Posted on 01/10/2004 6:44:24 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do is a really huge leap," says O'Neill. O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says. In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in the book. Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth." Developing...
Of course they do. It's necessary.
Usually it's more of someone coming and saying 'Mr. President, there's a hot spot that needs our attention'. The President will likely reply 'Call State and Defense and see what our options are'.
Was Sadam a threat to peace in that region. Yes. Was he the major threat? No. The terrrorist cells in Pakistan, Afganistan and Syria are. As is the State of Iran and to a lessor degree some others. Sadam was a focal point and probably would be more likely supported by the American people because of Kuwait and our pullout there. There are a lot of people that even if Sadam had become benevolent would have supported finishing business.IMHO, this administration was all to willing to do that. As O'Neill points out, and if correct, this administration was looking for any reason to go in there. 9/11, while never officially connected and only connected through hyperbole allowed the administration to connect the dots while not connecting the dots. Thier words allowed us to infer what they didn't necessarily imply.
See Post #62 and don't quote Scripture if you don't know what you're talking about.
I wonder what our invasion plans for France look like?
1. Landing force 2 platoons.
2. Air Cover 1 Tiger Moth and and a Steerman.
3. Occupation Force (that is what the second platoon is for.
LOL
Actualy the French have some very good soldiers and pilots. It is their leadership that stinks. A very good friend of mine was only 16 years old when he was in the French Resistance. He lived on the Spanish Border and would help smuggle downed airmen out of France to Spain. More than one American and Brit owes his life to Henri. If he had been caught he would have been tortured for information and his family executed.
People don't like getting fired. This is his way of going postal.
What is amazing to me is that any other reason was considered necessary and why people don't understand the simplicity of it. What would we have done after Japan's surrender on the USS MISSOURI if they immediately and systematically continued to violate the TERMS of SURRENDER??
This quote may be fairly accurate, but doesn't have the implication O'Neill or Suskind suggests. From what I've read, it's Bush's management style -- ask the tough questions (that will surely come from critics) about policy ahead of time, and make your staff come up with answers.
Much ado about nothing, but rather something for the liberal media and a bitter old man to exercise their venom while playing right into the "stupid" image that winds up biting them on the posterior every time.
GOV. BUSH: And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart, or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being -- are being violated. There's -- we don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be, or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president.
GOV. BUSH: Well, I think -- it's hard to tell. I think that -- you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. I mean, we don't --
MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?
GOV. BUSH: Yes, and --
MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. But we don't know -- there's no inspectors now in Iraq. The coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger; we don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard to -- it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
I supported Iraq initially beacause I thought there was a direct connection between Osama and Sadam. I supported the WMD claims until Blix was told by us, yes by our government that he was looking in the wrong places. He called our bluff and said, "well if you know where they are, point me to them". We blinked and then said we couldn't because of security interests. Oh? I found that answer fishy and began to question if they did in fact WMDS were still existing at this time (yes, I know they once did as Sadam used them, I'm not in denial about that).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.