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
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. He's already said that his remarks about Iraq were taken out of context by the author of that book, and that there was nothing unusual or nefarious about the Iraq discussions; they were just picking up where Clinton left off which is exactly what they were supposed to be doing at that time; pre-9-11, Iraq was a major hot spot at the top of everyone's 'what if' list.
Renee
<>
You've inadvertently hit upon the entire point of O'Neill's book....that the Bush administration is not set up to hear ANY opposing viewpoints. None at all. Even from cabinet members. O'Neill talks alot about the need for "honest brokers" and "good process" which he saw sorely lacking from the administration. He says, "When you have people with a strong ideological position, and you only hear from one side, you can pretty much predict the outcome." He talks about NSC and cabinet meetings which were tightly scripted so as not to allow for an exchange of ideas, asking of questions, hashing out of different views.
The book describes a cabinet meeting:
"Everybody played their parts: literally. For this President, cabinet meetings and the many midsize to large meetings he attended were carefully scripted. Before most meetings, a cabinet secretary's chief of staff would receive a note from someone on the senior staff in the White House. The note instructed the cabinet secretary when he was supposed to speak, about what, and how long. When O'Neill had received his first such note, he was amazed. The idea of a cabinet meeting or any significant meeting between the President and his seniormost officials being scripted seemed to kill off the whole purpose of bringing people together. He had been in many White Houses. He had never heard of such a thing." (p. 147)
In that last part he's talking about a meeting to discuss the energy task force, but all meetings were held this way. About a meeting regarding regime change in Iraq attended by just the President, O'Neill, Powell and Rumsfeld, Suskind writes:
"This was the tone as the President went around the table this afternoon and asked key principles their views about the best course in Iraq. The State Department had, by now, produced dozens of reports about the situation in Iraq. Defense had done the same, examining military options and how to secure the country after a coup or an invasion. Treasury was attempting to seal off the borders to transactions --all but impossible -- by pressuring banks in Jordan and Syria to avoid doing business with Saddam. Each cabinet member spoke in order and on a subject that had been designated in advance. At one point, Bush asked Rumsfeld to comment on something Powell had just said, but that was the extent of the interaction." (p. 160)
<>
Did he say the author took his remarks out of context, or the media did? The author, Ron Suskind, gave O'Neill a copy to fact check before it went to print, so if he's suddenly got a problem with anything, he shouldn't. I think the media, however, is taking much of this out of context. The book is not an indictment of the Iraq war so much as it's an indictment of the way the Bush White House is run entirely on politics, always careful to please it's "base" with no free discussion of ideas.
<< Why doesn't it surprise me that the Shrub planned to invade Iraq before 9/11.
He didn't. He continued on the planning that the Clinton Administration had in place for dealing with Iraq, which was a continuation of the plans that the GHW Bush Administration had in place. Even Clinton aides are stating that what O'Neil cited in his 60 minutes interview is nothing new. Clinton had several military plans in place for entering Iraq, and other places, and Bush is just updating each of these plans. O'Neil later stated this same fact in a newspaper interview. O'Neil said that his comments on 60 minutes were taken out of context and that Bush did not enter the White House planning on invading Iraq, but made sure that all of the military contigencies were up to date.
<< Where's Osama Bin Ladin
Ask Bill Clinton. He was offered bin Laden 4 times on a silver platter by the Sudanese Gov't but rejected the deal, even though in his exit interview with Bush he noted that he felt bin Laden was one of the highest threats to America. (Then why didnt he do anything about it when he had the chance????) Also, if he is hiding in a similar situation that Hussein was, then it makes it that much more difficult to locate him.
<< Where are all those "jobs" that The Shrub's tax cut has created for the American people?
They apparently are not being created in the manufacturing sector (which is unfortunate), where the only way American companies can compete with foreign companies is to export the jobs to keep their costs down (which is also unfortunate). Europe is doing the same thing, as is China. You can also thank NAFTA for this as the automotive industry has lost over 300,000. jobs to overseas companies do to this as well.
If it were not for the tax cut, we would be in serious trouble right now as the economy would still be in a recession. Consumer confidence is up, new housing starts are up, homeownership is up, inflation is low.....please tell me what is bad about these things?
<< My state is still losing jobs!
May I presume that most of the jobs being lost in your state are in the manufacturing sector?
The jobs market in my region is also seeing a loss of manufacturing jobs, but an increase in jobs in the health care sector as well as the technology sector (to a lesser degree).
<>
Please read the book instead of media reporting on the book so that you will know the facts. The media is mangling this in such a way that statements which seem to be at odds really aren't.
You are correct in saying (as O'Neill emphasized after the book was released) that Bush did not enter the White House planning specifically to invade Iraq with U.S. ground forces. The media is way overstating that case, to the point that they're making false statements.
But your first statement is not true at all - GWB's approach to Iraq was far different from Clinton's or GHW Bush's approach, and that is what O'Neill, and now other administration officials coming forth in the press, was reacting to. In the very first NSC meeting of the Bush administration the entire playing board for the Middle East was altered. Negotiating a peace between Israel and Palestine had been the central tenent of ME policy for decades. Bush informed his advisors that the US would completely disengage from that process. At the same meeting (day 14 I think?) Iraq was moved to the center of the ME process and became the focus. Yes regime change had been the policy since Clinton, but it had never been advanced completely to the front burner with the heat turned up, so to speak, and it had never been given the importance which Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney put on it - a democratic Iraq would be the start of a whole new Middle East. And this major foreign policy change WAS done in the first few days. O'Neill also reports that it seemed to be a surprise to Colin Powell and many others in the room. His charges are that there was an "in" group who dicated policy (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Hughes) and an "out" group who were there for windowdressing (O'Neill, Powell and Whitman) and who were stonewalled, end-runned and embarassed into either accepting their weakend role or leaving. Not exactly the free exchange of ideas which a democracy should embrace.
I think the media's handling of this book just proves that we're incapable of having a serious conversation in the U.S.
Actually, there are more jobs today than there were when Bush took office. The unemployment is due to a larger job pool, not a loss of jobs.
Renee
What some of my contacts are saying is that O'Neil was "pushed" the Bush Administration for "putting his foot in his mouth once too often" as my colleague put it. He said that in a way, O'Neil does have a small axe to grind, but not in the way that the media is blowing the story out of context.
My colleague said that much of what O'Neil reports is fairly accurate, but the context in which it is stated may not be correct.
He did note that Bush did make a note to his staff that Iraq was a situation to be monitored closely, and really came to the forefront after 9/11.
Prior to 9/11, the Administration was dealing with Iraq much in the same manner as Clinton had done for the previous 8 years, but with a very cautious eye towards the region. The reason Iraq was the prime area of interest was the past history with that country making trouble in the region.
With regards to Israel / Palestine, my contact said that this Administration did not wish to have the same fate as Clinton (who looked very bad after trying to force the peace between Barak and Arafat), so they chose to take a lesser role. With regards to this situation, I don't know who is right here. This is just too complex to begin to figure out how to fix.
I'm sure he was. Suskind even recounts some famous, near disasterous gaffes in the book. But that doesn't mean O'Neill's very astute, first hand diagnosis of what is very wrong with the Bush administration is not correct. READ THE BOOK!
I still say a major shift in policy occured - disengage from Israeli / Palestinian conflict and turn up the heat on Iraq. Very different from Clinton. They were looking to reshape the whole ME. It's news.
Bush had no intention of reshaping the ME let alone nation building until 9-11. There is no evidence of it anywhere.
ONeill backpedals:
"People are trying to say that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be a regime change in Iraq."
Renee
Odd how he's so very astute about the administration now, but wasn't astute enough to leave quietly when he was asked to instead of getting himself fired.
He also wasn't very astute when he refused to sell off his $100 million worth of Alcoa stock until he damaged his image and was forced to because of concerns there was a conflict of interest, or when he ran off at the mouth and sent the Brazilian economy into the toilet.
He also displayed very little astuteness in the way he performed his job or the way he involved himself in areas that didn't concern him such as sending unsolisotied memos to the president about how he should conduct himself on Earth Day.
Bob Woodward strikes me as being a much more astute observer of the administration, and while he is no fan of the president, I think he was able to present a more unbiased account in his book than O'Neill can since he personally dislikes the president and has an ax to grind.
Renee
I find that really hard to believe since all the other accounts I've seen (both positive and negative) about how the administration opperates are contrary to this one, and what O'Neill describes is not how Bush operated when he was governor or when he ran the Tx Rangers.
Also, stuff like this raises serious questions about the books validity:
Paul O'Neill's Lies About Iraq
By John H. Hinderaker
PowerLineBlog.com | January 13, 2004
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?
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11722
Renee
Pages