Bush 'planned Iraq war pre-9/11'

**The Andy-Man** · January 10, 2004, 13:31

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040110/325/ej3oz.html

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

O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on 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 promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."

To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-September 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found.

"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.

BENT ON WAR

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 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.

"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," he said on Saturday.

O'Neill also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neil told "60 Minutes."

Suskind's book, whose full title is "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill", uses interviews with O'Neill, dozens of White House insiders and 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill.

O'Neill, who was fired due to disagreements over tax cuts, spent a difficult two years in Washington, joining the Bush administration with a background as a no-nonsense corporate executive.

I was surprised someone else hadn't already posted this.

So what does every one think? Personaly I'd be surprised if the US didn't already have an attack plan 'just-in-case,' not so sure wether i beleive this guy though.

**Sirotnikov** · January 10, 2004, 13:40

What ever reason or excuse the US had for going to Iraq, it made waves in the Middle East.

Just notice that Lybia began disarming, and Syria is suddenly supposedly open for peace talks with Israel.

**The Andy-Man** · January 10, 2004, 13:47

I agree with you entirley Sirotnikov, and as I said, i'd be surprised if the US Army didn't already have attack startagies, and I always thought it logical that the US would get rid of Saddam sooner or later since Clinto did that bombing thing around the time of the lewinski affair.

I think, in fact, they were probably just waiting for a global down turn, so that they had some 'insurance' to keep the economy afloat.

**Gatekeeper** · January 10, 2004, 13:56

I find the report disturbing, moreso because — at about the same time — the sh*t was getting ready to hit the fan with North Korea.

But, yes, changes are occurring throughout the Middle East. It does nothing to erase the doubts of the method used to achieve them, though, mostly because the changes aren't yet proof positive that the volatile region of the world is going to get better anytime soon.

Time will tell.

Gatekeeper

**Ming** · January 10, 2004, 14:23

Gee... somebody with a big ego who got fired from a high visibility job attacking the person that fired him... what a surprise

**Lefty Scaevola** · January 10, 2004, 14:26

I would be astonished if there were not periodic political discussion of removing Saddam since 1990, and quarterly revisions of contingency plans for doing so. That is what prudent goverments do, dicsuss options for dealing with enimes and problems.

**Patroklos** · January 10, 2004, 14:28

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,"

I sure hope so.

I wanted to go into Iraq in 92 because any rational person knew then how this would end. More than a few people thought that we should invade Iraq before 9/11 for a host of reasons, all valid. But bieng a democracy we have to have reasons to hopefully satisfy the populous. So if Bush already had such an action justified in his mind great for him, you should be thankful he at least waited until there was manifest reasons to satisfy all you liberal commies. Thank the 100,000 Iraqis that have died in the last decade waiting for you to find a reason too. Not that it worked, as most of you are not satisfied by any course of action in any direction.

**Jaguar** · January 10, 2004, 15:01

This could just be sour grapes, but since Iraq and 9-11 really have nothing to do with each other, i'm not sure it really matters when Bush started planning the war.

**The Andy-Man** · January 10, 2004, 15:07

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
This could just be sour grapes, but since Iraq and 9-11 really have nothing to do with each other, i'm not sure it really matters when Bush started planning the war.

thats another good point, and one which nobody seems to have told mr O'Neill

**TCO** · January 10, 2004, 15:11

We almost started a war in 1998. Actually we sorta did. (Desert Fox). after the inspectors got kicked out.

These kinds of plans have been in the hopper and looked at since 1991.

Same deal with Kosovo. I was on a 6th fleet exercise that got called early because Admiral wanted to concentrate on kosovo. And that was 2 years before the war started.

**rah** · January 10, 2004, 15:27

I'm sure there was some general plans drawn up. There are general plans drawn up for a lot of things sitting on the shelf just waiting to be pulled down when necessary.

My only thoughts are that if there was that much serious planning that far in advance, you think they would have planned a better exit or post strategy.

**TCO** · January 10, 2004, 15:40

yes there are a lot of general plans. But going back to the Gulf had been looked at by multiple levels in both adminsitrations for a while. It really could have happened in 1998 as well.

**The Andy-Man** · January 10, 2004, 15:41

rah: thats what i thought, maybe they had one planned but never changed it with the times ie. to account for a post 9/11 terrorist infiltration campaighn.

**TCO** · January 10, 2004, 15:43

All that said, I think Simon is a smart guy and i liked his performance as Sec Treas so I'm interested to read the book. But I would not take it as some revalation of deep dark secret that we saw Saddam as a problem in 2001 or in 1998 or in 1995. The second war was just a resolution of various sparring that had been going on for the decade. You may not agree that it was the right resolution. But it should not be a surprise that we had been dealing with him for a while. One option was ALWAYS to go back in.

**General Ludd** · January 10, 2004, 15:50

It wouldn't be particularily surprising, since iraq has absolutely nothing at all to do wtih 9/11 ...

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · January 10, 2004, 16:06

Britain has ready-drafted plans for invading Ireland, France and Germany. What point is being made?

**The Andy-Man** · January 10, 2004, 16:08

I suppose this guy is trying to make a buck by attacking bush or something

**PLATO** · January 10, 2004, 16:12

So much for the "Rush to war" school of thought. As I have said many times before...The WMD argument was the only one available to obtain UN participation. Stupid French...we were going no matter what you did...You could have been a great unifying force in the world, but you chose to be divisive.

The hole purpose of what we did was to change the face of the Middle East. Does anybody really think that the ME was heading down a path that was best for the people there? At least now there is a chance for freedom and self determination that an area of historic dictators and kings has never seen before.

""There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'""

So much for the we didn't have a plan crowd.

Once again Bush proves that he is a man of conviction. Like it or not, he came with a plan and is executing it. More than can be said of our most recent "focus group" President.

**PLATO** · January 10, 2004, 16:13

dp

**Ted Striker** · January 10, 2004, 16:13

what GP said

As long as Saddam was in power invasion was inevitable

secondly o' neill needs to get over it

**GePap** · January 10, 2004, 16:14

More important than th stuff abou Iraq, which everyone knew already was a long term Bush goal and that 9/11 has been only an excuse, the more damaging things are about Bush's style of leadership and how he comes to decisions. It is not a very flattering move.. I mean, Bush has said that he doesn;t read newspapers, and that he gets all his information from purely objective sources, his advisors. I mean, come on!

So, the description of a Blind man in a room full of deaf people is pretty good.

A for O'Neill and sour grapes...plenty of people get fired from admins., but not all of them start books dissing their ex-bosses, and when tht happens, ususally its becase the boss did do something wrong.

**TCO** · January 10, 2004, 16:17

actually I think there may be something to the criticism of Bush as not generating enough debate or looking at subtleties that much. I think it is one of his flaws.

**GePap** · January 10, 2004, 16:18

Originally posted by PLATO
So much for the "Rush to war" school of thought. As I have said many times before...The WMD argument was the only one available to obtain UN participation. Stupid French...we were going no matter what you did...You could have been a great unifying force in the world, but you chose to be divisive.

The WMD arguement was the one needed to sell it to congress and the American people, not the world- obviously the WMD arguement failed worldwide.

The hole purpose of what we did was to change the face of the Middle East. Does anybody really think that the ME was heading down a path that was best for the people there? At least now there is a chance for freedom and self determination that an area of historic dictators and kings has never seen before.

A chance made less realistic and hopefull due to how it was implemented.

""There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'""

So much for the we didn't have a plan crowd.

There was a plan- based on poor evidence and whishfull thinking- the aftermath of the war should make ti clear whatever plans existed were not up to par.

Once again Bush proves that he is a man of conviction. Like it or not, he came with a plan and is executing it. More than can be said of our most recent "focus group" President.

If he were a man of conviction, he would not have lied or exageratted the WMD threat and simply said the Iraq war was worth waging from day 1. Also, he would have made the invasion of Iraq part of his election platform...I guess his convictions go only so far.

**PLATO** · January 10, 2004, 16:19

Originally posted by GePap
More important than th stuff abou Iraq, which everyone knew already was a long term Bush goal and that 9/11 has been only an excuse, the more damaging things are about Bush's style of leadership and how he comes to decisions. It is not a very flattering move.. I mean, Bush has said that he doesn;t read newspapers, and that he gets all his information from purely objective sources, his advisors. I mean, come on!

So, in your opinion, The New York Times would be a better source of information than professionals with departments hired to provide this information? Explains a lot about your political beliefs I believe.

A for O'Neill and sour grapes...plenty of people get fired from admins., but not all of them start books dissing their ex-bosses, and when tht happens, ususally its becase the boss did do something wrong.

Most actually do write books or sell interviews with "secret insider" stuff

. Usually this involves some sort of percieved controversy. Sometimes they just want to push their own political agenda.

**PLATO** · January 10, 2004, 16:25

Originally posted by GePap

The WMD arguement was the one needed to sell it to congress and the American people, not the world- obviously the WMD arguement failed worldwide.

Nope...It was the terrorist lie that was needed to sell the American public...The WMD lie was for Eastern Europe.

A chance made less realistic and hopefull due to how it was implemented.

This is why we bash the French...Don't you know? If its bad, its their fault.

There was a plan- based on poor evidence and whishfull thinking- the aftermath of the war should make ti clear whatever plans existed were not up to par.

Most plans are like this. Even your favorite guy (Rumsfield) said from the beginning that the plan had to flexible.

If he were a man of conviction, he would not have lied or exageratted the WMD threat and simply said the Iraq war was worth waging from day 1. Also, he would have made the invasion of Iraq part of his election platform...I guess his convictions go only so far.

Convictions and integrity are different things. His convictions are strong, but I am beginning to question his integrity on accomplishing them.

**GePap** · January 10, 2004, 16:26

Originally posted by PLATO

So, in your opinion, The New York Times would be a better source of information than professionals with departments hired to provide this information? Explains a lot about your political beliefs I believe.

HELLO!!!!!

Do I think third party reporters are better at giving an objective view of a situation that individual wedded to the interests of the giant bureaucracies they run, their own careers and the the ability to push thier own interest by having the ear of the king? I mean, you can't be serious! I assume you have taken some sort of government courses and so forth and looked into theories of government- if the only people filtering information to the leader are those few around him, you honestly think they elader will have the most complete view simply becuase the circle around him will in no way give him summaries laced with thier own prejudices but instead give completely honest reviews?

Would you PLATO stop listening to the news, and rely on ALL your information about what policies need to be ennacted solely from a group of policitcally and ideologically motivated people?

Most actually do write books or sell interviews with "secret insider" stuff

. Usually this involves some sort of percieved controversy. Sometimes they just want to push their own political agenda.

Yes, cause we all know what sort of wide-eyed wolly liberal Paul O'Neill is........

**Ned** · January 10, 2004, 16:28

I think the only reason Clinton did not invade Iraq in '98 is because he could not justify it to the American people. However, it was declared American policy during the Clinton administration, including a resolution from Congress, that Saddam's regime had to go. I assume that Clinton said something along these lines to Bush on his assuming the presidency.

So, there should be no surprise to anyone that Bush wanted Saddam gone and was asking people how we could justify it to the American people and to the UN.

In a way, 9/11 only pushed Iraq off one year by forcing us to fight in Afghanistan first.

**GePap** · January 10, 2004, 16:30

Originally posted by PLATO
This is why we bash the French...Don't you know? If its bad, its their fault.

Because they would not buy a lie? Oh my, yes, terrible- next time we make up somehting to go to war they better listen. Sorry, NO.

Most plans are like this. Even your favorite guy (Rumsfield) said from the beginning that the plan had to flexible.

Most plan are not like this- the post war plans for Germany and Japan went OK- this plan is not going OK..anyone remember General wahsthisname? You know, the guy who would run Iraq for 3-6 months before we gave power over the Chalabi and his wonderful Iraqi democrats?

**GePap** · January 10, 2004, 16:32

Ned, don;t ruin my image of you by making a relevant and clear point that happens to actually conform to this world and not the Nedaverse.

**PLATO** · January 10, 2004, 16:45

Originally posted by GePap

HELLO!!!!!

Do I think third party reporters are better at giving an objective view of a situation that individual wedded to the interests of the giant bureaucracies they run, their own careers and the the ability to push thier own interest by having the ear of the king? I mean, you can't be serious! I assume you have taken some sort of government courses and so forth and looked into theories of government- if the only people filtering information to the leader are those few around him, you honestly think they elader will have the most complete view simply becuase the circle around him will in no way give him summaries laced with thier own prejudices but instead give completely honest reviews?

Would you PLATO stop listening to the news, and rely on ALL your information about what policies need to be ennacted solely from a group of policitcally and ideologically motivated people?

When the reporters have the same access to information, the same expertise, and lose the desire to break big contoversial stories at the expense of truth, then get back to me.

For now I'll rely on the guys hired to do the job, not a agenda driven reporter. The nice thing is that if you don't like the job, then fire him in November...if you can.

es, cause we all know what sort of wide-eyed wolly liberal Paul O'Neill is........

So you have to be a wide eyed liberal to have a different agenda than Bush's?? Interesting.

Because they would not buy a lie? Oh my, yes, terrible- next time we make up somehting to go to war they better listen. Sorry, NO.

Unlike you, I don't doubt that the French understood the real reasons for war. They chose to try to elevate their own status and create a power block as opposed to trying to help make an inevitable plan work. Well guess what? The plans going to work and all they did was make it harder...We should thank them for that? I think not.

Most plan are not like this- the post war plans for Germany and Japan went OK- this plan is not going OK..anyone remember General wahsthisname? You know, the guy who would run Iraq for 3-6 months before we gave power over the Chalabi and his wonderful Iraqi democrats?

Actually most plans ARE like this. Every comparison to post WWII reconstruction shows this plan ahead of that one. Iraqi elections should happen this year or at the latest next year. Elections in Germany occured when? I assume with your vast political background that you should have no trouble answering that one.