CBS 60 Minutes --- Iraq War Planned Pre-9/11?

[happytrails]

From CBS news:

Saddam Ouster Planned Early '01?

Jan. 10, 2004

Iraq War Planned Pre-9/11?


(CBS) The Bush Administration began making plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks, as has been previously reported.

That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "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."

O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. [...]


[Edited out of copyright concerns. Do not post the full text of copyrighted articles; post links or short excerpts only. --Gaudere]

[UncleBill]

It is frowned upon here to cut and paste entire articles. A mod should be along shortly.

The Pentagon is FULL of bookcases with war plans to invade just about everybody there is, and with the behavior of Iraq over the last decade, I would find it shocking and irresponsible if they DIDN'T brush off those plans when this administration took over. I also presume they brushed off the North Korea plan, and the plan to handle Cuba when Castro dies, and the plan for Liberia, and the plan for India/Pakistan, and the plans for Syria and Iran, too.

[II Gyan II]

Originally posted by UncleBill
The Pentagon is FULL of bookcases with war plans to invade just about everybody there is, and with the behavior of Iraq over the last decade, I would find it shocking and irresponsible if they DIDN'T brush off those plans when this administration took over. I also presume they brushed off the North Korea plan, and the plan to handle Cuba when Castro dies, and the plan for Liberia, and the plan for India/Pakistan, and the plans for Syria and Iran, too.

Contingency plans are not what O'Neill is referring to. He seems to be saying that Bush & Co. already had intent to directly topple Saddam before 9/11. The Bush admin pre-9/11 said that they would support efforts to topple Saddam, but didn't disclose that they already intended to actually directly carry out such a plan.

[Duck Duck Goose]

My thought exactly.

Also--news stories that start out "disgruntled ex-employee reveals secrets about former employer" don't generate a whole lot of interest in my corner of the Internet.

Especially if there's a book deal in the pipeline...

[Duck Duck Goose]

Well, poot, my "thought exactly" was what Uncle Bill said. So just pretend like Gyan's post isn't there... :D

[Aldebaran]

I suggest people to go to the PNAC website to become informed of one and an other.

Salaam. A

[XT]

I don't see where the traction would have come from without 9/11 to push the American people into going along. How would they have gotten the support of Congress without something like 9/11 happening? How would they have gotten the people on board?? Even WITH such an event, look at the opposition from the people. Imagine if they had of tried such a thing cold....'lets just invade Iraq'! I'm sure that would have gone over well.

And before anyone rants at me, I'm NOT saying Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. However, only a fool could fail to notice that the event shocked the American people and made them much more plyable as far as external military adventures were concerned. And certainly it had that effect on Congress.

-XT

[sibyl]

There are quite a few conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and from what I've seen much of Europe believes them. I've talked to a few friends I have in France and Germany and they are fairly certain there was something shady going on with 9/11, more than we've been told. Could be just a couple cases but they are fairly well read and don't just make snap judgements.

As far as the validity of those claims, I've seen some convincing arguments and some very unconvincing arguments. Unfortunately investigating any of these is pretty taboo as of right now.

[Pepsi Classic]

As far as the validity of those claims, I've seen some convincing arguments and some very unconvincing arguments

What are some of the convincing arguments?

[elucidator]

Whats going to be most interesting is how the denials will be phrased. So far, it looks like they're going for nasty and dismissive

"O'Neill's tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. "We didn't listen to him when he was there," said a top aide. "Why should we now?"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html

[elucidator]

So far, no such denials have been forthcoming, I suspect they're waiting until after 60 Minutes airs. My guess: they'll go for a carefully worded non-denial, the kind of thing that ignores the question and answers a question not asked, something along the lines of "The White House regrets that a once trusted and respected adviser has gone off the deep end...." They probably won't actually directly deny the substance of O'Neills charges, they'll just issue a statement much like that, and pretend that dignity compels them to make no further comment.

[Duck Duck Goose]

Unfortunately investigating any of these is pretty taboo as of right now.Not here at the Straight Dope Message Board, it isn't.

What are some of the "convincing arguments"?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fresh in from Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm)
O'Neill says there never was any evidence of WMDs either.
"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."
I find O'Neill quite credible. Book deal or not, guys like this don't just invent stories out of whole cloth and, as 'lucy points out, the Bushies haven't actually denied any of this, they're just being sneering and dismissive.

[tomndebb]

On the one hand, it has been over 25 years since I accepted anything that 60 Minutes has broadcast without confirmation from three independent sources. They have been living on an early reputation for probity that they have not maintained in a lo-o-o-o-o-ong time.

On the other hand, while I do expect the Pentagon to have contigency plans for just about any possible war, I doubt that the Treasury Secretary very often hears about our plans for the defense of the Philipines or Taiwan or the invasion of Canada unless there is imminent action being discussed. Beyond that, taking out Hussein was an explicit desire that GWB mentioned on severeal occasions during the 2000 campaign.

[Duckster]

Originally posted by elucidator
Whats going to be most interesting is how the denials will be phrased. So far, it looks like they're going for nasty and dismissive

"O'Neill's tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. "We didn't listen to him when he was there," said a top aide. "Why should we now?"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html Same quote, different source: A senior administration official said O'Neill's "suggestion that the administration was planning an invasion of Iraq days after taking office is laughable. Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?" Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004Jan10?language=printer


So if no one listened to him while he was Secretary of the Treasury, why was he in the job in the first place?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Saying it's "laughable" also isn't the same as saying it didn't happen.

Did anyone see that O'Neill characterized cabinet meetings with Bush as being like "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people?"

O'Neill says that Bush did not ask questions of his advisors and that they did not ask questions of him.

Bush still thinks he a CEO who just gives orders to yes men.

[pantom]

As Treasury Secretary, he had a bad habit of talking too much. None of the things he said were untrue, it's just that, you know, some things you just don't come out and say directly.
Me, I noticed that he actually came out and said the US wanted a weaker dollar. Just not done. What happens is, the market takes down the dollar, and if anyone asks you and you're Treasury Secretary, you say "Of course we want a strong dollar!" You just don't attach the -er to strong and everyone gets what you mean.
Apparently, that didn't matter to Bush until he got in the way of one of his endless rounds of tax cuts. THAT is unforgivable.

[Squink]

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice. The President, 03/17/03 (http://socialbaggage.com/Bush03-17-2003.htm)

[DBNY]

re: evidence of WMD

Does every cabinet level Secretary have access to all intelligence data? If not, where is the line drawn? Treasury is pretty important, but it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't privy to all intelligence data like DoD or State would be.

Hopefully the interviewer will be tough and ask questions like this. I won't begin to be convinced unless O'Neil states he was told there's no evidence, but we're going in anyway. Just because he didn't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Thin Ice]

Here's a link to an article by Pat Buchanan that seems to make the case that the war was on the drawingboard long before 9/11:

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Just as a matter of principle, I don't ever take the word of someone who was fired when they talk about their previous employers.

However, I'm not dismissing this out of hand. He may be telling the truth here, but too many times you find people like this with an axe to grind because of the shoddy treatment they think they were afforded.

Time will tell.

[John Mace]

I agree. Beware of ex-government types selling books. Doesn't mean it's not true, but he's go a high standard to meet in order to be believed.

I await Colin Powell's tell-all book.:) Actually, if Bush wins this year and Powell is not SoS in '05, that will be, in and of itself, a pretty damning indictment of Bush's foreign policies. Not that Powell has been some incredibly effective SoS, but I think he has a tad more integrity than your typical pol.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by tomndebb
On the one hand, it has been over 25 years since I accepted anything that 60 Minutes has broadcast without confirmation from three independent sources. They have been living on an early reputation for probity that they have not maintained in a lo-o-o-o-o-ong time.
And more particularly, there's a perfectly good whole book coming out in two days. O'Neill was my favorite cabinet secretary, and it pains me that the administration got so tired so quickly of the tell-the-truth show they signed up for when they hired him. But basing a Great Debate on a book blurb rather than a book, particularly when the blurb is on 60 Minutes, seems, well, premature.

[Duckster]

Originally posted by John Mace I await Colin Powell's tell-all book.:) Actually, if Bush wins this year and Powell is not SoS in '05, that will be, in and of itself, a pretty damning indictment of Bush's foreign policies. Not that Powell has been some incredibly effective SoS, but I think he has a tad more integrity than your typical pol. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House expects that President Bush would have to assemble a new foreign policy team, including a secretary of state, if he were to win a second term, administration officials said Monday.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has long told friends and associates that he planned to serve in the Cabinet no longer than one term, but speculation about his future increased Monday after the Washington Post published and article that said Powell and his top deputy, Richard Armitage, have recently reaffirmed their intentions to step down even if the president is re-elected.

Powell, interviewed on Radio Sawa, the U.S. government's Arabic-language station that broadcasts to the Middle East, called the newspaper report "nonsense" and said it wasn't true that he had told the president of his plans to leave. Source: CNN, August 04, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/04/powell.2nd.term/)

Of course, this may have been a trial balloon story.

[rjung]

Originally posted by John Mace
Not that Powell has been some incredibly effective SoS, but I think he has a tad more integrity than your typical pol.
Go back and re-read the transcript of Powell's UN presentation last February, and tell me if you still think he has integrity.

Feh. I gave up on Colin Powell after that hour-long bullshit session. Paul O'Neill's claims are just more "I told you so"s for all us skeptics out here.

[CyberPundit]

I saw the 60 minutes segment on O'Neil and it was pretty interesting. A couple of clarifications are in order: O'Neil didn't write the book and isn't benefiting financially from it. Secondly he gave a thousands of pages of documents to the writer so it isn't as if we have to rely on O'Neil's word. In any case he sounded pretty credible.

As for the specific points I am not sure what to make of the Iraq claims. Apparently the administration was planning for things like post-Saddam war-crimes tribunals even before 9-11. So it wasn't just war-planning. Still I am not sure what the background was and whether such planning is routine or not. I am sure the book will have more information.

O'Neil's criticisms of Bush being ignorant and uninterested about the details of economic policymaking rang pretty true. Bush has always seemed uncomfortable with serious policy discussion when he didn't have a script to read from. As mentioned above there are documents which apparently back up O'Neil's criticisms.

All in all this sounds like a pretty revealing look at the inadequacies of the Bush administration and its policy-making. I think the book will be worth reading and we should be better able to evaluate its claims when it comes out.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by DBNY
re: evidence of WMD

Does every cabinet level Secretary have access to all intelligence data? If not, where is the line drawn? Treasury is pretty important, but it wouldn't surprise me if they aren't privy to all intelligence data like DoD or State would be.

Hopefully the interviewer will be tough and ask questions like this. I won't begin to be convinced unless O'Neil states he was told there's no evidence, but we're going in anyway. Just because he didn't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
His assertion is that he saw all the intel but that the Bush extropolations from it were bullshit.

[elucidator]

IIRC, O'Neill was also a member of the National Security Council. Security clearance up to "Burn Before Reading".

[KidCharlemagne]

O'Neill lost me when he failed to see how the picture he was painting of Bush was unflattering. Regarding the pre-planning of the war in Iraq, I like what my mother had to say about it: "So what?"

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wow, what an insghtful mother you have. :rolleyes:

Here's the "so what," dude. It means that Bush intended from day one to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of another country to gain control of its oil. It means that this was a politically motivated act from the beginning. It means that all the talk about WMDs and imminent threats were manipulative lies intended to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for personal gain. It means that your illegitimate president is a liar and a criminal.
It means that everything he said to justify the invasion was bullshit. It means that he intended, even before 9/11, to kill American soldiers for no reason.

It means a lot. You should educate your mother.

[Chicago Faucet]

Except that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm), signed by Clinton, says that:
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
...so it wasn't odd to have such a plan.

[elucidator]

Is it just me or are the words "support efforts to remove the regime" a rather far cry from "Invade!"?

And, no, it isn't particularly odd to have such a plan. Theres probably a plan lying around somewhere for the invasion and occupation of Belgium, should that prove necessary. Are such plans discussed at a cabinet level? Most unlikely.

[John Carter of Mars]

By DtC: "It means that he intended, even before 9/11, to kill American soldiers for no reason."

No, it means that he intended to start a war to remove Saddam from power. Big difference from "no reason".
You Bush Bashers would have more credibility if you'd stick to facts and cut down on the hyperbole.

[elucidator]

John has a point. The simple unadorned facts are sufficiently damning. When the campaigning GeeDubya stated his opposition to military adventures in "nation building", he was most likely lying through his teeth. Similarly when he assured us that he hadn't made up his mind and was sincerely pursuing any chance of peace. Also, it would seem, bald faced lies.

Your point is well taken. We don't need "spin". We have the facts, they can keep the spin. Speaking for proud and patriotic Bush Bashers everywhere, we are pleased to have your support.

[Fang]

Originally posted by elucidator
Is it just me or are the words "support efforts to remove the regime" a rather far cry from "Invade!"?

And, no, it isn't particularly odd to have such a plan. Theres probably a plan lying around somewhere for the invasion and occupation of Belgium, should that prove necessary. Are such plans discussed at a cabinet level? Most unlikely.
This is subject to change, however, if a law is passed stating that the US's official policy is regime change in Belgium.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, it means that he intended to start a war to remove Saddam from power. Big difference from "no reason"
An illegal war, which would result in the deaths of American soldiers for no reason related to the defense of the US or anyone else.

[ElvisL1ves]

Note the response of the White House itself, and its loyalists here and elsewhere, to this material: That O'Neill is an ass with self-serving motivations. NOT that anything he has said is factually wrong.

To some of us, the facts of planning an invasion are just a little higher on the importance scale than timing the profit of a book (certainly a novel tactic in politics, too, huh?). Shall we add this as another example of the partisan right's loss of a moral compass, one that considers Bush's lying about a war as equivalent or even less than Clinton's blowjob?

Just to remind you: This was a preplanned invasion of another country, decided upon without any facts to lead us to conclude it was necessary. We executed people for doing that, people who hadn't even tried to lie about their reasons, at Tokyo if not Nuremburg. It matters. Book releases don't. Got it, gang?

[Tee]

I'm almost certain it was pre-planned. Of course they won't deny it. I'd wager there were contingency plans by the Pentagon dating from Clinton's terms too. You have to remember that the CIA had been running amok trying to get a coup in there for ages and the military was stationed in Saudi Arabia because of Saddam, we were protecting the upper and lower parts of the country from Iraqi troops movements...I have no idea how much of this is legal or moral or what, but we've certainly had all kinds of ongoing plans WRT Iraq.

[ElvisL1ves]

Planning how to do something, if it comes to that, is a completely different issue from deciding to do it.

[Rashak Mani]

So if Bush had Iraq chosen for a military excercise before 9/11 how come they didn't have anything more credible to justify an invasion ?

Its bad enough to do silly wars... its another to badly justify it, badly plan the aftermath and get so little support for it.

[John Mace]

Originally posted by elucidator
So far, no such denials have been forthcoming, I suspect they're waiting until after 60 Minutes airs. My guess: they'll go for a carefully worded non-denial, the kind of thing that ignores the question and answers a question not asked, something along the lines of "The White House regrets that a once trusted and respected adviser has gone off the deep end...." They probably won't actually directly deny the substance of O'Neills charges, they'll just issue a statement much like that, and pretend that dignity compels them to make no further comment.
Nah, Bush can now shut up those critics who say he went to war with no plan for the post-war rebuilding process...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by John Mace
Nah, Bush can now shut up those critics who say he went to war with no plan for the post-war rebuilding process...
:D

[blowero]

Originally posted by xtisme
I don't see where the traction would have come from without 9/11 to push the American people into going along. How would they have gotten the support of Congress without something like 9/11 happening? How would they have gotten the people on board?? Even WITH such an event, look at the opposition from the people. Imagine if they had of tried such a thing cold....'lets just invade Iraq'! I'm sure that would have gone over well.

Whether Bush could have sold an invasion without 9/11 occurring is beside the point. O'Neill said that Bush wanted to invade Iraq since day one, and that Bush asked his administration to come up with a way to make it happen. 9/11 obviously made it easier for him, but that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't want to do it before 9/11. Knowing Bush, I really don't have a hard time believing it.

[blowero]

Originally posted by sibyl
There are quite a few conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and from what I've seen much of Europe believes them. I've talked to a few friends I have in France and Germany and they are fairly certain there was something shady going on with 9/11, more than we've been told. Could be just a couple cases but they are fairly well read and don't just make snap judgements.

As far as the validity of those claims, I've seen some convincing arguments and some very unconvincing arguments. Unfortunately investigating any of these is pretty taboo as of right now.
Just to be clear, O'Neill did not suggest any kind of conspiracy regarding 9/11. Seems pretty unlikely to me - if Bush were trying to justify attacking Saddam, it wouldn't make much sense to engineer a terrorist incident and blame it on bin Laden.

By the way, I'm noticing that, even though it was pointed out early in the thread that O'Neill was NOT talking about a contingency plan, but rather an actual desire by Bush to invade Iraq, several of you are still suggesting otherwise. Please stop saying that; it's incorrect. If you think O'Neill is a liar, and invented the story out of whole cloth, that's one thing, but don't say he was talking about a contigency plan when he wasn't.

[Sterra]

Originally posted by John Mace
Nah, Bush can now shut up those critics who say he went to war with no plan for the post-war rebuilding process...
Thats what I thought when I read that part. Though I do think they did have a plan for the post war rebuilding process. It just was one that they had to scrap the moment they realised that installing Chalabi as the new dictator was a bad idea.

[John Carter of Mars]

Originally posted by elucidator
John has a point. The simple unadorned facts are sufficiently damning. When the campaigning GeeDubya stated his opposition to military adventures in "nation building", he was most likely lying through his teeth. Similarly when he assured us that he hadn't made up his mind and was sincerely pursuing any chance of peace. Also, it would seem, bald faced lies.

Your point is well taken. We don't need "spin". We have the facts, they can keep the spin. Speaking for proud and patriotic Bush Bashers everywhere, we are pleased to have your support.

You haven't earned my support quite yet. That Bush has much to be bashed for is a given.
YOUR job is to indentify and put forth a reasonable opposition candidate in the next election. So far it ain't lookin' too good.

[Desmostylus]

Yeah, luci. Try and find an opposition candidate who hasn't lied about the need for war, who hasn't caused needless deaths of US servicemen, who hasn't pissed away a coupla hundred billion of taxpayers funds, who hasn't lined the pockets of campaign contributors, who hasn't been caught lying about using cluster bombs on civilians. Go on, I dare you.

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic


Here's the "so what," dude. It means that Bush intended from day one to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of another country to gain control of its oil. It means that this was a politically motivated act from the beginning. It means that all the talk about WMDs and imminent threats were manipulative lies intended to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for personal gain.


You should write for one of the new Indymedia splinter cells. What personal gain are we talking about?

[RTA]

Paul O'Neill's claims are just more "I told you so"s for all us skeptics out here.

Exactly so. Yet as such eyewitness testimony begins to accumulate, I believe it's only a matter of time before we all discover that the 9/11 attacks were allowed to "slip through" in order to help advance the prior agenda of the Bush administration. I was excoriated for saying so at the time but so far there's been nothing that proves I'm wrong.

[yojimbo]

RTA I'd like to prophesise that when it eventually does come out to the extent that most of the people who will not accept that the war was based on lies change their minds they will just come up with something along the lines of "Hey, it's all history now. Get over it" :mad:

[plnnr]

I don't believe that the revelations are going to have much apprecialbe effect - those of us who loath Bush with the heat of a thousand suns can't dislike him any more than we already do, and those that support him aren't about to change their opinion of him as a result of the story.

A few weeks ago a OP/ED piece appeared in the local paper that discussed just how polarizing Bush is and how the term "hate" keeps popping up in discussions of him - and how that is a new development in American political discourse. No one seems to have a lukewarm opinion of him - he's either the greatest thing since sliced bread, or he's something you have to scrap off the bottom of your shoe.

[Tee]

I don't think it's a new development. Sounds like FDR actually.

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
Planning how to do something, if it comes to that, is a completely different issue from deciding to do it.

Never said it was the same. I think the question of whether to remove SH by force has been around for a while though, so the decision to do so is not very surprising.

[Mehitabel]

Uhm...I'm a Democrat who doesn't *hate* Bush. I think he's done a few good things and a lot of bad ones, but I understand where he's coming from and I think he's made a lot of bad mistakes out of ignorance, not malice or evil. I guess I'm all alone.

[John Mace]

Thats what I thought when I read that part. Though I do think they did have a plan for the post war rebuilding process. It just was one that they had to scrap the moment they realised that installing Chalabi as the new dictator was a bad idea.
Sorry if I mislead you about the sense of my post. DtC got it right.

[blowero]

Uhm...I'm a Democrat who doesn't *hate* Bush. I think he's done a few good things and a lot of bad ones, but I understand where he's coming from and I think he's made a lot of bad mistakes out of ignorance, not malice or evil. I guess I'm all alone.
I don't think Bush is trying to hurt the country; I have no doubt that in his heart, he thinks he's doing the right thing. He's just incredibly stupid and foolish.

[rjung]

My four-year-old thinks he's improving our home when he hammers at the walls with his toys, but that doesn't mean I let him carry on...

[Evil Captor]

I don't believe that the revelations are going to have much apprecialbe effect - those of us who loath Bush with the heat of a thousand suns can't dislike him any more than we already do, and those that support him aren't about to change their opinion of him as a result of the story.

No, actually, this is a HUGE boost for those who feel that Bush is a lying warmonger. The struggle in politics is never for the committed, it's always for those who are in the middle. This is a powerful proof that Bush liked about WMD in Iraq because it was simply a pretext for a war he already planned to instigate. Reasonable people are going to have a much harder time accepting Bush defender's lies and prevarications now. This helps move the center away from Bush and toward Goodness.

[elucidator]

Would that I could agree. Doesn't look that way. At this point in time, about the only people who could be "undecided" about the Glorious Liberation are those who simply haven't been paying attention. It has long since become entirely obvious that the justifications for the invasion were a crock, even here, the Usual Suspects only make passing efforts in that regard. We are left with the argument that it doesn't matter that they lied, because they are the Good Guys, and Good Guys get a pass when it comes to truth.

You can just barely hear the ancient echoes, still shrill with porcine rage, "He LIED to the American people! He LIED to the American people!" Of course, that was different. That was about the Presidential Winky, not trivial concerns like blood, death and pain.

""The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change,"

See? It was Clinton's fault! Oh, September 11! September 11!

"Bush "exhausted all possible means to resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully" before launching the invasion in March, McClellan said. Saddam defied a "final opportunity to comply" with U.N. demands to disarm, prompting Bush to take action "in the aftermath of Sept. 11th (because) it's important to confront threats before it's too late."

(Quotes from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html)

He "exhausted all possible means"? Is there anybody here dumb enough to buy that? Anybody? In light of the revelations about peace overtures from Saddam that amounted to virtual surrender of every point of "contention"?

And "confront threats before it's too late". Excuse me, Prime Whore McClellan, what "threats"? Saddams military machine was a shadow of a ghost of a military threat. Saddam had no weapons remotely capable of presenting a "threat" to America. How was he going to threaten America? Voodoo rites in the Presidential Palace? Does he mean that it is important to confront threats before they even exist, on the presumption that they will exist?

No, I don't see many people changing their minds due to this revelation, its stuff we already pretty much knew. The people who didn't care last week don't care today. And if there is a sadder commentary on the state of the Republic, I'm at a loss as to what it might be.

[John Mace]

'luci got it right this time. (I guess the blind squirrel story has some truth to it afterall.:))

Of course, we can throw out conjecture all day long and it's not worth a hill of beans. We might be able to tease some meaning from the poll numbers, but even that might be difficult. In particular, I like to look at this poll by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm):

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Dec. 19, 2003-Jan. 4, 2004. N=1,506 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"
But even those results jump around quite a bit if you look at trend over time. The "wrong" column has been in the upper 20s/lower 30s for about six months now, so if we suddenly saw this jump to upper 30s or lower 40s the next time it is measured, I suppose that would be significant. Let's see if we get an update next week.

[pantom]

What got me was this: it was at the top of the agenda at the first cabinet meeting. Which means it had a higher priority than even his beloved tax cuts.


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.


From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/

It don't get any more damning than that.

[Age Quod Agis]

elucidator:
It has long since become entirely obvious that the justifications for the invasion were a crock, even here, the Usual Suspects only make passing efforts in that regard. We are left with the argument that it doesn't matter that they lied, because they are the Good Guys, and Good Guys get a pass when it comes to truth.I can only speak for myself, but I've largely given up on those threads because it's like banging your head against the wall -- I keep arguing the reasons that I think Bush didn't lie, and guys like ElvisL1ves and Evil Captor keep arguing that Bush is eeeevil, so he must have done something wrong. If they manage to make any traction with an argument that something Bush apparently believed may prove to be false, then they'll immediately extrapolate that to a "lie" formulated to justify the acquisition of Iraqi oil, lining the pockets of Big (Bad) Business, and killing innocent babies and stomping on flowers, etc.

Make too good a point, and they'll revert to saying that you're a mindless subject of the crown (and, of course, Bush is eeeevil). For example, in one recent thread, someone pointed out that Clinton had already decided that he wanted Saddam out of power and even went so far as to make it the official US policy, but that didn't seem to mean that he had already made up his mind about formulating an "illegal" invasion of Iraq or killing innocent American soldiers. Of course, ElvisL1ves just responded by accusing whoever would say such things of giving "the Good Guys . . . a pass when it comes to the truth."

