The previous administration never proposed invading Iraq they way Bush talked about in his fiirst cabinet meeting. How in January 2001 was Saddam part of 9/11 as Bush and Chemney claimed when it had not taken place yet?

That pipe drean has cost this country 2,100 lives, 35,000 injuries and almost $300 billion dollars. Almost all of that was not to remove Saddam but the folly that followed for which Bush is responsible. Osama still has not been captured and Moslem terrorists are active all over the world including in Iraq.

"Because as a decorated veteran in command and leadership positions throughout his illustrious career (of which he has no hesitation to remind the naysayers), he hasn't used that tactical or strategic brain of his to find another way."

The Col can't form any thought that isn't in reference to Bush. I've challenged him to. I've basically dared him to. He can't. Go read his blog. He is here for one purpose, and one purpose alone. I can't treat him as a real human being, because there is nothing rational or human about what he presents here.

He's a headless sandwich board with an anti-Bush slogan on it. It's a shame because he is intelligent and no doubt has a lot of things he could blog about. He chooses to make himself a joke for some reason.

Gene, are you rehashing the O'Neill allegations about that meeting or do you have a certified transcript? If you don't have the latter, just go away.

No one has provided any proof to bolster O'Neill's characterization of what was discussed at that meeting about Iraq or what the administration's intent was at that time.

And before you bother, the pre-9/11 existence of secret documents titled "Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq" and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" does not constitute proof - we don't know when or by whom they were authored or in what context they were prepared & considered.

BakerStreet is correct - you choose to be a joke.

Cheers,
Daiwa

All you Bushies when you can not provide an answer attack the messinger.

COL Curmudgeon, Daiwa did not attack O'Neill, if by the above statement you are calling O'Neill the "messinger". Nor did she attack you, except to call you on something that is hearsay in the best possible scenario.

I guess the 2,100 dead, and the 35,000 injuries and the $300 billion because of Bush attacking Iraq did not happen.

Yes, they did happen. You called into question the motives behind that decision. Then proceeded to give us a rendition of the past three years, COL Gene style...

I would have used our forces at the outset to capture bin laden not the 6,000 that Bush sent into capture him.

Okay, first of all I am going to take you at your word that there were only 6k soldiers sent, since I can't be bothered to look it up for myself. Probably a mistake.

Anyway, so 6000 soldiers: Special Forces, 10th Mountain Division, and others various and sundry was not enough for you. Did that inadequacy strike you at the outset or are you looking at it from the benefit of hindsight? Oh wait, don't forget or overlook the mind-numbing amount of air power flying over AfPak mountain ranges levelling all it saw. Or the U2 recon aircraft taking snapshots of the terrain to protect the paltry 6000 soldiers sent there... just because we haven't gotten Bin Laden yet doesn't mean the troop levels were insufficient. It means Osama is craftier in those caves the Carter administration dug for him when we fought the Russkies there. Also, I have not heard anyone complain that troop levels were inadequate in the AfPak theater.

He was too busy invading iraq

He wasn't busy doing anything else, since the war in Afghanistan started in October of 2001. Unless I am mistaken, and I am not since I was covering the war that night, the war with Iraq began in March 2003. Ummm, that's 17 months of concentration.

I would have made the policical decission (to attack or not to attack Iraq) but left the HOW and HOW MANY TROOPS up to the people that have that knowledge.

Which "policical decission" would you have made? You did not say. Were you trying to emphasize that it wasn't a tactical or strategic decision? Because "the people who have that knowledge" are the tacticians and the strategists. Regardless, I'm sure that you would have sided with Clinton.

Regime change in Iraq was US policy under Clinton as well as Bush II.

As a side note, I do find your typing atrocious and your spelling worse. I know you feel strongly and enthusiastically about your cause, and your fervor at the keyboard makes you want to post stuff as fast as possible. You have said before that you are not a good typist. Then could you please spell check or at least glance the way of the screen once in a while? Make a conscious effort to be readable. Your errors distract from your message.

What is the significance of the fact that at Bush's very first cabinet meeting, the issue of invading Iraq was discussed?

OK Gene, now your talking out both sides of your mouth. On one side your saying Woodward's book is correct about General's wanting more troops for Iraq.

Yet, your willing to ignore that Woodward also said in his book that Bush did not ask if the Pentagon even had a plan to remove Saddam until only five months before invasion and it was a suprise to Rumsfeld when he did. One would think Rumsfeld would of had his Staff working on something allot sooner if it was Bush's main obsession from day one.

So which of your accusations do you wish to discard now?

A. Bush and his staff was planning from day one to invade, thus declaring Woodward's book as worthless.

B. Backing Woodward's more troop request theory, thus blowing Bush’s obsession theory out of the water.

Personally I think Woodward is full of it. His book reads more like a Tom Clancy Novel, with it's word for word recounts of private meetings. Do you really think Rumsfeld or President Bush would give a word for word account of private conversations to the Watergate reporter?

William de Haan

Don't I know you from somewhere?

OS/2 newsgroups? Steven Den Beste's forum? The name sounds familiar...

Why did Bush want to remove Saddam? The simple answer is that it was American foreign policy to do so.

And before the war it was posited that we wanted Saddam in power to keep our military presence in the Middle East. Blah blah blah.
See Jesse Ventura's autobiography for that blisteringly transparent opinion.

It had always been an issue, but in 1998, it became official foreign policy www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm.

Wow, so President Bush wanted Saddam out of office as far back as 1998? I didn't know Bush was president in 1998. Wait, who was President in 1998? Oh yeah, that's right.
So regime change in Iraq wasn't a Bush policy after all, but rather a Clinton policy? Hmmm, so it wasn't GWB's idea after all... faascinating...

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I keep finding talking points and JU Forum won't let me go back and use the edit function.

As a side note, I do find your typing atrocious and your spelling worse.

What?

Oh Col gene, you have once again embarked on yet another Bush bashing adventure. You know it is an irony that you and Bush have so many things in common.

he used what ever reasons he could to try and justify his actions.

So do you.

You both seem to have trouble communicating, he trips on his own words and you can't spell for shit. Try using a spell check program to check your articles and replies before you post them Try the google tool bar. Works for me.

So you see, you are becoming the very thing you fight against. Keep it up and you gonna end up on the "Dark Side" and we gonna have to call you Col Vader.

O'Neill did say that invading Iraq was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting

Hmm. Other cabinet members seem to remember the same thing with the key exception of one word: invading. He concluded on his own that was the intent of the administration.

Until a transcript of the meeting or audio tapes are made public, or another individual present corroborates his interpretation of the discussion, it remains hearsay and worth nothing except book royalties, something I'm sure you understand, Gene.

Cheers,
Daiwa