Secret Memo Proves Bush Bent On Iraq War

from JoeUser Forums


The release of the formerly secret memo that documented a meeting between Bush and Blair six weeks before the Iraq War started now proves Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of the findings of the U N weapons inspectors and regardless of the second UN resolution. He had chosen to invade Iraq and WMD had nothing to do with his decision.
politics
7,126 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dude, Bush's intentions were obvious from the very beginning.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Source?
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
So now your claiming that Robert Novak's book is wrong? Robert Novak says Bush had not planned an invasion until three months before the invasion. So either stick to this claim or discount Novak's book, what will it be Gene? You can't have it both ways, but I'm sure your going to ignore or change subject on this question.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Link

Here's your source.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
1776
Paul O'Neil proved Novak was wrong. He has stated that the Iraq invasion was a topic at the first Bush Cabinet meeting. What this memo shows is that the WMD issue that Bush used to justify the War resolution was all a sham.

As to the Source it was all over the news shows tonight. CNN and Hardball for example.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Paul O'Neil proved Novak was wrong.


So since your only source saying that the Generals did not get what they asked for in the invasion is Novak and his book your discrediting, are you going to stop typing that hogwash? Every General that had a part in planning of the invasion stated (and even wrote books about it) that Novak's account is wrong.

He has stated that the Iraq invasion was a topic at the first Bush Cabinet meeting.


You do know that Paul O'Neil is the only person at that meeting that heard such a thing? All the others there claim no such thing happened (to include others no longer under Bush’s command).

Both O'Neil and Novak now make a living off of these discounted stories. Your choice of references seems always to counteract each other and never seem to have anybody at the meetings supporting their claims.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's interesting how everyone has been saying all along that this wasn't about WMDs, but every time something is supposedly "discovered", these people still say "Look! It wasn't really about WMDs!!!"

It's like if they say it was about WMDs long enough, it won't matter that it wasn't. Hussein fired on our aircraft, thwarted UN mandates, abused the oil for food program, and couldn't be allowed to emerge from sanctions. Period.

So, um, since all those things predate the Bush administration, it seems logical that going to war with Iraq was something on their minds, since Hussein was doing everything possible to bait war. The only people swayed by this drek are people who don't need to be swayed.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmm. One guy's notes, uncorroborated otherwise (what does "confirmed by the New York Times and NBC News" mean, exactly)? So it's his interpretation of what was said and not an official transcript. Cherry-picked sound bites that don't sound surprising in the least to me; that Bush didn't expect the diplomatic initiative to be sucessful in persuading Saddam, that the decision to take him out would likely come sooner than later. I'm shocked, shocked. And to think that the CIC's of the two major powers of the invading force were discussing the invasion 6 weeks in advance. The nerve of those guys.

The erroneous assumption here is that planning of these sorts of things is (& was) strictly linear - that's just not true and hardly efficient. Planning has to be parallel & contingent. Gene knows that, he just doesn't care, nor do the media.

Take it for what it's worth. Doesn't "prove" anything, any more than the Killian memos proved anything. People with some pre-determined opinions found a few words that matched them & that's all they needed to sound the trumpets. Andrea Mitchell may be the former FedHed's bed partner, but there is precious little "proof" here.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
if only maxwell smart had been present.

fate really dealt bush such a cruel blow by denying him the satisfaction of witnessing an expert of smart's caliber evaluating for the first time the president's ingenious plan to disguise a u-2 to make it appear part of the un's high-tech fleet of spy planes.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The erroneous assumption here is that planning of these sorts of things is (& was) strictly linear


the even more erroneous assumption is there was planning of any type other than what reasonable people would deem strictly nonsense.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

First, many countries have some types of WMD. We have not and can not invade every unfriendly country with WMD.

Second, no rogue state would attack a major power for the simple reason is that to do so would bring an end to their power base. They would also not supply the WMD to a third party to be used against a major power for the weapons would most likely be traced back to their source. That would bring the same retaliation that would result if the rogue state directly attacked the major power.

Iraq did not pose a danger to the U S that justified our invasion. They had no nuclear weapons which the intelligence knew. The Bush Administration was aware there was NO nuclear program that would be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in Iraq. The mushroom cloud of Cheney was just a scare tactic. As to gas and Bio weapons, even if Saddam had these weapons he no means of delivery and had he some how found a way to employ any such agents against the United States or supplied them to a third party to use, Iraq would have been history. Saddam maintained the illusion of WMD to fend off countries like Iran and to retain power within Iraq.

The Bush invasion of Iraq was not because we were in danger from Iraq. It was all a BIG LIE to cover a policy that Bush chooses to follow from the very beginning of his administration. When members of the administration are pressed by the fact that Saddam had no nuclear program and that our intelligence told Bush that, the retort is that Saddam wanted such weapons. If we are to attack every unfriendly country that WANTS such weapons, we better start the draft and press all those illegal aliens into military service for we will be at WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD!

Yesterday a story came out that Cheney, as soon as the Florida vote Count was stopped by the Supreme Court, sent a request the Pentagon for information about Iraq and NO OTHER COUNTRY. The sources, which are military and former military generals, said they knew from day one that Bush intended to invade Iraq. That was long before 9/11!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

First, many countries have some types of WMD. We have not and can not invade every unfriendly country with WMD.

Second, no rogue state would attack a major power for the simple reason is that to do so would bring an end to their power base. They would also not supply the WMD to a third party to be used against a major power for the weapons would most likely be traced back to their source. That would bring the same retaliation that would result if the rogue state directly attacked the major power.

