PDA

View Full Version : Who said this...GW or Kerry?



mred477
08-23-2004, 09:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." <hr /></blockquote>

New York Times Op Ed., September 6, 2002.

And the winner is.......John Kerry! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif How is it only now that the US "going it alone" is such a bad thing, when in 2002 it was perfectly acceptable?

Will

Ross
08-24-2004, 09:54 AM
I agree that Kerry has not been clear at all on his views toward the Iraq war. I don't mean the supposed "flip-flop" vote that the Kerry bashing ads like to trump up. I mean his statements in the last few months. Why would he support authorization to go to war with Iraq "knowing what we know now"? He may have good reasons (need to keep a US-friendly presence in the region, humanitarian desire to rid the world of an evil dictator), but I haven't heard them.

On the other hand, IMO Bush is worse on this issue, since it was not just an election campaign talk issue with him. He actually took the US to war and was dishonest about the real reasons why.

But I think Kerry (and the US in general) needs to clearly articulate when, where, and why the US should intervene in other countries. What is our general policy on this issue? The current "if it is in the US interest" is so vague as to be non-helpful. The US is like a company that has no clear goals and just makes up it's decisions on a reactive, ad hoc basis. No one knows where they are going- including themselves.

highsea
08-24-2004, 11:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>On the other hand, IMO Bush is worse on this issue, since it was not just an election campaign talk issue with him. He actually took the US to war and was dishonest about the real reasons why.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, it's true. Bush did what he said he would do. It wasn't Kerry's decision to make. But there is no doubt that he supported it. Now he is just making excuses so he can criticize GW.

Also, since you're being the Amazing Kreskin here, what was Bush's real reason?

-CM

Wally_in_Cincy
08-24-2004, 11:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> ...what was Bush's real reason?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Have you not heard? It was so Haliburton could make a big profit. DUUUUH !!!

highsea
08-24-2004, 11:39 AM
Oh, ok. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't because the Illuminati and the VWRC was implementing the new world order in preparation for the upcoming armegeddon when Planet X enters the solar system and sucks away all our gravity early last year.

If it's just about the oil, well I guess that's ok. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-CM

Qtec
08-24-2004, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why would he support authorization to go to war with Iraq "knowing what we know now"? <hr /></blockquote>

I couldnt believe he said that when I heard it.
He chickened out.

Q

pooltchr
08-24-2004, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>But I think Kerry (and the US in general) needs to clearly articulate when, where, and why the US should intervene in other countries. What is our general policy on this issue? The current "if it is in the US interest" is so vague as to be non-helpful. The US is like a company that has no clear goals and just makes up it's decisions on a reactive, ad hoc basis. No one knows where they are going- including themselves. <hr /></blockquote>

Ross,
What makes you think anyone in Washington, Republican or Democrat, is going to clearly articulate anything? Both parties are political machines that are going to put their own spin on whatever they do in order to gain or keep control of the offices they hold.
Clear concice and accurate statements from Washington????? Don't hold your breath, my friend.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-24-2004, 12:19 PM
What pisses me off is the contrails but I wouldn't mind so much if they were spraying DDT because the friggin' mosquitoes around here are absolutely making my life intolerable.

Ross
08-24-2004, 12:21 PM
Well, I'm not the Amazing Kreskin or amazing anything. But my opinion, based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, is that Bush pushed hard for his underlings to find evidence of a connection between Saddam and either 9/11 or Al Qaida. I don't see any evidence that he was as interested in establishing connections between these events and Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Indonesia, etc. So this all suggests that he already wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11 and was looking for justification to do so.

So, the bottom line is that if he wanted to overthrow Saddam prior to 9/11, his main reason was not likely to "fight the war on terrorism." If that was his real goal, he would have focused more on these other countries that were hotbeds of Al Qaida supporters.

I think his real goal was to finish what his father didn't do and to try to install a US friendly government in the Middle East since the power of the Saudi rulers to provide a safe haven for US military operations was increasingly in jeapordy. Since he couldn't say these reasons out loud, he instead trumped up the evidence that Saddam was an imminent danger to the US and that Iraq was significantly tied to Al Qaida. That is, he mislead the US and the world as to his real reasons for going in.

And even though US pressure on the UN to significantly toughen up the inspections was working (even the French agreed to support a UN resolution to triple the number of inspectors in Iraq a week or so before we invaded), Bush felt he couldn't afford to wait because the post-9/11 anti-terrorism mandate would weaken in coming months. Without that cover, how was Bush going to be able to convince the US citizens to support the invasion of Iraq that he wanted?

And I think that is why the US government lost so much credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world. The evidence for imminent danger to the US from Iraq WMD's and of the Iraq/Al Qaida connection was so shaky, especially in comparison to other countries that we weren't invading, that we ended up looking like liars and hypocrits. And since the stated reasons for invading Iraq looked bogus, it became a free market for others to make up reasons - "The US is anti-Islam", "The US wants to steal the oil", etc. And those explanations had resonence even among moderates in the MidEast since US credibility had been so damaged. And this has fueled Anti-American hatred which is a needed tool for Al Qaida recruitment and fund-raising.

The ironic thing is - I support ousting Saddam. But it should have done by showing leadership and building up a consensus among civilized countries that brutal dictators that kill and torture their own citizens will be replaced, by whatever means necessary. And this applies around the world - not just where US economic interests lie.

highsea
08-24-2004, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>But my opinion, based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, is that Bush pushed hard for his underlings to find evidence of a connection between Saddam and either 9/11 or Al Qaida. I don't see any evidence that he was as interested in establishing connections between these events and Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Indonesia, etc. So this all suggests that he already wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11 and was looking for justification to do so.<hr /></blockquote>
Ross, do you see the contradiction? Bush pushed hard on the Intelligence community to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. How does this indicate that he had his mind made up before 9/11?

If Bush already had his mind made up, why wasn't he beating the war drums prior to 9/11? The official policy in Iraq had been for regime change since 1998.

Every day the Iraqis shot at US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones. Why wasn't Bush increasing the tempo of our strikes, and working harder to build anti-Iraq sentiment in the US and the UN from the time he first took office (or made the decision)?

He really wasn't. The political tone towards Iraq during Bush's first 8 months was basically the same as it had been for several years.

This argues that it was after 9/11 that he made his decision to take out Saddam. The pressure on the intelligence community and the UN, the State of the Union Address, Harsh demands on Iraq for unfettered inspections, etc.

