Tar fans and feather aficionados have had a good week, what with the race to Destroy Paul O’Neill. Even O’Neill himself is getting involved, reasoning that if he bloodies himself enough maybe other people won’t want to hit him anymore. My particular favorite was the “senior official” who said, “We didn’t listen to [O’Neill’s] wacky ideas when he was in the White House, why should we start listening to him now?” Ha! The man’s “wacky!” Never liked ‘im! We were trying to get a recently retired right-fielder to run the Treasury, and this guy showed up! Hell, he wasn’t even AT all the meetings where we talked about how we definitely weren’t talking about invading Iraq!
As for the veracity of O’Neill’s account of the pre-9/11 build-up to war, well… General Hugh Shelton was there, and he “saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration.” See? Or ask Donald Rumsfeld, who said that the idea that Bush “came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation.”
Until galvanized by 9/11 into attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, the Bush administration saw no reason to do anything new or different with Saddam Hussein.
Well, that about wraps that up, huh? Just Crazy Paul bein’ a big ol’ goofball again. Let’s hit him with a two-by-four a few more times, nail ‘im to that tree so he doesn’t hurt himself, and go home….
…oh, wait a minute. In a story about Condoleeza Rice filed a few days before the Bush inauguration, Nick Simeone reported, “But in an address outlining some of the incoming administration’s views on foreign policy, the first woman ever tapped to become the nation’s top national security expert hinted that the new administration may be considering other options beyond sanctions to deal with a leader whom she describes as still a tremendous threat.” Condi herself said, “At some point in time, it will be clear what else may be in store…”
Well, that’s a little creepy. But hey, she could’ve meant all kinds of other things other than sanctions that could be done to Iraq, right? Things like… um, well, you know, other things…
And then there was a certain conversation Condoleeza had with Wolf Blitzer in July of 2001. That has some pretty angry-sounding stuff in it. Stuff like, “Rice said the Bush administration would look at the use of military force [against Saddam] ‘in a more resolute manner, and not just a manner of tit-for-tat with him every day.’”
Hmm. Now, there are some interpretations of the above that might indicate that the administration was thinking about invading Iraq from the start, some interpretations that might call into question Rumsfeld’s or Shelton’s statements, but -
Hey, look over there! It’s Crazy Paul! He’s nuts! A nutsy, backstabbin’ traitor, a guy we never liked anyway, a loose cannon! What’s this? He’s releasing secret documents!? Possibly! That’s your headline! He needs a good ass-whoopin’! Get him! Get him!





11 comments
tess
January 14, 2004 at 2:26 pm
1mmmyup, he’s crazy. can’t go around negating what the president saying — that’s a job only for the president and his crew. you can’t have some reactionary liberal running around the place screwing all those americans out there up by making them ask questions. why, that’s completely un-american to ask questions of our glorious dictator, i mean, leader! unless he’s a pot-smoking, skirt-chasing democrat who didn’t come from a privilaged background — can’t anyone like that running the country. nosiree bob!
Ananna
January 14, 2004 at 3:01 pm
2What with Krugman and all, and now with reports from O’Neill that Greenspan was off the ranch, I’m beginning to think that Economists are out to get this administration. Never trusted them Economists, Bush will inevitably say, as he is blaming them for the country’s current economic Woes. When I say, “will inevitably say”, I of course mean, has already said, at least, if you believe those sneaky Economists.
Elayne Riggs
January 14, 2004 at 3:02 pm
3Thanks for doing the “retired right fielder” gag. I couldn’t figure out how to work that into any post.
Murray
January 14, 2004 at 5:35 pm
4On “60 Minutes” O Neil said that he wasn’t worried about retaliation. “Why should they be angry about someone telling the truth?”
Uhh,, Paul, this is the Bush administration. The same folks who outted Plam to intimidate her husband for telling the truth about yellow cake in Niger.
Uhh,, Paul, You were in the inner circle and could see for your self how these people act.
I don’t know, maybe he is crazy.
tim
January 14, 2004 at 9:29 pm
5I have nothing much to add. I’m just commenting because I’m in a hotel room in Houston on a WebTV device, reading FA. How is that for dedication?
Anyway, speaking of recently retired Yankees, the Houston Chronicle unironically reported this morning that in honor of Roger Clemens un-retiring and signing with the Astros, he got a Hummer in his garage. Just thought you should know.
gazould
January 14, 2004 at 11:57 pm
6Isn’t this another example of Regan’s bind? Either he was a competent person, and is right about what he’s saying now, or they kept him on for over a year even though he was “wacky”.
Don
January 15, 2004 at 12:08 am
7Check out Terry Gross’ interview of O’Neill and his writer that was on NPR’s Fresh Air today (Wednesday). It should be on the website tomorrow.
O’Neill reveals just how whacky he is in his extremely measured replies to some of the questions and comments.
It was an interesting program to listen to.
aaron
January 15, 2004 at 2:13 pm
8The saddest part is, O’Neill’s revelations won’t change even a single mind. Those whose opinions of this administration would be negatively affected by this information either already knew it, or at least had a strong feeling that this was the case.
As for the other idiots, they’ve been so brainwashed that they’ll probably see this revelation as some kind of brilliant premonition on the part of this administration, and be upset that we didn’t attack them in Summer of 2001, thereby completely avoiding the tragedy of 9/11, which, as we all know, was designed and orchestrated entirely by Saddam Hussein.
Lynne
January 15, 2004 at 3:10 pm
9Wait. I have a logic problem. If O’Neill is lying, then he isn’t using “secret documents” and if he’s using “secret documents” then he’s telling the truth. If he’s telling the truth, then…
VT Elitist
January 15, 2004 at 3:50 pm
10O’Neil once wrote:
The singer became a man and he fought
With the might of his pen and hand
To show for evil the cure long sought,
And spread Truth over the land;
Till the Devil mockingly said, “In sooth
‘Tis a sorry ideal you ride,
For the truth of truths is there is no truth!”
Opps, that’s Eugene not Paul.
-=e=-
January 16, 2004 at 12:21 am
11http://www.newamericancentury.org
Jeez… like invading Iraq was anything new. What stopped Bush 41 (besides the UN mandate said only to chase Hussein out of Kuwait), was the thought that his crazy sons would make it worse, or that we’d be stuck in a quagmire while a power vacuum occured (hard to believe, I know.).
However, to bill this as part of the war on terror is complete and utter bullshit.
Wanna know the rest of the game plan read The Project for a New American Century, or pick up Richard “The Prince of Darkness” Perle’s book where he wants to continue this to Iran, Syria and even France…
… yet somehow thinks we have enough troops to do this without re-instituting the draft. Hmmmm….