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...
IF THE CUSTOMER IS HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY BOUGHT, IT'S RIGHT!!
You think the American people were snookered; they think Saddam out of power, by whatever means or reason necessary, was a very good thing.
The whole thing sounds fake, but this above quote attributed to President Bush nails it for the steaming pile of B.S. that it is.
It has become apparent, especially in the last few days, that the "press" is going to resort to outright lies during this election season. They'll be exposed as we go along.
I believe that would be VP Dick Cheney, but hey, we're all entitled to one mistake. O'Neil is gone and that's what counts. If he feels compelled to trash the President, have at it. Most American's don't know who Paul O'Neil is and they don't care what he has to say either.
Very sad to behold.
That was my thought, too. Combine that with their plan to address al Qaeda as well, and they seem to have attempted to do more in a scant few months to protect this country than the previous administration did in eight years.
On the back of his shirt;
He'll be getting Strange New Respect big time. He was portrayed as a bumbling fool by the press while in office, now he will be a truth-telling Lion. Some photographer will be groveling on the ground to take a picture of him looking up as he strikes a Jolly Green Giant pose, gazing wistfully off to the horizon. That photograph will be on the cover of Time, or the Style section of the Washington Post.
Dubya could have easily justified the attack, by truthfully stating that the administration had determined early on, that Iraq was a threat to Middle East stability, US security and its own people; that plans had already been laid for the invasion prior to the WTC and Pentagon attacks; and that the war on terrorism was only a further complicating factor. Instead, he unnecessarily lied, denying that such plans existed and used only the war on terrorism, as an excuse, because he was afraid that telling the truth might be misinterpreted by some voters. The point is that there was no need to lie, to justify the attack. The truth was good enough.
In other words, Dubya was more concerned with his own political welfare, than the truth.
That seems to be one of the hallmarks of his administration. Unfortunately, another more significant hallmark is that Dubya is more concerned with his own political welfare, that with the integrity of the Constitution.
I wonder how much more it's going to take for conservatives to wake up and realize that we have elected RINO, whose only interest is consolidating his own political power.
Yeah, sure does. It sounds like tailor-made "proof" for every angry Leftist/Dem rant about this President.
Stay Safe !
Not close at all. If my memory serves, O'Neill and Bush did not know each other before the former was tapped to be energy secretary. He was recommended by VP Cheney, who headed the transition team.
We all have to remember that, due to the Florida fiasco, the normal transition period was cut in half. The new administration was facing as much as two years before it could get all of its appointees below secretary level vetted and confirmed. Remember how the Dems were promising to be obstructionist at every turn? And remember how quickly the Jeffords betrayal began to surface shortly after the inauguration?
So, during the abbreviated transition, the incoming Bush Administration rushed to at least get its cabinet secretaries named. I suspect O'Neill was not vetted as well as he might have been during a normal transition. He always seemed to be the round peg in a square hole right from the outset.
BTW, if it is true that O'Neill (and others) gave secret documents to the co-author of this book, anyone want to bet there won't be any leak investigation? In fact, when can anyone remember a leak investigation such as the one stirred up by the Wilson-Plame affair?! The coin of the realm in Washington is leaks.
Correct.
I don't think the sovereignty of the People of the United States is of very much importance to Mr. O'Neill.
Who knows how many other traitors are still in our government.
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.