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

[DemoCoder]

The really sad thing is what little choice we have in the upcoming elections. We need a real statesman to be president, someone with international cache' and a cool head and mouth.

Bush ain't got it, and none of the upcoming presidental candidates have it either. Gephardt's a protectionist, Dean shoots off at the mouth too much and frankly, looks like a used car salesman, Edwards seems too inexperienced, Lieberman frankly is unelectable (and I say this without antisemeticism intended, but with all the "jews control the world, and US is controlled by Jewish lobby" theories, will our foreign policy position with Arabs be enhanced by having a deeply religious Jew elected?) Clark may be the closest the Dem's have. Kerry doesn't seem to be it either.

If I had to choose between Dean and Clark, I'd probably pick Clark due to his EU/NATO relations and smaller tendency to put his foot in his mouth than Dean. Dean is also running as an "anti" candidate, like Gore did, antiBush, anti big-anything, anti everything. Though it may be an act to shore up the left-wing of the democratic party, I prefer "New Democrats" like the Clinton-wing candidates.


But the real candidate I wish could run, can't, and didn't in the last election and may have ruined his chances of ever running -- Colin Powell. He's a middle of the road politician, very centrist, and has wide respect among international diplomats as a cool head and moderate.

The problem? His forced performance by the Bush administration has ruined his image, and if he runs in a future election, candidates will bring up his "toady" performance under the Bush administration. The closest thing we had to an electable black US president (sorry Al Sharpson or Carol Braun) , and one with a favorable rating around the world, among people of different races and cultures, may have been permanenly tarnished.

Although perhaps his original reasons -- not wanting to expose his family to public scrutiny of a president campaign, are respectable and he simply doesn't want the job. Too bad, since I firmly believe he would have made a great US President, a good follow-on to Clinton.

 

[Natoma]

Well said. However, I would give Clark time. He has begun to grow on me. His resume impressed me from the very moment I heard of the "draftclark.com" movement, and he's finally begun getting his political legs under him.

When the primary season began, Dean stuck out to me as the one democrat who seemed willing to actually stand up for himself, rather than be dictated to. Unfortunately some of the things he's said over and over and over and over in the past few months has made me think twice.

Personally, the perfect candidate imo would have Clark's Resume, Dean's Fire, and John Edwards' policy statements. Clark has #1, is moderate enough in #2 to not turn off the "average" american, and is gaining quite quickly #3.

Here's a little private personal history btw. If Bush had tapped Colin Powell to be VP, I would have probably voted for him. Going into the mid-summer debates, I was leaning toward Bush because of the fact that I liked his personality. I knew nothing of his stances on policies, but he was far more "approachable" than Gore. As the season wore on, he seemed to be a moderate, and since I liked his personality, I was certainly leaning in that direction. Once he took office however, those illusions dissipated and I realized who I was looking at. Ever since, I have counted myself among the "Bush Hater" crowd.

But Colin Powell? Man. I wish he had run for President. Or John McCain had won out. 2000 would have been my 2nd Presidential election (19 in the 96 election), and the first time I would have voted Republican.

isn't it?

p.s.: If Ambassador Braun was a man, she would be one of the front runners in the democratic race. Why? She has experience in the senate and years of foreign policy experience. And she has some of the most innovative policy proposals on the map. Not the usual run of the mill proposals you hear from people, but truly nation-changing.

Some may take that as an insult, but I believe she's been ignored in large part because she is a woman. Hell, the only reason Hillary has so much cachet on the national stage, and a possible run in 2008 if the dems do not prevail in this election year, is because her surname is Clinton.

p.p.s.: My perfect ticket at this time would probably be Clark/Edwards. A few months ago that was Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean, but I think Dean has made himself almost unelectable to the general public due to his comments.

 

[RussSchultz]

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.

Yes, no, no and no.

You pay no taxes to any church, aren't born into any religion (unless your parents believe so), and there isn't any national registry of faith/religious persuasion.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yeah, we don't need another hothead as president. Today, Dean got nasty on a voter who asked him to focus on explaining his positions and discussing the issues instead of continuous Bush bashing. Dean's anger and temper may win him points in the primary, but the hallmark of a statesmen is someone who can take criticism and disagreement without flashing anger.

Powell has always impressed me the way he handles personal criticism against himself, very classy, mature, and level headed. (e.g. Belafonte's "he's a house nigger" attack)

Clark, Edwards, and Leiberman seem to have level heads, Dean, Kerry, Gepthardt, and Sharpton seem to get flustered when they come under criticism or disagreement.

The problem usually is that people with level heads seem "boring", robotic, or "vulcan-like". It's a rare combination to get someone who is charming/endearing, but also not prone to emotional outbursts. My theory is that usually people who are very charming are used to pleasing everyone and having everyone liking them, and when they encounter hostility, it runs counter to their "everyone is supposed to like my personality" self-esteem.

"Matter of fact" people grow up explaining complex issues to people, but being nerds, and utterly failing to entertain or connect with others. Of course, there are "matter of fact" people who derive their self-esteem from always being the smartest or being right, and get angry when they are wrong too.

That's why it's so rare to find someone who is passionate about issues, charming and interesting to interact with, but also open to compromise and ideas from other people, but simultaneously able to lead.

Bush may be personally charming, and able to unite people in a room together, and be "the life of the party", but he seems utterly dispassionate about ideas, philosophy, unable to see in non-black-and-white compromise terms. He does seem to be level headed (haven't see any really angry outbursts from him), but he is missing the other desirable traits.

That's why Clinton, with all his personal failures, was truly a great president (despite being a Democrat ), because he was passionate about ideas, able to eloquently explain them, and charming at the same time, willing to compromise, but able to lead. Reagan had many similar traits. Very charming, commanding presence, great at communicating, and passionate about some issues, but still able to compromise. He may have lost some of these later when Alzheimers started to set in, but in his early career he was brilliant.

Even George Bush Sr was pretty good. Even seen him on the history channel in interviews about WW2, the CIA, or foreign policy? He's soooooo much better than his son at explaining issues and sounding logical and level headed. (for which he was accused of being a wimp). Whatever you wanna say about Reagan and Bush Sr, they atleast compromised and raised taxes when they had to. Bush Jr should have rescinded the tax cuts when it was clear that the economy was going to stay recessed for another 4 years (or more), and he should not have engaged in mega-spending. I had no problem with increased military spending post 9/11, but how much is the Iraq war costing us, not just in direct money, but in relations that need to be repaired?

I personally believe we did not need "stimulus" to recover from the recession, just like we didn't need Clinton's stimulus package (didn't even get approved until the economy was already recoverying). What we need, most, is sound fiscal policy and a safety net to ride it out. When we have a recession, let people endure a little pain for a year or two. Instead, when revenues petered out, we got left with a huge accumulating deficit. We are dealing with the same issues in California, but in reverse. Massive spending increases from 1999+, hiring of 36,000 new government employees, huge hikes in government programs (30%+) AFTER the government's revenues were reclining. And now, Arnie has to fix it, but no one will stomach rescinding government employment levels to 1999-2000 levels, since government employees claim it is unfair to lay them off, even though all of us private sector employees in California had to stomach private companies tightening their belt.

 

[fbg1]

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..........

Actually, we've been trying since 1998 when Clinton made regime change our official Iraq policy. In early 1999 he even sent Madeleine Albright to the Middle East to canvas support for an invasion of Iraq among Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. Unfortunately, a few weeks later the Lewinsky scandal erupted and Clinton lost the political capital necessary to lead such an invasion, and it had to wait till the next administration.

Clinton's aborted attempt at regime change was, of course, not widely reported in the mainstream media. I only heard it at 3am one morning on NPR, b/c I had to get up early and drive two hours to catch a 6am flight. But I confirmed it with a friend in NYC who is a die-hard anti-Bush liberal.

It's such a political hot potato, even though it was for the better. Yes, for the better. At the end of Gulf War 1, we discovered that Iraq had only been about 6 months away from fielding nukes before the war started. Even if UNSCOM and UNMOVIC had successfully disarmed Iraq, as they claimed and as now seems true, they were unable to rid Iraq of the capability to rebuild its WMD program. Iraq retained both its scientists and know-how, and its will (Saddam) to create these weapons. It was only a matter of time after the UN sanctions were ended that Saddam could have rebuilt their WMD program.

I understand people's reticence to use our military in overseas ventures, and I understand being disconcerted that the President intentionally or accidentally obfuscated the reasons for invading Iraq. But how there can be any debate on the matter of whether Saddam posed a WMD threat to the Middle East and possibly the world is beyond me. The evidence is clear and damning. GW 1, Clinton, and GW 2 all wanted to get rid of him for that exact reason, it's just that GW2 was finally able to do it. The fact that he'd been wanting to do it since his election is immaterial, considering that both the previous two administrations had been seeking ways to do it as well.

 

[fbg1]

...how much is the Iraq war costing us, not just in direct money, but in relations that need to be repaired?

Here's an interesting article on that topic:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,570738,00.html

Synopsis: There are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. With the demise of the Communist threat, the primary interests of Europe and America are inevitably diverging.

 

[DemoCoder]

Clinton's last minute abort actually resulted in over 100 US Iraqi agents getting executed by Saddam, followed by a roundup of Kurds and who knows what, because of extracted confessions. Bush I had told the Shiites and Kurds to rise up, but they got slapped down when support dematerialized, hence, No Fly Zones 1 & 2. Then, Clinton pushed the CIA to channel millions into INC and Kurdish groups. They successfully turned one of Saddam's top tank division generals, and were ready to capture the Iraqi government, when the US Government told them to abort. However, since it was so close to invasion, the weird movement of one Saddam's divisions drew inquiry, and they exposed the plot even though the plan was aborted. Result: lots of people we told to risk their lives for their country lost support, got left hanging, then captured by Saddam and executed.

The reason for this, was of course, the upcoming election. Basically, dangerous and risky schemes by US presidents can never be executed near upcoming elections. Foreigners relying on US support need to schedule future coups atleast 3 years before an election.

