Mylroie: Big Error by O'Neill Author on 60 Minutes

Iraq News News Letter - sam11@erols.com | 1-11-04 | Laurie Mylroie

[Matchett-PI]

In his appearance this evening on "60 Minutes," Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, "Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield contracts." He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraqi oil (CBS's promotional story also contains that claim): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml

But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)

And what are we to make of O'Neill's bigger claims, including that the Iraq war was planned from the first days of the Bush administration (cited by Wesley Clark today to buttress his assertion that there was no need for the war, it was all political)?

In late 2000 and early 2001, the Iraqi regime was trying increasingly hard to shoot down US planes enforcing the no-fly zones. That may well have opened up discussion about overthrowing Saddam in January and February 2001, as Suskind claims, but "Iraq News," which followed the issue very closely at the time, doubts very much that any decision was made to do so then. Perhaps tellingly, Suskind doesn't claim that those discussions continued beyond February.

Finally, O'Neill's statement to Time magazine, "I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," is bizarre. From 1995 on, UNSCOM reported that Iraq retained major elements of its proscribed weapons programs. That was the consensual view within the US intelligence community on the eve of the war, as well as every other country engaged in the issue.

[Ciexyz]

Hey Mr. O'Neill, put a sock in it, willya?!

[MHGinTN]

This political treachery by CBS, for their lovechild, sinkEmperor, ranks right up there with their effort to stage a war for their airing (yes, they really did try to do that in South America).

[Matchett-PI]

You're right. As Brit Hume said, "It has always been 'all about him' from the beginning."

[The Raven]

The Dems got him over to the dark side somehow!!! Could it be money?

[Dog Gone]

The Democrats and CBS had no use for O'Neill until he turned against Bush. Now, he's the top story for almost a week.

[tet68]

And what about the claim that at least one of these documents were marked "Secret"...

[IncPen]

Important ping...

[Matchett-PI]

OK!

[Peach]

Thanks. And tell Laurie she has a lot of fans here!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

It frightens me that a man of this kind of judgment was in charge of our treasury.

What should be of greater concern is that, instead of by statesmen, our government is largely run by political hacks now. Were it not for the 2nd amendment, we could all be doomed.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Laurie Mylroie bump!

[Brilliant]

The key part of the story is this:

Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty...

This book was not written by O'Neill. It was written by Suskind. And what does he know? For that matter, what does O'Neill know? He did not even know what was going on in the Treasury Dept., which was his charge. How the heck can he claim to be an authority on the President's Iraq policy?

[Matchett-PI]

Brit's main points amounted to "It has always been only about him (O'Neill) from the very beginning." I would have to rewind my videotape, record his words on an audio tape, and then transcribe them to get his whole commentary. I don't have the time right now.

[DWPittelli]

In late 2000 and early 2001, the Iraqi regime was trying increasingly hard to shoot down US planes enforcing the no-fly zones. That may well have opened up discussion about overthrowing Saddam...

And also remember that the position of the United States, formally voted by Congress in 1998 and backed by Clinton and Gore, was to seek the overthrow of Saddam. It would be absurdly negligent to not even have plans to do the same.

[NutCrackerBoy]

We will probably be seeing similar things from Colin Powell (though not so blatant) after he leaves office and wants to differentiate himself from Bush.

Colin Powell is an honorable man. The suggestion that he would pull a Paul O'Neill is ridiculous.

[Always Right]

This guys fifteen minutes will be gone in a few days....

[rwfromkansas]

I used to somewhat support O'Neill because he supported the FairTax.

After this and going to Africa.....thank you for getting rid of him Dubya.

I hope the door kicked him in the ass on the way out.

[evad]

I agree. Brit Hume's comments about him in the last half hour of Fox News Sunday today, were very insightful.

Which were?

Brit Hume: How could O’Neill say there was a "Master plan for Iraq" back then when the democRATs line now is "There was no plan for Iraq".

Heh..it's almost Perry Mason-esque. Brit takes the RAT's own words and proves beyond a shadow of doubt his RAT duplicity. Brit is the only news analyst I trust.

[OldFriend]

Luckily O'Neil spent a goodly part of his time carrying Bono's purse and so was out of the loop.