Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[KrazyHorse]

Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

Duh.

[Guynemer]

Can we stop saying that "going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"?

It had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. Not because Saddam had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, but because that is exactly how the Iraq war was sold to the public. The administration, all the way to the top, relentlessly (and falsely) linked Iraq with Al Queda, Saddam with Osama.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned, talk is cheap (Rumsfeld's talk - not trying to diss you, at least you try and listen). The man is part of a White House that learned all the wrong lessons from the Clinton White House, spin is their middle name. While Rumsfeld claims he is for the soldier, he is pushing a light mobile force that is GUARANTEED to take higher casualties, plus an abomination of an AFV, the Stryker. Here is a link to his new rapid deployment unit.

http://www.geocities.com/wheeledibct/

It's why I keep comparing him to that moron McNamara. He knows his vision for a new army is right, and the hell with the pros who know better. By the way, slide 5 has some info on the Stryker - I've collected a bunch, it's all the turkey its opponents claim, and more. Reference the link's claims on the automation problems the army is having, we get Government Computer News where I work, and what the fellow in the article claims pretty much matches what I've been reading, though project problems are put more politely in official organs.

I guess that's why Rumsfeld is for the infrantyman. He knows they are going to have to take up the slack, and take the casualties, so he can have a cheap intervention force. I want us to have a world class military, paid for on delivery (no deficits).

Shawn, the Stryker has yet to be a problem. It is only a potential problem. However, Rumsfeld's vision has won two wars in record time and with very few casualties. As they say, there is no substitute for victory.

In retrospect, building up our forces to approximate 300,000 for the invasion of Iraq would've been a huge mistake because that would've placed us into the summer months for the invasion and would've also been completely and totally unnecessary.

As to procurement issues, the Stryker appears to be a modern version of the air mobile force that was predominate during the McNamara régime in Vietnam. This no question in my mind that air mobile concept killed a lot of American troops. There seems to be no substitute for taking holding ground with armor.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Can we stop saying that "going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"?

It had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. Not because Saddam had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, but because that is exactly how the Iraq war was sold to the public. The administration, all the way to the top, relentlessly (and falsely) linked Iraq with Al Queda, Saddam with Osama.

G., how do you know that the links to al Qaeda were false? Bush not only made the suggestion, but he cited evidence. Was the evidence he cited false?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Hmphf. It's pretty sad, PLATO, that you have such a jaundiced view of journalists.

I don't really. A free press is an essential check for democracy. My points are really just two:

1.) The free press exists to inform the people of the facts of the world around them as best as the reporter can determine them. In a democracy it is then up to the people to cause change through their elected representatives.

2.) Reporters do not have access to the same level of intel or the breadth of information that a government does. In matters of developing a national policy I prefer to rely on the better source of information for the facts.

GePap, To answer your question: Every administration brings an agenda of that which they wish to accomplish. While every cabinet member of every administration is highly qualified, they each bring different skill sets. Each administration tries to match these skill sets to the agenda as well as possible. You are correct that they are political appointees. Given the partisan battles of Washington, it is imperitive for a sitting President to have political loyalty.

Further to the crux of the matter...Leading up to the war there was much discussion on the different points of view and even infighting in the cabinet. Bush was obviously witness to some strong cases both ways. He made a decision...that is what we hired him to do. Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean that he should act on the opinion of NYT or WSJ or USA Today, or any other publication.

Once again I will say...If you don't like Bush, then you have the right to fire him in November. Most polls say that the majority of people will extend his contract another 4 years. Perhaps they all don't read the paper eithier?? Or maybe they just make their own decisions...Like Bush did.

[DinoDoc]

I don't see what the big deal is. The only people that are going to care are the people that won't vote for Bush anyway. The rest are likely to write it off as sour grapes and

He wasn't that good of a Treasury Sec. anyway.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I was surprised someone else hadn't already posted this.

So what does every one think? Personally I'd be surprised if the US didn't already have an attack plan 'just-in-case,' not so sure whether i believe this guy though.

O'Neill isn't saying it was a just-in-case plan but rather a plan Bush was planning to execute no matter what happened. This fits in what I've been saying all along--that Bush didn't wait for a reason to go to war but instead found an excuse to go to war.

Bush 1 is cricized for two things: not getting Saddam and saying "No new taxes" and then raising them. Bush 2 is out to clear the family name by getting Saddam and by slashing taxes even when it is counter productive.

[DinoDoc]

See!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned

G., how do you know that the links to al Qaeda were false? Bush not only made the suggestion, but he cited evidence. Was the evidence he cited false?

The evidence cited by Bush was really thin: (1) a Czech intelligence officer claims he twice saw one of the hijackers meeting with one of Saddam's spy masters in Prague; (2) there was an al Qaeda training camp in the Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq; and (3) an al Qaeda official from the training camp got sick and was treated in a Bagdad hospital and was not turned over to the Americans when we demanded him.

Yep, that's grounds for war.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
See!

uh oh. busted!

[Fake Boris]

Now Plato.

Erase all information that has been provided by non-politicians or non-government officials in the last 50 years.

Do you think the Americans' knowledge of national policy would be any better?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Now Plato.

Erase all information that has been provided by non-politicians or non-government officials in the last 50 years.

Do you think the Americans' knowledge of national policy would be any better?

No.


I am just saying that Newspaper articles don't have to be in the mix to make national policy. It is quite alright for the President to make decisions without reading the paper!

[Mr. Harley]

Ned, your missing my point. Rumsfeld has not won two conflicts. In both conflicts after the major field operations against organized forces were won, we did not have sufficient occupation forces - MP's, civilian liason, rebuilding, etc. to win the peace. We do not have the forces to make sure that western style individual rights democracy will occur in either country. In fact, it looks extremely likely in both cases that Sharia will be ensconced in law, and since in both countries you have groups with definitive differences in what exactly constitutes "kosher" Sharia (I just couldn't resist) the outlook for these so-called democracies loore like Cromwell's England.

In fact, and this goes back to the 80's, and both Mssrs. Gore and Gingritch buy into this one as well as Clinton and the Republican leadership, our contracting out suppport services has made life miserable for our GI's in Iraq, and made rebuilding a much larger mess than Germany or Japan. It seems that the employees of civilian contractors don't like to get shot at (low wage, no life insurance, low or no benefits, well duh), so the work is being done on a piecemeal basis, and often not being done nearly as fast as the older army support services did. It's why we've had soldiers in Iraq without running water or showers for almost a year, and substandard food. Remember, you get what you pay for.

Ned, did you go through the slide show? Go through that link. We can start a thread on the reoganization, instead of half-hijacking this one. Of course the entire issue of Iraq, Bush, terrorism, Rumsfeld et al is complex, and is interconnected, which is why we keep returning to all these interrelated issues.

[Gatekeeper]

Perhaps not, PLATO, but I'm quite sure that the folks who elect the president, senators, representatives, et al., would rather have sources of information that doesn't necessarily originate strictly from those who are a part of the government, either through appointment or by being a career bureaucrat. (That was a run-on sentence.) Bush may be comfortable receiving information that way, but I wouldn't be. (Heh. I'm sure Karl Rove keeps his finger on the pulse of what's appearing in the media, anyway, and relays it to Bush.)

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
I am just saying that Newspaper articles don't have to be in the mix to make national policy. It is quite alright for the President to make decisions without reading the paper!

Or the TV, or Radio, or.......

Given the partisan battles of Washington, it is imperitive for a sitting President to have political loyalty.

And people loyal to him are less likely to challenge him intellectually, tell him he might be wrong, tell him things he does not want to hear without sugar coating them...

Further to the crux of the matter...Leading up to the war there was much discussion on the different points of view and even infighting in the cabinet. Bush was obviously witness to some strong cases both ways. He made a decision...that is what we hired him to do. Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean that he should act on the opinion of NYT or WSJ or USA Today, or any other publication.

Who is talking about paper's opinions? Unless you see every article as a mini-oped, most of what reporters do is report-ie, give you information. There was infighting in the amdin. about iraq- thankfully one major cabinet member was not of the same mind as others- but what about national policy? Tax policy? What about the Iraq aftermath? Again, this is a guy limiting his sources of information with the naive view that by doing so he gets the best information", which is a very naive view.

Once again I will say...If you don't like Bush, then you have the right to fire him in November. Most polls say that the majority of people will extend his contract another 4 years. Perhaps they all don't read the paper eithier?? Or maybe they just make their own decisions...Like Bush did.

I mean, really......

You continue to think I want the president to base his policy on edtorials..well, as I said above, that is not the point, and it is not O'Neills point either-O'Neills point though is extremely valid and I do hope the press makes it public so that the public will have all the information they need to chose the president: Decisions are based on what information one makes. It is utterly valid to question the ability of someone who chooses to limit his sources on information without logical reason (perhaps simply out of itellectual lazyness or closemindedness) to make the most and best informed decisions (because the guy purposelly makes himself NOT the best informed).