Woodward's book says Bush determined to attack Iraq as of 11/01

[SirFozzie]

SUUUUURE it was about the WMD. Keep peddling the bullshit, Repubs.. it'll keep comin back to haunt you.


President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy.

Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as U.S. forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war, journalist Bob Woodward writes in "Plan of Attack," a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion.

Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside November 21, 2001 -- when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan -- and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.

The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.

Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.

In an interview two years later, Bush told Woodward that if the news had leaked, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation."

The Bush administration's drive toward war with Iraq raised an international furor anyway, alienating long-time allies who did not believe the White House had made a sufficient case against Saddam. Saddam was toppled a year ago and taken into custody last December. But the central figure of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, remains at large and a threat to the west.

The book says Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of Central Command, uttered a string of obscenities when the Pentagon told him to come up with an Iraq war plan in the midst of fighting another conflict.

[Fritz]

You can not have two accounts NoMyths!

[Fritz]

dola

We have war plans for lots of countries. They are just plans.

[HornedFrog Purple]

fritz is doing damage control for the upcoming Woodward book about him.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Fritz

dola

We have war plans for lots of countries. They are just plans.

I'd like to see our war plans for Canada.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Fritz

You can not have two accounts NoMyths!

Hi Fritz.

Bite me.

(actually, don't, I might get republican germs )

[SirFozzie]

I think it just proves that Bush=Out of touch with the real world. If something doesn't fit his set of the facts, he ignores them.

[yabanci]

it will be fun to watch the idol worshiping republican grunts twist into pretzels trying to deal with this one.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by yabanci

it will be fun to watch the idol worshiping republican grunts twist into pretzels trying to deal with this one.

Fritz handled it. We have plans for attacks on many countries. What is funny is that all the people scratching at anything they can to support their assumptions that Bush is a warmongering fool who can only blow things up.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'd like to see our war plans for Canada.

I thought they were applying for statehood?

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'd like to see our war plans for Canada.

It involves a mounted donkey invasion. That is all I can say.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

....Bush is a warmongering fool who can only blow things up.

I don't really have a problem with that.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

It involves a mounted donkey invasion. That is all I can say.

If I have to mount a donkey, I'm burning my draft card.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

If I have to mount a donkey, I'm burning my draft card.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what STD you may provide for your donkey.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by The Afoci

Fritz handled it. We have plans for attacks on many countries. What is funny is that all the people scratching at anything they can to support their assumptions that Bush is a warmongering fool who can only blow things up.

you mean it's the normal course of business for the president to ask the defense secretary draw up new plans (not contingency plans, mind you) in the middle of a different war and try to keep it secret fromt he CIA director and national security advisor? The comedy begins anew.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside November 21, 2001 -- when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan -- and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.

Hmm. They updated the outdated plan. Sweet mother of Jesus. Impeach him.

Plus I am sure that Woodward has it exactly the way it went down. Bush and Rumsfeld hiding in a secret room dreaming up the best way to blow shit up.

[SirFozzie]

Actually, yes, yes they were.

"Hi... General Franks? I know you're busy out there in Afghanistan.. but I want you to draw up plans as soon as possible to go after Iraq next"

I mean, god.. finish one (justified) war before you get ready for the next (lame attempt at justifying that fell flatter then a pancake run over for a steamroller!)

He saw the #'s were way up because they were Taking Action in Afghanistan, and figured he'd get the same boost from Iraq. And it's blowing up in his face.

I just wish it wouldn't have cost the lives of a couple hundred of US Troops first

[yabanci]

"...Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- never close despite years of working together -- that became so strained that Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessed with trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.

Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a private dinner he hosted a year ago to celebrate the outcome of the war that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do."

Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq -- "you break it, you own it," according to Woodward...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr16.html

[SplitPersonality1]

/start rant

We are supposed to believe 100% of everything in this book because.....? ? ?

It's not like Woodward has an agenda or anything.

I don't agree with everything the president has said or done during his term in office, but at least I think I have a fair amount of objectivity.

I realize that this thread will probably turn into the same steaming pile of crap that these political threads always turn into. Folks on both sides of the aisle need to stop agreeing with whatever "their" guys happen to be saying at the time. Be objective. Dig in and try to research the facts. And for goodness sake, think for yourselves.

/end rant

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'd like to see our war plans for Canada executed.

