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...

[JoeSchem]

The whole story sounds made up. Who would talk like that about tax cuts?

Yes, and we're going to find those WMDs any day now and the illegals will behave once they're given amnesty.

[mware]

If I am not mistaken, every president worth his salt, once they take office, makes military plans to deal with potential rouge nations.

It does not mean they act upon them but at least they have them in case something happens.

[Joe_October]

...Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?...

Who gets the money from his book? I though O'Neill was rich so it can't be him.

[Stultis]

The 'Rats and the peaceniks will try to spin this. Don't let them. Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy since 1998, as agreed and affirmed by both the Exxxecutive branch and Congress.

The real difference here is that Bush adminstration was looking at options to advance U.S. policy, instead of just reacting to events like the former adminstration.

[Joe_October]

....People make mistakes....

I thought the same thing when President Bush fired O'Neill. I thought the rats would certainly make hay from it. But, it turns out this guy was a mutt in the first order.

It was the correct thing to fire him then. And it was correct to say it was just a difference of opinions.

Now he has spoken. It is time to humilate him.

[Joe_October]

Clinton said one thing and did another. Clinton did not personally make the plans up. So, Clinton's security team would have made plans. Clinton would not have employed them (too much black mail material on him).

[PoisedWoman]

Sadly, these kind of "drive-bys" on the president are only going to happen more frequently as the election draws nearer. We've seen nothing yet.

Right. And don't forget that the Clinton book is due out this summer, just in time to give ole B-Job Clinton more air time than Bush. This was cooked up by media the day after Clinton left office, or perhaps even before. I hope the public is savvy enough to turn away from obvious attempts to manipulate them....but who knows?

[ShandaLear]

"We've had a plan for military action against Iraq for decades. Here's a news flash...we also have one for North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Cuba..."

...France, Germany, and Russia.

[faithincowboys]

I think there is a powerful cabal, headed by Soros that has gotten to O'neil. By the way, Bush wouldn't have told this jerk about plans for invading Iraq-- he's living in a freaking fantasy world and he things we're gonna buy this?

If Bush had said in the early days of the administration that he was going to invade Iraq, others at those meetings (meetings that O'neil says Bush doesn't speak at) would have already leaked it.

This guy has just destroyed whatever reputation he had left.

[Joe_October]

...Is it backstabbing and disloyality IF it is factual?...

How can blind man in a room of deaf people be factual?

[faithincowboys]

O'neil's voice should have disqualified him from service.

[sanjacjake]

He always was a ....faithful servant? Shows you what
an over-inflated opinion of his own view is...and now we
know why he was canned in first place....is blind..so
how can he see who is in the room in the first place...
and then to give an interview to Leslie (ugh) Stahl with
60 minutes....should be a real hatchet job....thanks for
giving me a chance..Mr. President----- now leave.

[Peach]

That's right. In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which called for regime change through the use of military force if necessary.

This was a continuation of that policy.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

Can you imagine, picture President Bush muttering an overheard "Haven't we given enough money to the Rich?" Now we know WHY Mr. Clinton appointee Oneil was asked to resign. He was one of the enemy within, now overtly without.

[go-ken-go]

Thats what I have been wondering, why O'Neil be in on meetings about invading Iraq?

Nobody likes disloyal people, anyway. what a jerk.

[libbytarian]

I agree.

(Excerpts from Bush's remarks after U.N. passes Iraq resolution)

"Iraq's obligation to disarm is not new, or even recent. To end the Persian Gulf War and ensure its own survival, Iraq's regime agreed to disarm in April of 1991. For over a decade, the Iraqi regime has treated its own pledge with contempt. As today's resolution states, Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands."

"The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test, a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade. The regime must allow immediate and unrestricted access to every site, every document and every person identified by inspectors."

"America will be making only one determination: Is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not? The United States has agreed to discuss any material breach with the Security Council, but without jeopardizing our freedom of action to defend our country.

If Iraq fails to fully comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein. I've already met with the head of the U.N. inspections program and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has responsibility for nuclear matters. "



Does anyone think we would have gone to war with Iraq without their breach of U.N. resolutions?

libby

[cyncooper]

why the made up case of WMD?

You have no basis for stating Iraq's possession of WMD's was "made up".

The non-existent imminent threat?

President Bush wanted to act *before* they were an imminent threat. Where did you get the erroneous idea that anybody in this administration declared them an imminent threat?

[cyncooper]

Kind of like the forged document that stated they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program?

Do you have any idea when the forged document was perused and analyzed by our guys? Your implication that that was the only bit of evidence regarding Iraq and their attempts to acquire uranium is false.

[cyncooper]

Where is the delivery system for the WMD that caused the "imminent threat"?

Making stuff up as you go along, I see.

[zook]

I'll get flamed for this, but I don't care. I'd like to see purged from FR all those who claim GWB "lied to us" and all those who argue "there was never an imminent threat."