Furor Follows O'Neill's Kiss-And-Tell Book

[cthrumatrix]

Furor Follows O'Neill's Kiss-And-Tell Book

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary who's been saying some harsh things about his old boss, President Bush (news - web sites), is now taking a little heat from the administration himself.

more

Simon & Schuster, the publisher of the book, issued a statement denying that any laws governing the use of classified material had been broken.


In Mexico on Monday to attend a Summit of the Americas meeting, Bush offered a forceful defense of his decision to go to war against Iraq, saying, "the decision I made is the right one for America" and for the world.


Asked specifically whether O'Neill was correct in saying that planning for the war had begun far ahead of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said that when he had become president he had inherited a policy of "regime change" from former President Clinton (news - web sites) and had decided to adopt it as his own.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_o_neill


Did anyone else here that "regime change" was a policy "early on" in this crook's admin? If so...why didn't he share that as the logic to go to war?


Answer: Because he's a liar that has been caught.

[leftchick]

1. kevlar....

Like O'Neill said, what is wrong with telling the truth?!? If this story does not stick the chimp in chief is made of kevlar....

[Malva Zebrina]

2. interesting

"the decision I made is the right one for America" and for the world.

And you had to lie ten times over in order to play out your murdereous fantasies, you stupid prick.

Now his delusions of grandeur extend to being the "savior" of the entire world! It's time for another photo op of George the Iraq killer with a huge golden halo around his head.

The decisions to lie so many times and then to kill thousands of innocent people with his bombs, I am sure, was the right decision for them too. Was this the right decision, George? Here is your world saving right decision and this is only one out of thousands



This Bush is a sick man getting sicker by leaps and bounds. He is floundering now--flopping this way and that like a hooked mackeral brought up on deck.

[0007]

3. Something is indeed wrong in this country!

The first thing I can think of is the media and it's deafened silence over the Paul O'Neill whine. Perhaps the folks wneed to read N'Oneill's book before coming after junior?

Does this country deserve anything better than Nixon, Reagan and junior? Apparently the people are no better than the government get.

[Gman]

4. This "regime change" policy is damage control

they were ready for the broadside and that's the canned answer. It is another lie. Believe O'Neill.

[meti57b]

5. If their only defense is the claim they inherited ....

a policy of regime change from Clinton, and the claim that a secret document was published, they are never going to be able to lie their way out of this one. Buh-bye, duhbie, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

[Matilda]

6. I'm beginning to feel that the tide really may be turning, and

take Dubya with it. Hallelujah!

It will be interesting to watch the Murdoch media - if Rupert senses
that public opinion is moving away from Bush, he will jump right on
the bandwagon. That's his usual style.

[librechik]

10. I agree--Blair's reaction will be interesting too

also, Chris Matthews (who strangely leapt to Wes Clark's defense last night over the AL Queda remarks) is one to flit to any shoulder he feels is highest. If he starts dissing his boyfriend Shrub, then...

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. So Clinton endorsed the PNAC plan?

Yeah, right George. Whatever you say George. Because everybody knows whose plans you're implementing and that plan was flat out rejected by Clinton. But maybe that was because Clinton knew how to read and realized that it was a terrible plan. The only plan Bu$hler is following is the one written by the Likudnik War Party. The one with that is known has the Project for the New American Century. That's the Bu$hler plan, the one that Clinton tore up.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

<snip>

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

[yellowcanine]

8. Of course Clinton had a policy of regime change but

that is the desired END. It is the MEANS that are in question Shrubbie. Why is it so difficult for you to see that?

[leanstreets23]

9. We note the thing's formally and indelibly a "kiss-and-tell"

and not under any circumstances to be confused with an
"exposé" or "the obvious," nor even "treasonous lies."

[newyawker99]

14. Hi leenstreets23!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[wryter2000]

11. Aaaargh

It isn't O'Neill's book. It was written by Ron Suskind, who used over 100 sources. O'Neill isn't even taking any money for it.

[central scrutinizer]

12. Don't forget * also

ridiculed "nation building" as practiced in the former Yugoslavia during the debates when he and the rest of the Republicans were openly questioning Clinton and his policies while US troops were in harm's way.

[salin]

13. Exactly - several problems with Bush's defense:

1) decried "Nation Building" during campaign.

So if he intended all along to invade, depose and occupy, then he lied during the campaign.

2) during the campaign never used an invasion of Iraq as a platform.

His language suggests this was always a priority of his, but his neglecting to mention such a major priority is equal to disallowing citizens, through their vote, to approve or disapprove of his actual priorities. Furthermore his language was of a more "humble foreign policy", again demonstrating outright deceit going back to the campaign.

3) this claim doesn't explain the huge PR buildup both to the public and to Congress in order to get the resolution passed that allowed a full scale invasion.

He didn't use the argument that this was an on-going Clinton era policy, nor that the policy should be stepped up due to the War on Terrorism. Instead he, Cheney, Rice and Powell made inferences linking 9-11 to Iraq (they have admitted that all along there was NO evidence to suggest this) AND that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US national security because of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (now also disproven.) Changing the tune now, falls very flat.

4) documents about divvying up the oil rights in Iraq suggest far more than 'regime change' was intended - including US control of, or at least influence over oil contracts in Iraq.

Regime change simply means changing the person at top (think of the Fall of the Soviet Union) - it does not, in and of itself - mean full scale invasion and occupation. The documents suggest plans much more serious than policies toward 'regime change'. This raises a second question, that I hope people begin asking:

WHY would they plan for more than two years plans regarding control of oil contracts, but NOT plan for a) contingencies if the invasion didn't go as smoothly as assumed or b) for occupation once invasion occurred. (Answer: the oil was important, and the planners were so ideologically blind that they simply couldn't even "hear questions" (see Karen Kiatowski (sp)) about other possible outcomes other than a simplistic fairy tale of laying down arms, throwing roses and parades, welcoming the US troops and quickly establishing a US friendly regime.)

WHY would they begin planning for securing the oil fields (remember this is what they secured FIRST), while NOT planning to secure nuclear facilities nor other conventional weapons facilities (remember the looting that occurred early on...) Especially given the oft sold threat that the Iraqi's were dangerous specifically because they COULD pass on those technologies/weapons to terrorists. (Answer: clearly they viewed oil as a high priority, and for all of their claims to the contrary they were not really worried about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or weapons going from Saddam and the Iraqis to terrorists. Note: It is ALL about the priorities.)

In short - Bush's response leaves him even more naked - in terms of how this non-answer jibes with all of the rhetoric and actions of his campaign and presidency. The question is whether any members of the press will pick up on these themes, and whether any of those who were swayed into his camp based on moderation or who came to back him out of loyalty after 911 will begin to question that support.