When did Bush decide to "get" Saddam?

[Megalodon]

No I just think, thought at the time, that it's a setup type of poll. I could be wrong. Wasn't meant to be insulting to anyone. It's just my opinion. I notice you haven't commented on the thread/poll itself

But if it will appease you I would say he decided after 9/11 and that there is good evidence linking Iraq to terror despite what we get to see.

I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there.
No real discussion for me (at least for a while)...

Cheers

 

[Troll]

That's the point of the poll -- to see what impulse people perceive as the reason for GW going after Saddam. If you have good reasons for your perception, great. If you don't, you can still participate in the poll to measure the perceptions of the people participating.

So far, the perception seems to be that 9/11 and anti-terrorism are not the reason for this coming war with Iraq.

But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?"

And I apologize if I was skeptical about your reason behind the post earlier. Been doing the battling with anti-war folks for so long I forgot that some actually just want to know the way people feel.

 

[Troll]

I don't like polls, and I've been busy IRL, so I'm only jabbing here and there.
No real discussion for me (at least for a while)...

Cheers

I'm actually glad you called me on it. Made me rethink myself. So please feel free to "keep an eye on me" so to speak, and call me on things. Until the weekend comes I may very well be too out of it at times to make sense.

 

[aerocontrols]

Nightline's whole show last night was on how it was in the planning for years.

I would have liked to watch that. Bummer.

Keep in mind that a great many things are 'planned for years' and never happen. The invasion of Cuba has been in the planning for years, but it's not likely to ever happen. Everyone remembers "Plan Orange" - the plan that the US had for defeating Japan, (oftentimes cited as evidence that we wanted Japan to attack us) but no one recalls "Plan Red" - the plan the US had for the invasion of Great Britain, or "Plan Blue" - US as belligerant. (Color-codes may be wrong for the latter two, but both plans were written up, right alongside Plan Orange, among many other war plans against allies and enemies at the time.) Planning costs very little, and I'm sure that Roosevelt was very happy that on Dec 8, 1941, the US Military already had an up-to-date plan to respond. Planning for responses to likely enemies also helps the military make (hopefully) intelligent procurement decisions: How much airlift is needed, how much amphibious capability, how man bombers vs. how many fighter aircraft, etc...

I would be surprised if there is a single country on the globe that the US doesn't already have an invasion plan written up for, should it be required. Multiple contingencies for most of them as well, based on likely allied and enemy coalitions and various threat scenarios.

In any administration, there are advocates for any number of military action. What dsm wants to know, I think, is how much clout the 'war with Iraq' advocates had, and when did they have it.

He wants to know about intent, not planning.

I think the administration had no intent to make war on Iraq until several months after 9/11.

MattJ

[edit because I looked up the war plan names and now the colors are correct.]

 

[dsm]

But who are the people that claim it was all decided prior to his becoming president? and my question to them is "why didn't a rich oil baron just put a reward on his head if he had this goal?"

I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate.

 

[Troll]

I think the answer to that question is, if they thought it would've been a good idea, the fear of reprisals from Iraq AND any other "regime" that feared it might be next would probably make them think another few (thousand) times about doing it. Retaliation against the US head of state, though, puts the issue into a whole 'nuther category as the US has the military might to put the fear of God into those seeking to retaliate.

But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president.

Yes we can pretty much put the fear of god, buddah or even Barbara Steisand to anyone we wish to. But we don't unless provoked.

Side note, I find Striesand more of a threat than any deity, but that's just my view

 

[dsm]

But the problem with this , at least from my perspective, is that Bush would have had to known he would become president and waited it out until then if indeed this was all planned out before he actually became president.

Deciding that he wanted to "get" Saddam is different than actually planning the campaign of how he would go about doing that. All I'm saying is that he may have been predisposed to the idea of going after Saddam even before he became president and that that may have affected his reasoning about how to handle terrorism and the possible Iraq connection.

 

[BillyTK]

How much influence do you think Cheney and Rumsfeld had on his "desire" to get Saddam? Do you think they were lobbying for it before 9/11?

I suspect that Cheney and Rumsfeld had a significant influence on Bush's desire to get Iraq (see articles I linked to above: "Rumsfeld: Iraq may be target"). I don't know about prior to the WTC attack (see the other article- Powell's new plan for Iraq) but I have a vague memory of Bush's election platform including a new more "international" role for the US in world affairs... But pre-WTC attack, wasn't China the big bad? I also remember there being suggestions of military action against Afghanistan; I'll see if I can find the article where I read it.