Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


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

A. You can not assume this.
B. They might be variations on a theme
C. They will not be presented with equal passion

You keep going after the NYT like some Micheal Savage Clone...what about WSJ rpeorters? CSM reporters? WP reporters? Or do you think the NYT is the only newspaper that exists? Go on yahoo and find out just how many outlets of the press there are.

Let me repeat this again, given that you utterly ignored my question at the end:

Cabinet members are political appointees-people chosen for a bunch of reasons. Now, one of them is a general sharing of some common assumption and aims- which invariably means, unless input comes in from outside sources, all decisions are going to be made wiuthin a circle in whgcih some assumptions are never questioned or challenged, assumptions that could be terribly wrong. Here in this country we want a free and numerous press to make sure there is the freedom to see all point of view and make ones choices in a free market of ideas. We have a president that claioms he opts out of this free-market of diea and decides to stick to a small amount of sources simply becuase he likes what they may have to say. Now, perhaps you are jsut like that. getting all your news from a limited number of sources and not caring and ignoring all others-but you don;t make national policy, and those who do should not ignore valid sources of iformain simply out of intellectual lazyness.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by PLATO
Reporters are there sell newspapers yes, but NOT TO BE A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE NATIONAL POLICY- this puts them, NOT the professional in control.

Oh my God.

Reporters in most countries are actually fighting for a decent freedom of press, which has been increasingly denied to them in the face of media consolidation. And sorry, but it is the owners and not the reporters who want to sell papers. Are reporters perfect? No.
But that doesn't mean you should trust the cabinet when it claims it is doing the job. The papers are an ABSOLUTE necessity to democracy. I mean, why freedom of speech if the politicians aren't going to lie anyway?

[Mr. Harley]

Two seperate comments here, that I've made in other threads. From a different group of people, who definitely have access to their own, and possibly almost as good, intel. The Russian Foreign Minister heavily critisized Bush for blowing the world sympathy and backng after 9/11 with how he pursued Irag. Essentially he said that the US had a chance to really lead a war again terrorism (implied : international consensus) and blew it. That was what his government was furious about, they have had there own terrorist issues, to which they've contributed. It still doesn't justify the terrorists seizing hospitals and possibly blowing up apartment blocks.

Back again to the blind person.... If you look at, was it Ned's, I believe it was, thread on Rumsfeld, man of the year, I had some real criticism about that man and the Bush administration, comparing him to McNamara during Vietnam (yes, Ned, at least I learned from the links for Hitler's "man of the year" from Time, that it doesn't mean it necessarily as a compliment - you can always learn something on these forums).

They COOKED the intel. Hello. American soldiers died because Rummy appointed a tame intel group to regurgitate what the administration wanted to hear. They chose to ignore the pros in the CIA and military intelligence, who had been doing analysis over the years (which is their job). These pros from my understanding predicted EVERYTHING that went wrong. When they leaked the fubars, they were pursued under the Patriot Act. Sheesh. Cooked intel and muzzle the dissenters. That, on the intel side, is what gave us Vietnam. We aren't there yet, but until we get a stable country which is not imposing Sharia from a Shia viewpoint, I won't grant the "success" of the operation.

Good old dad, Bush Sr., knew exactly what he was doing when he left Saddam in place. I voted for him the first time, and against him the second time. The massacre of Kurds the second time around, on the altar of real-politik was too much for me to stomach. But dad had a rationale, and it worked. Jr. does not, he has a cause and he is sure of his righteousness. Look how much damage his rhetoric has done on the Korean peninsula. Moron. Yes, he wanted to get rid of the b****** who tried to assassinate his dad. I would to. You don't do it on cooked intel, without a solid plan on how to build a democracy in a country that has absolutely NO tradition to go on.

[The Andy-Man]

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.

Whilst I generaly agree with you, Gepap, there are 2 problems in my opinion:

1st: Bush is the President, so it is upto him how he gets his info.

2nd: Even if he had a wide rang of sources, do you think he would bother to listen to things that idsagree with him anyway? I don't, he is just doing what anyone else would do, ie. ignoring stuff he would never beleive in a million years anyway.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


Whilst I generaly agree with you, Gepap, there are 2 problems in my opinion:

1st: Bush is the President, so it is upto him how he gets his info.

Of course it his decison how he gets his info..who ever questioned this? What I am saying is that his decison here is a foolish one.

2nd: Even if he had a wide rang of sources, do you think he would bother to listen to things that idsagree with him anyway? I don't, he is just doing what anyone else would do, ie. ignoring stuff he would never beleive in a million years anyway.

How is this a problem with my arguemnt? If the president whishes to ignore opposing arguements, then that is a fault of HIS, not my arguement. I would like my leaders not to act like dictators, a class of people who generally have this trait of ignoring all information that does not confrom to their worldview and acting on limited info for their decisions, or info cooked up by underlings trying to keep their jobs or push their own agenda.

[The Andy-Man]

or info cooked up by underlings trying to keep their jobs or push their own agenda.

Their the ones who run coutries anyway, i mean, look at some of the people who reach high office anywhere. Would you trust ANY of them? Neither would I

[Ned]

shawn, Rumsfeld was Times original pick of person of the year. But when they interviewed him, he suggested that they choose instead the American soldier.

That tells you a little about the man, does it not?

[Patroklos]

"a class of people who generally have this trait of ignoring all information that does not confrom to their worldview"

See you and Bush DO have something in common!

[St Leo]

Why does it matter whether the Bushies decided to go into Iraq before or after 911?

Going into Iraq has nothing to do with 911.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"a class of people who generally have this trait of ignoring all information that does not confrom to their worldview"

See you and Bush DO have something in common!

Oh, I do listen and hear the other side..too bad you guys are tone deaf.

[Mr. Harley]

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).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
"a class of people who generally have this trait of ignoring all information that does not confrom to their worldview"

See you and Bush DO have something in common!

At least GePap did not cause the death of lots and lots of people.

[Edan]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite buy this. I can buy that he was intent on war with Iraq after 9/11, but not before. His stance during the election was totally contrary to this, and his actions during the months before 9/11 don't support this - he acted no differently than Clinton had, and if anything, my mpressions pre-9/11 is that he would have been less supportive of such a war than Clinton was. If he had been intent on war, I think it would have shown during those nine months or during the election.

(Now, having plans for an Iraq war I can see, but then, I'm sure we had such plans under Clinton too - so that should the necessity arise, we would have plans available)

[GePap]

IN the election Bush made no mentions of changing the US policy of regime change, as Ned explains..I agree that a few months before 9/11 the admin. was even speaking about easing sanctions, but at the same time, the majority of it's FP team had signed on to the notion of Iraqi regime change as far as '98: that on 9/12 they were already calling for an invasion of iraq hosw they had not lost the urge to do so..the question is if the president joined in this or if it was the advisors speaking among themselves.

[Gatekeeper]

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