my problem with the "Hubris" special [View all]

[greenman3610]

Good so far as it goes, but the main narrative is - "..after 9-11, the Bush team sought to make the attack a pretext for war with Iraq".
IN FACT we know, from the most mainstream of reliable sources, Bush's former Sec. of Treasury, Paul O Neil, that a war with Iraq was a primary driver of the administration from day one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-592330.html
"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.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."


You could go back to the Project for a New American Century document written even well before the election to see the
roots of the policy, but I understand how timid news media might avoid that for fear of being accused of conspiratorial thinking.
I am disappointed that the MSNBC team would not make use of as generally-regarded-as-mainstream-but-woefully-never-discussed source as the O' Neil revelations.