Bush began planning for Iraq before 9/11

[5stringJeff]

I have yet to hear a black-helicopter refutation of the pre-existing Iraqi invasion plans. Oh well.

WW - where did you get the "LAME" smiley?? That is hilarious!!

 

[wonderwench]

Here you go, one of my favorite smiley sites.

Enjoy!

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilies/index.php

 

[Annie]

I can see that as a possibility. He claims to have many documents. I'll be curious to see what exactly gets released down the road to backup his claims.

JimmyC

There seems to be more questions now than O'Neill had answers and there are reasons many of us are now consulting non-mainstream news sources, (albeit with vetting):

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

January 12, 2004
Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:

"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 Iraq oil (CBS's promotional story also contained 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?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.
Posted by Hindrocket at 11:18 AM


http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013496.php

January 12, 2004
POWER LINE has some doubts about Paul O'Neill's honesty.

UPDATE: Daniel Drezner has a lengthy O'Neill-related post. And reader Angie Schultz asks:


I do want to know what laws O'Neill broke by giving Suskind "transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings". Is that more or less of a crime than outing a CIA agent?


Hmm. It's by a Republican, which makes it bad. But it's anti-Administration, which makes it, er, patriotic! Yeah, that's the ticket. . . .


ANOTHER UPDATE: Hmm. Angie isn't the only one wondering about O'Neill:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury has asked the U.S. inspector general's office to investigate how a possibly classified document appeared on Sunday in a televised interview of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a department spokesman said on Monday.

"It's based on the (CBS program) '60 Minutes' segment, and I'll be even more clear -- the document as shown on '60 Minutes' that said 'secret,"' Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols told reporters at a weekly briefing.


As Henry Hanks emails: "The 'Frog march Karl Rove' crowd ought to be outraged if the allegations are true..." No doubt.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at January 12, 2004 02:05 PM

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Kathianne
There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.

Somehow this wouldn't surprise me.

 

[jon_forward]

from what has been said/discussed on cnn today, O'Neill was/is not a team player and had his own agenda which he placed on a higher level the that of the administration. he said that 'what can they do to me? Im old and Im rich.' only time will tell but if there ever was a person that needed to be investagated...

 

[Annie]

Treasury wants a 'full investigation' of the papers O'Neill took:

Love the quote:

Asked if seeking the probe may look vindictive, Nichols said, "We don't view it in that way."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040112/ts_nm/bush_oneill_dc_8

Treasury Seeks Probe Into Papers Taken by O'Neill
1 hour, 58 minutes ago
By Jonathan Nicholson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury requested a probe on Monday of how a possibly secret document appeared in a televised interview of Paul O'Neill, as a book criticizing the Bush administration that uses material supplied by the ex-Treasury secretary hits the stores.

In the book about his term as Treasury chief, O'Neill, who left the job in December 2002 in a shake-up of President Bush (news - web sites)'s economic team, criticized White House policies and provided author Ron Suskind with thousands of administration documents.


O'Neill said the Bush administration had been looking for a justification to oust President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) since early 2001, long before the Sept. 11 attacks that year.


Nichols did not specify the topic of the specific document that led to the decision to ask the Inspector General's office to look into it.


"It's based on the (CBS program) '60 Minutes' segment, and I'll be even more clear -- the document as shown on '60 Minutes' that said 'secret,"' Treasury spokesman Rob Nichols told reporters at a weekly briefing.


Nichols said the probe will focus on how possibly classified information appeared on a television interview as one of O'Neill's papers.


According to a summary of the segment on CBS's web site, Suskind said one of the briefing materials O'Neill had included a paper marked "secret" that was titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq (news - web sites)."


"We're asking them to simply look into the '60 Minutes' segment and then take appropriate steps, if necessary," Nichols said. However, he said the legal threshold for asking for an inquiry was "very low."


Asked if seeking the probe may look vindictive, Nichols said, "We don't view it in that way."

 

[acludem]

Of course it's vindictive...DUH! Bush and his minions are pissed because O'Neill is talking, so they're trying to shut him up.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Of course it's vindictive...DUH! Bush and his minions are pissed because O'Neill is talking, so they're trying to shut him up.

