When did Bush decide to "get" Saddam?

dsm · 14th February 2003, 09:30 AM

When do people think Bush decided to "get" (if not go to war with) Iraq? Was he predisposed to the idea when he took office? Was it the need for more energy that got him thinking about Iraq's oil? Or was 9/11 the catalyst?

Crossbow · 14th February 2003, 09:48 AM

I have often wondered about that myself.

The first Bush was not too worried about Saddam's Kuwait Invasion until Marget Thatcher came to visit and gave him talking to worthy of Winston Churchill.

But nothing like that has happened with George W, however GW did let it slip that he was going to get him [Saddam] for trying to kill his dad.

So I think, GW has been aching for some time to start shoot at Saddam but he never had a good pretext; until 9/11 that is.

I hope this helps!

Renfield · 14th February 2003, 09:58 AM

There aren't enough options. Where is "when the economy hit rock bottom and his approval started to slide a bit"?

or
"when he began thinking about re-election strategies for the next election"?

aerocontrols · 14th February 2003, 10:01 AM

The Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress in 1998, which makes it pretty clear that it's been US policy to 'get' Saddam since before Bush took office. As President, I expected him to carry out that policy.

When he first took office, he spent a little time and came up with 'smart sanctions' which were essentially a backing-down from the tough sanctions that were in existence at the time. These were planned to go into effect in Dec. 2001. Further, he made no moves to counteract State Department sluggishness in carrying out the Iraq Liberation Act, which was left over from the Clinton administration. (Basically both administrations refused to spend fully the amount granted for supporting the Iraqi opposition.)

These are not the acts of a man (in my view) who took the Iraq Liberation Act seriously. All Iraqi opposition groups were against smart sanctions, as they believed that they would help Saddam tighten his grip. (Notably, the oil companies were the major pushers for smart sanctions, as well as approving of any other move to lift sanctions.)

I believe Bush decided to 'get' Saddam shortly after 9/11. Until that date, it seemed likely to me that the administration was trying to think of a face-saving way out of enforcing the sanctions, and re-starting business as usual with Iraq.

MattJ

dsm · 14th February 2003, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Renfield
There aren't enough options. Where is "when the economy hit rock bottom and his approval started to slide a bit"?

or
"when he began thinking about re-election strategies for the next election"?

Good points. I knew I wasn't going to be able to catch all the options, so I went with some (hopefully obvious) timeframes on the idea that people would pick a time and then fill in with with more info on why that time.

ntech · 15th February 2003, 10:54 AM

When he realized Saddam would sell some of the chemical or biological weapons to as*holes like the ones would killed my neighbors in New York.

rikzilla · 15th February 2003, 11:20 AM

It should never have been up to Bush II

Clinton should have done his duty in 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected and when debriefed told them where every "smoking gun" bit of evidence of Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs was hidden.

sorgoth · 15th February 2003, 12:27 PM

He is riding on a wave of fear! Once they kicked the Taliban's ass in Afganistan and just COULDN'T find Osama, Bush decided to rekindle an american hatred: Saddam.

Elektrix · 15th February 2003, 03:31 PM

I thought the response from the President of the Executive Council of the INC was really fascinating. I mean, it seems like all of these points were very well made 5 years ago. It really puts things in perspective when you look at what is going on now:

Quote:

III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act London (October 31, 1998)
Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress.
Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
Saddam has pushed further the day when sanctions on Iraq would be lifted. He has challenged the combined will of the international community and thus he has opened the door for UN action against Iraq under Chapter VII resolutions. He is responsible.
Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and for democracy in Iraq. The INC welcomes this courageous and historic action by President Clinton and thanks him for it.
I will begin immediate consultations with leaders in the INC and
others to work for a united response on how best to take advantage of the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act. We will present a united front to maximize the chances of success. We look to President Clinton to support and work with a united INC to achieve our common goals.
The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty.
Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction.

subgenius · 5th March 2003, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
It should never have been up to Bush II

Clinton should have done his duty in 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected and when debriefed told them where every "smoking gun" bit of evidence of Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs was hidden.

