Paul O'Neill Rips Bush . . .

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by waggie945, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. Recent CIA information indicates that Paul O'Neill can bore to death every human being located as close as 10 metres within 45 minutes
  2. Babak


    The most interesting parts of the new book are where he cites documents showing that Iraq's invasion was planned well before 9/11. That, is far more damning because everyone already knows that Shrub is an idiot.

    Sat Jan 10 2004 09:12:37 ET

    The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

    "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "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," says O'Neill.

    O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored by Ron Suskind. Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall, including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil. "There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," 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," Suskind says.

    In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned 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,'" says O'Neill in the book.

    Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?"

    O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

  4. Babak


  5. If these allegations are found to be true, is it so absurd to think that certain Americans may have possibly had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand or worst yet even played a role in it? Pretty scary stuff if you ask me...:eek:
  6. Sour grapes would be a compliment to this guy. He was one of the worst Treasury Secretaries in memory. What was he known for? Going to Africa on some boondoggle with Bono while the economy was crashing. And how about that Bush? He actually expected his Treasury Secretary to support the administration's policies. How small-minded of him. O'Neill is more irrelevant in DC than Steve Spurrier.
  7. Full blown Hannityism from AAA.

    I mean, what elese can you do?

  8. Yeah, I hate it when I'm right.

    Let's see if all the pro-Bush dimwits crank the blinders up even higher.
  9. Again, typical McCarthyist empty rhetoric.

    Let's attack the attacker instead of focusing on the problem.

    AAA, I really did expect more from you than this.
    #10     Jan 10, 2004