Bush Asked for Iraq War Plan in Nov. 2001

Reuters ^ | 4-16-04

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush asked his Pentagon chief in November 2001 to draw up a war plan against Iraq, the White House confirmed on Friday.

The admission from the White House about the early timing of a discussion about war strategy came after the administration was questioned about a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

The revelation is sure to fire up some of Bush's critics who have accused him of being too eager to go to war against Iraq and of diverting resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks.

The book, entitled "Plan of Attack," is not due to be released until next week but the Associated Press published some details from it after obtaining an early copy.

The book, according to the Associated Press, reveals that Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside on Nov. 21, 2001, and asked him to come up with a fresh war plan.

That request came less than two months after the United States launched a war on Afghanistan and a year and a half before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Bush cited Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction as the main reason for the invasion, in which almost 700 U.S. troops have died as well as thousands of Iraqi military and civilians. No such weapons, however, have been found.

Two former officials from his administration, ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, have portrayed the president as fixated on Iraq, even at a time when the administration has insisted Bush was focused squarely on Afghanistan.

At a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Friday, the president was asked if the Woodward account about the conversation with Rumsfeld in November 2001 was correct.

Bush said his memory was foggy.

"You know, I can't remember exact dates that far back," he said.

Later, at a news briefing White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed the November conversation, saying the topic of an Iraq war plan was only raised when it became clear the United States was winning the war in Afghanistan.

"We began combat operations in Afghanistan in the earlier period of October, and by November and early December things were winding down," McClellan said.

"And the President did talk to Secretary Rumsfeld about Iraq," he added.

A separate account of the Woodward book published in the Washington Post said that in December 2001 Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy Franks and his war cabinet to plan the attack on Iraq. The war planning became so intensive that it set in motion a chain of events that would have been difficult to reverse.

Bush made up his mind to go to war in January 2003 but held off for two months out of concern for the political impact on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the newspaper said. Blair's decision to join the United States in the war is highly unpopular in Britain.

Woodward, the reporter who broke the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in the 1970s, is an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post.

[Indy Pendance]

We should have a war plan for every country, especially those known to be against us. I'll bet we have a war plan for Canada.

[the Real fifi]

This is old B.S. At the time Iraq was almost shooting down our planes in the no-fly zone and it was perfectly logical to get the plans updated..It's a far way from a plan to a determination to go to war.

[ambrose]

I don't get it. One day Bush is being attacked for being underprepared, and now he is being attacked for being prepared.

Huh?

It seems like the President's enemies are going to attack him no matter what he does.

[rageaholic]

I had the feeling Bush was planning to go to war with Iraq since day one of his administration. I recall shortly after he took office he sent the USAF to drop a few bombs on Iraq. I laughed because I felt it was a greeting card from George W. Bush and Saddam must have thought he was having a bad dream.

I got no problem with Bush taking the US to war against Iraq, I got a problem with the BS Bush says about why we are at war. "Bringing freedom to Iraqi people" aint worth the US lives and billions of dollars. The Iraqi people aren't worth a rat's ass.

[TheOldRepublic]

Damn! Bush did that!?

I wanted him to have the plan ready on Inauguration Day!

[noDixieCan]

So? This non-news is just another try by the Democrats and their media allies to bring down Bush. I personally welcome a President who has the foresight to make such a request.

[300winmag]

Two former officials from his administration, ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, have portrayed the president as fixated on Iraq, even at a time when the administration has insisted Bush was focused squarely on Afghanistan.

Great, a flake and a weasel as your two best sources.

[rageaholic]

I think he did, see my earlier post.

[MJY1288]

What took him so long?

[ServesURight]

Nothing to worry about. Woodward's book will soon be in doctor's offices along with Newsweak.

[MHGinTN]

'seems'? ... You can count on the power lusting demofacists to twist every phrase, turn every truth upside down, and lie with straight, angry faces ... they are facing their own extinction! The lying, criminal enterprise democrat party is still sinkEmperor's toilet. Flush them!

[Ramius]

Uh... well... actually *Clinton* had a war plan for Iraq, that Bush's 'gang' review, and found wanting, and sent back for a re-think.

What part of any of this is a problem?

[MHGinTN]

What is telling is something Bortz covered today: Clarke told the 911 commission that clinton was really going after al Qaeda, but inb the 40,000 word 'white paper' clinton handed over to Bush (written by his terrorism specialist, Richard Clarke), there is not one word on al Qaeda! THAT'S why it's useless to place democrats under oath ... they lie repeatedly and believe their own lies!

[Judith Anne]

I would have been angry if he had NOT had an Iraq war plan from inauguration day.

On the other hand, he didn't go to war with Iraq nearly fast enough to suit me. Remember all those endless months before the war began, the waiting, the concern about the weather being too hot, the statements by the weinies on the left that US men couldn't fight during the summer, etc, and all the while the bleeping UN CROOKS shilly-shallying around about whether or not they were going to approve?

November 2001 would have been fine with me.

[MEG33]

Rageaholics are usually in a rage about one thing or another.

[WOSG]

Yes. Clarke LIED to the 9/11 commission.

ON A NUMBER OF POINTS.

[MJY1288]

As far as I'm concerned, the first time Iraq violated the cease fire agreement they signed to end Operation Desert Storm, we should have resumed hostilities. We owe our fallen heroes of that war nothing less.

IMHO, all these baseless accusations against President Bush are going to hurt the Democrats. Most, if not all, americans know whose to blame for 9/11, It's Radical Islam and Radical Islam isn't limited to Afghanistan.

[Post Toasties]

Bush Asked for Iraq War Plan in Nov. 2001

And there was something wrong with doing this, how.....?

[Norman Arbuthnot]

I got a problem with the BS Bush says about why we are at war.

At the end of the day it is all about oil. The primary, and by far, the most important reason we are in that region of the world is oil. That's worth fighting for because our economy would be ruined without it, but it's obviously not a good situation to be in. We really need to develop alternatives and more fuel efficient vehicles ASAP.

Anybody out there still object to drilling in places like ANWAR? As is it is we will probably be heavily dependent on ME oil for at least the next decade no matter what we do, but we really ought to make an effort to reduce that dependence as much as possible.

[jerod]

Once again, the media is playing tricks with already established historical facts.

It was the RAT President Bill Clinton who established the policy of regime change in Iraq.

Considering the evidence acted upon by Bill Clinton himself bombing Iraq on various occasions (like when Saddam tried to kill a former President of the US who happened to be GWs father), and the fact that for more than 10 years Iraq failed to cooperate with the free world to establish that they were not a threat. President Bush had the right and more importantly the duty to develop a plan to carry out an already established policy. Especially in the aftermath of 9/11. To do otherwise would’ve been foolish.

Like Bin Laden, Saddam isn’t exactly a cheerleader for the USA. And if he did have, or could have had the ability to attack the US in anyway, he would. The threat had to be dealt with regardless of the public opinion for, or against the war at that time.

Wondering whether or not Saddam may, or may not of had weapons of mass destruction. Is a much better musing than wondering if he does, or does not have weapons of mass destruction. It’s too bad the Republicans couldn’t come up with a campaign advertisement to that effect.