Our intrepid internet sleuths, Atrios and Jesse, think they are on to something. States Jesse:
When you’re in the middle of spin control, and furiously trying to discredit the guy who just criticized the way you run your administration, don’t admit that you did exactly what your critic is accusing you of.
States Atrios:
Spinning Heads
Well, it looks like Bush just undercut all of his lackeys who have been were busy denying that they were planning war in Iraq from the beginning:
Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start
Comments could boost criticism of president’s case for war against Iraq…”The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear — like the previous administration, we were for regime change,” Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. “And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines.”
NO one, and I repeat, no one, has stated that there was no planning regarding Saddam Hussein. They were planning from day one, and as the quote that Jesse and Atrios are too dim to comprehend states, they were looking at containment (‘enforcing a no-fly zone’) and all options, including regime change. As I have noted below, this was mentioned consistently throughout the campaign, in the debates, and was merely a continuation of the existing policy towards Iraq.
No one has stated otherwise, and I would ask Jesse and Atrios to come up with this spin that states otherwise. It simply does not exist. To date, the only thing I have seen even remotely close to spin would be the Inspector General examining whether O’Neill disclosed classified documents (O’Neill had this to say about the IG investigation: “If I were secretary of the Treasury and these circumstances occurred, I would have asked the inspector general to take a look at this.) and this rather unflattering comment (“”We didn’t listen to [O’Neill’s] wacky ideas when he was in the White House, why should we start listening to him now?”).
No one, however, has suggested, spun, stated- you choose the word, that there were not always plans for regime change in Iraq. Period.
These guys have gone beyond stupid to stoopid with two o’s. Straightjackets and rubber rooms are right around the corner. In O’Neill’s own words:
“I’m amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn’t do contingency planning and look at circumstances. Saddam Hussein has been this forever. And so, I was surprised, as I’ve said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority. But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration. “
Hear that Jesse and Atrios- Your new hero, Paul O’Neill, thinks you are amazing. Me too. Boy is the you-know-what going to hit the fan when Atrios and JEsse learn the Pentagon has battle plans, complete with ROE and Battle Order for North Korea, Cuba, the Kashmir region, Russia- well, you name it. That revelation will probably knock their socks off.
*** Update ***
OMG- It keeps getting better. Atrios, our intrepid phys. ed teacher/internet sleuth is just the gift that keeps on giving:
Jan. 13
drew
In their defense regieme change was being debated, but I don’t believe putting American troops on the ground was part of the debate in the campaign.
John Cole
Then they were not seriously debating it, because policy decisions regarding something as extreme as regime change include all manners of accomplishing the mission- including putting troops on the ground.
tom scott
Anyone that has any military time knows that there are contingcy plans for different countries/theaters. I’m sure we have one right now for China, especially since the missiles started pointing at Taiwan. I’m sure that we even have something in the works for Europe that looks at several imaginable scenarios. To make a big deal of that now is to play on the emotions of the naive.
Terry
Are “atrios” and “Jesse” the same person using different pseudonyms? They both demonstrate day in and day out that they are dumber than a sack of rock salt.
On the other hand, it is true that the one named “Jesse,” appears to have a fundamental grasp of English grammar and typing skills (or maybe just knows how to use the spell check function) not at all evident from the one named “atriois.” It is very hard to believe that the latter is gainfully employed as a school teacher in the city of Philadelphia, even if it as only a substitute physical education instructor.
Q
be careful, you’re blending the difference between contingency preparations and invading another country. most people would understand the difference.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Tom is absolutely right, and (even) I’m happy about that. The dynamic O’Neill described, though, didn’t sound like a contingency plan, in case of necessity. More like, we’re not moving on this now, but we’d like to do it.
Don’t you think O’Neill’s ORIGINAL phrasing doesn’t sound like all the Iraq stuff was just one contingency plan among many such?
Tatterdemalian
Someone should warn Atrios that Dubya has plans, buried somewhere in the Pentagon, for invading and forcing a regime change in France, Britain, and Australia. It’s probably true, and just the thought could make his head explode with outrage.
HH
My IQ just went down reading that… is Atrios seriously illiterate? Bush was saying he continued CLINTON’s policy. So if Atrios and Jesse are attacking Bush on this, they’re attacking their hero Clinton too. All of this is basically irrelevant now after O’Neill affirmed this today and said he was never accusing Bush of planning a war. Sheesh.
HH
Then Couric goes into panic mode…
Couric witnessing the “Get Bush” non-scandal of the month implode before her eyes is a sight to behold…
Ksec
I stumbled upon this site and now I see why you Republicans are known as the party of extremists and shrill Ideologues. Bush lied about why he wanted to go to war. He picked thru intel using parts of favorable stuff while leaving the final analysis out This is the US. Presidents cant and have never done this to start wars. Its a crime..capish? Crime dudes. War crimes. Wanna bet Bush is behind bars ridin some big stud before this is all over? My money says you dont get away with these crimes without payin the piper
Bride of Chewbacca
“Someone should warn Atrios that Dubya has plans, buried somewhere in the Pentagon, for invading and forcing a regime change in France, Britain, and Australia. It’s probably true, and just the thought could make his head explode with outrage.”
So, do these contingency plans summarize the pie slices to be doled out of these countries’ natural resources as with those for Iraq? Who gets the contracts for sweeping up the rose petals there?
agrajag
Not going to start a debate or rehash old stories, just wanted to compare a couple things – hopefully without even mentioning 9-11.
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.”
Bush had been on record, throughout the campaign that regime change was not only an option, but a goal of his and the previous CLINTON administration.
Bush’s plans marked a massive escalation of Clinton’s prior policy, to the extend they were in any way connected to Clinton’s past actions.
I don’t get how you can look at that quote, and then right below, continue pretending that Bush’s policy is okay because it was exactly the same as Clinton’s policy, and it wasn’t any different.
our guy, Clinton, had a stated foreign policy that he did not intend to pursue except only in appearance.
Maybe you’re just ignorant. I’ll explain. There are ways to cause change in the world that are not war. To repeat: Sometimes you can change things in the world without a full-fledged war.
Furthermore, not all changes are desirable enough to merit going to war.
Clinton’s policy was that he wanted Saddam gone, and would get rid of him if circumstances permitted. Bush’s policy was that he would go to any length to take control of Iraq.
Not sure why I’m bothering – it probably doesn’t matter how much I spell it out, I’m sure you’ll twist logic however Rush tells you to twist it. Gave it a shot, though.
agrajag
evidently your comments don’t allow italics, which would certainly make the above post clearer. Well, hell, it’s not like I expected you to see factual truth all of a sudden, anyway. So it’s probably not going to make much difference.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Ah, John, the “We’re just following the Clintons” defense is looking a little shaky. That 1998 Act, you’ll note, disclaims use of armed force. It’s obviously NOT the blueprint for what O’Neill was talking about, that was something much more immediate and coveted.
Tacitus’s liberal side “Trickster” is on the case:
ABC’s source says Bush hadn’t committed to the invasion at the time of inauguration (without 9/11, it’s hard to see pulling it off, but I’ve misunderestimated Bush’s swindling ability before), but agrees it was a big ramp-up from Clinton.
greg
“it is hard to believe that the latter is gainfully employed as a school teacher in the city of Philadelphia”
Terry, believe me, if you lived here, like I do, you wouldn’t find it hard to believe at all.
Slartibartfast
“So, do these contingency plans summarize the pie slices to be doled out of these countries’ natural resources as with those for Iraq? Who gets the contracts for sweeping up the rose petals there?”
Oh, please. If we have to explain to you how the plans for exploitation of Iraqi oil assets were completely unrelated to (and not contingent on) regime change, you’re so far behind the curve that you’ll never catch up.
But just to get you going, here’s the documents in question:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
Have fun. Remember, crow goes down better with a nice Bearnaise sauce.
HH
Again, let’s note once again that Clinton and company saying that regime change was a major priority of U.S. policy, but not actually realistically looking into all options is a Good Thing…
jack
I guess what they’re not getting–Atrios, Jesse, liberals.. is that Bush’s intent to get rid of Saddam was not EVER a secret. He said he wanted to do it BEFORE he was elected–during the campaign. Okay?
Let’s say that again–During the Campaign. That means before O’Neill was secretary of anything, before 9/11, before Bush had the power to do anything.
They’re confused because they’re not used to politicians who actually live up to their campaign promises.
Misha I
You are, of course, aware of the old saying covering the very temporary nature of the connection between people of very limited intellect and their monetary holdings, right?
Nice post, John, nailed it to the wall right there.
HH
Just let the ignorance wash over you:
“” – Iraq Liberation Act, 1998
HH
Just let the ignorance wash over you:
“Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law. ” – Iraq Liberation Act, 1998
HH
Let’s see… Clinton said no options were off the table at a time when there was a military presence in the Gulf constantly standing by, and we’re supposed to buy that there were NO contingency plans whatsoever for ground invasion?
Andrew Lazarus
What we’re saying is: I assume under Clinton we had “contingency plans” for Iraq, and I would hope for everyone else except Canada, too. (I remember a newspaper article that we were deep-sixing our military plan against invasion from Canada, which was based on our experience in the War of 1812.)
However, under GWB, and before 9/11, the *military* Iraq plans stopped being for contingencies. They moved to a category of “things we’d like to do”. That’s a giant difference, and not one taken by the Clintons.
As far as Bush talking about taking out Saddam militarily on the 2000 campaign trail, I don’t think that’s true. He didn’t talk much about Iraq (since he was skeptical of neation-rebuilding projects like the ones we’re in now), and on the one occasion mentioned by Trickster that he did, he presented his beliefs as consistent with existing policy.
Ksec
So Oneill says basically that Bush is a dim witted puppet and its all Clintons fault…
You right wingers are hilarious to read. Keep it up. We love the comedy.
Dan
Yes, we all know Bush has been planning to invade Iraq since day one of his administration. The question is, was the case for war made on the grounds that took that into account?
Was the case made that containment wasn’t working? I would say only on the margins. The case was more that “9-11 changed everything” and that we had to get Saddam becuase of the terrorists and the WMDs, and the grave and gathering danger, and whatnot.
The scandel is that the real reason was not the stated reason.
HH
I well remember the argument was put forth that containment wasn’t working. The endless, fruitless search for some “deception” here continues…
Nothing reported shows that Bush was doing anything more than adding on to the contingencies… The New Republic has a (subscription only) piece showing that the Suskind book never shows that Bush was planning a war.
Slartibartfast
“However, under GWB, and before 9/11, the *military* Iraq plans stopped being for contingencies. They moved to a category of “things we’d like to do”. ”
Really? I don’t suppose you have a cite for that.
HH
Now we see why O’Neill was “surprised” at the priority of Iraq… at the first cabinet meeting, O’Neill said one of the top priorities was (wait for it) global warming. You forget which president put you in office, Pauly…
HH
Rather, what he believed one of the top priorities should be…
Dan
HH, yes, the argument was made that containment wasn’t working. But that argument wasn’t the primary reason for going to war right away. (Remember how we couldn’t give inspectors another few weeks?) The primary reason given was WMD which Hussein could either give to terrorists or use against us or our allies. This was a sudden threat because 9-11 changed the way we looked at threats.
If the primary reason was stated as that, and it turns out that the planning began far before 9-11, that makes it somewhat… deceptive?
HH
The contingencies began before Sept. 11, not the actual war planning… by your logic, this makes Clinton a deceiver too for “assisting” in the plans for war.
HH
Drezner quotes the New Republic piece debunking the left/mainstream press spin…
Ksec
Looks like the Bush goons made him an offer he couldnt refuse. And it only took a day to bring up an investigation. Wonder why it took 3 months for them to investigate the fact that Bush exposed a secret agent that was working in a dangerous setting(Plame) Like the general says the Bushies have their priorities all backwards. Its politics and fuk whats right.
Phil
“This is the US. Presidents cant and have never done this to start wars.”
***coughLBJGulfOfTonkincough***