Is Paul O'Neill lieing as conservatives claim?

[Donutboy 0]

Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start

Comments could boost criticism of president's case for war against Iraq

By STEWART M. POWELL

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Bush's comments appeared likely to stoke campaign claims by Democratic rivals for the White House that the president was planning to attack Iraq, possibly in retaliation for Saddam's attempted 1993 assassination of his father, former President Bush.

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines."

Bush said al-Qaida's surprise Sept. 11 attacks on the United States put him on a hair trigger to take pre-emptive action against Iraq rather than await evidence of a new threat to Americans.

"September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans and we had to take threats very seriously no matter where they may be materializing," Bush said.

A president's "most solemn obligation" is to protect the United States, Bush said, adding: "I took that duty very seriously."

Democratic presidential candidates seized upon O'Neill's comments. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the accusation of a ready-to-go effort to oust Saddam "calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us."

Asked about O'Neill's contention that the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration in January 2001 discussed ousting Saddam, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan didn't deny that account.

McClellan tried to focus attention on Bush's claims of success in Iraq rather than preparations to oust Saddam.

Bush "exhausted all possible means to resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully" before launching the invasion in March, McClellan said. Saddam defied a "final opportunity to comply" with U.N. demands to disarm, prompting Bush to take action "in the aftermath of Sept. 11th (because) it's important to confront threats before it's too late."

Bush, who fired O'Neill as treasury secretary in December 2002, said he "appreciated" O'Neill's nearly two years of service in the administration.

McClellan said the O'Neill book appeared to be "more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

McClellan said the White House was "not in the business of selling or promoting or critiquing books," adding: "It's just not something this administration gets caught up in."

O'Neill told CBS News' "60 Minutes" program Sunday night that "from the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

O'Neill, who headed Alcoa before joining the Bush administration in 2001 as treasury secretary, gave the interview as part of an effort to promote a new book, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill." The book was written by Ron Suskind with O'Neill's cooperation, including providing access to some 19,000 notes and documents.

Treasury Department spokesman Rob Nichols said Treasury officials had asked for an investigation into how a possibly classified document appeared in O'Neill's televised CBS interview.

Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe accused the White House of launching "an all-out attack on the man Bush once praised as a straight shooter," adding: "Implied in O'Neill's allegations is that the president of the United States and his administration may have consistently lied to the American people in making the case for war against Iraq."

As we like to say in Alabama, Bush is crawfishing. He knows the truth is coming out, so Karl Rove's new strategy is to convince us he had our best interests at heart when Bush lied to us about the reasons for war.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't think anyone said O'Neill was lying about regime change in Iraq being one of the first things discussed when Bush took office. There was some charges of lying on how certain documents were misrepresented by Suskind and O'Neill that initially made it look like more than it was.

However, Bush said that he inherited a policy of regime change from the Clinton administration back when these O'Neill comments first came out last week...something you doubted, by the way, until Jenny showed you that it was true. It's been the policy of the US since Clinton signed the bill on the policy back in October of '98.

Even O'Neill said as much:

O'Neill also told NBC his comments about the Bush administration's early focus on Iraq are being distorted to suggest last year's invasion of Iraq was being planned from Bush's first days in office. 

"I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority," he told NBC. "But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration." 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

[Donutboy 0]

I don't think anyone said O'Neill was lying about regime change in Iraq being one of the first things discussed when Bush took office. There was some charges of lying on how certain documents were misrepresented by Suskind and O'Neill that initially made it look like more than it was.

However, Bush said that he inherited a policy of regime change from the Clinton administration back when these O'Neill comments first came out last week...something you doubted, by the way, until Jenny showed you that it was true. It's been the policy of the US since Clinton signed the bill on the policy back in October of '98.

Even O'Neill said as much:

O'Neill also told NBC his comments about the Bush administration's early focus on Iraq are being distorted to suggest last year's invasion of Iraq was being planned from Bush's first days in office. 

