O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

[Natoma]

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

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."


.....

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."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/

O’Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,â€￾ said O’Neill. “The president saying ’Go find me a way to do this.â€￾’

Pretty damning, especially since it's not just his word. He provided the documents that prove it. And it jives with previous Adminstration attempts to tie Saddam and Al-Qaeda together. Everyone remember right after 9/11, the administration was saying Saddam had something to do with it, but the CIA immediately shot it down? They've been trying for ages now. Thus far non-existant WMD was just the latest attempt, but it actually succeeded.

Deeper and deeper we go..........

 

[epicstruggle]

Pretty damning, especially since it's not just his word. He provided the documents that prove it. And it jives with previous Adminstration attempts to tie Saddam and Al-Qaeda together. Everyone remember right after 9/11, the administration was saying Saddam had something to do with it, but the CIA immediately shot it down? They've been trying for ages now. Thus far non-existant WMD was just the latest attempt, but it actually succeeded.

Deeper and deeper we go..........

Maybe its just the reasonable side in me but if (more like when) i become president. One of the first things ill do would be to plan/review any military actions i could forsee. Iraq had been giving us problems during Clintons admin. So it seems only reasonable to make plans to remedy that particular problem. Plus bush ran on a strong foreign policy (if memory serves me right).

I would be disappointed if Bush had not made many plans to attack neutralize problems that might arise during his administration.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

This goes far beyond planning for contingencies however. This is actual planning for military combat, and trying to find someway to justify it in order to send in the troops.

This wasn't for a "maybe" situation. This was decided. All that was needed was something to get them on the path. 9/11 did that apparently, as evidenced by what happened in the days following 9/11, the latter half of 2002 and the early part of 2003.

 

[epicstruggle]

This goes far beyond planning for contingencies however. This is actual planning for military combat, and trying to find someway to justify it in order to send in the troops.

This wasn't for a "maybe" situation. This was decided. All that was needed was something to get them on the path. 9/11 did that apparently, as evidenced by what happened in the days following 9/11, the latter half of 2002 and the early part of 2003.

I guess this proves it that bush planned 9/11.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Oh stop.

 

[DemoCoder]

I'm not so sure the evidence is damning. According to "See No Evil" and "Sleeping with the Devil", books from medal winning CIA middle east clandestine service chief Robert Baer, Clinton was already trying to topple Saddam during his two terms and I'm sure Clinton ordered the CIA and Pentagon to come up with ways of getting rid of him. In fact, it was only the Clinton administration's last minute withdrawl of support from Kurdish/Iraqi Army coup-mongers during an election year that got them all rounded up and executed when the coup didn't go forward.


Everyday, the president is handed threat matrix reports, and military situation reports (threatcon) for the entire world. Even a newly sworn in president will quickly need to review and manage the disposition of US forces around the globe. (e.g. "where are the aircraft carriers?")

Is it really something radically different Bush did, or do all presidents have to deal with this when they take office.

Imagine on Day 1 of your presidency, you get a a secret National Security Briefing (which O'Neil would not be privy to) that alleges are sorts of suppoed wrong doing (which may or may not have been incorrect). Even Clinton is still crowing about how he believed Saddam had WMD. A President can only make decisions as good as the information he gets. All of your advisors say you must do something, so you order the Pentagon/CIA/etc to draw up plans to get rid of Saddam.


Is this any different than Clinton's plans for bombing and invading North Korea? Is it any different than his initiative for a CIA+INC+Kurd backed coup d'etat?

We simply don't know if what O'Neil was privy too is anything different than what happens in every administration -- war planning. Has there been a US president besides Gerald Ford who has not been involved in ordering the government to plot overseas coups or invasions?

O'Neil's assertion is that Bush wanted Saddam out even before he was president. Well, whoop-de-doo. Join the club of US politicians who have wanted that.

The question isn't whether this was a wish, the question is: When Bush was campaigning, had he already discussed and agreed with his transistion team/cabinet that they were going to launch a war once they won the presidency? THIS is the damning assertion that needs to be backed up.

Simple giving orders to the pentagon to draw up plans may or may not be a common occurance.

And if Bush had pre-planned this, why did he campaign against nation building and interfering with other country's governments? In fact, Bush preached HUMBLE foreign policy on his campaign trail. Are you telling me that before 9/11, Bush was planning to launch a war when he became president (without the 9/11 pretext, which hadn't happened yet), at the same time, campaigning against regime change?

Or do you assert he took office and put his war plans on hold waiting for a 9/11-type attack so he could dust off the war plans?

This doesn't really add up. I don't like Bush, and as much as you dislike Bush Natoma, this assertion, that Bush had pre-emptive war in mind, even more 9/11, requires more than just a blanket acceptance from a disgrunted employee -- rule of journalism 101.

 

[Natoma]

Certainly Democoder, taken in a bubble I agree with you. I had my :? moment when I read who was making the accusations.

But then I looked at the pattern over the last three years.

1) Attempts to tie 9/11 to Saddam Hussein
2) Shifting the argument to WMD as cause for war
3) Shifting the argument back to terrorism and Al-Qaeda links as cause for war
4) Shifting the argument to "He's a brutal dictator" as cause for war

None of those stuck with the american public. As late as a couple of week before the hostilities began, the majority of the american public wanted the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs before we went in. After the administration exhausted every potential means of trying to get the public behind it, it went in alone, and we all decided to support our troops, as we should imo.

The shifting arguments over the past 2 years, 4 months for taking out Iraq is what clinches it for me, especially in concert with the documents that show that Bush himself said "Find a way to make it happen." That makes me go "Hmmmm" when seeing something like this come out.

I may not like Bush's policies a whole lot, but it doesn't cloud my judgement of sources. That's why you don't see me linking to indymedia.org or gaysruletheworld.com (fake addy btw).

 

[epicstruggle]

Alot of people (including myself) argued that the war should be conducted solely to get rid of sadam because he was an evil dictator who commited mass killing. Plain and simple. There is alot of evidence that shows sadam thought he had wmds, because some of his underlings were lying to him. BTW your three year time line is quite absurd. 9/11 is only alittle over 2 years ago and the whole iraq shift is only about 1.5 years old. SO dont go saying bush has been publicly pushing for war for the last 3 years.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

And a lot of people (including myself) argued that if we're going to go to war to get rid of evil dictators, then we had better start getting ready to take on much of the whole world, which is obviously impractical.

The evidence that showed that Saddam may have had WMD had me convinced as well. That's why I wanted the US to give their intel to the weapons inspectors so they could go to the suspected sites before the Iraqis could change them around.

I said 3 years because it is 2004 and the push to Iraq began in 2001. Mistake on my part to look at the calendar year instead of the actual timeline. 2 years, 4 months to be almost exact. The push to tie Al-Qaeda and Iraq together was sent out days after 9/11 epic.

Last post edited to 2 years, 4 months.

 

[DemoCoder]

Natoma, my argument for why they went thru with the war, even after having no evidence is because once Bush and Blair committed to it, in addition to shipping 100+k troops and equipment over there, is that they had to follow through with it, no matter what. You can go back and read my old posts on this, where I declared that I was against the war, but there was no turning back.

Bush and Blair, once they dug the hole, had to lie in it, so they had to do anything. The only thing that could have stopped the war was if Saddam chose exile. Once the US issues an ultimatum, if has to follow through with it, or loose one of the few credible threats it has.

Where you see predestiny, I see administrations painted into corners for which there is no face-saving exit save war. There was no Cuban-missile-crisis style solution that would have saved face for Bush/Blair and Saddam too.

 

[Natoma]

You're right. I see a nation that was going to go to war, some how, some way, no matter what. However, where I differ on this is that I believe the steps that this administration took in making it impossible for us to back away were completely avoidable.

The day after Bush and Colin Powell go to the UN to urge them to support us and why, Rumsfeld and Cheney are insulting our allies as "Old Europe" and "useless" and other names. If you're President, you teach your cabinet members to preach one unified message. One hand knowing what the other is doing and all that.

The insults of our allies and the UN process, the snickering, the back biting, etc. That was completely avoidable. All it did in the end was make it harder, if almost impossible, to have an atmosphere of understanding and free of tension. Whatever intel we had, had we given it to the weapons inspectors, and they had actually found something, all the nations such as France, Germany, and Russia would not have had a leg to stand on.

They would have had to support us with the whole world watching, and we would have gone in with political immunity and support, both financially and militarily, at least more than we've currently got. I for one would most certainly would be supporting this war now had that occurred.

We threatened Mexico if they did not vote with us, but after complaints from their government and complaints here at home, those statements were retracted.

We tried to bribe Turkey to get their airspace once it was apparent that we were going to flout the UN.

We didn't have to position our troops in the region as quickly as we did. We could have waited for the inspections to finish. If for no other reason than the fact that it was costing us billions just to keep them there and move our other troops and other equipment across the world.

President Bush personally tapped James Bakker a few weeks ago to go to the debtor nations of the world in hopes of diplomatically encouraging them to cease requests for Iraq's crushing debt. That same day, Paul Wolfowitz, in an apparent attempt to undermine James Bakker, releases a memo to the world stating that only countries that supported us would get contracts in Iraq. Obviously this would have a chilling effect on James Bakker's attempts.

I don't believe in unnecessarily antagonizing the very allies you need in the global market and in the fight against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that would do us harm. We may be the dominant military and economic power, but we aren't an island.

I sense that we agree on this point. Obviously this angers me just a tad more than you do.

 

[epicstruggle]

This debate wont end here today. Years/Decades from now we will still feel the ripples from this war. Will democracy flourish in the Middle East. Will extremists rule that area? Something in between? The seeds have been planted now we need to see what comes of it. In my opinion Oneill has an axe to grind.

later,
epic

 

[RussSchultz]

Since 9/11 and Saddam aren't connected, what does it matter when the drive to remove him started?

 

[Fred]

I wouldn't be surprised if memos existed for the topling and possible military maneuvers in NKorea existed, prior to 9/11.

Regardless, no one wanted Saddam in Iraq, its been on a perpetual to do list for American foreign policy since 92. It became obvious after 9/11 that it was probably not prudent to leave any unanswered questions in the Middle East, and that a foreign affairs policy shift needed to be implemented.

We went to war with Iraq ultimately b/c we had compelling evidence for WMD and b/c we felt the whole thing would be simple and painless. The intelligence community felt they were there (undisputed), and most reasonable people felt that it was a good idea to take ones intelligence communities word at face value (read most senators, including democrats).

I'm glad frankly, it has been painless (there are more homicides in one year in Nyc than casualties so far in Iraq), and the endgame is frankly better off this way. Not to mention we've killed off quite a few foreign extremists, and wack jobs in the process.

As for the lack of imminent threats from WMD.. Well, that should point a blaming finger at the CIA, although I suppose an argument can be made that its dangerous to demonize them too much. Should our intelligence operatives withhold information, b/c they fear they might lose their jobs in the future? There are no certainties in the business after all. Partial blame should be layed on the administration for not using the proper words to communicate to the American people the uncertanties involved; I know I was fooled somewhat by the level of confidence in the rhetoric.

Still hindsight 50/50, i'd do it again in a heartbeat, and I think the rest of the American people agree.

 

[Sabastian]

I think that there were always plans to do this ever since the first gulf war probably even before it. Likely the US military would even have a plan of action for just about any state in the world. The US updating its military plan of action with regards to Iraq is no real big surprise and it isn't evidence that Bush had any knowledge of 9/11. The simple fact of the matter is that Iraq made every sort of disregard for the UN weapons inspections teams even outright sending them away. It is no surprise that Iraq was hot on the plate. All 9/11 did was provide a rational for action. There is also the matter that the US took out the Taliban government and their terrorist organizations. The logical deduction that Saddam had every intension of undermining America and its interests and the very likely possibility that Saddam was nurturing terrorism is fairly within reason. Saddam also aggravated the Isreal/Palistine dilemma by paying the families of suicide bombers for their sacrifices. The liberation of Iraq is a long term gamble for both America and Iraqi people. Hopefully Iraqi people are not so stupid to pass this golden opportunity up that the evil American government schemed and planned for more then a decade. I wouldn't doubt at this point there are plans of action for all sorts of countries in the region, all recently updated as well possibly even before Bush was put into office. This whole matter with O'Neill seems like a scheme to sully Bush in some matter before the election and is likely pay back for being fired. Democrats are getting desperate in the most horrible sort of way.

As a side note a blister agent in mortar shells buried in the desert were recently discovered by Danish and Icelandic troops . One has to wonder how many more chemical weapons are buried in the Iraqi desert.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108046,00.html

 

[jpaana]

All of this has been in the open since 1997, just take a look at the neo-conservative's own site at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Especially http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm and some of the undersignees make my skin crawl...

 

[RussSchultz]

-we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
-we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
-we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
-we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Oh my, what horrible aspirations. Evil evil evil. Heaven forbid we strengthen our ties with democratic countries, promote political and economic freedom around the world, and challenge regimes that do not. Heaven forbid we accept the fact that few countries in the world can stand up and achieve such a thing, and nobody else in the world is willing to.

Evil evil evil.

Well, I suppose it is if you're of the persuasion that thinks political, economical, religious, and personal freedom is a bad thing.

 

[oi]

This is an OT question, but after seeing Russ say religious freedom I was just wondering if the state and church are seperate entities in the US? I mean if you don't automatically become a member of a religion (I assume it would be christianity if that were the case) by birth or pay taxes to the church or whatever? Sorry if this is common knowledge but I honestly don't know anything about it hehe.

 

[Natoma]

Since 9/11 and Saddam aren't connected, what does it matter when the drive to remove him started?

Because the administration from the beginning had the expressly stated motivation to find anything possible to start this war. They tried 9/11, and that didn't work when the CIA shot them down. Then they tried the WMD route, which was always shaky at best, especially given the fact that they wouldn't share our Intel with the weapons inspectors but continued to make definitive claims about what they knew and where they knew it was. Then they tried the 9/11-Al-Qaeda route again. Then they said "Goddamn it he's just evil. We're going to get him." But that last one comes across as anything but ingenuous considering the fact that it took weeks for the Administration to send just a couple of hundred troops to Liberia. And even then, they did so begrudgingly.

We should not be in the business, imo, of looking for reasons to start a fight. You wouldn't do that personally would you? I wouldn't. Maybe this is my idealism at work again, but I do not believe that that is the right course for America to take.

 

[Natoma]

Still hindsight 50/50, i'd do it again in a heartbeat, and I think the rest of the American people agree.

As I've said before in other threads, and I believe in this one, I like the ends, and yes, I would support Saddam being in custody and freeing millions of people from dictatorship. But I have a serious problem with the means used to achieve those ends.

I want to know why those means have now begun to crumble. I want to know why those means were never true in the first place, and why nothing was done to vet the information before it was presented to the american public. I want answers, and that is why I am so persistent in this regard.

But do not take that persistance to mean that I am not happy that the Iraqi people are free and that Saddam Hussein is in custody, as that is the exact opposite of how I feel on the matter.