In 2002 Bush/Cheney Said We Were Going To War Against Iraq

[Purrfessor]

This May 2002 article from Time Magazine-in combination with the Downing Street Memo-should be evidence enough to spur an investigation into the Bush Administration's crying wolf, a cry that led America into an unnecessary war on Iraq.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html


"We're Taking Him Out"
His war on Iraq may be delayed, but Bush still vows to remove Saddam. Here's a look at White House plans

Two months ago, a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway — and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush's intentions: "We're taking him out."

Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March...Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when.

<snip>

A front-page story in the New York Times on April 28 claimed that Bush had all but settled on a full-scale ground invasion of Iraq early next year with between 70,000 and 250,000 U.S. troops.

<snip>

From the moment he took office, Bush has made noises about finishing the job his father started. Sept. 11 may have diverted his attention, but Iraq has never been far from his mind. By the end of 2001, diplomats were discussing how to enlist the support of Arab allies, the military was sharpening its troop estimates, and the communications team was plotting how to sell an attack to the American public. The whole purpose of putting Iraq into Bush's State of the Union address, as part of the "axis of evil," was to begin the debate about a possible invasion.

So there you have it. Bush and Cheney both admitting that war was inevitable, just like the DSM states. America was going to war, not if but when, according to their own words, and it was just a matter of selling the American public on their (the Administration's) plans.

[BobRossi]

1. WOW!

A trail as plain as day.

[rateyes]

2. In the Epilogue of Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War,"

Woodward details the conflict going on between Powell and Cheney/Rumsfeld over the need to get a new resolution from the U.N. Cheney/Rumsfeld didn't want to do it. Powell, of course, did.

Both sides were trying to get the President to do it their way. Powell won out---but, not before this happened---a very interesting sentence on page 347 in the book:

"Tony Blair told Bush privately that he HAD (emphasis mine) to go the U.N. resolution route. David Manning, the British national security adviser, told Rice the same."

IMO, this is corroboration of the truth of DSM and other document leaks. Blair and his people were trying to come up ("fix"?) with a LEGAL reason for the war. WMD, they knew, were not there. Iraq/Al Qaeda connection--not there. Regime change--pre-emptive war--ILLEGAL, to go to war for this reason would make them WAR CRIMINALS.

They HAD, HAD, HAD "to go the U.N. resolution route." Remember, the line from Blair and Bush in the press conference: We went to the U.N. after the date of these minutes (DSM).

IMHO, even though the CIA is getting a lot of blame for "faulty intelligence" about 9/11, etc.---the TRUTH is---there was nothing wrong with the intelligence. They, (administration, not CIA) had made up their minds to go to war, regardless of how much they had to manipulate the intelligence.

The only "faulty intelligence" was in Bush's and Blair's heads--when they thought they could lie, and that we wouldn't mind.

Edit: Bush, IMO, went to the U.N. not because Powell or Congress was pressing him into it---but, because BLAIR needed it in order to make it LEGAL. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush were shying away from the U.N. route, because they thought that Saddam might "comply"--showing the world that WMD did not exist---allowing inspectors to go wherever they wanted---and, thus have Americans lose their appetite for the war. If the American people and/or Congress had known that the weapons weren't there, that there was no immediate threat (as did Bush.Cheney.Rummy.Rice. and yes, even Powell did--he lied before the U.N., and IMO knew he was lying)--they never would have gotten authorization--and for Bush, this was unacceptable.

[lyonn]

3. Saddam did comply

and bushco threw the inspectors out and claimed Saddam lied about what happen to his WMD and started bombing. How bush got by with that trick is another of many questions.

[rateyes]

4. Sure he did! But, of course..

the administration take on it was....It's not complete...it's not enough. As Bush said, "f--- Saddam. We're taking him out."