I've said that we wanted to go after Iraq before 9/11

Post #134,748 by Simon_Jester 1/10/04 4:28:36 PM Reply	I've said that we wanted to go after Iraq before 9/11 Looks like I'm not the only one saying it The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. [link\|http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm\| Drudge Source ] Make of it what you will.
Post #134,749 by mmoffitt 1/10/04 4:30:48 PM Reply	Me too. I've always known this was a hill-jack Texas "Ahm gwine ta git that sumbitch that trahd to keel mah Daddie" thing. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #135,487 by qstephens 1/13/04 3:42:14 PM Reply	Mr Mountain, meet Mr Molehill This is what staff officers do. You want plans for America to invade Luxembourg? They've planned it. Andorra? They've planned that too. Likewise India, Australia, Chile ... qts
Post #135,504 by Simon_Jester 1/13/04 5:36:44 PM Reply	Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office. Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush's comments appeared likely to stoke campaign claims by Democratic rivals for the White House that the president was planning to attack Iraq, possibly in retaliation for Saddam's attempted 1993 assassination of his father, former President Bush. "The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines." [link\|http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/156352_bushsummit13.html\| Source ] I've often said (and I'm not going to go looking for it) that Bush would be much better off admitting that he simply wanted Saddam gone rather than trying all of those poor attempts at WMD, buying nuclear ore, etc.
Post #135,545 by mmoffitt 1/13/04 8:36:55 PM Reply	Disagree. I've often said (and I'm not going to go looking for it) that Bush would be much better off admitting that he simply wanted Saddam gone rather than trying all of those poor attempts at WMD, buying nuclear ore, etc. I'll admit I don't have much faith left, but I have this much. If Dubya were to admit that he wanted to settle a family score by abusing his powers as President and sending hundreds of Americans to die, and thousands to be wounded, not to mention the tens of thousands of innocents who were killed (admittedly those deaths are meaningless for most Americans) - that at least a majority would be disenchanted enough with him to at least make sure that the next margin of victory was large enough that Daddy's buddies on the USSC couldn't give him another term. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #135,546 by bepatient 1/13/04 8:40:30 PM Reply	It wasn't >him<. Regime change was the stated policy of our government since the first war. This was not a new policy. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #135,551 by Another Scott 1/13/04 8:45:45 PM Reply	Nit: US policy since October 31, 1998 [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=72548\|#72548]. Cheers, Scott.
Post #135,553 by mmoffitt 1/13/04 8:46:01 PM Reply	You've been watching Fox again, haven't you? Yes, I'm following you. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #135,554 by mmoffitt 1/13/04 8:47:13 PM Reply	Damn you, Scott. I stand corrected. Sheesh. I have to give one to BP now. Sheesh. bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #135,560 by Another Scott 1/13/04 8:54:58 PM Reply	I'd like to thank the Academy. :-) IIRC, several Republicans in Congress were pushing the legislation for several years before it finally passed. It passed with a veto-proof majority, so Clinton (effectively) didn't have much choice but to sign it. <goooooogle...> The [link\|http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/10/981009-in.htm\|vote] was 360 to 38 in the House, unanimous (by voice) in the Senate. Even if Clinton had wanted to veto it, it would have become law on override. Cheers, Scott.
Post #135,587 by bepatient 1/14/04 1:38:20 AM Reply	Honestly, I couldn't even tell you what channel it is. My cable operator only added it on the list a few months ago. I don't watch alot of TV. THis latest craze of "reality" shows has pretty much confined me to the other corner of the basement. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #135,594 by bepatient 1/14/04 3:03:14 AM Reply	Well...on my last surf-through I noted... ...its channel 72. Don't get much time during SportsCenter commercial breaks...but I managed to find it:) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #135,700 by jb4 1/14/04 12:53:08 PM Reply	FWIW... Its channel 69 here. Make of that what you will.... jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating that facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #135,708 by mmoffitt 1/14/04 1:53:19 PM Reply	Here it's 666. Er, no, that's what it should be :-) bcnu, Mikem I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
Post #135,759 by a6l6e6x 1/14/04 5:25:48 PM Reply	Slap,slap! Bad mike! Alex The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -- Plutarch
Post #135,565 by JayMehaffey 1/13/04 9:47:11 PM Reply	Beyond that Even beyond the other points, there is a big difference in "regime change" in the "refuse to normalize diplomatic relations till the government changes" and "regime change" in the "overthrow the government via invasion" sense of the phrase. Jay
Post #135,586 by bepatient 1/14/04 1:31:07 AM Reply	Point If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!