Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL ONEILL SAYS INVASION OF IRAQ WAS PLANNED IN THE FIRST DAYS...
Drudge ^ | 1/10/04 | Drudge

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...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clintonhadonetoo; crybaby; invasion; iraq; iraqifreedom; oneill; pauloneill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-300 next last
To: 11th Earl of Mar
so this shows the Bush team took the Saddam threat seriously and was doing something about it earlier than we thought. that's good, not bad.

He may be both. Is he telling the truth?

61 posted on 01/10/2004 7:20:22 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Actually, a more accurate translation would be "Thou shall not commit murder."

There is a huge difference between murder and killing.
62 posted on 01/10/2004 7:20:44 AM PST by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: trustandobey
Right on! Bush was so right to get rid of this traitor to his administration. The economy has done much better since he was forced out. Maybe CBS will employ him now. They love losers.

Surely Dan Rather will have him at the election desk on election night reporting with him the results.

63 posted on 01/10/2004 7:21:13 AM PST by ClintonBeGone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
O'Neill is not mentioning anything about this and trying to make it look like Bush cooked this whole thing up.

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.

64 posted on 01/10/2004 7:22:30 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Monti Cello
that Bush's plans on Iraq were practically a seamless continuation of Clinton's policy

Why suddenly is the Clinton administrations plans so dead on when they were so wrong while he was in office?

65 posted on 01/10/2004 7:24:18 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
A vain man's revenge. That is the easiest explanation for Paul O'Neill's behavior towards President Bush. It must not be easy to believe you are the center of the universe and find out you really have a boss.
66 posted on 01/10/2004 7:26:08 AM PST by shrinkermd (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rintense
If you read the link I posted.. within the letter it states: "In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

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..

67 posted on 01/10/2004 7:26:21 AM PST by Zipporah (Write inTancredo in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Flashlight
I agree.
68 posted on 01/10/2004 7:26:50 AM PST by new cruelty ("I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." —Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pepperdog
Payback is an ugly thing. If O'Neil has decided he wants to bring Bush down, watch out.

What he does is:

(a) inflame the already angry RATS. The RATS will turn out in droves this year.

(b) make the dunderheads who have no ideology (the "moderates, the perpetually undecided, etc.) hesitate to plop down for Bush.

Especially coming from a former "insider" ( who was what fifth or sixth in the line of succession for the presidency) this could cause Bush just enough support among the dunderheads or cause enough of them to stay home that an enraged RAT base could carry this thing for the RAT candidate.

It all depends on if this is a one day/two day kind of thing or if there is continual drip drip drip of information to support O'Neil's allegations. If it's a one/two day kind of thing, it will have no effect whatsoever.

But it the Press blows this up into the major scandel of the year kind of thing, then it could have a significant effect -- especially on the dunderheads who sway elections in this country.

Combined enraged RATs with tuned out or turned off Dunderheards, with 1000 jobs in December, continuing casualties in Iraq, no WMD, and this looks like this might shape up to be at least less than a cakewalk.
69 posted on 01/10/2004 7:27:52 AM PST by rightbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I believe it is the PENTAGON that is tasked with having contingency plans for invasions, not Bill Clinton. Those plans are done regardless of who is president. Clinton's policy against Iraq was our national policy, which is why we had sanctions and no-fly zones and the like.
70 posted on 01/10/2004 7:27:52 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dpa5923; Jim Noble
There is a huge difference between murder and killing.

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.

71 posted on 01/10/2004 7:28:24 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Under penalty of law: This tag not to be removed except by the user.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Paul O'Neill was recommended by Cheney, who had known him through business dealings.

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.

72 posted on 01/10/2004 7:29:24 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I do not blame VP Cheney for this hiring blunder. I blame the people who are supposed to thoroughly check the backgrounds of candidates for sensitive, high positions. I'm sure VP Cheney, like President Bush, relies on these background checks. If they are not properly done (and properly reported), the blame lies there. A guy like O'Neill must have a history of backstabbing and disloyalty--I doubt this is his first "hit."
73 posted on 01/10/2004 7:30:27 AM PST by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
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.


74 posted on 01/10/2004 7:30:40 AM PST by hedgie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I'm no Clinton fan, but having been a lurker on this forum for about a year, and active since 97, we were told anything and everything Clinton did was misdirected. Even his dep't of state and pentagon actions.
75 posted on 01/10/2004 7:31:34 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This is his revenge...he didn't waste anytime writing this *book*...and surprise, he released it in an election year...yeah, right...this isn't revenge(saracasm).
76 posted on 01/10/2004 7:32:02 AM PST by mystery-ak (Mike...we are entering the home stretch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The firing was about a year ago. A few things to recall:

- 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.

77 posted on 01/10/2004 7:32:07 AM PST by pttttt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
A guy like O'Neill must have a history of backstabbing and disloyalty--I doubt this is his first "hit."

Is it backstabbing and disloyality IF it is factual?

78 posted on 01/10/2004 7:32:33 AM PST by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
So the Bush Adminsitration had contingency plans to invade Iraq.

And the Clinton Administration didn't?

O'Neil is a complete moron
79 posted on 01/10/2004 7:33:14 AM PST by Rome2000 (Ban "Jihad", not smoking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It's probably less about his grudge, and more about trying to sell his new book. Follow the money.
80 posted on 01/10/2004 7:34:27 AM PST by beezdotcom (I'm usually either right or wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-300 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson