Kristol: O'Neill War Memo Came from Clinton

NewsMax ^ | 1/11/04 | Limbacher

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A controversial White House memo outlining plans for a post-war Iraq that was drafted well before the 9/11 attacks had its origins in the Clinton administration, former Bush 41 White House official Bill Kristol said Sunday.

In an interview set for broadcast Sunday night, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill tells CBS's "60 Minutes" that "from the very beginning, there was a conviction [in the Bush White House] that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

Of White House deliberations on the decision to invade Iraq, O'Neill claims, "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.'"

O'Neill's comments are bolstered by memos he supplied to author Ronald Suskind, whose new book "The Price of Loyalty" is based on his story.

But former White House official Bill Kristol, who now publishes the Weekly Standard, says that a key memo cited by the author that outlines U.S. contingency plans to topple Saddam Hussein goes back to the Clinton administration.

"[Suskind] quotes this secret memo: 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,' that apparently the Bush administration had in it's first few months," Kristol told "Fox News Sunday."

"I'm sure that was left over from the Clinton administration. Of course [the Bush White House] had a plan for post-Saddam Iraq - it's been our policy to have regime change there for three years before the Bush administration."

Kristol, who served as chief of staff for former Vice President Dan Quayle, also questioned O'Neill's recollections of Bush's comments, which Suskind claimed are based on "nearly verbatim" transcripts of White House meetings.

"I've been in White House meetings. There's no verbatim transcript of such meetings," he told "Fox News Sunday." "People take notes, obviously, for their use later on. [But] I'd like to know, I'd like to see this nearly verbatim transcript of the meeting."

[txrangerette]

Cheney was his big supporter, &
Greenspan was tight with him.

[Consort]

Why did Bush select him?

Probably because he would make a perfect fallguy if one was needed, and they felt that one was needed and he was fired, and it served their purpose. Nobody liked O'Kneel, not Wall Street, not the media....

[cake_crumb]

"O'Niell could be in some serious trouble with this book.....he can't be releasing memo's of a national security nature to a writer.."

Good point, though at least some of the old ones from the Clinton admin's buildup to bombing Baghdad were probably cleared. Dunno how many memos O'Neil gave to his writer buddy for printing though. I know he's a jerk and am a little surprised it took him this long to jump on the current Clintonista bandwagon.

Maybe he waited to long to follow the edicts of the Intelligence Comitte memo, directing the Dems to find President Bush guilty on Iraq becuae any investigating is done. Or maybe the book was already finished before the memo, and his publishers decided to wait until the public forgot about it before releasing the book with full media hoopla.

[Beck_isright]

"It appears that O'Neill, a mediocre Treasury Secretary, is an even worse liar."

You've promoted him up to mediocre? I thought he sucked from day one...

[JulieRNR21]

Should a former Cabinet member like O'Neill share 'national security information' with a ghost writer?

BTTT

[dirtboy]

I was being generous.

[ChiMark]

I hope they pin his ears back if this can be actionable.
Did'nt he meet with that rock star concerning world poverty?
loser.

[cyncooper]

Clinton tried to get to Iraq by sending Cohen and Abright on speaking tours to campuses for debate. They got shouted down by the children, and Clinton didn't have the gutts to proceed.

Wow, mabel, I remember that and watched that debacle live, but had forgotten.

So many things to keep track of with that crew of incompetents that occasionally an event slips off to the further recesses of the mind.

[cake_crumb]

"Maybe he waited to long to follow the edicts of the Intelligence Comitte memo, directing the Dems to find President Bush guilty on Iraq becuae any investigating is done"

THAT requires some correction.

Maybe he waited so long because he was following the edicts of the Intelligence Committee memo, directing the Dems to find President Bush guilty on Iraq before any investigating is done.

Need more coffee.

[Beck_isright]

LOL, you were too generous! O'Neill was one of the worst officials to ever serve in gubmint. Well, let me rephrase that: O'Neill was one of the worst officials to ever serve in gubmint that wasn't part of the Klintoon administration.

[Williams]

I would say a former TREASURY Secretary should not be dabbling in national security any more than the White House clean up staff. His revelations are not revelations, and what kind of a jerk releases a book like that when our soldiers are at war? Bush was looking for a reason - and there were many good reasons available - end of story. By the way, this idiot wasn't even there anymore when the decisions were made.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Don't all fired Cabinet Secretaries write books these days?

