This Weeks Retread: Woodward Reveals Iraq Military planning started in November 2001

Many | myself

[jwalsh07]

To plan or not to plan, that is the question.

Of course the question has several answers when you're a marxist or the marxists' media shill.

[Parley Baer]

I strongly disagree with Woodward. The planning actually started under the klintoon administration. Bush just followed through and I'am sure made changes to the plan. All that klintoon ever did was plan, plan, form committees and plan some more. Parley

[wattsup]

Why is this hard to believe. I would think people would congratulate the Bush administration because they have the foresight to deal with a problem. Iraq was the only country actively shooting at the US. What was President supposed to do wait until Saddam fires WMD on our soil?.

[rocklobster11]

That's exactly what is said in Woodward's book, it's just being reported differently. Bush asked about the pentagon's plan for Iraq, was told it was outdated, and told them to get it up to date

Here's an interesting admission from a NY Times article, titled Powell Said to Have Warned Bush Before the War, a New Book Says

But the general time line for war planning that is presented in the book is broadly consistent with other recent accounts, including public statements by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the retired commander of the Iraq war. It generally upholds the insistence by Mr. Bush and his top advisers that they did not begin their war planning for Iraq until well after the Sept. 11 attacks, even if their attention was fixed on Iraq from early in the administration, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has written in a recent book.

And for a little humor, you can't beat this paragraph from the same article:

Over a period that began in early 2002, Mr. Powell is depicted as having cautioned Mr. Bush and other advisers repeatedly about the potential drawbacks of military action in Iraq. The "you break it, you own it" principle he cited in delivering those warnings was privately known to Mr. Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, as "the Pottery Barn rule," the book says.

[dead]

Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

Hey! He stole that "deeply concerned" line from Orin Hatch!

Who does he think he is, Joe Biden?

[hgro]

This guy Woodward, interviewed the then head of the CIA, Bill Casey, while he was in a hospital bed in a Coma, and quoted him at great length.

This is the quality of Woodwards reportage. PHONY, PHONY, PHONY. Its so light it will float on water.

[rocklobster11]

Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

He was so deeply concerned that he failed to mention it as a CNN analyst in the run up to the War, and only discussed it in his book when he decided to run for president

[rocklobster11]

Even the Irish knew about the Pentagon's plan on November, 10, 2001:

Pentagon plans to bomb Iraq splits US

[Psycho_Bunny]

My consternation over the "Bush was going to go to war with Iraq from day 1" line is absolute.

Though usually I consider myself moderately savvy, I can honestly say that I haven't got the slightest idea what the "issue" here is.

It's some sort of concept that exists all by itself in a hidden, low-traffic corner of the universe and is utterly unrelated to anything except the vacuum of space that surrounds it.

I've heard a couple people parrot "Bush was going to go to war with Iraq from day 1" and frankly, I haven't responded to them because the only thing I can think of to respond with is "What the f*ck are you saying?  What does that string of words that just came out of your mouth mean?  I know it's not a foreign language because I understand each word individually but, when you put them together the way you just put them together, none of them makes any sense at all."

I've come to the conclusion that "Bush was going to go to war with Iraq from day 1" is the liberal equivalent of baby-talk.

I'm not saying that in an attempt to be funny.  The phrase simply has no rational, intellectual meaning.

[WOSG]

ISnt the internt great? It's like your know-it-all uncle who

never forgets a damn thing.

[Steven W.]

Remember Salman Pak!

[Paraclete]

Am I missing something? What's the big deal?

I'd be disgusted if we hadn't had a plan to take Saddam out.

[Thom Pain]

...and they had better have a plan for Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, ...Anything less would be dereliction of duty, IMHO.

[ironman]

""As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

I had not heard that quote. I am happy man today. I might reorder the sequence, but that sounds like a great plan to me.

[wattsup]

To be honest about the whole thing I was involved with the war plans of the middle east back in 1980. We had to develop all nuclear contingencies for a war not only against Saddam but for Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Any President would have to develop these plans.

[Morgan's Raider]

So what's the big deal. I have read before (I believe it was in General Schwarzkopf's book) that the Pentagon has an office which does nothing but create contingency plans for the strategic invasion of EVERY country on the planet, including England and France. And they would be remiss in their duties if they didn't.

[Hibernius Druid]

It would be irresponsible for any president not to have such "going to war" plans, that is, contingency plans against not only Iraq, but also, say, North Korea, Iran et al.

Planning for contingencies and operationalizing such plans are two distinct concepts. Maybe that's an overload on liberal minds, except, of course when it comes to the central planning that is their stock-in-trade.

[WOSG]

" So what's the big deal. "

The big deal is that, unlike the informed folks here who understand contingencies, the uninformed masses are going to be propagandized into believing the President George W Bush had an unhealthy obsession with Iraq. The media will conflate the contingency plans with "a plan to go to war" and make it seems like Bush had his mind up in nov 2001.

Now, let's be clear: Bush put Iraq, Iran and PRNK on the 'axis of evil' list in January 2002. It seems he was wise in that - forseeing the WMD problems and terrorist-supporting activities in all three countries.

For us NOT to have plans wrt to these countries would have been negligent.

Our media response then has to be to explain how the Iraq threat and response was ongoing:
- we had "regime change" as a policy since 1998
- the Iraqi threat grew more grave post 9/11, as we relized that WMD in terrorist hands would be a nightmare, and we had exvidence Al Qaeda was trying to procure chemical and bio-weapons
- we needed a policy better than sanctions in Iraq, which were breaking down, ie, containment wasnt working.

planning on that basis was wise and sound policy.