Hagel: WH Originally wanted IWR in 2002 for ALL of Mideast !!!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://thinkprogress.org/

Hagel: White House Originally Wanted 2002 Iraq War Resolution to Cover Entire Middle East
The Bush administration has taken a series of steps in recent weeks that appear to be setting the stage for a military confrontation with Iran. Congressional leaders have been raising red flags. “I’d like to be clear,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week. “The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.” Recent comments made by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) explain why Congress’s resistance is so vital.

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

HAGEL: inally, begrudgingly, sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

Asked about his vote in support of the final Iraq war resolution, Hagel told GQ, “Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.”

[demnan]

1. Boy, Hagel is singing like a canary these days

Wonder what other little nuggets we'll find out before its all said and done.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. You are so right. It is amazing that our win in November was almost

like a freeing experience for a bunch of Republicans. It must mean that Frist/Hastert had the iron fists - because nothing else has really changed. They must have been more afraid of their own party leadership than of the WH?

[goclark]

33. Thank you Mark Foley

For helping the cause!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. You know, never thought about it - but that could have been

the turning point, huh...

[malaise]

72. Thank Haggard too

Many people did not understand why we celebrated those scandals but both helped take the masks off in quick time. More people were also listening to KO and gradually they connected the dots.
2007 will be the year of exposing the bold and not so beautiful. Let the investigations continue. IMPEACH!

[goclark]

76. Out with them all~ nt

[War Pigs]

56. Hagel probably feels that lifted "burden" like rush does for not

having to carry the water for those nasty RINOs anymore. Cannabalism makes for great sport!! They need to follow rush's advice to veer even harder to the right, you know where most Americans are:sarcasm:

[Faryn Balyncd]

38. Hagel makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR -> An Attack on Iran without authorization is a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!!

(Only AFTER Congress REFUSED to grant him the unrestrained authority he wanted did his sycophants make up the notion that the resolution passed after 9/11 gave permanent, unqualified authority to wage war against an nation, anywhere, at any time, forever. America's founders would roll over in their graves if they could see the rubbish that today's GOP pseudo-conservatives are peddling, while still having the gall to call their philosophy "conservative" and claim to be for "original intent" and "limited government")

[Bitwit1234]

52. Constitution crisis more than that

I think constitution scholars have said over and over if bush defies the congress in this it is an act of treason.

[Lasher]

94. An act of treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Saint Ronnie was guilty of treason because he secretly sold arms to Iran despite a weapons embargo. Too bad we didn't have the stomach to prosecute him and his cronies for that.

[Straight Shooter]

46. Yes. And the song he's singing is, "I want to be president."

Whatever it takes to expose the sordid lies, I don't care about his motive at this point. I just want the truth to come out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. And Bush is operating under the original WH resolution

not the one that Congress passed. It might be interesting to see if Bush put forth one of his infamous signing statements with that Resolution. hmmmmm...

[Virginia Dare]

3. Well, this puts a different spin on things if you ask me..

if they knew he was already trying to over reach, why did they give him the power in the first place? This goes for the Repubs as well as the Democrats. Why wasn't this made public before? This is extremely troubling. I don't see how they can NOT impeach this asshole when all is said and done.

[Mr Rabble]

8. My first thought as well.

This basically means that whatever committee saw the initial draft has some real explaining to do.

[OregonBlue]

26. Yes. Get media to start asking Warner and Graham about it.

[redqueen]

12. Horse-trading

Nobody wants to burn bridges, you know. Their duty to their country comes second to their self-interest, it seems...

[Just-plain-Kathy]

43. I think any senator, right or left, who knew about PNAC...

HAD to know of Cheney’s plan to take over the Middle East. ...How could they just cave in and give Bush the authority to go to war?

They’re all a bunch of scared politicians who thought of their jobs before the good of mankind.

[acmavm]

20. You're so right on this one. Cripes, the already knew he was `

a con man, a liar, he stole an election.

What the fuck was there that they thought he could be trusted to deploy the military? They knew, we all knew, that Iraq he NOTHING to do with 911. What the f**k did they see that made them allow a lying AWOL frat rat to send the military anywhere?

I will NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS.

[bdamomma]

42. I love it Frat Rat, that is what he is exactly.

[blm]

29. I have said repeatedly that IWR was NEGOTIATED to get Syria and Iran OFF the table

and some of the Dems doing the negotiating committed to supporting the bill if that demand was met.

