• 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!

Cheney Says There Was No Iraq Link to 9/11 Attacks

sazerac said:
No, there is nothing Bush said that he was not told by our CIA. This would be the CIA that completely missed Saddam's weapons programs in the '90s. Bush never lied and never intended to.
Click to expand...
You go right on believe that, buddy.

At some point with all the bs coming from everywhere you gotta make a decision.
Click to expand...

And G. W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, IMO, was the wrong decision to make. He could have kept this country just as safe by knocking out suspected weapons production plants or storage facilities and been just as effective. We didn't have to go to war, not with the marginal evidence he had - evidence that by all accounts hadn't really changed that dramatically since the early Clinton administration.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't think that's necessarily true, but even if it is . . .

So?

(Besides, this implies that Bush intended to invade Iraq no matter what, simply as a matter of course, and there is NO evidence for that.)
Click to expand...

Where have you been? There have been media reports that confirm that Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office. But I digress...

The article in question isn't about 9/11, the Iraq War or Saddam's alledged affiliation w/Bin Laden or terrorist acts. It's about what to do with the terrorist at Gitmo. Interestingly enough, although Cheney discusses the difficulties in closing Gimto, as well as the difficulties in getting other nations (particularly those, of which, some suspected terrorist are citizens of) to take (back) these people, not once does he acknowledge that his administration released several hundred detainees themsevles nor does he mention that the Bush administration ran into the same stumpbling block over Gitmo that the Obama administration is currently undertaking.

Newsweek has a 4-page article covering this very issue here. The following is a excerpt from the Newsweek article:

The public impression is that the debate over repatriating detainees has only just begun. In fact, the agreement with the Denmark was only one of many behind-the-scenes negotiations between U.S. officials and their foreign counterparts that have been going on since late 2002. That largely hidden chapter of diplomatic history—and the mixed results it yielded—illuminates the challenges Obama faces as he races to close Gitmo down. "Over five or six years, we had a multiple-ring circus of negotiations around the world that people really didn't know about," says John Bellinger, who helped spearhead those efforts, first at the National Security Council and later as legal adviser to then-secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. "I analogize it to the old duck metaphor: we were calm above the surface but furiously paddling our feet below the surface."

The paddling grew more furious with each passing year, as Guantánamo—and America's treatment of detainees in general—became an ever-expanding public-relations nightmare for the U.S. government. Concerns about what, precisely, would happen to the prisoners once they left Guantánamo gave way to a resolve to get them out, as quickly as they could. It was a mammoth diplomatic task: Prosper, the State Department's initial lead negotiator, spoke with diplomats from all of the 44 countries represented in Camp Delta save for Syria. The process, which under Bush resulted in the return of some 550 detainees, revealed the hard truth that the new administration now confronts: there is no good way out of Guantánamo.
Click to expand...

And yet President Obama is wrong for not only wanting to close Gitmo, but also for wanting to stop torture. Give me a break!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Where have you been? There have been media reports that confirm that Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office.
Click to expand...
Really.
How about a link to one of those.
Understand that having plans in place (whiuch I am sure we've had since well bore 1990) does not indicate intent.
 
Objective Voice said:
Where have you been? There have been media reports that confirm that Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office. But I digress...
Click to expand...

Yes. DO show some evidence of that.
 
Goobieman said:
Really.
How about a link to one of those.
Click to expand...

From the Washington Post, "Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11", By William Hamilton, Washington Post Staff Writer dated Saturday, April 17, 2004:

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution...
Click to expand...

Understand that having plans in place (which I am sure we've had since well before 1990) does not indicate intent.[/QUOTE]

If you intend to retire someday, you plan for it by setting aside money by virtue of savings and investing for that eventuality, correct?

Same thing could be said of going to war. If you intend on fighting you make plans beforehand. Our former president did make such plans long before actually going to war with Iraq and certainly long before going public with his "intentions".
 
Originally Posted by Objective Voice
Where have you been? There have been media reports that confirm that Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office.
Click to expand...

Goobieman said:
Really.
How about a link to one of those.
Understand that having plans in place (whiuch I am sure we've had since well bore 1990) does not indicate intent.
Click to expand...

You don't like to read much I see. Links to this proof has been all over this forum but then, you would have to read them to know about them, ehh?

Let's see how you respond to this little gem:
And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “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.”

And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.[/quote]
See: Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq? - CBS News

Now, to be fair, I don't expect you, or any of the Bushies on this forum, to give this any credence. But, for those looking for the truth, this is a keeper.

C yaaaaaaaaaaa! :2wave:
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution...
Click to expand...
Um... you know that December 2001 was --after-- GWB took office and after 9-11 -- right?

So, how does this in any way support your claim that "Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office"?

If you intend to retire someday, you plan for it by setting aside money by virtue of savings and investing for that eventuality, correct?
Same thing could be said of going to war. If you intend on fighting you make plans beforehand.
Click to expand...
No.

Militaries have plans in place for all kinds of things, -- like invading Iraq, like war against China over Taiwan, like War against North Korea, etc. This is not new, and doesn't in any way indicate that there is any pre-office intent to go to war -- only that there is a plan in place should that be necessary.

So, I'll ask again -- show that intent.
 
Last edited:
So the foreign policy of Bill Clinton continued after Jan 2001.
 
sazerac said:
No, there is nothing Bush said that he was not told by our CIA. This would be the CIA that completely missed Saddam's weapons programs in the '90s. Bush never lied and never intended to.

At some point with all the bs coming from everywhere you gotta make a decision.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There were things Bush said that were foisted by the Office of Special Plans that were not supported by the CIA. And the Inspector Generals investigation into the matter confirmed this.
 
Harshaw said:
When "truth" means "confirmation of what I want to believe," sure.
Click to expand...

Well, you are free to point out what is incorrect in that article. In fact, why don't you pick up Susskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty" that is all about Paul O'Neill's experiences in the Bush administration? Then come back here and tell us what you disagree with, ok? It's an easy read so, anyone should be able to understand it.

BTW, if the artricle does indeed confirm "what I want to believe"
then it follows that "what I want to believe" is... in fact... TRUE! :2wave:

Paul O'Neill is one of the most respected and honorable men to ever serve any President. If you won't believe what he says happened... well... I guess you're doomed to continue believing people like Cheney and Bush and Rove and Putin. :cool:
 
Harshaw said:
Uhhhh . . . that would be after 9/11 happened.
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
Where have you been? There have been media reports that confirm that Bush-43 had every intent to go to war with Iraq even before he took office.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected....tried to corrected this earlier but the 20 minute editting rule had expired. Nonetheless, Bush-43's war plans for invading Iraq by all accounts began prior to 9/11, not before he took office. Again, I stand corrected.

CNN article dated June 7, 2005

Of course, when you speak of Bush-43's top advisors - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz - their intensions to go to war with Iraq may have started long ago...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100102_bush_advisors.html
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I stand corrected....tried to corrected this earlier but the 20 minute editting rule had expired. Nonetheless, Bush-43's war plans for invading Iraq by all accounts began prior to 9/11, not before he took office.
Click to expand...
Going to need some support for this, too.
 
Objective Voice said:
I stand corrected....tried to corrected this earlier but the 20 minute editting rule had expired. Nonetheless, Bush-43's war plans for invading Iraq by all accounts began prior to 9/11, not before he took office. Again, I stand corrected.

CNN article dated June 7, 2005
Click to expand...

The Downing Street memo is highly questionable. However, even taken as rock-solid, it goes back to 2002. Again, post-9/11.
 
Objective Voice said:
I stand corrected....tried to corrected this earlier but the 20 minute editting rule had expired. Nonetheless, Bush-43's war plans for invading Iraq by all accounts began prior to 9/11, not before he took office. Again, I stand corrected.

CNN article dated June 7, 2005
Click to expand...

Actually, you were correct in your first thought. Bush told his plans to invade Iraq to a biographer when he was still on the campaign trail in 1999.

Invading Iraq was going to give him the respect his father always had but, he didn't. Poor little Richie Rich bombed again.

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
Click to expand...
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000

Don't let these yahoos make you think your initial thoughts about Bush are ever wrong.
 
ADK_Forever said:
Actually, you were correct in your first thought. Bush told his plans to invade Iraq to a biographer when he was still on the campaign trail
Click to expand...
Someone a little more honest and a little less partisan might take "talking about invading" and "thinking about invading" and invading beng "on his mind" -- in the context that the statemenst were made -- as something less than "planning to invade", as is having made the decision to do so.

Keep swinging for the seats, slugger...
 
ADK_Forever said:
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000

Don't let these yahoos make you think your initial thoughts about Bush are ever wrong.
Click to expand...

Good grief, dude. Is there no barrel whose bottom you won't scrape on your fishing trip for self-validation?

Why didn't Herskowitz see fit to mention this any time prior? He was on the campaign trail with the Bush's through most of 1999. He was let go for wanting to spice things up. Salon Books | Bush campaign cans biographer Seems like THEN was the time to mention it.

So why only years after when he saw others raking in pots of gold for this sort of thing did he come forward, and why do you have to go to places like the "Guerrilla News Network" to find it?
 
Goobieman said:
Someone a little more honest and a little less partisan might take "talking about invading" and "thinking about invading" and invading beng "on his mind" -- in the context that the statemenst were made -- as something less than "planning to invade", as is having made the decision to do so.

Keep swinging for the seats, slugger...
Click to expand...

:lamo What would you like, drawn up plans with maps and pictures? :sarcasticclap His intent and desire is as plain as Cheney going thru the DT's from lack of control. :lamo


:wcm
 
ADK_Forever said:
His intent and desire is as plain as Cheney going thru the DT's from lack of control.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
Someone a LOT more honest and a LOT less partisan...
 
ADK_Forever said:
:lamo What would you like, drawn up plans with maps and pictures?
Click to expand...

Would pretty much make yours a slam-dunk case, wouldn't it?

I mean, if you're actually interested in "truth," and all that.
 
Harshaw said:
Good grief, dude. Is there no barrel whose bottom you won't scrape on your fishing trip for self-validation?

Why didn't Herskowitz see fit to mention this any time prior? He was on the campaign trail with the Bush's through most of 1999. He was let go for wanting to spice things up. Salon Books | Bush campaign cans biographer Seems like THEN was the time to mention it.

So why only years after when he saw others raking in pots of gold for this sort of thing did he come forward, and why do you have to go to places like the "Guerrilla News Network" to find it?
Click to expand...

Gee, that's a real fine question thar dude. Why don't you research it and get back to us?

Herskowitz was let go because Bush's handlers didn't like what he was writing down. You know, he was writing down what was actually happening and being said. They wanted something that made Bush look good. :2wave:
 
ADK_Forever said:
Herskowitz was let go because Bush's handlers didn't like what he was writing down. You know, he was writing down what was actually happening and being said. They wanted something that made Bush look good. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If you actually understood what I was writing, I allowed for that. In fact, it figures into my question . . .

Why did it then take him FIVE YEARS to come forward with that little tidbit? Seemed relevant a . . . bit sooner than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom