Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Monday, April 30, 2007

Rice: Bush didn't Want War

Condi Rice on Sunday denied allegations by former CIA director George Tenet that Bush came into office determined to have a war against Iraq. This is the interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:


QUESTION: Because you remember Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury Secretary, where he wrote in his first book, The Price of Loyalty with Ron Suskind, and what Ron Suskind later wrote in his own book, The One Percent Solution, that the Bush Administration came in with a mindset to deal with what they called unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.

SECRETARY RICE: That is simply not true. The President came in looking at a variety of threats. We then had the September 11th events. The September 11th events led to a kind of reassessment of what the threats were. But in the entire period after the President became President, he was trying to put together an international coalition that could deal with Iraq, first by smart sanctions, smarter no-fly zones, then by challenging Saddam Hussein before the Security Council to meet the just demands of the Security Council, and ultimately by having to use military force. But this was an evolution of policy over a long period of time. Of course the President came in concerned about Iraq. President Clinton had used military force against Iraq in 1998. We had gone to war against Iraq in 1991. But the idea that the President had made up his mind when he came to office that he was going to go to war against Iraq is just flat wrong. '


But here is what Bush's ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz reports Bush saying during an interview when Bush was still governor of Texas in the late 1990s:

' “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” '


So that was 1999.

Then we have this account from May, 2000, by journalist Osama Siblani, who met with Bush in Troy, Michigan when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination:

' OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?

OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . .

And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time. '


Then let us come to January, 2001, when the Supreme Court had installed Bush in power. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs of the very first Bush cabinet meeting:

'"The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone ... Rumsfeld and [Joint Chiefs chair Gen. H. Hugh] Shelton, he said, 'should examine our military options.' That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining 'how it might look' to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq ... Ten days in, and it was about Iraq."


O'Neill specifically said that Bush instructed Rumsfeld to look at military options and how it might look to use US ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq.

How much clearer could it be that Tenet is absolutely right that there was never any serious debate about the merits of 'taking out Saddam' in Bush's inner circle?

For more evidence that the fix was in with regard to Bush and action against Iraq, see my "The Lies that Led to War" in Salon.com.

7 Comments:

At 10:57 AM, Blogger CupOJoe said...

Still Waiting For The Times, Too
What The Times says:
It has long been evident that President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact.

What The Times dies not say:
Unprovoked attacks against other nations are war crimes, and Mr. Bush and his administration should be removed from office and placed under arrest.
If the former is evident (and it is), then the latter is the logical conclusion. Why can't The Times just say it?

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger Alamaine said...

http://www.counterpunch.com/menetrez04302007.html
April 30, 2007
As Tenure Drama Comes Down to the Wire
Dershowitz v. Finkelstein: Who's Right and Who's Wrong?

By FRANK MENETREZ

The feud between Alan Dershowitz, a senior professor at Harvard Law
School, and Norman Finkelstein, a junior professor of political science at
DePaul University, is back in the news.

[Remainder of longish article @ site]

Alamaine

 
At 1:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the human race (all 6.6 billion of us and counting) really allow such decisions to be in the hands of a single individual?
We are strange creatures indeed.

 
At 3:08 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

That the President and certain other high Administration officials had a desire prior to 9/11/2001 to attack IRAQ is certain. Here (and elsewhere) scholarly historians have accumulated sufficient evidence to make this determination.

so, let's move on; two questions remain for historians to resolve: (1) Why? what were their pre-9/11 motivations, really, to attack IRAQ ~ since all other casus belli have proven bogus; and, (2) After the Attack, regime change, de-militarization, dis-armament, etc., why did/does the U.S. remain = OCCUPY IRAQ?

 
At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone remember the interview Bush had with a reporter while he was governor of TX, running for White House, when asked about Iraq he smirked and said, "Well, they tried to kill my Daddy." Surely, CNN or one of the networks would have a tape of it. There must also be a tape of Bush being a mental incompetent by bragging about refusing to commute a woman's death sentence. She knew Bush's character well and said he would kill her; but no one should worry about her; she knew where she was going and she was ready...With tapes of so many of the endless lies, why does the media allow Bush and Cheney, and their handpicked flunkies, get away with it? Do they really have the Power to destroy Everyone in media... except, of course, Lou Dobbs??

 
At 3:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The people who lie and spin for Bush are a motley crew. Condoleeza Rice, in my opinion, is one of the worst, topped only by Cheney and Rove. This is a woman who could have accomplished a little something worthwhile in life. Instead, she has squandered her capabilities, such as they now are, on revising every misstep of her "husband" and selling her soul to Mephisto. Her true academic accomplishments are nil. Her incompetence as National Security Advisor should go down in the history books as one of the most horrendous. Her missadventures as Secretary of State are deplorable. She could have championed the truth. She could have owned up to her failures, and the obvious failures of this administration. She could have spoken out against a war that has killed thousands. Instead, she caters to George, whines on his behalf, and quite evidently values power over ethics and morals. She may have attempted to be a moderating force, but her attempts have fallen far short of any real and lasting accomplishments. That seems to be the story of her life, at this point. She has fallen short, and will be remembered as such. I suppose she will come to roost in some Far-Right Wing Think Tank, where she will continue to lie and spin. Rice is intelligent, but she has wasted her mind on a boorish, arrogant and incompetent administration. Frankly, I am embarrassed for her; and sorry for the country.

 
At 8:10 AM, Blogger Minnesota Central said...

Ask Sam Donaldson then of ABC This Week about his interview with candidate Bush during the Iowa caucus. Donaldson asked Bush about Iraq and he responded that if given a chance that Saddam would be gone.

The only unanswered question is, if 9/11 hadn't happened would he have still sought a military encounter? I think we all know the answer.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home