Obviously it should never have been up to Clinton if Bush I had done his job.
Nightline tonight had all the evidence that Bush II's "think" tank had outlined the whole thing years before he was appointed president.

corplinx · 5th March 2003, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crossbow
But nothing like that has happened with George W, however GW did let it slip that he was going to get him [Saddam] for trying to kill his dad.

I believe dubya was on the same flight that was targetted. In other words, Dad and Dubya would have both died.

corplinx · 5th March 2003, 11:21 PM

I guess the answer is, this has been on the table ever since special forces failed to help create an insurgency in Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Read "Shadow Warriors" by Tom Clancy to get a better perspective.

Troll · 6th March 2003, 12:53 AM

Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true?

Megalodon · 6th March 2003, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll
Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true?

Well, that was uncalled for

Let me guess, you are drunk again...

BillyTK · 6th March 2003, 07:20 AM

It might have been there in the back of his mind/administration, but I don't think Dubya was jonesing for military action against Saddam 'til after the WTC attack:

Powell's new plans for Iraq
At the end of a rapid Middle East tour, new American Secretary of State Colin Powell said the message he had heard from Arab leaders was that overdoing it with UN sanctions gave President Saddam Hussein a tool to use against Washington.

Mr Powell intends to have a modified sanctions package ready within a few weeks.
(Tuesday, 27 February, 2001)

Rumsfeld: Iraq may be target
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot rule out military action against Iraq in the US-led war on terrorism.
[...]
However, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissed the idea, telling America's ABC News he had seen no evidence to link Iraq with the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.
(Sunday, 28 October, 2001)

Powell pulls back on Iraq
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has sought to calm speculation that the US is preparing to extend its military campaign against terrorism to Iraq.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Powell said the US was aware of anxieties within Europe and the moderate Arab world, and insisted that no decision had yet been taken by President George W Bush about the next stage of the war.
(Friday, 30 November, 2001)

US 'working to topple Saddam'
US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Washington is determined to see the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, removed from power.
Mr Powell told a global youth forum organised by the MTV television network that the Iraqi regime had to change or be changed.
[...]
Mr Powell said while President Bush was working to achieve this by peaceful means, he was keeping all options open.
(Friday, 15 February, 2002)

Powell rejects Iraq inspections offer
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has dismissed Iraq's call for talks on the resumption of UN weapons inspections.
[...]
President George W Bush has called Congressional leaders to the White House for talks about Iraq later on Wednesday, in an apparent attempt to drum up domestic support for a possible US attack.

The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, earlier gave a clear signal that he will support US military action against Iraq if Saddam Hussein fails to give unrestricted access to United Nations weapons inspectors.
(Wednesday, 4 September, 2002)

Edited for unnecessarily neurotic layout considerations

Troll · 6th March 2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Megalodon

Well, that was uncalled for

Let me guess, you are drunk again...

No I just think, thought at the time, that it's a setup type of poll. I could be wrong. Wasn't meant to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. I notice you haven't commented on the thread/poll itself

But if it will appease you I would say he decided after 9/11 and that there is good evidence linking Iraq to terror despite what we get to see.

dsm · 6th March 2003, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll
Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true?

That's the point of the poll -- to see what impulse people perceive as the reason for GW going after Saddam. If you have good reasons for your perception, great. If you don't, you can still participate in the poll to measure the perceptions of the people participating.

So far, the perception seems to be that 9/11 and anti-terrorism are not the reason for this coming war with Iraq.

dsm · 6th March 2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK

It might have been there in the back of his mind/administration, but I don't think Dubya was jonesing for military action against Saddam 'til after the WTC attack:

How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before 9/11?

subgenius · 6th March 2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm

How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before 9/11?

Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years.

corplinx · 6th March 2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius

Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years.

Like I said, its been on the table ever since the insurgency plan failed.

Megalodon · 6th March 2003, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll

No I just think, thought at the time, that it's a setup type of poll. I could be wrong. Wasn't meant to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. I notice you haven't commented on the thread/poll itself

But if it will appease you I would say he decided after 9/11 and that there is good evidence linking Iraq to terror despite what we get to see.

I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there.
No real discussion for me (at least for a while)...

Cheers

Troll · 6th March 2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm

That's the point of the poll -- to see what impulse people perceive as the reason for GW going after Saddam. If you have good reasons for your perception, great. If you don't, you can still participate in the poll to measure the perceptions of the people participating.

So far, the perception seems to be that 9/11 and anti-terrorism are not the reason for this coming war with Iraq.

But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?"

And I apologize if I was skeptical about your reason behind the post earlier. Been doing the battling with anti-war folks for so long I forgot that some actually just want to know the way people feel.

Troll · 6th March 2003, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Megalodon

I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there.
No real discussion for me (at least for a while)...

Cheers

I'm actually glad you called me on it. Made me rethink myself. So please feel free to "keep an eye on me" so to speak, and call me on things. Until the weekend comes I may very well be too out of it at times to make sense.

aerocontrols · 6th March 2003, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius

Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years.

I would have liked to watch that. Bummer.

Keep in mind that a great many things are 'planned for years' and never happen. The invasion of Cuba has been in the planning for years, but it's not likely to ever happen. Everyone remembers "Plan Orange" - the plan that the US had for defeating Japan, (oftentimes cited as evidence that we wanted Japan to attack us) but no one recalls "Plan Red" - the plan the US had for the invasion of Great Britain, or "Plan Blue" - US as belligerant. (Color-codes may be wrong for the latter two, but both plans were written up, right alongside Plan Orange, among many other war plans against allies and enemies at the time.) Planning costs very little, and I'm sure that Roosevelt was very happy that on Dec 8, 1941, the US Military already had an up-to-date plan to respond. Planning for responses to likely enemies also helps the military make (hopefully) intelligent procurement decisions: How much airlift is needed, how much amphibious capability, how man bombers vs. how many fighter aircraft, etc...

I would be surprised if there is a single country on the globe that the US doesn't already have an invasion plan written up for, should it be required. Multiple contingencies for most of them as well, based on likely allied and enemy coalitions and various threat scenarios.

In any administration, there are advocates for any number of military action. What dsm wants to know, I think, is how much clout the 'war with Iraq' advocates had, and when did they have it.

He wants to know about intent, not planning.

I think the administration had no intent to make war on Iraq until several months after 9/11.

MattJ

[edit because I looked up the war plan names and now the colors are correct.]

dsm · 6th March 2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll

But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?"

I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate.

Troll · 6th March 2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm

I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate.

But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president.

Yes we can pretty much put the fear of god, buddah or even Barbara Steisand to anyone we wish to. But we don't unless provoked.

Side note, I find Striesand more of a threat than any deity, but that's just my view

dsm · 6th March 2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troll

But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president.

Deciding that he wanted to "get" Saddam is different than actually planning the campaign of how he would go about doing that. All I'm saying is that he may have been predisposed to the idea of going after Saddam even before he became president and that that may have affected his reasoning about how to handle terrorism and the possible Iraq connection.

BillyTK · 7th March 2003, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dsm

How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before 9/11?

I suspect that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a significant influence on Bush's desire to get Iraq (see articles I linked to above: "Rumsfeld: Iraq may be target"). I don't know about prior to the WTC attack (see the other article- Powell's new plan for Iraq) but I have a vague memory of Bush's election platform including a new more "international" role for the US in world affairs... But pre-WTC attack, wasn't China the big bad? I also remember there being suggestions of military action against Afghanistan; I'll see if I can find the article where I read it.

Hilarious, keep it coming	14	34.15%
Mostly entertaining, so keep doing it	3	7.32%
Sometimes entertaining, so keep doing it	1	2.44%
No strong opinion, but would say keep doing it	9	21.95%
No strong opinion, but would say please stop	5	12.20%
Mostly annoying / please stop	8	19.51%
totally ruining my paltalking / please stop	1	2.44%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

14th February 2003, 09:30 AM	#1
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	When did Bush decide to "get" Saddam? When do people think Bush decided to "get" (if not go to war with) Iraq? Was he predisposed to the idea when he took office? Was it the need for more energy that got him thinking about Iraq's oil? Or was 9/11 the catalyst?
	__________________ DSM

