[The Mick]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/
Pretty damaging stuff from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. My favorite excerpt:

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

“There are memos,” Suskind told CBS. “One of them marked ’secret’ says ’Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.”’

Another Pentagon document entitled “Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts” talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

Wow. I can't wait to see the full interview on Sunday. I'm also quite interested in the fallout, if any, from this. Discuss!

[The Ayatollah]

This isn't earth-shattering. Anyone with a brain cell would create and reevaluate serious war plans with Iraq. Oil is a part of that, as we see that certain countries with big oil and business interests in Iraq with Saddam--like France and Russia--did and do cause problems in implementing US foreign policy.

[MathewM]

There are probably plans for overthrowing Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran and any other nation currently run by despots.

Nothing new.

Interestingly guys like Qadafi *sp?* put up the white flag quickly after Saddam fell. Just shows what a little strong arming can do.

O'Neil is just a disgruntled ex-employee of the Bush administration. I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting some payoffs by that Soros guy.

Whether or not any of this could prove harmfull to the Administration is yet to be seen. It could be as bad as the Monica Lewinski fiasco. Or it could be brushed aside. Besides the to be expected "He lied to us" political bickering I don't see it changing too many minds.

I've wanted to see Saddam taken out for years now.

[christ]

Originally posted by MathewM:
...I've wanted to see Saddam taken out for years now.

... and who/ what did you want to see him replaced by?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Interestingly guys like Qadafi *sp?* put up the white flag quickly after Saddam fell. Just shows what a little strong arming can do.

More interesting is that the citizens of Lybia appear not to be worthy of the same intervention of democracy that the US is bent on imposing into Iraq.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
More interesting is that the citizens of Lybia appear not to be worthy of the same intervention of democracy that the US is bent on imposing into Iraq.

I am a supporter of the war, but I'll be the first to tell you that this 'bring democracy to the people of Iraq' justification is only secondary. The US had larger foreign policy goals in mind--bringing democracy to that country was only a biproduct, IMHO. I am a big subscriber to realpolitik.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
More interesting is that the citizens of Lybia appear not to be worthy of the same intervention of democracy that the US is bent on imposing into Iraq.

That's funny. Don't they have oil too?

CV

[The Mick]

Originally posted by MathewM:
There are probably plans for overthrowing Cuba, N. Korea, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran and any other nation currently run by despots.

Nothing new.

Perhaps the military would make some rudimentary contingency plans for such situations, but to have the President and his closest cabinet members actively planning an invasion of Iraq during the crucial first 90 days? I don't remember invading Iraq as an issue in the 2000 election. If they were planning it all along, then why the pretense that 9/11 "opened our eyes" to the larger problem of international terrorism, including Iraq's supposed support of Al Qaeda?

O'Neil is just a disgruntled ex-employee of the Bush administration. I wouldn't be surprised if he's getting some payoffs by that Soros guy.

Of course, anyone with a critical comment, especially an insider's view, must be just some old disgruntled hack who's doing it for a quick payout.

I've wanted to see Saddam taken out for years now.

Funny how we never had any real justification for doing so until a President and Vice President with substantial personal interest in the control of Iraqi oil came into power. I seem to remember that Saddam had all those mysteriously missing weapons of mass destruction for many many years before Bush and Co. took office.

[MacGorilla]

No Saudi Arabia isn't on our list. They are "good" despots.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
The US had larger foreign policy goals in mind--

Those being ...?

[eklipse]

Maybe Bush really is a war monger?

'Maybe'?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Besides the to be expected "He lied to us" political bickering I don't see it changing too many minds.

I've wanted to see Saddam taken out for years now.

You're not alone.

February 16th 1998:

Nearly two-thirds say the goal of a U.S. attack should be to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power, rather than the Clinton Administration's stated goals of reducing Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten neighboring countries.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/16/polls/iraq/

Mission #1 all along= accomplished.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You're not alone.



Mission #1 all along= accomplished.

ROTFLMAO!

it just keeps happening

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

ROTFLMAOBLIAFDVW!

SLIDNTRRPCTOY! TTTBBALI!

ITTITMTROOYPICBFYW!

LMAO!

[nredman]

Maybe Bush really is a war monger?

noooo...how could you even think that?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

it just keeps happening

It's like watching Dory in Finding Nemo.

"Why are we here again?"

Personally, I'm glad they caught Osama Hussein.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

it just keeps happening

Yup, you keep getting your silly prongs and conspiracy theories exposed! (IE: Simey's first post of that thread).

Meanwhile by comparison, some folks level of political 'knowledge' is based on a cartoon...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Yup, you keep getting your silly prongs and conspiracy theories exposed! (IE: Simey's first post of that thread).

Meanwhile by comparison, some folks level of political 'knowledge' is based on a cartoon...

what explanation do you have for the shifting justifications of invasion, that each time they shift you guys act like it was the REAL reason all along? mass hypnosis? Short attention span?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
what explanation do you have for the shifting justifications of invasion, that each time they shift you guys act like it was the REAL reason all along? mass hypnosis? Short attention span?

Well, Simey attempted to explain it to you before, but if you insist, I'll try and outline it for you again. READ SLOWLY if it helps:

Many of your 'multiple reasons' are the same reasons; you've merely spread them out to pad your paranoia lists.

Several of your so-called 'reasons' are just your own injected hyperbole. (But then you do that a lot).

At least one never was a justification.

Now, what's YOUR explanation for ‘you guys’ ignoring the fact that the removal of Saddam was a goal most Americans supported dating back at least to 1998, and in actuality, dating back to the Gulf War? Senility? Hitting the prongs a little hard again?

[rampant]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well, Simey attempted to explain it to you before, but if you insist, I'll try and outline it for you again. READ SLOWLY if it helps:

Many of your 'multiple reasons' are the same reasons; you've merely spread them out to pad your paranoia lists.

Several of your so-called 'reasons' are just your own injected hyperbole. (But then you do that a lot).

At least one never was a justification.

Now, what's YOUR explanation for ‘you guys’ ignoring the fact that the removal of Saddam was a goal most Americans supported dating back at least to 1998, and in actuality, dating back to the Gulf War? Senility? Hitting the prongs a little hard again?

Congratualations, you've successfully explained absolutely nothing while remaining smug and arrogant. I don't know how you managed to be so increadibly vague with your response that it became impossible to comprehend, but it must be practice.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Well, Simey attempted to explain it to you before, but if you insist, I'll try and outline it for you again. READ SLOWLY if it helps:

Many of your 'multiple reasons' are the same reasons; you've merely spread them out to pad your paranoia lists.

Several of your so-called 'reasons' are just your own injected hyperbole. (But then you do that a lot).

At least one never was a justification.

Now, what's YOUR explanation for ‘you guys’ ignoring the fact that the removal of Saddam was a goal most Americans supported dating back at least to 1998, and in actuality, dating back to the Gulf War? Senility? Hitting the prongs a little hard again?

sorry, Simey was wrong the first time, and you're wrong when you parrot his answer (at least he came up with one).

The point is, the justification for invasion has changed and shifted repeatedly. At each shift of which justification has "priority" or dominance, you guys act like the previous priority was nonexistant.
The lack of any evidence of WMDs has shifted your parrotted justifications from "imminent threat within 45 minutes" to ousting saddam (conveniently shifted after his capture).
My question remains unanswered, and is still valid:

what explanation do you have for the shifting justifications of invasion, that each time they shift you guys act like it was the REAL reason all along? mass hypnosis? Short attention span?

All Simey did was characterize each justification, but did not explain WHY the shift from one to another, nor HOW bush apologists manage to insist there was no shift?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Lerkfish, you were challenged in the first place to:

Go back and reread the UN Resolutions, not to mention all the other literature and speeches on the subject.

Well... did you?

If so, where is what you learned? Let's see a detailed outline that disproves anything Simey called you on. Just saying 'he was wrong' and 'I'm right' (which is about the usual level of you backing up anything you say) doesn't cut it.

You brought up that old thread, not me.

Do your own homework before you ask others to do it for you!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Lerkfish, you were challenged in the first place to:



Well... did you?

If so, where is what you learned? Let's see a detailed outline that disproves anything Simey called you on. Just saying 'he was wrong' and 'I'm right' (which is about the usual level of you backing up anything you say) doesn't cut it.

You brought up that old thread, not me.

Do your own homework before you ask others to do it for you!

LOL!

so...you have no answer.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You've had since this past AUGUST Lerkfish!

