# CBS 60 Minutes --- Iraq War Planned Pre-9/11?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 11, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897 "2004-01-11T00:57:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/81 "2004-01-14T04:30:17Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/82 "2004-01-14T04:45:02Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/83 "2004-01-14T05:29:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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\*. 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.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/84 "2004-01-14T16:12:01Z")
> [@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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/85 "2004-01-14T16:54:49Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@I\_am\_who\_I\_am](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_am_who_I_am)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/86 "2004-01-14T17:24:35Z")
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?”
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/87 "2004-01-14T17:26:40Z")
**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.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/88 "2004-01-14T17:55:18Z")
> [@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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/89 "2004-01-14T19:04:08Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/90 "2004-01-14T19:33:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/91 "2004-01-14T19:48:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _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.
---
### Author:  [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/92 "2004-01-14T20:22:05Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/93 "2004-01-14T20:47:52Z")
**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?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2004, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/94 "2004-01-14T21:07:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/95 "2004-01-15T02:37:37Z")
[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.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/96 "2004-01-15T03:00:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> “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)
😃
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/97 "2004-01-15T03:10:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> [_Al Franken at the Moveon.org awards_](http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/01/13/20040113_235004_mattmo3.htm)
>
> 😃
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.
---
### Author:  [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/98 "2004-01-15T03:25:18Z")
> [@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."
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!
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/99 "2004-01-15T09:27:03Z")
> [@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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/100 "2004-01-15T15:30:05Z")
“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?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897.md?page=6)