T Nation

Plan Of Attack

Has anyone read it ?

It was a great, objective read. It gives great insight to the cabinet and the roles each person plays.

It gives a clear indication that the entire administration was focused on Iraq from the get go, and that Cheney had a real hard-on for an invasion of Iraq.

Rummy did attempt to use 9/11 as a reason to invade, as did the entire administration.

Powell never understood what the hell all the talk was about and disagreed with virtually everything the admin was doing. He had to fight tooth and nail with the admin to use diplomacy, and they didn’t let it get very far. It’s a shame he had to be the face who made all those bold accusations about Iraq’s arsenal (he was chosen to make the presentation becaues of his credibility).

Rice seems to want to do whatever will keep her close to GWB.

Bush was portrayed as a strong leader, to my surprise. However, he had something in for Iraq from the start, though I think he was largely duped by the likes of Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfowitz. He rejected the “slam dunk” evidence that Tenet presented him with, but moved ahead anyway.

There was an underlying feeling among the administration that the reason/evidence to invade had to be embellished. They presented it to us as a much stronger case than any of them reasonably believed it was.

Cheney was the biggest culprit. A major turning point in the developments was when Cheney went public with the Saddam’s a threat line before Bush ever approved it. It caused a bit of a rift among them…but guess who won that one?

Now looking back, we see it was a tremendous mistake and costly in every sense.

RSU: I had posted this in another thread but it goes along with what Woodward writes. You can see this particular letter was written to Bush only 9 days after 9/11.

If you follow this link into their archives, you would be AMAZED how bad these guys wanted to get into Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Remember this group is Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Jeb Bush to name just a few. When you realize the postions these guys now hold and how they wrote in 2000 that they needed a “New Pearl Harbor” to gain support for their war and how the war on terror suddenly got diverted from Afganistan to Iraq, is there any wonder about the “conspiracy” surrounding 9/11.

Letter to Bush from “Project for the New American Century”

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.

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

“Paper refuses no ink.”

Justthefacts you know as well as I do that the Bush supporters will just dimiss the article as complete bunk, it seems that everytime someone references an article depicting Bush and his administration in a bad light they say it’s a lie but when they reference articles about John kerry in a bad light the articles are always true how convienient.

[quote]Buck Nasty wrote:
Justthefacts you know as well as I do that the Bush supporters will just dimiss the article as complete bunk, it seems that everytime someone references an article depicting Bush and his administration in a bad light they say it’s a lie but when they reference articles about John kerry in a bad light the articles are always true how convienient.[/quote]

It just goes with the territory when the media is more than 75% liberal. Most of the crap you read about Bush is BS, and that’s just a fact. While if something makes it’s way through the liberal media about Kerry, then it holds more weight.

Just The Facts.

ZEB, care to expound?

NO ONE on this board has read this book? Or, have you read it and disliked what you learned?

Bump.

I’m surprised there isn’t more discourse regarding this book and its points.

Is the deception surrounding our reasons for invading Iraq old news already? Should we just accept it and move along now?

i listened to it on audio book…gotta love the ipod.

RSU, this is so outside the mindset of the people you want to discuss it with that they can’t even parse it.

The answer is simple - can’t comment on a book I haven’t read.

Recent political pulp fiction doesn’t make it to my nightstand. Too many other good things to read.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
i listened to it on audio book…gotta love the ipod.
[/quote]

as did I – in the car on a trip to Gainesville…efficiency at work!

Well, what did you think?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Recent political pulp fiction doesn’t make it to my nightstand. Too many other good things to read.[/quote]

I don’t believe this book qualifies. Give it a shot.

You’re aware Woodward interviewed something like 75 people including over three hours with Bush himself, right? And I read somewhere (I think in Dowd) that Bush had it on his website as recommended reading…give it a go.

RSU,

I’m about ass-deep in unread books, so I must apologize that I probably won’t get to that one.

But I did read a variety of reviews of it, and the reviews all came away with very different opinions.

Interesting.

Just curious, what’s on your to read list?

Um, a few titles:

Juvenal: The Satires
Their Finest Hour
The Soul of Battle