PDA

View Full Version : And we went to War because...?


Alien2022
01-11-2004, 03:06 AM
So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. This would imply that the entire notion of WMD was completely falsified in order to provide some shred of pretense for an invasion.


My questions are: what does this mean for the Bush administration? For future American conflicts? For the ongoing war in Iraq? For the election?

Most tantilizing though, Does this have the potential to become another watergate?



That is granted though that it is true.

Cite.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

adaher
01-11-2004, 04:36 AM
It means little. Planning is not a crime. It will rankle the ones that opposed the war even more than they already are, but it won't affect those that supported it or the fence-sitters.

If you read Bush's past statements on Iraq, it was pretty clear that he was going to be a lot less tolerant than Clinton was. Considering that Clinton's "tolerance" was heavy bombing, it doesn't take much to connect the dots and figure out what "less tolerant" means.

Aeschines
01-11-2004, 04:39 AM
It has no potential to become another Watergate, as what the Prez did was dishonest and disingenous, but not illegal. Ask Presidents McKinley and Johnson about starting up wars on flimsy pretexts (Maine, Tonkin)--not that either was entirely culpable.

As for planning the war from the beginning, no real problem/scandal there either. W could just say that he was making a contingency plan, as Sadaam had always been a clear danger. And he could aver that there was WMD evidence right from the beginning.

I regret it, you regret it--but I have little doubt that W will be reelected by the stupefied masses come this November. Weep.

Quint Essence
01-11-2004, 04:45 AM
Does this have the potential to become another watergate?

Watergate? Watergate pales in comparison with lying the country into a unfounded war.
If their was true justice and rule of law in this country Bush will spend the rest of his life in prison.

My opinion (and I know some will disagree, some out of simple fear that I might be right, some out of pure ignorance) is that not only did bush and company have prior intentions for invading Iraq and afghanistan long before 9-11 (by the way these plans have been discussed on the net since months before hostilities even began..), Bush was not only aware, but COMPLICIT in the 9-11 attacks nd used thoese attacks as a pretense to further his goals in afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush makes Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like amateurs. The damage done to this country by these cretins surpasses anything done by all of our enemies COMBINED.
As long as Bush is president, American is a term of abject shame.

the first supraliminal
01-11-2004, 04:53 AM
We went to war for the same reason everyone ever went to war- we had prepared for it and the generals were ready.

DMark
01-11-2004, 04:57 AM
9 killed today.
3 killed today.
12 killed today.
1 killed today.

At some point in time, people are going to start to add the numbers.

That's when a lot of families are going to start to wonder why their kids were killed and get angry.

This was not a war against terrorism.
This was not a war to end terroism.
This was not a war to fight against 9/11.

This was Jr's war to show daddy he could do it.

I am not the first, nor the only one, who has said from day one that this war was an unecessary, poorly planned act of agression that, yes, removed the world of a piss-ant despot, but has cost the American public far, far too much financially, and more importantly, all the good will that America offered to the rest of the world.

Does anyone realize that with a real President, after 9/11, we could have made a real difference? We could have unified the entire earth and made real strides in forging unification.

Bush blew that...big time.

glee
01-11-2004, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by Beeruser
We went to war for the same reason everyone ever went to war- we had prepared for it and the generals were ready.

Cynical, but pretty accurate.

Note the exception of why the UK went to war with Iraq - we hadn't prepared, were trying flat out for another UN resolution but suddenly discovered that 'Saddam had WMD's pointed at our bases, ready for use in 45 minutes'.

Aeschines
01-11-2004, 06:27 AM
Bush himself is a pissant despot. Please don't cheapen the crimes of Hitler and al. by comparing Bush to them. W is merely an amateur.

Milum
01-11-2004, 08:38 AM
(sigh)................now:

If you you misopolemical Bushbangers can still your meglophonic tongues for a moment I will give you a clarigation that is all-inclusive but succinct. The alpha, the omega...

That dumb bastard Saddam Hussien would not obey our generous terms of surrender of which he eagerly agreed to accept when we kicked his ass back in 1990 because he had invaded Kuwait.

I bet he would do so now_______ :).

furt
01-11-2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Alien2022
So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. Piffle. Plans would have been in place long before W. Plans for possible wars are always in place, no matter how unlikely the conflict:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html

PatriotX
01-11-2004, 09:03 AM
I saw an ad for a movie about bush bangers. Didn't seem to be related to this discussion though.

Here's alist of official reason why we went to war:
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

PatriotX
01-11-2004, 09:07 AM
There's nothing inherently wrong w/ making plans aout how to conduct a war.

The Plame incident may become a scandal.
The mis-use of intel may become a scandal.

jjimm
01-11-2004, 09:12 AM
The military has plans as a matter of course. The politicians, however, have intent - obligatory link (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) to Project for the New American Century's 1998 letter to Clinton....misopolemical Bushbangers can still your meglophonic tongues for a moment I will give you a clarigation...Aha, I see someone got the 'GWB Dictionaryity of the Englishized Language' for Christmas. ;)

GoHeels
01-11-2004, 09:53 AM
If O'Neil felt so strongly, why didn't he issue his criticisms before the damn war started, when the criticism would have had a lot more impact?

John Carter of Mars
01-11-2004, 10:05 AM
By Quint Essence: "Bush was not only aware, but COMPLICIT in the 9-11 attacks nd used thoese attacks as a pretense to further his goals in afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush makes Hitler and Saddam Hussein look like amateurs."

Dude, get some rest.

Quartz
01-11-2004, 10:34 AM
This is news?! This is standard military planning. Every country's military is constantly creating plans to defeat or fend off other countries.

Alien2022
01-11-2004, 11:07 AM
Yes, It's standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn't exist to begin with.


The only way this could drastically affect Bush in the elections, is if documents were leaked confirming this story, or that the "WMD" were doctored. If this happened, and a congressional investigation was launched... Bush could topple. Otherwise, it probably will have very little to no effect on him.


If O'Neil had voiced is opposition before the war, he would have been kicked out of the White House. A cabinet member doesnt bad mouth the presidents policies publicly and survive to see another day.

emacknight
01-11-2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Alien2022
So now ex-cabinet members are coming forward and revealing that the entire war in Iraq was planned since Bush came into office. This would IMPLY that the entire notion of WMD was completely falsified in order to provide some shred of pretense for an invasion. (I added the emphasis)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the US have planned to invade Iraq back in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Why does this "imply" that info on WMD were falsified? How have you drawn that conclusion? The idea that Iraq had WMD didn't start with Bush. He didn't arrive into office and cook up this entire situation. Removal of WMD from Iraq was the basis for 10 years of sanctions by the UN.

In my opinion, Saddam was the only one who falsified evidence of WMD.

Originally posted by Alien2022
Yes, It's standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn't exist to begin with.


Why "regardless?" If I remember correctly, Bush outlined a variety of conditions that would have avoided war. Are you sujesting that if Saddam had stepped down that the US still would have invaded?

XT
01-11-2004, 07:05 PM
From Alien2022
Yes, It's standard military planning, but what it suggests is that we were going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what happened, and that WMD, probably didn't exist to begin with.

Ok Alien2022....HOW were we going to go to war? I assume you mean that they were planning on going to war with Iraq PRIOR to 9/11 (start of Bush's term) reguardless of whatever was going on, so...how were they going to get the war through Congress (we won't even talk about how they were going to convince the people to do it...god knows, without even the pretext of 9/11 the anti-war crowd would have gone completely nuts and probably had massive support)? Can you give a reasonable logical explaination of HOW Bush and Co were gona get us to war with Iraq without something like 9/11...with a country that was fat and happy, and more concerned with the recession than with Iraq??

And lets deal in the real world please...no conspiricy theories about Bush knowing about it prior to it happening, or him being involved, etc, ok? Frankly, I've heard this rant before, and unless you go the tinfoil hat route, it just doesn't work out...no WAY the US was going to war with anyone prior to 9/11.

AFTER 9/11...sure, I can very well imagine Bush and co dusting off operation Fuck Saddam in the Ass, but not prior to that...not in any real or meaningful way. I can see them dreaming about taking out Iraq, but realistically? They didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting something like that through, and they knew it.

From Alien2022
The only way this could drastically affect Bush in the elections, is if documents were leaked confirming this story, or that the "WMD" were doctored. If this happened, and a congressional investigation was launched... Bush could topple. Otherwise, it probably will have very little to no effect on him.

The only way it could drastically hurt Bush is if the foaming at the mouth crowd are able to convince a large segment of the population that there is something here. MOST folks with a clue realize that the military makes plans like this all the time. They don't just sit around with their thumb up their collective ass waiting for stuff to happen then run around and figure out what to do. They PLAN for even remote possibilities. He'll, I've heard about plans for the US Navy to fight it out with Britian prior to WWII. Stuff like this is nothing new, unless you are wide eyed and patently clueless about how the real world opperates.

From Alien2022
If O'Neil had voiced is opposition before the war, he would have been kicked out of the White House. A cabinet member doesnt bad mouth the presidents policies publicly and survive to see another day.

True enough but where were his principals then? If it was SUCH a bad thing, why didn't he resign and go forth with the information THEN?? Why now...that he's been fired?

-XT

Squink
01-11-2004, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by xtisme
MOST folks with a clue realize that the military makes plans like this all the time. They don't just sit around with their thumb up their collective ass waiting for stuff to happen then run around and figure out what to do. They PLAN for even remote possibilities. He'll, I've heard about plans for the US Navy to fight it out with Britian prior to WWII. Stuff like this is nothing new, unless you are wide eyed and patently clueless about how the real world opperates. I wonder how many hours per week the National Security Council spends closeted with the president discussing the details of plans for the partitian of Baluchistan?
It seems more likely to this simple soul that the planning of such theoretical tactical exercises are limited to the war rooms of the pentagon, and that the big boys, like the president, the secretarys of defense and state, the national security advisor and such, only get involved when the game is really afoot.
The participation of senior administration officials in pie in the sky wargames would take too much time away from their otherwise busy schedules.

pervert
01-11-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Squink
IIt seems more likely to this simple soul that the planning of such theoretical tactical exercises are limited to the war rooms of the pentagon, and that the big boys, like the president, the secretarys of defense and state, the national security advisor and such, only get involved when the game is really afoot.
The participation of senior administration officials in pie in the sky wargames would take too much time away from their otherwise busy schedules. Quite so. But lest we forget, Iraq was an active theater of activity for our military. We were conducting ongoing operations there for the last decade. I'd be quite shocked if President Bush were not briefed on the situation, including some of the contingency work, before he even moved into the White House.

Squink
01-11-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by pervert
Quite so. But lest we forget, Iraq was an active theater of activity for our military... Certainly. The 60 Minutes piece was vague about what was discussed at NSC meetings, and what came from the pentagon. NSC discussion of post conquest oil contracts, or war tribunals would indicate high level preparations for an actual invasion in early 2001, but we don't have that. Maybe we will when the book comes out?

furt
01-11-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by xtisme
If it was SUCH a bad thing, why didn't he resign and go forth with the information THEN?? Why now...that he's been fired? Because he wasn't flogging a book then?

pervert
01-11-2004, 09:51 PM
I'm not sure even then would we have damaging evidence. If there were contingency plans to invade Iraq would they not have included discusions about what to do with the oil? How to best ensure its safety etc.? Now, if someone said something along the lines of "Well, all these contingency plans left over from the Clinton administration call for us to allow CompanyX manage the oil well. Clearly we have to change that to Haliburton..." If they said it pre 9/11, then maybe. Personally, I find that highly unlikely. But stranger things have happened.

Paladud
01-11-2004, 11:33 PM
The war was about gaining a spot for potential military bases in the future amidst the oil fields. Iraq was the geopolitically ideal spot for such - not only are the Persian Gulf supplies right next door, but the massive Caspian reserves are within a few hundred km as well. Yes, the US forces may be withdrawing within the year, but there can always be a subsequent invasion to "clean up our own mess" and get in position to exert influence on either region.

Whether or not the war was moral is a question of personal view.
But if one adheres to the Kantian definition of morality (i.e. the action itself must be moral) virtually any offensive war is wrong. Contemporary wars are not started for reasons of morality - they are an extension of politics, not righteousness or personal vendettas (unless the guy in charge is completely nuts). As much as parts of the Dubya-hating crowd want to believe that the war was retaliation over the assassination attempt on Bush Senior, the possibility of that being the central motive is about as plausible as a fish needing an umbrella.

Rashak Mani
01-11-2004, 11:59 PM
hhhmmm... I agree that planning for war scenarios is a "normal or regular" thing. So the Bush regime might have pre-planned taking down the Saddam regime... but what many are missing is that it certainly seems that it was way more than theoretical and military standard fare. They were actively seeking to use these plans with little provocation or excuse...

The sad part was that they did very little in other arenas to "prepare" for a greater acceptance of the invasion. They sent troops but not diplomats.

Another point I haven't seen anyone take up is the fact that Al Qaeda was used as an excuse to attack Iraq. Iraq was a target even before Osama Bin Laden was a major menance. Which makes it clear that the "War on Terror" has been diverted to "War on Target Chosen Before things happened". So one wonders if Al Qaeda and Osama would have been hurt more if diversions like Iraq and pissing off allies were not happening.

Finally the most shocking part:

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

They actually planned for the aftermath ! I shudder to imagine how much worse things would be without these plans ! :)

Squink
01-12-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by pervert
I'm not sure even then would we have damaging evidence. If there were contingency plans to invade Iraq would they not have included...
Sure we would. This wasn't just any NSC meeting, it was the president's very first NSC meeting: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20040112/ts_nm/bush_oneill_dc) O'Neill said removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a top priority at Bush's very first National Security Council meeting -- within days of the inauguration
No competent planner would have allowed a theoretical discussion of Iraq post-war minutiae at what would normally be an organizational meeting, without having a damned good reason.
After all, they could have spent the time discussing Clinton's report on the threat posed by international terrorists and Osama bin Laden. They chose not to.

Aeschines
01-12-2004, 01:03 AM
Sure, I bet W was hell-bent on invading Iraq and avenging his daddy. But does he have deniability suitable for the sheep of America?

Of course!

Alien2022
01-12-2004, 08:41 PM
Now, the Army War College is openly admitting that the War in Iraq unnecessary, and could have been avoided.


Muchless, that the War in Iraq, is detracting from the focuse of the War on Terrorism. Which is the most open ended war in American history.


I also would like to know when 9-11 will stop being our excuse for doing everything. When will we finally accept some responsibility for our actions?

treis
01-12-2004, 11:02 PM
Color me confused but Saddam had been ignoring U.N. demands for almost a decade before 9/11, the reasons to go to war did not change on 9/11. The only thing that 9/11 changed was the U.S. public's belief that they were invulnerable to attack.

pervert
01-12-2004, 11:19 PM
Sure we would. This wasn't just any NSC meeting, it was the president's very first NSC meeting:[/URL] Well, that article did not seem to say that the meeting was his first. But, would id have been his VERY first. I may be mistaken, but didn't Bush have organizational meetings before moving into the white house? Would those sorts of meetings have been considered the first official meeting? Also, if the plans had been circulating since Clinton, they may very well have been included in the first meeting. I know Iraq came up a couple times during the campaign. Given that we did not have many other theaters where our troops were under threat, it may have even had a prominent place in the very first meeting.

The only thing that would make this seem more of a smoking gun to me, would be if Bush insisted at a very early meeting that changes had to be made to the plan. I'm not sure what would have to show up to constitute proof of that though.

Dob
01-13-2004, 02:54 PM
from skepdic:

post hoc fallacy
The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and erroneous beliefs.

Which is all we have here, Post hoc reasoning. Dont you think we also have an attack plan for Cuba? Im sure we do, for many years now. If we attack Cuba tomorrow does that mean GW has wanted to do so since he came into office?

We had an attack plan for Iraq because Saddam had already shown that he was not a resonable person. We had no idea what he might do next, so we prepared ourselves...big deal.

My opinion (and I know some will disagree, some out of simple fear that I might be right, some out of pure ignorance)

So either I agree with you or im an idiot sheep? how about I just think your wrong?? Can i think your wrong and still be smart?

Squink
01-13-2004, 03:54 PM
Not at all!

If I decide to drive out to California, I have to put gas in my care first.
Putting gas in my car is a necessary condition for driving to the coast.
Anyone who notices that I put gas in my car could reasonably conclude that I had moved a step along a pathway that could lead to my driving to California.
There are other possible reasons why I may have gassed up my car, but if it later turns out that I have gone to California, many of those other reasons begin to seem less probable.


Apparently Bush used his very first NSC meeting to gas up the station wagon of war.

Dob
01-13-2004, 04:20 PM
from Squink
If I decide to drive out to California, I have to put gas in my care first.
Putting gas in my car is a necessary condition for driving to the coast.

First, even if I know you are going to CA, seeing you put gas in your car means nothing. You could be going to work for all I know! How do I know your leaving for CA right after pumping the gas? You could be leaving a month later for all I know. For that matter you could be taking someone elses car, or a rental. One does not relate to the other.

There are other possible reasons why I may have gassed up my car, but if it later turns out that I have gone to California, many of those other reasons begin to seem less probable.

If I see you in CA how does that mean you drove? You still could have flown, taken a train, a taxi, bus...whatever. The only way I would know is to ask you directly, and you answer me. Until then I am speculating, and not even doing that very well.

Squink
01-13-2004, 06:43 PM
NSC discussions are a necessary part of the causal chain which leads to war, just like putting gas in my car is a necessary part of driving to California.
Given the result, me in California, or Bush in Baghdad; car gassing up, or NSC discussions must have happened at some point.
It's not post hoc ergo propter hoc, unless the events do not necessarily form part of a causal chain.
If you wish to argue that Bush could have gone to war without discussing it at NSC meetings, have at it. Otherwise, all that's being discussed here is the timing of the event chain that led to invasion. There's no fallacy in that.

emacknight
01-13-2004, 11:52 PM
Looks like once again the Anti-Bush crowd jumped the gun. According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html) Paul O'Neill denies everying put forth in this debate:
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"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."

Is this not exactly what we said all along?

The situation in Iraq started looooong before Bush Jr and long before 9/11. You went to war because Saddam refused to agree with UN weapon inspectors and refused to step down when he had the chance. Saddam had the ability to prevent this war, he brought this on his country, he is the only one responsible for Iraqi civilian deaths.

I also want to repeat the fact that Saddam didn't need to have physical WMD on hand to violate the agreements with the UN. The UN already knew he had them, he was asked to show proof that he destroyed them. Its time to stop this rediculous notion that Pres. Bush decided to lie about WMD to send his country to war. The only one tha lied was Saddam.

Nietzsche
01-14-2004, 12:13 AM
I loved this part...

Its time to stop this rediculous notion that Pres. Bush decided to lie about WMD to send his country to war. The only one tha lied was Saddam.
That's right. Blame it on the boogey man. He lied when he was saying he didn't have any, and now he lied about lying about not having any.
Don't tell me, that recent outbreak of mad cow disease your nation experienced was also his fault, right?

furt
01-14-2004, 12:37 AM
So the question I have is: seeing as how we spent two years endlessly rehashing the 2000 election, and have now spent a year rehashing Iraq, which dead horse will we be beating during Bush's second term?

furt
01-14-2004, 12:46 AM
So either I agree with you or im an idiot sheep? how about I just think your wrong?? Can i think your wrong and still be smart?Y'know, you might want to check the grammar and capitalization in a sentence where you claim to be smart.

And the answer is no. When dealing with the tinfoil hat crowd there's no middle ground.

Dob
01-14-2004, 09:37 AM
from furt
Y'know, you might want to check the grammar and capitalization in a sentence where you claim to be smart.


I am smart, I am also lazy, sometimes the two clash.

"I am so smart, s-m-r-t, I mean s-m-a-r-t!"
-Homer Simpson

Squink
01-14-2004, 09:42 AM
Looks like once again the Anti-Bush crowd jumped the gun. According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html) Paul O'Neill denies everying put forth in this debate:
Is this not exactly what we said all along?
Nope, O'Neill hasn't denied "everything put forth in this debate"
He's sticking by the bit about Bush using the meeting to direct the pentagon to make plans for a ground invasion of Iraq.
Perhaps a few Americans read more into O'neill's words than was intended, just as some immediately dismissed them as "Bush-Bashing." There's still a great deal of meat in O'neill's claims, and, for the good of the country, they deserve a thorough examination.

pervert
01-14-2004, 10:25 AM
He's sticking by the bit about Bush using the meeting to direct the pentagon to make plans for a ground invasion of Iraq.Can you provide a cite for this? I don't mean to be petty, but I did not find evidence of this in the CNN article emacknight linked to.

I agree that this matter needs to be looked into. But we need far more than meetings about Iraq in the early Bush administration. We need some sort of drastic and nefarious change before 9/11 to prove bad intentions. To my mind it would have been criminally negligent NOT to discuss Iraq alot early on in his administration. Remember, we had troops there being shot at. We also had discussed various foriegn interventions during the campaign. I don't think it would have been out of line for Bush to investigate alternatives in Iraq.

Did anyone find any evidence that Bush or anyone else had motives other than the national ones? That is, did anyone discover a memo to the effect, "Haliburton is not profitable enough this quarter. Let's see if we can find them some more resources."?

Has anyone read O'Neill's book? Does he claim more than a few early meetings as evidence for disengenuous intentions in Iraq?