Bush's secret plans for Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Apr 16, 2004.

  1. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    On CBS' site there is a teaser for this Sunday's broadcast of 60 Minutes of a story on Bob Woodward's new book. It says,

    CBS

    Hmmm... taking not only troops from Afghanistan for Iraq, but taking money without Congress' knowledge or approval. Of course as they are saying over at the Daily Kos, Woodward is a no good liar, who is angry at the President for not doing (fill in the blank) and probably has a kinky private life. :mad:

    Crank up the spin machine!
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Dunno 'bout spin mosheens, but

    ""President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq?' What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret," says Woodward. "

    raises the simple question of, "How did Woody know?" Did Bush tell him? Did Rummy tell him?

    Even without arguing the $700 Very Large and suchlike, I'm dubious about the factual nature of this sort of "I know!"

    'Rat
     
  3. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    My guess is that one of them did. My bet is on Bush. Rummy is smart enough to know the implications of his story. Remember Woodward just got through writing a book in which Bush got extremely favorable treatment. He probably thought it would continue.
     
  4. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #4
    Well I personally don't have a problem of having a plan, but you better have a good reason to put the plan into motion.
     
  5. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #5
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13021
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
  7. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #7
    I had to ask that question as well. Could be an interesting new thread, but lets not hijack this one.
     
  8. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #8
    You are talking about Bush's secret plan with Iraq ignoring the possibility that he doesn't have one and the folks who were against removing Saddam might've been the ones who actually had the secret plan.
     
  9. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    I would not be surprised to find out we had secret plans to attack N. Korea, China, Syria, Iran or for that matter even England. The people in the Pentagon wouldn't be doing their jobs if we didn't so if we did have a plan for attacking Iraq its not that big of deal.

    It wasn't oil for if it was he would've handled it differently. We could have bought the oil from Saddam cheaper then going to war with him. Saddam wouldn't of cared who he sold the oil to as long as they paid cash.

    I would not be surprised if part of the reason for going after Saddam was to protect Israel. Everyone knows Saddam would've nuked Israel if he had any nukes. Also with the Israel Palestinian problem and it being a tough call whose side to officially take if any it would've solved a delimma of being forced to take Israel side if we could somehow figure out a way to have another "trusted" ally in the region. Nobody was volunteering and perhaps we could create one yes after he swore that he wouldn't build empires. I'm willing to consider he waffled on that one.

    It also would relieve the expense of maintaining the military and buracracy that the sanctions created. They weren't working anyhow too many people were figuring out ways around it to insure it wouldn't work or simply to put money in their own pockets. Irregardless sanctions could not continue indefinitely they were shiphoning money that could've been spent elsewhere. I mean like the blockade we kept around him trying to prevent folks from sneaking supplies in and stuff.

    I'm just glad Saddam is gone. I wish Bush had moved 12 months earlier and I'm glad his playing games with the UN for those 12+ months did not cost as many military lives as I thought it would be due to the increased time Saddam had to arm up and prepare for us. On another thread here I would deffinitely consider this a reason towards why Bush was a bad leader. He shouldn't of allowed the UN to stall him those 12 months. part of it was because he listened too much to Collin Powell. But still you got to consider the qualifications of those willing to do his job (bush's) and then he looks great.
     
  10. Sayhey thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #10
    For those few who don't get the importance of what Woodward is alleging, the key is that the plan was secret from Congress and that money allocated for the war in Afghanistan (ie resources for finding bin Ladin and destroying al Qaeda) were secretly, again outside of Congress' knowledge and against Congress expressed authorization, used to plan for a war in Iraq. The existence a war plan is, in and of itself, not surprising in the least.
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    From the FWIW department: The Pentagon's War Gamers have plans for the invasion of danged near every country in the world. The "What if?" crowd has been doing that since way, way back in the early days of the Cold War. Back, I dunno, 20 or 30 years ago, somebody got all upset at finding out Canada was one of the countries.

    But that's different from what Sayhey's talking about...

    'Rat
     
  12. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #12
    Well, I don't know if funds were diverted or not. If it was general pentagon budget, then no, it isn't a problem.

    But, you are right Rat, we have plans to invade just about every country on the planet somewhere.
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    is barril french for barrel? If it is, I bet this article was written by a disgrunted Frenchmen because the French are now cracking down on speeding on the highways. He can no longer drive his Renault as fast as he wants and probably his investment in Elf Aquitaine is no longer worth the paper it was written on. Those Frenchmen :D

    On topic, I'll bet we start seeing more revelations such as Woodward's now that the press is starting to realize that it is not a federal crime to be critical of the "War President". Let's hope so, another 4 years of gw and a couple more phony wars we'll be sitting in the poorhouse.
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    Ugg, do you think that Al Qaida will cease their efforts against us if we bailed out of Iraq and if we also told Israel to go it alone?

    (It seems to me your view, there, sets the frame of any discussion about "phony wars" and my own view of the larger chess game of international relations in the middle east.)

    'Rat
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with all of the threads lately, so I might have missed something. Could you kindly point out where someone has advanced this as a plan?
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    #1 You can't declare war, not that we did by the way, on an idea. Wars are fought between countries or factions, but "War on Terror" is a fiction and therefore phony.

    #2 The war launched in Afghanistan was to rid the world of bin Laden and his followers and free the Afghanis from the Taliban. Both objectives failed. Al Qaeda is still operating, bin Laden is still at large and outside of Kabul, life is probably just as bad as it was during the reign of the Taliban. Another phony war.

    #3 The war in Iraq. It's hard now to differenitate between the neocons' ideas, bad intelligence, gw wanting to avenge his daddy and the US "war machine" needing a boost by waging war. Maybe it's not important to do so but nonetheless this war has only succeeded in toppling SH but in doing so opened a Pandora's box that can never, ever be closed again. Another phony war.

    We're in Iraq and Afghanistan and we need to finish what we started. There's no going back. I read recently a comment by a retired general who said that once we go in, we own the place and are responsible for everything that happens. To pull out now would be sheer folly and nobody that I know is advocating that.

    Until the Sauds amongst others, allow their citizens a certain amount of freedom and stop supporting extreme elements of their society, al Qaeda will remain strong.

    Israel is digging its own grave but gw's abandonment of the road map will only create more enemies for Israel and the US. Sharon is gw's biggest liability in the middle east. Let's hope he gets impeached over his "financial improprieties" then, maybe there is hope for a more moderate voice from Israel and less animosity from the Arab world.

    Although their recent agreement got scant attention in the US, Europe and the Middle East realize that gw has abandoned the Arab world in favor of Sharon. They won't take it lightly and you can bet that the funding for al Qaeda will increase due to this.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    The reason I asked is that folks ask, over and over, about why are we in Iraq. At this point, does it matter "why"? Stipulate the answer, really, is, "We screwed up." Okay, what do we do now? What would Kerry consider to be some sort of successful endpoint? What would anyone here consider to be a successful endpoint?

    And, would that success end Al Qaida's efforts against us? They're a bunch of killers who've dedicated themselves to destroying our Evil Influence, right? Our cultural mores are anathema to them, so they say, right? If you're not Islamic, they want you to die. If you're Islamic but not fundamentalist in their style, they don't care if you're "collateral damage" as they carry out jihad against the infidel. And, so?

    As to Israel: Folks seem to be wanting to play poker but not lose any money; if they do, it should be returned. The "Occupied Territories" came about as a result of Arabs losing a war they initiated against Israel. Well, tough. Israel kept damned little as a result of kicking the crap out of a bunch of bullies. Israel's getting out of Gaza strikes me as a rather generous concession. Until Arafat and the rest of his genocidal maniacs back off and quit murdering Jews, whatever the Israelis decide is fine by me. They've been tolerating a bunch of whiny schoolyard bullies in adult bodies for 56 years, and that's way too danged long. My suggestion is that folks oughta consider the mindset of a people who live by "Masada shall not fall again." The Israelis call themselves "Sabras". The sabra is a thorny cactus plant of the region. That in itself oughta be a warning.

    'Rat
     
  18. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #18
    Will there ever be an endpoint? It's all good and well to speak of bringing "democracy" to a region that knows little of it but the reality is that these things by and large need to proceed at their own pace. With that lying thief, Chalabi at the healm of the provisional government in Iraq, there is little hope that there will be any truly representational govt. in Iraq for a long time to come. Add to the mix three groups who really don't see eye to eye and a bunch of religious fundamentalists and voila!, chaos reigns.

    That is what I meant by a Pandora's box. We're stuck there for the next few years. There is no easy way out, there is no endpoint in sight. Look at the Balkans, it's not over yet, and it'll be another decade at least before things settle down. gw didn't have a plan for Iraq, other than to secure the oil fields and depose SH. What is needed is a realistic, all encompassing plan that lets the Iraqis decide for themselves in the long run what they want their country to be. June 30 is going to come and go and gw will keep saying that we need to stay the course and that evil will not triumph and all the other tripe that seems to slither out of his mouth. In the end he wants to get re-elected and really doesn't care what happens to the Iraqis. Kerry, would at least involve other countries and the UN and perhaps even other Arab nations in helping find a solution. Something gw has only done when he's realized he can't go it alone.

    Iraq is not about al Qaeda, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are. Why aren't we doing anything there other than pulling out diplomats? Until the Arabians depose the house of Saud there's little hope for them, at least in Afghanistan we could make a difference if we wanted.

    It's all fine and dandy to sit around and talk about Israel and the war and the territories, but it is another to have gw speak of a road map and then abandon it when he's lost his way. Talk about fuel for the al Qaeda fire. My god!, don't you think that this is going to piss them off even more than taking a moderate road in Iraq?!?!?

    Sabras are a minority in Israel, it refers to those who were born there. The huge influx of russian, african, etc jews over the past decade has watered their number down substantially and more importantly created huge divisions within the country. The Palestinians predated the Jews of Israel, Israel would do well to remember that they are more accustomed to thorns than the Jews will ever be.
     
  19. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #19
    It would be smarter and wiser to split Iraq into three different states but our hands are hancuffed. Turkey has already made a declaration that should there become an independant Kurdis state in Iraq that they would invade and destroy it for fear that the Kurds would want to join it and take some of Turkey's land with them. It is an honest fear considering Turkey was once The Ottoman Empire and they don't want to get any smaller than they already have. But they also don't want to give Kurds equal rights or protection over the law. Nothing is simple. Saddam needed to be removed, but who to replace him with is a huge question.
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #20
    the idea of splitting the country would a interesting solution but sadly it won't work because there are so many different groups and subgroups which all want something different even the religouis leaders are not united... i guess it will a lot of time for the country to calm down

    under the regime of saddam hussein , iraq was like a steam engine under high pressure only hold together by force...then the force disapeared and iraq gone 'KABOOM'
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    From Ugg: "Kerry, would at least involve other countries and the UN and perhaps even other Arab nations in helping find a solution. Something gw has only done when he's realized he can't go it alone."

    What do you think Kerry would do differently in the Iraqi future with UN support than Bush? If Bush has asked for UN support and not gotten it, why would Kerry get that support?

    Separately, does anybody have a feel for a post-Saud government in Saudi Arabia? My impression is that it possibly would be more fundamentalist and anti-western in its views. Post-Shah Iran, revisited?

    'Rat
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    If he went to them without the disinformation and bullying which Bush used, they might be better disposed to listen

    The Bushes should have been using their influence there to press for reform, instead of lining their pockets.
     
  23. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #23
    By the way, SlyHunter, here is what your hero Clint Eastwood has said about Iraq:

    Eastwood found himself fielding questions about the build-up to war in Iraq when Sean Penn, who'd just finished work on "Mystic River," decided to write an open letter to President Bush in the Washington Post. "I didn't mind that he wrote the letter," Eastwood said. "He asked me about it before and I said, `You can write two kinds of letters - one that's angry, or one that's statesmanlike.'"

    Eastwood's own view of the Iraq invasion is that it was a mistake.

    Source: Knight-Ridder​
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Better change your sig...
     
  25. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #25
    Guess so. I was speaking of the roles he's played not the person that he was but to prevent misunderstandings that part of my sig is gone.
     

Share This Page