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 thing he was fired. He's not playing with a full deck.
Only if indeed he was thinking about it.
I am in total agreement. If they are simply O'Neill's opinion or if they are fabrications, then his comments are out of line.
However, if they are true, possibly even despite the some denials or maybe some crafty wordsmithing that sounds like denial, then they are indeed a problem. Maybe O'Neill should submit to a polygraph if asked. I doubt administration officials or spokesperson would and it will be likely doubtful if O'Neill will be asked. Frankly, he should.
What I'm saying is that Drudge doesn't care if they're truthful. All he cares is that somebody is dissing Bush. During the campaign in 2000 .. Drudge did this all the time.
Drudge seems to scour the web for headlines that will draw attention to his website. This story was carried by many major sites and he simply linked and provided the headline to attract attention.
I will give him credit. While he is clearly more consevative than liberal, he will dish the muckracking on a 60-40 basis. (60% conservative favorable).
I believe there are some who believe that the dirt, problems, or issues of conservatives should be left alone, ignored and in no way promoted if the reporting organization is right leaning.
Integrity demands that news should be reported no matter who it may promote or damage.
The President didn't do a sales job (i.e. "lie") to the American people.
If you think differently, go ahead, but I do not agree.
Exactly right.
The U.S has the unilateral right to defend itself.
Saddam was found to have anthrax and other WMD by the UN. Saddam was told to destroy these weapons and to prove that he was doing so. Saddam never showed us the proof of the destruction of these weapons. Saddam got what he deserved.
O'Neill represents everything that I can't stand about certains segments of the human race. He s*cks.
"...you are the one who claimed "Bush lied". It's up to you to back up your absurd lie..."
Dubya swore to protect and defend the Constitution. That was not just an idle campaign statement. He took an oath. Since then he has ignored the 6th Amendment rights of at least 2 US citizens, by unilaterally imprisoning them without trial or access to an attorney and ignored the court, when it was ruled that the administration had to give one of those citizens access to an attorney, signed the (ANTI)Patriot Act, which seriously subverts the 4th Amendment, has encouraged Congress to support the European Cybercrimes Treaty, that would represent an extremely serious assault on the 1st Amendment and has done almost as much damage to the 10th Amendment as did klinton and the list goes on. Now we have O'Neill telling us that, contrary to Dubya's claims, Dubya was trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq, long before the WTC and Pentagon attacks.
I'm not saying that O'Neill is telling the truth. But, considering the above, I am much more inclined to believe him, than a person like Dubya, who has so blatantly disregarded an oath to the people, on so many occasions.
Considering Dubya's track record, this appears to be just one more example of Dubya's duplicity. It's time for conservatives to elect a real trustworthy conservative to the Presidency. The one we have certainly isn't cutting it.
O'Neil, fired, is just crying sour grapes. Wait'll he sees that no one is listening to him, except the Democrat Operatives in the press.
Exactly. Plans and contingencies are exactly that. Kennedy's cabinet discussed an invation of Cuba. Truman's cabinet discussed a strike on the Soviet Union in the days leading up to the Berlin air lift. LBJ's cabinet discussed whether an invasion of North Vietnam would widen the war. Nixon's cabinet discussed whether China would intervene if U.S. toops went into Cambodia. Reagan's cabinet talked about a number of pre-emptive strikes. Grenada was one such result. Panama was such a result under Papa Bush. Heck, even Clinton's cabinet discussed which targets to bomb when impeachment needed to be pushed off the front pages.
Bush's cabinet would be idiots if they didn't discuss plans and contingencies for conflicts with the enemies of our nation. If Paul O'Neill needs to peddle a book, he needs to come up with something more revealing than this tripe.
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.