Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[Verto]

Breaking News: FDR planned US involvement in World War II pre-12/7 !!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
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.

Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Cabinet members are there to advise the president yes, but NOT TO BE HIS SOLE FILTER OF INFORMATION- this puts them, NOT the president, in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is a prisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as if not more biased than any reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results, or fail to push along thier pet policies. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freey, without resrtng to the sole word of their ministers- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals is a fool of some sort.

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

NO, but Bush hired O'Neill, and O'Nel went out there and sld some great monkeyshine to the people for Bush, and when it didn;t have the results Bush wanted, well, guess who goes....

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.

Base on what do you say the plan will work? Sorry, but this is a 10 year plan, we aren't even at 1 year, and things are at best 50-50, and this admin. has not shown it has the ability to make it work given how poorly they have done in so many araes and how much they vasilate an so forth. As for the French knowing the reason for the plan- O agree they knew the WMD story was crap, and I bet they could not figure out why the Bushies could not simply say : we need to do this as a world community to fix the problems in the ME that threan us all- will you join us in this great act and experiment, as opposed to: "they are a horrid threat- we must attack NOW, and anyone who does not join is a weakling and must die!

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.

Elections did not happen till 1948- but then of course, not a single allied soldier died in either Germnay or Japan due to insurgents. I id not think yo so naive as to think that once elections occur everything is finished and dandy. nd if you do think so- let me say tat you have plenty of history to read on the subject.

[Ned]

Well, GePap, I note that Clinton did invade Yugoslavia (Kosovo) and Haiti, but only bombed the sh*t of Saddam, while threatening worse. At that time, Congress seemed highly disposed to do something about Iraq, but the problems of Kosovo took higher priority almost like Afghanistan did with Bush. Had Kosovo not occurred, Clinton might have gone to war to overthrow Iraq.

[Spiffor]

This is nothing surprising. I heard about the US invading Iraq since shortly after Bush's election. Sept. 11 merely provided enough resolve and enough propaganda material to actually do it.

As for the French being "divisive", I fail to see how they were more divisive than the US. Actually, the French were defending the (flawed) status quo, and the US took the divisive initiative to go to war.

[Patroklos]

Divisive has no bearing on changing or supporting anything. It is just bieng difficult over whatever that issue is.

[Ned]

Also, GePap, the best position the Democrats could take on the War is that it was totally justified but that Bush failed to win the support of France because of his maladroight handling of relations with the Europeans.

Actually, there are several Democrats who take this essential position, including Hillary Clinton. Clark is close. I think this was his original position, but he changed it in response to Dean's position.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is nothing surprising. I heard about the US invading Iraq since shortly after Bush's election. Sept. 11 merely provided enough resolve and enough propaganda material to actually do it.

I agree with this statement. The one provisio is that I think the attack was planned even before Bush. The political impetus was what was needed.

As for the French being "divisive", I fail to see how they were more divisive than the US. Actually, the French were defending the (flawed) status quo, and the US took the divisive initiative to go to war.

I would agree with this had not the Fench supported every UN initiative against Iraq until the moment of truth.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, GePap, the best position the Democrats could take on the War is that it was totally justified but that Bush failed to win the support of France because of his maladroight handling of relations with the Europeans.

Actually, there are several Democrats who take this essential position, including Hillary Clinton. Clark is close. I think this was his original position, but he changed it in response to Dean's position.

I think the best position Dems could take on this was that the Bush amdinistration soured relations with the world for no good reason by pushing the war on faulty grounds and not allowing a frank discussion on the valid reason there were for invading iraq, a discussion that would probalby have ended with the US having the same sort of backing they did going into Kosovo, that of our European allies but not states like China and so forth. Instead, the BUshies started late, rushed this (probably did not want to ake it happen to close to '04 elections), and then fumbled the aftermath.

[PLATO]

Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Reporters are there sell newspapers yes, but NOT TO BE A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE NATIONAL POLICY- this puts them, NOT the professional in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is able to determine choices based on the best information available and not be aprisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as biased as a reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freely, without resortng to the sole word of any one minister- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals, such as reporters, is a fool of some sort.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Divisive has no bearing on changing or supporting anything. It is just bieng difficult over whatever that issue is.

And the ones being difficult were you
[/counter troll or /counter arrogance, whatever this post was]

I would agree with this had not the Fench supported every UN initiative against Iraq until the moment of truth.

Actually, I think France was prone to consensus until the whole Franco-German radicalization of Jan-Feb 2003. France sure did want its boy to stay in place, and the Arab world to stay relatively calm. And I think our rulers hoped, at the beginning, that the Yanks could be convinced of averting the war if they were given enough guarantees by Saddam.
In this regard, the US also showed a willingness of consensus with 1441. I believe the Americans believe France could be convinced to go to war, while the French believed the Americans could be convinced not to go to war.
January and February made it clear this was not the case. As such, bith our countries were "divisive" in that they disagreed enough not to find a consensus.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, I think France was prone to consensus until the whole Franco-German radicalization of Jan-Feb 2003. France sure did want its boy to stay in place, and the Arab world to stay relatively calm. And I think our rulers hoped, at the beginning, that the Yanks could be convinced of averting the war if they were given enough guarantees by Saddam.
In this regard, the US also showed a willingness of consensus with 1441. I believe the Americans believe France could be convinced to go to war, while the French believed the Americans could be convinced not to go to war.
January and February made it clear this was not the case. As such, bith our countries were "divisive" in that they disagreed enough not to find a consensus.

I can go with this statement. It has a ring of truth to it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Reporters are there sell newspapers yes, but NOT TO BE A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE NATIONAL POLICY- this puts them, NOT the professional in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is able to determine choices based on the best information available and not be aprisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as biased as a reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freely, without resortng to the sole word of any one minister- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals, such as reporters, is a fool of some sort.

The only thing you leave out completely is that a wise ruler would listen to both, bush is the one who excludes all sources of evidence save one. You only further make my point. Why don;t you try making your own.

May I add you little attempt at creative editing failed. The mechanism for creating policy is taking in all relevant information and using it to make the decision: Bush is adminitting he limits his sources of information, andf thus it is questionable that he had all relevant information when he makes his decisions. nd that is the point I am making, and the point you have yet to argue againts..
Now, if the sole point you are arguing is that caninet members are totally professional and unbiased, please answer the question of whay they change with adminstrations? After all, if what you say has any validity, Bush would have been just as good keeping all of Clinton's people, and Clinton should have kept all of Bushes people, and Bush Reagans, and Reagan's Carters and so forth, since you claim, these guys are simply professionals hired to do a job.... (maybe you forget the part of them being POLITICAL APPOINTEES)

[Spiffor]

BTW, I just noticed I'm now emperor!!!! Whoohoo!

'Poly couldn't give me a nicer birthday present

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Spiffor
BTW, I just noticed I'm now emperor!!!! Whoohoo!

'Poly couldn't give me a nicer birthday present

Congratulations!!! EMPEROR SPIFFOR I OF THE APOLYTON UNIVERSE ACENDS THE THRONE.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap



The only thing you leave out completely is that a wise ruler would listen to both, bush is the one who excludes all sources of evidence save one. You only further make my point. Why don;t you try making your own.

I am not quite sure that I would want National Policy determined, even partially, by a New York Times reporter. I would imagine that Bush gets several different scenarios from his advisors