O'Neill: Iraq Planning Came Before 9/11

[coolcaddy]

O'Neill: Iraq Planning Came Before 9/11
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill contends the United States began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) just days after President Bush (news - web sites) took office in January 2001 — more than two years before the start of the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview to be aired Sunday night.

more... (http://story.news.yahoo.com /news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_o_neill_7)

[Bill Hodges]

Considering that strategic military planning is not usually an issue discussed before a Treasury Secretary, I have to wonder from what degree of expertise that Mr.O'Neill offers his account of information from?
From everything the former Secretary Treasurer claims to have direct knowledge of, one must begin to question the validity of his proclaimations. If you ask my opinion, Mr.O'Neill appears to be a begrudged former employee with a personal score to settle. His whole demeanor about the situation is childish and it appears to be more of an embarrassment regarding his own behavoure and credibility more than his accusations being an embarrassment for his former employer. I think we will see him soon being the Liberal's "poster boy" by the end of the month.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * William (Bill) Douglas Hodges
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *T/O Ranch
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Erick, Oklahoma


http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[pRIMrose]

So much for a "woman" scorned and hell hath no fury like. It would appear it applies to men too. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes2.gif

[flowerpower]

Anyone who reads my posts...know that I am a supporter and defender of GW. This guy has been fired. Someone from the staff said that no one paid any attention to him when he was treasury secretary...why would anyone pay attention to him now? How perfect his timing. He is just a fired and disgruntled former secretary with a big ax to grind. The liberal press...will have a field day with this. Let us hope that on all of these interviews he will show just how off the wall he really is.


George W Bush 4 more years! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif

[coolcaddy]

As alluded to in the subtitle of this topic, I think this says something profoundly important about the President, (assuming Mr. O'Neill's claims are true): that he understood the threat posed by a cruel dictator, mad-man, and known terrorist in control of the heart of the middle east--and that he was willing to do something about it even before 9/11 made it clear that something had to be done.

The article mentions that the Clinton administration also understood that Saddam had to go. The difference is that President Bush found this so unacceptable that he acted where President Clinton did not.

This is not a slam against Clinton--I actually liked the guy and thought he did a pretty good job as our President, (probably not something I should be admitting around here http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif). It's just that President Clinton did not have the kind of resolve and vision as President Bush has in this particular case.

[RightOnIt]

I wonder which "DEM" paid him to say that? LOL http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Charie]

I read the transcript of Clinton's speech at the Pentagon given in April of 1998. (Washington Post) In it he stressed that Saddam Hussein was the biggest threat to our country because of his WMDs, including nuclear missiles, poison gases and biological weapons. As a matter of fact he called him an evil something or other and said that he'd have to be dealt with sooner or later. There were other things mentioned but those that I mentioned remained in my mind. Now Bill Clinton has said that he told Pres. Bush and his aides about warnings he had received about planes possibly flying into buildings and I'm sure Saddam Hussein was at the top of the list of warnings.

Bush would have been a fool not to start plans to deal with him right from the beginning. I just don't know why everyone is in such a flap about it. It's hard to remember everything that goes on, but to me, that was a big one. As a matter of fact I printed the speech out and I look it over every couple of months and just gloat, because the truth is in my hands.

[coolcaddy]

Quote[/b] (Charie @ Jan. 12, 2004 -- 8:06 pm)]I read the transcript of Clinton's speech at the Pentagon given in April of 1998. * (Washington Post) *In it he stressed that Saddam Hussein was the biggest threat to our country because of his WMDs, including nuclear missiles, poison gases and biological weapons. * *As a matter of fact he called him an evil something or other and said that he'd have to be dealt with sooner or later. *There were other things mentioned but those that I mentioned remained in my mind. *Now Bill Clinton has said that he told Pres. Bush and his aides about warnings *he had received about planes possibly flying into buildings and I'm sure Saddam Hussein was at the top of the list of warnings. *

Is that transcript available online somewhere? I'd sure love to have it handy.

[heldmyw]

Here's an interesting editorial for those interested in a bit of O'Neill background, including:

Quote[/b] ]On Oct. 2, 2001, the New York Times had this to say: "Mr. O'Neill's erratic statements have sometimes rattled investors and…marginalized him as a policymaker and spokesman."

Poor Paul O'Neill-By Bruce Bartlett (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brucebartlett/bb20040113.shtml)

Sort of puts things in perspective!

[ReaganFan]

I find it interesting that O'Neil has said he plans to vote for Bush in '04. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Also it should come as no surprise that the US government...rather the Pentagon...has plans to attack Iran, North Korea, Syria, and many other countries that are potential hotspots in the world. Why? So that is something does happen we are prepared. It has also publicly known that the official policy of the United States towards Iraq was to promote regime change. This was signed into law by Clinton in 1998. So the fact that Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam before 9/11 should not come as a surprise. He was simply following established US policy.

[Charie]

CoolCaddy, I'd never be able to tell you exactly how I got there but it's on the Washington Post website archives.

Some of the phrases strike a chord. *As a matter of fact it almost sounds as though it could have been written for Prez Bush. Almost eerily so.

Note that the report below was prepared by the Rumsfeld Commission for the Washington Institute to assess. It's dated March of 1998 so this is probably where Clinton got his information for his speech.

This is an interesting site from 1998, also. *I couldn't find the Clinton speech. *It may have gone into the archives that you have to pay for. *They showed January of 1998 but I couldn't find the rest of the year. (http://www.washingtoninstit ute.org/media/eisenstadt/ballistic.htm)

[ebonyelephant]

Man, I am so over O’Neil and his angry gay lisp. *I mean this guy just couldn’t and wouldn’t shut up about what he thought about this or that. *Its not that he’s not entitled to his opinion, he most certainly is now that he is a private citizen. *But, for those in service to the President of the United States their opinions should be aired out in private or in cabinet meetings and not the press. *Furthermore this guy just had the most irritating ability to be openly flippant toward the President and his policies and in front of an openly hostile media no less! *He should just go away, because he wasted a once in a lifetime opportunity to be a functioning member of Our Democratic-Republican government.

His arrogance astounded me then, but it bores me now.