The ONeill Revelations Thread...

I predict that there will be much talk about this book, so setting up a thread for it does not seem unreasonable to me.

sundayherald - UK

• Former Bush aide: US plotted Iraq invasion long before 9/11
  By Neil Mackay
  
  GEORGE Bush’s former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.
  
  O’Neill’s claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to “regime change” Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.
  
  The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank – run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Bush’s younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney’s deputy – wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.
  
  The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”.
  
  The document – referred to as a blueprint for US global domination – laid plans for a Bush government “maintaining US global pre- eminence, precluding the rise of a great-power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests”. It also said fighting and winning multiple wars was a “core mission”.
  
  O’Neill was fired in December 2002 as a result of disagreements over tax cuts. He is the first major Bush administration insider to attack the President. He likened Bush at cabinet meetings to “a blind man in a room full of deaf people”, according to excerpts from a CBS interview to be shown today.
  
  “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” O’Neill said. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
  
  O’Neill and other White House insiders have given the journalist Ron Suskind documents for a new book, The Price Of Loyalty, revealing that as early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein.
  
  “There are memos,” Suskind told CBS. “One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post- Saddam Iraq’.”
  
  Another Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interests in Iraq.
  
  O’Neill is also quoted in the new book saying the President was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.
  
  “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,” said O’Neill. “The President saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
  
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O’Neill’s remarks. He said: “We appreciate his service. While we’re not in the business of doing book reviews, it appears that the world according to Mr O’Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people.”

[Brian Olewnick]

Whether they were "desperate" or not, I thought it was generally conceded that there had been plans to deal with, in one way or another, Iraq on the boards for some time now, at least going back to Bush I and including during the Clinton administration. I believe there was an article documenting all this in Harper's or the Atlantic sometime in the past year or so. That's one reason why I've always thought that, had Gore won the election, the over-all situation re: Iraq wouldn't have been much different (arguably handled better on the diplomatic front). Most administrations have far more in common with each other when it comes to foreign policy than their supporters want to admit.

Granted, Brian, but I think the O'Neill book will start a broader discussion of Bush and his regime's inner workings.

[crawjo]

I don't know how to take what O'Neill is saying. Obviously, this is payback for his being fired a while back. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if, as he was getting kicked out of the administration, he told them exactly what he was going to do. I've never liked O'Neill, if you look into his track record you can see he has been mean-spirited in the past. But, what do I know? I'm not going to read the book, but he might be telling the truth, or at least telling the truth as he sees it. Or he might be lying and distorting in order to make some money. After the way he was kicked out, it's got to feel nice for him to be on 60 minutes, trashing his former boss.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Whether they were "desperate" or not, I thought it was generally conceded that there had been plans to deal with, in one way or another, Iraq on the boards for some time now, at least going back to Bush I and including during the Clinton administration.

Yup. The official American policy since 1998 has been regime change in Iraq. War in Iraq has been the central scenario in CENTCOM's strategic thinking since the end of the first Gulf war. That's why we were in Sauid Arabia. Taking out the Saddam regime was the end and aim a long American military commitment.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Whether they were "desperate" or not, I thought it was generally conceded that there had been plans to deal with, in one way or another, Iraq on the boards for some time now, at least going back to Bush I and including during the Clinton administration. I believe there was an article documenting all this in Harper's or the Atlantic sometime in the past year or so. That's one reason why I've always thought that, had Gore won the election, the over-all situation re: Iraq wouldn't have been much different (arguably handled better on the diplomatic front). Most administrations have far more in common with each other when it comes to foreign policy than their supporters want to admit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
then posted by monte Smith
Yup. The official American policy since 1998 has been regime change in Iraq. War in Iraq has been the central scenario in CENTCOM's strategic thinking since the end of the first Gulf war. That's why we were in Sauid Arabia. Taking out the Saddam regime was the end and aim a long American military commitment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think Al Gore would have taken the road that Bush did. Plans or no plans, preemptive war is a pretty radical concept. Getting Saddam out has been an objective but just how has been the issue up until now. If the preemptive concept was all part of a long term strategy it sure has met with...how shall we say...some debate?

[crawjo]

Gore wouldn't have done what Bush did. He's moved pretty sharply to the left since the 2000 election, either showing his true colors or just reinventing himself yet again.

But let us keep in mind that the preemptive war was supported by Clinton, and by Tony Blair, among others not affiliated with the current administration.

[Brian Olewnick]

Could be and we'll never know, of course, but my guess is that Gore would've been presented with some military real-politik once in office and, especially after 9/11, would've followed a similar path. As I said earlier, he may have handled it somewhat differently on the diplomatic front (quite probably better) but all in all, I think we'd be in largely the same position as we are now. Liberal or otherwise, it's not like Democratic presidents hadn't led us into most of the major 20th century conflicts or anything.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
Gore wouldn't have done what Bush did. He's moved pretty sharply to the left since the 2000 election, either showing his true colors or just reinventing himself yet again.

You just CAN'T be serious...are you? Really?


