Democratic presidential hopefuls as well as President Bush supporters have been quick to react to claims by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that the president and top aides began laying the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq soon after taking office in January 2001 "” months before the Sept. 11 attacks that led to the U.S. military response in Afghanistan and later Iraq.
"śFrom the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"ť O"™Neill told CBS"™s "ś60 Minutes."ť The interview aired Sunday just ahead of publication of a new book, "śThe Price of Loyalty,"ť in which O'Neill describes his two years in the Bush administration. The book was written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
In the book, O"™Neill says he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council, of which he was a permanent member, questioned the president as to why Iraq should be invaded.
"śIt was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it,"ť said O"™Neill. "śThe president saying "™Go find me a way to do this."ť"™
The official U.S. government stance on Iraq, dating to the Clinton administration, was that the United States sought to oust Saddam. However it did not include the idea of a pre-emptive strike until Bush articulated that in June 2002 following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
O"™Neill said he had qualms about what he felt was the pre-emptive nature of the "śFor 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,"ť he told CBS.
"śFrom the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"ť O"™Neill told CBS"™s "ś60 Minutes."ť
Gee, someone else thought that? On a related note, Bush also thought that peanut butter goes great with jelly
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: Storm on the horizon!!!
I believe G.W. was the third in line. The problem has been passed down through two different administrations.
I find it rather unprofessional to let sour grapes lead to a breech in national
security. I just hope the many documents he left office with will not
jeopardize any security.
Personally I find listening to O'Neill disturbing. Im not a hard core Bush fan, but the snivelings of O'Neill drive me up a wall.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
__________________
Hoyt Carbon Element RKT Blackout
Axcel Armourtech HD Sights
Easton Arrows
United Bowhunters of Pa. Member
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
How sad. All of those leftists and Saddam appeasers who thought that they finally had the issue they could ride to victory in 2004 are now off somewhere licking their wounds. The great Paul O'Neill roar turned out to be more like a whimper.
Let's review what we heard last weekend vs. what we are hearing today:
1. O'Neill said that Bush was disengaged at Cabinet meetings. A blind man in a room full of deaf people. First .. that doesn't make sense. A blind man can hear, and deaf people can communicate .. but never mind. Now we have O'Neill saying that he wishes he hadn't said that in the first place.
2. A big deal was made over O'Neill's revelation that the Bush Administration was making plans for an invasion of Iraq almost as soon as they moved into the White House. Oops. Then we learn that the Clinton Administration had been making the very same plans, and that in fact those plans were required after a law was passed in 1998 making regime change in Iraq an integral part of American foreign policy.
3. Then we learn that O'Neill is going to vote for Bush in 2004, because "I don't see anyone who is better prepared or more capable."
So ... how much did the big Paul O'Neill story last? Four days, wasn't it?
Storm on the horizon!!!
