The Bush War Cabinet...

[Malachi151]

One of my biggest claims as to why I believe that the main goal of the Bush administration in seeking election was to wage war with Iraqi is the very makeup of the cabinet itself.

Dick Cheney - Former Secretary of Defense and a man who had been planning an invasion of Iraq since 1992, also a signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Lewis Libby - Cohort of Wolfowitz and long time supporter of preemtive war, and an invasion of Iraq, also a signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Paul Wolfowitz - Major proponent of preemptive American action and a man that was designing plans to invade Iraq since the mid 1990s, also a signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Donald Rumsfeld - Another proponent of an Iraqi invasion, also a signer of the PNAC statement of principles.

Now we knwo for a fact that all these guy have been working together on plans for American military action since the mid 1990s that include the Invasion of Iraq as an important part of America's action to secure its role in the world.

So claim that Bush just "happened" to have all these guys in his cabinet when we were hit by a "terrorist" attack, and "pushed" into war with Saddam. I mean come on, this is absured. How can anyone deny that these people wanted to go to war with Saddam from even before they set foot in office, and that most likely the entire focus of Bush getting into office was to wage this war with Iraq.

Do anyone really believe that the move for war with Iraq was reactionary as they claimed it was? I surely don't.

Th evidence surely makes a strong case that war with Iraq was the major motivating factor of the establishment of the Bush campaign for office in the first place.

The idea that he "just happened" to have all of the most gung-ho in Americas, who had been planning for in invasion of Iraq on his team when "conditions called for war", is just insane.

[Gem]

Do anyone really believe that the move for war with Iraq was reactionary as they claimed it was?

I never heard that it was reactionary, but I don't know every single quote from the US war cabinet. However it is foolish to think it was reactionary. The war was anything BUT reactionary. 2 years in office, then five months at the UN, is anything but reactionary.

You do point out some disturbing evidence. What I'm really curious about is how many Americans are aware of this document?

Gem

[Gem]

I forgot to mention something. Let's just say that these people intended to go to war since the mid 1990s. How does this single fact make the war unjustified? FDR was taking steps before 1939 and Pearl Harbor to get America ready to go to war with Japan and Hitler. Does that make US involvement in WW2 unjustified because they were planning to go years ahead?

Gem

[Clancie]

Not to mention this group, the National Defense Council, our shadow war-mongering cabinet, hand in glove with Rumsfeld:

http://www.ndcf.org/who.html

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So give that Bush just "happened" to have all these guys in his cabinet when we were hit by a "terrorist" attack,

So, are you implying that the September 11 attacks were part of a U.S. government conspiracy like you claimed that the Kennedy assasination was a government conspiracy?

[Khalid01]

The fellow that I also find frightening is the Secretary of the Army, Thomas E. White. He's a former Enron executive, and as the company was falling, he was cashing in his stocks, and was signed up on Bush's league. I don't want to cry "corruption ridden conspiracy", but it's very tempting in this individual's case.

[peptoabysmal]

Why wage war when all he had to do to earn his place as president was keep his hands off the interns and straighten out the economy? War is an awfully politically risky venture for a president. If anything goes wrong, which usually does in a war, the president is made to look the fool.

I think that war with Iraq was inevetible. Saddam was a lying bastard who was planning to take over the Middle East, and his Arab "brothers" knew that. That's why only a handful of the really crazy ones came to his defense. Better we took him out sooner, than later.

[swellman]

Originally posted by Khalid01
The fellow that I also find frightening is the Secretary of the Army, Thomas E. White. He's a former Enron executive, and as the company was falling, he was cashing in his stocks, and was signed up on Bush's league. I don't want to cry "corruption ridden conspiracy", but it's very tempting in this individual's case.

You do realize that he resigned in April (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/5718540.htm)? The Enron scandal had been hounding him for months, but I believe in the end he was forced out in a power play with Rumsfeld.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Why wage war when all he had to do to earn his place as president was keep his hands off the interns and straighten out the economy? War is an awfully politically risky venture for a president. If anything goes wrong, which usually does in a war, the president is made to look the fool.

I think that war with Iraq was inevetible. Saddam was a lying bastard who was planning to take over the Middle East, and his Arab "brothers" knew that. That's why only a handful of the really crazy ones came to his defense. Better we took him out sooner, than later.

Ah, but it wasn't the president who wanted war, just Wolfowitz et al. Their careers would still be pretty much intact no matter what the outcome- and America would be a greater, safer place for all. In their minds, at least.

For the person who asked above, 9/11 wasn't part of the warmongers plans. It merely sped the process up a bit. But war with Iraq, as peptoabysmal says, was inevitable- it was all part of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's "The world will be a better place under Pax Americana" philosophy.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Why wage war when all he had to do to earn his place as president was keep his hands off the interns and straighten out the economy? War is an awfully politically risky venture for a president. If anything goes wrong, which usually does in a war, the president is made to look the fool.

I think that war with Iraq was inevetible. Saddam was a lying bastard who was planning to take over the Middle East, and his Arab "brothers" knew that. That's why only a handful of the really crazy ones came to his defense. Better we took him out sooner, than later.

TOTALLY missing the point here. The issue is not "oh, how do I get relected." The issue is that these people had reason why hey wnated to invade Iraq. Getting someone in office that would let them do what they wanted was the key to them being able to go fourth with their plan of an invasion of Iraq.

The whole point, from the very begnnning was to get into office, and then use the Presidential power to invade Iraq. Who cares about elections and politics and the economy? That's all secondary to the goal of an invasion of occupation of Iraq.

Now, why did they want to? I think that for the most part they believe it is the right course of action to take for shaping the American future as a global superpower of unmatchable strength. I think that for the most part these are just people who think that that is what is best for America. These idealistic and driven people with lots of power.

I think that Cheney was more in it for the money though, but it was about ultiamtely the American economy, and what they felt was neeeded to secure the Americna economy, as well as deals that would directly benefit them and the Americna wealthy establishment.

I'm talking about 10 to 20 people who were "sitting in a room together" 4-6 years ago saying, "America has got to secure our position in the Persian Gulf. In order to do that we are going to have to invade Iraq, its the key to the Gulf. Saddam provides a perfect excuse, so we need ot get in now while Saddam is still in power so we have a reason to invade. Americans military and economic situation is too closely tied to Persian GUlf oil, and right now we have lost control of Iran and Iraq, and we are loosing Saudi Arabia, we have got to do something. Get George Bush on the phone, and let's get our ass into office and take Iraq."

That's what I'm talking about.

[crackmonkey]

If anyone ever needed a definition of 'woo-woo', here you go...

[corplinx]

A terrorist attack was a good excuse to go after Saddam. When we announced a war on terrorism, our friend Sharon posed the question, "yes, but all terrorism?".

I think knocking out Iraq proved to Sharon and yes to Arafat that we were serious about global terrorism.

Unlike certain congressman who said that the war on Iraq was taking away resources from the war on terror, I recognize that the middle east is better off now with one less state sponsor of terrorism. The ripple effect from the fall of Iraq has been tremendous. Syria is closing Hezbollah offices, Iran is trying to find a rock to hide under, Saudi Arabia is cooperating like never before, the palestinians are doing their darndest for peace.

Sometimes I think this "bush lied about WMD!" backlash is done out of jealousy. Bush has checkmate and the people who never approved of this war simply can't stand it. They said he was an idiot, a puppet, a dolt. Here he is making waves that will affect the entire world for the next century and they can't stand it.

It reminds me of right wing yahoos who couldnt stomach the thought of Bill Clinton doing anything right. The thought was just anathema to them and when he did do something that would pick at the petty details and go on about "but he's a liar!".

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx

...
I think knocking out Iraq proved to Sharon and yes to Arafat that we were serious about global terrorism.
...

Nah.

Think:

1.) "There is a terrorist behind every Bush."

(case in point: Perle, Wolfowitz and Kristol are behind George W. Bush.)

and

2.) "Regime change begins at home."
Originally posted by corplinx

...
...our friend Sharon posed the question, ...
...

So, Sharon is your friend.

He is not mine:

I despise terrorist Sharon (Israel), who invades and occupies non-Israeli land (as defined by U.N.) with his Israeli settlements.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion

Nah.

Think:

1.) "There is a terrorist behind every Bush."

(case in point: Perle, Wolfowitz and Kristol are behind George W. Bush.)

and

2.) "Regime change begins at home."

So, Sharon is your friend.

He is not mine:

I despise terrorist Sharon (Israel), who invades and occupies non-Israeli land (as defined by U.N.) with his Israeli settlements.

Do you, Malachi, and Mr. Manifesto all go to same tea parties?

[Clancie]

To: Any Bush Apologist

Re: Please explain the danger to the U.S. from terrorists, specifically how this threat was linked with Saddam's regime in Iraq. (Even members of the Bush administration admit they made up the whole al-Quaida connection).

Please support your argument with quotes from authoritative sources within this administration (as the so-called "Bush bashers" do).

Thank you.

[crackmonkey]

Certainly... but first, why don't you back up your assertion that the administration made up the al_Qaeda connection. Who said this? When? Authoritative quotes, etc. please.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
If anyone ever needed a definition of 'woo-woo', here you go...

You can call it woo-woo all you want, in fact please do, because when the woo-woo "crazy theories" (which I don't see why this is so crazy in the first place) are proven right, that leaves you clutching onto a shattered reality.

Now, can we not all agree that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, and Wolfowitz are all advocated of pre-emptive miltiary action who have been voicing thier views on this matter for at least 5 years and in some cases more, all of which have also urged the removale of Saddam Hussein by force since at least 1998, and all of which have indicated that the Persian Gulf is a strategically significant regaion that the US must maintain control over at all costs.

Do you agree to that?

Now, do you not find it odd that these people would just "heppen" do be in office, all together which Bush's hand was "pushed" into action against Saddam?

Do you not agree that the actoin again Saddam was portrayed as reactionary?

Do you not agree that Buch campaigned against "nation building" and then put all of the biggest right wing "national builders" in the country in his cabinet.

Do you not agree that the Bush cabinet was a war cabinet from teh beginning?

All of these peopel are war hawks. They were not "brought in" after the fact, they were there from the start.

Do you not see the implications here?

"Regime change begins at home."

I have the bumper sticker on my truck :D

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx


Do you, Malachi, and Mr. Manifesto all go to same tea parties?
Outside tea parties that consider Sharon "...our friend...", there is a variety of tea parties.

So, maybe we do, or maybe we don't.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ion

Outside tea parties that consider Sharon "...our friend...", there is a variety of tea parties.

So, maybe we do, or maybe we don't.

I go to the tea parties where they throw tea into the bay ;)

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Saddam was a lying bastard who was planning to take over the Middle East, and his Arab "brothers" knew that.

That he was a liar, I haven't much doubt. But could you support your assertion that he was "planning to take over the Middle East"? I hadn't heard that before; if it were true, this administration surely would have made more of it?

[Monketey Ghost]

Bump.