"Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."
"Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so
far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way
out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started."


Would have been nice if he had some sense of history and military
affairs so something akin to the U.S. Constabulary in Germany might
have been set up in Iraq to win the peace.

David Bier 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html

Bush Wanted War

By Richard Cohen
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 AM

It is my firm belief that if, say, a few dozen people simultaneously
did an Internet search for the words "Bush lied," computers all over
the country would crash and the energy grid would buckle, producing a
rolling blackout that would begin somewhere around Terre Haute, Ind.,
and end in Barnstable, Mass. So common is the statement "Bush lied"
that it seems sometimes that I am the only blue-state person who does
not think it is true. Then, last week, the indomitable Helen Thomas
changed all that with a single question. She asked George Bush why he
wanted "to go to war" from the moment he "stepped into the White
House," and the president said, "You know, I didn't want war." With
that, the last blue-state skeptic folded.

I would not go so far as to say that Bush wanted war from Day One in
the White House, but there was plenty of evidence he had Saddam on his
mind and in his sights from the very moment he got the news of the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We have
it from Richard Clarke, formerly the White House's chief
anti-terrorism official, that within a day of the attacks Bush was
inquiring if Saddam might have had a hand in them. When told no --
"But, Mr. President, al-Qaeda did this," Clarke told him -- it became
instantly clear that this was not the answer Bush wanted. "'Look into
Iraq, Saddam,' the president said testily," Clarke writes in his book,
"Against All Enemies."

Similarly, Bob Woodward says in his book, "Plan of Attack," that not
only was Bush fixated on Iraq, but by Thanksgiving of 2001, he already
had told Don Rumsfeld to prepare a plan for the invasion of that
country. "Let's get started on this," the president said, cautioning
the defense secretary not to tell anyone. Rumsfeld said that
eventually he would have to take CIA Director George Tenet into his
confidence. "'Fine."' Woodward quotes Bush as saying -- "but not now."

As for myself, I was told by a European intelligence official that
after flying to Washington right after the 9/11 attacks, he was
stunned to discover that talk had already turned to Iraq. This was
particularly true at the Pentagon, where Paul Wolfowitz was obsessed
with Iraq, and that seems to have been true of the White House as
well. And now we know from various British accounts that close aides
to Prime Minister Tony Blair recognized early on that Bush was going
to go to war -- and that Blair, his poodle at obedient heel, would
follow along. More recently we learned -- again from British sources
-- that even though Bush went back to the United Nations for yet
another resolution condemning Iraq, he was determined to make war
almost no matter what.

None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored U.S. intelligence to
make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of
mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the
administration -- Dick Cheney, in particular -- exaggerated such that
their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush
knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources
were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton
administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence.
Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war -- and there
were some -- were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell,
you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations
speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.

There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut --
not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides.
It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on
war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush,
maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq
would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East,
maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like
Saddam might die in his sleep -- and maybe because he heard destiny
calling.

Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so
far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way
out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted
war. He just didn't want the war he got.


----

Posted by David Bier, CADRE Intel Mgr
http://groups.google.com/group/publicintel

“Most men would rather believe than know” (Ben Franklin)
Cargo Security:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/Mag/060306_Issue/060225_perspcartoon_wide.hlarge.jpg
Notes for Converts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/notes-for-converts_b_17662.html





--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to