"I was surprised, as I've said in the book, that Iraq was given such a high priority," he told NBC. "But I was not surprised that we were doing a continuation of planning that had been going on and looking at contingency options during the Clinton administration." 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/econo...dex.htm?cnn=yes

I don't think Clinton lied to the American people to get justification for war. Have a link for that? While Bush lied to the American people and to the international community to build a case for war in Iraq, we were waging a real war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Bush is catching flak about that from ALL corners, former administration officials, conservatives, the governments own war college, etc.... As hard as you and Jenny are trying to pin this move on Clinton, it was ALL Bush's. Regardless of whether Clinton favored a regime change in Iraq, it became Bush's POLICY. Are you suggesting that the wheels were put in motion by Bill Clinton and that Dubya had no choice but to follow through. Oh, that that was true and Bush had to follow Clinton policy. We'd be three years closer to a balanced budget instead of swimming in debt!!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't think Clinton lied to the American people to get justification for war. Have a link for that? While Bush lied to the American people and to the international community to build a case for war in Iraq, we were waging a real war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Bush is catching flak about that from ALL corners, former administration officials, conservatives, the governments own war college, etc.... As hard as you and Jenny are trying to pin this move on Clinton, it was ALL Bush's. Regardless of whether Clinton favored a regime change in Iraq, it became Bush's POLICY. Are you suggesting that the wheels were put in motion by Bill Clinton and that Dubya had no choice but to follow through. Oh, that that was true and Bush had to follow Clinton policy. We'd be three years closer to a balanced budget instead of swimming in debt!!

What I am saying is that even Clinton felt that regime change was necessary policy for the US to pursue regarding Iraq. Bush agreed with an inherited this policy. After 9/11, he felt that the urgency to follow through on this policy, rather than continue to let it be just an empty threat, was much higher.

I'm not "pinning" anything on anyone. Just pointing out that this wasn't some scheme cooked up by the Bush Admininstration. Bush and Clinton agreed that ultimately, Saddam being removed from power was the right thing to do. We can argue over timing 'til the cows come home.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Really, Donut, you have GOT to get better special teams coaches - you keep overpunting your coverage...

The following is from the same article I linked to in the other thread about Clinton's reasons for making regime change in Iraq a formal policy of the US - do any, or even ALL, of these reasons sound familiar? Why, yes, they do, except that they are coming out of DEMOCRATIC lips!! GWB took action on this longstanding policy because, as Titan said, 9/11 gave birth to the Bush Doctrine, which says those that harbor and aid terrorists will get the same treatment. You CANNOT deny that Iraq was harboring terrorists - the Achile Lauro (sp?) guy for one. Al Queda is NOT the only terrorist group out there, you know.

In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).

The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

How are they going to "indict, prosecute and imprison" Hussein without capturing him? Say pretty please and hope he gives up? :roll:

In late summer of 1998, Iraq had ceased all cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), after a two-year campaign to thwart the commission's work in Iraq.

According to the Iraq Liberation Act, Iraq was charged with a series of crimes including - invading Iran on September 22, 1980, and using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.

It noted that in February of 1988 Iraq "forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds."

Congress also cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 on March 16 of that year.

"On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat," Congress said.

The Congress pointed to the ceasefire Iraq accepted ceasefire conditions as specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 that required Baghdad to "to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement."

Congress also noted the April 1993 assassination attempt on former President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait.

Since March 1996, the Congress said, Iraq "has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Furthermore on August 5, 1998, "Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM," Congress said.

The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."

The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."

Once again, just HOW exactly, was Hussein supposed to be removed from power without military action? And don't give me that crap about letting the U.N. do it - the U.N. wasn't about to take action, and the Congress in 1998 urged President Clinton to "TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION". Well, after 9/11, GWB TOOK that appropriate action. Now there is one less country where terrorists can safely move about with the tacit support of the government.