Journalist claims papers turned down story about Bush’s desire to invade Iraq in 1999

The journalist and author, Russ Baker, says he had a taped interview of Bush’s onetime biographer in which he says Bush told him he intended to invade Iraq as early as 1999, during his presidential campaign. The interview with former Bush ghostwriter Mickey Herskowitz took place before the 2004 election.

Baker eventually published his story online in October of 2004. In it, Herskowitz is quoted as saying, “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999. 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.”

Full Article Here

May seem like a stretch and i'm not saying that it is a solid connection, but doesn't it seem odd that George W. was ready to attack in 1999, but decided not to ... then 9/11 happens and he has basically all of the public's support to invade Iraq?

what are your thoughts?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by baseball101]

Of, course he was behind it. There is no Bin Laden. he is just a creation of the U.S. Government to be the capegoat for 9/11, even al Quida is emplayed by your 'patriotic' leaders. Do you think a few muslim extremists had the brains to pull this off? No they didn't. It would take a long time to plan that attack. Bush faked an 'attack' on the towers so he could invade any country he wanted.

Iraq and Saddam seemed to be on his mind. Remember the time he spoke of Saddam, "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." Must have been thinking of that one since the aforementioned incident in 1993. So I could see how he would be thinking in 1999 of some day invading Iraq for revenge.

reply to post by desert


ahh good point to bring up, but do you really think that the country would have let George W. attack Iraq just because Saddam wanted to kill his dad?

reply to post by baseball101


Even Papa Bush had to employ various reasons for US involvement in the first Gulf War. If I can remember it was to help a country under attack, the economy, jobs, then finally...oil.

When the (mostly) Saudi hijackers brought on 9-11, of course Bush/Cheney was going to make damn sure there was a connection to Iraq. If the connection couldn't be conclusive, then conflate 9-11 to include anyone who would hate us...someone like...Saddam! Yessss, [and say this with a voice like a melodrama villain while he twists his mustache] we would invade Iraq because one can't be too careful nowadays!

Cheney's great neocon PNAC idea was to be put into play, encouraged by Bush legacy hatred for Saddam and wanting to establish his own legacy as being a commander-in-chief with a war under his belt. Didn't hurt to feel you were chosen by God to do this, and have people around you believe it, too. One of the "axis of evil" would be toppled.

Even though there was no connection, soldiers were sent to Iraq with the understanding, and the public was made to think, that we would invade to protect us at home. Mushroom cloud, WMD, "Fight 'em over there, etc". It also helped to have a party base anxious to make the "end times" happen.

WMD was the main reason given, enough of a reason to scare us into sending our sons and daughters to die. Oh, and to help bring peace to Israel. The morphing came later...liberate the Iraqi citizens from an evil dictator, establish a democracy, etc ad nauseum...oil far down on the list.

The good ole boys got their asses kicked, but not before they and their friends made a pile of loot. War, the gift that kept on giving. They're out of power now, leaving the mess to someone else to clean up.

No, if it was just all about his daddy, we wouldn't have done it. Daddy's peril just added a pathetic human interest touch.

Hey, if Americans had been told there would have to be a draft, then hell no we wouldn't go!