FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL ONEILL SAYS INVASION OF IRAQ WAS PLANNED IN THE FIRST DAYS...

Drudge ^ | 1/10/04 | Drudge

[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...

[Theodore R.]

Really, wasn't O'Neill the most ineffective and least noticed of all the Cabinet?. It was like he was never even there.

[arasina]

Solder, Lead Sheet, Fabricated Products, Pure Tin Foil, Pure Lead Foil, Foil for Batteries, Tin and Lead Foil, Tin, Lead and Antimonial Foil, Calcium Lead Foil, Calcium Tin and Lead Foil, Solder Foil.

[kitkat]

***This guy has a massive chip on his shoulder, and something shoved up something else too.***

O'Neill is the Presidential Cabinet version of the postal worker who gets fired and then goes in and shoots the place up.

In other words, O'Neill went POSTAL over being fired.

[Stars&StripesNE]

This may be a stupid question, but would the Secretary of the Treasury be privy to policy meetings regarding National Security? That would be like the Physical Education Teacher attending a meeting on World History with the history teacher.

[Reo]

"Is he arrogant, or just plain stupid?"

Where's the box marked "All of the Above"?

[cory]

"Weenie on the left". . . please. You have no clue who you are talking to.

If the only recourse you have is "then why don't we put Saddam back in power" then it's obivous that you have no argument.

Regardless, the facts speak for themselves. We were lied to by our administration to go to war.

[meatloaf]

O'Neill has an excellent record as a businesman. As Secretary of the Treasury he also went on record as being in favor of looking at eliminating the income tax. I was sorry to see him leave.

[sinkspur]

Regardless, the facts speak for themselves. We were lied to by our administration to go to war.

Well, most Americans disagree.

And why shouldn't I believe you're a liberal? You signed up five years ago, and haven't posted anything but this tripe since.

[Peach]

Currently reading Saddam - King of Terror. I'd forgotten that Iraq went on it's highest state of alert ever since the Gulf War with its military two weeks prior to 9/11 and he sent his family into his most secure bunker where Saddam himself went and didn't emerge until mid-October.

The defection of Saddam's sons-in-law (and their subsequent assassination by Saddam's hitmen when they were lured back to Iraq) has been retold in nearly all the mainstream press, but they seem to have forgotten. The men told the CIA, Britain's M16 and Rolf Ekeus, the head of UNSCOM, detailed accounts of Iraq's weapons program, including previously hidden chemical weapons plants and frnot companies helping Iraq's weapons procurement and Saddam's VX nerve agent program.

When UNSCOM was permitted back into the country, they were able to verify what the men had told them, since such specific hiding places were disclosed and Saddam was forced to update his submissions to UNSCOM, including new data on biological weapons such as anthrax and botulism, VX nerve gas and new information on Iraq's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. UNSCOM was readmitted to Iraq and Ekeus was able to incontrovertibly provide evidence of Iraq's nonconventional weapons infrastructure.

When UNSCOM inspections ended in 1998, Saddam still had not accounted for 20 tons of complex growth media, essential for the production of biological weapons such as anthrax together with 200 tons of precursor chemicals for the production of VX nerve gas.

[CurlyBill]

This is known as contingency planning. We would be remiss not to have such plans, but that is no indication of the likelihood that they would be put to use.

Great point. I'm sure we already have plans to invade North Korea, Syria, Iran, and even Cuba. It's all on paper though... but as you point out, any Administration that does not have such plans would not be doing their job!

[Peach]

You found a sleeper.

[sinkspur]

O'Neill has an excellent record as a businesman. As Secretary of the Treasury he also went on record as being in favor of looking at eliminating the income tax. I was sorry to see him leave.

He may have been an excellent businessman, but he has no business in government. He shot his mouth off at inopportune moments (remember when he drove down the market and the dollar with his "the US has no intention of supporting a strong dollar"?) and his opposition to tax cuts made him a liability to Bush.

And now, we see what kind of human being O'Neill really is with this knife in Bush's back.

[Peach]

Ditto what you said.

The White House has responded to this and said they had plans on paper only, as every administration has done, to continue the work started when Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.

[Peach]

Thanks for posting that link.

The comments of the Rats in the last 10 years regarding Iraq's WMD program deserves to be stated loudly and clearly:

Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction.....

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[joesbucks]

Well, most Americans disagree.

No most American's don't. Most American's believe that Sadam needed removed from power. They don't care why we went in or under what pretext. They would have been ok with it had Clinton went in and got Sadam during the height of Monicagate and Impeachment. they would have been ok during Waco. They would have been ok after Oklahoma City. They would have been ok and supported it after Ruby Ridge (BushI). Most people saw this as undone business. Was it right to do it? Probably. Was it justified honestly and truthfully? Not likely.

BTW, remember when we told Blix that he and his inspectors were looking in the wrong places for the WMD's and we knew where they were? Why didn't we point him in the right direction and lead him to the stash?

[sinkspur]

BTW, remember when we told Blix that he and his inspectors were looking in the wrong places for the WMD's and we knew where they were? Why didn't we point him in the right direction and lead him to the stash?

No, I don't remember that. But, like most Americans, I don't really care.

In sales, if the customer (the American people) is satisfied after the sale, it doesn't really matter why he bought the product in the first place.

[LS]

This is such BullSHIRT. Not that such plans didn't exist, but COME ONE! We have a plan RIGHT NOW that says, "Plan for the Post-War Occupation of North Korea" and another one for IRAN!

This guys is as close to a traitor as you can get. We have contingencies for almost everything, and if we don't, then the media gets all over the Bush Administration saying, "There was inadequate planning for post-war Iraq." Just nauseating.

[Lazamataz]

Wasn't he sworn to secrecy?

Lefties are above the law.

[joesbucks]

In sales, if the customer (the American people) is satisfied after the sale, it doesn't really matter why he bought the product in the first place.

That's why sales has such a bad reputation. Not that it's right, needed or just, simply chalk it up to another sale. Now that's sounds so Clintonesque.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]