Skip to comments.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DISCUSSED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER AS FAR BACK AS MARCH 2002
Drudge Report ^
| March 24, 2003
| Michael Elliott and James Carney via Drudge
Posted on 03/23/2003 9:21:16 AM PST by nwrep

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DISCUSSED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER AS FAR BACK AS MARCH 2002, TIME REPORTS
Sun Mar 23 2003 10:51:36 ET
New York TIME offers the inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda and why outcome there may foreshadow a different world order. TIME?s Michael Elliott and James Carney profile key Bush administration members who were involved in the decision to go to war. TIME?s special double issue will be on newsstands Monday, March 24th.
"F**k Saddam. We?re taking him out," said President George W. Bush in March 2002, after poking his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, TIME reports.
TIME?s story focuses on Paul Wolfowitz, a senior advisor to President Bush, a neoconservative, someone who thinks that the world is a dangerous place where civilization and democracy hang by a thread. Neoconservatives, report Elliott and Carney, also believe that the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if only it will take the risks of leadership to do so.
In January 1998, Wolfowitz joined other neo-conservatives in signing a letter to President Clinton arguing that "containment" of Saddam had failed and asserting that "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power?needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney, another high-ranking neoconservative, agreed. The Vice President told a campaign aide in 2000 "we have swept that problem [Iraq] under the rug for too long. We have a festering problem there." Cheney, who had been instrumental in the ceasefire of the first Gulf War, was outraged by Hussein?s attempted assassination of former President George Bush. He was also, as Wolfowitz put it, "transformed by Sept. 11 ? by the recognition of the danger posed by the connection between terrorists and WMDS [Weapons of Mass Destruction] and by the growing evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
As one former senior Administration official puts it: "The eureka moment was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned. So we must act pre-emptively to ensure that those that have the capability aren?t allowed to proliferate it." One advisor to the president, report Elliott and Carney, went as far as to say that Bush thinks Saddam is insane. "If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman. Depending on the sanity of Saddam is not an option."
Developing...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; hussein; iraq; saddam; terror; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Aria
What is there to stop other nations from using the same tactics to achieve their aims when dealing with countries of lesser power? Us?
The reason the UN has ever had any power is that it has been supported by the military power of the US. Its resolutions, as with those of any other body, are only effective when a believable "or else" is attached.
21
posted on
03/23/2003 9:41:48 AM PST
by
Restorer
(TANSTAAFL)
To: Aria
Well, your son is just about right, IMHO. The world order is breaking down, the UN and the Euros are unwilling and unable to keep the peace or prevent the proliferation of WMDs, and Russia and China are only to willing to fish in troubled waters. That leaves the US and its allies to pick up the pieces.
We didn't start this war or this process, but we have no choice but to get on with it. For eight years clinton fiddled around, and he left the world a far more dangerous place than he found it. He sold the Chinese MIRVed ICBMs, her permitted Pakistan to arm with nuclear missiles, he encouraged the North Koreans to develop their nuclear missile program, and he encouraged the Islamic fanatics to think of us as blustering cowards who never followed through on our threats to punish them.
If the French or the hippies in San Francisco have some workable alternative to suggest, more power to them. But so far all I've seen is opportunism and surrender.
22
posted on
03/23/2003 9:42:37 AM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: magellan
Bush would not have used that word in such a cavalier manner. In an angry, reactive moment, perhaps.
Bush is not Clinton or Nixon. No, he's not, but he is a Texan, and a man with a background in the Oil Business and in Professional Sports, not a sissy boy.
SO9
23
posted on
03/23/2003 9:42:42 AM PST
by
Servant of the Nine
(Real Texicans; we're grizzled, we're grumpy and we're armed)
To: nwrep
LOL! I have a feeling what we learn at Salmon Pak will take us to Iran's Special Intelligence Forces and their role in 9/11 (just an educated guess, IHMO)
24
posted on
03/23/2003 9:42:52 AM PST
by
ewing
To: nwrep
"In January 1998, Wolfowitz joined other neo-conservatives in signing a letter to President Clinton arguing that "containment" of Saddam had failed and asserting that "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power?needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." "Neo-con activities sort of calls into question the whole 9/11 justification, 'big time'.
Now that Bush decided on war all Americans should back him. Before he decided on war, all were free to put forth arguments.
For the group called Neo-cons the acid test will be Bush's stated decision that America's best interests are in the creation of a Palestine State.
It is this Palestine decision, not the war, that will be the moment of truth to see if neo-cons are 'for or against Bush'. Will they back or oppose the President's decision?
25
posted on
03/23/2003 9:43:04 AM PST
by
ex-snook
(American jobs needs balanced trade - WE BUY FROM YOU, YOU BUY FROM US)
To: Paraclete
. . and Nixon was a Quaker. Huh? What does Nixon have to do with it?
To: Fitzcarraldo
Bush would not have used that word. Especially in front of a lady like Condi Rice.
27
posted on
03/23/2003 9:43:50 AM PST
by
ez
(Advise and Consent = Debate and VOTE!!)
To: magellan
Bush would not have used that word in such a cavalier manner. In an angry, reactive moment, perhaps.
I was struck by that as well. In the heat of the moment, possibly, but I just can't see this President casually poking his head into a Condi's office and using a vulgarity.

To: Aria
We're doing it as the first step in the creation of the Pax-Americana.So what;s wrong with the Pax Americana? As opposed to what the brutalis saddamicus?
The "Pax Americana" as you put it, is inalienable rights, due process, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We alone have recognized these things as natural human rights and LOOK AT THE RESULT. Do you think we are the world's lone power by accident?
It is FREEDOM and a free people willing to act for a moral cause that makes us great.
IMHO, we should IMPOSE the Bill of Rights on every nation on Earth, then step back back and let them prosper.
29
posted on
03/23/2003 9:47:42 AM PST
by
ez
(Advise and Consent = Debate and VOTE!!)
To: Celtjew Libertarian
If Clinton had said this to a female aide, it would have had a completely different meaning.
X42 would probably have phrased it... "F**k , Madame? I'm taking you out."

To: Aria
>>The idea is to toppel Iraq and then move on to Syria,
Lebanon, Lybia, and Iran. Out of this you create the
Pax-Americana ...<<
This is the new talking point for the left, since "we are doing it for oil" won't stick.
This "vast pan-world conspiracy" is deserving of tin-foil hats. What will they say when when we go in there, get the job done, help build a new government, then get out. If they want an example of us doing only what say we are doing, look at Afghanistan. They said THAT would be the toehold for pax-americana too.
Tell your son:
1. We are removing Saddam to complete the work begun in 1991 and sanctioned through 18+ UN resolutions up to and including 1441. The Gulf war never ended -- a cease-fire was declared.
2. Saddam has WMDs and will either use them against us or will provide them to those who will. The use of non-existent SCUDs in the last few days proves his duplicity. We are doing this to protect ourselves.
3. The fact that Iraq may end up being an arab democracy is a beneficial side-result -- not an aim in itself.
Wait until we get out in 6 months after a new govt is installed. Then shove those words down the kid's throat.
Sorry that its your flesh-and-blood. Maybe a wake up call will help him see the light.
31
posted on
03/23/2003 9:49:40 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(Peace through Strength)
To: nwrep
Ok, we all want to be good humanitarians, but now is the time to take off the gloves. Our first responsibility is to the American people and our troops, not the Iraqi people. And besides the Iraqi armed forces are not civilians and should not be treated as such.
32
posted on
03/23/2003 9:49:45 AM PST
by
God is good
(God Bless America)
To: Aria
33
posted on
03/23/2003 9:49:48 AM PST
by
StriperSniper
(Frogs are for gigging)
To: nwrep
Drudge: NO CLASS!
To: Aria
And I would say the Pax Romana extended somewhat "liberal" values (not to mention Christianity) throughout Europe for about 400 years without a major war. If we can achieve that, I vote "yes."
35
posted on
03/23/2003 9:53:49 AM PST
by
LS
To: mountaineer
I'm not concerned about anything published by Time magazine. Time has gone steadily downhill over the last 20 years, and now has a definite left-wing, anti-Republican bias. The writing is often shallow and poorly researched. The cover story they did on Rumsfeld recently was a travesty: they called him a "warlord" and used a drawing of him done in blue and black colors on the cover of their worthless magazine. My mother renewed her subscription for a year before she passed away in December. I just got a bill for it and I'm going to cancel the remainder of the subscription today. And I'm going to tell them that I'm cancelling because of their left-wing bias. F**k Time Magazine and all their biased, elitist Democrat writers.
36
posted on
03/23/2003 9:58:01 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(Hey Jacques!....What are you trying to hide?)
To: gg188
"someone who thinks that the world is a dangerous place where civilization and democracy hang by a thread. ... that the U.S. is endowed by Providence"I couldn't agree more.
37
posted on
03/23/2003 9:58:19 AM PST
by
Faith
To: Aria
'As we go down this path the US will not only isolate
itself more and more but it will also set a terrible
prescedent. What is there to stop other nations from
using the same tactics to achieve their aims when
dealing with countries of lesser power? '
I am sooo tired of this argument. Does anyone think it has ever been any other way? The Soviet Union in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan?
The Vietnamese in Cambodia? The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?
We are setting a dangerous precedent? By waging the most humane war in history (and I realize humane war is in itself almost an impossibility)? Oh no, now the Chinese will feel they can take Taiwan! And the North Koreans take the South. As if - the only thing keeping them and other countries from doing such things is the U S of A!
38
posted on
03/23/2003 10:08:03 AM PST
by
Rummyfan
To: nwrep
I'm not sure why Time thinks this is newsworthy.
Removing Saddam Hussein and regime change has been official U.S. policy regarding Iraq for years.
Not to mention, both George W. Bush and Al Gore discussed this in the second presidential debate.
39
posted on
03/23/2003 10:21:54 AM PST
by
GOPGrrl
("What took you so long?" Iraqi citizen to U.S. soldiers 03.21.03)
To: nwrep; homeschool mama; Wphile; Dog; ChadGore
Quote of the Year: F_uck Saddam. We're taking him out. ~ GWB
40
posted on
03/23/2003 10:33:05 AM PST
by
rintense
(The tyrant will soon be gone... or extremely dead.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson