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...
Good point. Those who argue on the 'illegality' of the war in Iraq conveniently forget the numerous legal justifications in international and US law.
Saddam was dead to rights on UN Res 1441 and many others, on attacking planes in the no-fly zone, on trying to whack a US president, on violating the UN sanctions.
France, Germany and Russia played the role of the corrupt police bureaucrats (or Senate Democrats during impeachment) who just refused to go after their buddy despite overwhelming evidence of guilt on many levels.
"Haven't we the Democrats already given money to gouged rich people ?" Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone disgruntled yokel named P. O'Neill at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to stop gouging the middle [too]?"
What's so odd about asking if tax cuts are properly targeted? I would hope to hell SOMEONE would ask this question, at some point. In the end, they went to both.
Wait a second, the left told me for months that there was no post-Iraq plan.
Isn't that something?
I wonder how the press determines when to quit pushing one leftist claim and start pushing a contradictory leftist claim?
They probably just trust the DNC to know.
Found this article on Suskind:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/suskind.cnna/
Hes making a career of this angle. Hope he enjoys his share of the Bush tax cuts.
Price of loyalty my arse.
O'Neil is either senile or hopelessly ignorant.
A willing dupe also comes to mind.
Example: The US had plans to sending airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi in reaction to the OPEC oil crisis in 1973. As history shows, these plans were never realized - Source
That's why I said that list went all the way down to the Vatican - home of the world's smallest country and posessing the world's smallest military - the Swiss Guard.
The whole idea of "targeted tax cuts" was cooked up by Clinton's political team. It was a tactic to paint Reaganomics as favoring the rich while still appearing to favor tax cuts. Clinton was smart enough to realize that "tax & spend", the real Democrat policy, would not sell unless dishonestly packaged.
See post #71 and don't be such a curmudgeon when you haven't read the entire thread.
David Frum or Richard Perle said yesterday they believe there may have been an agreement that Israel would seriously seek peace with the Palistinians if the US removed Saddam.
All previous Mid-East solutions have failed, but now the landscape has changed. I predict W's legacy will be what he accomplishes in the Mid-East, and it will be HUGH !
You don't say! I'd have never guessed that we'd be looking to remove Saddam Hussein after his numerous "middle finger" gestures to the 15 (at that point in time) United Nation's Security Council resolutions.
...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?"...
I can just see Amazon offering this book packaged with a pair of rubber galoshes.
Of course Stahl, being the moron that she is, never even thought to ask this question of O'Neill. I think Freepers should be conducting these interviews.
Seriesly hugh. I see lots of promise for peace in the middle east. Of course if peace does come, there will be 1200 professors who come to a consensus that it was the ground work laid (no pun intended) by Clinton that lead to the peace.
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.