Upon what provocation would Gore have to invade a soveriegn nation, without cause and for Daddy Bush???

WOW.
























You need to stop listening to so much Cecil Taylor, Crawjo. It is twisting your mind ;-)

[GoodSpeak]

A blind Man in a room full of Deaf People...


ENRON, bay-bee.

[BFrank]

Originally posted by crawjo
But let us keep in mind that the preemptive war was supported by Clinton, and by Tony Blair, among others not affiliated with the current administration.

I don't recall Clinton supporting a preemptive war. If you have some documentation, that would be great.

... and what "others not affiliated with the current administration" were supporting this? Spain............and who else? The Marshall Islands, maybe?

[Henry Mars]

I mean ... do we care? As if anyone has any input. There are forces at work here that regard governments as puppets and/or temporary obsticles. "The Spice MUST flow".

[Ellery Eskelin]

There's an editorial that Clinton wrote on March 18th titled "Trust Tony's judgment "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...916233,00.html
which was what, the day of the invasion? I don't know what his more recent comments have been though, anyone else? While Clinton had access to intelligence on WMD up until the end of his presidency I assume he was out of the loop afterwards regarding any updates. Given the recent Carnegie Endowment report, it seems that the intelligence was not what Bush said it was.

[Monte Smith]

"The Spice MUST flow".

Good point!

But back to real-politik, O'Neill would have seen a lot more from his desk at the Treasury than open and official planning for the Iraq contingency. He'd have seen diabolical plans to involve our allies in anti-ballistic missile defense schemes (and the budget projections for the same). He would have heard about budget options for the defense of Taiwan. He should have been asked about the financial ramifications of a possible major anti-terror campaign in Columbia. There were probably receipts crossing his desk that showed quiet, overt engagement of Pakistan before 9/11. And he might even have glimpsed a contingency to confront nuclear blackmail on the Korean peninsula or from the Iranian theocracy. As a cabinet member, if he wasn't aware of basic information that you don't have to be a Beltway insider to know (you just have to be a curious enough to follow the NYT or--at most!--read a military press release), then I'd be shocked.

Having said that, I am sure a partial glimpse of any of the perilous business that the government of the USA conducts on a daily basis in the dangerous backwaters of the world--which Olewnick rightly suggests is the province of BOTH political parties--would shock the carrot juice out of your ordinary uninterested peacenik.

[GoodSpeak]

Nice try, Monte.

[Monte Smith]

Ellery:

Clinton is on record as saying that he left the White house convinced both that Saddam had WMD and that Saddam desired nothing better than a vigorous nuclear program with which to threaten the Middle East and the entire world economy. Now you're right that Clinton has been out of the loop for three years now, but the intelligence did not change in the interim. Clinton has also said that any mistake Bush may have made with regard to use of specific intelligence was understandable. His words. I have my problems with Clinton like anyone else (along for my admiration for several of his policies), but those are the words of a man who has been in the same position as G.W. Bush, who received the same intelligence briefings, and who took a line hard enough on Saddam as to warrant several major military actions.

The security problems that Clinton had to contend with in regard to Saddam are now being resolved, hallelujah.

[Gordon B]

Chris, maybe you should study the history you missed the first time around.

Have you heard of the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Clinton in 1998?
Iraq Liberation Act
It authorized $97M to help overthrow Saddam's regime.

This is a small excerpt,
"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

The US got permission from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries to fly missions from their bases. Britain, of course planned to fly joint missions with the U.S. However, Saddam announced he would let the UN inspectors in just before the planes took off from the bases towards Iraq. As soon as that happened, Kofi Annan accepted Saddams' gesture. Britain went with the UN and pleaded with the US to acquiesce. Clinton did so. According to Brookings Scholar, Ken Pollack, Al Gore was livid that Clinton let the UN make us look weak. According to Pollack, Gore was a leading Administration hawk regarding Saddam. He wanted Clinton to take care of him so that a President Gore wouldn't have Saddam on his watch.

Chris, you said that you take President George HW Bush to task for not finishing Sadda off in 1991. How do you reconcile your opinion with Brent Scowcroft, who said quite emphatically that the UN 's mandate was to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and not to remove Saddam from power?

[BFrank]

(January 11, 2004 -- 07:54 PM EDT // link // print)
Oh, they can do better than that, can't they?

CNN's headline story on the O'Neill story reads: "Cabinet members defend Bush from O'Neill"

And then, when you click through, it turns out the cabinet members are Don Evans (the president's Texas crony and political fixer) and John Snow (O'Neill's tepidly respected successor at Treasury).

None of the bigs? That's all? No Colin? We're Rummyless?

-- Josh Marshall

He gets an A for effort, but Monte's little spins are difficult to take seriously.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Ellery:

Clinton is on record as saying that he left the White house convinced both that Saddam had WMD and that Saddam desired nothing better than a vigorous nuclear program with which to threaten the Middle East and the entire world economy. Now you're right that Clinton has been out of the loop for three years now, but the intelligence did not change in the interim. Clinton has also said that any mistake Bush may have made with regard to use of specific intelligence was understandable. His words. I have my problems with Clinton like anyone else (along for my admiration for several of his policies), but those are the words of a man who has been in the same position as G.W. Bush, who received the same intelligence briefings, and who took a line hard enough on Saddam as to warrant several major military actions.

The security problems that Clinton had to contend with in regard to Saddam are now being resolved, hallelujah.

Look how the conservatives run...and dance, dance, dance.

[RBS]

I wasn't sitting in on the meetings, but I certainly get the feeling he's telling the truth. If he is, I'm sure as hell not surprised by O'Neill's revelations.

[GoodSpeak]

I think it high time to take BIG, giant look around.








Crawjo?

[Gordon B]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Could be and we'll never know, of course, but my guess is that Gore would've been presented with some military real-politik once in office and, especially after 9/11, would've followed a similar path. As I said earlier, he may have handled it somewhat differently on the diplomatic front (quite probably better) but all in all, I think we'd be in largely the same position as we are now. Liberal or otherwise, it's not like Democratic presidents hadn't led us into most of the major 20th century conflicts or anything.

I agree with the general comments but not that Gore would have followed a similar path. Clearly, France, Russia and possibly Germany had a strong economic interest in Saddam continuing in power. The U.N. would never have authorized war for that reason. These countries did not have any pro-Saddam economic interests in 1991. For Gore to have led the US to war, he would have had to have had to have the gumption to cross the UN Security council and the many doves in his own party. I don't think Gore would have done so. I don't think that Bush would have either if the U.S. people had not become more hawkish after the attacks of 9-11-01.

[GoodSpeak]

Well done, Gordon.


I have misjudged you.

[GoodSpeak]

Kill an Iraqi for Christ, er, sorry...for Daddy.

[Gordon B]

The current issue of The Atlantic has a new article by Ken Pollack where he discusses why Saddam's arsenal of WMD's and his nuclear capabilities were overestimated by everybody. I just started reading the article so cannot say much yet but those who are interested should pick up the issue. Pollack served in the Clinton administration and is a very smart guy and good writer.

Originally posted by Gordon B
Chris, maybe you should study the history you missed the first time around.

Have you heard of the Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Clinton in 1998?
Iraq Liberation Act
It authorized $97M to help overthrow Saddam's regime.

This is a small excerpt,
"SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

• I am quite aware of this, Gordon. I have felt all along that Saddam should be toppled, but it is one thing to support regime change and quite another to support lying to the American people in order to justify a pre-emptive attack on a country that never attacked us nor poses any immediate threat to us. I realize that you Bush supporters need to show that Clinton and others were with Bush on this, but it just isn't so. I there was all this support from other countries and our last elected president, why would the Bush gang need to go to all this effort to lie and deceive?
  
  Now we have confirmation of what many of us suspected all along, namely that the these thugs intended from jump street to invade Iraq, and that they simply saw the tragedy of 9/11 as a golden opportunity to do just that. These are unscrupulous opportunists whose allegiance to Israel definitely comes into play. It is all a sordid story of a scam perpetrated on the American people, with repercussions far beyond our borders.
  
  As for Scowcroft, it doesn't matter what he said, the fact is that Bush (the elected one) should have finished the job. He made promises to the Kurds which he did not keep. That resulted in the very mass killings the appointed Bush likes to bring up. Of course neither Bush will mention that we supplied Saddam with much of his deadly weaponry.
  
  No, I'm sorry, but this is an evil, inept, appointed regime, the worst our country has ever had. IMO, there simply is nothing that can excuse what they have done to us--nothing!

[Monte Smith]

Let us know when you finish the book, too, Chris.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A

• As for Scowcroft, it doesn't matter what he said, the fact is that Bush (the elected one) should have finished the job. He made promises to the Kurds which he did not keep. That resulted in the very mass killings the appointed Bush likes to bring up. Of course neither Bush will mention that we supplied Saddam with much of his deadly weaponry.
  
  !

Firstly, after a misstep we did alright by the Kurds, establishing the Northern no-fly zone that allowed their democracy to prosper as well as supplying a good deal of funding and material for their infrastructure (the only cell phone service you'd have found along the Tigris until now was in the Kurd north). Slate has an interesting feature it calls the Kurd Sell Out Watch. Slate admits that its every prediction of the betrayal of the Kurds by the US in this conflict has been proven wrong.

Secondly, we didn't really supply Saddam with *much* of his deadly weaponry. We did favor the Iraqi side briefly in the Iran-Iraq war, but more of Saddam's weapons came from Russia, France, and Germany than came from the US. Not much at all came from the US, actually. This will never stop the anti-American sloganeering that Saddam is a creature of the United States--never ever a creature of Russia, France, or Germany. Or of the Middle East.

You could call it the typical fraudulent bullshit.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Let us know when you finish the book, too, Chris.

And let us know when you finish being a cheerleader for the clueless right, OK?


Thank you in advance.