. . . Wait, I guess it's not justElvisL1ves making those arguments, is it?

[Lissa]

I liked this quote: (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/12/timep.oneill.tm/index.html)


Loyalty is perhaps the most prized quality in the White House. In the book, O'Neill suggests a very dark understanding of what happens to those who don't show it. "These people are nasty and they have a long memory," he tells Suskind. But he also believes that by speaking out even in the face of inevitable White House wrath, he can demonstrate loyalty to something he prizes: the truth.

"Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel—your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear." That goal is worth the price of retribution, O'Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

[Age Quod Agis]

O'Neill:
"I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me.""In other news, the IRS announced an audit of Paul O'Neill's tax returns for the following years: 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, . . . ."

"In other news, this week's West Wing newsletter featured an unflattering drawing of Paul O'Neill, accompanied by thephrase 'Big Mowth [sic] Dork' and an arrow pointing at O'Neill . . . ."

"In other news, Paul O'Neill filed a police report today, stating that he answered a knock on his door, only to discover a flaming bag had been left on his doorstep. After stomping on the bag to put out the flames, O'Neill discovered . . . ."

"In other news, this video was taken of Paul O'Neill being accosted by the White House's Secretary of Commerce Don Evans and Secretary of Education Rod Paige, who are shown here grabbing O'Neill's arm and then using O'Neill's own arm to hit him in the head, and repeating the phrase, 'Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself . . . .'"

:D

[ElvisL1ves]

John, the "slipperiness" of poll numbers may have a lot to do with the wording of the question. If it's "Are you for or against the war?" or something similarly simpleminded, then each respondent will have so many ways to interpret it without the opportunity to explain that the numbers become meaningless. So I wouldn't take any poll by itself as significant, certainly not without a careful reading of the question.

A careful reading, that is, which is beyond the level Age is applying, about which the only question is whether he is deliberately misinterpreting or avoiding what he's being told, or if he really is on the level he appears to be. Ol' buddy, it isn't that hard - you start with basic standards of conduct in a civilized world, compare behavior of leaders to it, and then conclude their own morality based on that - which is what we're doing with Bush. You do not start with kneejerkingly supporting or opposing someone, and then do things like "look for reasons to conclude he didn't lie" and so forth (and O'Neill has provided first-hand testimony that he did, which is the subject matter you're avoiding this time).

If you really do have a point, derived from principles and facts and reasoning, that can withstand even minimal scrutiny, let's have it (and we're still waiting, in your case). If you don't, then perhaps you need to reconsider your views. If you just want to vent, go to the Pit. But this juvenile ad hominem act of yours has become quite tiresome.

[John Mace]

John, the "slipperiness" of poll numbers may have a lot to do with the wording of the question. If it's "Are you for or against the war?" or something similarly simpleminded, then each respondent will have so many ways to interpret it without the opportunity to explain that the numbers become meaningless. So I wouldn't take any poll by itself as significant, certainly not without a careful reading of the question.
No need to throw out a hypothetical poll question and then knock it down. I quoted the exact one I look at, and it's not overly broad or confusing. If you think it is, tell me why. And there are plenty of other poll numbers to look at, too. Maybe we'll be lucky and see how people respond to "Did O'Neill's recent revelations make you change your mind about voting for Bush in the next election?"

Personally, though, I think this item is great for news junkies but will be dead and gone by next week.

[ElvisL1ves]

John, if you can think of a broader or more simplistic question than the one you quoted, I'd like to know what it is. I said nothing about it's being "confusing", though; that's your word.

This item itself, O'Neill's own statements, may be transitory, but the view that Bush is a liar and warmonger can't be, not in an election year. All in all, it's just another brick in the wall. Read Krugman today (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/opinion/13KRUG.html) for more:But these irrational Bush haters are body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks who should go back where they came from: the executive offices of Alcoa, and the halls of the Army War College.
...
The point is that the credentials of the critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?

So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts.

You're welcome to hope this is the end of it and that it will all blow over somehow. But bet with your head, not your heart.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Age Quod Agis
I can only speak for myself, but I've largely given up on those threads because it's like banging your head against the wall -- I keep arguing the reasons that I think Bush didn't lie, and guys like ElvisL1ves and Evil Captor keep arguing that Bush is eeeevil, so he must have done something wrong.
You're allowed tospeculate and hope and dream and wish all you like that Bush didn't lie, but when the facts and evidence and first-hand eyewitness accounts come out indicating that he did... well, that just makes you look more and more like a Dittohead in Denial(tm).

Fighting ignorance means facing the facts, no matter how unpleasant they may be. And the evidence that Bush lied through his damned teeth about Iraq continues to pile up.

[Jonathan Chance]

Personally, though, I think this item is great for news junkies but will be dead and gone by next week.

I think that's a short-term YES and a long-term MAYBE, John.

It's true that this story almost certainly doesn't have more than a weeks worth of legs right now. Well and good.

But it is the exact sort of story the Press Corps likes to harp on during the general election campaign. Given that we're in the primary campaign at the moment and the democratic contenders are busy beating the crap out of each other (and not Bush) it's a non-starter because the press can't get anyone on the other side to continue harping on the issue to give it the chance to hit the 'media frenzy' level of reporting.

But I confidently predict that O'Neill's book will feature prominently is the campaign of whomever wins the democratic nomination. Some of those quote and allegations are FAR too juicy to not use.

[PIMullet]

It astounds me that the American public keeps making excuses for this sorry man that we have as a President. I can't believe that there isn't more outrage that we were lied to and mislead about the war in Iraq. :smack:

[yanceylebeef]

I love this quote from Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

"Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons ... priceless."

[cmkeller]

Theres probably a plan lying around somewhere for the invasion and occupation of Belgium, should that prove necessary.

I hear that our strategic waffle reserve is getting low...

Back to the genuine subject, though...I think it's pretty clear that Bush wanted to depose Saddam, WMD or no WMD. I recall reading "Bush At War" (by Woodward, IIRC), and Bush was (is?) convinced that Saddam was involved. Let's face it: Saddam is an evil bastard, Bush does not like evil bastards, and he's not unwilling to say it in public. And there's the family history on top of that, no doubt magnifying Saddam's evilness in Bush's mind beyond what the ordinary American's opinion of him is.

The question is not whether Bush would have liked to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, regardless of instigation. Perhaps he even did draw up genuine war plans because he would have liked to grasp at the first possible straw in order to do so.

The key question here is, did Bush set some sort of schedule or timetable for doing this? Is there any indication that Bush planned to actually implement such plans without some sort of excuse, flimsy or otherwise? Without that, I don't think there's any sort of "smoking gun" in the O'Neill writings, no more than might have existed before that.

[John Mace]

John, if you can think of a broader or more simplistic question than the one you quoted, I'd like to know what it is.
I can think of dozens. Here are a few:

1. Was the invasion of Iraq justified?
2. Should the US have gotten rid of Saddam?
3. Is the world a better place with Saddam out of power?

As for Krugman's article: The report that was "published by the Army War College", was written by a visiting proffessor at that institution and carries a disclaimer that it does not necesarily represnt the view of the Army, the Pentagon, or the US government. So, a visiting prof wrote a damining article. Big ef-in' deal. You've got at least one Democratic Presidential candidate (Lieberman) still saying he thinks it was the right thing to do.

Assuming JL doesn't get the Dem nomination, I'm sure this O'Neill story will find it's way into the general election campaign. Wheter or not voters see this as anything other than "Fired employee trashes ex-boss" remains to be seen.

[akrako1]

Hmm.. it looks like we also planned to attack Afghanistan before 9/11. Wow, it seems like 9/11 gave the Government every tool they needed to wage whatever war they wanted!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4264545,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html

more exhaustive background:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html

Maybe they were on to something when the PNAC stated in September 2000:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor..." :smack:

The PNAC's Statement of Principles is signed by:
Jeb Bush - brother of current President
Dick Cheney - current Vice President
Donald Rumsfeld - current Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz - current Deputy Secretary of Defense

http://www.terraknowledge.net/news/terrak040503a.htm

[ElvisL1ves]

John, if you really think those questions are broader or more simple-minded than "Was the decision right or wrong?", then you're welcome to think so. May you find some comfort there.

You're also missing the point Krugman was making, that it is no longer possible to credibly dismiss the backgrounds and motivations who are telling you that Bush lied to start a war, even among those few who think that approach is intellectually valid or useful. You're wrong even in your quibbles, too - the paper was indeed published by the Army War College, by a professor they thought enough of to invite there, and certainly it very obviously does not represent Administration policy.

Big effin' deal, you say? That sense of denial could cause you a very wrenching feeling on the morning of November 3.

cmkeller, there's no incontrovertible proof yet, true, but Bush's stonewalling of Kean's investigation speaks even more loudly than the PNAC membership roster.

[blowero]

I can only speak for myself, but I've largely given up on those threads because it's like banging your head against the wall -- I keep arguing the reasons that I think Bush didn't lie, and guys like ElvisL1ves and Evil Captor keep arguing that Bush is eeeevil, so he must have done something wrong. If they manage to make any traction with an argument that something Bush apparently believed may prove to be false, then they'll immediately extrapolate that to a "lie" formulated to justify the acquisition of Iraqi oil, lining the pockets of Big (Bad) Business, and killing innocent babies and stomping on flowers, etc.

That's your argument? "I'm not gonna say anything because the other side exaggerates." You claim somebody else said something wrong, so that makes you automatically right?

Make too good a point, and they'll revert to saying that you're a mindless subject of the crown (and, of course, Bush is eeeevil). For example, in one recent thread, someone pointed out that Clinton had already decided that he wanted Saddam out of power and even went so far as to make it the official US policy, but that didn't seem to mean that he had already made up his mind about formulating an "illegal" invasion of Iraq or killing innocent American soldiers.
You're missing the point. Bush tried to get the UN to sanction the war by presenting trumped-up evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" and "direct links to Al Qaeda". When the UN didn't go for it, he declared them "irrelevant" and went ahead with the war anyway on the pretext that he was protecting the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The whole thing turned out to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and it seems pretty likely now that the Bush Admin knew it was a trumped-up case when they presented it. In light of that, the revelation that the invasion had been planned before 9/11 just makes it that much more obvious that the war was not necessary, and that Bush is a liar. Had Clinton done all those things, he would be equally deserving of scorn. It's not just that Bush planned the Iraq invasion; it's that he told lies in order to make it happen.

[blowero]

I hear that our strategic waffle reserve is getting low...
The question is not whether Bush would have liked to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, regardless of instigation. Perhaps he even did draw up genuine war plans because he would have liked to grasp at the first possible straw in order to do so.

The key question here is, did Bush set some sort of schedule or timetable for doing this? Is there any indication that Bush planned to actually implement such plans without some sort of excuse, flimsy or otherwise? Without that, I don't think there's any sort of "smoking gun" in the O'Neill writings, no more than might have existed before that.
According to O'Neil, Bush stated his intention to oust Saddam, and told his staff to "find a way to make it happen". Other than a signed memo with an exact invasion date, what is it that you're looking for?

[John Mace]

John, if you really think those questions are broader or more simple-minded than "Was the decision right or wrong?", then you're welcome to think so. May you find some comfort there.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I'm very comfortable with my assessment.

You're also missing the point Krugman was making, that it is no longer possible to credibly dismiss the backgrounds and motivations who are telling you that Bush lied to start a war, even among those few who think that approach is intellectually valid or useful.
Wow, that's a leap. Listen, I agree with the War College article-- that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the "war on terror". I've said so since I first joined this board over a year ago. That doesn't mean that I believe anyone who thinks otherwise is lying. It means that person came to a different conclusion. Happens all the time.

Big effin' deal, you say? That sense of denial could cause you a very wrenching feeling on the morning of November 3.
Apparanty, O'Neill will have a wrenching feeling, too. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040113/ts_nm/bush_oneill_dc)

O'Neill said he probably would vote for Bush in the November election, but he said the American people needed to demand more of their leaders.
Note his criticism of Bush is not enough to get him to say he's planning to vote for someone else. We needn't ask Krugman-- I think we all know he won't be voting for Bush. So where does that leave us?

[GoHeels]

You know what the funny thing is?

Despite what O'Neil said in his book, he says he would probably vote for Bush.

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

[Age Quod Agis]

blowero:
That's your argument? "I'm not gonna say anything because the other side exaggerates." You claim somebody else said something wrong, so that makes you automatically right?No, it's not. And in fact, I don't know that I'm right.

