Original Message:
-----------------
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"



> OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ.  The 
> number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North 
> Korea were
> significantly greater than the number of public statements made about 
> Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an 
> invasion
> of North Korea.

>Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan.  Private statements as 
>reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public 
>statments.

Both would be needed for an massive invasion.  Quit planning and a fait
accompli might work for a small clandesent effort.  But, something as big
as the invasion of Iraq could not happen quietly and quickly.  Bush I, even
after UN approval, had to get Congressional approval for Gulf War I.  Bush
got Congressional approval for Gulf War II, even after the omnibus
resolution. One way or another, he would have to prepare the nation for
such an action.

You can see such a preparation after 9-11.  You could even see the start of
it with Bill Clinton's early '98 speach.  But, I don't recall, and I'm
pretty sure there wasn't, a comparable speech by Bush before 9-11.

Thus, 9 months or so into his presidency, there was no indication of the
first steps needed to prepare the nation for war with Iraq.  

Second, the private conversations you quote don't include statements akin
to "you know that invading Iraq may be necessary"  or "we need to make a
case that will convince Congress to invade Iraq."  If there were plans to
invade Iraq, which requires Congressional approval, then the first steps in
planning would need to include such actions.


> How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a
> connection?  Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before
> 9-11.  Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the 
> resources of a country to mount such an attack....and knowing that 
> Hussein has
> supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have
> happened again.

>Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east 
>and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated 
>in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an 
>excuse to invade Iraq.

Both were priorities for Bush I, and he deliberately stopped Gulf War I
before invading.  James Baker made a very convincing case why invading Iraq
would have been a mistake.  Projecting power in Asia and regiem change in
North Korea were defense priorities of Clinton.  He did not plan an
invasion of North Korea.


> Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from 
> power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the 
> Korean
> crisis.  This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear 
> facilities. But, he had no plans to invade.
>
> I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy.
> Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11.

>So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it 
>turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea 
>then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why 
>he invaded???

OK, let me give a parallel.  Lets assume that Clinton, mistakenly, was
conviced that North Korea was working with/behind the terrorists.  These
terrorists attacked the US, and he then says "we have to invade North
Korea."

That's a totally consistent scenario.  All that is required is the belief
that Iraq/Hussein was connected to terrorism and, in the post 9-11 world,
that Hussein needed to be removed for the security of the US.

We know that Bush believes in creationism.  I think that, given that, it is
reasonable to assume that he actually believed that Hussein was the most
significant risk to the US and had strong ties to AQ.  All this conjecture
assumes is that Bush's reasoning is faulty. 


>> For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq 
>> early in 2001 and that no military action was needed.

>Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the 
>administration was thinking?  Whatever he said had only coincidental 
>importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking.

Because that statement wouldn't have stood by itself if it contradicted
plans.  It would hurt the plans to invade Iraq.

> You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ.
> He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQ....didn't consider
> them to be a serious threat.   If the Bush administration had Iraq as a
> priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of
> that pre 9-11?


>"Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have 
>to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 
>said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking 
>about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the 
>United States.'

OK, this firmly establishes that he believes that Iraq is behind terrorism
against the US.  But, where is the statement "we need to use all means
necessary to overthrow Hussein.  If that includes invasion, then so be it."



>Maybe they were hoping that a terrorist attack would take 
>place that they could blame on Iraq?

So, is your arguement that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a
major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11?  Other terrorist attacks came
and went without much stir, (the Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.), so it
would have to be a big one. 

Dan M.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to