Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq,
including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's
inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11
attacks as has been previously reported.
That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first
interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks
toCorrespondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60
Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a
bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "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."
O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the
main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron
Suskind.
Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him
documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the
administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein
from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall -- including
post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and
the future of Iraq's oil.
"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says
'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about
contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have
what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.
According to CBS News Reporter Lisa Barron in Baghdad, "The Iraqi National
Congress, an umbrella group of former exiles, says it's not surprised by
O'Neill's remarks. Spokesman Entifadh Qanbar tells CBS News that the Bush
administration opened official channels to the Iraqi opposition soon after
coming to power, and discussed how to remove saddam. The group opened an
office in Washington shotly afterwards."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a
National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "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 in the book.
Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the
president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of
tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people ... Shouldn't we be
giving money to the middle," Suskind says the president uttered, according
to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he
obtained from someone at the meeting.
O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut,
says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by
his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the
White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am
going to be attacked for telling the truth."
O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so
disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of
deaf people."
O'Neill is also quoted in the book as saying the administration's
decision-making process was so flawed that often top officials had no real
sense of what the president wanted them to do, forcing them to act on
"little more than hunches about what the president might think."
"It's revealing," said Stahl on The Early Show Friday. "I would say it's an
unflattering portrait of the White House and of the president -- and
specifically, about how they make decisions."
A lack of dialogue, according to O'Neill, was the norm in cabinet meetings
he attended. And it was similar in one-on-one meetings, says O'Neill. Of his
first such meeting with the president, O'Neill says, "I went in with a long
list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on...I was
surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening...It was
mostly a monologue."
On Friday, a White House official tried to brush off O'Neill's assessment of
President Bush's decision-making policies. "It's well known the way the
president approaches governing and setting priorities," says Spokeman Scott
McClellan. "The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our
biggest priorities, and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."
CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reported Saturday that, as the White
House sees it, O'Neill's remarks are those of a disgruntled former official,
and it should not have come as a surprise to O'Neill that the U.S. advocated
Saddam's ouster.
In fact, a senior administration official tells CBS News it would have been
irresponsible not to plan for Saddam's eventual removal.
As for the charge that there were early plans to invade Iraq, Knoller says
the official calls that "laughable." Suggesting that O'Neill doesn't know
what he's talking about on this matter, the official told CBS News O'Neill
had enough problems in his own area of expertise.
Another senior administraiton official told CBS News Saturday, "No one ever
listened to the crazy things he said before, why should we start now?"
Separately, McClellan added Saturday, "We appreciate his service. While
we're not in the business of book reviews, it appears the world according to
Mr O'Nneill is more about justifying his own opinions than looking at the
reality of the results we're achieving on behalf on the American people.
"The president is going to continue to be forward-looking and focus on
building on the results we've achieved on the economy and efforts to make
the world safer and a better place."
------------
.
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
10 Jan 2004 11:01:57 PM |
|
|
(jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 12:38:57 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:01:57 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
I can easily say that many Americans say the same thing about
Bush, Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, John Ashcroft and ***** Cheney
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 04:54:55 AM |
|
|
Mark Tyme
wrote:
"R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
I can easily say that many Americans >say the same thing about
Bush, Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, John >Ashcroft and ***** Cheney
That's because you're a Moron.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 01:35:39 AM |
|
|
Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> Spat the Words
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 05:01:57 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
I can easily say that many Americans say the same thing about
Bush, Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, John Ashcroft and ***** Cheney
You can, and do, say a great many things about a great many things.
The veracity of your statements is questionable though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 05:02:39 AM |
|
|
R. Foreman wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
There is a difference between wishing / knowing the guy must go and
actively looking for the pretense to invade his country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 05:47:28 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> Spat the Words
R. Foreman wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
There is a difference between wishing / knowing the guy must go and
actively looking for the pretense to invade his country.
One could make the argument that the 1990 gulf war against
iraq never really ended, or hussein renewed hostilities against
us. The US and Britain were under a UN mandate to patrol an
iraqi no-fly zone, but the pilots were having SAM missiles
shot at them almost daily.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 06:41:45 AM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns946D30BCA5CB0rrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16...
Cardinal Chunder <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> Spat the Words
R. Foreman wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
There is a difference between wishing / knowing the guy must go and
actively looking for the pretense to invade his country.