My point was that I'm sick of arguing about it because it's been argued ad naseum in other threads, with absolutely no positive results. The threads almost instantly descend into rants about how Bush is the anti-Christ, or how Democrats are cowardly liars, and then some Dem brings up Clinton's blowjobs, and some Rep calls the Dems anti-American, and then it becomes a fight about who's more hypocritical.blowero:
Bush tried to get the UN to sanction the war by presenting trumped-up evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" and "direct links to Al Qaeda". When the UN didn't go for it, he declared them "irrelevant" and went ahead with the war anyway on the pretext that he was protecting the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attack. The whole thing turned out to be a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and it seems pretty likely now that the Bush Admin knew it was a trumped-up case when they presented it. In light of that, the revelation that the invasion had been planned before 9/11 just makes it that much more obvious that the war was not necessary, and that Bush is a liar. Thanks for stating your position reasonably. I'll try to do the same.

First, there were a number of justifications for the war in Iraq. Admittedly, the ones that stuck in everyone's mind were "WMD" and "links to terror." However, that doesn't diminish the fact that WMD and terror were only two of many justifications for war.

Second, the crux of the WMD justification was not that they were in possession of WMD. Rather, the crux was that Iraq wouldn't cooperate with our efforts to find out if they had WMD or WMD-development programs.

Third, we thought they had WMD and/or WMD-development programs based on lots of evidence, including the fact that they were resisting inspections. In fact, there appears to have been near-unanimity in the international intelligence community that Iraq had WMD-development programs. That conclusion certainly may have been based on intelligence failures, but that doesn't mean that Bush knew that he was presenting or basing his conclusions on intelligence failures.

[Here's where someone will usually say that Bush either lied or is incompetent because he believed obviously false information. I don't see how the information was obviously false. It seems much more likely that Bush based his belief that Saddam had WMD and/or WMD-development programs on bad and good intelligence.]

In short, even if all the justifications for war were false, I don't think we must conclude that Bush lied, or that he unreasonably believed certain things were true. When looking at the evidence, everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion that Bush & Co. did. That seems to be a pretty good indication that their conclusions were neither trumped up nor unreasonable.

[Chicago Faucet]

For example, in one recent thread, someone pointed out that Clinton had already decided that he wanted Saddam out of power and even went so far as to make it the official US policy, but that didn't seem to mean that he had already made up his mind about formulating an "illegal" invasion of Iraq or killing innocent American soldiers.
That was me. It was actually earlier in this same thread, on the previous page, that I presented the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I cannot see how it is seen as being illegal when it was deemed legal by our then President and Congress.

The article offers more than elucidator is willing to admit. It calls for money to go toward pro-democratic groups inside Iraq, and the setup of a network for these groups to communicate more efficiently. Basically, it promotes Iraqis to commit treason and conspire against their own government, in the hopes of starting a revolution or coup. It even calls upon the UN to form a Tribunal to jail and put Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi leaders on trial, once they are deposed. The article goes into a point by point list on how Saddam Hussein repeatedly rebuffed the UN. The ground invasion may have started in 2003, but we really began invading in 1998.

And Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Clinton (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html) doesn't think so.

[cmkeller]

ElvisL1ves:

cmkeller, there's no incontrovertible proof yet, true, but Bush's stonewalling of Kean's investigation speaks even more loudly than the PNAC membership roster.

Huh? I thought the White House was cooperating.

According to O'Neil, Bush stated his intention to oust Saddam, and told his staff to "find a way to make it happen". Other than a signed memo with an exact invasion date, what is it that you're looking for?

Some form of timetable. That's the only thing that would prove that the plans were more than hypothetical, pending pretext.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Squink]

Well someone on Team Bush has got a set of Brass Ones:
The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force." Corroborating O’Neill’s Account (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html)
This'll make it tougher to work the "sour grapes" defense, or engage in massive retribution.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction? Clinton doesn't think so.
First of all the Clinton comments are hearsay, we don't actually know exactly what he said about the matter.

Having said that, even if Clinton thought (like pretty much everyone else) that Saddam may have still had some stocks left over from what Reagan/Bush gave him in the 80s he did not say that Iraq posed a compelling threat to the US or that a preemptive invasion was justified.

More importantly, there are no WMDs, so Bush did lie when he said he knew they existed. he did not know they existed. He thought they existed[/i]. He hoped they existed. He did not have proof that they existed and neither did Clinton.

You can't get around the fact that the WMDs aren't fucking there. That in itself, s proof that Bush lied.

And let's not forget that Bush has already specifically been proven a liar in several of hsi other claims, including the "yellowcake" alegation in his Stae of the Union address and a fabricated IEAE report alleging that Iraq was developing "nuke-ya-ler" weapons.

Bush has lied so much and so egregiously that the Secret Service has to follow him around with fire extinguishers to put his pants out every ten minutes.

[Evil Captor]

I can only speak for myself, but I've largely given up on those threads because it's like banging your head against the wall -- I keep arguing the reasons that I think Bush didn't lie, and guys like ElvisL1ves and Evil Captor keep arguing that Bush is eeeevil, so he must have done something wrong.

C'mon, Age, didja even read my post. Yea, I did call Bush a lying warmonger but the crux of my post was that O'Neill's statements provide powerful proof that must be taken into account even by people who haven't already come to the conclusion that Bush is a lying warmonger. Reasonable people. My post was not the mindless hyperbole you present -- but thanks for playing.

And Elucidator, I beg to differ in your assessment of o,[prtamce pf tje swing vote. Let's say 40 percent of Americans are likely to vote for Bush no matter what and 40 percent are likely to vote against Bush no matter what. The struggle for the 20 percent in the middle IS the election struggle, if the election is anywhere near as close as it was last time ... and all the smart money is betting that it will be. Are you saying that the swayable votes account for no more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote? A fraction of that 2 or 3 percent will still swing the election in a very tight election, which we are very likely to have.

[elucidator]

The power, I regret, doesn't lie with the "swing voter", it lies with members of the Apathy Party, that vast majority who simply don't vote. There is no good way to judge what is happening with these people. Perhaps the Dean phenomenon is bringing great numbers of these people into relevence, it is devoutly to be hoped. I wouldn't begin to pretend I really know what the percentages of such voters, and if I gave the impression that I thought I did, estoy putz.

The Bushiviks have been very successful at wrapping themselves in the flag and presenting the election as Support Our President and Re-elect Our Troops. This is an all-American Achilles heel, our emotional need to belong.

The Pubbies have the irrational belief that they truly represent the vast majority of Americans, ever since the "silent majority" they have clung to this. Election results simply have no impact.

So I don't know. What I do know is unpleasant to know: this is going to be one ugly sumbitch of an election.

[I am who I am]

But are the non-voters apathetic or do they just feel disinfranchised by the political machinery, and will The Iraqi war piss enough people off to vote for the "lesser of two evils?"

[ElvisL1ves]

John, if you don't oppose the Army War College report, why were you so strenuous about denigrating its provenance? Some idea that that's a useful argument, somehow? That isn't a leap, as you claim - it helps illustrate that the remaining claim that Bush didn't lie us into a war is nearly, or already, the mainstream view.

O'Neill can vote for whoever he likes, but don't take that as a sign that he still supports Bush. His statement was that he doesn't see anybody better on the other side, and would "probably" (not definitely?) vote Bush as the lesser evil, or simply not a greater one. Some endorsement, huh?

cmkeller, apparently you missed the public statements by Kean, over a two-year period, that the White House was refusing cooperation before the WH was finally shamed into saying they would now do so. But all we have from the WH so far is that statement of good intentions. I'd believe Kean first; wouldn't you?

As for the timetable you request before believing what's in front of you, it's simple. First NSC meeting, in which Bush confirmed his intention to invade Iraq: January 2001. 9/11 later that year. Cheney and Rumsfeld decide to use as pretext for Iraq, no matter the facts: 9/13/01 approx. Buildup to war starts almost immediately afterward.

What else do you want? A cite that the sun rises in the east?

Age, the approach you're taking with these falsified caricatures of views that have been stated to you, but conflict with your preferred conclusions, simply contributes to the flaming problem you so sanctimoniously denounce. Try reading and understanding and you'll be much better off here.

[John Mace]

John, if you don't oppose the Army War College report, why were you so strenuous about denigrating its provenance? Some idea that that's a useful argument, somehow? That isn't a leap, as you claim - it helps illustrate that the remaining claim that Bush didn't lie us into a war is nearly, or already, the mainstream view.
What I was denigrating was it's influence on the electorate. There are no lack of opinions out there that the Iraq war was unnecessary. One more voice? Hey, it's not going to help Bush, that's for sure, but it's just no big deal. The thing that seems to influence people's perception of the war is when actual events in Iraq either go well or poorly.

O'Neill can vote for whoever he likes, but don't take that as a sign that he still supports Bush. His statement was that he doesn't see anybody better on the other side, and would "probably" (not definitely?) vote Bush as the lesser evil, or simply not a greater one. Some endorsement, huh?
His criticism would carry more weight even if he just said he "probably wouldn't" vote for Bush again. I think it's pretty common for people to vote for the candidate they dislike the least. I know I usually do.

[elucidator]

Counterspin:

O'Neill is a lifelong Republican, his loyalty may reasonably be described as running very deep. I have little doubt that he can find some reason. Failing to find a positive reason, one can easily find a negative. It's why I voted for Dukakis. Wasn't all that crazy about McGovern, but he was running against Nixon!

So, given his loyalties....can you discount the possibility that he soft-pedaled his criticism to some degree? Perhaps the real truth is even harsher than what he laid out for us?

All in all, the news itself is not that much of a bombshell, lots of us pretty much expected that was the case. It is the source of the news that is the bombshell. And who the heck is this "official" friend Squink's link refers to? Mustn't he be a Bushivik loyalist as well?

That hints to be a trial balloon, testing out the defense of well, sure we lied, it was for your own good. Note especially the pejorative implications of "half-hearted attempts to overthrow". Clinton also wanted to overthrow Saddam by direct military force, but lacked the cojones to do so, we are given to understand.

Fantasize along with me: Bill Clinton approaches the Republican-led Congress for an authorization to use any means necessary to rid the world of the dread menace of Saddam. Newt Gangrene rises lachrymose, and, with a voice choking with emotion, states his total support for his Commander-in-Chief, and fervently demands that the Republcian majority set aside partisan considerations in order to stand in unwavering solidarity with Clinton.

Right. Sure. You bethca.

[Evil Captor]

What I do know is unpleasant to know: this is going to be one ugly sumbitch of an election.

Sure it is. That's why I generally favor a Dean candidacy. He is a fighter. We need a fighter, because the Pubbies fight dirty. We all know what the Pubbies did in the 2000 Presidential election and in the 2002 elections. They used just about every dirty trick in the book. We need someone who'll fight back, not use the DLC's formula for failure, i.e., "roll over and spread 'em." I'm not saying Dean should espouse hard left views as he campaigns, but that he needs to present whatever views he does present firmly and strongly. And his supporters should be willing to get down in the trenches and go toe to toe with the Pubbies in doing whatever it takes to get elected. Dean is about the only candidate I've seen who appears to have the will to do it.

[Age Quod Agis]

Gyan9:
Contingency plans are not what O'Neill is referring to. He seems to be saying that Bush & Co. already had intent to directly topple Saddam before 9/11.

ElvisL1ves:
Planning how to do something, if it comes to that, is a completely different issue from deciding to do it.

blowero:
By the way, I'm noticing that, even though it was pointed out early in the thread that O'Neill was NOT talking about a contingency plan, but rather an actual desire by Bush to invade Iraq, several of you are still suggesting otherwise. Please stop saying that; it's incorrect. O'Neill was talking about contingency planning. From a transcript of O'Neill's interview on the Today Show:O'NEILL: Yeah, and the other thing that's good, today the book is going to be available, and this red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets -- as an example, you know, people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.

COURIC: Because of the Iraq Liberation Act that was passed in 1998 almost unanimously by the Senate and near unanimously by the House.

O'NEILL: Absolutely.It's also worth noting that this makes it hard to believe he brought the incident up to get back at Bush & Co.

[cmkeller]

ElvisL1ves:

As for the timetable you request before believing what's in front of you, it's simple. First NSC meeting, in which Bush confirmed his intention to invade Iraq: January 2001. 9/11 later that year. Cheney and Rumsfeld decide to use as pretext for Iraq, no matter the facts: 9/13/01 approx. Buildup to war starts almost immediately afterward.

I mean a timetable for Iraqi regime change that predates 9/11. It's been known at least since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech that he'd been considering 9/11 to be a valid pretext for military action against Iraq. O'Neill's book doesn't give us anything new in that regard. What would be a bombshell is if Bush actually intended to invade without a pretext. The only proof of that would be some insider indicating that prior to 9/11, Bush stated that by a specific date, he intended to drive Saddam out of Iraq. Otherwise, it's still just contingency planning, being prepared to actually wage war at the slightest provocation - but with provocation nonetheless.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[ElvisL1ves]

cmkeller: been known at least since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech that he'd been considering 9/11 to be a valid pretext for military action against Iraq. O'Neill's book doesn't give us anything new in that regard. What would be a bombshell is if Bush actually intended to invade without a pretext.The fact that he didn't have any real reason to connect 9/11 to Iraq, and has actually admitted it recently, doesn't close that loop for you? Any invasion has a pretext stated by the invader, after the fact if necessary, but that hardly makes it justified.

There's no "bombshell", true. We already know. The only question is how many will still be True Believers, and why.

John, for pity's sake, a senior member of the Cabinet is not "just another voice". The Army War College is not just another think tank. The difference now is that the facts are coming out from inside the Administration itself now. Their credibility with the electorate is on the rise, or can easily be predicted to be. The tide is far from cresting, but is rising anyway - that is getting harder to avoid, although obviously it is still possible for some of you. What way out for Bush do you realistically see?

[John Mace]

Elvis wrote:
John, for pity's sake, a senior member of the Cabinet is not "just another voice". The Army War College is not just another think tank. The difference now is that the facts are coming out from inside the Administration itself now. Their credibility with the electorate is on the rise, or can easily be predicted to be. The tide is far from cresting, but is rising anyway - that is getting harder to avoid, although obviously it is still possible for some of you. What way out for Bush do you realistically see?
The things you are talking about are great fodder for news junkies like you, me, and the other posters here. But when you look at what's actually going on in the electorate, you find things like this headline from today's front page of the San Jose Merc: "Poll: Support Rising for Bush in California... President's handling of Iraq, economy boosting popularity". (Sorry, no link available yet. Should be on their web site tomorrow.)

The capture of Saddam Hussein and the improving economy have boosted President Bush's popularity in California, particularly among Demoncrats and independents...

My bolding. If you can show me poll numbers in a few weeks that demonstrate these two news items (O'Neill/the War College article) actually affect what large numbers of peope think about Bush, then I'll be happy to say you were right.

[John Mace]

Here (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics//7707444.htm) is the link to that Merc article. Plenty of spin from both sides, but the numbers are a fact that can't be argued with.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"I'm Al Franken. I'm here to present the funniest ad award. I'm a last-minute substitution, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was supposed to be the presenter, but unfortunately he was murdered."

Al Franken at the Moveon.org awards (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/01/13/20040113_235004_mattmo3.htm)

:D

[John Mace]

Al Franken at the Moveon.org awards (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/01/13/20040113_235004_mattmo3.htm)

:D
I saw that on the news. I thought it was in really bad taste. That was supposed to be a semi-serious political gathering, not SNL.

[jshore]

I love this quote from Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

"Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritical goons ... priceless."

And, of course, the big difference between the Novak/Plame incident and the O'Neill one is that the O'Neill one ... even if there were any violations involved ... follows in the spirit of fighting excessive government secrecy by revealing important information that is being hidden from the American public under the false guise of national security. By contrast, the Novak/Plame incident was in the spirit of the powerful using classified information to actually try to squelch democracy and open discussion!

[blowero]

My point was that I'm sick of arguing about it because it's been argued ad naseum in other threads, with absolutely no positive results.

This has most certainly not been argued "ad nauseum"; the 60 Minutes piece just ran last Sunday. I can see that it angers you when people criticize Bush, but you can't just lump together every new thing that comes up. You can't just say "Bush has already been criticized, therefore I'll ignore anything that I consider a criticism".

First, there were a number of justifications for the war in Iraq. Admittedly, the ones that stuck in everyone's mind were "WMD" and "links to terror." However, that doesn't diminish the fact that WMD and terror were only two of many justifications for war.

Now this has been argued ad nauseum. The Bush Administration portrayed Iraq as being a threat. In spite of recent efforts to rewrite history and portray it as a "liberation", that's not how it was presented.

Second, the crux of the WMD justification was not that they were in possession of WMD. Rather, the crux was that Iraq wouldn't cooperate with our efforts to find out if they had WMD or WMD-development programs.

Not true. The crux most certainly was the WMDs, which Bush claimed to be quite certain they had. That, and the supposed links to Al Qaeda.

Third, we thought they had WMD and/or WMD-development programs based on lots of evidence, including the fact that they were resisting inspections. In fact, there appears to have been near-unanimity in the international intelligence community that Iraq had WMD-development programs. That conclusion certainly may have been based on intelligence failures, but that doesn't mean that Bush knew that he was presenting or basing his conclusions on intelligence failures.

Oh, he knew allright. Why else would he have referred to evidence in his State of the Union address which had been discredited months earlier, and taken out of an earlier speech?

[Here's where someone will usually say that Bush either lied or is incompetent because he believed obviously false information. I don't see how the information was obviously false. It seems much more likely that Bush based his belief that Saddam had WMD and/or WMD-development programs on bad and good intelligence.]

To say that is to ignore a mountain of evidence.

In short, even if all the justifications for war were false, I don't think we must conclude that Bush lied, or that he unreasonably believed certain things were true. When looking at the evidence, everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion that Bush & Co. did.

Huh? Who's "everyone"?

All this is neither here nor there anyway, because you're still wrong in trying to draw an analogy between Bush planning to overthrow Saddam, and Clinton supposedly doing so. If Clinton had gone ahead with an invasion without UN approval, and had the justification for the war turn out not to be true, then the situation would be analagous. But he didn't do that, so you're comparing apples & oranges.

[plnnr]

"Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis
My point was that I'm sick of arguing about it because it's been argued ad naseum in other threads, with absolutely no positive results."

As if we didn't habitually argue over everthing to the point of sickness.

And as to positive results? Well, this is only a message board. I doubt that the UN or the State Department is looking to us to figure this all out:

Colin Powell: "Well, I hear they're debating the Iraq thing again over on the SDMB."

C. Rice: "Yep. They've got it pretty well in hand, last time I checked in."

GWB: "Good enough for me ... who wants to grab a beer?"

What, exactly, would a "positive result" of one of these discussions be?

[ElvisL1ves]

Here (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics//7707444.htm) is the link to that Merc article. Plenty of spin from both sides, but the numbers are a fact that can't be argued with.Oh, hell, man, we argue about the meanings of numbers all the time without disputing what the numbers are. It's part of healthy skepticism. This time, you haven't even referred to a poll that was taken since the latest revelation before claiming it is not only factual but currently significant. Thanks for playing.

[John Mace]

Oh, hell, man, we argue about the meanings of numbers all the time without disputing what the numbers are. It's part of healthy skepticism. This time, you haven't even referred to a poll that was taken since the latest revelation before claiming it is not only factual but currently significant. Thanks for playing.

And thank-you for ignoring what I wrote immediately before that:

If you can show me poll numbers in a few weeks that demonstrate these two news items (O'Neill/the War College article) actually affect what large numbers of peope think about Bush, then I'll be happy to say you were right.

Also, it's beginning to look like O'Neill's memory might not be the steel trap he thinks it is, according to Alan Greeenspan (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040115/pl_nm/economy_oneill_greenspan_dc):

Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's claim in a controversial book that the Fed chief considered Bush administration tax cuts "irresponsible."

Not to say that O'Neill is a liar, but it just demonstrates that a person's view of events are often distorted, especially when those events affect the person directly, dramatically, and negatively.

[Age Quod Agis]

This has most certainly not been argued "ad nauseum"; the 60 Minutes piece just ran last Sunday. I can see that it angers you when people criticize Bush, but you can't just lump together every new thing that comes up. You can't just say "Bush has already been criticized, therefore I'll ignore anything that I consider a criticism".

Now this has been argued ad nauseum.Read what I was responding to. elucidator said people have stopped defending Bush against charges that he lied to justify the invasion of Iraq. I said I've stopped defending him because I'm sick of making the same arguments that have been made dozens of times in previous threads.

In other words, we agree on what's been argued ad nauseum.All this is neither here nor there anyway, because you're still wrong in trying to draw an analogy between Bush planning to overthrow Saddam, and Clinton supposedly doing so. If Clinton had gone ahead with an invasion without UN approval, and had the justification for the war turn out not to be true, then the situation would be analagous. But he didn't do that, so you're comparing apples & oranges.I don't follow you here. I'm not trying to draw any sort of analogy between Clinton and Bush. I'm saying that the discussions that O'Neill talked about, and which we're discussing in this thread, were actually discussions about continuing Clinton's policy on Iraq. They were not planning the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Is that what you're referring to?

[elucidator]

...I'm saying that the discussions that O'Neill talked about, and which we're discussing in this thread, were actually discussions about continuing Clinton's policy on Iraq. They were not planning the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Is that what you're referring to?

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messag...sages/2159.html

"Two top Bush administration officials said yesterday that America would accept the continuation of Saddam Hussein‘s regime if Iraq disarms, apparently backing away from the official U.S. policy of seeking the ouster of the dictator.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in television interviews yesterday that a disarmed Saddam could remain in power, and Mr. Powell said that is now President Bush‘s position.

"Remember where regime change came from — it came from the previous administration," Mr. Powell said on NBC‘s "Meet the Press."

(emphasis added)

It would seem, then, that the Admin had publicly repudiated any continuation of Clinton policy. All Saddam had to do was divest himself of the weapons he didn't have in the first place. Neat trick.

[ElvisL1ves]

Please, John, you're defiantly challenging a poll that hasn't even been taken yet to show any difference from one that doesn't reflect information you're valiantly trying to dismiss. Doesn't work that way, pal.

elucidator, Age has made it quite clear that any and all facts contradicting his views are nauseating to him. Don't waste any more precious, irreplaceable electrons trying to explain it to him unless you just want to have fun.

[Age Quod Agis]

It would seem, then, that the Admin had publicly repudiated any continuation of Clinton policy.I can't open your link, so I can't see the date of the statement you've quoted. But given the context you've provided, I'm guessing that it was significantly after 9/11.

The topic of discussion was whether Bush planned the invasion of Iraq before 9/11. Some people in this thread seem to think that O'Neill said Bush was planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. O'Neill said that their pre-9/11 discussions were about continuing Clinton's Iraq policy.

Obviously, Bush's stance changed at some point. I'm just pointing out that O'Neill didn't say Bush was committed to invasion before 9/11. Does your link say different?All Saddam had to do was divest himself of the weapons he didn't have in the first place. Neat trick.Obviously, its impossible to get rid of something you don't have. But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate with UN inspections.

[Age Quod Agis]

elucidator, Age has made it quite clear that any and all facts contradicting his views are nauseating to him.Actually, I said that we'd discussed the topic ad nauseum. Not the same thing. But hey, when have the facts ever slowed you down?

[rjung]

But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate with UN inspections.
Yes, how dare Saddam allow UN inspectors unfettered access to his country! What kind of an idiot tries to avoid war by letting the UN folks go wherever they want and pull surprise inspections on his palaces and bunkers? :mad:

[John Mace]

Please, John, you're defiantly challenging a poll that hasn't even been taken yet to show any difference from one that doesn't reflect information you're valiantly trying to dismiss. Doesn't work that way, pal.

Of course it doesn't work that way. You know it, I know it (and the American people know it).

Sheesh, man, all I'm saying is that I'm acknowledging the current polls don't have the O'Neill issue factored in, that future polls should have it factored in, and that I'll gladly say you are right when those future polls come out and if they show a significant change.

For now, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on whether O'Neill's revelations will play a significant roll in influencing people's oponion of Bush.

[Age Quod Agis]

Yes, how dare Saddam allow UN inspectors unfettered access to his country! What kind of an idiot tries to avoid war by letting the UN folks go wherever they want and pull surprise inspections on his palaces and bunkers? :mad:Is this a joke?

Surely you can't mean that Saddam did complied with his obligations under the inspections in light of this 173 page UNMOVIC report on Iraq's WMD programs (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf[/url). It talks about (approximately) 20 instances in which the evidence directly contradicted Iraqi assertions about their WMD programs. It also talks about Iraqi attempts to mislead inspectors by lying or planting false evidence. It also includes specific examples of Iraqi noncompliance, including the discovery of the "Iraqi Air Force" document, which raised the spectre of over 6,500 bombs armed with mustard gas.

And lest we forget, Hans Blix gave testimony (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp) before the UNSC detailing the Iraqi inspections. Blix's numerous reports give an overall favorable impression of Iraq's cooperation, but also raise a number of issues, including intimidation of witnesses, discovery of noncompliant materials and programs, harassment, and false disclosures.

And, of course, there is the small matter of the numerous UN Resolutions finding that Iraq is not in compliance with its obligations related to the inspections. (If this needs a cite, let me know and I'll dig up one.)

True, Iraq allowed the UN inspectors to go pretty much wherever they wanted. But that doesn't mean they were cooperating.