They never get the THANKS they deserved for getting a better bill than the one Bush wanted and would have had with the other number of Dems supporting him at the time.

If they hadn't gotten that concession, we would have gone into Syria or Iran shortly after Baghdad fell.

IWR was not the blank check the media made it out to be - but the idea that it was a blank check served the WH spin machine because it made sure the media never focused on the guidelines Bush should have had to meet re:weapons inspections and diplomatic efforts to AVOID the use of military force.

Those crying foul when Bush decided to invade even though weapon inspections and diplomacy were WORKING to prove force unnecessary were drowned out with accusations that their yes vote was a vote for war - period.

[Castleman]

41. Right,

and no one gives them the credit for stalling Bush's war. He bogged down in Iraq, failed, and now NOBODY will let him go elsewhere! Yes, Iraq was expensive and a disaster, but I'll take it over WW3 any day. Plus, we're all up in arms and we took both houses, so progress, even if it's expensive progress has been made, plus, the stench of Bush will stick to the Rethugs for ages, ensuring some sanity for the next decade or two...

[The Count]

78. Then why did dems vote for Syria authorization act?

Same bunch who voted for IWR allowed W to go in Syria. little known fact. Kerry sponsored it.

[blm]

82. Syria ACCOUNTABILITY Act. Not war authorization. And Kerry has gone to Syria 3X

for serious discusions with its president and leaders to do everything possible to AVOID confrontation.

He was there again last month and told us that Syria WANTS to help and wants their ideas for the region considered. Has BushInc lifted ONE finger in that regard? Kerry's been the most aggressive US lawmaker about pursuing diplomacy with Syria and you want to pretend he's looking for war there?

[cui bono]

93. Wow, I've never heard that. Do you have a lnk to a source?

Just for me to read up on it, not that I'm not trusting in your information. :)

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

35. I knew Bush would abuse the power given him under IWR. Why didn't congress?

I knew and my fellow peace marchers in 2002-2003 knew that if BushCo engaged in any diplomacy at all, it would be for show.

We knew he would invade regardless of the UN and regardless of the facts about WMD.

Good Republican, retired Marine and UN arms inspector, Scott Ritter said over and over, "There are no weapons," into any microphone he could get in front of. M$M ignored him.

BushCo has the meme out that "everybody was wrong" about WMD, but that is one hellacious, big lie.

Hagel is apparently a man with some principles, repug that he is.

[tabasco]

39. Like giving a madman a gun.

I expect better judgment and more courage out of our leaders and I will not support an IWR yes-voter in the primaries.

[emald]

65. "madman and a gun"?????? How about deranged man and a nuclear button? e/t

[halobeam]

90. OT... Scott Ritter now writes: Stop Iran war before it starts..

Makes you want to listen carefully to him, doesn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x258997

[mzmolly]

81. That's probably why they gave him power. They didn't think he'd invade the entire

region so they must have thought he had "something" on Iraq?

I agree, plenty of fodder to IMPEACH the SOB.

[wakeme2008]

4. kick and nom... just think what War Boy had done had he got it

:grr:

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. He's not done yet!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

5. K&R

[originalpckelly]

6. H-O-L-Y SHIT!

:wow:

They're like a bunch of fucking Nazis, this shows an intention to really control the entire ME.

[Tin Man]

19. H-O-L-Y SHIT for me too.

Incredible...

[joeunderdog]

63. Wow. Exactly what I was thinking. HO-LEEEE SHIT!!!

Nothing else to say about this.

[progressoid]

68. I gotta say it too...HOLY SHIT!!!!

[Zhade]

84. Ironically, that was this atheist's initial reaction, too!

NT!

[Avalux]

9. Wow. They haven't veered from their original goals.

Even though the original resolution wasn't accepted and perhaps some unforseen delays over the past 5 years, it's clear Bushco and the neocons are still hell-bent on expanding war throughout the middle east. They must be stopped now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. yes. iran had better

watch out....

[Nostradammit]

59. That's a great, great cartoon

Right on the mark.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

64. Yes - foreign press - have great cartoons. From Germany

Germany


Bulgaria


Thailand


Austria

[Nostradammit]

67. Thank You!

[crickets]

95. Another thank you. Those are excellent. nt

[redqueen]

10. Makes sense, really.

The PNAC plan was always about the entire Middle East.

