• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

The Dilemma of Dissent - A former Bush aide looks back

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In the upcoming Newsweek issue, May 18, another former Bush aid, Richard N. Haas, shines a little more light on how open to diplomacy the Bush administration truly was (NOT!) and just how early Bush had made up his mind to invade an innocent country. All contrary to Bush's public comments!

Diplomacy at Gunpoint: By July 2002 Bush had already decided to make Iraq the centerpiece of his foreign policy, even if it meant war.
You try to make the best of an executive decision you think is wrong. But there's a limit.

In early July 2002 I went to see Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, in her West Wing office. I was meeting Condi in my capacity as director of policy planning, the State Department's internal think tank.

I did not share this enthusiasm for going to war, believing that we had other viable options and fearing that any conflict would be much tougher than the advocates predicted. I was also concerned that an invasion would take an enormous toll on the rest of American foreign policy at the precise moment in history that the United States enjoyed a rare opportunity to exert extraordinary influence.

I began my meeting with Condi by noting that the administration seemed to be building momentum toward going to war with Iraq and that I harbored serious doubts about doing so. I reminded her that I knew something about this issue given my role in the previous Bush administration, where I had served as the president's senior Middle East advisor on the NSC staff. And I asked her directly, "Are you really sure you want to make Iraq the centerpiece of the administration's foreign policy?"
I was about to follow up with other questions when Condi cut me off. "You can save your breath, Richard. The president has already made up his mind on Iraq." (Mind you, this is way back in July, 2002!!!) The way she said it made clear he had decided to go to war.

I was taken aback. Policy had gone much further than I had realized—and feared. But, for several reasons, I did not argue just then. As in previous conversations when I'd voiced my views on Iraq, Condi's response made it clear that any more conversation at that point would be a waste of time.

This relates to the second set of grounds for resigning, namely, a pattern of decisions that makes clear that you have little in common with your colleagues. I was losing far more arguments than I was winning, not just on Iraq, but on Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, climate change, the Israeli-Arab conflict and the International Criminal Court. I was someone who favored diplomacy and collective efforts. The administration was at best suspicious of such approaches and often flat-out opposed them.

Adding to the frustration was the fact that I was frequently called upon to defend policies that I opposed. Cordell Hull, FDR's secretary of state, described himself to a friend as "tired of being relied upon in public and ignored in private." I empathized all too well. On many occasions I had to rebut to outsiders precisely the arguments I myself had put forward inside the government. That this occurs on occasion is inevitable and part of what any professional must expect to deal with. But when it becomes the norm it is time to consider whether what you are doing makes sense.

Haass: Former Bush Aide's Dilemma Over Iraq | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com
 
In his book, Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil says that Cheney and Rumsfeld were talking about an invasion of Iraq at Cabinet meetings in January 2001, days after the inauguration.
 
Amazingly enough, none of these people were bothered enough to resign and protest at the time. No, they wait till years later when they can make $$ off of it.


I'm sure you two will buy this stuff up and have bush-to-jail gasms over it.
 
Amazingly enough, none of these people were bothered enough to resign and protest at the time. No, they wait till years later when they can make $$ off of it.


I'm sure you two will buy this stuff up and have bush-to-jail gasms over it.

It serves no purpose to resign over an issue you disagree with, you simply fall into a black hole. Lots of people resigned over issues with the Bush administration....what were their names?? See what I mean?
 
It serves no purpose to resign over an issue you disagree with, you simply fall into a black hole. Lots of people resigned over issues with the Bush administration....what were their names?? See what I mean?

Your right, there is more money waiting for you later on.
 
Another Bush basher. BFD.
 
Amazingly enough, none of these people were bothered enough to resign and protest at the time. No, they wait till years later when they can make $$ off of it.


I'm sure you two will buy this stuff up and have bush-to-jail gasms over it.
Frankly, I think it's time to impeach Bush. :lol:
 
I suspect it's only a matter of time before Cheney also spills his guts, bragging about how he had dubya on puppet strings. ESPECIALLY since he's got a book coming out! He'll probably rag on poor dubya, making fun of his "lack of intellectual curiosity"! :2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll:
 
I suspect it's only a matter of time before Cheney also spills his guts, bragging about how he had dubya on puppet strings. ESPECIALLY since he's got a book coming out! He'll probably rag on poor dubya, making fun of his "lack of intellectual curiosity"! :2rofll: :2rofll: :2rofll:
...or about how Haliburton owns the United States. YEAH BABY!
 
I always love how quickly the pro-Bush/anti-Dem crowd rushes to dismiss a source before they actually read what the source has to say. Books are the devil!!!! And anyone who worked for Bush then later criticized him is a publicity whoring liar!!!!

I remember someone on here trying to tell me that Richard Clarke was a disgruntled, washed up hack. That was their defense to his allegations. He cited dates, other witnesses, the whole shooting match. Yet he was a nobody, a turncoat, looking only to make a fortune. They never read his book, nor could they actually cite anything in his background. All they knew was he was a Bush backstabber and that was enough.

Rubes.
 
I always love how quickly the pro-Bush/anti-Dem crowd rushes to dismiss a source before they actually read what the source has to say. Books are the devil!!!! And anyone who worked for Bush then later criticized him is a publicity whoring liar!!!!

What's your opinion of Dick Morris?

:2wave:
 
Another Bush basher. BFD.

No, another former Bush official whose telling tales and naming names. It's kind of a big deal considering what Bush did and how some peoplecontinue to bleat his praises.
 
What's your opinion of Dick Morris?

:2wave:

Indifferent I guess. No big deal really, he told his story. Can't really call him a liar, the man was all up the Clinton's asses and did some good work for them. They had a crazy relationship and the guy left, wrote a book, and took some shots. With the Clintons, who knows? It could be true.
 
Come on, let's hold our breath together. He'll answer.

What's your big play here? Just stopping by for a meaningless one liner? I don't run from these kinds of things. But then again, the difference between you and I is that I actually articulate intelligent arguments.
 
Last edited:
Indifferent I guess. No big deal really, he told his story. Can't really call him a liar, the man was all up the Clinton's asses and did some good work for them. They had a crazy relationship and the guy left, wrote a book, and took some shots. With the Clintons, who knows? It could be true.

So it could be true about the Clintons, but you seem pretty convinced about the guy in the OP based on your posts. What gives him more credibility than Dick Morris, in your opinion?
 
Why do you think this guy would "lie" about Bush?
What would his motive be?

How many people have to say the same thing, about Bush, for you to start doubting your allegiences?
 
You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.
 
What's your big play here? Just stopping by for a meaningless one liner? I don't run from these kinds of things. But then again, the difference between you and I is that I actually articulate intelligent arguments.
Absolutely, one liners are fun when you're around. :mrgreen:
 
What's your big play here? Just stopping by for a meaningless one liner? I don't run from these kinds of things. But then again, the difference between you and I is that I actually articulate intelligent arguments.

Lerxst, you hit the nail on the head! :mrgreen:
 
You think it's shocking that planning of Iraq goes way back to 2001? Do some research into those who influenced neo-conservatives at the City College of New York City (CCNY). Many people will cite Leo Strauss as being the primary influence of the Bush administrations foreign policy, but the only one to breifly study under him was Wolfowitz. It was Albert Wohlstetter who had more of an influence than perhaps anyone else. Wohlstetter was the teacher of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Zalmay Khalizad.

Now I'm not saying that Iraq was planned decades ago or whatever. But given the ideology of those who had the strongest influence on Bush's foreign policy, Iraq was inevitable.

I strongly recommend Francis Fukuyama's book "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy." It's a good insight into the history of the neoconservative movement and their primary ideas.

What's shocking is that the president would actually buy into a scheme like this, then use the power of the government to lie to people about the need to go into Iraq, then actually use the United States military to invade Iraq, all the while being fervently defended by people who had no idea it was all an act.
 
What's shocking is that the president would actually buy into a scheme like this, then use the power of the government to lie to people about the need to go into Iraq, then actually use the United States military to invade Iraq, all the while being fervently defended by people who had no idea it was all an act.

Which part of this statement by the President justifying his military strike against Iraq is a lie?

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

:confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom