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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush comes to office without a wealth of trial-and-error experience in governing.

That part?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Treasonous behavior is not new in the DemocRAT party. It has been a consistent strain in it from its beginning in 1790 or so. Jefferson's activities as Sec. of State under Washington were certainly right on the borderline if not over it. His working with the Frence terrorists of that day was as repulsive an act as ever taken by a high government official in the United States.

Some of his followers to the West openly admitted that should a war between France and the US erupt they would be inclined to fight for the French revolutionairies.

Of course, the "Civil" War was nothing short of a RAT revolt against the constitution and Union. Everyone who took up arms against the United States was a Democrat and the party was the home of Copperhead treachery in the North throughout the War ever ready to allow the Union to be destroyed and give in to the South.

And we cannot ignore the protection given the Communists who infiltrated the federal government prior to and during WWII.
DemocRAT denial and sabotage of Senator McCarthy's crusade are the true evil of "McCarthyism."

We have only begun to see the true costs of RAT treachery from 1992-2000, the needless sacrifice of thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the improvement of potential enemies' military capabilities.

My view is that the DemocRAT party is a 210+ conspiracy against the essence of the American ideal interrupted by precious few leaders of foresight, virtue and morals.

I agree wrt to the military being a source of hope amidst the clouds of pessimism to which I confess guilt. All those who attack the public school system must explain the existence of these magnificent Americans who almost entirely come from those very schools.

Presumptive and snide comments are part of my stock in trade but are not meant personnally but merely to provoke debate and ridicule such ideas as I considered ridiculable. One of those is a mythologized ideal past which ignores the actual realities of those days which were abominable in many respects. Sorry if I incorrectly imputed such a view to you.

[satchmodog9]

read later