 

[pax]

Chrales K makes a few good points but doesnt hesitate to abuse absolutist mantra in his rants... I had read that Clinton was handcuffed by the conservative congress\pundits in his attempts to remove saddam.

 

[DemoCoder]

Who is Chrales K?

So conservatives "handcuffed" Clinton from removing Saddam? Are these the same conservatives that "handcuffed" Clinton from spending too much by threatening to shutdown government, and from nuking his healthcare plan, and large spending bills, while restraining the size of his tax increases?

Works both ways. Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget, but then it's not his responsibility when Saddam stays in power, because he must obey what the Republican congress wants, no matter what?

With respect to foreign policy, and military missions, congress has way less power to restrain the president compared to economic policy. Many executive orders are secret and not even shared with the majority of congress, if any at all. Didn't you miss the democrats and republicans in Congress on the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee complaining that the Bush administration wasn't sharing any of their "intelligence" on Iraq with them?

I'll believe that Clinton was restrained by his own advisors before I'll believe that Republicans prevented him from executing a secret CIA operation.

 

[epicstruggle]

p.s.: If Ambassador Braun was a man, she would be one of the front runners in the democratic race.

Actually the real truth is that if she wasnt a women, she would have been laughed out along time ago. She has so many scandals in her closet it isnt even funny. Look into her nigeria trips. She makes Sharpton look like Ghandi.

later,
epic

 

[pax]

Well I got the bit on Clinton being stopped by the right in the US from the conservative Robert Novak who still opposes the war. It apparently was common knowledge in 98 when Clinton supposedly proposed invading Iraq that congressional and conservative opposition to any war with Iraq at the time was seen from the traditional supporters of the military. Clinton had apprently relented without that support. From a bit on Capital Gang.

Charles Krauthammer from the time article posted...

 

[RussSchultz]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/economy/oneill_denial.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Hmmm, strangely he seems to be "recanting" the major "anti-Bush" selling points.

Perhaps his story was picked up and spun too far by people with an agenda?

 

[Natoma]

No spinning. He's the one who came out saying all this stuff about the Iraq war and the blind man and all that. Us Dems just sat back and said "Yup".

 

[nelg]

The problem usually is that people with level heads seem "boring", robotic, or "vulcan-like". It's a rare combination to get someone who is charming/endearing, but also not prone to emotional outbursts. My theory is that usually people who are very charming are used to pleasing everyone and having everyone liking them, and when they encounter hostility, it runs counter to their "everyone is supposed to like my personality" self-esteem.

"Matter of fact" people grow up explaining complex issues to people, but being nerds, and utterly failing to entertain or connect with others. Of course, there are "matter of fact" people who derive their self-esteem from always being the smartest or being right, and get angry when they are wrong too.

That's why it's so rare to find someone who is passionate about issues, charming and interesting to interact with, but also open to compromise and ideas from other people, but simultaneously able to lead.

That is , IMHO, probably the most astute observation on human behavior that I have ever read.

 

[fbg1]

O'Neil just doesn't know when to shut up. For the amount of experience this guy has, both in public service and private concerns, it's astonishing that he doesn't seem to understand or care that his smallest comments have significant effects. One reason Bush let him go in the first place is b/c his rash comments on the dollar and trade riled markets worldwide. Now he's mouthing off about Bush in a book, and trying to take it all back the day after it's in the news. He just doesn't seem to have any concept of the value of thinking before speaking, which is especially strange for someone in his position. A far cry from Robert Rubin.

 

[pax]

Of course some will pick up on this in a way to denigrate anything Oneill has had to say. I for one think Ill pick the book up just to see what insights it might bring to the table.

 

[Willmeister]

The White House has their panties in a bunch. First, they can't go after the message because Suskind and O'Neill basically confirmed what everyone pretty much already knew, considering the so-called classified documents obtained by Judicial Watch using FOIA back in the middle of last-year.

(http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml)

 

[London Geezer]

but with all the "jews control the world, and US is controlled by Jewish lobby" theories

Theory?
And would anything change from the current situation? Really, i mean... :|

 

[Hellbinder]

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.

Actually O'Niel has publically recanted most of that in recent interviews. Apparently the Real Writer of the book is a flaming Liberal who wrote nearly every word of that book with no input from Oniel at all.

Also Bush addmited that they had looked at Iraq early on. He addressed that yesterday i think. But it was not in the same Context as being put forth here.

This is a case where someone was ousted from power.. was really BITTER about it for a while. wanted revenge signed on with the Devil..heh.. in this case a scheming liberal writer and voila...

Now however its to late. O'Niel wishes he had never said any of that stuff or taken this route. Most of it is serious exageration born out by bitterness and resentment.

 

[pax]

No input? How about 19 000 pages of docus worth of input... Its not surprising Bush carried on a policy from the previous admin but to jump on that and say anything Oneill has to say is bunk is a childish way out of serious debate...

It hurts to have one of your own turn on ya... But you have to admit no one gets to this high a level if hes a complete idiot.