It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*HUGE SCANDAL*secret details of the White House's plans for war on Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Another (major) piece of the puzzle has just been exposed...

CBS) Legendary journalist Bob Woodward discusses his new book, which reveals secret details of the White Houses plans to attack Iraq, for the first time on television in an interview with correspondent Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, Sunday, April 18, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
 



www.cbsnews.com...

I just got wind of this on the news tonight and thought you' like to know about this one!!!




posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
According to journalists who have read the book, Plan of Attack, author Bob Woodward says planning began in December 2001, even as the President said he was seeking a diplomatic solution to Iraq's stand-off with the United Nations.

Link

I thought it would have been earlier than that.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
You're allowed to plan for contingencies.

You know that, right?



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
All nations with Departments or Ministries of Defense which have something on the ball will have war contigency plans for either neighboring countries, traditional enemies, or even allies which could pose a future threat. These plans will be updated from time-to-time based on country relationships, perceived threat, relative power, new technology, etc. No doubt, U.S. war plans against North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, and the like are in a constant state of update. President Bush asking for an update of the Iraq war plan is not in and of itself proof that Bush was totally focused on Iraq and ignoring signs and warnings of the upcoming events on 9/11. However, should it be determined that the Iraqi war was preplanned while looking for any pretext for invasion which was detrimental to some focus on rising international terrorism, then the President (and the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community) must shoulder some of the blame for lack of preparation. The jury is still out on that one. One can only hope that the "9/11 Commission" can cut through the partisan posturing and media spinning on both sides and come up with a legitimate series of recommendations that can reduce the overall threat.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Banshee
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Already have a thread on this one...


They should probably be merged then, don't you think?
____________________________________________


CIA chief said to see 'slam dunk' on weapons of mass destruction

WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy.

Bush feared that if news got out about the Iraq plan as U.S. forces were fighting another conflict, people would think he was too eager for war, journalist Bob Woodward writes in Plan of Attack, a behind-the-scenes account of the 16 months leading to the Iraq invasion.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the book, which will be available in book stores next week.

I knew what would happen if people thought we were developing a potential war plan for Iraq, Bush is quoted as telling Woodward. It was such a high-stakes moment and ... it would look like that I was anxious to go to war. And Im not anxious to go to war.

According to a report Friday by the Washington Post, Woodward also claims that:

Starting in late December 2001, Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he insisted he was pursuing a diplomatic solution.

CIA Director George Tenet assured the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Some of Vice President Dick Cheney's colleagues felt he had a "fever" about removing Saddam Hussein by force.

Secretary of State Colin Powell felt Cheney and his allies among them the undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith, and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office had established what amounted to a separate government.

Continued...
www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Well that was an interesting 60 Minutes!

Bush decided to go to war but forgot to tell Powell.



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   

as quoted by Satyr
They should probably be merged then, don't you think?


Satyr, with all due respect there sir, you may have great amounts of moderator experience at other boards, thats great and all, but do you know how things work within ATS, when it comes to what we can do and can't do?
As such, the merge feature does not work....therefore no merge, k?

All I am trying to indicate, delicately, is that before you make such comments as you made above, may want to think a bit more, "don't you think"?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
yea, it was only a matter of time before everything came to light...in several years from now this war will have been indirectly responsible for many problems in our world. I just hope we get the hell out of Iraq soon enough..

[Edited on 18-4-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   

as quoted by Shotek
seekerof, way to go not even responding to the actual topic, but making some smartass comment about what satyr said...I think anyone can tell he wasn't literally saying to "merge" the threads together. Just because you disagree with this topic...and how long have you been a mod again? Oh ok, maybe YOU should be the one to "think" before making these worthless comments


Excuse me?
Are you Satyr?
You in the 'know' also?
I took his words for what they said Shoktek!
Who the frail are you?
Did I not say "with all due respect"?
Pfftt.



seekerof

[Edited on 18-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
[Edited on 18-4-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Apr, 18 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
*shakes head*


as quoted by seekerof
As such, the merge feature does not work....therefore no merge, k?





seekerof



posted on Apr, 19 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as quoted by Satyr
They should probably be merged then, don't you think?


Satyr, with all due respect there sir, you may have great amounts of moderator experience at other boards, thats great and all, but do you know how things work within ATS, when it comes to what we can do and can't do?
As such, the merge feature does not work....therefore no merge, k?

All I am trying to indicate, delicately, is that before you make such comments as you made above, may want to think a bit more, "don't you think"?




seekerof

I wasn't implying that you should merge them as much as I was indicating that it was my intention to do so. (Or copy it anyway)


as quoted by Shotek
seekerof, way to go not even responding to the actual topic, but making some smartass comment about what satyr said...I think anyone can tell he wasn't literally saying to "merge" the threads together. Just because you disagree with this topic...and how long have you been a mod again? Oh ok, maybe YOU should be the one to "think" before making these worthless comments

I agree, your tone is very sarcastic there, k?


[Edited on 4-19-2004 by Satyr]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join