O'Neill: Bush Entered Office Intent On Invading Iraq

[preslove]

I think they're already trying to put the hurt on him. They've opened an investigation concerning the 'cover letter' shown on 60 Minutes Sunday. Apparently, this 'cover letter' had the word classified on it.

Wow. A matter of hours and they launch an investigation over a 'cover letter' shown on TV, but expose an undercover CIA agent...who cares, we'll get to it when we get to it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It wasn't marked "classified", it was marked SECRET, which is one of three classification markings for classified material within the Department of Defense (the other two being CONFIDENTAL and TOP SECRET). SECRET material is defined as that which, if compromised, could pose a grave threat to national security. However, like most liberals, you probably don't "believe" in national security -- just some wacky "neocon" idea, like actually fighting terrorism.

Funny how Bob Woodward got stacks of secret, conofidential, and top secret documents to write his slavishly adulatory Bush at War and yet the dispensers of THOSE documents were never investigated...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: preslove

Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

You, sire have no idea what you are talking about. Contingency plans are generally drawn up by LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S and filed away, literally put on a shelf, only to be uncovered if that contingency arises. A document NEVER comes before a sitting president unless someone is actively advocating a policy. My grandfather as a lieutenant colonel created a contingency plan for the invasion of Saudi Arabia in the 1950's, but that document never reached the desk President of United States. Why? Because no one in the white house or the pentagon was preparing/planning to invade the Saudi peninsula.

The Neocons (Wolfowitz) had been advocating going back into Iraq since 1993! In 1998 Wolfowitz and other beltway pseudo scholars called on Clinton to invade. These guys came into power in an administration whose head has the intellectual depth of a kiddy pool, and a shadowy leader (cheney) for whom mendacity is a defining characteristic. They simply put into action a policy that had been advocated (and scorned by the sane foreign policy establishment) for over 7 years in the corporate funded think tank Wonderland (a magical place where peer review and intensely scrutinized methodologies are replaced with fantastic fits of conservative reveries). 9/11 merely created a nice little false justification to dupe the fools who consider Fox News 'fair and balanced.'

Nice to see you back here preslove Did you find the second ad?

Bush stated during his campaign that he wanted a regime change in Iraq - planning scenarios for doing so does not suprise me in the least.

CkG

 

[preslove]

Bush ran against "nation building," claiming that our armed forces were "overextended." He never even hinted that he would take 150,000 troops into Iraq. O'Neill claims bush was PLANNING TO GO TO WAR, not using some silly euphemism like "regime change." He never came anywhere near calling for war in the campaign.

 

[Gaard]

"Go find me a way to do this."

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: preslove

Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

You, sire have no idea what you are talking about. Contingency plans are generally drawn up by LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S and filed away, literally put on a shelf, only to be uncovered if that contingency arises. A document NEVER comes before a sitting president unless someone is actively advocating a policy. My grandfather as a lieutenant colonel created a contingency plan for the invasion of Saudi Arabia in the 1950's, but that document never reached the desk President of United States. Why? Because no one in the white house or the pentagon was preparing/planning to invade the Saudi peninsula.

The Neocons (Wolfowitz) had been advocating going back into Iraq since 1993! In 1998 Wolfowitz and other beltway pseudo scholars called on Clinton to invade. These guys came into power in an administration whose head has the intellectual depth of a kiddy pool, and a shadowy leader (cheney) for whom mendacity is a defining characteristic. They simply put into action a policy that had been advocated (and scorned by the sane foreign policy establishment) for over 7 years in the corporate funded think tank Wonderland (a magical place where peer review and intensely scrutinized methodologies are replaced with fantastic fits of conservative reveries). 9/11 merely created a nice little false justification to dupe the fools who consider Fox News 'fair and balanced.'

Nice to see you back here preslove Did you find the second ad?

Bush stated during his campaign that he wanted a regime change in Iraq - planning scenarios for doing so does not suprise me in the least.

CkG

So wait. The justification for the War has morphed from "Saddam has 'nucular' weapons" and "Saddam and Osama are sweethearts" to "Saddam was a bad guy who killed people" finally to "He was advocating 'regime change' during the election and therefore got a popular mandate to go and attack a crippled country with absolutely zero capababilities to attack United States soil?"

Quite an imagination you got there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: preslove
So wait. The justification for the War has morphed from "Saddam has 'nucular' weapons" and "Saddam and Ossama are sweethearts" to "Saddam was a bad guy who killed people" finally to "He was advocating 'regime change' during the election and therefore got a popular mandate to go and attack a crippled country with absolutely zero capababilities to attack United States soil?"

Quite an imagination you got there.

No, actually it's the truth People seem to like to pin everything on "nation building", but Bush specifically talked about Iraq and the need for change there during his campaign.

CkG

 

[preslove]

Clinton talked of 'regime change,' but never war. 'Regime change' is a vague term that could mean anything from embargo (cuba, libya), CIA work (Chile, 1950's Iran), targeted bombings (Clinton's balkan and iraq strategies) to war. Using such a term in no way indicates a willingness to go to war. Calling the military overextended, in fact, connotes an entirely different point of view, I.E. a focus on indirect measures instead of the use of our "overextended" military. To claim that he prepared the U.S. for war before 2001 is patently absurd.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: preslove

Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

You, sir have no idea what you are talking about. Contingency plans are generally drawn up by LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S and filed away, literally put on a shelf, only to be uncovered if that contingency arises. A document NEVER comes before a sitting president unless someone is actively advocating a policy. My grandfather as a lieutenant colonel created a contingency plan for the invasion of Saudi Arabia in the 1950's, but that document never reached the desk President of United States. Why? Because no one in the white house or the pentagon was preparing/planning to invade the Saudi peninsula.

Close, but no cigar this time. I regret to inform you that DoD has changed tremendously since the 50's.

These "contingency plans" are commonly refered to as OPLANs. OPLANs are now drawn up by committees consisting of field grade and general officers from the four branches as well as other entities in collaboration with DoD. Additional entities include, but are not limited to, the NSA, CIA, FBI, Rand Corporation, USCG, war colleges, contractors and sometimes even universities operating under grants, depending upon scenario complexity.

"LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S" are not the only personnel with any rank working intimately on such matters and in fact are typically some of the lowest ranking members in specific teams. While officers in the grade of O-4 and O-5 may actually physically write/edit the plans on a word processor or gather information because they are so low on the proverbial totem pole at the Pentagon, committees usually chaired by general grade officers perform comprehensive evaluation processes.

The theater of operation or projected conflict with a potential adversary almost always dictates the sophistication and inclusion of related outside agencies. For example, the OPLAN outlining the defense of West Germany during the 1970-80s included enormous input and collaboration from the CIA, State Department, NSA, USCG, West German government, Bundeswehr, NATO and NASA, just to name a few. Liasons exist and have existed at the Pentagon for a purpose.

Another example was the OPLAN for the targeting of the Soviet Union with a nuclear strike/counterstrike. This particular plan fell under a USAF four-star general. In conjunction with research performed by MIT, Johns-Hopkins and the standard plethora of governmental input, the plan was constantly revised as the situation evolved.

Today, all OPLANs, except those considered to have a negligible impact on the nation in the event of failure through implementation (i.e. declaration of war by Costa Rica), are constantly refined through a number of methods. Some of these methods include tradtional research, wargaming, simulations, intelligence collection, geopolitics, risk and availabilty of assets.