Paul O`Neil is talking

[Aurel]

This is a reason (Oil) that is very obvious to everybody except the americans themselves, who are still blurred by the war on terror baloone.
The fact is that not only were plans being made to invade Iraq, but also a reason to invade that would be acceptable to the public was being demanded by GW. Paul O`Neil may have felt disgrunteld. Trying to be honest among liars is very disgruntling.

Aurel

[emcon5]

Originally posted by Aurel

Trying to be honest among liars is very disgruntling.

Honest like stealing classified material?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040112/ts_nm/bush_oneill_dc

I think it is more likely that he is an business executive who is used to getting his way, and has no clue that planning for things that may never happen is not uncommon in Washington. From the American Spectator

OLD NEWS
What former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and other Bush administration blabbermouths failed to mention when leaking NSC documents and the like for the forthcoming book O'Neill worked on, is that the Clinton administration had many of the same documents prepared laying out plans for a post-invasion Iraq.

"We had the same stuff," says a former senior Clinton Administration aide who worked at the Pentagon. "It would have been irresponsible not to have such planning. We had all kinds of briefing material ready should the president have decided to move on Iraq. In fact, a lot of the material we had prepared was material that the previous Bush administration had left for us. It just isn't that big a deal. Or shouldn't be."

I mentioned a few posts ago about how we have plans for invading lots of places. Looks like it has been going on for a long time. You can find 1935 US Army War College plans for the Invasion of Canada here.

Tom
(still waiting to hear what non-Iraqi companies now own the land and the oil)

[stealthn]

Tom,

What I said is they had plans prior to the takeover as to who would get it (60 Minutes), and as far as planning ahead/contingency, yes I would expect the US to do that; put someone in power and plan for his demise should he do anything contrary to what his is told to do

[Aurel]

Having plans to invade Iraq is one thing. Actively seeking reasons to do so is a totally different thing. See the nuance ?

Aurel

[dd74]

Well, I guess Paul will be saying hello to the New York Times bestseller's list.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/12/news/economy/oneill_probe/index.htm?cnn=yes

As they say in the industry: bad press is good press.

[island911]

Originally posted by Aurel
. . . Paul O`Neil may have felt disgrunteld. Trying to be honest among liars is very disgruntling.

Aurel

. . or a politician, among politicians. (?)

You have to ask yourself if you simpley want to believe the picture O'Neil is painting.

I don't belive O'Neil is doing this for our benifit.

I watched the 60-Minutes interview. My BS-meter was reading about 50% (in the typical politician-speak range). Then, at the very end of the interview, O'Neil pegged my BS-Meter.
He was asked if the Bush admin might claim "He's getting back because he was fired" . . and if he was prepared for this. . .

O'Neil (sheepishly): "Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth. “Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?”


P'leeeaasssse
Is O'Neil really so naïve? . . . or is he just trying to pull the whole sheep over our eyes?

[dd74]

No, he's trying to enlighten us. I might originally think it's all for naught, but O'Neill has done the following:

1) Caused an investigation to be launched.

2) Has alighted to the fact that Iraq was a target all along.

Bush, on the other hand can:

1) Thwart off any investigation - in principle he did nothing wrong in looking at Iraq for a regime change.

2) May need to explain the candy-coded explanation of WMDs as reason to invade Iraq.

Bush's wildcard (and O'Neill's "death card") How the hell did he get hold of "top secret" documents, and then have the presence of thought (?) to show them on Nat'l TV?

[Aurel]

Unfortunately, I missed 60 minutes
So, I cannot comment on how much my BSmeter would have indicated

But it looks like Paul did not do it for the money:

`Suskind's book is scheduled for publication Tuesday. O'Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents and took no money for his role in the book. `
(From your linked article, dd74)

Aurel

[island911]

Here's the 60-Minutes transcript.

Though you still are missing his (ONeils) feigning confusion . .“Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?”

[Aurel]

Thanks Island ! let`s check this out...

Aurel