Yup, O'Neill said something like, "Saddam was a bad guy and they knew it from the start."; to justify his claim.

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLO!!!!!!!!!!!

Even Slick Willy knew that much.

Andy
 

Thank you!! Irrespective of your residence in the frozen northland, your perceptive brainpower is thawed, thoughtful, and right on target!! Contingency Planning was one of the fun and games I was involved in bck in 1968, at what was then 4th US Army Hq. You'd be surprised on the "what-if's" we played!

Another "view"
 

Mr O'Neill is the first cabinet member to directly implicate Mr Bush in planning a war against Iraq so early in his presidency. (Note to Andy....I agree..a "plan" of action for every possible "threat" is a good thing. However, when these "plans" are undermined or manipulated to suit a deception of the facts...they are NOT acceptable!)

One of the documents passed to Mr Suskind was supposedly a secret dossier from the first few weeks of the administration entitled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq". The disclosure will surely provide further ammunition for to Bush critics who believe the administration cynically exploited the 11 September terror attacks to launch an aggressive policy of global military interventionism that neo-conservative hawks such as Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, and Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, had been advocating for years.


It makes clear that hints of a link between Saddam and the 11 September attacks, repeatedly made by administration officials in the run-up to the war but never substantiated, were a political convenience, not the driving motivation behind the invasion. And it also poses a considerable challenge to the official version of history, which has sought to portray Mr Bush as undergoing a near-religious conversion after 11 September from a meek peacetime leader to a man with a global mission to stamp out evil.

O'Neill stated, " "the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is really a huge leap." (A position vaguely similar to the one the Japanese used to "justify" THEIR attack on Pearl Harbor?)


The invasion of Iraq was in no way what it seemed to be. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His "weapons of mass destruction" remain invisible, his terrorist connections remain unproven, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Most cynical of all was the "liberation" lie, the administration's sudden concern for the helpless citizens of Iraq. Saddam, as grotesque as he was, wasn't getting any meaner, and "liberators" like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were doing brisk business with him when he was in his murderous, citizen-eating prime (and in Cheney's case, as recently as 1999). It would take half a page to list all the US-sanctioned dictators, killers of their people, who will be sharing hell's hottest corner with Saddam Hussein.


As I've stated in the past, Americans supported the war in Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator--we had known that for many years--but because President Bush had made the case that Saddam might hand off weapons of mass destruction to his terrorist allies to wreak havoc on the United States.As of this date, there appears to be no evidence to support that claim??


It has been clear for some time that the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration were pushing unilateralism. Bush came to office pledging the opposite - an aversion to so-called "nation-building" and the commitment of US troops to world trouble-spots that he accused the Clinton administration of conducting?? Paul O'Neil's comments are testament to those facts. Plain & simple.

This administration has been deceiving the American people from the git-go!

Gimpy -
a) As you correctly assert, "unilateral" action is by definition arbitrary UNLESS it is, in fact, pre-emptive. I believe, in this instance, it was a pre-emptive act to invade (and I use that word carefully) Iraq.

b) I remain certain that it was NOT Dubya who asserted the WMD rationale... but rather (ho hum fellers :-) Project for the New American Century, and, American Enterprise Institute. I ask, beseech, and even beg they who set their aim at Dubya... aim at those two groups instead... please.

c) Slick Willy would have done the exact same thing post 9/11... and so will President Dean/Gephardt. We need to get a grip on the fact that not all of this IS in the hands of the Prez.

d) War profiteering is as much a part of every war everywhere as is munitions and death, pain, suffering and destruction. Eh? So why point it out... If this was the Dems war (p.s. not that they voted against or anything!), they'd have their own set of industrial giants to mollycoddle, no?

e) By now we should be able to agree that "political convenience" is in the eye of the beholder... so even when American "regimes" change, what exists now will exist then, too... yes?

f) Three suggestions:
ABOLISH:
- CLOSED PRIMARIES
- GERRYMANDERING
- ELECTORAL COLLAGE

Love, Mikey

Gimpy

Very interesting read!!!!

VERITAS

Motives?
 

