• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Preplaned war? :

Davo

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Politics

Saddam a Bush target even before 9/11: O'Neill

January 11, 2004

BY SCOTT LINDLAW Advertisement






CRAWFORD, Texas -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 -- more than two years before the start of the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein.

''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's ''60 Minutes'' in an interview to be aired tonight.

The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.

But O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, said he had qualms about what he asserted was the preemptive nature of the war planning.

''For me, the notion of preemption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap,'' according to an excerpt of the interview that CBS released Saturday.

The administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but officials have said they had to consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even larger-scale strike against the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam ''was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11.''

''It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people,'' McClellan said from the president's ranch in Texas.

O'Neill's interview was part of his effort to promote a new book about the first half of Bush's term, The Price of Loyalty, for which O'Neill was a primary source.

The administration began sending signals about a possible confrontation with Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001.

In July 2001, after an Iraqi surface-to-air missile was fired at an American surveillance plane, Bush's national security adviser put Saddam on notice that the United States intended a more resolute military policy toward Iraq.

AP
 

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CRAWFORD, Texas -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq just days after President Bush took office in January 2001 --

General Tommy Franks, retired leader of CENTCOM tells a much different story in his book.

I will take the word of a 4 star general with an impecable reputation and an honorable war record over that of a politician any day.

Franks makes it very VERY CLEAR that the president wanted to exhaust all means of diplomacy in his book "American Soldier"

The administration began sending signals about a possible confrontation with Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001.

we knew there was going to be a "possible confrontation" with Iraq every since we left after the Gulf War. That doesnt mean Bush was intent on attacking them without first trying diplomacy.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam ''was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11.''

"war planning" does not mean you are planning FOR WAR. It simply means you are planning to be prepared if war comes. why would anyone think you would ever go to war without first planning. why would anyone think you cant plan a war, without planning FOR WAR. You can certainly plan, and be prepared, in case your diplomatic avenues fail.
we actually had a PLAN for a war in Iraq BEFORE PRESIDENT BUSH EVER TOOK OFFICE. This is also confirmed in Franks book.

does that then mean that Clinton was planning for a war with Iraq? absolutely not.
 
Last edited:

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm....gonna go out on a limb and say all wars are pre-planned. A leader doesn't usually roll out of bed one day and say to himself "You know, I'm bored. A little war would amuse me." I'm thinking most wars have some sort of planning involved before they start. No? Am I crazy?
 

Davo

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
I'm....gonna go out on a limb and say all wars are pre-planned. A leader doesn't usually roll out of bed one day and say to himself "You know, I'm bored. A little war would amuse me." I'm thinking most wars have some sort of planning involved before they start. No? Am I crazy?

I think the article goes more along the lines of "Before 9/11 even came Bush had his "war eyes" set on Iraq"....wouldnt this be some sort of argument for people who say he was just trying to finish what his daddy didnt? :|
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Davo said:
I think the article goes more along the lines of "Before 9/11 even came Bush had his "war eyes" set on Iraq"....wouldnt this be some sort of argument for people who say he was just trying to finish what his daddy didnt? :|
and your point?

No, actually, I wouldn't.

George Bush Jr. would not undermine his dad. His father did not finish off Iraq for a reason, Jr. respects that.. there's other reasons why he invaded Iraq.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Arch Enemy said:
and your point?

No, actually, I wouldn't.

George Bush Jr. would not undermine his dad. His father did not finish off Iraq for a reason, Jr. respects that.. there's other reasons why he invaded Iraq.
Agreed...

From an earlier post...

cnredd said:
Bush41 was told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....That is exactly what was done....

And people accuse him of not doing enough...Doing more would have gone against the United Nation's wishes.

Now Bush43 is told BY THE UNITED NATIONS to wait for the completion of inspections and NOT to enter Iraq and remove him....The exact OPPOSITE was done...

And people accuse him of doing too much...He is already going against the United Nation's wishes.

Let me get this straight....

The right thing to do for Bush41 was to NOT listen to the UN and invade Iraq.

The right thing to do for Bush43 was to listen to the UN and NOT invade Iraq.

There is only one logical reasoning for this, and it is plainly obvious....

The United Nations suck....
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
Franks makes it very VERY CLEAR that the president wanted to exhaust all means of diplomacy in his book "American Soldier"
Franks can go to hell! How is telling UN inspectors that "...he can't guarantee their safety" exhausting all "...means of diplomacy?"
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Whats a preplane?

Is that like a real plane but with no engine or skin on the wings yet?


00910460_047.jpg
 

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by akyron:
Whats a preplane?

Is that like a real plane but with no engine or skin on the wings yet?
And while were on the subject, what is "pre-boarding?" To get on the plane before you get on?
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Billo_Really said:
And while were on the subject, what is "pre-boarding?" To get on the plane before you get on?


I think thats for people that have physical trouble in lines. Old people, Children, The disabled.

THEN the masses can board.
 
Top Bottom