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.

[doug from upland]

I sent it to John Fund (I hope I had the right email), Larry Elder, Al Rantel, Joe Crummy, and Laura Ingraham.

[JimSEA]

Reverse engineering bump. Paul O'Neill will do very well under a supposed Clark / Clinton administration. He perhaps sees himself as an honored elder statesman in the mold of John Dean?

[mystery-ak]

This isn't ging away anytime soon...I would also like to know who O'Neill shopped this book to?

[ontos-on]

Technically, the rats say there was no plan for the post war occupation. They don't, to my knowledge that there was no war plan. Though, of course, they were quick to yell the sky was falling one week into the war. My chief complaint is they don't really try very hard.

[deport]

Don't put too much faith in what you read about O'Neill and his assertions.... A lot of this is spin by Suskind who wrote a lot of the stuff after conferring with O'Neill. Or that's what I've read somewhere on FR today... Many disenchanted dismissed people carry some sort of anamosity toward their former employer.

[cibco]

John Fund was on Drudge talking about this O'Neill Bravo Sierra...

[mystery-ak]

Chris Matthews....

[mystery-ak]

...what did Fund say?

[lasereye]

Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11.

Even if this was true, (which this document obviously doesn't prove), what would that mean? The justification given by Bush for going into Iraq was

1. WMD's and their violation of UN resolutions requiring them to disarm.
2. Their links to terrorism, which are undeniable.

Since those were true before 9/11, why is it a scandal that Bush was planning an invasion before 9/11?

[adam_az]

In 1998 the "Iraqi Liberation Act" passed the Senate unanimously and with only 38 Noes in the House.

Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct 31 1998.

Overthrowing Saddam has been official, overt US policy since that day.

[Waco]

Daficits don't matter, the RATS said this for years. So what's the bitching for now?

[cibco]

"...what did Fund say?"

Check the Drudge Radio thread. Basically, O'Neil is blowing smoke. His position is full of holes and the only traction he will get is because of the willing participation of the lefty media... ABC<NBC<CBS<NPR<CNN.

[Lady In Blue]

I won't/ What's bothreing me about all of this is how did the author/O'Neill get access to these documents? I read a thread earlier in which Bill Kristol said that when he was in the White House, there were no transcripts.People made notes but that was it. I'm glad to read that the people at Treasury said that they did not give O'Neill any documents.The report(Wash Post)also said that the administration will call for an investigation of this.

[prairiebreeze]

why is it a scandal that Bush was planning an invasion before 9/11?

Because it feeds the "it-was-all-about-oil Bush's Unjust War", and "GW's Revenge" mentalities.

Prairie

[ontos-on]

"Chrissy" is no doubt that a--h---- Christopher Matthews. Talk about a guy who is really odd and peculiar!!! He has guests to be foils. He asks a question, then routinely interrupts 4 seconds later to answer his own question. He gives irish catholics a bad name. I hate it when he includes my ethnic origins in his smarmy knowitallism.

[adam_az]

Brit Hume is up there with James Taranto (WSJ Opinionjournal Best of the Web guy) as the most insightful news commentators. Then again, Brit quotes Taranto often. :)

[smokeyb]

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.

My thoughts exactly !!!

[sultan88]

Good post bump!

[smokeyb]

What's bothreing me about all of this is how did the author/O'Neill get access to these documents?

Probably the same way Clintons got the FBI files.

[SupplySider]

Another bump and a thought: why do the Bushes insist on picking corporate cronies for Treasury? We need a Steve Forbes.