Skip to comments.
Mylroie: Big Error by O'Neill Author on 60 Minutes
Iraq News News Letter - sam11@erols.com
| 1-11-04
| Laurie Mylroie
Posted on 01/11/2004 6:24:22 PM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: booktour; bush; iraq; lauriemylroie; mylroie; oneill; pauloneill; priceofloyalty; suskind; waronterror; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-283 next last
To: Bigg Red
LOL!
241
posted on
01/12/2004 7:40:28 AM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: Matchett-PI
People do strange things after they are fired.
To: Matchett-PI
He never saw any evidence of WofMD?????? Why the hell would HE be shown the evidence anyway??? What would O'Neil have to do with WMD? He was $$$, not bombs! This is the rants of an old man who basically got fired from his job. It should be taken with that grain of salt. No one fired says nice things about his boss afterwards - same here with whinebag ONeil.
243
posted on
01/12/2004 8:11:28 AM PST
by
RetiredArmy
(We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American Way! Toby Keith)
To: NutCrackerBoy
We will probably be seeing similar things from Colin Powell (though not so blatant) after he leaves office and wants to differentiate himself from Bush. Colin Powell is an honorable man. The suggestion that he would pull a Paul O'Neill is ridiculous.<<
I agree that Powell would be more dignified and less in the face. However, he would get anonymous leakers and other more subtle means of doing it. He would probably not be as demeaning to Bush as O'Neil was.
To: All
The best way to deal with this horrendous attempt to destroy the public's faith in our President and his administration is to write (email) CBS news and the president/CEO of CBS. A brief explanation of this misleading tabloid like take on O'Neill's pathetic allegations is to state the facts and to bluntly state your loss of trust and faith in the CBS news organization.
CBS needs to be held accountable. Lying to the public by leaving out pertinent facts is wrong, such offensive tactics do a terrible dis-service to the American public. CBS deserves to hear from each of us. Boldly.
When the press crushes the full truth-we all lose.
To: Matchett-PI
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?)Ha! I always knew the people at CBS were illiterate.
To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
So you are saying you know nothing about American political history?
247
posted on
01/12/2004 9:11:55 AM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: sultan88
bttt.
How ya been Sultan?
248
posted on
01/12/2004 9:13:05 AM PST
by
FBD
(...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
To: Lady In Blue
Big Error by O'Neill Author on 60 Minutes ~ Bump!
249
posted on
01/12/2004 9:17:34 AM PST
by
blackie
To: kcvl
Newsweek?? I canceled my subscription nearly two years ago....an idiot could see the slant that makes null and void anything they write. The photographs were nice tho.
250
posted on
01/12/2004 9:37:50 AM PST
by
daybreakcoming
(used to be a centrist but the left keeps pushing me right)
To: mhking
PING
251
posted on
01/12/2004 9:39:11 AM PST
by
ZAKJAN
To: justshutupandtakeit
That was not what I said. It may be what you think. But since you did not ask me a question, you will not know that you are wrong. Bye.
252
posted on
01/12/2004 9:44:36 AM PST
by
Mad_Tom_Rackham
("...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")
To: hummingbird
Yes, you can request her newsletter by emailing her here:
sam11@erols.com It's free. Mention you're a FReeper -- she likes this web site. (I sent her an email last night linking her to this thread).
253
posted on
01/12/2004 9:48:41 AM PST
by
Matchett-PI
(Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
To: evad
I personally think we forgot to dot a few "I's" in that plan We were completely surprised by taking less than 6 weeks to complete the conquest of Baghdad. The plans counted on those several weeks to get stuff set up and in-theater. It also planned on coming through Turkey, thereby grinding up the idiots in the north (Sunni triangle).
254
posted on
01/12/2004 9:51:18 AM PST
by
lepton
To: Mylroie Fan
BTTT!
255
posted on
01/12/2004 9:57:56 AM PST
by
Matchett-PI
(Why do America's enemies desperately want DemocRATS back in power?)
To: lepton
It also planned on coming through Turkey, thereby grinding up the idiots in the north (Sunni triangle). Good point.
If they were decimated right now there would be far less trouble.
256
posted on
01/12/2004 10:04:52 AM PST
by
evad
(Welcome back Joe Gibbs...we've been waitin')
To: Matchett-PI
A lot of O'Neill's stuff came from the Clinton administration and was held over by the Bush administration, so his information is incorrect there ars well.
O'Neill should go back to skipping around Africa on useless AIDS tours with Bono, campaigning for tax hikes and screaming about global warming. His guy isn't a moderate Republican. He's more of a rabid socialist.
257
posted on
01/12/2004 10:24:19 AM PST
by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER
|
258
posted on
01/12/2004 10:25:48 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Join the dollar a day crowd now!)
To: lelio
Right, but I doubt he was in a position to be analyzing intelligence.
To: Matchett-PI
And another thing. The Bush administration has discussed other enemy tyrants as well, like Kim and Castro. We should be very afraid if they hadn't been.
If they HADN'T been discussing enemy regimes prior to 9/11/01, then they wouldn't have been doing their JOBS, and they COULD have been responsible for 9/11/01. I mean DUH. The leader of the free word not discussing foreign policy?? These regimes weren't dangerous BEFORE 9/11?? Then why do we need the UN at all?? What were they supposed - I said 'supposed' - to be DOING with those regimes before 9/11/01??
260
posted on
01/12/2004 10:30:34 AM PST
by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-283 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson