Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-10 06:23pm

According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's administration was planning to oust Saddam Hussein within days of his inauguration.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-01-10 06:24pm

Iceberg wrote:According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's administration was planning to oust Saddam Hussein within days of his inauguration.

....why did you waste our time by posting this?

HELLLOOOOO CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-10 06:45pm

Um, duh. Did you for some reason think otherwise?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-10 06:50pm

Be quiet Sheppard! What goes on in VRWC meetings stays there!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-01-10 06:56pm

One more nail in the coffin of the BS claims that Bush attacked Iraq to distract everyone from the "failing war on terror". Though this really is old news anyway.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-10 07:58pm

I've never heard that.

Of course, it is also a nail in the coffin of teh BS claims that Bush attacked Iraq as part of the war on terror.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-10 10:17pm

Howedar wrote:I've never heard that.

Of course, it is also a nail in the coffin of teh BS claims that Bush attacked Iraq as part of the war on terror.

It is possible, of course, that Bush implemented his attack on Iraq as part of the War on Terror, even though he was planning it shortly after he took office.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-10 11:05pm

Iceberg wrote:According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, George W. Bush's administration was planning to oust Saddam Hussein within days of his inauguration.

Jeez really? He only talked about it in his campaign!!! I mean how dare he follow through on it!

Howedar wrote:I've never heard that.

Of course, it is also a nail in the coffin of teh BS claims that Bush attacked Iraq as part of the war on terror.

Actually, it depends on why he was thinking of attacking them.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-11 04:39am

Frankly, I do not see why this would surprise anyone in the slightest. Almost all powerful western militaries create plans for dealing with hot-spots around the world with a military solution. I'm sure if you dug hard enough you could find German or Spanish plans to invade North Korea. Even SWITZERLAND has military plans designed for use in case one of its neighbors suddenly goes crazy and begins military attacks on it. The existence of such planning is not really a secret, and not really surprising.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-01-11 02:20pm

Stormbringer wrote:Jeez really? He only talked about it in his campaign!!! I mean how dare he follow through on it!

He also said that our troops shouldn't be used as nation builders in his campaign.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-12 02:06am

Durandal wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:Jeez really? He only talked about it in his campaign!!! I mean how dare he follow through on it!
He also said that our troops shouldn't be used as nation builders in his campaign.

And that has what to do with the issue? Oh wait, nothing.

The fact of the matter is there isn't anything mysterious or nefarious about the plans. Bush made it a point in his campaign and even stepped up enforcement actions against the Hussien regime well before September 11th. If that comes as a suprise, take off the tinfoil hat and turn on CNN instead. It was point in his campaign for fuck's sake.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 08:01pm

Well, can't argue with that. After all, it's been the policy of the United States to end the Hussein regime since 1998.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq ... 103198.pdf

Rev Prez

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-01-17 09:33pm

I'm actually rather in interested in hearing about this Swiss military plans. After all, the Swiss are part French, part German, right? Will one half of the army attack Belgium while the other half surrenders?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 09:39pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I'm actually rather in interested in hearing about this Swiss military plans. After all, the Swiss are part French, part German, right? Will one half of the army attack Belgium while the other half surrenders?

Huh? What's this about?

Rev Prez

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-17 09:55pm

revprez wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I'm actually rather in interested in hearing about this Swiss military plans. After all, the Swiss are part French, part German, right? Will one half of the army attack Belgium while the other half surrenders?
Huh? What's this about?

Rev Prez

And the joke goes over his head.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 10:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:And the joke goes over his head.

Care to explain?

Rev Prez

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-01-17 10:24pm

revprez wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And the joke goes over his head.
Care to explain?

Why bother, it's so freaking obvious that if you don't get it my explanation won't make it any clearer.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 10:37pm

Stormbringer wrote:
revprez wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:And the joke goes over his head.
Care to explain?
Why bother, it's so freaking obvious that if you don't get it my explanation won't make it any clearer.

I get the joke, I'm just sure how it dovetails into the conversation, that's all.

Rev Prez

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-01-17 10:41pm

I don't get the joke either. I mean, I get the point of the French surrendering while the Germans attack Belgium, but where did the Swiss come into this in the first place?

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 10:56pm

Rogue 9 wrote:I don't get the joke either. I mean, I get the point of the French surrendering while the Germans attack Belgium, but where did the Swiss come into this in the first place?

Well the Swiss are part French and German. But what that has to do with the thread...that's what I'm getting at.

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-17 10:56pm

revprez wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:I don't get the joke either. I mean, I get the point of the French surrendering while the Germans attack Belgium, but where did the Swiss come into this in the first place?
Well the Swiss are part French and German. But what that has to do with the thread...that's what I'm getting at.

Rev Prez

The joke is still funny.

Rev Prez

Invader ZIm · Post by **Invader ZIm** » 2004-01-17 10:57pm

Point of Fact: It has been the offical policy of the United States Goverment to support and plan for regime change in Iraq since October 31, 1998. Congress voted on and passed the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338), which was sponsored by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R- NY) as H.R. 4655 and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

If you are interested in the facts Iceberg and not the current DNC/DU talking points you can read the text of the bill at the link below.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... 05IWz6UZ::

I think you will be very interested in the Section 2. Findings. 10, 11 and 12 in particular.

Fact is that when Clinton signed this it became the offical policy of the US and the planning for the current conflict with Iraq really began then.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Re: Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Re: Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Re: Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001

Re: Saddam's Ouster Planned as Early as January 2001