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

Skip to comments.

INSPECTOR O'NEILL: THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WMD
Drudge Report ^ | Jan. 11, 2004 | Drudge

Posted on 01/11/2004 6:10:06 AM PST by zook

INSPECTOR O'NEILL: THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WMD Sun Jan 11 2004 08:46:45 ET

New York – Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME’s White House correspondent John Dickerson, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence." TIME’s new issue will be on newsstands Monday, Jan. 12th.

O’Neill spoke with TIME on the eve of publication of a new book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, The White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill, written by Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind which traces the former Alcoa CEO’s rise and fall through the Administration: from his return to Washington to work for his third President, whom he believed would govern from the sensible center, through O’Neill’s disillusionment, to his firing, executed in a surreal conversation with Vice President Dick Cheney, a man he once considered a fellow traveler.

In Suskind’s book, O’Neill’s assessment of Bush’s executive style is a harsh one: it is portrayed as a failure of leadership. Aides were left to play "blind man’s bluff," trying to divine Bush’s views on issues like tax policy, global warming and North Korea. Sometimes, O’Neill says, they had to float an idea in the press just to scare a reaction out of him. This led to public humiliation when the President contradicted his top officials, as he did with Secretary of State Colin Powell on North Korea and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman on global warming. O’Neill came to believe that this gang of three beleaguered souls—only Powell remains—who shared a more nonideological approach were used for window dressing. We "may have been there, in large part as cover," he tells Suskind.

When the corporate scandals rocked Wall Street O’Neill and Alan Greenspan devised a plan to make CEOs accountable. Bush went with a more modest plan because "the corporate crowd," as O’Neill calls it in the book, complained loudly and Bush could not buck that constituency. "The biggest difference between then and now," O’Neill tells Suskind about his two previous tours in Washington, "is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl [Rove], Dick [Cheney], Karen [Hughes] and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics. It’s a huge distinction."

On the eve of the Iraq war, O’Neill tells Suskind that he marvels at the President’s conviction in light of what he considers paltry evidence. "With his level of experience, I would not be able to support his level of conviction." That conviction, he tells the book's author seemed to be present in the administration from the start: "From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," he tells Suskind. "And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

Developing...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: pauloneill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: Zipporah
One is left to assume that a first-year business school graduate could run Alcoa if O'Neill, a simpleton if there ever was one, ran the shop.
21 posted on 01/11/2004 6:30:48 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
O'Neill makes Clouseau look like James Bond.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
22 posted on 01/11/2004 6:33:20 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
Hans O'Neill!!
23 posted on 01/11/2004 6:35:55 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: verity
LOL!
24 posted on 01/11/2004 6:36:11 AM PST by RandallFlagg ("There are worse things than crucifixion...There are teeth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: zook
O'Neill is a self-absorbed scumbug. I am mad at Pres. Bush for ever appointing this loose cannon to anything, much less a cabinet position.
25 posted on 01/11/2004 6:36:53 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zook
Fired SecTreas writes tome; sells 40 books. Fired SecTreas pens screed; sells 40,000 books.
26 posted on 01/11/2004 6:38:13 AM PST by elli1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook

O'NEILL Spews









27 posted on 01/11/2004 6:38:30 AM PST by ThreePuttinDude (1 infected cow a panic makes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Thanks for the list of quotes!
28 posted on 01/11/2004 6:41:08 AM PST by jigsaw (God Bless Our Troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
EPF104 11/02/98
TEXT: CLINTON ON SIGNING THE "IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998"
(Backing elements advocating different future for Iraq) (920)

Washington -- President Clinton October 31 signed into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

"This Act," the President said, "makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

"Let me be clear," Clinton said, "what the U.S. objectives are:

"The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The President said that the United States "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

Clnton noted that his Administration "has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, he said, "provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well."

Following is the White House text:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities
under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.

Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

(end text)


http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF981102/epf104.htm

29 posted on 01/11/2004 6:47:37 AM PST by BigWaveBetty (Decay of the dem party is delightful, delicious and delovely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jigsaw
O'Neill's statements are like the cook commenting on tax reform. It's not in his job description to even be involved in security meetings. O'Neill seems to be having ego issues.
30 posted on 01/11/2004 6:48:21 AM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BigWaveBetty
Thanks Betty!

Ol' Bill Clinton - all hat no cattle.
31 posted on 01/11/2004 6:54:17 AM PST by Quilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: zook
"There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."

Dear Paul:

What was the response of the Administration's jingoists when you called them on their mendacious justifications for a foolhardy war? Surely a man of strength and integrity like yourself wouldn't permit himself to be a doormat in those meetings, would he?

How did President Bush convince you to withdraw your resignation? Surely a man of honor like yourself tendered his resignation rather than continue in the company of scoundrels, wouldn't he?

32 posted on 01/11/2004 7:12:24 AM PST by laredo44 (liberty is not the problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
Karl [Rove], Dick [Cheney], Karen [Hughes] and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics. It’s a huge distinction."

Well, Drudge's headline IS funny. Anyway, this line is interesting. I wouldn't have thought that Cheney would get lumped in with the political crowd. I thought the presumption was that CHeney was the fat, bloated ideological master, acting on neanderthal instinct, not on political calculation. To see him listed in the Rove-Hughes crowd is interesting.

As to some of the other complaints, I hear some of the same ones about MY boss. Anyway, I think it is easy to see why O'Neill is gone. He never fit in. Damn, didn't he argue in public against tax cuts? I mean, c'mon. You need explicit instructions from the president to know he favors tax cuts? Or maybe Mr. O'Neill's "evidence" suggests something else regarding tax cuts?

33 posted on 01/11/2004 7:15:01 AM PST by Huck (Was that offensive? I hope that wasn't offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zook
Winter 2002/3: Democrats ridicule O'Neill as an incompetent right-wing ideologue.

Winter 2003/4: Democrats praise O'Neill as an non-partisan genius.

34 posted on 01/11/2004 7:25:21 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
The final straw for Bush as far as putting up with the idiot O'Neil was his sucking (up to) Bono.

You couldn't understand a word he said anyway.
35 posted on 01/11/2004 7:29:07 AM PST by The PeteMan (Go to H*ll Dan Rather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zook
By Tuesday, the 15 minutes of fame will be past. Oneill will be part of the deritus and dust of history.

A good man without the right stuff. a corporate killer who lacks the guts to deal on the world stage.
36 posted on 01/11/2004 7:32:31 AM PST by bert (Have you offended a liberal today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Where's the Bouef? Er, WMDs?

37 posted on 01/11/2004 7:35:29 AM PST by Paul Ross (Reform Islam Now! -- Nuke Mecca!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: putupon
INSPECTOR O'NEILL

More like "Inspector Cluseau"

38 posted on 01/11/2004 7:42:31 AM PST by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
bttt
39 posted on 01/11/2004 7:44:11 AM PST by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Quilla
Quilla

Tee-rific! You post should be printed in every newspaper on Earth; shown and read on tv and radio.

40 posted on 01/11/2004 7:45:34 AM PST by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 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