O'Neill: Bush Entered Office Intent On Invading Iraq

[Jhhnn]

"The White House line is that O'Neill would not be privy to the vital intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq. Curiously, no one in the Bush administration appears to be privy to intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq."

Heh, gave me a chuckle, BBD...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

So Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" was there because Bush didn't want to go to war with Iraq? I see.

What was the contents of that document? How do those contents prove that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq? As far as I know Dave McCowen wrote the title for that document and there is no telling what the contents really are. It's almost as silly as saying we are going to nuke Russia just because we have written plans to do so.

Shhush, no one's supposed to know what I've been doing the last 2 years, you wanna blow my cover like that Operative?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

O'Neill currently on 60 Minutes.

Donald Rumsfeld called O'Neill and asked him not to speak about Bush.

Oops . . . plans to depose Saddam presented at FIRST National Security Council meeting in early 2001.

Jan-Feb 2001 . . . Bush administration plan for peacekeeping troops, tribunals, dividing Iraqi oil wealth.

 

[Gaard]

'Plan for post -Saddam Iraq' ....in January of 2001? This 60 minutes interview is kind of eerie.

 

[Wag]

They have a chart from the Whitehouse from 2001 listing companies to handle the rebuilding of Iraq.

Oops.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Bush says, "we already gave tax cut to rich people . . . why are we doing it again?"

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?

fmr Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill

Damn he has no clue . . .

 

[Gaard]

$18.20

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm

CNN headline . . . albeit biased towards DOBs

FOX . . . big Dean box but top story is heckler while O'Neill is pushed to the second tier

MSNBC AWOL per norm

 

[Nietzscheusw]

And let's not forget Rice, who on Sept.10, 2001, was examining the plan to invade Afghanistan spread on her desk!


<< There are two views of history
ONE: History happens by accident or
TWO: It is planned.
The general public is taught that history happens by accident. However, the upper echelons....know that history is planned. >>
- R.E. McMaster, Jr.
The Power of Total Perspective.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

Is that what you think this was? A contingency plan? And 9-11/WMD "changed everything" as they say?

No, When your leadership says, days after inauguration, "Go find me a way to do this (attack Iraq)" it's a not so subtle direction to do it by what ever means necessary. But wait we have more evidence one could deduce *it* was planned since at least since January of 1998 when Project for a New American Century (all the presidents men today) sent a letter to then-President Clinton demanding an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The only thing that "changed everything" , were those "fortuitous" attacks that made the NeoConCrazies' every dream possible. So now we have over 500 dead, untold Iraqis, anarchy on the ground, 200Billion+ in working class wages being funneled to Hal/Bechtel, and the changed the Department of Justice's non-observance of the United States Constitution all for the men who put him there.

To show how good he did by them, bush has already raised almost double the campaign funds at the same time four years ago. Are Americans today so gutless and ignorant they won't at least start demanding the Presidents office provide some answers?

Not only to the above, but the outted CIA agent? The "Niger report"?, who made it, how?s that investigation going if there even is one? The non-bidding of very lucrative rebuilding contracts which in and of themselves aren?t terrible till you pair them with everything else and who they went to it is. All other "reasons" floated have shown to be bogus and disproven from Aluminum tubes to Osama links. Dude, something?s rotten in Demark here and a contingency plan had nothing to do with it, this was premediated war.

 

[Moonbeam]

It hurts to loose faith in something because faith is a sacred thing. But we lost our faith in life and in our own inner selves so we substitute people and things instead. And even when the evidence that our faith is totally misplaced reaches up to the heavens, we still hang on because we are afraid to be stripped of the things that ease our pain. In this way do monsters rule while we are slowly boiled like frogs in a pot. It is so sad, but we don't want to see. So let us curse the faith of the other guy and slowly die.

 

[DealMonkey]

The pain must be double for those who actually voted for Bush -- thinking they were electing a harmless moron, when it turns out he was really a dog of war.

 

[flashbacck]

nah, he'll still win re-election. How can he not? He's just too popular.

 

[alchemize]

Uh oh: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Uh oh: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed

Ouch...

By the way, why are people shocked that Bush wanted to deal with Iraq early on? I've been saying here for over a year that Clinton should've dealt with Hussein. I've also been stating that September 11 expedited the case against Hussein. Why is it that when O'Neill says the same thing, it is a shock? Are some people here that lugubrious or just plain stupid?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alchemize
Uh oh: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed

Ouch...

By the way, why are people shocked that Bush wanted to deal with Iraq early on? I've been saying here for over a year that Clinton should've dealt with Hussein. I've also been stating that September 11 expedited the case against Hussein. Why is it that when O'Neill says the same thing, it is a shock? Are some people here that lugubrious or just plain stupid?

Oh, but Bush contradicts you:

Asked about the assertions Monday in Mexico, President Bush defended his decision to go to war with Iraq and disputed comments by O'Neill that plans were being laid from his first days in office to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

This quote from CNN.com. So I guess he didn't want to deal with Iraq early on.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"The White House line is that O'Neill would not be privy to the vital intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq. Curiously, no one in the Bush administration appears to be privy to intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq."

Heh, gave me a chuckle, BBD...

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alchemize
Uh oh: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed

Ouch...

By the way, why are people shocked that Bush wanted to deal with Iraq early on? I've been saying here for over a year that Clinton should've dealt with Hussein. I've also been stating that September 11 expedited the case against Hussein. Why is it that when O'Neill says the same thing, it is a shock? Are some people here that lugubrious or just plain stupid?

Oh, but Bush contradicts you:

Asked about the assertions Monday in Mexico, President Bush defended his decision to go to war with Iraq and disputed comments by O'Neill that plans were being laid from his first days in office to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

This quote from CNN.com. So I guess he didn't want to deal with Iraq early on.

I guess Dari isn't going to bother with a response.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: alchemize
Uh oh: Treasury wants O'Neill papers probed

Ouch...

By the way, why are people shocked that Bush wanted to deal with Iraq early on? I've been saying here for over a year that Clinton should've dealt with Hussein. I've also been stating that September 11 expedited the case against Hussein. Why is it that when O'Neill says the same thing, it is a shock? Are some people here that lugubrious or just plain stupid?

Oh, but Bush contradicts you:

Asked about the assertions Monday in Mexico, President Bush defended his decision to go to war with Iraq and disputed comments by O'Neill that plans were being laid from his first days in office to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

This quote from CNN.com. So I guess he didn't want to deal with Iraq early on.

Where in your CNN link does it say that? I don't see it.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Find 'defended' on the page, it's the first hit.

Actually, part of the quote isn't there. Was it changed?

 

[SuperTool]

Sure hope O'Neill's wife doesn't work for the CIA. Otherwise she is screwed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Weird, I guess CNN changed it. WTF?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Weird, I guess CNN changed it. WTF?

Either they changed their story or you made it up. Which is it?

 

[Bitdog]

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"

I think it all had to do with who GWB's dad was and his involvement with Sadam & the CIA.

I heard a radio report the other day that stated, GWB invited his dad over for dinner and stood him up,
because GWB was landing in Bagdad that night, & his dad watched it on TV.
(GWB serving Xmas? dinner to the troops.)

Childish one upmanship on daddy that sticks in ones mind like a drunken decision.
In this case, it could have been both.

4 more years sounds really bad to me.