Drama, or latent attempts thereof, are frequently used devices for hyping movies, docudramas, and books. And how conveniently the release of Suskind's book follows on the charges of Dean et. al., about the so-called unjustified war. Is there any proof that these contingency plans were undermined or manipulated, or is this just more of the drama and/or unsubstantiated bias? And what and how, pray tell, can one "undermine" a contingency plan? That's the height of psycho-babble! A contingency plan is a series of "what if's" and "what then's." A contingency plan can neither be manipulated or undermined; events may cause a plan to be altered, or cause a new set of "what if's" to be generated, so the evil conspiratorial tinfoil helmet wearers are foiled again.

And the passing of secret documents to unauthorized personnel is a felony, and if this man, O'Neill, was so honest and honorable as alleged earlier, can we at least agree that he was (1) stupid, (2) improperly cleared from his previous employer, and (3) potentially aiding and abetting the enemy? Or should we say that he might be the first former cabinet member to be indicted for failure to protect national secrets?

Links between SH and AlQaeda have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, by any legally acceptable standards of proof. This dead horse has been beaten, attempts at resusitation have failed, miracle healings have been called for, but the truth of the matter is that the damn horse is dead. If you want to continue playing with carrion, be prepared to share your tidbits with the vultures.

And golly, I love this next one: the President as a "meek, peacetime leader"? You haters and bashers would only wish! What really should come to mind when one reads "meek, peactime leader," is the image of Mr. Dynamo hisself, Jimmy Carter, and how he forcefully dealt with the Soviet menace, by boycotting the Olympic games!

And part of contingency planning, for the woefully uninformed, takes into account such items of preventive action. We didn't build the DEWLINE, or task the former SAC with 24-7 mission readiness, or launch multi-million dollar satellites just to enrich all those war-profiteers. Had one of these satellites detected a confirmed missle launch at the US, rest assured that an intercept and/or retaliatory mission woud have been the normal response. It seems that the bashers and haters would only be satisfied if a mushroom cloud or a massive bio mist enveloped Manhattan, before they understand the necessity of planning ahead. In their own words, such luminaries as Bill Clinton, Madeliene Allbright, Kofi Anan, Ted Kennedy, the heads of state of Germany and France, etc. etc. all agree that SH had WMD, was ordered to get rid of them and to make an acceptable accounting, or to incur the wrath of the UN. Guess what, skippy, the UN is a toothless hag, so we went in and did the hard work. And find the stuff we will, and maybe disclose it right before November, just to really get the bashers and haters' collective panties in a wad!!

RE: Motives??
 

It would appear that SOME of our esteemed membership have been unable to follow the advice of several of our more prominent moderators and members when they said things like......"personal attacks and snide insinuations" should be curtailed!

Or advice like, "I would ask users of the political debate forum to step back for a moment and relax a bit before opening up the next barrage on their neighbors."

Or advice like,"we owe each other the truth as we see it in a dignified and respectful way".

Or advice like, "or sow your internal venom elsewhere!!"

I suppose things posted like these in the post above ......."so the evil conspiratorial tinfoil helmet wearers are foiled again." , or "If you want to continue playing with carrion, be prepared to share your tidbits with the vultures.", or, "You haters and bashers would only wish!" .or, "Guess what, skippy,..................just to really get the bashers and haters' collective panties in a wad!!" ...............these ALL should now be considered a more "dignified and respectful way" to answer or respond to other members posts?????? Or, are indicative of a reluctance to use "personal attacks or snide insinuations" as a means of responding??? I surely hope not.

But, regardless...back on subject!
***********************
"Fighting Iraq had little to do with fighting the war on terrorism, until we made it (so)," said Richard Clarke, who was a senior White House counter-terrorism official under Bush and President Bill Clinton.

And while terror training camps have been eliminated in Afghanistan, new ones are being established in the Caucasus and the Philippines, former White House officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon write in a new afterword to their book, "The Age of Sacred Terror."

"From the perspective of counterterrorism professionals, the war in Iraq was not a continuation, but a diversion," they write.

No evidence of links between deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has been made public since the U.S. invasion, despite pre-war claims by top Bush aides that such ties posed a growing threat to the United States.

According to current and former officials, the Bush administration diverted precious assets, including U.S. military special operations forces, intelligence operatives and spy satellites from tracking al-Qaida to the war in Iraq.