Now, maybe it was a pretty easy decision for him in a post 9/11 world, but I don't believe for a second that he had made his mind up prior to the attacks. There's just no evidence to support that argument.

And consider this, Afghanistan was still the first order of the day. We didn't go into Iraq until March 2003, after the Taliban was overthtrown and operations in Afghanistan had been reduced to essentially nothing more than a big manhunt.

So, if Bush's mind was made up before 9/11, why did he wait so long? We have two Carrier Strike Forces in the Arabian Gulf, within two weeks we could have had seven there. GW could have started shooting on 9/12 if he wanted to.

But he didn't He waited for 19 months. He waited for the intelligence to build, he tried to get more International support and UN authorization, and when it was clear that he had all the help he was going to get, then he gave the go-ahead.

-CM

eg8r
08-24-2004, 01:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that Kerry has not been clear at all on his views toward the Iraq war. I don't mean the supposed "flip-flop" vote that the Kerry bashing ads like to trump up. <hr /></blockquote> So are you saying the flip-flop trumped up ads were clear about his views on Iraq? What part of the flip flop ads on his views of Iraq do you disagree with? Kerry stated it himself, "I voted for the war before I voted against it". Is that trumped up, or do you not believe it is a flip flop of views?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, IMO Bush is worse on this issue, since it was not just an election campaign talk issue with him. He actually took the US to war and was dishonest about the real reasons why. <hr /></blockquote> Have the real reasons why been reported? If so where did you hear them, and how did you compare them to what was earlier said by Bush. Also, if we are to believe what you say, Bush was dishonest, then are we to just ignore the fact that the 9/11 commission did not feel Bush was being dishonest?

[ QUOTE ]
The US is like a company that has no clear goals and just makes up it's decisions on a reactive, ad hoc basis. <hr /></blockquote> Are you suggesting maybe to be a little more proactive?

[ QUOTE ]
No one knows where they are going- including themselves. <hr /></blockquote> This could be true.

eg8r

Ross
08-24-2004, 03:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>But my opinion, based on the totality of the evidence I've seen, is that Bush pushed hard for his underlings to find evidence of a connection between Saddam and either 9/11 or Al Qaida. I don't see any evidence that he was as interested in establishing connections between these events and Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Indonesia, etc. So this all suggests that he already wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11 and was looking for justification to do so.<hr /></blockquote>
Ross, do you see the contradiction? Bush pushed hard on the Intelligence community to find a connection between Iraq and 9/11. How does this indicate that he had his mind made up before 9/11?

<font color="blue">No, I don't see the contradiction. If he didn't already have reasons for wanting to invade Iraq before 9/11, he wouldn't have pushed Iraq to the front of his list, and he wouldn't have ignored intelligence that suggested that Iraq was very peripheral to the whole thing. </font color>

If Bush already had his mind made up, why wasn't he beating the war drums prior to 9/11? The official policy in Iraq had been for regime change since 1998.

<font color="blue">Because he couldn't sell a "regime change" war to congress, the US citizens, or the world. He needed post 9/11 anger and anti-terrorist rationale to sell the overthrow of a sovereign country. It's the same reason his father didn't do it. </font color>

Every day the Iraqis shot at US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones. Why wasn't Bush increasing the tempo of our strikes, and working harder to build anti-Iraq sentiment in the US and the UN from the time he first took office (or made the decision)?

<font color="blue">I just don't think he had enough to work with. To abandon the UN sanctioned process was too big a step before the 9/11 justification.</font color>

He really wasn't. The political tone towards Iraq during Bush's first 8 months was basically the same as it had been for several years.

<font color="blue">I agree that the tone was the same. But something was simmering or Bush wouldn't be saying "finger Iraq" after 9/11. </font color>

This argues that it was after 9/11 that he made his decision to take out Saddam. The pressure on the intelligence community and the UN, the State of the Union Address, Harsh demands on Iraq for unfettered inspections, etc.

Now, maybe it was a pretty easy decision for him in a post 9/11 world, but I don't believe for a second that he had made his mind up prior to the attacks. There's just no evidence to support that argument.

<font color="blue"> I agree that he made the decision to do it post 9/11. That is when the opportunity arose. But he picked on Iraq instead of the other Al Qaida countries because of reasons unrelated to imminent danger and Al Qaida connections. There is ample evidence for this bias in interpreting the intelligence data. </font color>
And consider this, Afghanistan was still the first order of the day. We didn't go into Iraq until March 2003, after the Taliban was overthtrown and operations in Afghanistan had been reduced to essentially nothing more than a big manhunt.

So, if Bush's mind was made up before 9/11, why did he wait so long? We have two Carrier Strike Forces in the Arabian Gulf, within two weeks we could have had seven there. GW could have started shooting on 9/12 if he wanted to.

But he didn't He waited for 19 months. He waited for the intelligence to build, he tried to get more International support and UN authorization, and when it was clear that he had all the help he was going to get, then he gave the go-ahead.

<font color="blue">
Well, I think you answered your own question. He couldn't go in right away because there was no support for it at that time. It took many months to construct a semi-believable case that Iraq was an imminently dangerous, Al Qaida haven. It would have gone quicker if it were true.

But again, I agree the DECISION to invade was probably not made until 9/11. But there were unstated reasons why Bush made the decision that THIS PARTICULAR COUNTRY country would be the focus. Afghanistan was a no-brainer. Iraq was a stretch.
</font color>


-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Ross
08-24-2004, 03:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I agree that Kerry has not been clear at all on his views toward the Iraq war. I don't mean the supposed "flip-flop" vote that the Kerry bashing ads like to trump up. <hr /></blockquote> So are you saying the flip-flop trumped up ads were clear about his views on Iraq? What part of the flip flop ads on his views of Iraq do you disagree with? Kerry stated it himself, "I voted for the war before I voted against it". Is that trumped up, or do you not believe it is a flip flop of views?

<font color="blue">The short version: I think when the initial vote on authorizing the Pres to use force in Iraq was taken, there was a strong feeling in Congress that we needed to portray unity to pressure Saddam to cooperate with UN inspections. That is why the vote was almost unanimous even across Dems and Republicans. Also, there was a feeling of "let's give Bush the benefit of the doubt."

I think the authorization for the 87 billion of additional funds was a different situation in that it was a more political bill. It was a mishmash with a lot of different elements to it. 125 House members and 12 senators voted against it. Kerry offered an admendment to the bill that called for the 87 billion to be paid for by a delay in the tax cut. When the admendment was opposed and defeated by the supposedly "conservative" Republican White House, Kerry decided to vote against it. Another factor was that the "benefit of the doubt" element was gone because the administration had obviously done a poor job of planning for post-war Iraq.

It's sort of like you tell me you can do a job for me, I have my doubts, but I decide to give you a fair shot. If you botch the job, then I don't owe you any more breaks.

I also think the vote was political in that Dean was kicking butt with his anti-war stance at the time. Before you condemn Kerry for this, remember that the Republicans typically serve up some raw meat votes for the religious right in the months right before each election. Bush knew the Gay Marriage admendment had no chance, but it would endear him to the religious right. Kerry knew the 87 billion would pass, but he needed the anti-war vote in the primaries. Get over it - we're not in Kansas anymore. It happens.
</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
On the other hand, IMO Bush is worse on this issue, since it was not just an election campaign talk issue with him. He actually took the US to war and was dishonest about the real reasons why. <hr /></blockquote> Have the real reasons why been reported? If so where did you hear them, and how did you compare them to what was earlier said by Bush. Also, if we are to believe what you say, Bush was dishonest, then are we to just ignore the fact that the 9/11 commission did not feel Bush was being dishonest?

<font color="blue">I think the 9/11 commission decided to focus on the future. It realized that a bill that assigned blame to either party was not going to get out of a bipartisan committee in an elections year. There was some "generosity" in the assessment of the performance of Clinton and Bush. Technically, I don't think Bush lied. But he selectively interpreted evidence to come up with a conclusion that he favored. This can be labeled dishonest or not - it depends on whether you like the guy. It's the old "He's skinny, your thin, I'm svelte" routine.

</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
The US is like a company that has no clear goals and just makes up it's decisions on a reactive, ad hoc basis. <hr /></blockquote> Are you suggesting maybe to be a little more proactive?

<font color="blue">Yes, very much so! But proactive means more than military interventions. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No one knows where they are going- including themselves. <hr /></blockquote> This could be true.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Ahhh, I think we agree too much! </font color>

eg8r
08-25-2004, 06:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Get over it - we're not in Kansas anymore. It happens.
<hr /></blockquote> Yep, you got it all figured out. You just know exactly what they are thinking. The problem with your whole scenario is Kerry's history. He has never been the type of guy to just go with the flow for the "benefit of the doubt".

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, very much so! But proactive means more than military interventions. <hr /></blockquote> It might mean more than military interventions, however it certainly includes them.

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhh, I think we agree too much! <hr /></blockquote> It would be too boring if we always agreed. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-25-2004, 06:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, I don't see the contradiction. If he didn't already have reasons for wanting to invade Iraq before 9/11, he wouldn't have pushed Iraq to the front of his list, and he wouldn't have ignored intelligence that suggested that Iraq was very peripheral to the whole thing.
<hr /></blockquote> Iraq was moved to second on the list. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Also, what are you talking about Bush ignoring intelligence suggesting Iraq was peripheral to the whole thing? Bush has never told the American public that Saddam was linked to 9/11.

[ QUOTE ]
Because he couldn't sell a "regime change" war to congress, the US citizens, or the world. He needed post 9/11 anger and anti-terrorist rationale to sell the overthrow of a sovereign country. <hr /></blockquote> This is believable but it is in no dishonest...Saddam was a terrorist.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-25-2004, 07:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr>
...He needed post 9/11 anger and anti-terrorist rationale to sell the overthrow of a sovereign country....

<hr /></blockquote>

"Sovereign country"? Nazi Germany was also a sovereign country.

highsea
08-25-2004, 07:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> But again, I agree the DECISION to invade was probably not made until 9/11. But there were unstated reasons why Bush made the decision that THIS PARTICULAR COUNTRY country would be the focus. Afghanistan was a no-brainer. Iraq was a stretch.<hr /></blockquote>Ross, after 9/11, the President was forced to reassess all the terrorist threats to the US. As I have stated many times, Saddam was a terrorist. He supported Hamas and Hizbollah. He ran a hijacking camp in the desert outside of Baghdad. He paid off families of suicide bombers. He harbored terrorists in Iraq. Prior to 9/11, Hamas had killed more Americans than al-qaeda.

The policy of the US was regime change in Iraq. After 9/11, that policy took on a much higher priority.

The war on terror is not one-dimensional. We can't just stop at Afghanistan if we expect to be successful. It was in this context that Bush made the decision to go after Saddam. And it's why the administration says "You can't separate Iraq and al-qaeda". They are each part of the same problem.

-CM

Ross
08-25-2004, 11:08 AM
Wally, you are right, Nazi Germany was sovereign. And look how far THEY had to go before we decide to invade!

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

Now, maybe it was a pretty easy decision for him in a post 9/11 world, but I don't believe for a second that he had made his mind up prior to the attacks. There's just no evidence to support that argument.
-CM <hr /></blockquote>

The "National Security Strategy" that was drafted in '02 by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others was based largely and almost verbatim on PNAC's "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" (2000). These folks have written that they have had their sights on Iraq since before Desert Storm and have kept at it ever since. As Ross stated, they couldn't justify to congress unilateral military action until 911. Look up the documents, they're there. I think the evidence of a pre-911 "waiting for the right time" agenda for Iraq outweighs the intelligence (botched and spun) of Iraq posing any imminent danger to the US.

A link to the links:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=153095&amp;page=0&amp;v iew=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1

Peace,
DC

highsea
08-25-2004, 12:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>* “North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or similar states [should not be allowed] to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies, or threaten the American homeland itself.”<hr /></blockquote>This is the only reference to Iraq in your post. (PNAC statement, pre-dating 9/11) This statement gives equal weight to all 3 "axis" countries.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>These folks have written that they have had their sights on Iraq since before Desert Storm and have kept at it ever since.<hr /></blockquote> You do not support your argument, so it's just your opinion. If they have written this, as you say, then show me. Also you have to show that the policy was adopted by the administration prior to 9/11.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>Look up the documents, they're there. I think the evidence of a pre-911 "waiting for the right time" agenda for Iraq outweighs the intelligence (botched and spun) of Iraq posing any imminent danger to the US.<hr /></blockquote>Dream on. It is up to you to present the evidence. I am not going to sift through your posts looking for evidence to support your contention. If the evidence is there, present it.

