O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
O'Neill: Iraq planning came before 9/11
Mon Jan 12, 6:28 AM ET

By Dave Moniz and Peronet Despeignes,USA TODAY

Paul O'Neill, President Bush (news - web sites)'s Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq (news - web sites) long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war.

In wide-ranging interviews with the CBS program 60 Minutes and Time magazine, O'Neill said Bush and a number of top advisers began planning to get rid of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) soon after the 2000 election. As early as January 2001, they began looking for ways to justify an invasion, O'Neill said.


"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein is a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told 60 Minutes. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime."


In the interviews, O'Neill was critical of Bush's leadership skills. He said Bush is too secretive and has saddled the economy with crippling long-term debt.


Bush fired O'Neill in December 2002 after clashing with the Treasury secretary over economic issues, including Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts. O'Neill is the principal source for a new book about the Bush administration, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.


In the book, Suskind used materials provided by O'Neill to show that Bush administration officials targeted Saddam immediately after the election. Interviewed in the Jan. 19 edition of Time, O'Neill said the White House overstated the threat posed by Iraq.


"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction. ... I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."


The Bush administration declined to comment on the substance of O'Neill's statements. Spokesman Ken Lisaius said Sunday: "The White House is not in the business of doing book reviews. This is an attempt to justify the former secretary's own opinions instead of looking at the record of results being achieved for the American people."


Suskind, also interviewed on 60 Minutes, said the Bush administration had already begun planning for an invasion of Iraq in January 2001 - eight months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington. The planning, Suskind said, involved discussions of war crimes tribunals, peacekeeping troops and questions about how to divide Iraq's oil wealth.


It is rare for top administration officials to criticize their bosses, even after leaving office. Thomas Mann, a government scholar at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank, likened the episode to criticism of President Reagan's budget process by his budget director, David Stockman, in 1981. Stockman later wrote a book detailing his criticism.


"O'Neill is a straight shooter but perhaps a little naive," Mann said. "He thought Cabinet meetings were places for serious policy discussions, and this president doesn't engage in those."


Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) said O'Neill's comments show that the administration deceived the public about its reasons for going to war in Iraq. "It would mean they were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress and the world," Kerry said.


In Suskind's book, O'Neill described the president leading Cabinet meetings "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people."


O'Neill joined the administration after a successful career in the private sector and having served as an adviser to Presidents Johnson, Nixon and Ford. He was known as a no-nonsense executive with a penchant for candor - described as refreshing by some and inept by others.


He made several remarks as Treasury secretary that proved embarrassing to the administration, including a comment that financial aid to Brazil during its last currency crisis would be a waste of taxpayer money and likely to end up in "Swiss bank accounts."

LOL, the whitehouse already trying to shut him up http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...2/pl_usatoday/oneilliraqplanningcamebefore911
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#2
FROM AOL NEWS/AP

WASHINGTON (Jan. 13) -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, embroiled in a dispute with the White House over his harsh criticism of President Bush's leadership style, denied Tuesday that classified documents were used in a new tell-all book about his two years in the administration.

Reacting to an announcement by the Treasury Department that it was launching an inspector general's investigation into how an agency document stamped ''secret'' wound up being used in his interview Sunday night on the CBS program ''60'' minutes, O'Neill said, ''The truth is, I didn't take any documents at all.''

Interviewed on NBC's ''Today'' show Tuesday, O'Neill said he had asked the Treasury Department's chief legal counsel ''to have the documents that are OK for me to have'' for use in the book entitled, ''The Price of Loyalty.''

Asked if he thought the internal Treasury probe was a get-even move by the administration, O'Neill replied, ''I don't think so. If I were secretary of the treasury and these circumstances occurred, I would have asked the inspector general to look into it.'' But O'Neill also said he thinks the questions could have been more readily answered if top Treasury officials had talked to the agency's legal counsel.

''I'm surprised that he didn't call the chief legal counsel,'' O'Neill said of his successor, Treasury Secretary John Snow.


O'Neill said a cover page for the documents might have suggested they were classified material but said that the legal counsel's office ''sent me a couple CDs, which I never opened.'' He said he gave them to former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the book's author.

''I don't think there is anything that is classified in those 19,000 documents,'' O'Neill said, predicting the Treasury investigation would show that the Treasury employees who collected the materials for him had followed the law.

O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, is quoted in the book as saying the president was focused on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq from the start of his administration.

O'Neill also said Tuesday said he did not mean to imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a regime change in Iraq but that he was surprised that it was at the top of the agenda at the first Cabinet meeting.

O'Neill in the book contends the administration's decision-making process was often chaotic and Bush Cabinet meetings made the president look ''like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.''

O'Neill told the ''Today'' show he was guilty of using some ''vivid'' language during his hundreds of hours of interviews with Suskind for the book. ''If I could take it back, I would take it back,'' he said of the blind man quote.

