Mylroie: Big Error by O'Neill Author on 60 Minutes

Iraq News News Letter - sam11@erols.com | 1-11-04 | Laurie Mylroie

[Matchett-PI]

In his appearance this evening on "60 Minutes," Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts." He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraqi oil (CBS's promotional story also contains that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml

But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)

And what are we to make of O'Neill's bigger claims, including that the Iraq war was planned from the first days of the Bush administration (cited by Wesley Clark today to buttress his assertion that there was no need for the war, it was all political)?

In late 2000 and early 2001, the Iraqi regime was trying increasingly hard to shoot down US planes enforcing the no-fly zones. That may well have opened up discussion about overthrowing Saddam in January and February 2001, as Suskind claims, but "Iraq News," which followed the issue very closely at the time, doubts very much that any decision was made to do so then. Perhaps tellingly, Suskind doesn't claim that those discussions continued beyond February.

Finally, O'Neill's statement to Time magazine, "I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," is bizarre. From 1995 on, UNSCOM reported that Iraq retained major elements of its proscribed weapons programs. That was the consensual view within the US intelligence community on the eve of the war, as well as every other country engaged in the issue.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Ive always suspected he wasnt very bright and and a criminal like most politicians.Now that the truth is coming out Im disappointed but not surprised.After reading the posts on this board its difficult to understand how so many people can be so willingly ignorant.

Uh huh. Welcome to FR.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Relax, you won't feel a thing.

[prairiebreeze]

Heh!

[kayak]

That was certainly quick. You must have had your Wheaties this morning .... :-)

Oh, btw, THANKS!

[Matchett-PI]

"I have never trusted Bush even though I voted for him.Ive always suspected he wasnt very bright and and a criminal like most politicians.Now that the truth is coming out Im disappointed but not surprised.After reading the posts on this board its difficult to understand how so many people can be so willingly ignorant."

Welcome to Free Republic. Doing cut and pastes from DemocRAT Underground, and other hangouts for extremists, and then posting them here will invite the wrath of the ZOT kitties.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

[prairiebreeze]

TIME ragazine's Confessions Of A White House Insider is also posted on FR if you haven't read it.

Prairie

[kayak]

pinging to spread the word ....

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

You trust O'Neil? I am disappointed. O'Neil? What a dupe! You should be in position to vote for O'Neil...you deserve each other! And for what office would you see O'Neil elected? The truth is coming out? YOU have to be kidding. It is patently obvious that you most likely do your usual posts on the DU website. Prove it (the voting for him!).

[prairiebreeze]

Dang. I think you are probably right on target. Ping to post 92

Prairie

[Mo1]

BINGO ... you nailed it

[aculeus]

This should be in breaking news. Keep it bumped!!!

Done!

[Robert A Cook PE]

The point is that the "invasion plans" (and WH discussions about invading Iraq) were NOT continued past February.

That is, whatever "invasion plans" WERE discussed, were STOPPED after Saddam stopped shooting at our aircraft in February.

So, the poast-9/11 invasion plans WERE DIFFERENT, and were based on his support of worldwide terrorism.

[mystery-ak]

You may be right, considering Kerry told Chrissy tonight after the debate that O'Neill's claims needs to be investigated.....they smell blood...

[Lady In Blue]

ping

[Arkinsaw]

.....they smell blood...

They ought to, I imagine that they are the ones who poured it into the water.

[ontos-on]

NEWS FLASH!!! If O'Neil was known to be #1 such a disloyal character; and #2 on his way out the door because Bush was going ot get rid of him in Dec 2002---4 months before the Iraq war BTW, why would anyone assume that PO'N would be told anything hush hush??

To get an angle for this book they really had to reverse engineer what they could say negative about Bush--due to the fact that he was history 4 months b4 the war.

[Arkinsaw]

Oh, and did you notice that Clark is out saying that the book "vindicates" his wild statements earlier? They may smell blood, but I smell Clinton.

[smokeyb]

It frightens me that a man of this kind of judgment was in charge of our treasury.

I also frightens me that this man ran ALCOA. I'm sure he and Teresa Heinz were good buddies.

[Leonine]

"considering Kerry told Chrissy tonight after the debate that O'Neill's claims needs to be investigated" Who is Chrissy?