By one official's estimate, half of the special operations and intelligence resources focused on al-Qaida were redirected to support the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Former White House counter-terrorism coordinator Rand Beers, who resigned in March just before the Iraq war began, said that U.S. troops, CIA paramilitary officers and intelligence collection devices were withdrawn from Afghanistan and refurbished for use in the war against Iraq.

Beers added that war with Iraq added to U.S. difficulties in committing the security force or aid needed to stabilize Afghanistan.

"We missed some opportunities," Beers said.

Kenneth Katzman, a terrorism specialist at the Congressional Research Service, questioned whether the diversion of U.S. troops from Afghanistan makes a difference in the hunt for bin Laden, who is thought to be along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
"Ultimately, if bin Laden and Zawahiri are going to be tracked down, probably Pakistani forces are going to have the best chance at that,"

Moreover, the U.S. State Department's counter terrorism office, which every year releases an authoritative survey of global terrorism, stated in its 2001 report: "[Iraq] has not attempted an anti-western attack since its failed attempt to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." In other words, by 9/11, Saddam's regime had not engaged in anti-American terrorism for almost a decade.

**********************

"This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army." -- President Bush, Oct. 14, 2002

"Yes, there is a linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 26, 2002

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time." -- National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 25, 2002


Isn't that cute? Not a single one of those statements was true.

And not a single one of those people is being accused of treason or malfeasance or of being a soulless anti-American warmongering drone, despite how their words were dripping with lies when they exited their mouths.

**************************

Or, as retired Col. David hackworth said, "Our first New Year?s resolution should be to find out if the stated reasons for our pre-emptive strike ? Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction and Saddam?s connection with al-Qaeda ? constituted a real threat to our national security. Because, contrary to public opinion, the present administration hasn?t yet made the case that Saddam and his sadists aided and abetted al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11."

As Central Command chief, General Antohny Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with the intelligence analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at CENTCOM, I watched the intelligence, and never--not once--did it say, `He has WMD.'"

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says he remained current on the intelligence through his consulting with the CIA and the military.

"I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, `Where's the threat?'" Their response, he recalls, was silence.

As he walked off the stage in Nashville, Zinni concluded that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

He also said this, "Let me just finish by saying that we should be?as I know you've heard plenty of times here?extremely proud of what our people did, and are doing out there, what our men and women in uniform did. It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. Not half-assed, inconclusive information that we "think" may make it necessary to send our troops into harms way! It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."


After months and months of looking all over Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction with 1200 other people, David Kay gave his report to our government. One thing we do know for sure is that after spending 300 million dollars, he found no weapons.


Remember the tons of biological weapons and the thousands of liters of chemical weapons that the Bush administration told the world about?

Well George explained all of that not to long ago.


President Bush declared that the report vindicated his decision to go to war. Bush seized on Kay's conclusion that Saddam Hussein had a long-standing interest in catastrophic weapons. Bush said the report showed that Saddam was "a danger to the world."


Well thank you Mr. President for those words of wisdom, but it seems to me that you were saying something totally different before your War started.

On March 17th President Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."


Remember back in May, President Bush's claim, "We have found weapons of mass destruction?" That was about some mobile labs for weather balloons the Army found and George jumped all over them before he knew what he was talking about. Surprised?


In Novemember David Kay estimated it would have taken Iraq five to seven years to reconstitute its nuclear program.

When Bush wanted to start his war he would say anything. Remember Mushroom Clouds over American cities? How about Dick Cheney describing Iraq's nuclear program as already reconstituted?


For some time now the Bush administration has been talking about a 10 million dollar deal for missile components between Iraq and North Korea. Well they left one important thing out. North Korea stiffed Iraq.


So what happened? David Kay in an hour-long television interview described for the first time Iraq's $10 million agreement in June of 2001 to buy equipment from North Korea to make missiles with. North Korea never made good on the contract and refused to give the money back.


These days, President Bush is asking for an additional 600 million dollars, so he can send another team to Iraq to search for weapons. This new team will not finish their search until after next years election, so that Bush can say that we still don't know if there were weapons in Iraq.


What most Americans thought with this report, was that our intelligence was bad on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. George Bush says no. George Bush claims by not finding any weapons, we were right in attacking Iraq. I am not making this up. That is what the President of the United States is telling the American people.

