Kristol: O'Neill War Memo Came From Clinton

[mr mahs]

This is to discount the accusation from the loony Paul O'neal about the hell bent desire Bush and Co had to remove Sadam.

The Govt has contingency plans to invade every country on the face of the earth, every military heavyweight has them. In Iraq's case we had 12 years of history and the regime change stance was in place before Bush came in to office.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kristol: O'Neill War Memo Came From Clinton

A controversial White House memo outlining plans for a postwar Iraq that was drafted well before the 9/11 attacks had its origins in the Clinton administration, former Bush 41 White House official Bill Kristol said Sunday.

In an interview set for broadcast Sunday night, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill tells CBS's "60 Minutes" that "from the very beginning, there was a conviction [in the Bush White House] that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

Of White House deliberations on the decision to invade Iraq, O'Neill claims: "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.'"

O'Neill's comments are bolstered by memos he supplied to author Ronald Suskind, whose new book, "The Price of Loyalty," is based on O'Neill's story.

But former White House official Bill Kristol, who now publishes The Weekly Standard, says that a key memo cited by the author that outlines U.S. contingency plans to topple Saddam Hussein goes back to the Clinton administration.

"[suskind] quotes this secret memo, 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,' that apparently the Bush administration had in its first few months," Kristol told "Fox News Sunday."

"I'm sure that was left over from the Clinton administration. Of course [the Bush White House] had a plan for post-Saddam Iraq - it's been our policy to have regime change there for three years before the Bush administration."

Kristol, who served as chief of staff for former Vice President Dan Quayle, also questioned O'Neill's recollections of Bush's comments, which Suskind claimed are based on "nearly verbatim" transcripts of White House meetings.

"I've been in White House meetings. There's no verbatim transcript of such meetings," he told "Fox News Sunday." "People take notes, obviously, for their use later on. [but] I'd like to know, I'd like to see this 'nearly verbatim' transcript of the meeting."

[pattbateman]

great article

i cannot wait to see what the libs say on this site if they say anything or just opt out and avoid it like they do all things they cant say anything about!

[jamiroguy1]

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss???

Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record.

Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

[pattbateman]

i aint blamin no one but saddam

[jamiroguy1]

Bill Kristol, Keeping Iraq in the Cross Hairs

By Howard Kurtz

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 18, 2003; Page C01

Moments after the Persian Gulf War was halted, Bill Kristol got a call from columnist Charles Krauthammer, and both were fuming over what they saw as unfinished business.

"I was one of those who thought we should have finished off Saddam at the end of the war," Kristol recalls. "We both agreed this was a big mistake."

As Vice President Dan Quayle's chief of staff, Kristol had little influence over administration policy. But over the next dozen years, in various incarnations and guises, he would mount a political, journalistic and intellectual campaign to push the government closer to the goal of regime change in Iraq.

Kristol's magazine, the Weekly Standard, has been loudly beating the war drums. He has launched a hawkish think tank that churns out petitions backed by big-name scholars and former officials. He presses his case privately with the likes of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and publicly on Fox News Channel. He teaches at Harvard, speaks to such groups as the World Affairs Council in San Francisco. And he's co-authored a new book called "The War Over Iraq."

Full article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43043-2003Mar17&notFound=true

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss???

Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record.

Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

You fucking retard!....You are so fucking dumb it is unreal......

The point hits you across the head and you still do not get it...

retard

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss???

Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record.

Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

You fucking retard!....You are so fucking dumb it is unreal......

The point hits you across the head and you still do not get it...

fucking lost cause

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss???

Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record.

Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

WOW.... Who is blaming Clinton? All I am implying is this little memo that is receiving so much hype would have existed if Gore or even Perot were in office...

[siceone]

No one is blaming Clinton for anything, This just show's someone in the previous adminstrations intentions to do the same it's not a plan that started with Bush It started with clinton and continued with bush

[dkny8]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

So it was Clinton's decision to invade Iraq? Now Clinton sets the agenda for what they're going to discuss???

Jesus Christ, you guys love blaming Clinton. Personally, I'm not finding too much of difference between Clinton and Bush these days besides Clinton having the better economic record.

Bottom line is Bush and his cabinet are responsible for the agenda on their meetings not an ex prez. Nice try, Bill Kristol.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/people/bill_kristol.htm

You REALLY don't get. As the first post stated, contingency plans are set up for almost any eventuality. Having been fairly high up in the ladder of the military I can tell you this. Battle plans like an Iraq invasion are set up well ahead of time. I'm willing to bet we have battle plans to attack Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, even China. Just because it's been in existence DOESN'T mean people in government were making it happen from the get-go.

[igloo]

Just another thread that jamirolost got his ass kicked....

[jamiroguy1]

Corroborating O’Neill’s Account

Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11

By John Cochran

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Full Article

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Corroborating O’Neill’s Account

Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11

By John Cochran

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Full Article

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

So what are you saying? The Bush administration actually acted on the law declaring the removal of Saddam a goal of US policy: the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Here is a little excerpt from David From on this issue...

The plot was so secret that Congress broadcast it on C-Span and published it in the Congressional Record. In fact, just about every candidate for the presidency in 2000 agreed that Saddam would someday have to be removed by force, with John McCain and Al Gore making the point even more emphatically than George W. Bush.

What'S the problem here?

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Corroborating O’Neill’s Account

Official Confirms Claims That Saddam Was Bush’s Focus Before 9/11

By John Cochran

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

Full Article

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

Jamirolost.....are you fucking kidding me?

Your desperation is so pathetic it is unreal, only rivaled by the media who want so bad to keep this overblown issue a story......

Wow...what a revealing new "element" to this earth-shattering story ...

The President ordered the Pentagon "to explore" military options for the already in place policy of regime change ....

Wow....what news....

The media will do everything they can to keep this non-story alive, but I suggest that jamirolost and the rest of you pathetic jerkoffs follow the lead of O'Neill now......backtrack

.......And though Bush gets credit for toppling the Iraqi dictator, using force against Iraq as a pre-emptive measure wasn't a new policy. The purpose of Clinton's 1998 Operation Desert Fox was to force Saddam to comply with weapons inspections and to thwart his continuing to develop WMD.

"Mark my words," Clinton said on the eve of the 1998 bombing. "(Saddam) will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them."

[kramadas]

yeah, but Bush was the one who actually acted on it. This would be a non-issue if there had not been a war. OR it would have an issue had Clinton started it.

[breakbeatz2]

Originally posted by raver_mania

yeah, but Bush was the one who actually acted on it. This would be a non-issue if there had not been a war. OR it would have an issue had Clinton started it.

um, why are you changing the subject ass-munch

the whole point of this is you assholes are claiming that Bush was out to get Saddam before 9/11, and the truth is even Clinton was out to get Hussein before 9/11, but 9/11 just created a different environment under which it was necessary to oust Saddam

this point isnt to defend the invasion of Iraq, its to show that there was nothing wrong with wanting to get rid of Hussein before 9/11, and that Clinton wanted to do it as well

[kramadas]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

um, why are you changing the subject ass-munch

the whole point of this is you assholes are claiming that Bush was out to get Saddam before 9/11, and the truth is even Clinton was out to get Hussein before 9/11, but 9/11 just created a different environment under which it was necessary to oust Saddam

this point isnt to defend the invasion of Iraq, its to show that there was nothing wrong with wanting to get rid of Hussein before 9/11, and that Clinton wanted to do it as well

Hey fuck-head - the point is, Clinton didn't do it (no matter how much he *might have* really wanted to do it. Is that really that hard for your feeble mind to grasp?

[breakbeatz2]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Hey fuck-head - the point is, Clinton didn't do it (no matter how much he *might have* really wanted to do it. Is that really that hard for your feeble mind to grasp?

nobody wouldve done it if it wasnt for 9/11

[igloo]

Originally posted by raver_mania

Hey fuck-head - the point is, Clinton didn't do it (no matter how much he *might have* really wanted to do it. Is that really that hard for your feeble mind to grasp?

Clinton did worse----he took half-measures.......

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

nobody wouldve done it if it wasnt for 9/11

Exactly. And admin. officials already admited that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. That's the point.

[igloo]

Originally posted by jamiroguy1

Exactly. And admin. officials already admited that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. That's the point.

I think you need to check your facts, because as usual, you do not have a fucking clue about what you are vomiting.

And if you are specifically referring to Iraq being behind 9/11 in your comment, then you are completely missing the point.

Either way, you are lost.

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by raver_mania

yeah, but Bush was the one who actually acted on it. This would be a non-issue if there had not been a war. OR it would have an issue had Clinton started it.

YEAH AND IF MY AUNT HAD NUTS, SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE...

What in God's name are you talking about? Bush acts on a congressional act and he is hell bent on war? especially after 911 when the pre-emptive stance was inacted? You guys will never grasp the whole picture, stick to your conspiracy theories...

[kramadas]

Originally posted by mr mahs

YEAH AND IF MY AUNT HAD NUTS, SHE WOULD BE MY UNCLE...

What in God's name are you talking about? Bush acts on a congressional act and he is hell bent on war? especially after 911 when the pre-emptive stance was inacted? You guys will never grasp the whole picture, stick to your conspiracy theories...

Then why bring Clinton into this?

Also, I really don't know if your auntt has nuts or is a cross-dresser...I really don't want to hear about your personal problems on this forum

[kramadas]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

nobody wouldve done it if it wasnt for 9/11

Bullshit. He was already in a proactive planning phase before 9/11. This was just the excuse he needed - if 9/11 didn't happen, I'm sure he would have found another way to convince the American public to go to war.

[jamiroguy1]

Originally posted by igloo

I think you need to check your facts, because as usual, you do not have a fucking clue about what you are vomiting.

And if you are specifically referring to Iraq being behind 9/11 in your comment, then you are completely missing the point.

Either way, you are lost.

Let's see...

Colon Powel admited there was no connection Iraq and 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html

Bush Admits there is no connection to Iraq and 9/11

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

The report of the joint congressional inquiry admits there is no connection to Iraq and 9/11

http://truthout.org/docs_03/072503B.shtml

Even Blair admits there is no connection to Iraq and 9/11.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/regular_columnists/simon_carr/story.jsp?story=371597

But as, you said, I'd be missing the point by pointing out that there is no connection. Why don't you explain the point of invading Iraq after 9/11 if there is no link to it.