Hey, me too! (My first ever Fritzing. I feel dirty).

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

/start rant
We are supposed to believe 100% of everything in this book because.....? ? ?
/end rant

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

If something doesn't fit his set of the facts, he ignores them.

I think we are suppose to believe it because it supports their version of the 'facts'.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

/start rant

We are supposed to believe 100% of everything in this book because.....? ? ?

Because Woodward got it straight from Bush? (he interviews him several times to corroborate information in this box)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

/start rant

We are supposed to believe 100% of everything in this book because.....? ? ?

It's not like Woodward has an agenda or anything.

I don't know if you're familiar with Woodward's last book, Bush At War, but when it was released Woodward was widely criticized for having sold out and become entirely too chummy with, and too uncritical, of the administration. On the other hand he was also credited for having the best access to the administration and insider info of just about anyone writing about them. Both of which tend to shoot down theories that Woodward is anti-Bush or is misinformed.

I don't think the early planning is really news. This point has been made by Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke and many others already. And it's not like the administration is doing anything to combat these charges. They simply deflect them into "what're you, a Saddam lover?" sorts of replies.

The depth of animosity between the Powell and Cheney camps is a bit surprising though. That they disagreed with each other is no surprise, but it was clearly a more intense conflict that had been previously realized. Makes me wonder again about Powell's integrity. I think he's a great guy, intelligent, with good judgement, but he seems to be constantly rolling over and cooperating against his better judgement in this administration.

[Maple Leafs]

Wait, I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11?

[miked]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'd like to see our war plans for Canada.

It somehow should incorporate the threat, "surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto."

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

.....It's not like Woodward has an agenda or anything. ......

Just so I'm clear, exactly what is his agenda? Is the same or different as with his "Bush at War" book?

[Samdari]

I thought Bob Woodward was a movie character?

[Butter]

Bush wanted to attack Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his dad. Period. Whether or not you're ok with that, I don't really care. But that's what I believe.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Wait, I thought the standard conspiracy theory was that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11?

Me too. Isn't that what Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill supposedly revealed? You'd think if he was obsessed over invading Iraq before 9/11, he would have updated the war plan before November. So either A)This is old news and just helps corroborate the already held belief of most anti-War people or B)Clarke and O'Neill were exaggerating, but Woodward is really telling us where Bush's infatuation with Iraq manifested itself or C)They're all wrong. If it's C, which I doubt, then that would be surprising. A or B are much ado about nothing.

Everyone knew members of his government wanted to invade Iraq as soon as he became President. At some point he agreed with them. Then the WMD became the most convenient casus belli to try and get UN approval.

[BishopMVP]

Dola. Also from an article about Woodward's book.

Bush wanted someone with Powell's credibility to present the evidence that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- a case the president had initially found less than convincing when presented to him by CIA deputy director John McLaughlin at a White House meeting on December 21, 2002.

McLaughlin's version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence. "Nice try," Bush said when he was finished, according to the book. "I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you."

"Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case," Tenet repeated.

Tenet later told associates he realized he should have said the evidence on weapons was not ironclad, according to Woodward.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Just so I'm clear, exactly what is his agenda? Is the same or different as with his "Bush at War" book?

Haven't read the new book, but I did read Bush at War and in that book Woodward did mention right after 9/11 Iraq came up as a topic of discussion. This is old news that has been out there for a couple years. I don't understand it's suddenyl some new issue. Bush himself admitted to this three years ago when Woodward interviewed him for that book.

Fritz is right though. The National Security Council (the Pres, VP, National Security Advisor, and SECDEF) is a committee who's primary function is a game of "what if's". I guarantee you the Clinton NSC talked about invading Iraq on more than one occassion, that's what this group does. They talk about how they would handle things if they were forced into a confrontation with other countries. Let me reveal some other ugly truths, the NSC under Bush (and likely CLinton as well) probably spends a great deal of time discussing how they would handle a war in Korea, Taiwan, and East Europe. If China invaded Taiwan, we aided Taiwan, and it was revealed Bush held a meeting in 2002 to discuss a war with China would the press be saying Bush wanted a war with China all along? The NSC would have been negligent in its duty if hadn't discussed planning for a war in Iraq.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

The depth of animosity between the Powell and Cheney camps is a bit surprising though. That they disagreed with each other is no surprise, but it was clearly a more intense conflict that had been previously realized. Makes me wonder again about Powell's integrity. I think he's a great guy, intelligent, with good judgement, but he seems to be constantly rolling over and cooperating against his better judgement in this administration.

