again Bush proves that he is a man of conviction. Like it or not, he came with a plan and is executing it. More than can be said of our most recent "focus group" President.

[PLATO]

dp

[Ted Striker]

what GP said

As long as Saddam was in power invasion was inevitable

secondly o' neill needs to get over it

[GePap]

More important than th stuff abou Iraq, which everyone knew already was a long term Bush goal and that 9/11 has been only an excuse, the more damaging things are about Bush's style of leadership and how he comes to decisions. It is not a very flattering move.. I mean, Bush has said that he doesn;t read newspapers, and that he gets all his information from purely objective sources, his advisors. I mean, come on!

So, the description of a Blind man in a room full of deaf people is pretty good.

A for O'Neill and sour grapes...plenty of people get fired from admins., but not all of them start books dissing their ex-bosses, and when tht happens, ususally its becase the boss did do something wrong.

[TCO]

actually I think there may be something to the criticism of Bush as not generating enough debate or looking at subtleties that much. I think it is one of his flaws.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
So much for the "Rush to war" school of thought. As I have said many times before...The WMD argument was the only one available to obtain UN participation. Stupid French...we were going no matter what you did...You could have been a great unifying force in the world, but you chose to be divisive.

The WMD arguement was the one needed to sell it to congress and the American people, not the world- obviously the WMD arguement failed worldwide.

The hole purpose of what we did was to change the face of the Middle East. Does anybody really think that the ME was heading down a path that was best for the people there? At least now there is a chance for freedom and self determination that an area of historic dictators and kings has never seen before.

A chance made less realistic and hopefull due to how it was implemented.

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

So much for the we didn't have a plan crowd.

There was a plan- based on poor evidence and whishfull thinking- the aftermath of the war should make ti clear whatever plans existed were not up to par.

Once again Bush proves that he is a man of conviction. Like it or not, he came with a plan and is executing it. More than can be said of our most recent "focus group" President.

If he were a man of conviction, he would not have lied or exageratted the WMD threat and simply said the Iraq war was worth waging from day 1. Also, he would have made the invasion of Iraq part of his election platform...I guess his convictions go only so far.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
More important than th stuff abou Iraq, which everyone knew already was a long term Bush goal and that 9/11 has been only an excuse, the more damaging things are about Bush's style of leadership and how he comes to decisions. It is not a very flattering move.. I mean, Bush has said that he doesn;t read newspapers, and that he gets all his information from purely objective sources, his advisors. I mean, come on!

So, in your opinion, The New York Times would be a better source of information than professionals with departments hired to provide this information? Explains a lot about your political beliefs I believe.

A for O'Neill and sour grapes...plenty of people get fired from admins., but not all of them start books dissing their ex-bosses, and when tht happens, ususally its becase the boss did do something wrong.

Most actually do write books or sell interviews with "secret insider" stuff . Usually this involves some sort of percieved controversy. Sometimes they just want to push their own political agenda.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


The WMD arguement was the one needed to sell it to congress and the American people, not the world- obviously the WMD arguement failed worldwide.

Nope...It was the terrorist lie that was needed to sell the American public...The WMD lie was for Eastern Europe.

A chance made less realistic and hopefull due to how it was implemented.

This is why we bash the French...Don't you know? If its bad, its their fault.

There was a plan- based on poor evidence and whishfull thinking- the aftermath of the war should make ti clear whatever plans existed were not up to par.

Most plans are like this. Even your favorite guy (Rumsfield) said from the beginning that the plan had to flexible.

If he were a man of conviction, he would not have lied or exageratted the WMD threat and simply said the Iraq war was worth waging from day 1. Also, he would have made the invasion of Iraq part of his election platform...I guess his convictions go only so far.

Convictions and integrity are different things. His convictions are strong, but I am beginning to question his integrity on accomplishing them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


So, in your opinion, The New York Times would be a better source of information than professionals with departments hired to provide this information? Explains a lot about your political beliefs I believe.

