Bush planned Iraq war months after 9/11

Memnoch

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4855833

from REUTERS

It says CIA Director George Tenet gave Bush advice on shaping the argument that Iraq posed a danger because of weapons of mass destruction. "Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk" case, Tenet assured the president in December 2002. ...........

But the Post reported from it on Saturday and the White House has already confirmed a key revelation -- that Bush ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in November 2001 to draw up a fresh war plan for Iraq...........

The description of Bush's early focus on war with Iraq is in line with a book about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and a memoir by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke which portray Bush as fixated on Iraq in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush wanted to attack iraq. He was gonig to use "terrorism" and "9/11" as an excuse. He manipulated the fear and emotion of people post 9/11 and threw in the threat of WMD that he claimed were a "direct" threat to the US to fool America into backing his war OF terror.
As i've said, they fabricated the WMD claim. This is clear from their own history of public quotations.

Anyone who still doubts this is purposefully blind of the obvious.

brendy_eire

Nothing new really, is it?
If Bush had had his way the US would have invaded Iraq in November 01 rather than Afghanistan.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
So what stopped him then

this is really obvious, if you need even THIS explained to you then you seem to have a severe lack of basic understanding of whats been going on...

what stopped him?

err they were vilifying the taliban and Osama was "public enemy number 1", even with THEIR spin, they wouldn't have been able to convince the public that Iraq was a greater threat.

Also had they attacked Iraq first, they would have lost a lot of backing for invading afghanistan later on. After 9/11 they had a lot of backing for invading afghanastan, most ppl in the world "supported" them. Because of the taliban's refusal to "hand " over Osama.

I could go on pointing out the obvious, or maybe you could go an educate yourself a bit about the obvious and the commen sense things?

The Muppet

Nothing new in that. The world was never going to be the same again after Sept. 11 and anyone that though America was going to take that was deluding themselves.
There had to be a sequence to events to keep as much international and public opinion on board as possible.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
err they were vilifying the taliban and Osama was "public enemy number 1", even with THEIR spin, they wouldn't have been able to convince the public that Iraq was a greater threat.

Actually, they only started making any real noise on that following the attacks of September 11. bin Laden may have been listed as their Most Wanted, but if you compare that - and say the non-existant reaction to the bombing of the Cole - to the continued "no fly zone" actvities against Iraq, it is clear that the US was both actively more involved in opposing Saddam, and also had their actions against Saddam more in the public eye then anything about bin Laden.

Also had they attacked Iraq first, they would have lost a lot of backing for invading afghanistan later on.

Really? He managed to invade Iraq on the back of the 9/11 attacks as his "second" target....and you haven't offered any reason why he couldn't have reversed the order in which he invaded.

After 9/11 they had a lot of backing for invading afghanastan, most ppl in the world "supported" them. Because of the taliban's refusal to "hand " over Osama.

And the only reason the world knew that the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden was because the US had already gone out and stated that they had enough evidence to decide it was he and his Al Qaeda organisation who were responsible for the attacks, and then followed it up with demands for bin Laden to be handed over to them. Naturally, this occurred after the 9/11 attacks.

So you're still only arguing that the US had to invade Afghanistan first because the US made the case for invading Afghanistan prior to making the case to invading Iraq. You're arguing that they had to because they did.

I could go on pointing out the obvious, or maybe you could go an educate yourself a bit about the obvious and the commen sense things?

Well, you could stop being so insulting to other people. I mean - I look at what you stated to be obvious and common sense, and I only see an argument thats full of false logic, misaligned timelines, and assertions that have nothing to back them up other than some assumptions on your part which you don't back up and which historical events would seem to question.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
So what stopped him then

He wasn't president until January 2002.

MojoMaker