Bush Said He Would 'Take Saddam Out' in May 2000

  • Bob Fertik's picture
    Bob Fertik
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Prof. Juan Cole has been one of the most thorough de-bunkers of Bush's Iraq lies for the past four years. In a new article for Salon, Cole traces Bush's decision to "take Saddam out" back as far as May 2000.

The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Juan Cole

... The British memo is only the most decisive in a long list of documents that make it inescapably clear that Bush had decided to go to war long before. Indeed, Bush had decided as early as his presidential campaign in the year 2000 that he would find a way to fight an Iraq war to unseat Saddam. I was in the studio with Arab-American journalist Osama Siblani on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" program on March 11, 2005, when Siblani reported a May 2000 encounter he had with then-candidate Bush in a hotel in Troy, Mich. "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." According to Siblani, Bush added that "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." Siblani points out that Bush at that point was privy to no classified intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs and had already made up his mind on the issue.

Cole doesn't mention this, but Bush's primitive language in May 2000 is identical to the language he used in March 2002, according to Time:

First Stop, Iraq
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda — and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
By MICHAEL ELLIOTT AND JAMES CARNEY

Mar. 31, 2003
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room....

And a few weeks later, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) explained the reason Republicans wanted to "take Saddam out."

Smith: Let's take Saddam's black gold
By Dave Levinthal
Eagle-Tribune Writer
Saturday, April 13, 2002

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The United States should no longer buy oil from Iraq, but steal it, U.S. Sen. Bob Smith, R-Wolfeboro, told hundreds of New Hampshire Republicans gathered last night at a party fund-raiser.

"Why don't we just take his oil?" Smith bellowed to the crowd during a fiery 13-minute speech, referring to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. "Why buy it? Take it!"

Of course, when Dennis Kucinich told Tim Russert on Feb 23, 2003 that oil was an important reason why we invaded Iraq, Russert freaked out.

MR. RUSSERT: Congressman, you made a very strong charge against the administration and let me show you what you said on January 19. “Why is the Administration targeting Iraq? Oil.” What do you base that on?
REP. KUCINICH: I base that on the fact that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry certainly would benefit from having the administration control Iraq, and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made to go to war against Iraq, for this nation to go to war against Iraq, oil represents the strongest incentive.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the president of the United States would risk the lives of American men and women for oil?
REP. KUCINICH: I think that to answer that question would be to put a focus on a person, and I think the policy is what we have to talk about, that this policy to go against Iraq was promulgated even before 9/11, and the day after 9/11, the secretary of Defense in a meeting of the National Security Council said we could use this moment to go after Iraq, even though there was no connection. I think that when a president commits the young men and women of this country to battle, that it should only be when there is an imminent threat to this country, and that—I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be able to control the oil interests in Iraq. I believe that.

Comments

Colin Powell admitted in

  • googa1's picture
    googa1
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Colin Powell admitted in Egypt 2/24/2001 that sanctions were keeping Saddam from producing and amassing weapons - but I've noticed that the informations has been deleted from the State Department website.

Condi Rice said that Saddam was "contained in a box" before 9/11.

Richard Clarke said that Bush was trying to blame Saddam for 9/11.

Paul O'Neil said that the minute Bush got into the White House he wanted to invade Iraq.

U.N. weapon inspectors said Saddam didn't have WMD.

The list is long but none of this matters because it is an "intelligence failure" BULLSHIT!

War does not determine who is right, war determine who is left.

Downing St Memo

  • daerius's picture
    daerius
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I don't believe that anyone quite understands the importance of the Downing St Memo! It is not just an interesting little piece of news that allows liberals to place an "I Told You So" feather in their caps. Instead it IS proof that a felony was committed by George W. Bush! Here is the section of the U.S. federal code which pertains:
• United States Code
o TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 PART I - CRIMES
 CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
-------------------
Move to impeachment. Please call/e-mail your senators. Here is where your senator's e-mail address can be found:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=CA

The only way to win is to go for the jugular!

It's not a matter of

  • golfmonkey's picture
    golfmonkey
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

It's not a matter of understanding. We do not have the power to appoint an investigator. John Conyers, who is on top of this story also does not have the power to appoint. He is in a position however, to recommend.

If this story could get traction, there is more teeth to it than you say. This is not merely a memo, but the actual minutes to a meeting which carry much more weight in court than a memo which is subject to interpretation.

Go For The Jugular

  • mamaikish's picture
    mamaikish
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

I agree.

mary ann

It was mentioned in a CNN article in 2000

  • barbs's picture
    barbs
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

Some Bush advisers, as well as Republicans in the U.S. Congress, have also openly advocated arming the Iraqi opposition in an attempt to overthrow the Iraqi leader -- a step that the Clinton administration carefully avoided.

The analysts dismissed proposals to overthrow Saddam through the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC). "There's a universal feeling in the region that support for the INC and an overt effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein borders on the ridiculous. The INC is greeted with total contempt outside the Beltway (the Washington area)," he said.
"But there are many true believers (in the Republican Party) who have never had much to do with Iraq so it would be foolish to assume it won't be tried," he added.
December 19, 2000
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/19/bush.iraq.reut/in...

Interesting article that mentions INC like the CNN article

  • barbs's picture
    barbs
    Want to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!

In this regard, the creation, arming and financing of 'ethnic militias' and death squads by U.S. forces is designed to create ethnic divisions and provoke sectarian violence among Iraqis.

These US sponsored militia groups are:
The Kurdish Peshmerga whose leaders supported the U.S. invasion and Occupation.
The Iranian-trained Badr Brigades,
The armed wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) led by Ibrahim Al-Jaaferi of the Da’wa party,
The INC militia of Ahmed Chalabi, and the INA militia of Iyad Allawi.

All these groups are involved in terrorist activities against Iraqi civilians. The latter three groups, entered Iraq on the back of U.S. tanks, without valid Iraqi citizenship papers.The Kurdish militia are the Occupation's most loyal collaborators, receiving arms and money from their masters. Together with the occupying forces, they are responsible for wide scale atrocities in Iraqi towns and villages.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505C.html