[bdamomma]

44. their plan was for world dominance, and oil, what more needs

be said about these neo cons, just lock them all up. I wish the Hague would drop their protocol and indict all of them for war crimes against humanity.

[malaise]

73. Thank you

Why anyone is surprised is a surprise to me

[mmonk]

11. yes

and Latin America as well.

[redqueen]

15. They don't ask permission for their 'adventures' in

Central and South America.

Going in there on the sly and doing whatever the $#@* they want is a time-honored tradition.

[Old and In the Way]

13. Sounds like they lifted the whole plan direct from the PNAC website.

Wasn't the plan to go into Iraq 1st, then Iran, then Syria, and then Saudi Arabia? Pretty much take over the entire place to get that new American Century underway? What a bunch of deluded incompetents. They've proven to the world that we can't deal with one country, but they seem to be hellbent on getting phase 2 underway.

[leveymg]

22. The '97 "Clean Break" document called for Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and then Iran.

That was written by neocon luminaries, Perle and Wurmser, for then PM Netanyahu. http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

Is there a specific plan up at the PNAC site, as well?

[Old and In the Way]

31. Hi Mark!

Well, I thought I had read that there, but it could be the Clean Break document you refer to. Regardless, these guys sure seemed to have developed their ideas with a clean break from reality.

[leveymg]

70. Howdie, OAITW

:toast:

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. Interesting letter from PNAC to Asshat in 2001

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

September 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We write to endorse your admirable commitment to “lead the world to victory” in the war against terrorism. We fully support your call for “a broad and sustained campaign” against the “terrorist organizations and those who harbor and support them.” We agree with Secretary of State Powell that the United States must find and punish the perpetrators of the horrific attack of September 11, and we must, as he said, “go after terrorism wherever we find it in the world” and “get it by its branch and root.” We agree with the Secretary of State that U.S. policy must aim not only at finding the people responsible for this incident, but must also target those “other groups out there that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.”

In order to carry out this “first war of the 21st century” successfully, and in order, as you have said, to do future “generations a favor by coming together and whipping terrorism,” we believe the following steps are necessary parts of a comprehensive strategy.

Osama bin Laden

We agree that a key goal, but by no means the only goal, of the current war on terrorism should be to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and to destroy his network of associates. To this end, we support the necessary military action in Afghanistan and the provision of substantial financial and military assistance to the anti-Taliban forces in that country.

Iraq

We agree with Secretary of State Powell’s recent statement that Saddam Hussein “is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the Earth….” It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world. It is suspected of having been involved in the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Africa, and implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hezbollah clearly falls in the category cited by Secretary Powell of groups “that mean us no good” and “that have conducted attacks previously against U.S. personnel, U.S. interests and our allies.” Therefore, any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these known state sponsors of terrorism.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism. We should insist that the Palestinian Authority put a stop to terrorism emanating from territories under its control and imprison those planning terrorist attacks against Israel. Until the Palestinian Authority moves against terror, the United States should provide it no further assistance.

U.S. Defense Budget

A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending. Fighting this war may well require the United States to engage a well-armed foe, and will also require that we remain capable of defending our interests elsewhere in the world. We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war.

There is, of course, much more that will have to be done. Diplomatic efforts will be required to enlist other nations’ aid in this war on terrorism. Economic and financial tools at our disposal will have to be used. There are other actions of a military nature that may well be needed. However, in our judgement the steps outlined above constitute the minimum necessary if this war is to be fought effectively and brought to a successful conclusion. Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight.


Sincerely,

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann

[leveymg]

71. Thanks for that

:toast:

[Zhade]

85. Notice the last signatory?

Marshall Wittmann.

That's right - the DLC's very own Marshall Wittmann endorses PNAC.

Yet some idiots here wonder why we distrust the DLC, when it hires men like this.

[slipslidingaway]

57. A Clean Break, PNAC and The U.S. National Security Strategy

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=281

snip>> from the transcript

"Again of the three documents, the “Clean Break” plan is by far the most specific and therefore the most interesting. But if we use another analogy this time of a personal computer, if this neoconservative influence policy making were a personal computer, clearly the hardware is “The National Security Strategy of the U.S.A.,” the operating system, pre-positioning assets in the region, is “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” and the program rather the specific instruction set is the “Clean Break” plan."


more at this link
http://www.irmep.org/Defaults.asp

8/29/2009
The Clean Break Plan: A Conspiracy of Theories?

