portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration

find the original here: www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"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, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "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."
O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.
Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"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.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.
"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.
"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.
"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."
old news 11.Jan.2004 09:08

roto rooter

Why is this news? For that matter why is everyone making a big deal that there are no wmd's. Starting with daddy bush, the plot to remove Hussein started in the early 90's after the first Iraq/bush war.
Paul Wolfovitz was one of the chief planners for daddy bush to remove Hussein, he now works for the junior bush. Junior bush has many of the same people working in his white house who worked for daddy bush's presidency.
wmd's were never the reason for Iraq/bush war #2. This was a mandate from daddy to junior bush from the first day junior took the presidential oath.

TONIGHT on 60 Minutes 11.Jan.2004 11:01

already posted 4 stories down on PDX IMC

O'Neill talks to CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

... 11.Jan.2004 11:55

this thing here

mr. o'neill is very, very, very brave.

the bush family is Trouble. forget what happened in florida, as soon as i saw him taking the oath, for example, i knew there would shortly be a war or military adventure of some sort. and, sure enough... anyways, they have been trouble since before WW1. 3, and only 3, areas they have been involved in: intelligence, defense industry, high finance. i can't think of three more powerful or important areas in which connections and influence in all 3 can lead to wealth and power and Trouble with a capital T. imagine if you were not only a businessman, but also a spy and a lawyer and a banker and a politician. tell me there isn't any angle you can't cover. tell me you wouldn't get into trouble simply for the very fact that you have complete access to the the most inside track imaginable. so my point is, it would be no surprise if mr. o'neill were to suffer a "tragic and untimely" accident or disappearence. the bush admin., essentially working as an extension of the bush family, cannot afford any more of these inside attacks. an example will have to be made of someone...

keep in mind recent reports of the cheney-led white house energy task force, and how it discussed at length the "problem" of iraq, namely how the oil embargo and saddam hussein were preventing all that oil from getting to market. this report came out a year before the war in iraq...

hell yeah they wanted this war. and it's not that this should or shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but it is a question of how it changes perceptions of events AFTER what mr. o'neill describes. how does the fact that the bush admin. wanted a war in iraq and wanted a reason for one the day they took office in early 2001affect how we all might think of 9-11? don't tell me it has no effect whatsoever. the die had been cast long, long before 9-11. things were falling into place long, long before 9-11. the chess pieces were on the move long, long before 9-11. when the admin. tries to play innocent, they just make it more obvious. and what mr. o'neill writes, along with a lot of other things that have come to light since 9-11, in my opinion makes it very hard for people to continue to claim that 9-11 was some kind of a surprise, some kind of a fluke incident, that it happened in a vacuum free of context, free of agenda, free of policy, free of interests and desires, free of history, and free of human scheming.

It is "old news" to a number of us, but not to 11.Jan.2004 11:57


the general public, and maybe even to some people here too. It's pretty major when someone from Bush's own cabinet breaks the news. The whole neo-con PNAC thing reeks to some people of conspiracy--which is strange since their intentions are up-front and on the web--so the more the truth is out there, from more and more sources, the better.

while it's sure, an old news item to most of us that come here... 11.Jan.2004 13:58

the question is...

will it be old news or NO NEWS to the vast-majority of sheepeople out there that continue to support this gang of thugs in
the White House. sure, most of the intelligent people that patronize this website are going to think of this as "old news",
and to them, it is. but what about these half-witted people out there that are, like the trolls that come here to type in their
madness, incapable of realizing what this news means...whether it's "old", "new", or "no" news? are they going to just
continue to roll on along in their ignorance, fueled by super-patroitism of the fool, and take the stance...my country, right
or wrong...my president, right or wrong...and be like mindless minions that continue to march behind this criminal gang
as if they're an army of wind-up toy soldier's...or, like the mindless robocops that Kroeker went to great effort to bring to
Portland...meanspirited, tough, efficient killing machines, and effective public intimidators...but, stupid as any human can
be, as they fail to realize they're just like a toy taken off the shelf...when it malfunctions (as in "get's taken down") it's just
tossed aside and a new one put in it's place. not to pick on them, for surely we can all bring to mind a lot of other similar silly closed-minded mindset groupings that are mere "tools" for this administration, and the significance of this new's is
sure to fly by them entirely. these are the people the news needs to reach (as inside their brain), but are the least likely
to have it so, and unfortunately for us, these are the very people that can/do make our live's less free, less sure, and are
most likely to kill us and get by with it. what's the rest of you have to say about this...let's hear it, pleez....

what happened to my posting of about an hour ago...5th one...? 11.Jan.2004 15:55

what's happening???

about an hour ago I posted a few comments regarding the "old news" nature of this story, and the fact
that such may be so to most reader's of this website, but not necessary the case with "others" who are
not regular readers. specifically I was making point about the trolls and the robocops that might not be
interested in the implications of the truth of O'Neils tale, whether it's "old news", "new news" or "no news"
and I sent it in...yet to show up as 5th thread following the 4 up now. what is going on? do we have per-
haps a few "volunteers" that are just, so happens to be, government "trolls" that are screening incoming
and deciding what is postable or what is not? is this what Portland.Indymedia has come too? if not, I
'would like to see that posting put up NOW or else, a plausable explanation why it's taken this long.
thank you!

yes, great...you posted my "follow-up"...but where is my posting... 11.Jan.2004 17:06

that prompted one above??????

yes, thanks for posting my "follow-up" as now the 5th one in this stream...but, where is the posting I sent in that was
the reason for my "follow-up" comment above??? it's what should be posted...more so than a mere "hey, where is
my posting?" comment...make sense, or maybe not if the trolls are manning the website...or else, picking 'em off
out of cyperspace before they get to you and deciding which make it or not? serious ??? here that aren't being at
all addressed! Please do! thank you!

follow up comment, that begs a lot of... 11.Jan.2004 18:02


at 15:56, that's 3:56pm PST when you posted my first "follow up" to ask what happened to the one I'd sent
in earlier...which would have been the 5th comment in this stream had it been posted in it's incoming se-
quence, as it should have been without "censoring", my then comment was 5th in the stream.

a while ago, some 30 minutes of so, I send a 2nd "follow up" that has yet to appear at all.

What is interesting is that the original posting that has prompted first, one, then a second, and now a
third follow up (this one now instant) now appears as 5th in the stream, and it's posted with time listed
as 13.58, which is 1:58pm PST. This is bullshit....as I didn't even write the damned thing till a little after
15.56, which is 3:00pm PST.

This IS proof positive that some of you "volunteers" at Portland Indymedia are not what you claim to be.
While you may be "volunteers"...it would seem you are such with an "agenda"....and the questions that
arise is this:
.....with an "agenda"...then how, why, and who's agenda?????
Clearly, this incident I'm reporting indicates some serious diddling with the postings, and if you damned
people want to retain your sense of intregrity, you'd best have a higher-ranking member/volunteer get in-
volved and sort out the "problem" or better yet........the "problem person" with an agenda! I trust you will,
as I'm sure those faithful readers out there will likewise....the ball is in your court....NOW!

that "follow up comment" seems kind of like a joke. I mean, 11.Jan.2004 18:35


this is not the most radical thread on this board. I'd kind of chalk it up to board problems. If not, I'd still calm it down a little and try to figure out what happened--it really is more than likely an innocent mistake or difficulty, not an ambush of the thread.

answers 11.Jan.2004 18:37


The effects you witnessed were not caused by user intervention. Our site is not a real time system; rather it queues jobs (postings) to be produced into relatively static content. This queue attempts to be linear but often is not due to various reasons and so strange effects will be seen. This has nothing to do with user intervention, "censorship", or actions of volunteers. It is purely technical and we apologize for the inconvenience.

is "pop" a troll? 11.Jan.2004 19:07

how dare you tell me to "calm down a little"...

Yes, "pop" I'm well aware it's NOT the most radical piece ever posted up here, but I'll be damned if I'll go
along and let go unchallenged some inane comment as your's without slamming back with a good old
KISS MY ASS! for you to write such a comment is to bring you under suspecions as being a TROLL???
so, are YOU? be honest...for we've got on our bullshit detectors out here....

No, I'm not a troll. But your posts kind of make me think that 11.Jan.2004 19:35


you are. Come on--angrily shouting conspiracy at the people who run this board over something that you haven't yet investigated is a bit disruptive, it seems to me. Why are you so angry and upset, over something that you weren't really sure why it was happening? I read your posts and can't help but feel that they're kind of a joke--like you're pretending to be an angry lefty who sees ambush and intrigue in every tiniest thing. Look, I'm an annoyed lefty too, but if I were behaving like you are right now about something relatively minor that I didn't even know why it was going on, it would be because I was joking. The style makes me wonder about you--either you're sincere and a bit insane, or you're trolling.

no, "pop", i"m not a troll, nor am I insane either...but, I am 11.Jan.2004 20:35

one who understands the system

so, "pop", I'm not a troll, nor am I insane either. admittedly the original posting is, as I said, very mellow
in comparisons to a lot I see here. that is NOT the point. the point is this>>>with Cheney a few days
away from arriving, the JTTF folk's and other assorted alphebet joke's are here in force, geared up to
smash the face of protester's...in the physical form and via cyberform. I happen to fully understand the
technical perimeters involved in the internet operation of a website like this, and I quite well know that
the time-frame's involved in the chain of postings clearly indicates that "someone" is playing with the
incoming...whether it's someone that's a "volunteer" at receiving end or whether it's someone who is
simply "out there", I have no way of knowing for sure. my purpose in writing these follow up postings is
to alert the readership that they are being WATCHED and being TOYED WITH. now, whether that suits
YOU or not, whether it rattles your chain or not...is NOT my concern, so as far as I'm concerned, you are
free to return to your sheltered mental world where no one but "good guys" exist, and fluff-off legitmate
alerts to the contrary all you want...but, you'll NOT engage me further with your "game" for as far as I'm
concerned, "pop" you and your further postings (which I damned know are coming after this) are of no
importance to me, nor will they be responded to. have a good evening....see you at the protest!

never mind O'Neill? - 11.Jan.2004 20:43

wait until Richard Clarke's book comes out . . .

"One Bush insider, however, ventures that no one really cares what a former Treasury secretary says. But, a book due out later by Richard Clarke, the White House's top terror expert under both  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743260244/ref=nosim/youwonnowwhat/ President Clinton and President Bush, is another matter. Mr. Clarke is known to feel the Bush administration largely ignored the threat of terrorism and Osama bin Laden before 9-11, even after al Qaeda in June 2001 claimed responsibility for the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 American soldiers."

well, o.k., I understand the issue is 11.Jan.2004 21:42


important to you (person who I'm having the dialogue with). It seems like the problem has been explained? I was responding to the very angry manner in which your concerns were voiced. As activists, it may be important to pay attention to the manner in which our concerns are voiced, not just the message. We must all remind ourselves of this, and I'm telling you that looking at this carefully is something that will make your message more effective. So, it's not an attack, but a friendly reminder.

reply to "pop" and his last posting 11.Jan.2004 23:39

a "friendly" reminder

though I said I would not respond to your further posting, which I well knew would be forthcoming, I am
moved to do so in order to point out an obvious philosphical difference between the two of us. you say
at the end of your last retort that it'd be far more "effective" not to attack, but to do so as "friendly reminder"

OK! try this one>>>when the PoPo's robocops are bashing in your head for you exercising your Consti-
tutional Rights by protesting Cheney's visit, and they've nearly rendered you senseless, will you stand
your ground and give them a "friendly reminder" that such is not nice as they bash your head yet again
...to finally force you to collapse to the ground in submission to their neoNazi-authoritarian=totalitarian

I certainly wouldn't, nor would growing numbers of us out here that see the "game" for what it is, and
not some silly delusion that other's do and seek to re-project upon others. While I do not say bash
their brains out back in retaliation, what I do say is this>>>recognize their inherent evilness, the fact
that coupled with such, is an incrediable sense of stupidity...then, take this knowledge, use your high-
er sense of intelligence and defeat them in ways other than mere brute force head bashing...which, it
a fact>>>these kind's cause they've got dim-wattage in the brain, but higher developed muscle will
bash head's better every time...so, the secret is being alert, aware, and not so nice in you willingness
to capitalize upon their true inherent weakness (their stupidity) in order to render them useless!

It can be done...but, it's not nice is it? What does "nice" have to do with any of it anyway?

Well, the difference between the 2 scenarios is 11.Jan.2004 23:57


that in one I'm being bashed on the head and I need to defend myself (or others), and I'm very clear that the police in that instance are not on "my side," but defending political interests. In the other scenario, you are seeing something funky with the posts, don't really know what's happening, and get really angry at the moderators (who at least in theory are on "our side," that is the left side, and are doing this for free as a service for the community). When I say to chill out a little, it's in that context. Let's not be mad at our friends until we're sure they've actually betrayed us. The post thing seemed to be something to investigate, before getting so mad about. (Hey, and I'm a female. "Pop" as in snap, crackle, and pop).

20 days later, he's off the radar forever. 30.Jan.2004 02:30


I don't think we'll ever hear anything about this guy, ever again.