O'Neill: Plan to Hit Iraq Began Pre-9/11

[Gimpy]

But I HAVE answered your questions.....just NOT the way you've liked to hear them.

I'll try ONE MORE TIME and use some "experts" evidence to support my claims. Where are YOUR "expert" evidence??

Of COURSE he used WMD against the KURDS, more than TEN YEARS ago.....and WE (the U.S.A.) gave him the means to do IT!

But, the article below will support all your claims are ridiculous. Just as is your call for "the office of the President" to be treated with "respect" that it DOES NOT DESERVE! I will not extend "respect" to anyone that offers up lies and deception instead of the TRUTH!

**********************
The wrong war/Why Iraq was a mistake



Published January 13, 2004

Events in Iraq seem on a positive trend line, one that every American can hope continues. While deadly attacks against American and coalition forces continue, there appears to be fewer of them since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Organizing the economic and political life of the Iraqi people remains a struggle fraught with problems, but progress is visible.


It is now possible for Americans to see how much better off the Iraqi people are with Saddam Hussein gone and the process underway to create for them a prosperous, democratic state.


That reality is truly gratifying, and it leads some Americans to conclude that the invasion of Iraq has proven itself both justified and worth the price. That conclusion, however, requires a logical leap that is itself unjustified. The outcome of the invasion and the reasons for it have always been separable questions. They need to remain that way.


Imagine that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had made a case for the invasion of Iraq along the following lines:

"Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who has long oppressed the Iraqi people and threatened Iraq's neighbors. It is U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq, and we propose to do that now, by military force. Saddam does not pose a risk to the United States now, and any threat he eventually may pose is years or decades away. His programs for developing weapons of mass destruction have been dormant since the end of the Gulf War. We have no evidence of links between Saddam and the terrorists of Al-Qaida or other groups capable of attacking the United States. Any invasion of Iraq is not related to the war on terrorism.
"Nevertheless, removing Saddam and creating a free, democratic Iraq is a worthy goal, though it will not come cheap. It will cost tens upon tens of billions of dollars raised from American taxpayers. International assistance will be minimal. Hundreds of fine young Americans will be killed in the process, and thousands will suffer debilitating wounds that will alter their lives forever. We call upon the American people to willingly shoulder those costs in the name of a free Iraq."

That, of course, isn't the case Bush and Powell made. The American people would have rejected it, and properly so . Instead, the administration's case was based on two central pillars: Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons in large quantities and was hot in pursuit of nuclear weapons; he also is closely tied in with Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, to which he could at any time provide weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States or its friends.

Neither of those assertions was true, and the administration had reason to know they weren't true. Indeed, according to a new book, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that as early as January 2001 the Bush administration was talking about removing Saddam from power.


Saddam had no WMD, and he had no links to Al-Qaida. The invasion of Iraq was an invasion of choice, not necessity, and it diverted U.S. attention and resources away from the real war against terrorism.

Over the past few months, we have been insistent on keeping that reality in front of our readers. Frequently, that has brought accusations that we're making these points only because of "liberal" or "Democratic" bias. Despite our thick skins, these accusations are worrying, for they go to the question of our credibility with readers.

The accusations also are false; consider those who share our view on the war:

The Cato Institute, a conservative Washington think tank best known for pushing the privatization of Social Security, says the war in Iraq was "the wrong war" because "the enemy at the gates was, and continues to be, Al-Qaida. Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States (even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaida and would have given the group WMD to be used against the United States."

From the U.S. Army War College comes a new study warning that the U.S. war on terrorism is unfocused and may have set the nation "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States." The war in Iraq, the report says, was "an unnecessary preventative war" which "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al-Qaida."


The most detailed critique comes from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carnegie's scholars think deeply and well about the reasonable application of power to preserve peace. The war in Iraq was not one of those reasonable applications, they conclude. Findings from the study include:

? "There was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al-Qaida."

? "There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have transferred WMD to Al-Qaida and much evidence to counter it."

? In 2002, a dramatic shift occurred in U.S. intelligence estimates of Iraq's WMD capabilities, suggesting "that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002."

? "Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs . . . ."

? "Considering all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options clearly preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing the [U.N.] inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or imposing a tougher program of 'coercive inspections' backed by a specially designed international force."
We thought of those costs and benefits a week ago, when news came of the death of Capt. Kimberly Hampton, the first woman pilot killed in Iraq.

A photo taken of the South Carolina native as she sat in the cockpit of her helicopter communicated a good-natured openness and self-assurance. Her father said she "enjoyed the fact she was making a difference over there trying to help the Iraqi people and protect our freedoms in this country. She was very much a patriot."

Hampton undoubtedly was a patriot, and she was making a difference for the Iraqi people. Americans should be very proud of her and all the troops in Iraq. No doubt she truly believed she was protecting "our freedoms in this country." She believed that and answered the call because that is what her commander in chief told her.

But the most sacred duty civilians have to their armed forces is to ensure they are never called to sacrifice their lives unless this nation faces a real threat. Bush must be held accountable for Hampton's death. Iraq was the wrong war -- for conservatives, for liberals, for all Americans.
****************************

And that's the way it is!

[BLUEHAWK]

Gimpy -

ISM

"I Self and Me"

Get over it and start thinking about what you are thinking about, just like the rest of us.

[Gimpy]

ISM.............I, SELF and ME?

GET OVER IT??...........start thinking about it, just like the rest of US??

WHO.......exactly............is "the rest of us"??

I implore you, or anyone ELSE for that matter to refute or show where these experts evidence I've posted to be less than accurate, or erroneous, or false in any way??

Hell, some of it came from conservative organizations and from qualified, authoritative experts in the field!

:cd:

[Keith_Hixson]

I heard on CNN that O'Neil is backing down on lots of his statements. Under pressure of cross examination he seems to be resending his message. Even the more liberal press are beginning to realize that O'Neil is a hot bag air with little or no substance. Just another Sour grapes employee trying to get even with his employer.

Keith

Gimpy,you almost never answer a question.When faced with direct question you invariably quote other folks who also fail to address the issues raised.About all that proves is that there are other folks out there who have the same OPINION as you do.

This time you actually admited the SH must have had WMDs since he used them.Then you promptly turned right around and offered us a quote that stateded in part: "Saddam had no WMD,...".Now just which one of these is your answer?Actually I asked you two questions and I was really kinda hopeing for one answer to each rather than two opposeing answers to just one of them.Guess I gotta take what I can get.Even that is better than your usual total lack of response(not counting the usual quote barrage which don't pertain to the question).

Seems to me that you and some other folks are willing to call the President a lier because you don't feel that he has poven some of his statements to your satisfaction.On the other hand it doesn't seem like y'all feel the need to prove that he lied about anything,or that there were no WMDs,or that there were no links to al-quaida,or that these are any more than unimportant side issues.Clearly there is a double standard operateing here.

For all you,I,or anyone else knows there may be stashes of Iraqi WMDs all over the world.

[BLUEHAWK]

Gimpy -

I meant to include my self and me in that jibe... sorry, a moment of weakness and/or incredulity.

I believe that America was and still is in a state of war, a justifiable state of war, with an amorphous and determined enemy who would be relatively easy to defeat were his tactics not what they are. For this reason, we are in a war the likes of which has not, so far as I am aware, been seen before.

Several times on these pages I have clearly (I think so, anyway) also stated that I do not believe the President, acting alone in any sense, forced this war on us... as is predictably, and lamentably, being claimed... thereby some, as I have also said numerous times, are completely missing and ignoring the true and far more dangerous source(s) of the policies some of our contributors decry.

[Gimpy]

where to begin?

Doc, first off what makes you think that me or YOU are definitive, authoritative EXPERTS on the subject of WMD or Al-quaida for that matter. Where and HOW do you arrive at YOUR conclusions and gather evidence to support YOUR claims of Sadamn having WMD and his so-called "connection" to Usama Bin Laden??? Is this from lengthy investigative efforts on your part with experts in the field other than GEE-FREAKIN-W and his cronies in the whitehouse or his administration??? I think not!

I said he had them, WMD, in the early 1990's and that is supported by the actions he took and substaniated evidence of that claim. Show me the "substantiated evidence" to support that NOW............OR his so-called "connection" to Al Quaida either??

ALL the respected "experts" in the field that I've posted on this forum have expressed their "expert opinions" and offered many forms of "proof" that this is more than likely nothing but a bunch of lies & deception by Bush & company.

How can YOU sit there and dispute these organizations and individuals and their conclusions with nothing more than "your" evidence???

That's how I arrive at MY conclusions, with accurate, investigative, authoritative information from irrefutable and HONEST SOURCES??

BLUEHAWK.......................your point has been made.......and I thoroughly disagree with it, as I've said in the past. HE IS IN THE SEAT.............SO HE'S GOTTA TAKE THE HEAT!

Gimpy,

Thank you for not posting another bunch of quotes.
No,you and I are not experts on the issues.But the alledged experts from either camp are not here to discuss the issues or answer questions.That pretty much leaves it up to us to do; and we ARE experts on what WE believe and why and that gives us something to discuss.

Please note that I'm going to try to address all questions and issues that you've raised.If I miss something please let me know and give me another shot at it.

I arrive at my at my conclusions through historical fact.I have made few conclusions on the issues under discussion for the simple reason that in many cases there are not enough facts to form a conclusion.I form opinions when there are some facts but not enough to be conclusive.These are subject to change when new,unknown,or unconsidered facts come to light.This is the whole reason for discussion and/or debate.You may know something I don't or vice versa.

Far as facts concerning SH's WMD go,about the only Fact we have is that he had them 10yr. or so ago.Nobody has proven that he still had them when we moved ground troops into Iraq and nobody has proven that he didn't.We haven't found too much to support the idea that he had them so far in Iraq but we might tommorow and there is absolutely no proof that he didn't have them stored elsewhere-which seems highly likely to me.Since the existence of SH's WMD's has not yet been proven either way it is wrong to claim that the President lied about them.You just can't know that to be true.I've got no problem with folks that say they think or believe he lied.But if an "expert" or anybody else states that as a fact all they have proven is that they are either highly uninformed or unable to use simple logic.

Al-quaida?I neither know nor care if or how strong a connection there was between SH and them.I only stated that nobody has proved that their wasn't one or that there wasn't a strong one.Again,if it hasn't been proven it shouldn't be stated as fact.
This is and has always been a silly side issue.We are at war with terrorism.Saddam Hussain was a terrorist that we were already at war with anyway.We were already also fighting al-quaida when troops went into Iraqi.Who cares if there was a connection?
We declared war on terrorism not one particular group.

The sources that you are fond of quoteing keep stateing as fact that we went to war because of WMDs and some al-quaida connection yet they offer no supporting evidence-much less proof- that this is true.Frankly, if you're looking for a pure lie this would probably be a good place to look.

[HARDCORE]

HINDSIGHT -

The point now is that we are there (Middle East) - what are we going to do about it, how and when will we get out, and what will we have accomplished in the region after all is said and done?

Granted, Hussein is toast, and eventually, so will bin Laden be! But unfortunately, this region breeds this sought of contorted behavior, always has, always will!

As for quoting experts, there is nothing wrong with drawing upon the wisdom and opinions of others who have knowledge of any given situation to make a point! Unfortunately, these experts can not always be close at hand, and as such, one has to (at least partially) rely on their written word! "Hey, isn't that what history books are all about?"

Not to gain by the wisdom, experiences and knowledge of others, is to ignore an irreplaceable resource! And let's face it, were it not for (so-called) experts, the nightly news would be about 60 seconds long at best!!

There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that many here-in have vested and unshakable views, and that is the nature of things. I have to agree with Gimpy about portions of our reasoning for entering into this war however, and the question of lies from all quarters! The "African/Iraqi Atomic Connection" has never been explained adequately enough for me! The mortar shells (possibly) containing Mustard Agents were I believe ruminant of the old Iraq - Iran War, and hardly a stockpile etc!

Did Iraq possess CBR potential and desires - HELL YES THEY DID, and probably still do to some degree!

Would Hussein and his cronies have used these and other forms of mass destruction - HELL YES THEY WOULD HAVE!!

Was the claim of these weapon's existences needed to justify a re-engagement in Iraq - HELL NO IT WASN'T (The job, however, should have been completed 12 years earlier)!

Would our current President use any scenario that he deemed usable to accomplish a goal - HELL YEAH HE WOULD!!

All of this is now academic, however. It is what comes across in November that will govern what happens next to the United States! And for the record, the article that outlined Bush's immigration actions, is being addressed by many experts also, and these experts ain't none to pleased, and this I know for a fact!!

Loyalty to a person or cause is a splendid thing, but blind obedience and acceptance of "ANY" political decree can (and has) toppled even the mighty! "So sayeth history, the greatest expert of them all!!"

"And it ain't nice to screw with Mother History, lest she bury you beneath your own folly!!"

VERITAS

[Keith_Hixson]

Rick,

Hussein was a pain in the behind to the world and would have had to be dealt with sometime. I have not doubt in my mind that he had weapons of mass destruction and would have used them. Israel bombed their uranium process plant because they felt they were almost in a position to have atomic weapons. They were building a long range gun that could launch nuclear weapons all over the middle east and maybe as far as Greece and Egypt. These are established facts. To say that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction in my opinion is naive. To say that Saddam wasn't a threat to World Peace is also naive in my opinion. I always remember Prime Minister of England Chamberlain waving his little peace agreement with Hitler. What it boils down to is (Fram commercial) you have to deal with him now or later, the choice was the White House's. Why America, because we are the only Super Power that can or will act as the World's Police. I don't like the idea we are in this position. I wish other nations would help but it seems we are stuck with that job. If we don't act as the World's Police, someday we'll have a major war - third World World. And that is why I believe it was probably wise we took on Saddam Hussein. If we hadn't stopped him in "91" the middle east might be called Babylon II.

Basically it comes down to this simplistic philosophy! If you don't stand up to the play ground bullies, they rule.

Keith