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...
He may be both. Is he telling the truth?
Surely Dan Rather will have him at the election desk on election night reporting with him the results.
Whoa there partner. Remember, the Clinton adm wasn't smart enough to conger up plans that we as conservatives would support. Can't go there.
Why suddenly is the Clinton administrations plans so dead on when they were so wrong while he was in office?
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts..".. and also notice who the signers are..
Yeah, I know. I was just throwing it out there because it was the first thing that popped into my head when I read Jim Noble's post #9.
Just being a pain.
I don't think a background check is done for sour grapes potential, though.
Cheney made a mistake with this guy, obviously. People make mistakes.
And I do think if this book is the hit piece it sounds like, Mr. O'Neill will find that he has made a mistake as well.
Your points may be spot on. But what you haven't addressed is whether Nr. O'Neil's comments are correct. How many truthful whistle blowers have come forward only after a "sour grapes" incident occurred? Sour grapes can bring fabrications or stretches of the truth. Sour grapes can also shed light so the truth can be seen.
The plan was probably handed over from the Clinton Administration considering Clinton's determination that he had WMD's and we had bombed them with the British the last 2 years of his presidency, operation Desert Fox. Also, official US policy was that Regime Change was the policy when Bush Entered office IRAQ LIBERATION ACT. O'Neill is not mentioning anything about this and trying to make it look like Bush cooked this whole thing up.
Thank you
Incidentally, I think what's going on here is that O'Neill's flop as Treasury secretary has made it back to the country club. He has been getting ribbed in in the locker room and is now all pissy about it.
See Caddyshack for details.
- O'Neill found he had differences with administration policy and began voicing them.
- An honorable man would have resigned, or not taken the job in the first place. Bush's policies weren't a secret.
- An honorable man wouldn't wait a year and begin attacking the administration that gave him a chance to serve (but heading into the elections might be good for book sales).
- He was hired because he was a Cheney bud. In fact, Cheney insisted on it. Those need to be looked at more carefully.
The speech impediment isn't the main problem; the man says stupid, out-of-place things and leads with his ego. Now he's mad because he's not the center of attention. After this book, he can retire to the obscurity he so richly deserves. Unless he's prosecuted for publishing classified information, which maybe he should be.
Is it backstabbing and disloyality IF it is factual?
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.