posted on April 16, 2004 02:42:58 PM newWoodward: Bush ordered Iraq war
April 16, 2004 - 10:30PM
President George W Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after US forces attacked Afghanistan, says a new book on his Iraq policy.
And the president was so worried the decision would cause a furore he did not tell everyone on his national security team, journalist Bob Woodward writes in "Plan of Attack," a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion.
Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as US forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book, which will be available in book stores next week.
"I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq," Bush is quoted as telling Woodward. "It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And I'm not anxious to go to war."
Bush and his aides have denied accusations they were preoccupied with Iraq at the cost of paying attention to the al-Qaeda terrorist threat before the September 11, 2001, attacks.
A commission investigating the attacks just concluded several weeks of extraordinary public testimony from high-ranking government officials.
One of them, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, charged the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror.
Woodward's account fleshes out the degree to which some members of the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were focused on Saddam Hussein from the onset of Bush's presidency and even after the terrorist attacks made the destruction of al-Qaeda the top priority.
Woodward says Bush pulled Defence Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld aside on November 21, 2001, - when US forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan - and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.
The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defence secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.
Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.
In an interview two years later, Bush told Woodward that if the news had leaked, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation."
The Bush administration's drive toward war with Iraq raised an international furore anyway, alienating long-time allies who did not believe the White House had made a sufficient case against Saddam.
Saddam was toppled a year ago and taken into custody last December. But the central figure of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, remains at large and a threat to the west.
posted on April 16, 2004 09:18:45 PM new
Smart advance planning is what it is. The Pentagon has numerious op plans for military action through out the world.
'We have dispatched Dr. David Kay...to search for the bio-warfare agents we believe hidden in Senator Kerry's forehead. If Senator Kerry has used botox as part of a wrinkle enrichment program, he is in violation of UN Resolution 752. Upon receiving Dr. Kay's report, the weapons of mass destruction that Senator Kerry so adamantly insists do not exist...may well be above his very nose.'" --Dick Cheney when asked whether John Kerry has had Botox treaments
posted on April 17, 2004 10:45:32 PM new
Which would place your IQ 3 points to the left.
'We have dispatched Dr. David Kay...to search for the bio-warfare agents we believe hidden in Senator Kerry's forehead. If Senator Kerry has used botox as part of a wrinkle enrichment program, he is in violation of UN Resolution 752. Upon receiving Dr. Kay's report, the weapons of mass destruction that Senator Kerry so adamantly insists do not exist...may well be above his very nose.'" --Dick Cheney when asked whether John Kerry has had Botox treaments
posted on April 18, 2004 07:53:47 PM new
Bob Woodward's new book
60 Minutes Interview
About the money...
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.
"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 preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible," says Woodward.
"Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. ...Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."
posted on April 18, 2004 08:09:55 PM new
I just love how it's continually overlooked that the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed by bill clinton:
"Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998"
White House seeks new congressional resolution on ousting Saddam Hussein
By Steve LaRocque
Washington File United Nations Correspondent
Washington ?
As members of the 107th Congress prepare to debate what sort of resolution they should provide the Bush administration in its confrontation with the Baghdad regime of Saddam Hussein, it recalls a similar situation in September 1998 when the 105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order.
In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
The Congress urged 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."
Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.
Gilman's bill passed in the House of Representatives on a 360-38 vote October 5, and the Senate approved H.R. 4655 by unanimous consent on October 7.
Clinton signed the bill into law October 31.
In late summer of 1998, Iraq had ceased all cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), after a two-year campaign to thwart the commission's work in Iraq.
According to the Iraq Liberation Act, Iraq was charged with a series of crimes including - invading Iran on September 22, 1980, and using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
It noted that in February of 1988 Iraq "forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds."
Congress also cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 on March 16 of that year.
"On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat," Congress said.
The Congress pointed to the ceasefire Iraq accepted ceasefire conditions as specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 that required Baghdad to "to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement."
Congress also noted the April 1993 assassination attempt on former President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait.
Since March 1996, the Congress said, Iraq "has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Furthermore on August 5, 1998, "Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM," Congress said.
The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."
The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.
The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.
In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland).
[This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Office of International Information Programs (usinfo.state.gov]
posted on April 18, 2004 08:33:03 PM new
pot kettle black helen....lol
I know it's troubling to bring facts into a thread meant to blame this President for being in a rush to get saddam.
Just pointing out many thought he needed to be removed way back when....and President Bush wasn't even in office when they voted for this Liberation Act.
posted on April 18, 2004 08:36:45 PM new
There is nothing in your material Linda that is a declaration of war, nor is there a pack of lies to start an invasion.
What you have posted is no different than Congress declaring April 18 as a day to honor dog catchers.
posted on April 18, 2004 08:45:04 PM new
I agree reamond, other than clinton's dec. 1998 bombing of Iraq....clinon really did just give it LIP SERVICE....
but the threat still remained. And saddam did not account to the UN as to where the weapons went. He was given 'one last warning' which by that time probably made him laugh out loud after all the 'last warnings' he'd been given.