-CM

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 01:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Dream on. It is up to you to present the evidence. I am not going to sift through your posts looking for evidence to support your contention. If the evidence is there, present it.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

I meant that the links that I provided in that thread had much pertinent information if you cared to look at it with an open mind.

I don't disagree with all of the policies put forth by PNAC, but overall, the underlying feel of global strongarm tactics is frightening. If you don't want to believe that Bush and co. is adopting these policies, fine. Turn a blind eye.

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

[ QUOTE ]
The Project for the New American Century
A vision for American global leadership


This draft called for the United States to use its unmatched military power to prohibit any other nation in the world from rivaling the power of the United States, the only remaining superpower after the fall of the Soviet Union, and to safeguard "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil." This recommendation included military intervention in Iraq to safeguard this "raw material." This document was not intended for public view and after it was leaked to the New York Times it caused alarm among U.S. allies and Congress. It was later revised.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

- From the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance

While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

.............The new Bush Administration took power soon after this (2000) report, and included Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant to the President I. Lewis Libby, and Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle. Of the eighteen signers of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton calling for Saddam's removal, ten currently serve in the Bush Administration. <font color="red"> Ten days after Bush's inauguration, removing Saddam Hussein was the principal topic of discussion at his first National Security Council meeting. Interest in Iraq's oilfields was detailed in Vice President Cheney's secret energy meetings, also early in 2001 (see the Dick Cheney page for more information on his Energy Task Force).
......The "new Pearl Harbor" envisioned by PNAC occurred with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and killed approximately 3,000 American citizens. Within five hours of the attacks, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was advising his staff to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist strikes and to explore the idea of hitting Saddam Hussein at the same time as Osama Bin Laden (see the Donald Rumsfeld page for more information on his efforts to defend America). In a letter to President George W. Bush only nine days later, PNAC urged the removal of Saddam Hussein "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the [9-11] attack."
......The same day, September 20, 2001, the White House released the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America."
............Also consistent with PNAC goals: The Bush Administration skillfully used British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a supportive "sidekick" in the war with Iraq while it defied the United Nations by acting without support of the U.N. Security Council; three of the five hostile regimes described by PNAC have been identified as the "axis of evil" by President Bush, and one of them, Iraq, has been occupied by U.S. forces; Bush withdrew the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is pushing for a national missile defense, and proposing new nuclear weapon designs known as "mini-nukes" and "bunker-busters" (see the Foreign Policy page for more information on our new nuclear developments).
........."It was all about finding a way to [invade Iraq]. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."
-Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill
Describing Bush's first National Security Council Meeting in January 2001 </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

How's that. There's alot more, if you care to look elsewhere.
Peace
DC

pooltchr
08-25-2004, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Wally, you are right, Nazi Germany was sovereign. And look how far THEY had to go before we decide to invade! <hr /></blockquote>

Ross...Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that we should wait until problems escalate to the point that Nazi Germany reached before we should take action???

Ross
08-25-2004, 02:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Wally, you are right, Nazi Germany was sovereign. And look how far THEY had to go before we decide to invade! <hr /></blockquote>

Ross...Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that we should wait until problems escalate to the point that Nazi Germany reached before we should take action??? <hr /></blockquote>

No, I'm saying we should stop the Bush administration now!

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 02:16 PM
Hahahaha! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

nAz
08-25-2004, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Wally, you are right, Nazi Germany was sovereign. And look how far THEY had to go before we decide to invade! <hr /></blockquote>

Ross...Not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that we should wait until problems escalate to the point that Nazi Germany reached before we should take action???



<hr /></blockquote>No, I'm saying we should stop the Bush administration now! <hr /></blockquote>

Oh sh!t bwahahahahaa

highsea
08-25-2004, 02:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> How's that. Directly from his own website, and there's alot more, if you care to look elsewhere.
Peace
DC <hr /></blockquote>All I can say is you are more naive than I thought. Bush's own website??? Hahahaha. Here's a quote from the Cheney section. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote liberal joke website:</font><hr>While serving in the House of Representatives, Dick Cheney solidified his reputation as a man of principle. In 1986, he voted against a resolution calling for the release of South African political prisoner Nelson Mandela. He stands by that vote even today, noting that the African National Congress, the main political body supporting Mandela, was "viewed as a terrorist organization."<hr /></blockquote>It then goes on with a long dissertation about Cheney's former business relations with KBR and Haliburton. Oh, yeah sure. This is a Pro-Bush website. ROFL Here's another one: <blockquote><font class="small">Quote liberal joke website:</font><hr>Vice President Cheney took his claim of secrecy for these energy meetings to the Supreme Court. In January 2004, Cheney took Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on a duck-hunting trip on a Louisiana hunting camp owned by an oil industry executive. Cheney did this to ensure the Supreme Court's ruling would be as unbiased as possible. <hr /></blockquote>

Let me tell you something. This website is a joke. It's made for people just like you. It is a well done but obvious example of "Damning with Faint Praise" I did a lookup on the Domain to see who was really running it, and the people behind it are pertty well hidden. I will do a little more investigation and see if I can find out who is really behind it. "Follow the Money," so to speak.

There's so much B.S. here that I don't know where to start. Frankly, it's not worth the time.

Here's the disclaimer at the end of the page: <blockquote><font class="small">Quote liberal joke website:</font><hr>This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been authorized by the copyright owner. This material has been reproduced in an effort to encourage critical thought on the record of the Bush Administration. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any copyrighted material as described in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If anyone wishes to reproduce copyrighted material from this or any site for purposes of 'fair use' or beyond, you may visit www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107) for a description of 'fair use' and obtain permission from the copyright owner when necessary. <hr /></blockquote>

Now, I'm still waiting for your evidence that Bush had decided to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. From a serious source, if you don't mind.

-CM

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 02:54 PM
Yeah, sorry 'bout that, I was checking into the site while you were replying. That's what you get from a quick google.

However, a lot of the info is accurate. Just because the site is slanderous, doesn't mean that all of it is untrue. They do quote sources for their articles.