14th February 2003, 09:48 AM	#2
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,294	I have often wondered about that myself. The first Bush was not too worried about Saddam's Kuwait Invasion until Marget Thatcher came to visit and gave him talking to worthy of Winston Churchill. But nothing like that has happened with George W, however GW did let it slip that he was going to get him [Saddam] for trying to kill his dad. So I think, GW has been aching for some time to start shoot at Saddam but he never had a good pretext; until 9/11 that is. I hope this helps!
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

14th February 2003, 09:58 AM	#3
Renfield Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,055	There aren't enough options. Where is "when the economy hit rock bottom and his approval started to slide a bit"? or "when he began thinking about re-election strategies for the next election"?
	__________________ If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank. -Woody Allen (1935 - http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/

14th February 2003, 10:01 AM	#4
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	The Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress in 1998, which makes it pretty clear that it's been US policy to 'get' Saddam since before Bush took office. As President, I expected him to carry out that policy. When he first took office, he spent a little time and came up with 'smart sanctions' which were essentially a backing-down from the tough sanctions that were in existence at the time. These were planned to go into effect in Dec. 2001. Further, he made no moves to counteract State Department sluggishness in carrying out the Iraq Liberation Act, which was left over from the Clinton administration. (Basically both administrations refused to spend fully the amount granted for supporting the Iraqi opposition.) These are not the acts of a man (in my view) who took the Iraq Liberation Act seriously. All Iraqi opposition groups were against smart sanctions, as they believed that they would help Saddam tighten his grip. (Notably, the oil companies were the major pushers for smart sanctions, as well as approving of any other move to lift sanctions.) I believe Bush decided to 'get' Saddam shortly after 9/11. Until that date, it seemed likely to me that the administration was trying to think of a face-saving way out of enforcing the sanctions, and re-starting business as usual with Iraq. MattJ
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

14th February 2003, 11:28 AM	#5
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Renfield There aren't enough options. Where is "when the economy hit rock bottom and his approval started to slide a bit"? or "when he began thinking about re-election strategies for the next election"? Good points. I knew I wasn't going to be able to catch all the options, so I went with some (hopefully obvious) timeframes on the idea that people would pick a time and then fill in with with more info on why that time.
	__________________ DSM

15th February 2003, 10:54 AM	#6
ntech JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Salisbury Mills, New York Posts: 812	When he realized Saddam would sell some of the chemical or biological weapons to as*holes like the ones would killed my neighbors in New York.
	__________________ We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. - Carl Sagan

15th February 2003, 11:20 AM	#7
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	It should never have been up to Bush II Clinton should have done his duty in 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected and when debriefed told them where every "smoking gun" bit of evidence of Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs was hidden.
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

15th February 2003, 12:27 PM	#8
sorgoth Muse Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 977	He is riding on a wave of fear! Once they kicked the Taliban's ass in Afganistan and just COULDN'T find Osama, Bush decided to rekindle an american hatred: Saddam.
sorgoth Muse Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 977

15th February 2003, 03:31 PM	#9
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	I thought the response from the President of the Executive Council of the INC was really fascinating. I mean, it seems like all of these points were very well made 5 years ago. It really puts things in perspective when you look at what is going on now: Quote: III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act London (October 31, 1998) Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress. Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Saddam has pushed further the day when sanctions on Iraq would be lifted. He has challenged the combined will of the international community and thus he has opened the door for UN action against Iraq under Chapter VII resolutions. He is responsible. Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and for democracy in Iraq. The INC welcomes this courageous and historic action by President Clinton and thanks him for it. I will begin immediate consultations with leaders in the INC and others to work for a united response on how best to take advantage of the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act. We will present a united front to maximize the chances of success. We look to President Clinton to support and work with a united INC to achieve our common goals. The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty. Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction.

5th March 2003, 10:55 PM	#10
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Quote: Originally posted by rikzilla It should never have been up to Bush II Clinton should have done his duty in 1995 when Hussein Kamal defected and when debriefed told them where every "smoking gun" bit of evidence of Saddam's nuclear, bio, and chem programs was hidden. Obviously it should never have been up to Clinton if Bush I had done his job. Nightline tonight had all the evidence that Bush II's "think" tank had outlined the whole thing years before he was appointed president.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

5th March 2003, 11:19 PM	#11
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by Crossbow But nothing like that has happened with George W, however GW did let it slip that he was going to get him [Saddam] for trying to kill his dad. I believe dubya was on the same flight that was targetted. In other words, Dad and Dubya would have both died.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

5th March 2003, 11:21 PM	#12
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	I guess the answer is, this has been on the table ever since special forces failed to help create an insurgency in Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Read "Shadow Warriors" by Tom Clancy to get a better perspective.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

6th March 2003, 12:53 AM	#13
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true?
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

6th March 2003, 02:09 AM	#14
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,521	Quote: Originally posted by Troll Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true? Well, that was uncalled for Let me guess, you are drunk again...
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,521	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

6th March 2003, 07:20 AM	#15
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	It might have been there in the back of his mind/administration, but I don't think Dubya was jonesing for military action against Saddam 'til after the WTC attack: Powell's new plans for Iraq At the end of a rapid Middle East tour, new American Secretary of State Colin Powell said the message he had heard from Arab leaders was that overdoing it with UN sanctions gave President Saddam Hussein a tool to use against Washington. Mr Powell intends to have a modified sanctions package ready within a few weeks. (Tuesday, 27 February, 2001) Rumsfeld: Iraq may be target US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot rule out military action against Iraq in the US-led war on terrorism. [...] However, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissed the idea, telling America's ABC News he had seen no evidence to link Iraq with the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. (Sunday, 28 October, 2001) Powell pulls back on Iraq US Secretary of State Colin Powell has sought to calm speculation that the US is preparing to extend its military campaign against terrorism to Iraq. In an interview with the BBC, Mr Powell said the US was aware of anxieties within Europe and the moderate Arab world, and insisted that no decision had yet been taken by President George W Bush about the next stage of the war. (Friday, 30 November, 2001) US 'working to topple Saddam' US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Washington is determined to see the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, removed from power. Mr Powell told a global youth forum organised by the MTV television network that the Iraqi regime had to change or be changed. [...] Mr Powell said while President Bush was working to achieve this by peaceful means, he was keeping all options open. (Friday, 15 February, 2002) Powell rejects Iraq inspections offer The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has dismissed Iraq's call for talks on the resumption of UN weapons inspections. [...] President George W Bush has called Congressional leaders to the White House for talks about Iraq later on Wednesday, in an apparent attempt to drum up domestic support for a possible US attack. The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, earlier gave a clear signal that he will support US military action against Iraq if Saddam Hussein fails to give unrestricted access to United Nations weapons inspectors. (Wednesday, 4 September, 2002) Edited for unnecessarily neurotic layout considerations
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

6th March 2003, 09:16 AM	#16
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by Megalodon Well, that was uncalled for Let me guess, you are drunk again... No I just think, thought at the time, that it's a setup type of poll. I could be wrong. Wasn't meant to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. I notice you haven't commented on the thread/poll itself But if it will appease you I would say he decided after 9/11 and that there is good evidence linking Iraq to terror despite what we get to see.
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

6th March 2003, 09:54 AM	#17
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Troll Didn't vote as this is not a matter of informed opinion but merely speculation. I could easily say he decided it while your mom was on her knees. does that make it true? That's the point of the poll -- to see what impulse people perceive as the reason for GW going after Saddam. If you have good reasons for your perception, great. If you don't, you can still participate in the poll to measure the perceptions of the people participating. So far, the perception seems to be that 9/11 and anti-terrorism are not the reason for this coming war with Iraq.
	__________________ DSM

6th March 2003, 09:58 AM	#18
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by BillyTK It might have been there in the back of his mind/administration, but I don't think Dubya was jonesing for military action against Saddam 'til after the WTC attack: How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before 9/11?
	__________________ DSM

6th March 2003, 10:02 AM	#19
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Quote: Originally posted by dsm *How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before* 9/11?** Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

6th March 2003, 10:06 AM	#20
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Quote: Originally posted by subgenius Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years. Like I said, its been on the table ever since the insurgency plan failed.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