This thread was started to show us all how this President RUSHED to make war plans against saddam.....and I'm saying OH HOW TERRIBLE...[not] that his administration decided to actually remove saddam finally.
posted on April 18, 2004 08:51:19 PM newNow Condi will be running damage control again.
Wheee!
Rice Denies Book's Claim on Iraq Decision
Sun Apr 18, 7:00 PM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice forcefully disputed on Sunday an assertion that President Bush decided in early January 2003 to invade Iraq three months before official accounts say the decision was made.
The statement, in Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's new book about the run-up to war, is "simply not, not right," Rice said.
Bush told reporters a prime-time news conference on March 6 that a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing action was days away. Ten days later, having failed to win approval, the resolution was withdrawn, and the assault began March 20.
Rice did not deny the private conversation between her and Bush just after New Year's Day in which Woodward said the decision was made, but she said the writer had misinterpreted what was said.
She said Woodward also misread another comment attributed to her, that since Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld knew of the "go" decision and Secretary of State Colin Powell did not, perhaps Bush should tell Powell.
In the January meeting, Rice said on CBS' "Face the Nation," she and Bush were at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, considering the Iraq situation. In such sessions, she said, Bush "kind of thinks out loud."
"He said, `No, I think we probably are going to have to go to war. We're going to have to go to war.' And it was not a decision to go to war," Rice said. "That decision he made in March, when he finally decided to do that."
She said the Powell misunderstanding grew from her comment to Bush that "If you're beginning to think that the diplomacy is not working, it's probably time to have a conversation with the secretary of state. I'm sure he would have, in any case."
Rice said she meant that Bush should ask Powell "his sense of how the diplomacy was going" and that Bush had thought diplomacy would not succeed.
"But I just want it to be understood: That was not a decision to go to war. The decision to go to war is in March. The president is saying in that conversation, I think the chances are that this is not going to work out any other way. We're going to have to go to war.
Woodward also wrote in "Plan of Attack" that Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, about the war plan on Jan. 11. That was two days before Bush told Powell, Woodward wrote.
"I just can't let this impression stand," Rice said. "The secretary of state was privy to all of the conversations with the president, all of the briefings for the president. They were in almost daily contact about what was going on at the United Nations."
She was asked: "So he knew that Bandar was being told?"
"I certainly knew, and I suspect that Colin would not have been surprised, going through the Gulf War experience, that one of the allies that you had to be certain understood what might happen if the president decided to go to war was the Saudis," Rice said.
"But it's just not the proper impression that somehow Prince Bandar was in the know in a way that Secretary Powell was not. It's just not right. Secretary Powell had been privy to all of this. He knew what the war plan was."
posted on April 18, 2004 09:16:07 PM new
From Helen's 60 Minutes interview link:
Beyond not asking his father about going to war, Woodward was startled to learn that the president did not ask key cabinet members either.
”The president, in making the decision to go to war, did not ask his secretary of defense for an overall recommendation, did not ask his secretary of state, Colin Powell, for his recommendation,” says Woodward.
But the president did ask Condi Rice, his national security adviser, and Karen Hughes, his political communications adviser. Woodward says both supported going to war.
posted on April 18, 2004 09:21:58 PM new
Maybe you're forgetting, reamond, clinton had veto power...which he used on other issues he didn't agree with.
You trying to suggest now that clinton didn't believe saddam needed to be removed from power after all the clinton quotes I've posted here saying just that? LOL
posted on April 18, 2004 09:33:00 PM new
Again we are in a debate he said she said. Well better yet liberals said Conservatives said. I guess it is what color glasses you are wearing when you read the articles. Liberals dislike Conservatives, Conservatives dislike Liberals. Even though everything is in black and white we all know and interpert things in a different color. This is the time when all the book writers come out, publish their take on things, talk to the cronies in coffee houses and then write them down. Publish their books, receive their hefty paycheck. Who cares if what is in those books are correct, who reads them. Are they to be believed, who knows, who cares. Election is 6 months away and if Kerry doesn't eat a decent meal soon he will waste away to nothing. It seems like it is 50% conservatives and 50% Liberals in this forum and that is the way the election will turn out but the man that wins the states with the most electoral votes will win....
[ edited by Libra63 on Apr 18, 2004 09:36 PM ]
posted on April 18, 2004 10:20:39 PM new
The United States has war plans for every country. The greatest terrorist threat to the safety of this nation today is Canada, Mexico, France and Germany in that order.
posted on April 19, 2004 08:16:42 AM newreamond - give me a break....clinton signed the Act into law.
I'll give you a break when you are able to comprehend what you have posted.
The resolution you speak of is nothing more than a statement that Saddam is bad and we would like him replaced. It was not a declaration of war, nor an act that permitted an invasion by our military.
It is no different than a resolution for a national dog catchers day.
posted on April 19, 2004 10:49:15 AM new
dec. 16 1998
President Clinton's partial statement before bombing Iraq:
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that.
May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