[Squink]

True, Iraq allowed the UN inspectors to go pretty much wherever they wanted. But that doesn't mean they were cooperating. I'd be interested in seeing your definition of cooperation. Do you happen to have it handy?

[Age Quod Agis]

I'd be interested in seeing your definition of cooperation. Do you happen to have it handy?Any of these (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cooperation) will do.

[Squink]

So you'd agree that Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud 2 missiles, despite controversy over whether the missile violated UN resolutions, and its handover over a 13,000 page report detailing every last WMD ever found in Iraq constitutes cooperation?
That fulfills the definitions you linked to. What else do you expect before calling it cooperation?

[ElvisL1ves]

Well, John, then I must confess I'm out of ways to understand why you even brought up that obsolete poll as evidence of anything at all.

[pantom]

That should be taken without about a pound of salt.
Greenspan is a gold bug. He has a master plan (http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan011098.html) for returning to the gold standard that of course includes a balanced budget. ("Certainly a gold-based monetary system will necessarily prevent fiscal imprudence, as 20th Century history clearly demonstrates.") One person speculated that his comments and actions (http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan.html) in the late nineties were a reflection of this master plan in action.
O'Neill was known (http://www.forbes.com/2001/10/16/poneill.html) to be close to Greenspan. Shortly after 9/11, they issued a
joint statement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A527-2001Sep20&notFound=true) urging the government not to be too hasty with the stimulus measures until the lingering effects of the terrorist attack could be assessed.
Greenspan likes his job, and is a known bootlick when it comes to that. (remember him sitting next to Hillary at Bill's first State of the Union? and then the total about-face he did about deficits shortly after Bush came in to office?) Given that, a history of his words and deeds is more valuable than a sudden denial issued in what I'm sure was a moment of total embarrasment for him.
Probably O'Neill figured his friendship with Greenspan meant something. I believe he figured wrong.

[John Mace]

pantom:

I have to say that I'm surprised at your ad hominem attack on Greensapn. Two prominent individuals have offered divergent views of a a particular event. You choose to believe one but not the other. Certainly O'Neill has at least as much at stake, from his own personal perspective, to distort as Greenspan has. I see no reason whatsoever to weight one guy's view over the other's.

[blowero]

I'm not trying to draw any sort of analogy between Clinton and Bush.

Oh, then I guess it was the other Age Quod Agis who wrote:

For example, in one recent thread, someone pointed out that Clinton had already decided that he wanted Saddam out of power and even went so far as to make it the official US policy, but that didn't seem to mean that he had already made up his mind about formulating an "illegal" invasion of Iraq or killing innocent American soldiers.

Yeah, no implied analogy there, no siree. :rolleyes:

[blowero]

O'Neill was talking about contingency planning. From a transcript of O'Neill's interview on the Today Show:It's also worth noting that this makes it hard to believe he brought the incident up to get back at Bush & Co.
Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a cite for this? I can't seem to find a transcript of the interview, and I'm wondering if what you quoted is perhaps a little out of context, because it seems to contradict news articles about the interview. For example:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?ID=3925358&p1=0

O’Neill said Tuesday that 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.

O’Neill said he also had qualms about what he felt 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,” he said on CBS.

The way I'm reading this, O'Neill didn't go back on what he said on 60 Minutes, but was clarifying that it wasn't the planning he criticized, but rather the fact that Bush apparently had already resolved to take action on that planning before 9/11, whether or not the justification was there. In other words, contingency planning is acceptable, but pre-emptive strikes without justification are not. Which is the same point I made earlier vis a vis your comparison of Bush's planning with Clinton's planning. Contigency planning is acceptable, but pre-emptive strikes require justification.

I'd like to see the context of the snippet you quoted. I suspect that the point O'Neill is making is just that - contingency planning is acceptable, but what Bush did went beyond contigency planning to the point of saying "Find a way to make it happen". If that's not what he meant, then it would constitute a total reversal of what he said on 60 Minutes, and I would think Bush would have jumped all over that by now.

[Age Quod Agis]

So you'd agree that Iraq's destruction of its Al Samoud 2 missiles, despite controversy over whether the missile violated UN resolutions, and its handover over a 13,000 page report detailing every last WMD ever found in Iraq constitutes cooperation?I would not agree that Iraq was cooperating, despite the fact that they destroyed the Al Samoud 2 missiles (the only "controversy" was that Iraq said the missiles didn't violate UN Resolutions, and everyone else said they did), and filed a lengthy dossier.

The document was 11,807 pages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2552781.stm), not 13,000What else do you expect before calling it cooperation?I'd expect that cooperation would include not engaging in harassment, deception, and intimidation. I'd expect that their documentation not include false information, and that their documentation include the location or credible information indicating the destruction of prohibited weapons, as required by the UN Resolutions. Or does your definition of cooperation include those things? If so, may I see your dictionary?

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of Hans Blix. From a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/27/international/27CND_IRAQ.html?ex=1074315600&en=4994050e28301d41&ei=5070):The United Nations' chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, Hans Blix, sharply criticized Iraq before the Security Council today, saying the Iraqis failed to cooperate adequately with inspectors seeking to assess Baghdad's ability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction.Is this really the first you've heard of this? If so, please read the rest of my post #110.

[pantom]

John Mace: 'Cause it fits his previous patterns of behavior so very well. Greenspan is a fine technocrat, but my impression of his character is that, basically, he'll do anything to keep his job, including betraying a friend. Just my judgement, I realize, but the evidence is that O'Neill and Greenspan were close, and that they both leaned towards restraint in the budget process. Therefore, O'Neill's characterization fits in with the knowns, and so does Greenspan's denial.

[elucidator]

IIRC, Greenspan's biography also includes being an acolyte of Ayn Rand, High Priestess of the Undead. Existentialists are merely morose and self-absorbed, Objectivists are borderline psychotics.

[Age Quod Agis]

Yeah, no implied analogy there, no siree.Well, now I don't feel so bad about being confused. You were responding to something I'd said 50 posts earlier, despite the fact that you'd already responded to it, and despite the fact that I'd posted a half dozen times since then. Do us feeble-minded folks a favor and include a quote when you do that.

I was referring to an analogy someone else drew (obviously). I didn't make the analogy, but I certainly agree with it. It's a perfectly legitimate response to Diogenes, who said:It means that Bush intended from day one to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of another country to gain control of its oil. It means that this was a politically motivated act from the beginning. It means that all the talk about WMDs and imminent threats were manipulative lies intended to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 for personal gain. It means that your illegitimate president is a liar and a criminal.In fact, the fact that Bush addressed and adopted Clinton's plan does not mean "that Bush intended from day one to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of another country to gain control of its oil," etc. If reviewing Clinton's contingency plans means that, then Clinton -- who formulated and surely reviewed the plan -- is guilty of the same. And I think we can all agree that Clinton did not intend to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of Iraq to gain control of its oil. At least I hope we can.

Here is a link to the Today Show transcript (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005637.php). I apologize because I couldn't find a politically-nuetral site hosting the whole transcript. However, here is a Reuter's article (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4117963) that supports the accuracy of the quote I provided.

Incidentally, for those of you that are interested, here is an excerpt (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3947427/) from Suskind's book. I would not characterize it as complimentary to Bush, but I have no reason to doubt its authenticity.

[John Mace]

IIRC, Greenspan's biography also includes being an acolyte of Ayn Rand, High Priestess of the Undead. Existentialists are merely morose and self-absorbed, Objectivists are borderline psychotics.

Yes, he was. You don't hear him talk about that "youthful indiscretion" much. In addition to being an acolyte, he actually wrote a chapter or two in one of her non-fiction books. (And no jokes about Rand and non-fiction being an oxymoron.) He's hardly an Objectivist, however.

[ElvisL1ves]

AQA, Clinton did not start a war. Bush did. That's the difference, one that has to be ignored by those reflexively wanting to blame everything bad on somebody else. Doesn't work.

Bush's intent to do go to war is implied by his looking at the "plans" (a word you're falsely using as synonymous with "intentions") to invade Iraq at his first NSC meeting, sez O'Neill, who was there. The PNAC policy statements membership roster as compared to the Bush White House's, and Rumsfeld's own statements on 9/11 that it would be used a pretext no matter the facts, add to that inference. Add to that Bush's own reply to Diane Sawyer that it didn't make any difference if Saddam has the bad stuff or just intended to get it. To dispel that picture is, well, what?

"Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup." -Ann Landers

[Squink]

I would not agree that Iraq was cooperating, despite the fact that they destroyed the Al Samoud 2 missiles (the only "controversy" was that Iraq said the missiles didn't violate UN Resolutions, and everyone else said they did), and filed a lengthy dossier. Then you adhere to a highly idealized, ivory tower version of the definition of cooperation. Do you also maintain that copper wire is not a conductor because it has an internal resistance to the flow of electrons?
In the real world, cooperation comes in varying shades, and the more complex a situation, the more difficult it is to arrive at the ideal. Despite Blix's concerns, the good doctor felt that there was plenty of room for discussions and further efforts with the inspectors in order to bring Iraq into compliance with the UN resolutions. He opposed an immediate invasion Iraq based on the country's inability to live up to what cooperation could have been if, and only if, we were living in the best of times in the best of all possible worlds.
Unwillingness to settle for anything less than perfection is a sign of an overly rigid world view. Bush has one, you appear to as well.

[rjung]

Age, you do know there's a big difference between "failed to cooperate" and "failed to cooperate adequately", don't you?

From your earlier message:
But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate with UN inspections.
Note the lack of any conditionals. Now compare that with:

The United Nations' chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, Hans Blix, sharply criticized Iraq before the Security Council today, saying the Iraqis failed to cooperate adequately with inspectors seeking to assess Baghdad's ability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction.
Note the conditional. Saddam was cooperating, just not to a degree that Blix would have liked.

But then, using your logic, since your earlier claim and your cite don't match up completely, it's okay for us to conclude that you're a liar and a fraud, eh? (Not that I would, because I understand shades of grey, but by your own argument...)

[Age Quod Agis]

Clinton did not start a war. Bush did. That's the difference, one that has to be ignored by those reflexively wanting to blame everything bad on somebody else. Try to follow along: I'm not "blaming" Clinton for the invasion of Iraq. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and bears responsibility for that decision. But O'Neill did not say that Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. If you're saying otherwise, then you're misrepresenting what O'Neill said.To dispel that picture is, well, what?The statement of Paul O'Neill. See my prior posts quoting O'Neill from the Today Show."plans" (a word you're falsely using as synonymous with "intentions")That's odd. The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=planned) also seems to think the words are synonymous. (emphasis added)v. planned, plan·ning, plans
v. tr
. . .
2. To have as a specific aim or purpose; intend: They plan to buy a house.And in fact, I'm trying to point out that before 9/11, Bush reviewed plans to invade Iraq, but did not intend to invade Iraq. I'm trying to distinguish between the two. You, on the other hand, appear to be arguing that Bush looking at plans to invade Iraq means that he intended to invade Iraq. So which one of us is using "plans" as a synonym for "intentions"?

[Age Quod Agis]

Then you adhere to a highly idealized, ivory tower version of the definition of cooperation.

rjung
Age, you do know there's a big difference between "failed to cooperate" and "failed to cooperate adequately", don't you?No, I didn't. I guess in my "highly idealized, ivory tower version of the definition of cooperation," saying that someone wasn't cooperating implies that they weren't cooperating adequately. However, I do feel some small vindication insofar as the dictionary appears to agree with me.co·op·er·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-p-rt)
intr.v. co·op·er·at·ed, co·op·er·at·ing, co·op·er·ates

1. To work or act together toward a common end or purpose.
2. To acquiesce willingly; be compliant: asked the child to cooperate and go to bed.Do you think Iraq "work[ed] or act[ed] together [with the inspectors] toward a common end or purpose"? Did they "acquiesce willingly" to the inspections? Were they "compliant"?

Please note that if your answer to any of the previous questions is "yes," then the proper procedure is "puff, puff, pass." You're obviously lingering too long on the "puff, puff" part, and not enough on the "pass" part.

But I'm willing to concede your point. Fine. Iraq cooperated insofar as they didn't stop the inspectors from driving wherever they wanted to go, and didn't, you know, kill them or anything. So, because of the possibility that someone could have read my prior post and thought that I wasn't giving the Iraqis sufficient kudos for those things, please feel free to amend my prior statement to "But Hussein backed himself into that corner by refusing to cooperate adequately with UN inspections." Happy now?He opposed an immediate invasion Iraq based on the country's inability to live up to what cooperation could have been if, and only if, we were living in the best of times in the best of all possible worlds.Sorry, but can I have a cite for this? I was unaware that he had expounded on your "idealized world" theory of cooperation. I'd love to read his thoughts.Unwillingness to settle for anything less than perfection is a sign of an overly rigid world view. Bush has one, you appear to as well.Thank you, Ziggy. I didn't realize that that Sally Struthers correspondence school gave out degrees in psychology. On the advice of my doctor, I'll try to be more pliant with my worldview in the future. So, should I start being more pliant by accepting silly conspiracy theories relating to Bush's intentions to invade Iraq?