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 03:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

Now, I'm still waiting for your evidence that Bush had decided to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. From a serious source, if you don't mind.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Alot of the PNAC documents are proof enough to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others have had their plans since the early nineties. Bush is just along for the ride.
I'm working on finding you a link, since you seem to insist that if you can't find it on the net, it isn't true. LOL

~DC

highsea
08-25-2004, 03:14 PM
David, the authors don't even credit themselves for their articles. It's a sham on the Michael Moore model of misquoting and misinterpreting.

The thing to do is go to the source articles, read them, and then come to a conclusion based on the original article. I don't let other people digest my information for me.

So if you can produce credible information from these source documents to back up your claims, then by all means, present them and I will give it a fair hearing.

The question is this: Did Bush have his mind made up about invading Iraq prior to 9/11?

-CM

eg8r
08-25-2004, 03:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, sorry 'bout that, I was checking into the site while you were replying. That's what you get from a quick google.
<hr /></blockquote> Begs to question if you are that quick to shoot from the hip on all your "facts". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 03:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>


So if you can produce credible information from these source documents to back up your claims, then by all means, present them and I will give it a fair hearing.

The question is this: Did Bush have his mind made up about invading Iraq prior to 9/11?

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

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

[ QUOTE ]
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.




(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "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."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

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.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq." <hr /></blockquote>

There's one.

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 03:30 PM
Another:

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

[ QUOTE ]
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' <hr /></blockquote>

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 03:43 PM
Another (same O'Neill story, different source):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

[ QUOTE ]
Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

“Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. <hr /></blockquote>

That's enough for now..........

Peace,
DC

highsea
08-25-2004, 03:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <font color="blue">I agree that the tone was the same. But something was simmering or Bush wouldn't be saying "finger Iraq" after 9/11. </font color><hr /></blockquote>I agree things had been simmering. [ QUOTE ]
Regime Change

On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM. The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

Two week later, November 14, Iraq resumed cooperation with UNSCOM, averting U.S and British air strikes.

On December 8, National Security Advisor Berger delivered an address at Stanford University on U.S. policy on Iraq. He stated:

"As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

"Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

"For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them."

"We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is 'through a government in Baghdad - a new government - that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.' Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him."

On December 9, Iraq again resumed obstructing inspection activities and shortly thereafter UNSCOM withdrew inspectors from Iraq.


Desert Fox and a "threat of the future"

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq. "I acted quickly because, as my military advisors stressed, the longer we waited, the more time Saddam would have to disburse his forces and protect his arsenal," Clinton explained in his December 19 radio address to the nation. "Our mission is clear: to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction."43 (It should be noted that on July 27, 2003 President Clinton assessed the effectiveness of Desert Fox. He stated: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know." )

Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign "looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission." She answered:

"We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.

Secretary Cohen replied much the same way to comments made in March of 1998 by Senator Campbell of Colorado, who chided the administration for not keeping the "coalition together" during an Appropriations Committee hearing. Cohen responded:

And that's one of the reasons why you haven't seen the kind of solidarity that we had before; much harder when the case is the threat of weapons of mass destruction versus Saddam Hussein setting off 600 oil wells in the field of Kuwait and seeing that kind of threat, which is real and tangible, as opposed to one which might take place some time in the future, as far as the use of his chemical and biologicals.

On December 19, Saddam Hussein declared that inspectors would never be allowed back in Iraq. Inspectors wouldn't return to Iraq for five years.<hr /></blockquote>
http://newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

-CM

crawdaddio
08-25-2004, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Bush has never told the American public that Saddam was linked to 9/11.



eg8r


<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3206-2002Sep25?language=printer
President Bush asserted a link yesterday between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network, saying he fears they will join forces and are already virtually indistinguishable.

"The danger is, is that they work in concert," Bush said. "The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

A few hours before Bush's remarks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked by reporters traveling with him in Warsaw if there are linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq. "I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," he replied.


To the average american that hears this, it goes like this: Saddam tied to Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is responsible for 911! Let's get him!

Hence, by alluding to it, Bush knows the people will make that connection. So in a roundabout way, you are wrong.

Qtec
08-25-2004, 08:08 PM
Let me help. I think this was what you were looking for.

[ QUOTE ]
America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Good luck!

Q

highsea
08-25-2004, 08:18 PM
And the date of this statement: June 3, 1997

Interesting that most of this so called "evidence" seems to date from the Clinton administration. Also interesting is the number of these policies that were adopted by Clinton.

It looks to me like the PNAC had a lot more influence over Clinton than they had over Bush.

-CM

highsea
08-25-2004, 08:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> &lt;snip&gt;....
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
There's one. <hr /></blockquote>Apparently there were some problems with Suskind's proof.


[ QUOTE ]
"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional news story also contained that claim).

"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil &amp; Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

-CM

Qtec
08-25-2004, 08:53 PM
Ok, for once I,m going to give GW the benefit of the doubt!

[ I have this vision of now of eg8r reading this and choking on his sandwich, Wally just sprayed his beer all over his PC[ LOL]and Highsea has left the PC to pour himself a Large JD.HaHa. NaZ has lost all faith in humanity.LOL]

I,m serious.

Picture this. After 9/11 and Cheney goes to GW and says,
"This is the work of OBL and Al Q. We think Saddam was involved but we cant prove it".
GW[ enraged] "Find the evidence. Finger him!"

Lets face it,GW is not smart enough to know when he is being manipulated,especially if its being done by someone he trusts.


Q

I dont trust Cheney, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. I really do think they have their own agenda.

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 06:09 AM
Thanks, but that doesn't help. I am trying to show that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has wanted to unseat Saddam from power since (or before) desert storm. I don't understand why highsea cannot believe this. It seems perfectly logical. They openly wanted it with desert storm, and he (highsea) admits that it was a top priority since '98.

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 06:18 AM
A blog? Man you are stretching. Even IF this disproves O'Neill's claims about these doc's, it does nothing to disprove the fact that ten of eighteen members of PNAC are now in Bush's admin. PNAC policy has always been to take control (of the output) of the middle east oil supplies.

When I am looking to disprove something, I look at articles on both sides to attempt to come to a logical conclusion. Did you even seek out any info on PNAC? Or just immediatley search to DISPROVE O'Neill?

Blogs, as you know, are editorials. While they can provide some good info, I have to take into consideration the opinion of the author.