6th March 2003, 10:09 AM	#21
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,521	Quote: Originally posted by Troll No I just think, thought at the time, that it's a setup type of poll. I could be wrong. Wasn't meant to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. I notice you haven't commented on the thread/poll itself But if it will appease you I would say he decided after 9/11 and that there is good evidence linking Iraq to terror despite what we get to see. I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there. No real discussion for me (at least for a while)... Cheers
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,521	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

6th March 2003, 10:11 AM	#22
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by dsm That's the point of the poll -- to see what impulse people perceive as the reason for GW going after Saddam. If you have good reasons for your perception, great. If you don't, you can still participate in the poll to measure the perceptions of the people participating. So far, the perception seems to be that 9/11 and anti-terrorism are not the reason for this coming war with Iraq. But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?" And I apologize if I was skeptical about your reason behind the post earlier. Been doing the battling with anti-war folks for so long I forgot that some actually just want to know the way people feel.
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

6th March 2003, 10:13 AM	#23
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by Megalodon I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there. No real discussion for me (at least for a while)... Cheers I'm actually glad you called me on it. Made me rethink myself. So please feel free to "keep an eye on me" so to speak, and call me on things. Until the weekend comes I may very well be too out of it at times to make sense.
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

6th March 2003, 10:17 AM	#24
aerocontrols Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,445	Quote: Originally posted by subgenius Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years. I would have liked to watch that. Bummer. Keep in mind that a great many things are 'planned for years' and never happen. The invasion of Cuba has been in the planning for years, but it's not likely to ever happen. Everyone remembers "Plan Orange" - the plan that the US had for defeating Japan, (oftentimes cited as evidence that we wanted Japan to attack us) but no one recalls "Plan Red" - the plan the US had for the invasion of Great Britain, or "Plan Blue" - US as belligerant. (Color-codes may be wrong for the latter two, but both plans were written up, right alongside Plan Orange, among many other war plans against allies and enemies at the time.) Planning costs very little, and I'm sure that Roosevelt was very happy that on Dec 8, 1941, the US Military already had an up-to-date plan to respond. Planning for responses to likely enemies also helps the military make (hopefully) intelligent procurement decisions: How much airlift is needed, how much amphibious capability, how man bombers vs. how many fighter aircraft, etc... I would be surprised if there is a single country on the globe that the US doesn't already have an invasion plan written up for, should it be required. Multiple contingencies for most of them as well, based on likely allied and enemy coalitions and various threat scenarios. In any administration, there are advocates for any number of military action. What dsm wants to know, I think, is how much clout the 'war with Iraq' advocates had, and when did they have it. He wants to know about intent, not planning. I think the administration had no intent to make war on Iraq until several months after 9/11. MattJ [edit because I looked up the war plan names and now the colors are correct.]
	__________________ Misunderestimated in 2000. Unredefeated in 2004. My dog does his tricks. My roomate's dog tries to escape the kitchen. We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest. Source

6th March 2003, 10:58 AM	#25
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Troll But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?" I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate.
	__________________ DSM

6th March 2003, 11:10 AM	#26
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478	Quote: Originally posted by dsm I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate. But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president. Yes we can pretty much put the fear of god, buddah or even Barbara Steisand to anyone we wish to. But we don't unless provoked. Side note, I find Striesand more of a threat than any deity, but that's just my view
Troll Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,478

6th March 2003, 01:51 PM	#27
dsm Muse Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Silicon Valley Posts: 970	Quote: Originally posted by Troll But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president. Deciding that he wanted to "get" Saddam is different than actually planning the campaign of how he would go about doing that. All I'm saying is that he may have been predisposed to the idea of going after Saddam even before he became president and that that may have affected his reasoning about how to handle terrorism and the possible Iraq connection.
	__________________ DSM

7th March 2003, 01:38 AM	#28
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	Quote: Originally posted by dsm *How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before* 9/11?** I suspect that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a significant influence on Bush's desire to get Iraq (see articles I linked to above: "Rumsfeld: Iraq may be target"). I don't know about prior to the WTC attack (see the other article- Powell's new plan for Iraq) but I have a vague memory of Bush's election platform including a new more "international" role for the US in world affairs... But pre-WTC attack, wasn't China the big bad? I also remember there being suggestions of military action against Afghanistan; I'll see if I can find the article where I read it.
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.