[TommyDale]

"Can anyone explain why O'Neill went Southside Johnny?"

Simple -- he's a fool.

[woofie]

I love it....clarification is hell for the liberals

[Hildy]

How many Clintonites wrote books that were not flattering to Clinton? So many i can't count. Did any of them EVER appear on 60 minutes? THAT I want to know.

[Zechariah11]

Expect it to drop off the major media's radar screen by the 20th when the dismal number of participants (including Dean's 3,500 imposters) in the Iowa Caucuses

If it, therefore, serves to boost Dean's chances, it is an unintended plus for the GOP.

[DrDeb]

O'Neil's behavior reminds me of that displayed by David Stockman and Donald Regan in 1986 and 1988 respectively!

I was an college undergrad at the time and remember my leftist professors positively salivating over the books written by both men(yes, it was nauseating):

DAVID STOCKMAN, "The Triumph of Politics: Why Ronald Reagan Failed"
[Stockman was the Director of the White House Office of Management & Budget during President Reagan's first term]

EXCERPT:
"Looking back, the only thing that can be said to have been innocent about the Reagan Revolution was the objective of improving upon what we inherited. The inflation-battered American economy of 1980 was no more sustainable or viable than is the deficit-burdened economy of 1986. Likewise, the bloated American welfare state budget of 1980 was not very defensible; it merited at least a strong and principled challenge.

But the Reagan Revolution’s abortive effort to rectify these inherited conditions cannot be simply exonerated as a good try that failed. The magnitude of the fiscal wreckage and the severity of the economic dangers that resulted are too great to permit such an easy verdict. In the larger scheme of democratic fact an economic reality there lies a harsher judgment. In fact, it was the basic assumptions and fiscal architecture of the Reagan Revolution itself which first introduced the folly that now envelops our economic governance.

The Reagan Revolution was radical, imprudent, and arrogant. It defied the settled consensus of professional politicians and economists on its two central assumptions. It mistakenly presumed that a handful of ideologue were right and all the politicians were wrong about what the American people wanted from government. And it erroneously assumed that the damaged, disabled, inflation- swollen US economy inherited from the Carter Administration could be instantly healed when history and most professional economist said it couldn’t be.

By the time of the White House debate of early November 1981, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the Reagan Revolution’s original political and economic assumptions were wrong by a country mile. By then the veil of the future has already parted and we were viewing reality from the other side. What we saw invalidated the whole plan—right there and then.

The ensuing years only amplified what we had already learned by the eleventh month.... We were not headed toward a brave new world, as I had thought in February. We were not headed toward a vindication of the President’s half-revolution, as Don Regan and the supply siders fatuously insisted in November. Where we were headed was toward a fiscal catastrophe."


DONALD REGAN, "For the Record"
[Regan was President Reagan's Treasury Secretary from 1981-1985. In 1985, he switched jobs with James Baker who was then the President's Chief of Staff. In 1987, he was fired (he supposedly learned of his firing when the news was broadcast on CNN)]

EXCERPT:
"In the four years that I served as Secretary of the Treasury I never saw President Reagan alone and never discussed economic philosophy or fiscal and monetary policy with him one-on-one. From first day to last at Treasury, I was flying by the seat of my pants. The President never told me what he believed or what he wanted to accomplish in the field of economics."

[Regan also used this book to reveal that Nancy Reagan used astrology to determine the President's travel schedule and speech content. NOTE: Regan blamed Nancy for his termination!]


AT LEAST THESE TWO ADVISORS WAITED UNTIL REAGAN WAS RE-ELECTED TO PUBLISH THEIR EGO-DRIVEN/REVENGE-INSPIRED TOMES [OF COURSE, THEY DID TIME THEIR BOOK RELEASES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IRAN-CONTRA CONTROVERSY!]

[woofie]

I am sending this to Matt Drudge ..If enough of us send it to him maybe he will see fit to show the other side

[kitkat]

***He was publicly fired. It is not unusual for a disgruntled fired employee to talk down about the boss who fired him.***

O'Neill got fired and went postal. Shows how much class he has.

The golden rule when being interviewed for a new job is to NOT run down the old boss since it makes you look like a trouble maker. Apparently, O'Neill is hoping for something from the liberals. Once they use him, they'll chew him up and spit him out. He's a loser.