Presentation Slides (PDF) Transcript (HTML) Video (You Tube) Press Coverage (Falls Church News Press)

7+ minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NwyhanMZLU

[leveymg]

60. ._

:toast: :toast: :toast:

[slipslidingaway]

86. This earlier document 'A Clean Break' is rarely mentioned...

thanks.:shrug: :hi:

[Jcrowley]

14. K&R n/t

[leveymg]

16. If Congress refused to authorize outside Iraq in'02, then Bush can't argue now that IWR gave him any

implicit power to carry the war into Iran now.

In legal terms, the deal was sealed. He can't break its limits now without further authorization -- not legally, anyway.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

18. It's what we always thought they were up to...

but scary as hell to see it confirmed!! :grr:

[acmavm]

21. I sure am happy that we know about this. This means that

restrictions were put on Chimpy.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

69. I'm with you, I didn't know there were restrictions..you sure learn a lot here at DU.

What I don't understand is why is PNAC not common knowledge? How would democrats benefit from not talking a bout PNAC. ...If we spoke about PNAC back in '00 and definitely in '04, Bush would have never gotten in office.

..Yeah, yeah, I know he cheated...but dems would have won by a landslide if only they spoke about this.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

23. Evidently, most everyone in DC fears Bush will expand the war intentionally.

(just like most on DU have for a long time)

Even if Bush is too insane to foresee the horrible consequences of such action, some Repukes are waking up and are willing to sound off in opposition.

[bdamomma]

45. they better stop this madman.

[Chimichurri]

24. Wow. Coming from a republican is more damaging then had this

been disclosed by a democrat IMHO. Well done, Mr. Hagel.

[halobeam]

27. The committee that read this DEFINETELY has explaining to do.

To us. Are we going to call them on this? I know I am. :grr:

[Chimichurri]

61. Absolutely. I'm shocked this is the first we've heard about it outright.

there hasn't been a peep about this at all. Shameful.

[Klukie]

28. kick

[New Earth]

30. !

:wow: :scared:

[Marie26]

32. WOW

I can't believe Hagel's revealing this now - he must really think Bush is about to attack another country.

[CarolNYC]

36. Wes Clark spoke about this...

in an interview with Stephanie Miller recently....

Stephanie Miller: Well, and General Clark, I mean obviously a lot of people are really concerned about this Iranian thing that the president suddenly mentioned. That…you know, I mean, I think people are terrified.


GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know, when I was testifying in September 2002 in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, they asked me about the initial draft of the resolution and it said, and he was authorized to take…it was going to give the president the authority to take action in Iraq and in the region as necessary. And, I said ‘I don’t believe that region needs to be there’ and Senator Warner came down to see me afterwards – he was then the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said, he said ‘young general,’ he said ‘you’re too…probably too young to remember this,’ he said ‘but the Vietnam war was lost because they had a secret bombing campaign in Laos and Cambodia,’ he said ‘and when Congress found out about it, it killed all the support for the war,’ he said ‘so we don’t want to do anything in secret here, we want it authorized up front.’ And you know, my answer was ‘I don’t think we need to do anything in secret because I don’t think we need to do anything to these countries.’ And so I said ‘I recommend you take it out of the resolution.’ It never got put in to the final resolution. It was a trial balloon, but it indicated to me the White House’s intent to escalate this beyond Iraq.

http://securingamerica.com/node/2123

[NCarolinawoman]

92. U-tube of Clark telling Werner to take it out?

I've seen it before. Do you have a link?

[DemSinceBirth]

37. Damn, there really is a monster under the bed.

These people (The Bush administration) frighten the hell out of me.

[Cruzan]

40. Was there a signing statement to go along with the IWR?

Wonder if Bush put in it that he reserves the right to invade any country he sees fit.

[bdamomma]

47. Welcome to DU Cruzan

:hi: good question, is there anything indicating that there was a signing statement? I don't know but the way these thugs operate they have to stop these SOB's.

[Norquist Nemesis]

51. Yes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-11.html

and the answer to your question is in the middle of paragraph two:

"The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same."

[slipslidingaway]

62. Thanks. n/t

[Tatiana]

48. So Hagel is singing. Who will be next? Scooter?

What? Did the Bush administration think we'd have such a cakewalk in Iraq that they'd have no problem getting Congressional approval to invade other nations in the middle east?

Bush didn't mention the "Axis of Evil" for no reason.

It sickens me that the Congress enabled this warmongering ambitions.

[rateyes]

49. Sure would like to see that guy

switch parties. But, being a thorn in the Republicans' side is a good thing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Hi RE. Speaking of Repugs coming out of the closet, do you

remember when Bolton was up for nomination and Voinovitch started crying? Maybe
he'll be the next to start squeeling.

[rateyes]

99. Hagel said that he wanted every senator to look in the

camera and tell his/her constituents what they think about Iraq, and to quit hiding because lives are on the line. He was great in that meeting...gotta give the devil his due sometimes.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. The Senate is now seeing that IWR being CHALLENGED by these thugs and are scared shitless

that the psycho is going to do whatever the hell he wants. I do hope they have a plan for removing his ass from power.

There WILL BE a Gulf of Tonkin incident. Surely the Senators know this? Right? What will they do when he pulls THAT off? They need to remove him BEFORE his Gulf of Tonkin.

[Mrspeeker]

55. Gee really Hagel, you think?

WOW did Hagel just wake up form a really long sleep that covered 7 years and now hes going to talk about what happened in 2002 as if he has not been aware of anything until now LOL sweet!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. good point. It is like the repubs who are speaking up now were

under a "gag order" that the judge just lifted.

[fooj]

58. This doesn't surprise me.

[Generator]

66. This reminds me of something I've always thought

When we finally get rid of Bushco-can you imagine all the horrors we don't even know about yet? How much shit they tried to do, or did? The exposes could last years if we had a real media.

[bdamomma]

101. our media is very untrusthworthy and unworthy to not give

the American people the facts of what is happening in this country. If our media does not tell the electorate what is happening in our own backyard we are screwed, thus keeping us or some of us in the dark. This media owes the American people the truth, but apparently our media just does not get it. At least there are many of us, who get our news from foreign papers or websites, they are the only ones who tell you the truth.

[Faryn Balyncd]

74. How will the Democratic Congress RESPOND to an Iranian "Gulf of Tonkin" incident?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3075116

[StrictlyRockers]

75. PNAC PNAC PNAC

The WH is still enacting their plan. They must be stopped.

Thank god for intelligent Repukes, they are few and far between.

SR

[liam_laddie]

77. PNAC (and the successor organization)

plus AIPAC equals the US being "suckered" into being a proxy patsy for
the radical Zionists in Israel and here who want a necklace of neutralized
countries around the "Holy Land." Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, the former
Palestine, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia...it is beyond question.

[stevietheman]

79. Hagel also cut into Bush's "plan" today

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012105.php

"I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives."

[mzmolly]

80. Thank goodness he was somewhat limited.

:wow:

[Phrogman]

83. But 9/11 was not an inside job....

right..

[Canuckistanian]

87. Whew! We could have had a new world war on our hands

Can you imagine an unfettered George Bush let loose on the world?

:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Octafish]

88. That darn Bush.

Just like his Poppy and their friends.
Always with the empire building.
Fine people, though.

[Hailtothechimp]

91. I remember that. The language about "the region" was a red flag

and now, in hindsight, it appears that's where they were going all along.

[GreenZoneLT]

96. A lot of the "evidence" you see of Iran invasion plans is explained

I'm beginning to think that they really were planning to invade Iran in 2005 or 2006, according to the master plan for "liberating" all these poor, benighted heathens. Syria was no doubt next, if not No. 2.

I don't think even Cheney thinks that's feasible now, though.

[Sparkly]

97. Another "General Clark's been saying that for years!!"

I find myself yelling that often these days! But I'm glad it's getting out there finally! :hi:

[texanforclark]

98. Iraq = FOB

PNAC wanted Iraq's oil, but even more critically, Iraq is one giant forward operating base for future invasions of Syria and Iran. These criminals could care less for the people of Iraq. I will bet money most of the "extra" troops being extended and deployed are destined for operations in Iran or Syria.

[femrap]

100. Why didn't Lugar, Hagel, or Biden

tell the American People this AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED? Years later we find out.

So much death and destruction has been paid for by OUR tax dollars.