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.

Opinion has NOTHING to do with the subjects that were talked about in a Cabinet Meeting.

You're right, COL, but hearsay does. Unless you or Paul O'Neill or anyone else can produce the certified, official transcript of that meeting in question, it is hearsay.

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.

He knew the subjects that were talked about.

And that's it. Period.

Why would that subject have been included unless it was part of the Bush agenda?

Because it was part of the prior administration's agenda. That Iraq would be a subject of discussion at the first Cabinet meeting of the new administration is hardly surprising - what would be surprising would be to learn that it wasn't even mentioned, given Desert Storm & the events that unfolded on Clinton's watch. Trying after the fact to make more of it than it really was is just assinine, stupid and motivated by nothing more than opportunism.

Cheers,
Daiwa

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

What?

Singrdave

O'Neill did say that invading Iraq was a topic at the First Bush Cabinet meeting in, The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Sushind. At no time did Clinton propose to use U S Ground Troops to remove Saddam. That was 100% Bush! Bush 41 knew that was an error in the first Gulf War. Bush 43 is not smart enough to learn from the past or by his father's experience.

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.

Bush 41 knew that was an error in the first Gulf War.

Bush 41 was hamstrung by the UN mandate to liberate Kuwait. Just to the Kuwaiti border, if you please.

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

At no time did Clinton propose to use U S Ground Troops to remove Saddam.

But the Bob Woodward book, you like to quote from, says that the original Iraq assault plan used in 2003 was ordered built in 1996, and then pulled out for some reason to be revised in 1998. It sounds to me like the Clinton administration had went much farther down the road to invasion, by preparing invasion plans, then the Bush administration, who had not even dusted the plans off.

Keep struggling Gene to make two ends meet. Either say one of your sources are off the mark, or drop one of your theories. Woodward or O'Neill?

I personally think O'Neill did hear the Iraq subject, but exaggerated a little by blowing an on going military operation update into some sort of WE MUST INVADE obsession. You must remember that Saddam was shooting at American airmen almost daily at that time, to not bring the subject up would be strange.

Lee -

You did a better job of rebutting than me - even if the phrase "invading Iraq" was uttered at that meeting, there is no doubt it was simply a surprise to O'Neill, who would have had no prior knowledge of what contingency planning the Clinton administration had done. It's just been siezed upon by people like Gene to try to bend reality to fit a prejudicial notion they've constructed after the fact.

Cheers,
Daiwa

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

What?

Leauki, that was a personal aside to COL Gene. His spelling and typing errors are distracting us from his message. It was said outside the body of my response so as not to take away from the point I was trying to make. Or to "attack the messenger".

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.

C'mon, Col. Tukhachevsky, out with it. The whole point of your article seems to suggest that you didn't agree with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein--2,100 lives, 35,000 injuries and almost $300 billion dollars is almost completely due to the occupation and the silly notion that Iraqis can be turned into Swedes in anything less that a millennium (if they ever can).

How in January 2001 was Saddam part of 9/11 as Bush and Chemney claimed when it had not taken place yet?

Bush and Cheney DID NOT CLAIM that Saddam was part of 9/11 except in your deluded, Michael Mooreesque existence.

The decision to attack Iraq was based on intelligence reports that the previous administration and many prominent House and Senate members relied upon to determine that Saddam was a potential threat to the US. 12 years of sanctions and UN resolutions had not brought about compliance from this genocidal madman.

But, the truth's been given to you so many times I doubt MY tidbits would help.

Bush and Cheney DID NOT CLAIM that Saddam was part of 9/11 except in your deluded, Michael Mooreesque existence. The decision to attack Iraq was based on intelligence reports that the previous administration and many prominent House and Senate members relied upon to determine that Saddam was a potential threat to the US. 12 years of sanctions and UN resolutions had not brought about compliance from this genocidal madman. But, the truth's been given to you so many times I doubt MY tidbits would help.

Col gene's problem is that anyone who can say anything to make Bush look bad is good enough for him. It could come from the Sec Treasury, the Presidents brother, the guy who cleans the oval office, one of the FBI agents who follows the President around, heck it could come from one of the people who take one of those tourist walks around the White House. Col will believe them as long as it's against Bush. He doesn't need any physical evidence, he's 100% sure that these people have no reason to lie. I guess money is not that important to many people anymore.