[Squink]

Age, you're spluttering and foaming rather than debating here. Take your doctor's advice, and try to visualize a worldview somewhere between abject toadying to all the president's policies, and seeing conspiracy theories at every turn. I'll guarantee that a whole world of such possibilities will open itself to you, if you're willing to make the effort.

[Age Quod Agis]

Age, you're spluttering and foaming rather than debating here.My post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and not embittered.

I'll leave aside your assertion that Bush has a rigid world view, which I doubt is more than armchair psychoanalysis of the type we all do to some extent.

But I would still like to see where Blix ever excused Iraq's failure cooperate adequately (wink to rjung) because this isn't an ideal world. I would imagine that he said they weren't cooperating adequately because he thought that their cooperation was insufficient to garner praise, even in our non-ideal world. Now you're saying that he excused it? So, leaving my bluster aside, I'd like to see a cite.

And I would like to hear why you think Iraq's actions were adequate cooperation. Even in the real world, if I was being investigated by the police (on charges of, say, being a jackass in the first degree), and I responded by planting false evidence, lying, intimidating, and harassing, then you wouldn't say that I was "cooperating adequately," would you?Take your doctor's advice, and try to visualize a worldview somewhere between abject toadying to all the president's policies, and seeing conspiracy theories at every turn.I agree. That doesn't make this any less of a silly conspiracy theory.

I would also point out that your allegation could be levelled against many others on this board, whom you haven't addressed.

[blowero]

Well, now I don't feel so bad about being confused. You were responding to something I'd said 50 posts earlier, despite the fact that you'd already responded to it, and despite the fact that I'd posted a half dozen times since then. Do us feeble-minded folks a favor and include a quote when you do that.

My God are you ever becoming annoying. I DID quote you, and pointed out that the point about Clinton also planning for war was not analagous. THEN, you responded in an oblique manner about how you think WMDs were not the crux of Bush's justification. It really had nothing to do with my point. So then when I mention this, you claim you never made the point about Clinton. And when I point out that you did make such a point, you get all bent out of shape because YOU forgot that you had said it. It's not my problem you have such a poor memory; I'm not going to quote, re-quote, and re-quote you again every time I have to respond to one of your obfuscations.

I was referring to an analogy someone else drew (obviously). I didn't make the analogy, but I certainly agree with it.

And now, to top it off, you're trying to further obfuscate the issue by saying "someone else" made the point, but that you agree with it. Well if you agree with it, then that makes it your point as well.

If reviewing Clinton's contingency plans means that, then Clinton -- who formulated and surely reviewed the plan -- is guilty of the same. And I think we can all agree that Clinton did not intend to stage an illegal, non-defensive invasion of Iraq to gain control of its oil. At least I hope we can.

I'll agree with that. However, Bush DID intend to do so. So they're NOT guilty of the "same". Not in any way, shape, or form.

Try to follow along: I'm not "blaming" Clinton for the invasion of Iraq. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and bears responsibility for that decision. But O'Neill did not say that Bush intended to go into Iraq before 9/11. If you're saying otherwise, then you're misrepresenting what O'Neill said.

According to 60 Minutes, he DID say that. For Pete's sake, what do you think we've been talking about this whole thread?

[ElvisL1ves]

C'mon, guy, the military has "plans" for all kinds of military operations. But nobody intends to use them.

Bush intended to actually go to war, as O'Neill has said. Clinton only had his military think about how to do if it came to that. That's what you're obfuscating - the difference between going to war and not going to war.

Dictionary cites are so, well, decembrist. Sad, too.

[rjung]

But I would still like to see where Blix ever excused Iraq's failure cooperate adequately (wink to rjung) because this isn't an ideal world.
Very well. One month after your article, we have this:
Blix: Iraq showing substantive cooperation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902906,00.html)
Iraq has shown new signs of substantive cooperation in recent days by providing information about its weapons programmes, the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said today.

Iraq has sent UN inspectors half a dozen letters in the past few days and "there are some elements which are positive which need to be explored further", he told reporters.
:
Asked if there was any indication by the Iraqis of "substantive progress or proactive cooperation", Mr Blix replied, "Yes."

In a related vein, it's interesting to note that while the American news media was eager to jump on Blix's earlier denouncement of Iraqi cooperation (as per your earlier cite), they also downplayed the fact (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/02/02_Blix.html) that Blix told the New York Times that the there was insufficient evidence to justify a war with Iraq.

Of course, I'm sure you didn't mention that in your earlier message because it slipped your mind, n'est pas?

[Age Quod Agis]

My God are you ever becoming annoying.That's your argument? That I'm annoying? :rolleyes: I DID quote youPlease go back to post #99 and show me where you quoted my alleged Clinton analogy.

No, you did not quote me. You didn't even accurately represent what I'd said.

I suppose it's possible that I could have gone back through all of my posts and guessed at which statement you referring to. It just seemed easier to ask you what you were talking about.THEN, you responded in an oblique manner about how you think WMDs were not the crux of Bush's justification. It really had nothing to do with my point.I was responding to your statement that "Bush tried to get the UN to sanction the war by presenting trumped-up evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" and "direct links to Al Qaeda"." So in what way was my statement that WMD and terror were not the only justifications for war "oblique" or irrelevant?

Or did you forget that you said that? If it helps, you can go back and look at my posts because I typically try to quote the language to which I was responding. And when I point out that you did make such a point, you get all bent out of shape because YOU forgot that you had said it.You keep projecting these emotions onto me. I wasn't bent out of shape about anything (except maybe a little at ElvisL1ves, but that's only natural). I'm still not bent out of shape. In fact, I'm smiling right now. This is me ---> :)

So why don't you calm down, and let's get back to the subject at hand?Well if you agree with it, then that makes it your point as well.No, it doesn't. It's not my point until I make it.

Is it ok for me to attribute to you the things elucidator says? Of course not. Because his points are not your points, even if you probably would agree with them. People around here call those strawmen.

I pointed out that I agreed with the statement because I was hoping that we could move the discussion along. Now can we please do that?However, Bush DID intend to do so. So they're NOT guilty of the "same". Not in any way, shape, or form.I understand that you believe that Bush intended to invade Iraq from Day 1 of his Administration. My point is that you can't reasonably base that belief on Paul O'Neill's statements, because on the Today Show, O'Neill said that they were simply reviewing and adopting Clinton's contingency policies on Iraq.According to 60 Minutes, he DID say that.And according to Paul O'Neill and the Today Show, he did NOT say that.

[Age Quod Agis]

Of course, I'm sure you didn't mention that in your earlier message because it slipped your mind, n'est pas?I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant.

I'll concede that Iraq showed either proactive cooperation or substantive progress on the eve or war, when thousands of troops were stationed just outside of Iraq and readying for an invasion.

But my original point was that Iraq backed themselves into a corner by their earlier failure to comply with inspections. Their later cooperation or progress is irrelevant to the fact that the UN had to back them into that corner to begin with.

[Age Quod Agis]

Bush intended to actually go to war, as O'Neill has said. Clinton only had his military think about how to do if it came to that. That's what you're obfuscating - the difference between going to war and not going to war.No, you're obfuscating my argument.

I'm disagreeing with what O'Neill supposedly said. I'm pointing out that O'Neill himself said that Bush didn't intend to go into Iraq before 9/11. O'Neill himself said that Bush was merely reviewing Clinton's contingency plans. Dictionary cites are so, well, decembrist. Sad, too.I'll make you a deal: I'll stop quoting the dictionary if you stop saying false things about the English language.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That isn't what O'Neill said at all. He said Bush wanted to invade Iraq (something Clinton never proposed. Supporting regime change is not the same as invading) and he told his henchmen to "make it happen."

O'Neill also revealed that there never was any evidence of WMDs.

There is nothing that Clinton did that makes Bush's war any more legal or legitimate or justified.

Over 500 Americans have now died for nothing. Bush is a fucking liar and a killer and that needs to be repeated continuously until the little shit is out of office.

[furt]

Over 500 Americans have now died for nothing. Bush is a fucking liar and a killer and that needs to be repeated continuously until the little shit is out of office.Actually, the far left's insistance on saying that, rather than simply conceding that "we disagree on policy," is exactly what will keep him there.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yes, I "disagree with the policy" of lying to start wars.

[Evil Captor]

I also disagree with the policy of putting American soldiers' lives on the line (and getting some of them killed) for no good reason. Every President has to face the option of using force to accomplish American goals or save American lives or strategic interests at times, but the naked adventurism of the Iraq war is simply sickening. Hope all those families whose kids come home in caskets and with missing body parts don't mind the fact that their kids suffered and died for no good reason.

To hell with George W. Bush, he's a vile piece of shit.

[jshore]

Actually, the far left's insistance on saying that, rather than simply conceding that "we disagree on policy," is exactly what will keep him there.

So, the fact that Bush has lied or deceived on nearly every major issue and has used excessive secrecy to shield himself on other issues (not to mention the Orwellian language running through it all) doesn't bother you at all? You think that this is the way a democracy is supposed to work!?!

[jshore]

I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant.

I'll concede that Iraq showed either proactive cooperation or substantive progress on the eve or war, when thousands of troops were stationed just outside of Iraq and readying for an invasion.


Well, I don't know exactly what you define as "eve of war". Wasn't this at the point when the U.N. was debating whether to pass a resolution to authorize an invasion? I wasn't aware there was a time after which cooperation was not enough and Iraq was going to be invaded anyway. Actually, I was aware there was a time...and it was most likely Jan 20, 2001 (although one might be able to argue that Sept 11 really sealed their fate by providing pretext)...but I didn't think that was "official".

[Squink]

Uh oh John, there's a new poll out, and it shows a big drop in Bush's numbers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593849.shtml).CBS News/New York Times poll of 1,022 adults puts the president's approval rating at 50%, matching his lowest ever, and the largest number ever – 45% - disapproving.

This decline (from 60% approval the week after Saddam's capture) comes after former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's criticisms of the administration in a book and in interviews, and after continuing attacks on American troops in Iraq.
...
Less than half now approve of how he is handling the situation in Iraq. 51% say the war was not worth the costs.Particularly worrisome is the erosion of Bush's approval rating among independents.
Fortunately, this is just a poll. ;)

[elucidator]

Hmmm. A bit strange. I also have a link to the CBS poll, dated a half hour later than yours which says:

...If the November presidential election were held today, 45% of voters say they would vote for the Democratic candidate and 43% would vote to re-elect President Bush.

Late last month, the President held a 49% to 40% edge. The standing today is similar to what it was in November 2003, before the capture of Saddam Hussein....

[elucidator]

oopsy! That's http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/17/opinion/polls/main593848.shtml

[furt]

So, the fact that Bush has lied or deceived on nearly every major issue and has used excessive secrecy to shield himself on other issues (not to mention the Orwellian language running through it all) doesn't bother you at all? You think that this is the way a democracy is supposed to work!?!I don't think he has. Like most people, I neither love nor hate him.

If ya'll were attempting to persuade people that Bush means well but he's not done a good job, and that candidate X has better ideas for where to go in the future, you'd have a chance of getting 51%. But the left is deliberately setting the bar higher for themselves by insisting that people think of him as an evil spawn of Satan and that he's done bad things in the past; and that attitude will simply turn off a lot of people in the middle for no useful reason.

[Desmostylus]

If ya'll were attempting to persuade people that Bush means well but he's not done a good job, and that candidate X has better ideas for where to go in the future, you'd have a chance of getting 51%. But the left is deliberately setting the bar higher for themselves by insisting that people think of him as an evil spawn of Satan and that he's done bad things in the past; and that attitude will simply turn off a lot of people in the middle for no useful reason.We're talking on a message board here, not running a fucking election campaign. Your ridulous insistence that Bush's motives never be questioned is a pathetic attempt to silence a debate you know you can't win. As you should have realised by now, it doesn't work. :rolleyes:

[Zoe]

Jonathan Chance: But I confidently predict that O'Neill's book will feature prominently is the campaign...

GoHeels: Despite what O'Neil said in his book, he says he would probably vote for Bush.

This has been mentioned before, but it is important to note that O'Neill doesn't have a book out. So his motivation for going public does not involve selling his own material. He was interviewed in a book that has just been released.

Chicago Faucet, this is from the same article that you linked to about President Clinton's opinions on the presence of WMD's:

An influential Washington think-tank said Thursday the Bush administration "systematically" inflated the threat from Iraq's weapons programmes in a bid to strengthen its push for military action against Iraq last year.
In its report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also said it was unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or moved out of the country hundreds of weapons of mass destruction without Washington detecting some sign of activity.

[Zoe]

To those of you who support President Bush:

Would you still support him if you knew that he had deliberately lied to lead us into war with Iraq?

How would you determine if he had lied to the citizens of the United States?

[elucidator]

Well, maybe friend Furt has a point, perhaps the message is a bit too somber, too strident. Howzabout...

GeeDubya, International Eagle Scout, set out to do his good deed for the year: free the Iraqi people. It was a really, really good idea! But, well, sometimes its hard for folks to see that. So GeeDubya fibbed a little, maybe stretched the truth just a little bit! Not much at all, really, just saying he was sure about something when it was really sort of maybe kinda. Could be. And, OK, so it turns out to be "not at all, not by a long shot". Is that his fault? Is it his fault that Saddam treacherously didn't have what he was supposed to have? One thing is for sure! he never will have what he didn't have, and America is much safer than it would have been if GeeDubya had been telling the truth!

Yes, you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar. Of course, shit works best of all.

No, I don't need to tar and feather GeeDubya, don't really need to vilify him. All I need is that this time next year, he's no longer in a position to order people to go kill people. That'll do fine.

[John Mace]

To those of you who support President Bush:

Would you still support him if you knew that he had deliberately lied to lead us into war with Iraq?
What a silly question. Of course not. Gee, you almost tricked me. :rolleyes:

How would you determine if he had lied to the citizens of the United States?

When I didn't have to believe in a massive conspiracy theory in order to support the "he lied" scenario. So to start, when a significant majority of the Democrats who supported the war came out and said: "We've determined that Bush lied. We were misled, and we need to inform the American people of that fact." A good initial roster would include: Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Dick Gepardt, and Evan Bayh.

[elucidator]

Comrade Mace has an excellent point, if somewhat more radical a position than mine own. We should certainly purge those collaborators who were either intimidated into compliance or were enthusiastic cheerleaders for mayhem. Chuck all the buggers out, quite right!

And I must applaud the non-partisan justice of it all: we'll chuck out all of the Democrats as well as all the Republicans who were collaborators. If it doesn't matter to him what a party balance that would leave, then by God, it doesn't matter to me either!

You've convinced me, John. Lead on!

[John Mace]

Comrade Mace has an excellent point, if somewhat more radical a position than mine own.

You've convinced me, John. Lead on!

Spasibo, elushka!

[blowero]

Originally Posted by blowero
My God are you ever becoming annoying.
That's your argument? That I'm annoying?

Nope, just a statement of fact.

Please go back to post #99 and show me where you quoted my alleged Clinton analogy.

Do your own homework. Here's a clue, the posts from me say "Blowero" at the top. Scroll your ass back up and read them.

No, you did not quote me. You didn't even accurately represent what I'd said.

Actually, I quoted you TWICE. The first time when I responded to you, and the second time when you forgot that you had ever made the analogy, and I had to remind you. If you think I'm going to do it a THIRD time, you're out of your mind.

I suppose it's possible that I could have gone back through all of my posts and guessed at which statement you referring to. It just seemed easier to ask you what you were talking about.

You didn't ask, you made a false assertion that I had misquoted you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
THEN, you responded in an oblique manner about how you think WMDs were not the crux of Bush's justification. It really had nothing to do with my point.

I was responding to your statement that "Bush tried to get the UN to sanction the war by presenting trumped-up evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" and "direct links to Al Qaeda"." So in what way was my statement that WMD and terror were not the only justifications for war "oblique" or irrelevant?

My point was that Clinton didn't do what Bush did, so you can't compare the two. What exactly is it about that point that you have so much trouble addressing?

Originally Posted by blowero
And when I point out that you did make such a point, you get all bent out of shape because YOU forgot that you had said it.
You keep projecting these emotions onto me. I wasn't bent out of shape about anything (except maybe a little at ElvisL1ves, but that's only natural). I'm still not bent out of shape. In fact, I'm smiling right now. This is me --->

So why don't you calm down, and let's get back to the subject at hand?

Oh, boo hoo, whine, whimper - I am calm; why are you projecting emotions on me?;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
Well if you agree with it, then that makes it your point as well.
No, it doesn't. It's not my point until I make it.

What a fucking copout.

Is it ok for me to attribute to you the things elucidator says? Of course not. Because his points are not your points, even if you probably would agree with them. People around here call those strawmen.

Bullshit. If I quoted elucidator and said I agreed with the quote, then surprise! - I would actually be agreeing with what he said. And then if you disagreed, I wouldn't be so dense as to say, "Oh, well, er, it was his point, not mine". Who are you trying to kid here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
However, Bush DID intend to do so. So they're NOT guilty of the "same". Not in any way, shape, or form.
I understand that you believe that Bush intended to invade Iraq from Day 1 of his Administration.

I believe that 60 Minutes reported O'Neill as having said that. I believe so because I saw the show.

My point is that you can't reasonably base that belief on Paul O'Neill's statements, because on the Today Show, O'Neill said that they were simply reviewing and adopting Clinton's contingency policies on Iraq.

I said this before, and I'm not sure why you're ignoring it, but I don't interpret the quote you posted that way. Yes, Bush inherited Clinton's contingency plan, but for Bush it was not a contingency plan. Bush told his staff to make it happen. I don't see anywhere in the Today Show interview where O'Neill disavows that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blowero
According to 60 Minutes, he DID say that.
And according to Paul O'Neill and the Today Show, he did NOT say that.

I disagree.

[elucidator]

I refer fellow Dopers to an article in this months Atlantic by James Fallows titled "Blind into Baghdad". In it, Mr. Fallows outlines the extensive degree of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. The degree and intensity of the planning puts any suggestion that such planning was merely one of a number of "contingency" plans beyond serious consideration.

Further, the article states, that as the difficulties and problems inherent in "regime change" became more clear, Dept. of Defense heavyweights came to regard the planning effort to be "anti-war", and more and more disregarded and ignored the findings of the planners.

If this article is essentially correct, there was quite a bit of intelligent and insightful planning, the problems we face today were not a surprise, but, for the most part, entirely predictable. The trouble came when the proceedings of these planners came to be viewed as contradicting the accepted wisdom of Rummy and Co.

One rather droll bit of "planning":

"...A report titled "Free Media" proposed that all Iraqi journalists be taken out of the country for a month-long re-education process. "Those who 'get it' go back as reporters, others will be retired or reassigned..."

and

"...It recommended that a new film Colonial America: Life in a Theocracy be shot, noting 'The Puritan experiments provide amazing parallels with current Moslem fundamentalism. The ultimate failures of these U.S. experiments can also be vividly illustrated - witch trials, intolerance, etc....."

Ah! Hearts and minds!

I heartily recommend this article to anyone who still retains any doubts as to the Bushiviks determination for war with Iraq.

[Age Quod Agis]

O'Neill also revealed that there never was any evidence of WMDs.Please see the following from the Today Show transcript (emphasis added):COURIC: Well, we'll get to that in a moment. But you say nowhere did you ever see evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Well, an intelligent person would draw the conclusion that those charges were being trumped up by the administration as a rationale for the invasion.

O'NEILL: No, that's not what I've said. I have a very high standard for what represents evidence. If you told me that you put your hands on weapons of mass destruction, I'd probably believe you because you are a public person. If someone that I believed in told me they'd actually seen it, that's evidence for me. But it's possible -- and certainly there were lots of inferences and circumstantial things that the national security assessments pulled together in looking at this question of mass destruction. I'm not denying or gainsaying the fact that one could make a case. What I have said is I never saw anything that I considered to be concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I think the fact that we haven't found them makes the point. That also doesn't make a point that we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. I'm not making that case. I'm making the really clear case that I know the difference between evidence and what is allusion and assertion and the rest. That's my point. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but he also expressly disavows what you've asserted.There is nothing that Clinton did that makes Bush's war any more legal or legitimate or justified.I agree.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

AQA:

Let's just say that there doesn't seem to have been sufficient evidence to justify a preemptive invasion. Ther may have been some suggestive intelligence but nothing concrete, and the fact that no WMDs have been found would have to cast some pretty serious doubt on the veracity of Bush's stated confidence in their existence before the invasion.

[Age Quod Agis]

Nope, just a statement of fact.Fine. I'm annoying. I'm also fat, stupid, and I've got a big, smelly butt. Now if you'll stop giving me a rasberry, maybe we can step out of the 4th grade for a moment.Actually, I quoted you TWICE.Talk about a copout. I asked you for a cite. You respond by telling me that it's up there somewhere. I wonder why.

Well, since you seem to have "forgotten" what was actually said, let me help you out. Your "response" to my supposed Clinton analogy was in post #99. Here, from post 99, are all of my statements that you quoted.My point was that I'm sick of arguing about it because it's been argued ad naseum in other threads, with absolutely no positive results.
. . .
First, there were a number of justifications for the war in Iraq. Admittedly, the ones that stuck in everyone's mind were "WMD" and "links to terror." However, that doesn't diminish the fact that WMD and terror were only two of many justifications for war.
. . .
Second, the crux of the WMD justification was not that they were in possession of WMD. Rather, the crux was that Iraq wouldn't cooperate with our efforts to find out if they had WMD or WMD-development programs.
. . .
Third, we thought they had WMD and/or WMD-development programs based on lots of evidence, including the fact that they were resisting inspections. In fact, there appears to have been near-unanimity in the international intelligence community that Iraq had WMD-development programs. That conclusion certainly may have been based on intelligence failures, but that doesn't mean that Bush knew that he was presenting or basing his conclusions on intelligence failures.
. . .
[Here's where someone will usually say that Bush either lied or is incompetent because he believed obviously false information. I don't see how the information was obviously false. It seems much more likely that Bush based his belief that Saddam had WMD and/or WMD-development programs on bad and good intelligence.]
. . .
In short, even if all the justifications for war were false, I don't think we must conclude that Bush lied, or that he unreasonably believed certain things were true. When looking at the evidence, everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion that Bush & Co. did.So, where in there is my supposed Clinton analogy? In fact, where did I refer to the Clinton Admin? Nowhere.

So it's now blatantly obvious to everyone that you didn't quote anything having to do with the Clinton analogy in the post in which you responded to it. . . . Of course, I doubt anyone's made it this far into my little tirade, but still, you and I know the truth.You didn't ask, you made a false assertion that I had misquoted you.Sweet merciful crap! When you said my Clinton analogy was bogus, I responded by saying (emphasis added):I don't follow you here. I'm not trying to draw any sort of analogy between Clinton and Bush. . . . Is that what you're referring to?So, obviously, I did ask you what you were talking about. Perhaps you just "forgot."My point was that Clinton didn't do what Bush did, so you can't compare the two. What exactly is it about that point that you have so much trouble addressing?I've already addressed this point many times (post # 103, 106, 122, 127). Did you forget?

My point was that before 9/11, they did the same things. So when you're talking about before 9/11, you should compare the two.If I quoted elucidator and said I agreed with the quote, then surprise! - I would actually be agreeing with what he said.Absolutely true. So where did I say I agreed with the quote?

. . . I didn't. Just your creative memory acting up again.Yes, Bush inherited Clinton's contingency plan, but for Bush it was not a contingency plan. Bush told his staff to make it happen. I don't see anywhere in the Today Show interview where O'Neill disavows that.I posted the quotes before, but since you seem to have forgotten them, let me post them again. O'Neill disavows that right here (emphasis added):O'NEILL: . . . people are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.

COURIC: So you see nothing wrong with that being at the top of the president's agenda 10 days after the inauguration?

O'NEILL: Absolutely not. One of the candidates had said this confirms his worst suspicions. I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration.I realize you're responding to li'l ol' me, and not some bigwig like elucidator or John Mace. But you've been around for a long time, and I've grown to expect more from you than to get so many things so blatantly wrong in one post.

[Age Quod Agis]

Let's just say that there doesn't seem to have been sufficient evidence to justify a preemptive invasion. Ther may have been some suggestive intelligence but nothing concrete . . . .O'Neill seems to agree with you on this point, and he's certainly thoughtful, intelligent, and well-informed. So you're in good company there.

You're absolutely right that there was nothing concrete. There's certainly room for disagreement on whether or not we had sufficient intelligence to invade Iraq. I just don't agree that the implication to be drawn from that is that Bush must have wanted to go into Iraq from Day 1.

[Caveat: I know there's more to your position than the implications to be drawn from the fact that we didn't have concrete evidence of WMD. I've certainly oversimplified. But my hands are tired after typing out my War & Peace-like post to blowero. ;) ]

[blowero]

Age Quod Agis, you must be on crack. Debating with you is like the movie "Groundhog Day"; we're starting from square one every post. Sorry, not gonna play that game - goodbye.

[Age Quod Agis]

Age Quod Agis, you must be on crack.So that's a "No" on stepping out of the 4th grade?

[blowero]

:rolleyes: