- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I only ask because I never got the impression that you did.C'mon, Goodieman. Certainly, you're not that naive.
I only ask because I never got the impression that you did.C'mon, Goodieman. Certainly, you're not that naive.
You go right on believe that, buddy.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.
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.)
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.
Really.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.
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...
Really.
How about a link to one of those.
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...
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.
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.
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:
Um... you know that December 2001 was --after-- GWB took office and after 9-11 -- right?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...
No.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.
But, for those looking for the truth, this is a keeper.
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:
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.
When "truth" means "confirmation of what I want to believe," sure.
Uhhhh . . . that would be after 9/11 happened.
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.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.
Going to need some support for this, too.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.
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
The Downing Street memo is highly questionable. However, even taken as rock-solid, it goes back to 2002. Again, post-9/11.
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
Exclusive: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000Two 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.”
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.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
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.
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...
I stand corrected.His intent and desire is as plain as Cheney going thru the DT's from lack of control.
:lamo What would you like, drawn up plans with maps and pictures?
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?
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: