Mylroie: Big Error by O'Neill Author on 60 Minutes

Iraq News News Letter - sam11@erols.com | 1-11-04 | Laurie Mylroie

[Matchett-PI]

In his appearance this evening on "60 Minutes," Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts." He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraqi oil (CBS's promotional story also contains that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml

But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)

And what are we to make of O'Neill's bigger claims, including that the Iraq war was planned from the first days of the Bush administration (cited by Wesley Clark today to buttress his assertion that there was no need for the war, it was all political)?

In late 2000 and early 2001, the Iraqi regime was trying increasingly hard to shoot down US planes enforcing the no-fly zones. That may well have opened up discussion about overthrowing Saddam in January and February 2001, as Suskind claims, but "Iraq News," which followed the issue very closely at the time, doubts very much that any decision was made to do so then. Perhaps tellingly, Suskind doesn't claim that those discussions continued beyond February.

Finally, O'Neill's statement to Time magazine, "I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," is bizarre. From 1995 on, UNSCOM reported that Iraq retained major elements of its proscribed weapons programs. That was the consensual view within the US intelligence community on the eve of the war, as well as every other country engaged in the issue.

[Matchett-PI]

This commentary just arrived in my email from Laurie Myroie publisher of Iraq News newsletter.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
38	Alaska	170.00	4	42.50	79	2.15	150.00	3

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[PianoMan]

It frightens me that a man of this kind of judgment was in charge of our treasury.

[woofie]

Ya know there have been 2 wars in Iraq so post war could well refer to War #1 ...it seems like a guy named Bush was also involved ....maybe O'Neil just got his wars confused

[bcoffey]

Good find! Thanks for the post.

[marron]

I would be disappointed if it turns out that we weren't planning for war in Iraq before 9/11. We were there for a decade sitting on that guy, a decade is more than long enough.

Furthermore, he had bought off several members of the Security Council with contracts that would be useless until sanctions were eliminated, which means that sanctions were on their way out. We were faced with continuing a decade long war until either his allies on the Security Council canceled the sanctions program, or until he died and one of his thirty-something year-old sons took over.

So we were faced with either war without end, or a Saddam emerging from his box with French, German, Russian, and Chinese help at the UN. He would be untouchable at that point.

So it was plain to me that our only hope was too bring him down. I was very afraid we would cut some kind of deal that would leave him in place, or leave the UN with some control over the outcome.

[doug from upland]

Thanks for sharing this. We will pass the word. Make sure Hannity gets it. And Laura Ingraham. And Liddy. And Elder. Etc. Before talk radio, the RATS would just get away with this stuff and it would go unchallenged.

[Matchett-PI]

I agree. Brit Hume's comments about him in the last half hour of Fox News Sunday today, were very insightful.

[Cicero]

O'Neill was fired because he shot off his big mouth, repeatedly saying that the Bush tax cuts were useless. (Which not only was politically stupid and disloyal, but untrue.) He just wouldn't shut up, so they had to fire him. Now, he's obviously resentful and trying to get back at Bush.

[Matchett-PI]

You're welcome! :)

[doug from upland]

This should be in breaking news. Keep it bumped!!!

[Matchett-PI]

It isn't as if we don't have contingency plans for regime change in some more countries, too, unless they decide to stop aiding and abetting the terrorists/barbarians that threaten the security of the civilized world.

[samtheman]

And what are we to make of O'Neill's bigger claims, including that the Iraq war was planned from the first days of the Bush administration (cited by Wesley Clark today to buttress his assertion that there was no need for the war, it was all political)?

That our president understood the dynamics of terrorism even before 9/11?

[Matchett-PI]

Exactly.

[Peach]

Thanks for posting this from Laurie Mylroi.

Howlin - you may wish to use your ping list. O'Neill caught in a whopper of a lie.

[Matchett-PI]

You're welcome. This book is already dead in the water.

[Peach]

If this doesn't get much attention tonight, please consider re-posting it tomorrow. I'm sure the Admin. Moderator won't mind if you/we ask nicely!

[nj_pilot]

I agree. Brit Hume's comments about him in the last half hour of Fox News Sunday today, were very insightful. Which were?

[Honestfreedom]

This is Bush's fault for putting a guy who was opposed to his agenda in high office. We will probably be seeing similar things from Colin Powell (though not so blatant) after he leaves office and wants to differentiate himself from Bush.