You see me anywhere in that 'debate'?

In all that time your idea of refuting Simey's point is "whooosh" and trying to shift the focus of you not doing your homework onto others?

Typical.

[Lerkfish]

what explanation do you have for the shifting justifications of invasion, that each time they shift you guys act like it was the REAL reason all along? mass hypnosis? Short attention span?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Next I get the feeling Lerkfish you'll resort next to yelling: "IS TOO! IS TOO! NUH UH!!"

A great example of the 'debating' style of people who can’t debate. Here's my own list of how it works:

1. Raise a false premise. Expect it not to be challenged.

2. When false premise is challenged, and effectively destroyed by someone that can actually debate using facts and reason and even encourages the premise raiser to look up readily available information themselves and present it, just go "Whooosh! You're wrong, I'm right! I win!"

3. Bring up that very same 'debate' that you declared yourself the 'winner' of without presenting a SINGLE fact, nor having met the basic challenge of looking up and presenting ANY of the actual known and readily available facts- then from that sinking ship, try and use the VERY SAME false premise in an entirely new debate!

One would think it'd be a dead giveaway when the *ONLY* shred of 'evidence' you can provide for your false premise is a link back to your own thread- not anything that exists beyond that- but then you know if 'your guys' are types that get political 'insight' from Disney movies, there's a good chance they aren't likely to notice such details.

It kind of reminds me of the time you posted the EXACT same article as 'collaboration' for a questionable news source someone presented. The kind of 'detail' you don't expect 'your guys' to be adept enough to notice.

“Debate skills for those unskilled at debate”. I believe you wrote that book Lerkfish!

[Lerkfish]

Entertaining, but not an answer to the question.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Entertaining, but not an answer to the question.

You've had SINCE AUGUST to prove you had a valid question Lerkfish. IE: Proof means making your case using *facts*, not spewing unsubstantiated hyperbole.

But by all means, keep dodging.

I think it's funny that you bring up a thread where you DIDN'T prove your point, and think I'm under some obligation to disprove your false premise!

Sometimes your narcissism is unbelievable.

[Lerkfish]

ok, lets try a different tack:

Is it your contention, then, that the primary justification for the invasion of Iraq has been an unchanging constant?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

There have been multiple reasons for the war against Iraq.

In 1998 alone, there were several. Even though I've pointed them out once, I'll do so again:

The one favored by the American people: remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power.

And the reasons favored by the Clinton Admim:

reducing Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten neighboring countries.

As has been pointed out, all of those 'reasons' aren't as your premise surmises, entirely separate, and jibe with one another. The goal of regime change obviously brings about a better and more PERMANANT chance of the latter goal of reducing Iraq's threat.

And by the way, yes, most of those goals have indeed remained pretty constant, and as those who were paying attention have noticed, were both stated and desired goals in Iraq long before Bush took office.

[Lerkfish]

then we have nothing to discuss: we perceive reality differently enough that we will not be able to agree on this issue.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Gee, ya think?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Gee, ya think?

Yeah, I do. You see, you don't perceive that Bush's justifications for invasion have changed over time. You also cannot distinguish between public opinion about Saddam Hussein and what constitutes legitimate justification for invading another country.
Since you cannot even distinguish such a basic difference between an opinion poll and international law concerning conduct between two soveriegn nations, then, no, it would be an understatement to say that you and I do not perceive reality in the same way.

However, you DO answer the question, by not answering the question. There is something fundamentally flawed in the ability to rationally discern reality which explains why the shifts in justifications are continually perceived by people like you as a constant.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Your premise is just the height of silliness. You're trying to float that there could only be ONE reason to invade, and that the President had to present just that one reason and stick with it no matter what. Your 'argument' also clings desperately to painting each reason as an entirely seperate goal, as if achieving one (say the ousting of Saddam) wouldn't also count towards achieving others. (IE: Ending Iraq's threat, WMD, toward its neighbors, or otherwise.)

You then go even farther (as Simey called you on) by splitting up the same reasons into further false subsets. IE: first on your list is non-compliance with inspectors, then you list WMDs seperately. What the hell do you think the inspectors were looking for? Dust bunnies? It's the same reason you've tried to disguise as several.

I bring up Clinton to show you that even he wasn't just operating on one reason for an Iraq invasion. There were clearly 3 or 4!

What is this idea of yours that unless you only have one reason to do something, doing it is invalid?? That's nutty.

The more reasons, the better.

The more you come up with lists of reasons to have invaded Iraq in your attempt to bash Bush with them, you only prove that: there were MORE reasons than one to invade Iraq!

[MathewM]

Bottom line:

I wanted Saddam gone. Bush wanted Saddam gone. Saddam's gone. Good. Now what.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Now, what's YOUR explanation for ‘you guys’ ignoring the fact that the removal of Saddam was a goal most Americans supported dating back at least to 1998, and in actuality, dating back to the Gulf War? Senility? Hitting the prongs a little hard again?

If that is so, then why the hard sell?

Why the whole charade, the whole "imminent threat", "45 minutes", the alleged terrorist links, why the Weapons of Mass Distortion?

Why not just say, "Removal of Saddam has been a priority for over ten years - we want it, our people want it. We're doing it: We're invading."

You know why: Bush's puppet masters would have got no support whatsoever.

The voters and apologists had to be taken a ride via various shiny objects, elegantly switched at will when they began to lose their lustre.

Comparing quotes on this very board from a year ago to today make it very obvious that this tactic has worked very, very well.

Though not outside the US.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Bottom line:

I wanted Saddam gone. Bush wanted Saddam gone. Saddam's gone. Good. Now what.

Yes, exactly.

The "Now what" part is generally something that is clarified *before* a country is invaded, see?

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Bottom line:

I wanted Saddam gone. Bush wanted Saddam gone. Saddam's gone. Good. Now what.

Well, since you are apparently at loose ends, why not take a few moments for a little review session?

When you are finished with that, if you find that time is still weighing heavy on your hands, you can always build up your vocabulary.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Well, since you are apparently at loose ends, why not take a few moments for a little review session?

Exactly!! I am shocked to see that people who say, "Our intention all along was to remove Saddam," don't seem to realise the import of their statement.

Basically it's an admission of American arrogance, impropriety and war crimes. You can't just decide for yourself that you don't like the leader of a foreign nation and then kill 10,000 innocent people in an effort to put someone you do like in power instead! I mean think about what you're saying about how the international system works!

If the war had been justified to the American people on these grounds, they would never have stood for it. Bush had to link the war to other motivations and those were Iraq poses a 'imminent' danger to international peace and security, US peace and security and has links with terrorists. Post-war, they also decided that the war was justified on the basis of humanitarian concerns although that was a reason that was given third or fourth tier status previously given the embarassment it cause for Republicans to be raising it.

[christ]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Bottom line:

I wanted Saddam gone. Bush wanted Saddam gone. Saddam's gone. Good. Now what.

I say again "... and who/ what did you want to see him replaced by?"

This is not the time to be saying "Now what?" - what you (and Bush) should have been saying is "I want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and I will therefore think about 'then what?', so that when the time comes, I will know what to do next"

[Troll]

"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterise as evidence of weapons of mass destruction."
Paul O'Neill, former member of George Bush's national security team

Oh how it smarts eh George?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
It's like watching Dory in Finding Nemo.

"Why are we here again?"

You hit the nail on the head there, my friend.

"Just keep spinning, Just keep spinning....."

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'm amazed to see that I am involved so deeply in a thread that I haven't posted in. It sure saves typing time.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment about Troll's post that the Secretary of the Treasury (which is what O'Neill was until he was fired). O'Neill was not a member of the "National Security team." That is simply incorrect. The national security team is more properly called the National Security Council. Its membership is set by statute under the 1947 National Security Act. The members of the NSC are the President, Vice President, and Secretaries of State and Defense (but NOT Treasury). The non-statutory members are the Director of Central Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and President's Special Advisor (the National Security Advisor).

The Treasury Secretary is purely a domestic office, with really no national security responsibilities, except for the fact that he is nominally head of the Secret Service, which is a law enforcement agency. This is different to some other countries, where the finance minister is much more senior. For example, in Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the #2 in the Cabinet. That is really not the case in the US. In the US the Tresury Secretary is second string, with responsibilities for domestic policy only.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Anyway, I just wanted to comment about Troll's post that the Secretary of the Treasury (which is what O'Neill was until he was fired). O'Neill was not a member of the "National Security team." That is simply incorrect.

Maybe you want to lodge a complaint with the BBC.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Maybe you want to lodge a complaint with the BBC.

It wouldn't be the first time they are wrong about something so basic.

Of course, this happens over here as well. I heard George Stephanopoulos on ABC call Blair a "head of state" a couple of weeks ago. I almost threw something at the TV.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The more you come up with lists of reasons to have invaded Iraq in your attempt to bash Bush with them, you only prove that: there were MORE reasons than one to invade Iraq!

reality check: its not MY list. I'm just recording the list used by the Bush administration, each time it changes.

but, I want to thank you for something. I've thought about this and now I realize where I was wrong in my thinking.

I used to think that people like you and I were looking at the same reality...that I was being honest about it and people like you were either being intentionally misleading or deluding yourselves after viewing reality correctly.
NOW I realize that my assumption was wrong: you people are not even viewing reality correctly IN THE FIRST PLACE in order to subvert it in the second place.

That explains a great deal, actually.
But why is this? Is this a function of overreliance on "hot" media (like television, which delivers its message to a non-engaged audience) vs. "cold" media (like newspapers and radio, which require the audience to think as they assimilate and analysis information).
Is the image bombardment responsible for the willing suspension of critical thinking?
How did we get to this point, where perception of the same data can differ so wildly?

television truly is the opiate of the masses.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
You hit the nail on the head there, my friend.

"Just keep spinning, Just keep spinning....."

yup. nail on the head.
I didn't think so originally, but now I realize there is a fundamental deficit in their ability to perceive reality.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm amazed to see that I am involved so deeply in a thread that I haven't posted in. It sure saves typing time.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment about Troll's post that the Secretary of the Treasury (which is what O'Neill was until he was fired). O'Neill was not a member of the "National Security team." That is simply incorrect. The national security team is more properly called the National Security Council. Its membership is set by statute under the 1947 National Security Act. The members of the NSC are the President, Vice President, and Secretaries of State and Defense (but NOT Treasury). The non-statutory members are the Director of Central Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and President's Special Advisor (the National Security Advisor).

The Treasury Secretary is purely a domestic office, with really no national security responsibilities, except for the fact that he is nominally head of the Secret Service, which is a law enforcement agency. This is different to some other countries, where the finance minister is much more senior. For example, in Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the #2 in the Cabinet. That is really not the case in the US. In the US the Tresury Secretary is second string, with responsibilities for domestic policy only.

oooh! another meaningless semantical sidetrack over a miniscule nit that has nothing to do with the overall point.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
reality check: its not MY list. I'm just recording the list used by the Bush administration, each time it changes.

but, I want to thank you for something. I've thought about this and now I realize where I was wrong in my thinking.

I used to think that people like you and I were looking at the same reality...that I was being honest about it and people like you were either being intentionally misleading or deluding yourselves after viewing reality correctly.
NOW I realize that my assumption was wrong: you people are not even viewing reality correctly IN THE FIRST PLACE in order to subvert it in the second place.

That explains a great deal, actually.
But why is this? Is this a function of overreliance on "hot" media (like television, which delivers its message to a non-engaged audience) vs. "cold" media (like newspapers and radio, which require the audience to think as they assimilate and analysis information).
Is the image bombardment responsible for the willing suspension of critical thinking?
How did we get to this point, where perception of the same data can differ so wildly?

television truly is the opiate of the masses.

Oh, good grief, Lerk. Has it ever occured to you that people might just have honest differences of opinion? It's not a matter of not "viewing reality" or being "non-engaged." Nor is it subverting anything, or not thinking critically, or willing suspension of anything, or of overeliance on any particular media. We simply don't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh, good grief, Lerk. Has it ever occured to you that people might just have honest differences of opinion? It's not a matter of not "viewing reality" or being "non-engaged." Nor is it subverting anything, or not thinking critically, or willing suspension of anything, or of overeliance on any particular media. We simply don't agree with you. It's as simple as that.

no, I disagree: this goes beyond mere disagreement...this is actually looking at the same data and PERCEIVING the data differently.
Crash feels that there has been no shift in priority for the justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Clearly, that is not MY perception. That is a difference in perceiving the actual data, even before we get into how we feel about the data.

not a difference in opinion, a difference in perception. One that varies so widely as to make discussion or even disagreement moot.