the reason they are making

• Drilling in Alaska? - Whats up with liberals
  • Truth about oil in Alaska - Observer
    • Thanks for an intelligent response - MTME
  • drilling in Alaska - independent
  • When alternative fuels are - more economically plausible
    • Thanks for your post. Do you remember - MTME
  • the reason they are making - Elk
    • dumber than a box of rocks? - huh?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

over $250,000 a year if your taxes are being raised, can't feel too sorry for you.

the split decision to save your life, I am sure you would choose LIFE.  That's where a gun would come in real handy.  I don't think our founding fathers needed counseling, do you?

suggestion?  Don't get your ruffles in a twist?

So if something is amiss in the word you don't try to fix it at all you just hope that it goes away?

Would you rather deal with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas before they get nukes or after?  Should we have let Saddam get nukes too?

This whole *Bush was too preoccupied with Iraq to deal with this situation* the Dems are crying is bull. Just like everything else they say in fact.  This situation has been ongoing for years.  The cease fires so touted by Madeline Albright and Clinton have never been true cease fires.  This is a conflict that has been going on ever since there were Jews and Arabs.  This is one situation you cannot historically place the blame on Bush.  Doesn't hold water.  So, if you are so concerned about our President supposedly not knowing history or geographics then I suggest you do some studying of your own, because your history and your perception of it is a little skewed itself.

out of his middle name.  So what if someone posts his middle name?  What do YOU have to be worried about?  It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else.  Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.

attempts to discredit Barack by calling him a celebrity.  You will see the same issue repeated over and over on this board, only by those who seriously consider that a valid issues.

the disabled.  Little Flap Palin would be so disappointed with you.

your money and paying your taxes and not whining about it?

the US a socialist country - compliments of your beloved GWB and McPalin. congratulations you got your wish.

This is my first post on the Politics board.  I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R. 

I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org. 

First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home.    I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about... 

I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is.  I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions.  A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman.  On and on and on. 

I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel. 

I don't think all christians should be lumped together as republicans.  There are just as many christian dems as pubs.  Having said that though, what pubs call *the base of the party,* which at present seems to be to the far right, are definitely typically hard line christians.

The main problem I have with republicans when it comes to abortion is that they are against abortion and yet also against *welfare.*  So, the way I see it is that they want you to have the baby regardless of the fact that you may not be able to take care of it, but are not willing to assist in the care of that child.  And yeah, I understand the concept of responsibility, but that only happens in fairy tales.  If everyone was responsible we wouldn't be in the economic nightmare we're in right now.

VIVA LA TURKEY!!!!! 

it's the kind of impact this society at this time does not need -- inciting paranoia, fanning the flames of those fringers just looking for an excuse to let loose their craziness.  I have watched this man's show many, many times and he and people like Pig-in-a-Blanket Limbaugh scare me to death.  Their rabid spewing of garbage serve only one purpose -- to feed their own humongous egos and pad their greedy pockets, and I feel sorry for anyone who look to people like this as someone to admire. 

.

You don't seem to realize there's a written record of all your posts for folks to review.  Many of your posts with other folks are quite strange and don't seem to make much sense. 

Well, at least you're having a big laugh.

Bush was lying about that, as the $83,000 income level limit was not a part of the bill that he vetoed.  Also, Democrats already worked with Republicans and compromised quite a bit to come up with a bill that many in both parties agreed upon - too bad only one guy matters, huh?  It's a sad day for many struggling middle-class families, but at least the issue has had a big spot light shined upon it - hopefully we can make some much-needed changes to make healthcare more affordable now.  All kids deserve healthcare, regardless of how much money their parents make or don't make!!!

Here's a section of a New York Times Article that states that the $83,000 guideline was not a part of the bill that was just vetoed:

"This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.

link to the entire article:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685