Reply With Quote
This has really got me thinking about President Bush.
Yahoo News
NEW YORK (AFP) - US
President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister
Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade
Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported.
Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003.
Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo.
" 'The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,' Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. 'This was when the bombing would begin'," the paper continued.
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment, the paper said.
Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, then US secretary of state
Colin Powell was scheduled to appear before the
United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum had not been made public, according to the report. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands.
In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast excerpts from the memo.
But since then, The New York Times has been able to review the five-page memo in its entirety.
The do ent indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said.
Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted.
Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein.
Last edited by RobinsontoDuncan; 03-27-2006 at 06:22 PM.
This has really got me thinking about President Bush.
No surprise at all.
Clinton also had a plan to invade Iraq. So what does NYT article prove? And
besides it is the NYT, who can believe them.
Who actually went ahead and invaded?
^^Someone with guts and integrity. President Bush.
^^^
Bush = Integrity and guts?
Invading Iraq was a Repug priority before the 2000 election.
The Repugs exploited 9/11 to build a bull case for the Repug Iraq war, and then head lied, repeatedly, about "overwhelming, no-doubt evidence" that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The Repugs smearing war dissenters and Repug haters as "angry" is actually a compliment, and right on the mark. There are tons of Repug bull and Repug military deaths to be angry about.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-29-2006 at 11:23 AM.
So Dr King's dream is only for Blacks or Iraqi's too?
Ya'll talk about freedom but just a bunch of spineless pussies when it comes to bad guys. I would rather kick saddams ass than suck his . Like a lot of people seem to want to do.
Guts yes, integrity no, he lied to the entire world, so yeah no integrity
Dr. King preached change through non-violence, so I doubt this is part of his dream.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963 - A letter from jail.
Don't kid yourself - he was dead-set on Iraq when he was still running for President in 2000. Just ask Bob Woodward - it was on his foreign policy agenda long before the "War on Terror."
ANd it was also Algore's agenda.....
It wasn't the Defense department's, headed civilian-wise by Republican William Cohen under President Clinton. His department laid out three key threats to the United States: 1. Al Qaeda, 2. Nuclear Proliferation, and 3. China.
I don't see Iraq mentioned anywhere in there. Paul Wolfowitz, on the other hand said "This is our way in(to) Iraq" within a week of September 11th.
All of this is from Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.
Great words. A really good person.
as usual you answers inspire laughter
Someone with no guts and integrity....especially integrity.^^^
Bush = Integrity and guts?
And I'd like to add tough. For someone to be more committed to an ideal than his own life, his over preservation, has to be the single hardest thing to do. To fight the natural instinct of survival and fear of death to be just. I cannot help but hold this man and what he represents as a personal hero of mine. He truly was a Christian in every sense of the word.
^^I second that. He has more integrity in his little finger than
any dimm-o-crap has, period!
Hey heard the latest, the dimm-o-craps have a plan, trash Bush!
It remains to be seen if they would do any better....
^^Better than what?
Well, Bush has failed. Anyone out of that White House who runs is going to have to run with a record of failure. Change for the sake of change is not productive, but that's how FDR ended up being elected; he wasn't Hoover.
Finding someone with integrity, ingenuity, and intelligence would be a step in the right direction, no matter the political party.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "dimm-o-crap."
Better than Bush.
Taking that quote at face value would mean we'd all be speaking German. Would have certainly solved the Muslim problem, however.
Always peace, never war is the height of naivity & is, frankly, dangerous. The low-point, historically, of US military preparedness and focus was 1939. The world paid dearly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
