Reply With Quote
No, he's not. Do you want me to Google it?
No, he's not. Do you want me to Google it?
I want you to prove the quote from Woodward's book wrong.No, he's not. Do you want me to Google it?
Should be easy for you with all your access and connections.
Found that pre-9/11 war plan yet, Charles?
Okay...want away.
Nope, not that one. I don't have the clearance.
I choose to believe battle plans exist, you don't.
Frankly, it's a matter of semantics. Is it possible that when they said there were no plans for invading Afghanistan it was in the context of a specific plan for responding to the 9-11 attacks? Sure, I would concede that if asked in that context, one could answer, there were no plans on the shelf for invading Afghanistan.
If you you're going to say there were no plans that evaluated the country of Afghanistan as a theater of war, in which we may one day be in combat, and that there were preliminary plans on a range of scenarios that might see us fighting there, I call bull .
It's what they do at the Pentagon.
I choose to believe battle plans exist, you don't.
I have a quote from an author who interviewed the president, the SecDef, the Chairman of the JCS and the CENTCOM commander and they told him all about the planning of the Operation Enduring Freedom. They told him there was no plan for an invasion of Afghanistan in the Pentagon before 9/11. Who are your sources again?It's not a matter of semantics. There was no plan in the Pentagon to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. Period.Frankly, it's a matter of semantics. Is it possible that when they said there were no plans for invading Afghanistan it was in the context of a specific plan for responding to the 9-11 attacks?
Take Iraq. It is widely known -- not by you, but widely known -- that Op Plan 1003 was the war plan for an invasion of Iraq that was formed in 1998. Rumsfeld brought it out and had the Pentagon change it two months after 9/11. They had no such plan for Afghanistan at all.
Now go find something that says different, Charles.
Yoni, I challenge you to produce something that says the Pentagon had a plan for a military invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11.
There, I used your drama queen wording from the other thread. I answered that challenge -- will you answer this one?
This may be the dumbest arguement ever.
Not only does no one know who had a plan and if the plan ever existed, but people are using pure speculation as evidence.
Did the U.S. have a specific plan? Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn't really matter. I'm sure the U.S. had plenty of intelligence of the area and possible plans of attack from the Soviet-Afghan war and onwards. Our own military incursions no doubt would have produced at least some information on the region and how to combat terrorist forces just from watching what the USSR did.
Plus we have our own experience there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach
I'm sure the U.S. would have no problem producing a plan from scratch based off their intel of the region, previous bombing experience, and cooperation from the northan alliance. I'm also sure the U.S. has hundreds of plans of attacks for hundreds of areas to invade if the situation ever arises. Was Afghanistan important enough to be there? Maybe.
Not an invasion, but thanks for trying to help Yoni. He Googles hard.
He does Google hard.
Here's his secret: link
Nah, you didn't meet the challeng, you only found what I said you'd find...lefty characterizations of what they wanted to believe about Corker.
I've already said I doubt I can find a invasion plan in google, they don't normally post those online.
You suck at googling. Is that how you construct queries? No wonder you can't find in these internet tubes.
Why not? References to Op Plan 1003 are quite easy to find using Google.
Well, what do you know, I broke down and googled it.
U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida
Do you think a plan for military operations in Afghanistan wouldn't be contributed to by the Pentagon?
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
There's the first three I came across.
Just because a plan doesn't have a fancy number or the just because it wasn't revelealed doesn't mean it didn't exist.
That's a hoot.
You believe the anonymous sources over President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others!
There was only one CIA plan to use Pakistan intel to take out Taliban leadership, but the military coup in Pakistan put an end to that.
No military invasion plan at the Pentagon.
No, I believe there were plans for military action in Afghanistan.
That's a hoot.
You believe the anonymous sources over President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and all the others!
Hey, you believed the New York Times over President Bush.
Only one CIA plan? Wow, you do have extraordinary clearance. Sure you're not violating some policy by talking about it here?
I guess you believe everything you read.
Then it should be as easy to find as the Iraq plan.No, I believe there were plans for military action in Afghanistan.
And the President or Rumsfeld or Powell or Tenet or Wolfowitz or Franks or Rice or Armitage or Hadley or Cheney or Libby or Meyers or Shelton would've told Woodward something different. It's not like the absence of an invasion plan was a point of pride in the Pentagon.
Why would that be?
You seem to believe there is some imperative to settle such matters in the court of public opinion.
CD... what you've stated so far makes sense... it does. Especially if you believe Woodward would have no hidden agendas and take him completely at his word. Not that I'm accusing him of such or anything.
At the same time I find it inconceivable that the Pentagon would have zero scenarios for invading a country like Afghanistan. Again, don't expect anyone there to come out and say they have formulated hundreds of such plans 'in case they are ever needed'. It is the nature of military strategy to keep mum on such things. From a tactical standpoint, secretive contingency is a facet that most people expect the Pentagon and their staff to possess.
Is it speculative... perhaps. But to believe otherwise would be a bit naive.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-14-2007 at 12:26 PM.
Why would it not be?So Woodward says there was no invasion plan at the Pentagon before 9/11 and writes an entire book about the plan that was made after 9/11 and there's no imperative for him or the administration for that information to be accurate?You seem to believe there is some imperative to settle such matters in the court of public opinion.
You are willfully stupid.
That would suggest the administration had editorial control over the book.
Chump, as stated by me before, "Bush at War" is an excellent book and paints the administration in a very positive light. "Plan of Attack" is also an excellent book and doesn't paint the administration in a very positive light.
My point being, that Woodward had absolutely zero intention of trying to make Bush look bad in the first book, therefore, why would he lie about the things this topic is discussing.
Whether or not his view changed since then and his "Plan of Attack" book was written with an agenda, that's a different topic. But the first book was written non-bias and if there was any agenda at all, it was to make Bush and company look awfully good.
Then why in all his hours of interviews with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton nobody ever said anything about an invasion plan at the Pentagon? In fact, they said just the opposite, that they were creating one from scratch.
Now when it comes to Iraq, the same reporter talks to the same people: Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton. They tell him about the Pentagon plan to invade Iraq that was originally made in 1996 and revised in 1998. They give him the name of that plan and they tell him how they used that as the starting point for formulating their new plan.
Why would they claim to be making a plan from scratch if they weren't? Why would they not say a plan existed for Afghanistan when they did for Iraq? Why would they allow Woodward continued access to them and the minutes of their NSC meetings if he just blatantly made something like the Pentagon's not having an invasion plan for Afghanistan before 9/11 up?
Now in the face of all that, if you prefer to believe -- what are your sources again? -- over Woodward, his editors, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Franks, Rice, Armitage, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Meyers and Shelton, that's fine. Who do you think has more credibility in this instance?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