Iraq did not pose a danger to the U S that justified our invasion. They had no nuclear weapons which the intelligence knew. The Bush Administration was aware there was NO nuclear program that would be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in Iraq. The mushroom cloud of Cheney was just a scare tactic. As to gas and Bio weapons, even if Saddam had these weapons he no means of delivery and had he some how found a way to employ any such agents against the United States or supplied them to a third party to use, Iraq would have been history. Saddam maintained the illusion of WMD to fend off countries like Iran and to retain power within Iraq.

The Bush invasion of Iraq was not because we were in danger from Iraq. It was all a BIG LIE to cover a policy that Bush chooses to follow from the very beginning of his administration. When members of the administration are pressed by the fact that Saddam had no nuclear program and that our intelligence told Bush that, the retort is that Saddam wanted such weapons. If we are to attack every unfriendly country that WANTS such weapons, we better start the draft and press all those illegal aliens into military service for we will be at WAR ALL OVER THE WORLD!

Yesterday a story came out that Cheney, as soon as the Florida vote Count was stopped by the Supreme Court, sent a request the Pentagon for information about Iraq and NO OTHER COUNTRY. The sources, which are military and former military generals, said they knew from day one that Bush intended to invade Iraq. That was long before 9/11!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
#11 by COL Gene
Tuesday, March 28, 2006


Col, you must love the copy paste function of the PC don't you? I think what happens here is that if Col repeats himself enough times that he will actually begin to convince people.

I find it incredible that one guy says he heard the President say something and it's automatically true. Well, that's Col for you. The guy would vote for Hitler if he was against Bush as well.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are referring to O'Neil he has recounted the issue from him attending the cabinet meeting. He has been a loyal Republican all his life and has NO reason to make up such a story. The store today about Cheney asking for info ONLY about Iraq comes from multiple Pentagon sources. The information that Sadden DID NOT have a nuclear program has been documented by many intelligence agencies. The memo concerning the conversation between Bush and Blair six weeks before our invasion has been documented. The problem here is that those that support Bush refuse to look at ANYTHING that does not reflect well on King George!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are referring to O'Neil he has recounted the issue from him attending the cabinet meeting. He has been a loyal Republican all his life and has NO reason to make up such a story. The store today about Cheney asking for info ONLY about Iraq comes from multiple Pentagon sources. The information that Sadden DID NOT have a nuclear program has been documented by many intelligence agencies. The memo concerning the conversation between Bush and Blair six weeks before our invasion has been documented. The problem here is that those that support Bush refuse to look at ANYTHING that does not reflect well on King George!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not know why JoeUser is double posting. The system must want to emphasize the points I am making!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are referring to O'Neil he has recounted the issue from him attending the cabinet meeting. He has been a loyal Republican all his life and has NO reason to make up such a story. The store today about Cheney asking for info ONLY about Iraq comes from multiple Pentagon sources. The information that Sadden DID NOT have a nuclear program has been documented by many intelligence agencies. The memo concerning the conversation between Bush and Blair six weeks before our invasion has been documented. The problem here is that those that support Bush refuse to look at ANYTHING that does not reflect well on King George!


Then explain why he's the only one who remembers GW saying that? You can't can you?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then explain why he's the only one who remembers GW saying that?


UUHHH, UUUHHH, UUUUHHH. I can answer that. Pick me, Pick me!!!!!!

Maybe it has something to do with a million dollar tell all book deal contact hanging on having something juicy to say. Remember how much money someone got for a book claiming that First Lady was the Go to Girl in Collage. Just follow the money, it don't matter if a person is Conservative or Liberal. It's all about pushing the book, who would want to by a book from him if there was not something juicy. It would be just another paper weight book on the Bush administration if he did not add something.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you are referring to O'Neil he has recounted the issue from him attending the cabinet meeting. He has been a loyal Republican all his life and has NO reason to make up such a story.


Don't make me laugh Col.

Maybe it has something to do with a million dollar tell all book deal contact hanging on having something juicy to say.


Does that answer your question? Money, it's always money. There's not a dam person in the US who would change their minds if their back account had six 0's added at the end of their last known amount. But wait, Col will never believe that O'Niel will do such a thing for money. I mean he works for the Gov't or did, money is never on a Gov't employee's mind.

I do not know why JoeUser is double posting. The system must want to emphasize the points I am making!


Sure, blame the system. Have you noticed that not everyone is having that problem? Maybe you need a new PC. And a new brain while you're at it.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
the even more erroneous assumption is there was planning of any type other than what reasonable people would deem strictly nonsense.


What next, kb? "Your mom wears combat boots."?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To be fair, lots of people have been having the double post problem.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
A small child, skinned her knee, and IT'S ALL BUSHES FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
To be fair, lots of people have been having the double post problem.


SECRET MEMO PROVES BUSH KNEW ABOUT THE DOUBLE POSTING PROBLEM!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's not a dam person in the US who would change their minds if their back account had six 0's added at the end of their last known amount.


And if they're adready billionairie? 1 billion + 6 zeros = 1,000,000,000,000,000 bucks.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
The two richest people in the world, each with MANY BILLIONS advised Bush NOT to cut taxes to the wealthy for two reasons. First they wealthy did NOT NEED MORE MONEY. Second, the country had MUCH MORE IMPORTANT USED FOR THAT MONEY. Did Bush listen? Hell NO. The Sec of the Treasury and Fed Chairman said DO NOT RETURN to budget deficits, Tie the tax cuts to AVAILABLE SURPLUSES to pay for them. Did Bush listen? HELL NO! What an idiot we have elected President.