O'Neill: Iraq Planning Came Before 9/11

[OrangeSoul]

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

"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.

The official American government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam.

But O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, said he had qualms about what he asserted was the pre-emptive nature of the war planning.

"For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap," according to an excerpt of the interview that CBS released Saturday.

The administration has not found evidence that the Iraqi leader was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks but officials have said they had to consider the possibility that Saddam could have undertaken an even larger scale-strike against the United States.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan would not confirm or deny that the White House began Iraq war planning early in Bush's term. But, he said, Saddam "was a threat to peace and stability before September 11th, and even more of a threat after September 11."

"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," McClellan said in Texas, where the president is staying at his ranch.

O'Neill's interview was part of his effort to promote a new book about the first half of Bush's term, "The Price of Loyalty," for which O'Neill was a primary source.

The administration began sending signals about a possible confrontation with Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001.

In July 2001, after an Iraqi surface-to-air missile was fired at an American surveillance plane, Bush's national security adviser put Saddam on notice that theUnited States intended a more resolute military policy toward Iraq.

"Saddam Hussein is on the radar screen for the administration," Condoleezza Rice said at the time.

Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said in December 2001, after the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York, that "with respect to what is sometimes characterized as taking out Saddam, I never saw a plan that was going to take him out."

According to the book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the Bush administration began examining options for an invasion in the first months after Bush was inaugurated.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../bush_o_neill_7

[Hiro P.]

regime chamge in Iraq has been an official US policy since '98

[Jelly2003]

I didnt read all that but I'd assume that the US were planning the current Iraq invasion since the end of the Gulf War.

[Aaron Veteran]

I am sure that Clinton had a "plan" if a need for action would arise. Sounds pretty pragmatic to me.

[OPaul]

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/...bush/index.html

Very interesting.

[John S. Veteran]

Source: A senior administration official said O'Neill's "suggestion that the administration was planning an invasion of Iraq days after taking office is laughable. Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?"

However, other administration officials did not deny that contingency plans were made for a post-Hussein Iraq, and pointed out that "regime change" had been the official policy of the United States since President Bill Clinton said in 1998 that containment of the Iraqi president was no longer sufficient and a change of leadership was necessary.

I was fired once about 18 years ago, I don't speak very fondly of my former boss either but I don't get paid hundreds of thousands to write books about him.

Edited January 11, 2004 by adonai

[thefonz]

hmm...for some unknown reason; i thought this was about the Celtic Manager Martin O'Neill...

...shows the state of MY mind then... :blink: :blink:

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Uhh this guy isn't getting moeny from his book either he was just a source not the writer or publisher.

But that aside yeah what he said is probably true and has always been.

Hell the Air Force has been plaaning on what to do if we ever come into contact with space aliens, it only makes sense that they'd also have a plan to remove Saddam.

About WoMD as I've said that was never the true reason for the war.

All this crap would be over by now though if Bush gave the true reasons and there'd be no arguing about it.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

This is the kind of thing that military strategists do. Somewhere in the US is a plan to overthrough Canada. I just don't expect it to be implemented anytime soon.

[Aaron Veteran]

This is the kind of thing that military strategists do. Somewhere in the US is a plan to overthrough Canada. I just don't expect it to be implemented anytime soon.

Watch out! The black helicopters are on the way to your house right now! :ninja: ;)

[badall]

the states were planning to invade afganistan 6 months before 9/11 happened also

[Hiro P.]

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

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/...ble592330.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.

[threetonesun]

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

Another one? I don't believe you can trust anyone these days. I really don't need evidence to believe that a plan for removing Saddam was in effect before 9/11 ... you have a president whos father went to war with the country and lost, any idiot could see he would want to finish that. You don't have to think to hard, you don't even need stupid Pentagon documents to figure that out.

[Hiro P.]

you have a president whos father went to war with the country and lost

what now?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Another one? I don't believe you can trust anyone these days. I really don't need evidence to believe that a plan for removing Saddam was in effect before 9/11 ... you have a president whos father went to war with the country and lost, any idiot could see he would want to finish that. You don't have to think to hard, you don't even need stupid Pentagon documents to figure that out.

Regardless of whether Dubya wanted to finish Daddy's war, it's just common sense that the US military strategiests would be planning something before 9/11. They probably play war games against just about every country. There's a lot of people employed at the Pentagon and you need to give them something to do.

It wouldn't have mattered that Bush was elected. The Pentagon would have been doing the same planning under Gore prior to 9/11. It's just what they do.

[Aaron Veteran]

Another one? I don't believe you can trust anyone these days. I really don't need evidence to believe that a plan for removing Saddam was in effect before 9/11 ... you have a president whos father went to war with the country and lost, any idiot could see he would want to finish that. You don't have to think to hard, you don't even need stupid Pentagon documents to figure that out.

I would suggest you go brush up a bit on the Gulf War I before you come back and expand on this one.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I would suggest you go brush up a bit on the Gulf War I before you come back and expand on this one.

Oh yea, I didn't notice that the poster suggested that Bush Sr lost the first Gulf War.

Left it unfinished yes, but lost? no.

What the casulty ratio was what 10,000:1? 50,000:1? 100,000:1? It's wasn't exactly close.

[Aaron Veteran]

Oh yea, I didn't notice that the poster suggested that Bush Sr lost the first Gulf War.

Left it unfinished yes, but lost? no.

What the casulty ratio was what 10,000:1? 50,000:1? 100,000:1? It's wasn't exactly close.

In our defense, we did exactly what the UN "allowed" us to do. So to be fair, the UN left it unfinished not G.H. Bush.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

In our defense, we did exactly what the UN "allowed" us to do. So to be fair, the UN left it unfinished not G.H. Bush.

I don't believe that for a second.

[Aaron Veteran]

I don't believe that for a second.

On February 28, with the collapse of Iraqi resistance and the recapture of Kuwait?thereby fulfilling the coalition?s stated goals?the coalition declared a cease-fire. The land war had lasted precisely 100 hours. The cease-fire came shortly before coalition forces would have surrounded Iraqi forces. On March 2 the UN Security Council issued a resolution laying down the conditions for the cease-fire, which were accepted by Iraq in a meeting of military commanders on MarMore extensive aims, such as overthrowing the Iraqi government or destroying Iraqi forces, did not have the support of all coalition members. Most Arab members, for example, believed the war was fought to restore one Arab country and not to destroy another. The United States also worried that extending the goal would have involved them in endless fighting.g.

Source

At worse, it is mostly true. We were asked to drive Hussein from Kuwait and that was it.

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

I don't believe that for a second.

You don't have to but it's true.

The US was going to go all the way and oust Saddam in the first Gulf War. That's why we we're dropping all those leaflets saying "Rise up against Saddam" and the like. Turns out the UN wouldn't let us go any further most of the people who believed we were coming were then killed by Saddam, and you have the situation we have today now as a result.

But it's still partly our fault we should have given the UN the finger then instead of now.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

You don't have to but it's true.

The US was going to go all the way and oust Saddam in the first Gulf War.  That's why we we're dropping all those leaflets saying "Rise up against Saddam" and the like.  Turns out the UN wouldn't let us go any further most of the people who believed we were coming were then killed by Saddam, and you have the situation we have today now as a result.

But it's still partly our fault we should have given the UN the finger then instead of now.

The world wouldn't have blinked an eye if the coalition forces (it really was a coalition back then) had continued on to Bagdad and finished the thing in 1991. Norman Swartzkoff was in full agreement and he made this no secret.

George Bush Sr just didn't have the stomach to risk American lives on a ground offensive. He was too worried about the political reprocussions of Americans coming home in body bags.

[Aaron Veteran]

The world wouldn't have blinked an eye if the coalition forces (it really was a coalition back then) had continued on to Bagdad and finished the thing in 1991. Norman Swartzkoff was in full agreement and he made this no secret.

George Bush Sr just didn't have the stomach to risk American lives on a ground offensive. He was too worried about the political reprocussions of Americans coming home in body bags.

Youare just flat out wrong on this one. Pressure from the surrounding arab states was the reason the entire coalition stopped. Are you implying that we should have acted unilaterally and defied the mandate of the UN?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Youare just flat out wrong on this one. Pressure from the surrounding arab states was the reason the entire coalition stopped. Are you implying that we should have acted unilaterally and defied the mandate of the UN?

If America and the coalition forces needed clarification or further permission from the UN to allow them to remove Saddam from power in 1991 they would have gotten it without incident. I remember calling for it at the time. Bush was being a wimp, again.

[Aaron Veteran]

If America and the coalition forces needed clarification or further permission from the UN to allow them to remove Saddam from power in 1991 they would have gotten it without incident. I remember calling for it at the time. Bush was being a wimp, again.

So if he was a threat then, was he less of a threat this time around? So you support the US acting against the UN and going after Hussein? Not going after him made Bush I a wimp, but Bush II going after him makes him a renegade cowboy? I am just trying to understand where you stand on this.