You have to remember that Powell was an Army guy. He spent a good portion of his life following a superior officer's order. I have no doubt that he probably disagrees a lot behind closed doors, but out in public he sees Bush as his 'superior officer' and as such Bush's last word is it, and it's his job to carry it out. That's been his mentality for his entire life (and probably most others who spent a good portion of their life in one of the armed forces).

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Fritz

You can not have two accounts NoMyths!

Heh. Sadly, the two (or more) account thing just never appealed to me.

It will be interesting watching the administration's supporters try to spin that Woodward is a poor and/or biased source, though. I remember another president that tried that tack.

Anyone who doesn't think the administration wanted to invade Iraq on any grounds way before 9/11 is deluded. I was telling folks that we'd be invading Iraq if Mr. Bush won the election way before the actual event.

[Flasch186]

What shocks me in all discussions that end up being political and Im only beginning to grasp the entirety of this since I started reading on here, Is how much stuff a die hard republican will deflect or say is unimportant while defending the admin almost 100% of the time. The standard statment of "I trust Bush" seems to be the underlying sentiment which translates in my head to " I trust everything Bush says." Those same people then use the "dont believe everything you hear" defense when slamming opposition. Well, Im just glad that so much is out there now that the admin cant defame these oppositionists anymore as then it just looks like a reach so their safe from accusations that Clark had to endure. I loved the "there are wierd things in his personal life" line. That was so awful of a statement that I believe it must've directly come from Karl Rove, a gutter liver, IMO.

This whole admin is embroiled in Spin and cannot do anything but spin the spin. i have a friend who exagerrates and eventually you find that the line blurs very quickly between exageration and lying and eventually he has to lie to cover the lie adn then eventually he lies to get out of it when he's caught. I think that that is what we have here. It isn't a light matter and too many people have suffered or died because of it.

[Dutch]

Then you are saying we should not have had a policy of regime change in Iraq?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Then you are saying we should not have had a policy of regime change in Iraq?

[similar spin]

By regime change are you specifically meaning the Bush administration policy of using bad evidence and lies to threaten Americans with the likelihood of Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons in order to invade the country and satisfy completely different purposes?

[/similar spin]

Because if that's the regime change we're talking about, then no--I think we could have achieved better results through different methods.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

[similar spin]

By regime change are you specifically meaning the Bush administration policy of using bad evidence and lies to threaten Americans with the likelihood of Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons in order to invade the country and satisfy completely different purposes?

[/similar spin]

Because if that's the regime change we're talking about, then no--I think we could have achieved better results through different methods.

You hate America, don't you, you dirty Saddam lover!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

[similar spin]

By regime change are you specifically meaning the Bush administration policy of using bad evidence and lies to threaten Americans with the likelihood of Iraqi nuclear and biological weapons in order to invade the country and satisfy completely different purposes?

[/similar spin]

Because if that's the regime change we're talking about, then no--I think we could have achieved better results through different methods.

It's the same evidence that Bill Clinton used after diplomacy finally failed in 1998 to announce the USA's new policy of regime change. It's the same evidence the UN used for sanctions. Other methods were tried, all failed until now. Spin it how you want, but Bush's method worked and was called for. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but try not to look at it politically and perhaps you will start to "get it" a little better.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's the same evidence that Bill Clinton used after diplomacy finally failed in 1998 to announce the USA's new policy of regime change. It's the same evidence the UN used for sanctions. Other methods were tried, all failed until now. Spin it how you want, but Bush's method worked and was called for. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but try not to look at it politically and perhaps you will start to "get it" a little better.

I don't see how you can continue to spout the "diplomacy failed" canard. Diplomacy was used to insure that Iraq didn't create or posess nuclear or biological weaponry. It evidently worked. The policy of containment--a policy, I might point out, that we're seemingly satisfied with in regards to other problematic governents--was more or less working as intended. Could it have been improved upon? Certainly. But to say diplomacy failed is to really say that it was a failure of the Bush Administration's diplomacy, and the supposedly easy solution (kill the problem) hasn't worked out as well as they expected and promised it would.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure that containment was the best policy, especially in regards to the humanitarian situation in Iraq (a situation, though, that we're evidently happy to ignore in countries we are allied with, not to mention the less friendly spots). But we didn't gain world support for humanitarian reasons. We scared people off by saying we were going to smite them before they smote us, when few believed we were in any real danger from the spectres with which President Bush threatened us.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

... But to say diplomacy failed is to really say that it was a failure of the Bush Administration's diplomacy...