Why shut him up? He's making an ass out of himself with no assistance from anyone else! Has he announced when he'll be releasing the documents he has in his possession to backup his claims?

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Here you go, one of my favorite smiley sites.

Enjoy!

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilies/index.php

Ironically, I was thinking about that site last night and figured I'd have to go digging for it again. Thanks!

 

[RightyRightOn]

It seems simple to me

Saddam was the most outspoken enemy of the United States for over a decade. We fought a war against him in Kuwait, and he regularily shot at our planes. It was suspected that he had sold weapons to terrorists, planned asassinations against U.S. politicians and had wmd's. Clinton himself said it and no one questioned it then.

There have been plans and scenarios for an Iraq invasion since the Gulf War. Clinton had them. Gore would have had them. GWB had them before 9/11. I'm sure any president would review those plans and possibly revise them.

I'm sure GWB had in his mind when elected that he may clean up Iraq if he had a second term. He knew that some president would have to deal with it someday. But 9/11 made it more immediate. Even if GWB had it out for Saddam because of the "family fued" thats fine with me.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

this should clear up a few things

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Posted: 10:46 PM EST (0346 GMT)



O'Neill: "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government ... doesn't do contingency planning."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."

The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.

That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."

The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)

Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.

Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.

But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.

O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.

He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.

"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."

Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.

"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.

Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.

That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.

During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.

Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.

Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."

Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.

 

[jimnyc]

O'neill is a thief!!

WASHINGTON — Documents given to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill for a book contained classified information, according to a letter his successor John Snow sent to Congress on Friday.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, said that a preliminary investigation conducted by the Treasury Department's inspector general found that sensitive information was released in the documents given to O'Neill when he left the department.

The "documents were not properly reviewed before their release," said the letter signed by Snow.

It also said, "We have identified a number of documents that contain classified information and we are taking corrective action concerning those documents."

 

[jon_forward]

this is going to get interesting and fast!!!!

 

[wonderwench]

It sure is! I'm going to make lots of popcorn.

 

[Agamemnon]

Jones. Much of what you have said is true about the government knowing there was threats long before 9/11. BUT, this government has always had acting threats against us quite simply because we are who we are. This does not mean that an administration can do much to preemptively disable every threat or the UN and the international communites would cry out hegemony and heavy handed politics. I am not supporting the administrations actions in any way, but I am saying that some times the option isn't there to do what is right all the time.

 

[Annie]

Jones. Much of what you have said is true about the government knowing there was threats long before 9/11. BUT, this government has always had acting threats against us quite simply because we are who we are. This does not mean that an administration can do much to preemptively disable every threat or the UN and the international communites would cry out hegemony and heavy handed politics. I am not supporting the administrations actions in any way, but I am saying that some times the option isn't there to do what is right all the time.

by Agamemnon

Oh, the options have been there, the US didn't want them:

Granted the US has been the target of terrorists since at least the mid 1970's. Some of us felt that Carter should have done much more than kill some SF in Iran, which may have made moot the disasters of Reagan and Bush. But alas, he settled for the corpses, Reagan took the kudos upon inaguration. (ahem, does this sound like partisanship?)

Reagan dropped the ball with Beirut big time. I always have a hard time stomaching the perjoratives of his being such a hardliner after that. We turned tail and ran, galvanizing Bin Laden's belief that the US was a paper tiger. Reagan didn't want to involve the US in any kind of protracted involvement anywhere, including things that Thatcher wanted us involved in.

If he had any doubt, he could then look to the fact that the US failed to follow through in Iraq, after winning decisively, in a war they didn't want. Even after the excuse that the 'UN' coalition we didn't capitalize on the mandate of the flyovers, even when under attack.

Again, bin Laden's feelings had to be confirmed further in Somalia, when after the bodies were dragged throught the streets, the US did nothing. Then the African embassies, well a few cruise missiles didn't convince the terrorists or most US citizens that our hearts were in it. USS Cole, a direct act of war, nothing. Which brings us to 9/11, with a few pauses.

Different president, different day, different response.