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...
I'm glad you feel that way. I've seen that sold here more times than I would like. That is pretty disingenious.
The President didn't do a sales job (i.e. "lie") to the American people.
I can live with that. But from what was pretty sound assurance as it was building to the liberation til now, so much has dripped out that keeps slowly undermining our position then. That's troubling. Yes, there certainly was intelligence failure. Lot's of that came from people that want to take over the country once the elections are held. Funny, but since we are going to have a hand in the candidates, and some of those candidates are the very folks who gave us the less than hard information. Funny way to reward folks for bad info. Where I work, it's called screw up and move up.
Again, your position may be right. I'm inclined to believe that while I'm glad Sadaam is gone, the reasons we used to intiate the action keep being less and less real. Troubling.
I'm glad you feel that way. I've seen that sold here more times than I would like. That is pretty disingenious.
The President didn't do a sales job (i.e. "lie") to the American people.
I can live with that. But from what was pretty sound assurance as it was building to the liberation til now, so much has dripped out that keeps slowly undermining our position then. That's troubling. Yes, there certainly was intelligence failure. Lot's of that came from people that want to take over the country once the elections are held. Funny, but since we are going to have a hand in the candidates, and some of those candidates are the very folks who gave us the less than hard information. Funny way to reward folks for bad info. Where I work, it's called screw up and move up.
Again, your position may be right. I'm inclined to believe that while I'm glad Sadaam is gone, the reasons we used to intiate the action keep being less and less real. Troubling.
Big difference between journalistic turning of one's head and political coverups. I never inferred the latter.
He is still waiting...
I'll bet that's one personnel decision he wishes he could take back.
Right on!
And the vast majority of illegals behave themselves.
Right on, again. And while I'm not quite sure blanket amnesty is the best outcome for the number of illegals here, it beats the democrats version, which would be to grant the illegals full citizenship.
The President's hands were tied; you can't deport 10 million people, it's impossible, especially with a war going on. Not to mention the ramification of involving the military in such an objective. President Bush did the best he could with what he had.
Oh, and one other thing: the illegals can outwork their American counterparts (prentending they exist) big time. Americans whose idea of work is a walk to their mailbox to get their checks. I'd like to see welfare tied to work requirements, send these fat slobs out to the fields and show 'em what a real day's work is. Good for nothing, woodchuck, swamp rat, low-lifes.
HERE: "there are some who believe that the dirt, problems, or issues of conservatives should be left alone, ignored ..."
Wrongo! I was saying that since Drudge linked to it and you believed that Drudge wanted to somehow sleaze Bush, that it appears that many would prefer that those who are conservative just keep quiet about it. A coverup takes active participation to hide events. I was referring to many here believe that the conservative leaning media should be ignoring what may be dirt or problems within the administration.
And yes, you are right. It may be in fact be his processing his observations which could be influenced by how he filters what he observes. I'll give you that. BUT, what he may be now claiming may be actually what happened.
You see, sometimes certain witnesses at those accidents you referred to do see and remember pretty closely the events that happened. Are you concluding for certain that there is no way O'Neill is doing that?
I've got Miss Marple saying that it wasn't.
I've got Cyber Ant saying that I'm suggesting cover up when I'm only suggesting that many conservatives believe the conservative media should ignore or downplay something that makes the administration look bad.
I've got Limbaugh ranting for a week about the immigration position of the White House only to conclude that it's now called Leadership.
And I thought the Clinton's had a spin machine.
Which examples come to mind?
Cyber Ant and other conservatives believe Drudge is on some sort of mission to make Bush look bad.
Seems each side has sin?
Pray for W and Our Troops
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.