I don't think it is reasonable to blame only the Bush administration for failed diplomacy. The French have to take a big chunk of that responsibility as well. Whether or not they didn't want regime change in Iraq because of their sweet behind closed door dealings, or because they simply aren't comfortable with the role of America as sole superpower, and wanted reign the US in, I don't know. I just think it is shallow to blame the failure of diplomacy on Bush.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I don't see how you can continue to spout the "diplomacy failed" canard. Diplomacy was used to insure that Iraq didn't create or posess nuclear or biological weaponry. It evidently worked.

That's what you think. I think differently. I believe he has hidden them or moved them. Especially the inventories that the UN received from Iraq that were never documented as being destroyed much less witnessed being destroyed and that Clinton was trying to bomb in 1998.

The policy of containment--a policy, I might point out, that we're seemingly satisfied with in regards to other problematic governents--was more or less working as intended.

Hey, it wasn't you that was getting shot at protecting the other committments in the region (Norhtern and Southern Watch), it wasn't you getting bombed in Tel Aviv buses that were paid for by Saddam Hussein, it wasn't you that was going to beh the recipient of uncontrolled Al Qaeda camps in northern Iraq, it wasn't your children that were dying while Saddam Hussein build new palaces of gold with his "Oil Program Money"...but yeah, other than that, the sanctions were working brilliantly.

Could it have been improved upon? Certainly. But to say diplomacy failed is to really say that it was a failure of the Bush Administration's diplomacy, and the supposedly easy solution (kill the problem) hasn't worked out as well as they expected and promised it would.

But we wanted this. We wanted Saddam Hussein to go. There was no more room for diplomacy and certainly no more time. Either we backed the UN resolutions or they would never be backed.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure that containment was the best policy, especially in regards to the humanitarian situation in Iraq (a situation, though, that we're evidently happy to ignore in countries we are allied with, not to mention the less friendly spots). But we didn't gain world support for humanitarian reasons. We scared people off by saying we were going to smite them before they smote us, when few believed we were in any real danger from the spectres with which President Bush threatened us.

If we listen to Amnesty International, containment was "justified holocaust". I don't know if it's true, it's one of those left-wing groups.

Also, to say, "We aren't invading all countries, so we shouldn't do it to Iraq." is logically wrong on many different levels. I have seen that line of reasoning before, but it doesn't fit. We have used diplomacy on almost every level with Iraq. We have pleaded with the U.N., we have pleaded with the Arab League, we have tried the Republican way (H.W. Bush) and the Democrat way (Clinton).

Also, I'm not sure if you mean to say that you would only agree to such military action if we simultaniously used it on a number of countries. That to me is frightening and certainly not using military action smartly. Perhaps your suggestion is that we start WWIII to make it more fair to all the bad guys?

But without starting a massive world war, I believe the removal of the Taliban and the Baath Party are substantial accomplishments in the war against terrorism. Maybe you would prefer those "governments" still be in place, you know, when everybody loved the USA.

I believe that Pakistan working with the USA to fight terrorists in their own country should be viewed as a good thing, perhaps Libya's return to civilization could also be viewed in this light. Maybe you would prefer Libya and Pakistan still be on our list?

And that is in 3 years. I don't see it as a failure at all. I don't see it as spin. I see opponents viewpoints as either faulty or spun. I can't change that, based on what I know. That's just the way it is for me, in all honesty. I don't want you to vote for Bush. I just want the vote to be based on how well he Bush did his job.

Do we blame him for how fucked up the world is or do we credit him for trying to do something about it?

[yabanci]

the tortured logic is seeping out, but just wait until next week.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

the tortured logic is seeping out, but just wait until next week.

Pray tell, kind sir, what will happen then?

[yabanci]

the book will be released.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by yabanci

the book will be released.

Eh, all the juicy stuff gets out there early.