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 06:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
It looks to me like the PNAC had a lot more influence over Clinton than they had over Bush.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

True, a letter was written to Clinton (by PNAC) urging him to invade Iraq. However, it is preposterous to think this. Ten PNAC members are now in the Bush admin.(Vice pres., sec. of defense, etc...I could list them all if I had time, gotta go to work...) You can't get closer to swaying the pres. than that.

pooltchr
08-26-2004, 06:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> Thanks, but that doesn't help. I am trying to show that Bush's ADMINISTRATION has wanted to unseat Saddam from power since (or before) desert storm. I don't understand why highsea cannot believe this. It seems perfectly logical. They openly wanted it with desert storm, and he (highsea) admits that it was a top priority since '98. <hr /></blockquote>

Did you read the post by highsea? It seems that Sadam was considered a viable threat well before Bush took office. I would think the information the Clinton administration had would have been passed to Bush during the transition. If Bush had been given this information and just tucked it away, who knows what might have happened. It seems that he took the information seriously, and began to develop a plan to deal with it. If the previous administration had acted on this rather than sitting on it, would you have condemned them? Personally, I like the idea that the leader of our country is acting like a real leader.

nhp
08-26-2004, 07:13 AM
<hr /></blockquote>

Did you read the post by highsea? It seems that Sadam was considered a viable threat well before Bush took office. I would think the information the Clinton administration had would have been passed to Bush during the transition. If Bush had been given this information and just tucked it away, who knows what might have happened. It seems that he took the information seriously, and began to develop a plan to deal with it. If the previous administration had acted on this rather than sitting on it, would you have condemned them? Personally, I like the idea that the leader of our country is acting like a real leader. <hr /></blockquote>

You are correct that Saddam was considered a threat, but so were other countries. Can you please explain to me whom you consider a bigger threat- Saddam or Osama? Being that Osama was the only one out of the two that launched a successful attack against our country, that makes Osama the bigger threat. So, if Osama was considered to be somewhere in the region of Afghanistan/Pakistan, why would we send 95% of our manpower over to Iraq, and leave just a few soldiers in Afghanistan? Why spend all this time and money focusing on the lesser of the two threats, while Osama slips into the shadows? Invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban was a good choice, but why SUDDENLY shift our concentration elsewhere? That defies logic if you are trying to run a successful war on terror.

I really do think Bush is a great president for war, but I feel that he made a terrible decision to invade Iraq at the time that he did. I mean, all of the reasons he used BEFORE we invaded, have proven to be false assumptions, with the exception that Saddam was a threat to us. We should have STAYED ON OSAMA'S ASS, and then perhaps considered invading Iraq and taking care of Saddam. And for those of you who will argue saying that we have not lessened our effort to capture or kill Osama, you are wrong. Every single day more and more of our troops in the Afghanistan region are being transported to Iraq. In fact, we barely have any soldiers over there anymore. Bad timing Bush, very bad timing.

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 07:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

Did you read the post by highsea? It seems that Sadam was considered a viable threat well before Bush took office. I would think the information the Clinton administration had would have been passed to Bush during the transition. If Bush had been given this information and just tucked it away, who knows what might have happened. It seems that he took the information seriously, and began to develop a plan to deal with it. If the previous administration had acted on this rather than sitting on it, would you have condemned them? Personally, I like the idea that the leader of our country is acting like a real leader. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I did read it. My point exactly. No, I would not have condemned him, nor do I contend the fact that Saddam was an evil, brutal dictator. All I'm trying to say is that Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, and some others have wanted to remove him since the early nineties, and used 911 as an open door to it. They (and Clinton) couldn't just invade without either support from the UN or a damn good reason. 911 became that reason. I don't think highsea can admit this to himself because he wants to believe that Bush is fighting a just war. The war on terror is justified, but is being executed ass-backwardly, and is not focusing enough on real terrorists.

~DC

Wally_in_Cincy
08-26-2004, 08:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> ....So, if Osama was considered to be somewhere in the region of Afghanistan/Pakistan, why would we send 95% of our manpower over to Iraq, and leave just a few soldiers in Afghanistan?....<hr /></blockquote>

OBL is assumed to be in the mountains of Western Pakistan. We really can't send guys in there because the Moslem fundamentalists would go nuts on Musharaf if they found out. The only law in that region is the warlords.

There are teams of special forces operating in Eastern Afghanistan basically schmooozing the locals and gathering information. That's about all they can do.

There is no way you should send a huge force in there to look for OBL. He's not there anyway.

pooltchr
08-26-2004, 08:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> They (and Clinton) couldn't just invade without either support from the UN or a damn good reason. 911 became that reason. <hr /></blockquote>

In other words, if 9-11 had happened while Clinton was in office, then he would have had justification to do the same thing that Bush has done?????????????????????

highsea
08-26-2004, 10:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> A blog? Man you are stretching. Even IF this disproves O'Neill's claims about these doc's, it does nothing to disprove the fact that ten of eighteen members of PNAC are now in Bush's admin. PNAC policy has always been to take control (of the output) of the middle east oil supplies.

When I am looking to disprove something, I look at articles on both sides to attempt to come to a logical conclusion. Did you even seek out any info on PNAC? Or just immediatley search to DISPROVE O'Neill?

Blogs, as you know, are editorials. While they can provide some good info, I have to take into consideration the opinion of the author. <hr /></blockquote>Can you disprove what was reported about O'Neil and the 60 Minutes show?

Just because it was reported on a Blog does not disprove the story. It was also reported on the Drudge Report, and the LINKS are provided! You can see the documents for yourself! They are from the CHENEY TASK FORCE on energy!

So how is it a stretch???? Can you show me it not true????

I'm not trying to disprove that PNAC contributors are in the Bush administration, I am showing that O'Neil's claims were BOGUS! You trotted it out as proof that GW had already made his mind up to invade Iraq, not me.

Try again.

edit: changed BW to GW in last sentence. Sorry Bluewolf, I wasn't talking about you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

-CM

eg8r
08-26-2004, 10:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The war on terror is justified, but is being executed ass-backwardly, and is not focusing enough on real terrorists. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, go tell all those families that have lost loved ones, because Saddam had them killed, and try to tell them that Saddam was not a 'real' terrorist. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I wonder if those Olympian Iraqi soccer players are happy the fake terrorist is no longer in power.

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2004, 10:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Man you are stretching. Even IF this disproves O'Neill's claims about these doc's, it does nothing to disprove the fact that ten of eighteen members of PNAC are now in Bush's admin. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, sounds like a playground argument. You say something, highsea disproves everything you say, and then you say, "oh yeah, well, well, then what about this?". It only takes time for him to shoot you down again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2004, 10:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, for once I,m going to give GW the benefit of the doubt!

[ I have this vision of now of eg8r reading this and choking on his sandwich, Wally just sprayed his beer all over his PC[ LOL]and Highsea has left the PC to pour himself a Large JD.HaHa. NaZ has lost all faith in humanity.LOL]
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, that is pretty funny. I was sitting here at lunch while reading this. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You should join the Edwards legal team, he can hold the seance's and you can give visions. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You should find someone with a ouija board. That would be the icing on the cake.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets face it,GW is not smart enough to know when he is being manipulated,especially if its being done by someone he trusts.
<hr /></blockquote> This is true of everyone on the planet at some point in time.

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2004, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
President Bush asserted a link yesterday between Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network, saying he fears they will join forces and are already virtually indistinguishable.

"The danger is, is that they work in concert," Bush said. "The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

A few hours before Bush's remarks, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was asked by reporters traveling with him in Warsaw if there are linkages between al Qaeda and Iraq. "I have no desire to go beyond saying the answer is yes," he replied.


To the average american that hears this, it goes like this: Saddam tied to Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is responsible for 911! Let's get him!
<hr /></blockquote> What the average american (unable to comprehend english) and what was actually said are two different things. I don't care at all, not one iota, of your manipulated interpretation of Bush's statements. They are there in plain english and that is all you get. I don't for one second believe you are smart enough or that you obtain some supernatural powers to get into his brain and really know what he is thinking. All we get is what is said. You are making things up as you go.

There is no doubt that Saddam has links to AQ. That does not mean Saddam was part of 9/11. This is tough for you to believe, I understand, because you have an agenda to prove Bush is the bad guy. Your agenda was pretty clear in another thread when you stated that you believe America is the bad guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif This is my interpretation of your posts, we are were mean to the other guys, and you believe they were justified on 9/11. Ok so be it, it is just good to know who the other guy is in the discussion.

eg8r

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 11:07 AM
Post deleted by crawdaddio

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 11:14 AM
No, you misunderstand me. I don't think 911 justified anyone to invade Iraq. I don't think the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been proven. If you have proof, show me, I'll look at it.

If Bush had said to the UN and the world, "Saddam is an evil dictator, and we would like to remove him for humanitarian reasons." And the UN Sec. Council agreed, then I would have no quarrel. It's the lying to accomplish alterior objectives and US profit that I have a problem with.

highsea
08-26-2004, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Ok, for once I,m going to give GW the benefit of the doubt! <font color="red"> Who are you and what have you done with Qtec?? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

[ I have this vision of now of eg8r reading this and choking on his sandwich, Wally just sprayed his beer all over his PC[ LOL]and Highsea has left the PC to pour himself a Large JD.HaHa. NaZ has lost all faith in humanity.LOL] <font color="red"> JD? Eeewww. Actually it's Crown Royal! Lol. American Whiskey sucks! (haha. sorry folks, I'm a Canadian whiskey guy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif )</font color>

I,m serious.

Picture this. After 9/11 and Cheney goes to GW and says,
"This is the work of OBL and Al Q. We think Saddam was involved but we cant prove it".
GW[ enraged] "Find the evidence. Finger him!"
<font color="red"> Now this I can almost buy into. It's the claim that he had made the decision to invade Iraq prior to 9/11 that I have seen no evidence to support.

If fact, I have shown here that there was no policy shift towards Iraq in GW's first 8 months in office. It was business as usual, following 3 year old policies (which, as Crawdaddio has shown us, were written by the PNAC and adopted by Clinton).

The Bush and Company war drums didn't start beating till after 9/11. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

-CM

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

I'm not trying to disprove that PNAC contributors are in the Bush administration, I am showing that O'Neil's claims were BOGUS! You trotted it out as proof that GW had already made his mind up to invade Iraq, not me.


-CM <hr /></blockquote>

This (PNAC) is proof enough for me. If it is not for you, then we disagree. I only brought up the O'Neill story in response to your call to show source articles for what I quoted earlier.

I think I'm about done trying to prove something to you that you already agreed with:

[quote highsea]The official policy in Iraq had been for regime change since 1998. <hr /></blockquote>

Anyways, although we disagree alot, I respect your opinion, and I think I would enjoy a cold brew and few racks over some political debate sometime. It's kinda hard on a forum.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-26-2004, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> ...If Bush had said to the UN and the world, "Saddam is an evil dictator, and we would like to remove him for humanitarian reasons." And the UN Sec. Council agreed, then I would have no quarrel...... <hr /></blockquote>

they did. 17 times

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 11:50 AM
But the UN disagreed.

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 12:03 PM
One more:

[ QUOTE ]
Cheney, Energy and Iraq War
By Larry Everest
The San Francisco Chronicle
March 21, 2004

Supreme Court to Rule on Secrecy

The case Cheney vs. U.S. District Court is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court next month and could end up revealing more about the Bush administration's motives for the 2003 Iraq war than any conceivable investigation of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction.

The plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, the conservative legal group based in Washington, argue that Vice President Cheney and his staff violated the open-government Federal Advisory Committee Act by meeting behind closed doors with energy industry executives, analysts and lobbyists.

The plaintiffs allege these discussions occurred during the formulation of the Bush administration's May 2001 "National Energy Policy."

For close to three years, Cheney and the administration have resisted demands that they reveal with whom they met and what they discussed.

Last year, a lower court ruled against Cheney and instructed him to turn over documents providing these details.

On Dec. 15, the Supreme Court announced it would hear Cheney's appeal. Three weeks later, Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent a weekend together duck hunting at a private resort in southern Louisiana, giving rise to calls for Scalia to recuse himself. So far, he has refused.

Why has the administration gone to such lengths to avoid disclosing how it developed its new energy policy?

Significant evidence points to the possibility that much more could be revealed than mere corporate cronyism: The national energy policy proceedings could open a window onto the Bush administration's decision-making process and motives for going to war on Iraq.

In July 2003, after two years of legal action through the Freedom of Information Act (and after the end of the war), Judicial Watch was finally able to obtain some documents from the Cheney-led National Energy Policy Development Group.

They included maps of Middle East and Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, two charts detailing various Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a March 2001 list of "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," detailing the status of their efforts. The documents are available at www.judicialwatch.org. (http://www.judicialwatch.org.)

