He wanted war before 9/11

[Hawkeye]

News Headline taken from AOL News:

RAWFORD, Texas (Jan. 11) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 - more than two years before the start of the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,'' O'Neill told CBS's ``60 Minutes'' in an interview to be aired Sunday night.

The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.

But O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, said he had qualms about what he asserted was the pre-emptive nature of the war planning.

"For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap,'' according to an excerpt of the interview that CBS released Saturday.

The administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks but officials have said they had to consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even larger scale-strike against the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam "was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11.''

"It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people,'' McClellan said in Texas, where the president is staying at his ranch.

O'Neill's interview was part of his effort to promote a new book about the first half of Bush's term, "The Price of Loyalty,'' for which O'Neill was a primary source.

The administration began sending signals about a possible confrontation with Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001.

In July 2001, after an Iraqi surface-to-air missile was fired at an American surveillance plane, Bush's national security adviser put Saddam on notice that the United States intended a more resolute military policy toward Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration,'' Condoleezza Rice said at the time.

Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December 2001, after the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, that ``with respect to what is sometimes characterized as taking out Saddam, I never saw a plan that was going to take him out.''

According to the book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the Bush administration began examining options for an invasion in the first months after Bush was inaugurated.


01/11/04 09:26 EST

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Good ole Georgie boy.....

-Hawkeye

[M_Six]

Why is anyone surprised at this? It was plainly obvious when Bush got elected and brought half of the Gulf War-I staff with him that he was going back to Iraq.

[Hawkeye]

I never said I was surprised, I merely posted to educate the others .

-George

[Optimus Prime]

Originally posted by M_Six
Why is anyone surprised at this? It was plainly obvious when Bush got elected and brought half of the Gulf War-I staff with him that he was going back to Iraq.

But there was no ground evidence to support it. Now there is .

[M_Six]

Both true. But others are surprised or refuse to believe it. For me, it's been the truth since Day One of his administration.

[FTM]

I don't see a problem here.

The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.

Bush Sr should have ousted Saddam when the US liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion; Clinton should have ousted Saddam for the above reason PLUS failure to comply with UN guidelines; Bush Jr. did oust Saddam for the first reason PLUS the second reason PLUS suspected ties to 9/11 and WMD.

Again, I don't see a problem here.

[Ed_S]

Originally posted by Ed_S 10-10-2003
George Jr. spent 12 yrs hearing folks describe his Dad as a massive screw-up. I feel strongly that war in Iraq was a forgone thing the instant Jr took office, he just had to wait for a reason to be found or manufactured!

911 gave the people a reason to fight, all he had to do was turn the gunsight slightly. Notice how little we hear about binLaden these days?? The architect of 911 walks free while we turn all our might, at any cost, towards the man & regime that made a fool of GWB's daddy...

http://www.techimo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83573

....but it's not good to find out I was right. It's horrible that we allowed ONE MAN, regardless of office, to weild enough power to convince the country to go to war. The system of checks & balances clearly needs major revision.
GWB should be removed from office and be held criminally liable for his actions, as should all others knowingly involved.

[Optimus Prime]

I think the problem most people have FTM is that GWB said that the war they made against Iraq was a war against terrorism. He never said it was a finish-off of 1991, nor did he say it was because failure to comply with UN guidelines, he slammed it on 11/9.

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Well 9/11 was our green light to take action. I only wish we could have attacked before then; it may have prevented 9/11 by bringing the battlefield to the terrorists before they could bring it to us again. The world trade towers were bombed long before they were hit by airliners, the USS Cole was attacked, and US embassies in Africa were bombed by terrorists, and we did nothing. Now is a time for action, and I thank God we have a President with a spine again.

[Hawkeye]

The UN probably knew in advance what Bush wanted to do, that's why they never accepted Bush's resolutions for invasion since they knew he wanted to finish what daddy started, this does nothing to protect the US, only a few of their interests. If the majority of the world is telling you not to do something, why go ahead and do it? Does the president with the lowest IQ of all the others think he's smarter than the leaders of almost every other foreign nation, I sure as hell hope not.

-George