One could make the argument that the 1990 gulf war against
iraq never really ended, or hussein renewed hostilities against
us. The US and Britain were under a UN mandate to patrol an
iraqi no-fly zone,
NO they fuckin' weren't foreman! That no fly zone was a yank/brit
"initiative"...absolutely nothing to do with the UN...never sanctioned!
Go look it up!!!!!!
but the pilots were having SAM missiles
shot at them almost daily.
....because they were *illegally* flying over the airspace of another
country. That's what usually happens.
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 08:06:33 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns946D30BCA5CB0rrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16>, "R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Cardinal Chunder <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> Spat the Words
R. Foreman wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
There is a difference between wishing / knowing the guy must go and
actively looking for the pretense to invade his country.
One could make the argument that the 1990 gulf war against
iraq never really ended, or hussein renewed hostilities against
us. The US and Britain were under a UN mandate to patrol an
iraqi no-fly zone, but the pilots were having SAM missiles
shot at them almost daily.
I don't recall the UN mandating a no-fly zone.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 09:38:38 AM |
|
|
(Woodswun) Spat the Words
In article <Xns946D30BCA5CB0rrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16>, "R.
Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Cardinal Chunder <cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> Spat the Words
R. Foreman wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) Spat the Words
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
Not really surprising. Everyone in our gov't, both democrats and
republicans, knew something had to be done about hussein.
Hussein was a festering problem which had to be dealt with
at some point.
There is a difference between wishing / knowing the guy must go and
actively looking for the pretense to invade his country.
One could make the argument that the 1990 gulf war against
iraq never really ended, or hussein renewed hostilities against
us. The US and Britain were under a UN mandate to patrol an
iraqi no-fly zone, but the pilots were having SAM missiles
shot at them almost daily.
I don't recall the UN mandating a no-fly zone.
Woods
The UN mandated the protection of kurds in the north and
shiites in the south. The US policy used no-fly and no-
drive zones in the north and south to effect that mandate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 01:58:14 AM |
|
|
(jha_amin) wrote in message news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because that is when he became
president.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 06:47:20 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a2b35e99.0401102358.65cefcab@posting.google.com...
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message
news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because that is when he became
president.
Why all the pretence about WMD then? Why didn't they just say it as it is?
"We americans, being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are, have
decided to topple the govt. of yet another soverign country...namely Iraq,
because our man there, Saddam Hussein, won't play ball with us anymore. He's
gotten too big for his boots"
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's. whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 10:00:19 AM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btrgnm$pdb$1@green.tninet.se...
Why all the pretence about WMD then? Why didn't they just say it as it is?
"We americans, being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are, have
decided to topple the govt. of yet another soverign country...namely Iraq,
because our man there, Saddam Hussein, won't play ball with us anymore.
He's
gotten too big for his boots"
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's. whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
WH
I realize I'm not likely to get a response to this................
"We americans being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are?"
Exactly which Americans, Chris? It should be clear that not everyone in
this country is backing Bush. The support he has may likely wane as time
goes by. Americans and the British are split to a degree and we did not go
in there alone.
Who, specifically, do you see as being responsible for the current as well
as past aggressive behavior toward this Arab 'state'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 05:25:41 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:hI2dnSKqUY4i7pzdRVn-gQ@locallink.net...
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btrgnm$pdb$1@green.tninet.se...
Why all the pretence about WMD then? Why didn't they just say it as it
is?
"We americans, being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are, have
decided to topple the govt. of yet another soverign country...namely
Iraq,
because our man there, Saddam Hussein, won't play ball with us anymore.
He's
gotten too big for his boots"
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's.
whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
WH
I realize I'm not likely to get a response to this................
You're lucky. I'm off again tomorrow morning and I saw this now tonight so
I'll reply.
"We americans being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are?"
Exactly which Americans, Chris?
You're just being deliberately foolish because you know well which Americans
I'm referring to!
It should be clear that not everyone in
this country is backing Bush.
I'm aware of that!
The support he has may likely wane as time
goes by.
And at the moment he has what...53% support for his war-mongering? Yes
hopefully it will wane.
But until then....
Americans and the British are split to a degree and we did not go
in there alone.
No...you had a raggle-taggle group of third world countries support you and
one or two
1st world countries. The people of these countries did not and still don't
support you.
Who, specifically, do you see as being responsible for the current as well
as past aggressive behavior toward this Arab 'state'?
Your government!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 09:15:00 PM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btsm4h$4jd$1@green.tninet.se...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:hI2dnSKqUY4i7pzdRVn-gQ@locallink.net...
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btrgnm$pdb$1@green.tninet.se...
Why all the pretence about WMD then? Why didn't they just say it as it
is?
"We americans, being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are, have
decided to topple the govt. of yet another soverign country...namely
Iraq,
because our man there, Saddam Hussein, won't play ball with us
anymore.
He's
gotten too big for his boots"
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's.
whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
WH
I realize I'm not likely to get a response to this................
You're lucky. I'm off again tomorrow morning and I saw this now tonight so
I'll reply.
Thanks.
"We americans being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are?"
Exactly which Americans, Chris?
You're just being deliberately foolish because you know well which
Americans
I'm referring to!
Yeah but if we can get specific about who then maybe we can get more
specific about issues.
It should be clear that not everyone in
this country is backing Bush.
I'm aware of that!
The support he has may likely wane as time
goes by.
And at the moment he has what...53% support for his war-mongering? Yes
hopefully it will wane.
But until then....
Until educate, discuss, inform. We need to get beyond rhetoric and blind
patriotism and be determined to do what's right. Ultimately right may not
matter tho when it's really power and money that rules.
And if indeed they were lying about WMDs, the occupation goes south, and a
lame economic recovery fails to support the debt we're incurring GWB
concievably may not even run next fall. Not likely but we'll have to wait
for the remedies our constitution offers regardless.
Americans and the British are split to a degree and we did not go
in there alone.
No...you had a raggle-taggle group of third world countries support you
and
one or two
They supported my government. :-)
1st world countries. The people of these countries did not and still don't
support you.
You mean my government.
Who, specifically, do you see as being responsible for the current as
well
as past aggressive behavior toward this Arab 'state'?
Your government!
There ya go. :-)
I personally don't want my government enforcing it's will on another
country. I don't want my government supporting tyrannical regimes simply
because they're friendly to our business interests. I hated Saddam and
firmly dislike any policy that allows the subjugation of other people so
that my life may be sweetened. If we're going to use foreign resources to
build an economy that brings us such necessities as cell phones, game cubes
and fancy SUVs we should allow people in those foreign countries simple
freedoms and an ability to share in the wealth. Freedom might even mean the
absence of U.S. interference in their affairs. Imagine that.
I would have rather stopped the western powers that were/be that created
'Iraq' 90 years ago. I couldn't do that anymore than I could have stopped
the recent invasion.
No one mourns Saddam's demise. The best I'd hoped for was having the people
of Iraq acquire their true freedom. It wouldn't surprise me if they end up
having just that. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up being seriously
burned as they get that. We may well mourn our foreign policies of the
last 100 years if and when the bubble bursts and the barbarians, in one
form or another, storm our gates, knock down more buildings.
Maybe we as a nation we might learn something from that. Nah, but keep
posting anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
12 Jan 2004 12:03:26 AM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
I would have rather stopped the western powers that were/be that
created 'Iraq' 90 years ago. I couldn't do that anymore than I could
have stopped the recent invasion.
That's right, these events were set in motion years ago.
No one mourns Saddam's demise. The best I'd hoped for was having the
people of Iraq acquire their true freedom.
It's more likely iraq will end up in a civil war.
It wouldn't surprise me if
they end up having just that. It wouldn't surprise me if we end up
being seriously burned as they get that. We may well mourn our
foreign policies of the last 100 years if and when the bubble bursts
and the barbarians, in one form or another, storm our gates, knock
down more buildings.
Maybe we as a nation we might learn something from that. Nah, but
keep posting anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
12 Jan 2004 06:19:34 AM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns946DEA8CB2B7Frrfkwrantispamattbic@63.240.76.16...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> Spat the Words
I would have rather stopped the western powers that were/be that
created 'Iraq' 90 years ago. I couldn't do that anymore than I could
have stopped the recent invasion.
That's right, these events were set in motion years ago.
No one mourns Saddam's demise. The best I'd hoped for was having the
people of Iraq acquire their true freedom.
It's more likely iraq will end up in a civil war.
That's a very likely possibility. More events that were set in motion years
ago. More events out of our control. More death and destruction. No
guarantee they'll end up with the friendly regime they wanted when they
invaded.
So much blood shed over the years all over the world trying to control
people and their wealth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
12 Jan 2004 07:10:01 AM |
|
|
I find it quite funny to see all the Liberals here so upset that Saddam is gone
from power.
They will support anyone who is against the USA.
The pinheads also fail to acknowledge that Clnton made it US policy to persue
the ouster of Saddam's government.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
12 Jan 2004 05:48:52 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) wrote in message news:<20040112081001.04365.00003049@mb-m29.aol.com>...
The pinheads also fail to acknowledge that Clnton made it US policy to persue
the ouster of Saddam's government.
[quote] "We continue to hope, indeed pray, that Saddam will comply,
but we must be prepared to act if he does not." [end quote]
President Clinton, November 11, 1998 at Arlington National Cemetary
Veterans Day Ceremony, just 11 days after signing the bill -- and by
the way, the bill had overwhelming bi-partisan support in the U.S.
Congress.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/11/981111-wh1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
13 Jan 2004 05:44:02 AM |
|
|
dsteven@flashmail.com
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote in message
news:<20040112081001.04365.00003049@mb-m29.aol.com>...
The pinheads also fail to acknowledge that Clnton made it US policy to
persue
the ouster of Saddam's government.
[quote] "We continue to hope, indeed pray, that Saddam will comply,
but we must be prepared to act if he does not." [end quote]
President Clinton, November 11, 1998 at Arlington National Cemetary
Veterans Day Ceremony, just 11 days after signing the bill -- and by
the way, the bill had overwhelming bi-partisan support in the U.S.
Congress.
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/11/>981111-wh1.htm
Yep, but fanatics like Sandy are unable to accept the truth.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
12 Jan 2004 05:11:44 PM |
|
|
In article <20040112081001.04365.00003049@mb-m29.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
I find it quite funny to see all the Liberals here so upset that Saddam is gone
from power.
They will support anyone who is against the USA.
The pinheads also fail to acknowledge that Clnton made it US policy to persue
the ouster of Saddam's government.
Wrong. Back to remedial reading class you go!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
13 Jan 2004 05:43:01 AM |
|
|
woodswun@tepidmail.com
wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) wrote:
I find it quite funny to see all the Liberals here so upset that Saddam is
gone
from power.
They will support anyone who is against the USA.
The pinheads also fail to acknowledge that Clnton made it US policy to
persue
the ouster of Saddam's government.
Wrong. Back to remedial reading class you go!
Woods
You are once again, clueless.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 11:06:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:00:19 -0500, " John F Lemke"
<jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote:
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btrgnm$pdb$1@green.tninet.se...
Why all the pretence about WMD then? Why didn't they just say it as it is?
"We americans, being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are, have
decided to topple the govt. of yet another soverign country...namely Iraq,
because our man there, Saddam Hussein, won't play ball with us anymore.
He's
gotten too big for his boots"
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's. whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
WH
I realize I'm not likely to get a response to this................
"We americans being the arrogant aggressive bastards as we are?"
Exactly which Americans, Chris? It should be clear that not everyone in
this country is backing Bush. The support he has may likely wane as time
goes by. Americans and the British are split to a degree and we did not go
in there alone.
Who, specifically, do you see as being responsible for the current as well
as past aggressive behavior toward this Arab 'state'?
The government are the people...nuff said
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 11:41:34 AM |
|
|
<DaarkSyde@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:rj0300hb9ip9bqc4ptnm6skbkbp2u3lcmq@4ax.com...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:00:19 -0500, " John F Lemke"
<jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote:
.
Who, specifically, do you see as being responsible for the current as
well
as past aggressive behavior toward this Arab 'state'?
The government are the people...nuff said
And it could be that the people change the government this year. The IMF
has expressed concern about the state of the American economy and it's
effect on the world economy. Things obviously haven't gone as expected in
Iraq and there's no guarantee things will go well there in the future.
Where will the revelations about any lying about WMD's lead?
Hypothetically speaking, if the 'sheeple' wake up and the current leadership
is kicked out will that mean we're no longer 'bastards'? Or did the
'bastards' mislead the sheeple.
Who, specifically, are the bastards?
I'd second Mark Tyme's suggestion that everyone read C. Wright Mill's "The
Power Elite".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 03:13:56 PM |
|
|
"WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<btrgnm$pdb$1@green.tninet.se>...
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because that is when he became
president.
Why all the pretence about WMD then?
Read the UN approved language in the following quote
(the full resolution is at this link):
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
[quote] "Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of
international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by
relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide
immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC),
established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to
UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the
crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people," [end
quote]
Or is it so that America HAS the right to go topple other govt's. whenever
they feel like it...no questions asked?
That's what America (and its NATO allies) did in Kosovo, by removing a
sovereign head of government to stop the slaughter of Muslims --
WITHOUT United Nations approval, by the way. Should we have NOT done
taken that action since the UN did not give its approval?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 04:56:07 AM |
|
|
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven >Douglas)
wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message
news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because >that is when he became president.
You dare to post truth and common sense in this group?
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 06:51:56 AM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:20040111055607.19816.00002474@mb-m01.aol.com...
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven >Douglas)
wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message
news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because >that is when he became president.
You dare to post truth and common sense in this group?
Tony
Look at what he wrote yellabelly! Look here, it starts "I imagine..." Do you
believe that what Douglas *imagines* is truth because it agrees with your
warped view of things? That's what all you facists seem to be doing,
*imagining* things that aren't there justifying the slaughter of thousands
of innocent people and the destruction of a sovereign nation.
WH
WH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 12:18:18 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2004 10:56:07 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven >Douglas)
wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message
news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because >that is when he became president.
You dare to post truth and common sense in this group?
Tony
Post here the specific Congressional vote in 1998 that ordered regime
change in Iraq.
For one, US Congress doesn't vote on the floor to oust foreign
governments.
Waiting for your post ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 12:30:46 PM |
|
|
Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> Spat the Words
On 11 Jan 2004 10:56:07 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
dsteven@flashmail.com (Steven >Douglas)
wrote:
jha_amin@yahoo.com (jha_amin) wrote in message
news:<33b7880.0401101635.64c1acc1@posting.google.com>...
Saddam had to go, but there must have been a better way.
SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01?
CBS News
January 10, 2004
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.
shtml
I imagine the planning started prior to '01, since the U.S. Congress
voted in 1998 to make regime change in Iraq the policy of the U.S.
government -- and President Clinton signed the bill. President Bush
started planning in early '01, because >that is when he became
president.
You dare to post truth and common sense in this group?
Tony
Post here the specific Congressional vote in 1998 that ordered regime
change in Iraq.
For one, US Congress doesn't vote on the floor to oust foreign
governments.
Waiting for your post ...
I think regime change in iraq was our policy long before
1998, because during gulf war 1 we specifically were
bombing buildings we thought hussein was hiding in.
We were trying to take him out a decade ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 12:50:18 PM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> Spat the Words
Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> Spat the Words
For one, US Congress doesn't vote on the floor to oust foreign
governments.
Waiting for your post ...
Although it was tony who mentioned the 1998 congressional vote,
I looked it up and here's that link for you. I guess you're
wrong again bud (seems you're on a streak).
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm
I think regime change in iraq was our policy long before
1998, because during gulf war 1 we specifically were
bombing buildings we thought hussein was hiding in.
We were trying to take him out a decade ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Tyme" |
|
| Title: Re: SADDAM'S OUSTER PLANNED IN '01 |
11 Jan 2004 01:09:09 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:50:18 GMT, "R. Foreman"
<eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
"R. Foreman" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> Spat the Words
Mark Tyme <MarkTyme@ix.netcom.com> Spat the Words
For one, US Congress doesn't vote on the floor to oust foreign
governments.
Waiting for your post ...
Although it was tony who mentioned the 1998 congressional vote,
I looked it up and here's that link for you. I guess you're
wrong again bud (seems you're on a streak).
Not wrong at all. POLCY OF SUPPORT does not mean
"Invasion and occupation". It means exactly that, supporting
those within a country to change their own regime !!!!
Look again at the article:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
This is NOT what Tony said. Congress debated and voted
a "policy to support efforts". They were speaking directly to the
anti-Sadaam political groups in exhile in the US, and elsewhere,
planning to overthrow Saddam from within, via a coup.
This is not the same thing as invading and occupying another
country.
The US has done exactly the same thing with Cuba, by declaring
a "policy to support efforts", meaning the Cuban people themselves.
It does not justify the invasion and occupation of Cuba.
It has said the same, for China, North Korea, The Soviet Union,
but how can you take that, a "policy of support" to mean
invasion and occupation? It's absurd !!!!
The US has done the same, stating its "policy to support" those
trying to overthrow their own dictators (ie, not US installed
dictators). It does not imply the US has a justification to then
invade and occupy
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm
I think regime change in iraq was our policy long before
1998, because during gulf war 1 we specifically were
bombing buildings we thought hussein was hiding in.
We were trying to take him out a decade ago.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
