[marron]

I would be disappointed if it turns out that we weren't planning for war in Iraq before 9/11. We were there for a decade sitting on that guy, a decade is more than long enough.

Furthermore, he had bought off several members of the Security Council with contracts that would be useless until sanctions were eliminated, which means that sanctions were on their way out. We were faced with continuing a decade long war until either his allies on the Security Council canceled the sanctions program, or until he died and one of his thirty-something year-old sons took over.

So we were faced with either war without end, or a Saddam emerging from his box with French, German, Russian, and Chinese help at the UN. He would be untouchable at that point.

So it was plain to me that our only hope was too bring him down. I was very afraid we would cut some kind of deal that would leave him in place, or leave the UN with some control over the outcome.

[Matchett-PI]

It isn't as if we don't have contingency plans for regime change in some more countries, too, unless they decide to stop aiding and abetting the terrorists/barbarians that threaten the security of the civilized world.

[ladyinred]

I agree with you. I do think the plans to attack Iraq were most likely already underway, and why not? He had ignored all of the terms of the ceasefire for many years and was flaunting it in our faces. Clinton let him get away with it, of course. George Bush wouldn't. BFD!

[bert]

....I would be disappointed if it turns out that we weren't planning for war in Iraq before 9/11. We were there for a decade sitting on that guy, a decade is more than long enough........

Your statement expresses the crux of the matter. Any other course would be ignoring a direct threat to ongoing military operations. There was a shooting war in progress.

[tessalu]

O'Neill is looking like a subversive to me.