lol no, it means that what you presented isn't evidence that he was planning to invade... its evidence that he had a war plan created for Iraq. We also have war plans created for NK, Iran, China, Russia, Somalia etc etc and we haven't invaded them and we aren't about to.

Std operating procedure requires war plans for just about any hotspot, Iraq was definitely a hotspot

Oh no, he just singled out Iraq for extra scrutiny at random. Woodward wrote that Iraq was on the table from the beginning, and in 2004 GWB recommended his ****ing book, saying it was an accurate account. Go read it.

Of course he singled out Iraq, it was only the biggest hot spot in the world at the time... what it does not mean however, is that it he had some secret agenda to get into Iraq at any cost.

Now you're hedging.

Wait, you mean Bush thought about regime change in Iraq at the beginning of his presidency? Given his statements during his campaign, I thought it was obvious.

I'm stating what I believe is your position. The quote is what I believe you believe, but it may not be entirely accurate. You have not shown, in any way, that GWB knew he was going to invade Iraq pre 911. You have made a few parallel statements that I've shown to mean less than you thought they did.

Did he know he'd invade? Probably not. Was he considering the idea and likely looking for an opportunity to? Yes. At any cost? Probably not. Was this all a secret? Not much of one. Regime change was part of US policy since 1998, but he was much more motivated to carry it out than his predecessor. I think we'd still be at war there even if 9/11 hadn't happened.

This is pure speculation, even you concede it. ty for your time

No, it's not pure speculation, there's plenty of evidence for it--Bush didn't tell me himself that he was looking for a fight, but it appears he was. A plan for occupying Iraq doesn't become a high priority 10 days after the inauguration just because its one of the world's hotspots.

The 2000 election was about "lockboxes" and who was going to go down in history as "the education president." Iraq hadn't been in the news hardly at all since the end of Clinton's impeachment.

Misfire-

With the change of an administration, there is normally a change in the top of military command directly beneath him. Updating a war plan, which is something that is done all the time, especially with changes in the command structure, in the worlds most troubling hotspot at the time is not evidence that he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. It is evidence that he wanted the US to be prepared if we had to intervene, which is something we've already had to do once!

Are you talking about Copernicus's post right above mine?

I didn't say he was looking for an excuse, I said he was looking for an opportunity. He didn't need to look for an excuse b/c the violations of the cease-fire and the UN resolutions were plenty. (I did support going into Iraq, but I didn't support how it was done.) All I'm saying is I don't think 9/11 started the buildup to the Iraq War--at best, it accelerated plans that were already in the works.

ike, you shouldn't underestimate your agencies and analysts so much.

here are some facts:
1. administration knew (as everyone else knew this) that just a removing Saddam would mean a balkanization and a civil war for Iraq. I hope we agree at least on this.
2. That would mean US army would get an excuse to occupy it for a longer period after installing a puppet regime. Was that their wish or not?
3. Is it really that hard to believe that the administration wanted to sit on Iraq's oil? Read the papers once again - they were looking for this opportunity for years before 9/11.
4. Read about PNAC plans couple of years before 9/11 and try to make some conclusions.
5. Who's gaining from this war? Check that and you'll get some answers there.

1. it was a known possibility, not a fait accompli
2. no
3. to what benefit?
4. I have, and they arent the same as your conclusions
5. correlation != causation. Who is gaining financially from the war would be far different if competition in the defense industry hadnt been decimated by the "peace dividend". More single source contracts were awarded to Halliburton under the Clinton administration than under the Bush administration.

1. they knew it was a possibility, not a fact... it was hoped that this wouldn't happen and most agree that a larger invading force would have prevented it
2. Our wish was not to remain in Iraq forever, sry.
3. If we wanted Iraq's oil, it would have been a lot more cost effective to lift the embargo on their oil production than go to war.
4. PNAC != Bush
5. I'm guessing here that you are saying that oil companies have succeeded because of our invasion. Oil companies are doing so well because of the increase in demand for oil, not because of Iraq. Certain defense companies also benefit because of increase in demand for their product, but defense companies are in bed with just as many democrats as they are repubs, so this conspiracy is pretty weak.

LOL doublestandardaments (AGAIN), keep twisting. You don't give RP an inch over a newsletter, but you'll give these guys as much wiggle room as they ask for.

pvn- again, i refuse to accept that your this stupid. try again. If you want to defend RP, go bring up that thread. Differentiating evidenced based on strength doesn't mean I have a double standard... and you know this.

1. LOL. Don't underestimate your agencies and analysts so much.
2. Would US army leave if the elected Iraqi government asks for this?
3. Let say Russia would want to 'help' to the USA. They would conquer the country and eliminate Saddam a year before Bush did. Wouldn't that be great - no US victims, noone would be blaming Bush and the ONLY goal for the war that you are willing to accept (=removing Saddam) would be accomplished. Wouldn't that be great?
4. Please check again if you read about PNAC strategies.
5. I had something else in mind. Was this war profitable for average American? Was it profitable for the USA? Nope, it seems it was profitable for certain corporations only. You mentioned Halliburton and here is an informative picture (Source of picture: www.halliburtonwatch.org):

Its almost like the price of oil skyrocketed in that time!

LOL at thinking that Bush ever had any idea about a "foreign policy". He's been close to brain dead for the last 20 years. Years of alcoholism and drug abuse did him in long ago. He's an empty suit with a famous name that has been dressed up and trained to mouth carefully prepared slogansl. His speech slurs, and glassy-eyed stares, and strained smiles give it away. He's likely been on some heavy meds for a long time. Asking for some careful reasoning of why he invaded Iraq is like asking some donk why he went allin in with 72o. "huhl, I needed to do sumthin' and the chips were just sittin' there."

LOL strawmanaments. I'm not defending RP. I'm just pointing out that you're a big fat hypocrite.

strawman of a strawman claim? i don't really care about you defending RP, alhtough you insist on bringing it up everyday. the point is that differentiating reliability of evidence does not make me a hypocrite. i notice you ignore that part.... its telling and frankly its old and childish

The only problem is you never demonstrate any "reliability of evidence". It basically falls into "evidence I like" and "evidence I don't like".

And FWIW, a lot of the "evidence" that has been floating around on this forum isn't anything close to real evidence. A lot of it is nothing more than hearsay, innuendo, rumor (and even those who push it admit as much).

From my point of view, I've explained why I find some evidence to be more important and vice versa.

well duh, this is the internetz, its not srs biz... if you want to be like Misfire than go ahead

"My arguments suck, but thats okay cuz I'm on the internets." Nice. I'd like to think 2p2ers would be better at supporting their arguments than the average moran on the internets. Are my standards too high for you?