O'Neill: Bush Entered Office Intent On Invading Iraq

[MonstaThrilla]

Reuters Article

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.

[...]

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday. "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."

CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

"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 interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

[...]

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised that 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."'

[...]

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

More liberal lies . . . I bet this O'Neill guy is a homosexual, socialist that has no idea how to run a successful business. How dare he question the motivations of a fine Christian man like George W. Bush.

 

[Gaard]

Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
More liberal lies . . . I bet this O'Neill guy is a homosexual, socialist that has no idea how to run a successful business. How dare he question the motivations of a fine Christian man like George W. Bush.

[neocon] You're a fine man and a patriot to your country, BaliBabyDoc. Keep up the good work. [/neocon]

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
More liberal lies . . . I bet this O'Neill guy is a homosexual, socialist that has no idea how to run a successful business. How dare he question the motivations of a fine Christian man like George W. Bush.

Must be lies... since the Heritage foundation never mentions this at all!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

[neocon] You're a fine man and a patriot to your country, BaliBabyDoc. Keep up the good work. [/neocon]

I may have renounced my membership in the Party and have general disdain for the majority of national party figures . . . but once a conservative always a conservative. In fact, as soon as I finish cooking dinner for my wife I will insist that she put the dishes in the washer.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Honestly, does this surprise anyone? Even the Neocons have to admit Bush has been itching to invade Iraq since pappy turned tail and ran back in '91.

 

[chess9]

Why should anyone doubt that invading Iraq was high on the Bush Team's agenda? I doubt many in Washington think otherwise. Which is exactly why so many folks are saying that the "intelligence" was twisted to justify killing thousands of Iraqis and 500 or so Americans to date, to say nothing of the billions of dollars it is costing.

So, is Bush just plain evil? Or, so stupid that he didn't think we'd figure all this out? I opt for the latter.

-Robert

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: chess9
Why should anyone doubt that invading Iraq was high on the Bush Team's agenda? I doubt many in Washington think otherwise. Which is exactly why so many folks are saying that the "intelligence" was twisted to justify killing thousands of Iraqis and 500 or so Americans to date, to say nothing of the billions of dollars it is costing.

So, is Bush just plain evil? Or, so stupid that he didn't think we'd figure all this out? I opt for the latter.

-Robert

Neither. More like he doesn't give a care. ...wait. That was your first choice... n/m

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

Also, remember that the guy is trying to promote his book and may have an axe to grind against Bush.

UQ statement is right on the money.
there are always contingency plans drawn up. Going after Saddam via invasion was probably one. Assasination would have been another, either by covert or military strikes.

He was considered a thorn that had to removed.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm, I think invading Iraq was no higher than item #5 on the Bush Agenda:

1) Flip Al Gore the bird
2) Eviscerate environmental regulations
3) Tax cut for people making more than 85k
4) We need guns . . . lots of guns . . .

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

So Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" was there because Bush didn't want to go to war with Iraq? I see.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

So Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" was there because Bush didn't want to go to war with Iraq? I see.

What was the contents of that document? How do those contents prove that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq? As far as I know Dave McCowen wrote the title for that document and there is no telling what the contents really are. It's almost as silly as saying we are going to nuke Russia just because we have written plans to do so.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

So Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" was there because Bush didn't want to go to war with Iraq? I see.

What was the contents of that document? How do those contents prove that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq? As far as I know Dave McCowen wrote the title for that document and there is no telling what the contents really are. It's almost as silly as saying we are going to nuke Russia just because we have written plans to do so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

What other ways to deal with Iraq? I thought war was the only option?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Gaard
Is this the same guy who was described as brutally honest by UQ's father-in-law?

The one and the same. Although I think there is no doubt that this admin. came into office with every intention of dealing with Iraq/Saddam I still don't think that they came into office determined to go to war with Iraq. 9/11 probably/might have changed that but when pressured to attack Iraq right after 9/11, Bush said no so I am still not convinced that the war was their first option.

So Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" was there because Bush didn't want to go to war with Iraq? I see.

What was the contents of that document? How do those contents prove that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq? As far as I know Dave McCowen wrote the title for that document and there is no telling what the contents really are. It's almost as silly as saying we are going to nuke Russia just because we have written plans to do so.

Hey, it's supposedly secret, so I don't know what was in it. You are free to believe that the Pentagon explored what foreign suitors there were for Iraqi oil contracts just for the hell of it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

There are a lot of what if scenarios, but how many of those pentagon plans are at the disposal of the treasury secretary? Clearly they weren't just what if scenarios, but things that were on the adminsitration's agenda, for them to be noticed by the treasury secretary.

 

[Miramonti]

I wish people would get off of gw's back. I mean, if Jeb were elected prez instead, he would have done the exact same thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not tough to figure it out- the neocons tried to persuade Clinton to invade Iraq, and are ubiquitous within the Bush Admin. They just needed to find a way to sell it to the American people, and 9/11 provided the ultimate pretext...

I say the Repubs should give George the boot, bring in his brother Neil- at least the guy knows how to party...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

There are a lot of what if scenarios, but how many of those pentagon plans are at the disposal of the treasury secretary? Clearly they weren't just what if scenarios, but things that were on the adminsitration's agenda, for them to be noticed by the treasury secretary.

It is very possible, that the Economic side of the house teamed up the the Defense to come up with plans. Come up with a scnedario, then figure out how to impliment it.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

There are a lot of what if scenarios, but how many of those pentagon plans are at the disposal of the treasury secretary? Clearly they weren't just what if scenarios, but things that were on the adminsitration's agenda, for them to be noticed by the treasury secretary.

It is very possible, that the Economic side of the house teamed up the the Defense to come up with plans. Come up with a scnedario, then figure out how to impliment it.

A lot of things are very possible. But not very likely. You are saying at a time of recession, the treasury secretary was occupied with pentagon what if scenarios? This is not sceleton planning. It is planning down to the details of who is going to get the Iraqi oil contracts.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Different branches of the governmentn generate massive quantities of what if scenarios. This way when a situation happens, they have a skeleton of planning to respond with.

There are plans if Cuba went after Florida or took over Gitmo, on how we would respond.
If N Korea was to launch against S Korea, we have multiple response patterns looked at, depending on the actual situation.

There are a lot of what if scenarios, but how many of those pentagon plans are at the disposal of the treasury secretary? Clearly they weren't just what if scenarios, but things that were on the adminsitration's agenda, for them to be noticed by the treasury secretary.

It is very possible, that the Economic side of the house teamed up the the Defense to come up with plans. Come up with a scnedario, then figure out how to impliment it.

I agree that there was an scenario for dividing up the oil contracts.

Who initiated the study, only the actual report can say.
Also, there was hope that Saddam might depart, on his own, assasinatin, internal overthrow, etc.
We would want to try and control/influence the situation so a situation like Iran did not happen. Religious fanatics running the country who could be worse for economic interests and area stability than Saddam's regime.


A lot of things are very possible. But not very likely. You are saying at a time of recession, the treasury secretary was occupied with pentagon what if scenarios? This is not sceleton planning. It is planning down to the details of who is going to get the Iraqi oil contracts.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The White House line is that O'Neill would not be privy to the vital intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq. Curiously, no one in the Bush administration appears to be privy to intelligence detailing WMD in Iraq.