Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11.
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 01-11-2004 - 11:31am |
>"The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes."<
CBS already has the complete discussion on their 60 Minutes site..............
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
>"O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "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."<
>"Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq.""<
>"O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.
One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.
Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue.""<
Quotes are from article at the link below..............
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html
Very interesting!


Pages
Here are some interesting outtakes & analysis from the Bush / Gore debates, in relation to their proposed foreign policies. In hindsight, it's possible to detect just the faintest hint at Bush's real stance on use of power, but it's so muted as to be have been useleses for anyone trying to pick a President. And having seen Bush in action for the last three years, some of this is just laughable (he calls for a more "humble" foreign policy, and advocates stronger ties with Europe and NATO.)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html
I saw this on NBC Nightly News last night...now I'll have to read the 60 Minutes transcripts.
What the media has failed to mention is that the NSC documents that O'Neill leaked in his book are nothing new. "The Clinton administration had many of the same documents prepared laying out plans for a Iraq post-invasion Iraq."
"We had the same stuff," says a former senior Clinton Administration aide who worked at the Pentagon. "It would have been irresponsible not to have such planning. We had all kinds of briefing material ready should the president have decided to move on Iraq. In fact, a lot of the material we had prepared was material that the previous Bush administration had left for us. It just isn't that big a deal. Or shouldn't be."
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6008
What a way to run a conspiracy--blabber about it to the world before you have the chance to implement it:
MR. LEHRER: With Saddam Hussein, you mean?
GOV. BUSH: Yes, and --
MR. LEHRER: You could get him out of there?
GOV. BUSH: I'd like to, of course, and I presume this
administration would as well.
http://www.c-span.org/campaign2000/transcript/debate_101100.asp
Bush must really be some moron. Of course, he's right about the Clinton administration wanting to get Saddam out of there:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
and
MR. CLINTON TOLD REPORTERS AFTER THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL MEETING -- THE SECOND IN AS MANY DAYS ON IRAQ -- THAT NO OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO SADDAM HUSSEIN'S LATEST MOVE WERE BEING RULED OUT.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/981102-iraq1.htm
Of course that no options thing would include invasion since Clinton made it a point to change previous Iraq policy from containment to REGIME CHANGE.
Renee
The man was apparently not well liked in the administration, as many of his colleagues have come forward to say "why should people listen to him (O'Neil) now, they didn't listen when he was Sect'y of the Treasury?"
The Democrats are going to latch on to anything they can, because as every day passes, their hopes of the White House in 2004 become less and less.
Every day the market goes up, and the jobless claims go down, so do their chances of winning the White House, and not to mention Tom Daschel retaining his seat in the Senate.
... i thought i heard this reported as the administration's response but i couldnt believe my ears - now that you're repeating it I guess its true - amazing that they could be so unprofessional and immature in their response.
I suspected that Bush was out to avenge his daddy right from the start so this is just proof positive to something we really knew all along.
"In DiIulio's words, "there is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: complete lack of a policy apparatus. Besides the tax cut, which was cut and dried during the campaign, and the education bill, which was really a Ted Kennedy bill, the administration has not done much, either in absolute terms or in comparison to previous administrations at this stage, on domestic policy. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible." The former White House director confides, "I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis ... Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking: discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera ." DiIulio goes on to tell us that "the remarkably slapdash character of the Office of Homeland Security, with the nine months of arguing that no department was needed, with the sudden, politically timed reversal in June ..."
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/DiIulio.html
You can read the whole letter at this site. You can also read it directly on the Esquire site, but they chose to display it in the smallest, greyest type ever, so please don't let the "ratical" source throw you off. Much easier on the eyes.
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2002/021202_mfe_diiulio_1.html
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2002/021202_mfe_rove.html
Ron Suskind also is the author of this new book on O'Neil.
(p.s. - sorry I never got back to you about Bush and the environment. I got sidetracked and then the topic was picked up in another thread.)
Renee
Maybe he did so poorly with his own job because he was too busing paying attention to foreign policy & defense.
Actually, this is nothing new for ONeill, he has a long history of wreaking havoc with his words. A few unapproved remarks about the Brazil economy nearly precipitated it's complete collapse.
The real news is, will he be held accountable for leaking classified information & documents? Treasury is investigating.
Renee
Pages