ElvisL1ves:
Huh? I thought the White House was cooperating.
Some form of timetable. That’s the only thing that would prove that the plans were more than hypothetical, pending pretext.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Well someone on Team Bush has got a set of Brass Ones:
Corroborating O’Neill’s Account
This’ll make it tougher to work the “sour grapes” defense, or engage in massive retribution.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ElvisL1ves:
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
cmkeller:
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?
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.)
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.
Here 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.
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.
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!
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. 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.
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.
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?
To say that is to ignore a mountain of evidence.
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.
“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?