Asked if he plans to vote for Bush in November's presidential election, O'Neill said he ''probably'' would. ''I don't see anyone who is better prepared or more capable,'' he told NBC.

Bush made a strong defense of his Iraq policy on Monday, while some of the Democratic presidential candidates weighed in, saying Bush had misled the American public.

On the nationally broadcast interview Tuesday, O'Neill said, ''It was not my intention to be personally critical of the president of anybody else,'' but to cooperate with Suskind ''on a chronicle of 23 months'' in government.

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark said O'Neill ''confirms my worst suspicions about this administration,'' while Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said, O'Neill showed that the American people ''have been misled by this.''

All the furor has boosted interest in the book, which was going on sale Tuesday in bookstores nationwide.

In Mexico on Monday to attend a Summit of the Americas meeting, Bush offered a forceful defense of his decision to go to war against Iraq, saying, ''the decision I made is the right one for America'' and for the world.

Asked specifically whether O'Neill was correct in saying that planning for the war had begun far ahead of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said that when he had become president he had inherited a policy of ''regime change'' from former President Clinton and had decided to adopt it as his own.
 
Apr 26, 2002
774
2
0
44
#3
Isnt this they same guy who had the top secrets files on 60 mins he stole from the White House....Same shit different parties this plan was in effect when Clinton was in office right.(correct me if im wrong)..But we have plans to do things all the time to different countrys before action is taken...but he has a book coming out so i think thats why ONeil is really trin to put stuff out here
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#4
Steve-O said:
Isnt this they same guy who had the top secrets files on 60 mins he stole from the White House....Same shit different parties this plan was in effect when Clinton was in office right.(correct me if im wrong)..But we have plans to do things all the time to different countrys before action is taken...but he has a book coming out so i think thats why ONeil is really trin to put stuff out here
The man doesn't need any more $$$, he has plenty. I think it's more personal. Didn't he get let go because he disagreed with more tax cuts?
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#7
2-0-Sixx said:
Weren't you denying this until Bush just RECENTLY admitted to this?
no!!!

that plan was always in the works.

Clinton and Congress passed this bill when Clinton was president.

The plan was always there it is just that 9-11 changed things. if 9-11 wouldnt have happened we probly would have continued trying to contain him, although that wasnt working very well.

CORRECTION: that is why Bush said in his state of the union address last year that "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
 
Jul 7, 2002
3,105
0
0
#9
Mcleanhatch said:
no!!!

that plan was always in the works.

Clinton and Congress passed this bill when Clinton was president.

The plan was always there it is just that 9-11 changed things. if 9-11 wouldnt have happened we probly would have continued trying to contain him, although that wasnt working very well.

that is why Bush said in his state of the union address last year that "we must act BEFORE the threat becomes imminent" when speaking about Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO.



Mcleanhatch said:
Clinton and Congress passed this bill when Clinton was president.

The plan was always there it is just that 9-11 changed things.

talk about a twist of words, that wasn't what oneal was saying. Bush was going after Saddam.


Mcleanhatch said:
if 9-11 wouldnt have happened we probly would have continued trying to contain him, although that wasnt working very well.
oh really?! we haven't found any WMD, iraq army didn't put up a fight. nobody in the region consider him a threat. sanctions made iraq into a 3rd world country.

yea, it wasn't working, mcSTUPIDFUCKhatch.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#12
Mcleanhatch said:
Clinton and Congress passed this bill when Clinton was president.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004556
Howard Dean, Unilateralist

USA Today has unearthed a letter Howard Dean, then governor of Vermont, wrote to President Clinton in July 1995, which gives the lie to any claim that Dean's opposition to liberating Iraq was a matter of principle. " I have reluctantly concluded that the efforts of the United Nations and NATO in Bosnia are a complete failure," Dean wrote the president:

Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action.

If Dean favored unilateral action then, why does he insist now that America was wrong to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule without "permission" of the U.N.? Here's the campaign's attempt at an explanation:

The word "imminent" is key to differentiating Dean's policy from the president's decision to invade Iraq, said Jeremy Ben-Ami, policy director for Dean's campaign.

Bush "sold the war on the basis of an imminent threat to U.S. security, and that has now been shown to be false," Ben-Ami said. Since the threat from Iraq was not imminent, the administration could not properly justify the war, he said.

But this is a lie. In fact, in his 2003 State of the Union Address, the president said precisely the opposite:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

It seems unlikely that Dean was actually an admirer of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and we don't remember his raising any objections when Congress and President Clinton made "regime change" official U.S. policy in 1998. It's hard to avoid the conclusion, then, that Dean's position in favor of preserving Iraq's erstwhile dictatorship is a matter of pure partisan opportunism, no more than an attempt to smear the president, and national security be damned.
 
Apr 25, 2002
2,920
46
48
43
#14
I remember reading an article about Bush taking out Sadamm because of his pops' shortfalls in the matter back in January of 2001 in an English class in college.

Why does everyone act like this is a damn suprise?