HELLO!!!!!

Do I think third party reporters are better at giving an objective view of a situation that individual wedded to the interests of the giant bureaucracies they run, their own careers and the the ability to push thier own interest by having the ear of the king? I mean, you can't be serious! I assume you have taken some sort of government courses and so forth and looked into theories of government- if the only people filtering information to the leader are those few around him, you honestly think they elader will have the most complete view simply becuase the circle around him will in no way give him summaries laced with thier own prejudices but instead give completely honest reviews?

Would you PLATO stop listening to the news, and rely on ALL your information about what policies need to be ennacted solely from a group of policitcally and ideologically motivated people?

Most actually do write books or sell interviews with "secret insider" stuff . Usually this involves some sort of percieved controversy. Sometimes they just want to push their own political agenda.

Yes, cause we all know what sort of wide-eyed wolly liberal Paul O'Neill is........

[Ned]

I think the only reason Clinton did not invade Iraq in '98 is because he could not justify it to the American people. However, it was declared American policy during the Clinton administration, including a resolution from Congress, that Saddam's regime had to go. I assume that Clinton said something along these lines to Bush on his assuming the presidency.

So, there should be no surprise to anyone that Bush wanted Saddam gone and was asking people how we could justify it to the American people and to the UN.

In a way, 9/11 only pushed Iraq off one year by forcing us to fight in Afghanistan first.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
This is why we bash the French...Don't you know? If its bad, its their fault.

Because they would not buy a lie? Oh my, yes, terrible- next time we make up somehting to go to war they better listen. Sorry, NO.

Most plans are like this. Even your favorite guy (Rumsfield) said from the beginning that the plan had to flexible.

Most plan are not like this- the post war plans for Germany and Japan went OK- this plan is not going OK..anyone remember General wahsthisname? You know, the guy who would run Iraq for 3-6 months before we gave power over the Chalabi and his wonderful Iraqi democrats?

[GePap]

Ned, don;t ruin my image of you by making a relevant and clear point that happens to actually conform to this world and not the Nedaverse.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


HELLO!!!!!

Do I think third party reporters are better at giving an objective view of a situation that individual wedded to the interests of the giant bureaucracies they run, their own careers and the the ability to push thier own interest by having the ear of the king? I mean, you can't be serious! I assume you have taken some sort of government courses and so forth and looked into theories of government- if the only people filtering information to the leader are those few around him, you honestly think they elader will have the most complete view simply becuase the circle around him will in no way give him summaries laced with thier own prejudices but instead give completely honest reviews?

Would you PLATO stop listening to the news, and rely on ALL your information about what policies need to be ennacted solely from a group of policitcally and ideologically motivated people?

When the reporters have the same access to information, the same expertise, and lose the desire to break big contoversial stories at the expense of truth, then get back to me.

For now I'll rely on the guys hired to do the job, not a agenda driven reporter. The nice thing is that if you don't like the job, then fire him in November...if you can.

es, cause we all know what sort of wide-eyed wolly liberal Paul O'Neill is........

So you have to be a wide eyed liberal to have a different agenda than Bush's?? Interesting.

Because they would not buy a lie? Oh my, yes, terrible- next time we make up somehting to go to war they better listen. Sorry, NO.

Unlike you, I don't doubt that the French understood the real reasons for war. They chose to try to elevate their own status and create a power block as opposed to trying to help make an inevitable plan work. Well guess what? The plans going to work and all they did was make it harder...We should thank them for that? I think not.

Most plan are not like this- the post war plans for Germany and Japan went OK- this plan is not going OK..anyone remember General wahsthisname? You know, the guy who would run Iraq for 3-6 months before we gave power over the Chalabi and his wonderful Iraqi democrats?

Actually most plans ARE like this. Every comparison to post WWII reconstruction shows this plan ahead of that one. Iraqi elections should happen this year or at the latest next year. Elections in Germany occured when? I assume with your vast political background that you should have no trouble answering that one.