|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
cpu_slave 
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 12 2004,9:13 pm |
|
   |
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. --Paul O'Neill from his 60 minutes interview on Jan. 11
So here we have a whitehouse official, fired because he disagreed on shrubs latest round of tax cuts, basically coming out and saying that the administration was planning on going after Saddam from the very beginning. I guess 9-11 was just the catalyst needed, along with all the WMD speeches.
Just for those of you keeping score, HERE is a story about the closest thing found to be a WMD in Iraq, rusty mortar shells dating back to the Iraq-Iran war buried in the desert. I'm surprised the shrub has not come out and made a speech about how he was right all along and Iraq had WMD's and now here is the 'proof'!
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 12 2004,10:09 pm |
|
 |
Hrmmm...I remember coming out with the right answer when the war all went down and got crucified by this crowd... 
...now time ends up proving me right again. 
Get used to it...time and I agree on almost everything. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
To A TEE
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2004,8:46 pm |
|
|
Paul O'Neill is nothing but a disgruntled former government employee!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
ironmaiden
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2004,8:56 pm |
|
|
funny how the secretary of treasury knows so much about the secretary of Defenses job...........
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
minnow
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2004,9:09 pm |
|
|
Yea...he must be wrong.
The war was REALLY over "weapons of mass destruction". 
I'm impressed with the democratic field. Dean, Kerry, or even clark seem like they'll give dubya a run for his money.
We'll see if America will allow a president to use spin and lies to bring the USA to war or not.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,7:36 am |
|
|
"Regime Change" was the CLINTON policy since 1998.
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
minnow
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,8:07 am |
|
|
Oh! I see...this war is really all Clintons fault afterall!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
BeBack
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,8:23 am |
|
|
A Republican friend sent me this last night.
Clinton and Congress Ratified 'Secret Bush Plan' to Depose Saddam.
In fact, not only did plans for "regime change" in Iraq NOT originate with
the Bush White House, the "sinister plot" was actually ratified by Congress
and signed into law by President Clinton a full three years before President
Bush came to Washington.
According to Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, "The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act
was passed by an unanimous Senate and a near-unanimous House," after which
Mr. Clinton certified it as the law of the land with his signature.
What the Journal didn't note was how bold Clinton officials were about their
plans to topple Saddam.
According to a report in Newsweek just three months ago, after Clinton
signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, "the U.S. government convened a conference
with the [Iraqi National Congress] and other opposition groups in London to
discuss 'regime change.'"
In Jan. 1999, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even appointed a special
representative for transition in Iraq, Frank Ricciardone, who reportedly had
"a mandate to coordinate opposition to Saddam."
Said Albright at the time: "He will be assisted by a team that will include
both a military and a political adviser with extensive on-the-ground
experience in the region . . . With the aid of Frank Ricciardone and his
team, we will persist in helping the Iraqi people re-integrate themselves
into the world community by freeing themselves from a leader they do not
want, do not deserve and never chose."
Two months later, the Clinton administration's plans for a post Saddam Iraq
were already well underway, with State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin
explaining to reporters: "What we're trying to do . . . is strengthen an
Iraqi opposition movement that can lay out solid plans for the post-Saddam
recovery in all sectors of national life."
As the Washington Times noted at the time, "President Clinton has said that
getting rid of Saddam is a major U.S. objective."
Reguardless, it took "Lil Bush" to pull the trigger.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,8:50 am |
|
|
| Quote | | "Regime Change" was the CLINTON policy since 1998. |
That may have been true jim, but I do not recall Clinton planning on going to war to bring it about.
Tee- perhaps he is a disgruntled former employee, but it is common knowledge he was fired because he did not agree with the latest round of shrub tax cuts. 8.5% growth after the cuts, yet 6% or more of that would have came even without them. Now we are looking at huge deficits caused once again by the ‘fiscally responsible, small government’ party. Basically what this comes down to is that shrub wanted the tax cuts, O’Neill gave his opinion and was let go for not towing the administration line. I thought we wanted smart people in there willing to tell it how it is, not just some yes-man willing to follow the blind.
| Quote | | funny how the secretary of treasury knows so much about the secretary of Defenses job........... |
and funny that they all sat on the same cabinet. Look, shrub is no military strategist so if the language used in these cabinet meetings was simple enough for him to understand then I am sure anyone in the room would have gotten the same impression. What this all basically says is that while regime change was the former administration policy, they wanted something a little more. Why the hell do you think half the administration was pointing the finger at Iraq on 9-11 before they even had a clue as to who was responsible? When we found out who really did it, the administration made a halfass attempt to get them and then used the momentum and support (with a few straight-out lies) to carry the ‘war on terrorism’ right into Iraq. Ever wonder why the oil wells were ‘liberated’ before even one Iraqi citizen was?
So here we are, about 2 ½ years after the 9-11 attacks. Let’s see, the guy responsible is still running free, we are fighting a war in two separate countries, spending billions of dollars on a country that has oil in the ground yet spending a fraction of that on a country devastated by decades of war and no wealth of it’s own. In the process, we have alienated most all of our allies, been shown to be liars to the world, and all while the American people see their taxes go up, jobs move overseas, and their freedoms striped away.
| Quote | | Reguardless, it took "Lil Bush" to pull the trigger. |
and did so with no multinational support (spare me the ‘coalition of the willing’ crap), while fighting a separate war, and with no plans for a post-saddam Iraq. Sure, Clinton may have had a regime change policy while in office, but nowhere did I see this policy include plans for a US invasion and occupation. I guess people like you are proud of the cowboy president, shoot first and ask questions later, and the consequences be dammed!
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 14 2004,11:11 am |
|
|
How about a little humor on the subject--from the news PARODY site, Scrappleface.com
O'Neill: Bush Ruined Clinton Plan to Oust Saddam
(2004-01-11) -- From the earliest days of the Bush administration, the president made it clear that he intended to "ruin" Bill Clinton's increasingly successful diplomatic effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.
"Regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the Clinton administration since 1998, but Bush foolishly rejected Clinton's ingenious strategy," Mr. O'Neill told Ron Suskind, author of the new book The Price of Loyalty. "President Clinton's diplomatic effort to appear cowardly, indecisive and careless about the plight of 25 million Iraqis was on the brink of bearing fruit. We had suckered Saddam into thinking America was weak. If Clinton had been re-elected to a third term, he would have shocked and awed Saddam by launching a decisive verbal attack in the U.N. Security Council. The statue would have fallen in Baghdad from the sheer force of Clinton's intellect."
Mr. O'Neill said former President Clinton didn't use a faster method to implement regime change in Iraq because, "he just didn't care that much about oil. He was not obsessed with oil the way some people are."
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