These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century."

U.N. sanctions against Iraq, maintained at the insistence of the United States and Britain, prevented these deals from being consummated.

Saddam Hussein's removal in 2003 has left the deals in a state of limbo, but the Bush administration's insistence that only countries supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom are eligible for postwar reconstruction does not bode well for French and Russian concerns.

An April 2001 report by the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the Baker Institute for Public Policy -- commissioned by Cheney to help shape the new energy policy -- also devoted serious attention to Iraq.

The report, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," complained about Hussein's oil leverage:

"Tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government. ... Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East.

"Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets."

<font color="red"> Significantly, the report concluded that the United States should immediately review its Iraq policy, including its military options.</font color>

There are many other indications that, despite the Bush administration's repeated and insistent denials, petroleum politics may have played a crucial role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

For instance, both the State Department and the Pentagon had pre-war planning groups that included a focus on Iraq's oil industry; protecting the industry was an early U.S. objective in the war.

In October 2002, Oil and Gas International reported that U.S. planning was already under way to reorganize Iraq's oil and business relationships.

In January 2003, the Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post- war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

Cheney is said to have once remarked that the country that controls Middle East oil can exercise a "stranglehold" over the global economy.

One-time Bush speech writer David Frum wrote in "The Right Man," his 2003 biography of his boss, that the United States' "war on terror" was designed to "bring new freedom and new stability to the most vicious and violent quadrant of the Earth -- and new prosperity to us all, by securing the world's largest pool of oil."

Further records from Cheney's Energy Task Force could shed more light on the inner workings of the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. The first question, though, is whether the Supreme Court will lift the Bush-Cheney veil of secrecy. <hr /></blockquote>

http://healthandenergy.com/cheney_and_iraq_war.htm

These energy documents (sited by O'Neill) seem to show that Cheney and co. were worried about french and russian companies gobbling up valuable Iraqi oil contracts.

Wally_in_Cincy
08-26-2004, 12:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr>

...Cheney is said to have once remarked that the country that controls Middle East oil can exercise a "stranglehold" over the global economy<hr /></blockquote>

that's correct. that's why we kicked saddam out of kuwait in 1991.

highsea
08-26-2004, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> These energy documents (sited by O'Neill) seem to show that Cheney and co. were worried about french and russian companies gobbling up valuable Iraqi oil contracts. <hr /></blockquote>You need to separate the documents from the article. [ QUOTE ]
These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil.

The New York Times reported the LukOil contracts alone could amount to more than 70 billion barrels of oil, more than half of Iraq's reserves. One oil executive said the volume of these deals was huge -- a "colossal amount."

As early as April 17, 1995, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. petroleum giants realized that "Iraq is the biggie" in terms of future oil production, that the U.S. oil companies were "worried about being left out" of Iraq's oil dealings due to the antagonism between Washington and Baghdad, and that they feared that "the companies that win the rights to develop Iraqi fields could be on the road to becoming the most powerful multinationals of the next century." <hr /></blockquote>This is commentary by the author. It has nothing to do with the documents. It quotes the Times and the WSJ speculating about US oil companies and how Iraq could affect them. Notice the dates. 4-5 years before Bush became President.

Now as to the documents themselves. Well, they are an analysis of Mid East Oil prepared for Cheney's Energy Task Force. As previously noted, they contain the same analysis of Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. They are not Pentagon documents. They are from the office of the Vice President. The kind of documents a dismissed and disgruntled Treasury Secretary might remove from his office (along with 19,000 other documents) on his way out the door.

Was the Bush administration aware of the Russian and French contracts? Of course they were. As was Clinton. Is this evidence that Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq prior to 9/11? No. Is it even evidence of a policy shift? No. It is only evidence that the Energy Task Force made an analysis of Mid-East Oil.

-CM

eg8r
08-26-2004, 12:39 PM
Not to mention the last approval which had enough votes but was veto'ed by France.

eg8r

eg8r
08-26-2004, 12:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't manipulate anything, Bush did <font color="blue"> Sure you did, you are perpetuating a lie that Bush linked Saddam to 9/11, he never said that so you seem to be the manipulator </font color> . I can tell you that this IS what many average, hard working americans that I know, and spoke to about it thought Bush was saying. The type of people who only get their news from commercial TV. I don't care if you don't see it that way.
<hr /></blockquote> Are you to believe all these people you talked to were not also influenced by the commentary and descriptions given by the anchorman/woman who provided the coverage? Or are you ignoring this. These same people you are referring to, generally do not make these assumptions on their own, rather they accept the assumptions the news person attached.

[ QUOTE ]
I have always remained civil in our debates, and you have repeatedly insulted me. Civil no more. You're a self righteous a$$hole. <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Taking things a bit personal? This is the internet.

eg8r

pooltchr
08-26-2004, 03:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote crawdaddio:</font><hr> this IS what many average, hard working americans that I know, and spoke to about it thought Bush was saying. The type of people who only get their news from commercial TV. <hr /></blockquote>

These would be the same people who are lead like blind sheep by the liberal media??????????????
Of Course that's what they think they heard! That's what the media TOLD them they heard!!!!

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 04:04 PM
My point exactly. Thank you.

Qtec
08-26-2004, 08:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
John Bolton, the Bush administration's point-man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the evidence of sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even though the IAEA has consistently made no such judgment. It has called for more transparency, but prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs more time.

Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology - with the safeguards that go with it - which countries like Germany and France have promised.

Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is choosing to interpret the available knowledge as harshly as possible. He is also close to the Washington hardliners in the Project for the New American Century , who created the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who favour regime change to deal with Islamist fundamentalism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1291894,00.html <hr /></blockquote>

Is there a plan for Iran?

Q

crawdaddio
08-26-2004, 08:55 PM
I believe there is...........but wouldn't this article be better discussed on a new thread?

~DC&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;just asking..............

Qtec
08-26-2004, 09:22 PM
There,s not much point. I already know what eg8r,Wally etc are going to say. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Seems like the Neo-Cons have all the power at the momment, although I dont think they represent the majority of Republicans.

Q

Q

nhp
08-26-2004, 09:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
JD? Eeewww. Actually it's Crown Royal! Lol. American Whiskey sucks! (haha. sorry folks, I'm a Canadian whiskey guy. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't drink much hard liquor, but I do love Crown Royal, that's for sure. I can't stand the taste of anything else for some reason.