It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: jaffo
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no recollection of that whatsoever. None. Once talk of it started, yes revenge came up among many people. But when he was elected? No, it was not being talked about as I recall.
After he was elected it was all people could talk about. The drums of war started right away, if anything 9/11 delayed the attack on Iraq.
Note that all of this was later confirmed by Bush's administration who have said goal #1 on him taking office was to attack Iraq it was just a question of how to make such an attack legal.
During the election itself from what I remember (I was only 17 during the campaign and didn't follow politics all that heavily) all the talk centered around Bush's stimulus plan. Vote for him and get a few hundred dollars.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Observationalist
That image is downright creepy. Looking through the thread you linked it from (I wasn't aware of this image) it seems it was copyrighted in October 2001. That means it was likely submitted for copyright before 9/11 which means it was drawn before 9/11.
The only thing I don't understand in that image is the soccer ball.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jaffo
I'll have to find it, some high level people in his administration have said as much in interviews. If I get the time I'll look it up.
I'm aware of the UN mandates as well, if you want to be technical about it Saddam violated the terms of surrender and we were legally obligated to go back into Iraq and remove him from power, there were something like 27 articles he was in violation of and some of them were pretty major ones. But if we want to be more realistic about things, while he was in violation of those terms he was keeping peace in the region and that's worth a lot. How much has been spent, how many have died, and how much influence elsewhere in the world has the west given up as a result of committing to Iraq? There was a gigantic opportunity cost to going back in.
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
Clinton gives Bush his list of his top five priorities. At the top of the list is dealing with Osama bin Laden. Clinton also discusses the tensions between Pakistan and India, who are threatening each other with nuclear strikes; the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine; he discusses North Korea; and he discusses Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Bush shakes Clinton’s hand after Clinton wraps up his presentation, and says, "Thanks for your advice, Mr. President, but I think you’ve got your priorities wrong. I’m putting Saddam at the top of the list."
"Our most serious concern with Saddam Hussein must be the likelihood he will seek a renewed WMD capability both for credibility and because every other strong regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it. For example, the Iraqis have rebuilt key portions of their chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use. The plants he is rebuilding were used to make chemical weapons precursors before the Gulf War and their capacity exceeds Iraq's needs to satisfy civilian requirements.
We have similar concerns about other dual-use research, development, and production in the biological weapons and ballistic missile fields; indeed, Saddam has rebuilt several critical missile production complexes."
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."
As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.
He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Those illustrations flashed me back to this ancient thread Strange Exam Paper Illustration - What Do You See?
I'm fairly certain it was confirmed this illustration was published before 9/11/2001
Blocks spell Armageddon, two towers airplane, box cutter....etc
Interesting thread. Also happens to be the first thread I ever posted on.