# 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:** 6
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/101 "2004-01-15T15:49:40Z")
> [@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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/102 "2004-01-15T17:55:29Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/103 "2004-01-15T18:25:45Z")
> [@blowero](#):
>
> 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.
> [@blowero](#):
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/104 "2004-01-15T18:43:41Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#):
>
> …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](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.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/105 "2004-01-15T19:28:12Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/106 "2004-01-15T20:02:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> 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?
> [@eludicator](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/107 "2004-01-15T20:08:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> **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?
---
### Author:  [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/108 "2004-01-15T20:08:41Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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:
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/109 "2004-01-15T20:10:47Z")
> [@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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/110 "2004-01-15T21:43:49Z")
> [@rjung](#):
>
> 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%5B/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.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/111 "2004-01-15T22:16:00Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#):
>
> 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?
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/112 "2004-01-15T22:31:43Z")
> [@Squink](#):
>
> 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.
---
### Author:  [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/113 "2004-01-15T23:28:10Z")
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?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/114 "2004-01-16T00:31:04Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/115 "2004-01-16T01:23:00Z")
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¬Found=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.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/116 "2004-01-16T07:52:11Z")
**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.
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/117 "2004-01-16T08:37:46Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#):
>
> 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:
---
### Author:  [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/118 "2004-01-16T09:05:26Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#):
>
> 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](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.
---
### Author:  [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/119 "2004-01-16T17:58:04Z")
> [@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?
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.
[nitpick]The document was [11,807 pages](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2552781.stm), not 13,000[/nitpick]
> [@Squink](#):
>
> What 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.
---
### Author:  [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897/120 "2004-01-16T18:29:51Z")
**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.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897.md?page=5)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cbs-60-minutes-iraq-war-planned-pre-9-11/223897.md?page=7)