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

Why Bush II didn't change the policy and kept discussing it is indeed interesting. But I think the answer could simply be that Bush II had the same motives as the previous administration.

Did that occur to you?

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?

You know, Col. Tukhachevsky, as critical of the President's venture into Iraq as I am, I have no regrets whatsoever about supporting a military action to oust Hussein from power. Hussein made it his duty to be a thorn in the side of America ever since the first war. The guy had every intention of restarting the WMD programs once the sanctions were removed (which appeared to very likely to happen in the near future. Even the Deulfer report made clear that plan. And the continued sanctions against Iraq, which was manipulated into anti-American propaganda by international communism, caused as much resentment in the Arab world as the current occupation does. Osama bin laden himself played up the sanctions as a reason to attack America.

The folly of trying to turn a barbaric, sectarian, cousin-marrying, tribal country made up of three distinct people into a liberal democracy, perhaps like Sweden, was a pipe dream. But taking out Hussein was definitely a good thing.

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.

That pipe drean has cost this country 2,100 lives, 35,000 injuries and almost $300 billion dollars... Osama still has not been captured and Moslem terrorists are active all over the world including in Iraq.

I would very much like to hear what COL Gene has in mind for the alternative. 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.

Don't forget to include how this plan would have helped capture Osama bin Laden and stopped Muslim terrorists from being "active all over the world".

Because it's my opinion that his Bush-bashing has no viable alternative solution.
I would love COL Gene to prove me wrong.

"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.

First, I would not have used American Ground forces to occupy Iraq. As we have discovered, all that has done is get us in a situation where there is no win. We went into Iraq with NO EXIT plan and without world support. Bush 41 knew that but Bush 43 was not that smart.

I would have used our forces at the outset to capture bin laden not the 6,000 that Bush sent into capture him. Bush was full if his "Dead or Alive" BS but did not use the force levels to get the job done. He was too busy invading iraq that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or that posed any real danger to the U S. 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. Bush is incompetent and has managed to tie up a large portion of our military on an adventure that has a high probability of failure.

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

Paul O'Neill has no reason to lie about what took place in that cabinet meeting. He too was a Republican appointed by Bush. All you Bushies when you can not provide an answer attack the messinger. I guess the 2,100 dead, and the 35,000 injuries and the $300 billion because of Bush attacking Iraq did not happen. What do you want 2,100 death Certificates. The medical reports of the 35,000 injuries and the cancelled checks for the $300 billion . Anyone that defends the Bush BS is not worth the powder to blow them to HELL.

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.

Why did Bush want to remove Saddam? The simple answer is that it was American foreign policy to do so.
It had always been an issue, but in 1998, it became official foreign policy
www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm.

As for it being in the first cabinet meeting, given that it was a topic in the Bush/Gore debates, I'd be rather
surprised if it was not a topic. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were considered to be the three hottest security
issues when Clinton left office. I would expect his successor chose to discuss those issues as a priority,
whether it was Gore or Bush that took office.

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?

Paul O'Neill has no reason to lie about what took place in that cabinet meeting.

He also has no reason to know the background or context - he was Treasury Secretary, FCOL. And the fact that Iraq was discussed (there is no evidence that an intent to invade Iraq was discussed) is hardly surprising. We pay the guy to do the kind of stuff you and all the Bush critics are all over his ass about - gather information, consider options & variables in our foreign policy, taking worst & best case scenarios into account, all that stuff. It is assinine for you to tell us what the administration's intent or Bush's plan was when you don't know a thing except the loosely constructed hypothesis based on Paul O'Neill's memory of his first Cabinet meeting. Furthermore, O'Neill didn't lie (any more than Bush did) - he just jumped to some conclusions he was unqualified to make.

Cheers,
Daiwa

William de Haan

Don't I know you from somewhere?

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

Opinion has NOTHING to do with the subjects that were talked about in a Cabinet Meeting. It does not change a thing that O'Neill was Tres. Sec. He knew the subjects that were talked about. Why would that subject have been included unless it was part of the Bush agenda? Bush was set on removing Saddam and he used what ever reasons he could to try and justify his actions. Just look at how the rational changed.

First it was WMD.

Then Saddam was a Evil person and we had to enforce the U N Resolutions.

Today it is the Spreading Democracy concept.

Bush says people that oppose his policy want to change history. He has changed the reason we attacked Iraq (changing history) at least three times since late 2002.