Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

[Ned]

Originally posted by NeOmega


No, you are misled. Saddam did not plan to put up much resistance, or he would not have freed all his criminals. The were released to force the US into a policing role earlier. OBL busted a nut when he found out the Americans were coming to him. Al-queada is doing the fighting.... for now. But their continued resistance will force the United States, and Bush, under intense political pressure, to continue to use heavy handed tactics.

Attacks are down 25%, but they are spreading across the country. It is only a matter of time before a true nationalist and jihadist resistance will begin. Then soldiers will start coming home 2 or 3 a day. Worse, it's cycle time. The vets leave, in come the greens... against a determined enemy.

And the cycle of violence will continue. It is pure madness to think "shocking and aweing" a nation into submission is going to prove anything except we can win the first battle. But it will not win hearts and minds. Then to come in and try to regulate with a heavy hand, there will be no pro-US government in place for long.

The Iraqi people are not fooled by who was demanding the UN sanctions. They lived through them.

The war is not over just because your president says it is. The war is over when the killing stops. Name me a war like this one, where the commander in chief proclaimed victory, and yet soldiers kept coming home in body bags by the dozens. Name ONE!

N.O., Let's continue to be fair. Bush never said that the war was over, only that major combat operations were over.

We succeed when a democratically elected government assumes power in Iraq and we withdraw. The war does not have to go on forever and ever and ever, etc. I for one have advocated turning it over to the Iraqi's themselves ASAP.

[Defiant]

I am for withdrawing some forces also, but we need to keep forces in Iraq to monitor the police and military so we don't go back into the pit it was or have outside influences on Iraq, like Iran. We will need to maintain at least 50,000 troops there once the Iraq police and military are up to speed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


As confidents who opinions he trusted,,yes. As his sole filters of information form the outside world? NO. That is the point of this Ned.



There were two camps when it cames to Iraq, Powell and Armitage v Rummy and the civs. and the pentagon. And Powell, after a few minor victories, surrendered when it came ot the war. As for the post war, it has been state v Pentagon again, though powell does not seem as active. I have no idea who this third camp would be.

The third camp is the CIA that provides truly independent analysis.

[Ned]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Who cares!? Does Bush have to do everything Bill Clinton did? Is he just Clintons little lap dog? Blaming it on Clinton is irrelevant. Some people didn't like Clinton either, so everytime a conservative says "Well, Clinton did it! I can do it too!" I say grow up! I don't care that Clinton was stupid too! I don't care that congress was crooked and misled. I really don't care about the D's and the R's. They are both a bunch of powermongering millionaires!

I only raise this point as your original criticism was entirely directed to Bush.

In truth, Bush accepted the Clinton positions on most foreign policy issues without major change. Clinton did the same with his predecessor's policies.

Actually, Bush may have been inclined to a less interventionist policy prior to 9/11 given what he said during the campaign. And, most of us agree, that had Gore been in office, he would have aggressively gone after OBL in Afghanistan.

Gore's main objection to Iraq was that we did not get France and Germany on board -- implying that he could -- not that our Iraq policy was wrong.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
N.O., Let's continue to be fair. Bush never said that the war was over, only that major combat operations were over.

Originally posted by Ned
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.

Bush may not have said the war was over, but you did!
now;

Originally posted by Ned
Let's continue to be fair.

originally pposted by Ned
And, most of us agree, that had Gore been in office, he would have aggressively gone after OBL in Afghanistan.
Gore's main objection to Iraq was that we did not get France and Germany on board -- implying that he could -- not that our Iraq policy was wrong.

Who cares!? Does Bush have to do everything Al Gore would have done? Is he Gore's twin? Saying Gore may have done the same is irrelevant. Some people disliked Gore also. Everytime a conservative says "Well, Gore would have done the same" I say grow up! I don't care that Gore is stupid too! I don't care that congress was crooked and misled. I really don't care about the D's and the R's. They are both a bunch of powermongering millionaires!

What is your point, that Bush is good because Gore would have done the same thing, that if Bush and Gore agree an Iraq invasion is neessary, it is? but......

Originally posted by Ned
Let's continue to be fair.

Clinton did not invade Iraq, nor did Gore. Therefore, my attacks are aimed at W, who did invade Iraq. And who wanted to do so the day he took office. In fact if they were in fact discussing it his first few days in office, as he was talking of "humble foreign policy" on the campaign trail, he was actually thinking "regime change in Iraq".

But then again, everything he says is the direct opposite of what he means.... this isn't an occupation, it's a liberation... remember?


And how do you propose realistically we have a snowball's chance in hell of handing over the government to the "Iraqi" people when neither Baathists, or shiites can participatre as they wish? How the hell are we going to leave Iraq "ASAP", without it collapsing into civil war even before all of our troops have left?

[DinoDoc]

This thread is just a monument to my ability to be correct.

[Guynemer]

Getting a bit of an ego on ya, aren't you DD?

[DinoDoc]

No, of course not.

/me hides plans for his statue

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This thread is just a monument to my ability to be correct.

there are many monuments of things that don't exist

[PLATO]

Asked whether he would vote for Bush in the November presidential election, O’Neill said he probably would...

O’Neill also contended the administration’s decision-making process was often chaotic and that Bush Cabinet meetings made the president look “like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.�

On Tuesday, O'Neill backtracked on that description, saying "I'd take that back" because he felt Bush critics had pounced on that quote without reading the entire book.

O’Neill said Tuesday he did not mean to imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a regime change in Iraq but that he was surprised that it was at the top of the agenda at the first Cabinet meeting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3925358/

Hmmmm...

[The Andy-Man]

you mean, O'Neilll has made a U-turn

on the same day the BBC bothered to say anything aswell about 'what this means for iraq' bl;ah blah blah

[Lefty Scaevola]

Just another case of the press twisting and sppinning reporting until the story is urecognizable by thoses who were there.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned


Skywalker, and you're way too eager to jump in with a personal attack.

The information about Rumsfeld requesting that the US soldier be a person of the year and not himself was directly from Time itself.

I didn't say I doubted that he said it. I said I doubted it meant anything good about him. It looks far better for him to turn down "Person of the Year" for the "American Soldier" than for him to recieve "Person of the Year". Thus, it doesn't mean he's a good guy, it just means he's good at spinning things.

[GePap]

On Tuesday, O'Neill backtracked on that description, saying "I'd take that back" because he felt Bush critics had pounced on that quote without reading the entire book.

Love someone to post the whole quote, becuase you can't really take that much out of context.

The thing is, others have said of Bush that he has zip intellectual curiosity-the man simply does not care to find things out- he is not one to seek answers...and Bush himself made the statement I have jumped on.

O’Neill said Tuesday he did not mean to imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a regime change in Iraq but that he was surprised that it was at the top of the agenda at the first Cabinet meeting.

So he did not change the story here, did he? Ahhhhh. So what is your point?