And we went to War because...?

Great Debates
1

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

We went to war for the same reason everyone ever went to war- we had prepared for it and the generals were ready.

6

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.

7

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’.

8

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.

9

(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_______ :).

10

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

11

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:

12

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.

13

The military has plans as a matter of course. The politicians, however, have intent - obligatory link to Project for the New American Century’s 1998 letter to Clinton.

Aha, I see someone got the ‘GWB Dictionaryity of the Englishized Language’ for Christmas. :wink:

14

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?

15

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.

16

This is news?! This is standard military planning. Every country’s military is constantly creating plans to defeat or fend off other countries.

17

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.

18

(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.

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?

19

From Alien2022

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 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

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

20

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.