Here is the deal. We attacked Iraq because the President told us that Iraq was a imminent threat to our nations safety. Iraq had Chemical, Biological, and were real close to having Nuclear weapons. Either we attacked them or chances were good that they would attack us.


Congress bought it as did the majority of Americans. (Evidently some still do??)


All of this because President Bush couldn't wait any longer to attack. Most of the world wanted to give United Nation's weapons inspections more time. Iraq gave a 12,000 page report stating that they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and all the weapons they had before were destroyed. Bush and his administration blew that report off as lies. Well today it looks like Iraq was telling the truth.


President Bush did get some things done though. He got, Major No-bid Contracts for his friends and supporters and they were able to make billions off of the American tax payer.


The President has convinced Congress that as long as we are there (Iraq) we might as well stay and pour hundreds of billions more into that country, even though we are having about one soldier killed and ten wounded every day. This is too great of an opportunity for American Corporations to make a lot of money. Never mind that many of those getting these contracts no longer have their headquarters in the United States and therefore pay no taxes. They still pour money into political campaigns. See it is all working our according to the plan, and this report changes nothing.


So American Soldiers and Marines will continue to be killed and terribly wounded, but that is OK, because no one of importance has any kids over there. And gosh, there is just so much money to make. So thank you President Bush, for explaining to the American people how finding no weapons proves we were right in attacking Iraq.


And, thanks to all of those that continue to support these lies & deception as well!

Have a nice day!

Oh dear!
 

And now for the kinder, gentler rejoinder. As mentioned earlier, the bogus (is that too strong a word) contention of contingency plans being "manipulated or undermined" is just so much phastamagorical malarkey. And if you don't wear the conspiratorial tinfoil helmet, it shouldn't be a problem, then, should it? And golly gee, another book, another expert on the subject, name a subject, another surprise, another accusation. For every so-called expert on terrorism, counterfeiting Cambodian currency, or how to grow 600 pound tomatoes, there is another expert lurking right around the corner from the nearest publisher, waiting to have his/her book sent to the printers. Ho-hum. Nothing new here.

Malarkey??? Bogus???
 

The "experts" I've listed INCLUDE former defense department and CIA analyst, counter-terrorism experts, cabinett members, policy experts, and even the current State departments counter-terrorism office, along with Col. David Hackworth, David Kay himself, and retired former CENTCOM CIC, retired General Anthony Zinni???

WHOM are YOUR "references" for the "malarkey" and "bogus" horsehockey that YOU are espousing???

I haven't seen you offer any evidence other than your own "opinions" for refuting these folks expertise??

Could it be because YOU DON'T HAVE ANY??? Other than your own mis-guided "notions"??

:D

Great post SJ!-

As noted even Slick Willie knew SH needed to be delt with.Didn't do anything about it,-unless you count getting rid of numerous Army bases,scraping much of the Navy,disbanding Army divisions,and dumping thousands of tanks and APC's in the ocean as "doing something"-but he knew.

Truth of the matter is that Iraq was a festering pustual for many years.Had it been lanced in a timely manner there might never have BEEN a 9/11.

Folks that try to claim that we are fighting "Bush's war" must have been liveing under a rock somewhere not to have noticed that we have been at war with Iraq for the last 13yr. or so and that it has remained a continual drain on our resources and manpower.

We are fighting a war on terrorism and-if they have their way-it's a war to the death.Is their any doubt that SH is a terrorist?Is there any doubt that he had WMD's?If there is any doubt in your mind ask a Kurd for his opinion.Is there any doubt that SH considered this country his enemy?Is there any doubt that SH supported terrorism and had tremendous resources to do it with?

It has NOT been proved that the President lied to anybody about anything.

Gimpy,I've asked you following on at least two other occasions and gotten a noteable lack of response.I'll try again.
1.How do you use WMD if you don't have them?
2.What in the world makes you think that somebody with the resources that SH had would store their WMDs where everybody's looking for them?

We waited for over a decade for SH to make good on the promises he made in the treaty he signed.Didn't happen.It's just plain silly to think that he would have suddenly turned into a saint if we had just given him a few more years.

Frankly I think that if we are going to deal with each other in a respectful manner,we should also extend that respect to the office of the President.