O'neill: Bush wanted to invade Iraq from first few days of administration

[ringmastery]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

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.

[acmavm]

1. Well, it's not like this hasn't been said before. But now, an insider is

spilling the beans. Wonder what the crappy media will have to say about this now? And what will be the excuse from Shrub and the gang? This was personal with the idiot Pretender to the Presidency, and a matter of pure greed and power with the neo-cons. But having someone in the room when these things were discussed telling the story just validates the truth that millions have known all along.

[cthrumatrix]

10. It has not been shared by an "insider" with such specfics....

he talks about oil planning and post war contracts....how can this not be anything but damaging?

[indepat]

2. I am shocked: there is gambling going on in here.

[cthrumatrix]

3. This is a "time bomb" announcement and will shock his supporters

People do NOT like being lied to.

They have lied for over two years about this whole set-up. They have zero proof and now somebody on the inside comes forward to talk of the scret memo's.

[warrior1]

4. So...

Wouldn't that mean that bush 'let' us get attacked by saddam on 9/11? Yea yea I know they didn't do it, it was osama. But with this logical this would be the conclusion.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Sadly, I doubt it. Bush's supporters have had plenty of opportunities

already to turn on him for his lies.

And I think for many, on Iraq, they weren't being lied to; they were winked at. They knew all along the justification for war was bullshit, and they didn't care. They just wanted war.

[Grins]

11. Remember this one..?

"The truth is, that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason."
(Paul Wolfowitz in Vanity Fair. <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/30/wolfowitz.vanity.fair/>

He also said, another goal was that getting rid of Saddam means the US could get its troops out of Saudi. "Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to a more peaceful Middle East," Mr Wolfowitz is quoted as saying.

To appease the Saudi's? Carlyle? Baker-Bush? Get this by selling that?

[cthrumatrix]

12. I agree...the data was there...the media lied...and our country lost lives

When in the world will the media wake-up?

Their going to have a media revolt on thier hands if this hide this truth....

[lolly]

15. People don't like being lied to?

At this point, I'd really have to disagree.

People don't like being told the truth--at least not when it clashes with what they WANT to believe.

A huge swath of this country WANTS desperately to believe that the U.S. is infallible, and want to be on the side of the bully rather than the peacemaker because it makes them feel better.

There's never been any evidence produced that Iraq proved any threat to the U.S, and tons of evidence pulled out showing that it wasn't, but approximately 50% of Americans, according to most polls, willfully disbelieve/ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit in with what they want to see.

O'Neill's revelations will go the same way as all the others--people won't look at it and the media will ignore it because they don't want to know this stuff.

[cthrumatrix]

16. And do you think 500 familes who lost thier loved ones and the 10,000

that lost a limb...or the 20,000 lost Iraq lives have meaning.

The UN must be "shaking thier head"...

[Bandit]

17. And the really really sad part is you are completely right

Americans want the US to be the Bully of the world. Truth they don't want the truth let alone handle it.

[cthrumatrix]

18. do they feel that way when thier "loved one" is dead becuase of

deception..i dare say "no"

[kalian]

5. OK, this has to be worth something....

this has to hits shrub hard. The issue will be proving that it was
shrub that wanted to invade and not some low life administration
official or cabinet member.
This story should be a death knell.

[maddezmom]

6. boy I hope you are right

[KoKo]

8. More "Drip, Drip, Drip" but it doesn't ever seem to "Stick" We have to

keep hope up, though. If it's on Drudge's site then more people than us will see it, maybe the Buchanan Wing of the Repug Party will get some steam going with this.

[cthrumatrix]

9. the difference is the integrity of this man -- it cannot be doubted

he has zip to gain....he doesn't need the money...he has a distinguished career...he's an ex-ceo of Alcoa (Dow Jones Industrial Index Company)

He has inside data that will haunt this president going forward.

[IronLionZion]

13. bring back O'Neil

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073280927272&p=1012571727088
I hope that the Democratic president will reinstate him next year.

[cthrumatrix]

14. I say give him a "talk show fro 2004"...get this country back on track.