O'Neill: Bush Planned Iraq War Before 9/11

[kitty]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration

(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "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."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."

***

[sarcasm]You mean Iraq *didn't* have anything to do with 9/11?? I feel so betrayed!! [/]

BWAHAHAHAHA

[ism]

The NeoCons had Iraq in their sights since Bush the First left office. I'm sure the WMD drumming would have occurred regardless of 9/11. Afghanistan provided a small pseudo-test of the two-warfront capabilities of America. A great deal of the Middle East objectives outlined in NeoCon Manifesto (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) have been accomplished. Welcome to the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).

[Martino]

In practical terms, America was still engaged with Irag from the first war - that little business of the No-Fly Zones?

[younggiftedandblack]

In practical terms, America was still engaged with Irag from the first war - that little business of the No-Fly Zones?

Pretty much the 1st Gulf War never ended we were just at a cease fire.

[Martino]

Pretty much the 1st Gulf War never ended we were just at a cease fire.

Except the firing didn't cease ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2283465.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2490361.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2492413.stm

... which of course all American readers here are aware of, right?

[golden_buns]

In practical terms, America was still engaged with Irag from the first war - that little business of the No-Fly Zones?

yeah, it as a little too obvious. Too bad many are just starting to figure it out.

From the very beginning when Bush announced about the WMD and Iraqi threat, I found those to be bogus arguments. Since Iraq was doing bad in finances and the people weren't too happy about it.
Think of the basis; how would Saddam get the money to finance WMDs and at the same time, keep control of his country.
I'm not saying that the bastard should be left alone, but putting the WMD excuse to the world, and lying to America and the world is fucked up.

Same thing goes with North Korea being a threat;
They are bankrupt, their weaponry and technology is still in the 50's, they don't have enough money to finance a war. And in case they ever decided to go into war with S Korea they wouldn't last long cuz they have no one really supports them and they'd run short on fuel.
The only real threat is the destruction of Seoul and maybe Tokyo.
People in S Korea aren't too worried about N Korea, but they are more worried about Washington.

[ellsworth81]

nice one g-dub

[cmar]

This is just further proof that Bush lied to the American people about why we went to war. When Clinton lied, nobody died. IMPEACH BUSH.

[achtungbaby]

I'd like to hear from a Bush supporter: In light of the avalanche of evidence, how can you remain supportive?

The amazing thing -- the majority of our country continues to remain supportive. Cynicism cannot be avoided these days.

[yoMAMA]

suprise, suprise,

now they want to probe o'neill......

yeah, lock him up in guantanamo!

(he's unpatriotic...how else can you explain him dumping shit on our BELOVED president?

[Emperor_Mike]

I'd like to hear from a Bush supporter: In light of the avalanche of evidence, how can you remain supportive?

The amazing thing -- the majority of our country continues to remain supportive. Cynicism cannot be avoided these days.

Taking on the role as the Devil's Advocate, I can attempt to come up with some arguments.

The question of the validity behind the war in Iraq is now a moot point. The conflict has already been initiated and prima facie, victory has been attained. The matter of whether or not troops ought to be sent to the Middle East to "battle terrorism" is past and the main focus now is to ensure that the soldiers come back in one piece and that Iraq doesn't erupt into another hotbed for terrorism. Crucifiying the President for lying to go to war won't necessarily bring the fighting men and women of the US Army home in one piece. A balance must be struck between hasty withdrawal that may lead to the implosion of Iraq (thereby creating yet another nest for terrorists) and, like it or not, the continuing efforts to create stability in a war-torn nation. I would certainly like to think that the American public who support President Bush see things in this way (meaning, the Administration cooked the broth so now they must eat it) rather than going by blind jingoist/nationalist attitudes.

The fact of the matter is, the die has been cast. There is nothing the current Administration can do to make this whole affair disappear. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If the US stays in Iraq, casualties will no doubt continue to rise and the nation will eventually feel the strain on resources brought forth by occupation. If the US withdraws hastily, the likelihood of Iraq becoming another Afghanistan is very strong. We mustn't forget that at this juncture Iraq is no longer a state. It's a huge power vacuum and if the US doesn't see to it that stability is restored, the region and the world may very well be placed in an even more precarious position than it currently finds itself in.

[ism]

Taking on the role as the Devil's Advocate, I can attempt to come up with some arguments.

Good argument but it's kinda putting words in the opposition's mouth.

Not everyone wants the troops to pull out of Iraq. That's sort of a separate issue. I think the real issue is should Bush be punished, and how, for whatever degree of fact mangling he did. What's done is done and we should make the best out of the situation, but make sure justice is served. This action cannot be a license for any other leader to send a nation into war on false pretenses.

[younggiftedandblack]

Good argument but it's kinda putting words in the opposition's mouth.

Not everyone wants the troops to pull out of Iraq. That's sort of a separate issue. I think the real issue is should Bush be punished, and how, for whatever degree of fact mangling he did. What's done is done and we should make the best out of the situation, but make sure justice is served. This action cannot be a license for any other leader to send a nation into war on false pretenses.

The thing is you'd have to prove that he KNOWINGLY lied to the public. He can and has I believe said that they just got bad intel.

[Emperor_Mike]

Good argument but it's kinda putting words in the opposition's mouth.

Not everyone wants the troops to pull out of Iraq. That's sort of a separate issue. I think the real issue is should Bush be punished, and how, for whatever degree of fact mangling he did. What's done is done and we should make the best out of the situation, but make sure justice is served. This action cannot be a license for any other leader to send a nation into war on false pretenses.

It's a difficult position, I'll admit it, but I don't think it's untenable to the point of abandoning all hope. Punishing the President for lying to go war won't accomplish anything as far as Iraq is concerned. It will get him ejected from office but as far as daily casualties and bleeding resources are concerned, it won't matter one bit. That's the real issue here since it's the removal of a perceived threat (and a massive human rights violator) that the Administration will point to and say, "That alone was enough to justify the war." Since we are dealing with justification, I think the "Saddam is Bad" theme makes for a very good casus belli. This is the one thing that George W. Bush and Co. will attempt to use to defend their position and this is the reason why some Americans support him.

Everyone knows Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and used chemical agents in the Iraq-Iran War. So in the eyes of the public, people are inclined to look at this issue in the simplest manner possible: A fight between Good and Evil. George W. himself is prone to such simplistic statements so it's not surprising that there are people out there who see things at face value without offering any real consideration of the underlying issues. No weapons? Doesn't matter. The world has been rid of another tinpot dictator and the previous oppressed populace cheer at the prospect of freedom at last. What the Administration is counting on is for the people to look at the positives and not at the fact that the President may have lied to go to war. Essentially what we are apparently going to witness is an argument for the old saying, "the ends justify the means."

You can ask any Bush supporter and odds are the intelligent ones will give you the "Saddam is Bad" justification. The rest? Well, loyalty to the Commander in Chief and to the Nation is good enough for them. Unquestioning faith pins many hopes to false prophets, you know.

[Emperor_Mike]

The thing is you'd have to prove that he KNOWINGLY lied to the public. He can and has I believe said that they just got bad intel.

Credible witnesses can put a damper on things. If supporters play the bad intelligence card it'd do more harm than good, I think. It would open a new can of worms and the question of whether 9-11 was preventable would resurface. Bad intelligence in Iraq could very well mean bad intelligence on the terrorist attacks in New York. No, I don't believe the Bush Administration will dwell too much on this. If anything, we can expect a continuing search for WMDs and failing that, perhaps a slight reference to bad intelligence followed by a quick shift to transforming the WMD casus belli into a "We Got Rid of an Evil Tyrant" justification for war.

[Martino]

Good argument but it's kinda putting words in the opposition's mouth.

Not everyone wants the troops to pull out of Iraq. That's sort of a separate issue. I think the real issue is should Bush be punished, and how, for whatever degree of fact mangling he did. What's done is done and we should make the best out of the situation, but make sure justice is served. This action cannot be a license for any other leader to send a nation into war on false pretenses.

'What's done is done' is a pretty poor response, esp. if Iraq goes the way of Afghanistan (which is practically lawless now). You don't think a second term for Bush might equate to a war with another part of Bush's Axis of Evil - probably Syria?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

[golden_buns]

'What's done is done' is a pretty poor response, esp. if Iraq goes the way of Afghanistan (which is practically lawless now). You don't think a second term for Bush might equate to a war with another part of Bush's Axis of Evil - probably Syria?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

And then a 3rd term would be North Korea, and a 4th term would be China

[golden_buns]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

From that article:

Casualties would also be high amongst the 37,000 US troops based in South Korea, while the economic impact on neighbouring countries such as Japan could be catastrophic

As if only american lives matter only. The death toll could be 12 million or more than 1/4 of the Korean population.

[Emperor_Mike]

'What's done is done' is a pretty poor response, esp. if Iraq goes the way of Afghanistan (which is practically lawless now). You don't think a second term for Bush might equate to a war with another part of Bush's Axis of Evil - probably Syria?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1988810.stm

Not if it's shown that deception was used to "obtain" the war in Iraq. The question of support for the Bush Administration at this juncture and the subject of this topic deals exclusively with Iraq. I think deep down many Americans know that they were fooled into thinking that there were WMDs. However, many now see the continuing efforts of US troops in the region as a necessity, if only to avoid turning Iraq into a giant training camp for international terrorists. The issue of why Bush supporters continue to have faith in the President is, I think, a mixture of unquestioning loyalty to the office of the President of the United States to the point of stupidity and pragmatic realisation that since George W. Bush caused the mess he should be the one to clean it up the best he can.

[krome]

Surprise, surprise, GW makes Clinton look like a Boy Scout... :rolleyes:

In reality, he should have his own brand of motor oil.

[yoMAMA]

Paul Krugman wrote a great article on the nytimes today:

January 13, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Awful Truth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

People are saying terrible things about George Bush. They say that his officials weren't sincere about pledges to balance the budget. They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11, that there was never any good evidence that Iraq was a threat and that the war actually undermined the fight against terrorism.

But these irrational Bush haters are body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks who should go back where they came from: the executive offices of Alcoa, and the halls of the Army War College.

I was one of the few commentators who didn't celebrate Paul O'Neill's appointment as Treasury secretary. And I couldn't understand why, if Mr. O'Neill was the principled man his friends described, he didn't resign early from an administration that was clearly anything but honest.

But now he's showing the courage I missed back then, by giving us an invaluable, scathing insider's picture of the Bush administration.

Ron Suskind's new book "The Price of Loyalty" is based largely on interviews with and materials supplied by Mr. O'Neill. It portrays an administration in which political considerations — satisfying "the base" — trump policy analysis on every issue, from tax cuts to international trade policy and global warming. The money quote may be Dick Cheney's blithe declaration that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." But there are many other revelations.

One is that Mr. O'Neill and Alan Greenspan knew that it was a mistake to lock in huge tax cuts based on questionable projections of future surpluses. In May 2001 Mr. Greenspan gloomily told Mr. O'Neill that because the first Bush tax cut didn't include triggers — it went forward regardless of how the budget turned out — it was "irresponsible fiscal policy." This was a time when critics of the tax cut were ridiculed for saying exactly the same thing.

Another is that Mr. Bush, who declared in the 2000 campaign that "the vast majority of my tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum," knew that this wasn't true. He worried that eliminating taxes on dividends would benefit only "top-rate people," asking his advisers, "Didn't we already give them a break at the top?"

Most startling of all, Donald Rumsfeld pushed the idea of regime change in Iraq as a way to transform the Middle East at a National Security Council meeting in February 2001.

There's much more in Mr. Suskind's book. All of it will dismay those who still want to believe that our leaders are wise and good.

The question is whether this book will open the eyes of those who think that anyone who criticizes the tax cuts is a wild-eyed leftist, and that anyone who says the administration hyped the threat from Iraq is a conspiracy theorist.

The point is that the credentials of the critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?

So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts. They have, however, already opened an investigation into how a picture of a possibly classified document appeared during Mr. O'Neill's TV interview. This alacrity stands in sharp contrast with their evident lack of concern when a senior administration official, still unknown, blew the cover of a C.I.A. operative because her husband had revealed some politically inconvenient facts.

Some will say that none of this matters because Saddam is in custody, and the economy is growing. Even in the short run, however, these successes may not be all they're cracked up to be. More Americans were killed and wounded in the four weeks after Saddam's capture than in the four weeks before. The drop in the unemployment rate since its peak last summer doesn't reflect a greater availability of jobs, but rather a decline in the share of the population that is even looking for work.

More important, having a few months of good news doesn't excuse a consistent pattern of dishonest, irresponsible leadership. And that pattern keeps getting harder to deny.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[golden_buns]

I was called a leftist and a believer of conspiracy theories when I said that WMDs in Iraq were a bogus argument.

[pfc beansprout]

I was called a leftist and a believer of conspiracy theories when I said that WMDs in Iraq were a bogus argument.



i wonder where are all the supporters now :rolleyes: ....(not just u mike...maybe you're just playin devil's ad)............

[Emperor_Mike]

i wonder where are all the supporters now :rolleyes: ....(not just u mike...maybe you're just playin devil's ad)............

Devil's Advocate, I am. AB wanted a supporter's view and since I don't think there are any on YW who are vocal enough, I thought I'd take up the challenge of arguing for the opposition.

[krome]

I was called a leftist and a believer of conspiracy theories when I said that WMDs in Iraq were a bogus argument.
Time vindicates the truth. Of course, by that time, nobody cares how wrong they were. Trust me, I've been wrongly labelled plenty of things for speaking out myself. Time will tell tho - people will see, eventually.

Just don't expect any apologies tho. People HATE admitting they were wrong. They would much rather just forget they were at all. Speaking up for the controversial truth is truly a thankless job - that's why so few people do. Who has the balls to tell the emperor he's naked?

[Emperor_Mike]

...
Speaking up for the controversial truth is truly a thankless job - that's why so few people do. Who has the balls to tell the emperor he's naked?

A child. Thus, we must obtain the services of a 7 year old, have him or her go up to President Bush and say, "You're a bald-faced liar!"

[younggiftedandblack]

Honestly I don't know of anyone who believed that WMD theory. And if there are people out there who brought that then they're idiots or blind patriots.

A war with Iraq I believe was unavoidable. There was no way we could've kept up the pace of boxing Saddam in with those "No Fly" zones and embargos. Pres. Bush should've made it just about him and him only. I think more people would've given him more time and not been as critical had he not metioned the WMD's.

[Martino]

A war with Iraq I believe was unavoidable.

Why?

There was no way we could've kept up the pace of boxing Saddam in with those "No Fly" zones and embargos.

Why?

[Martino]

A war with Iraq I believe was unavoidable.

Any other countries you think a war with is unavoidable?

[younggiftedandblack]

Martino,

Noone wants war, but sooner or later whether it was now or years from now there was going to be some sort of military action between the U.S. and Iraq.
There's noway the U.S. would've continued rotating troops in and out of Kuwait and Saudi spending millions of dollars just to keep Sadamm in place. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. People wanted to get him in the 1st war, but Pres. Bush Sr. wanted to hold off.

[ShortNBitter]

Okay I'll speak as a cynical neocon Bush supporter. This is my COMSPIRACY THEORY:

edit: i thought about fixing that typo but now that i'm at the edit page... i think its funny so im leaving it.

The fact of hte matter is that from the veyr beginning Bush and all the other people knew there was no Weapons of Mass Destruction. We wanted to go after Iraq for the oil, just becuz Saddam is a dbag, (and quite possibly just to show Al Queda --or dare i say it, THE WORLD-- that we are still badasses and can kill people just cuz we are stronger). It takes alot of cash and respect (scratch that, change it to fear) to be a World Power.

But the problem with a Democracy is that no work gets done because everyone is arguing all the time, so we needed something to confuse the American public with their emotions. Low and behold 9/11 happens. THE MOMENT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR HAS ARRIVED, MISTER PRESIDENTE!! After 9/11 I'm sure there was some sort of meeting between the Bush admin, and prolly Powell suggested using using this as the opportunity to take out Saddam and to suck their resources to hell...

And let's be honest - a large majority of the world is stupid and dont really pay attention becuz thye are watching their American Idol and Survivor and TV crap like that, so of course they willl go along with it. Combined with a lil locking up dissidents, creating "free-speech zones," and livid Bush supporters, we have a war.

Nobody was really looking for weapons of mass destruction or biochemical weapons~ We did it forthe money!

http://www.explodingdog.com/dumbpictures/ididit.gif

[Martino]

Martino,

Noone wants war, but sooner or later whether it was now or years from now there was going to be some sort of military action between the U.S. and Iraq.
There's noway the U.S. would've continued rotating troops in and out of Kuwait and Saudi spending millions of dollars just to keep Sadamm in place. I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is. People wanted to get him in the 1st war, but Pres. Bush Sr. wanted to hold off.

With respect, that isn't really an answer. Why military action between the US and Iraq? The UN was doing its job, the UN was in Iraq right up until the start of the war, the country was constrained by UN sanctions ... war was not enevitable, but we were steered towards it.

[Bhodi_Li]

I don't like Iraq anymore. Can I come home now?

[younggiftedandblack]

Martino,

I'm just cynical when it comes to mankind and his treatment to his fellow man. I'm convince had Clinton not won in '92 that America would've been in there before now. When President announced that we would be going into Iraq it didn't surprise me one bit. And I didn't buy that WMD story for one minute.

[kitty]

I agree that Bush planned this as soon as he got into office -- you're right that it's been an agenda that was only put on hold for Clinton.

What surprises me is that the American public bought the WMD argument or the "Saddam and Osama are working together" argument. Or even those who thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

[ShortNBitter]

What surprises me is that the American public bought the WMD argument or the "Saddam and Osama are working together" argument. Or even those who thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

Probably just to get the... um... lets just say majority and less-informed of America galvanized into a frenzy of hate.

[golden_buns]

I don't like Iraq anymore. Can I come home now?

I really hope you can make it back soon and safe

[mr. x]

http://www.explodingdog.com/dumbpictures/ididit.gif

ah, the explodingdog, great site

[BaiginLong]

I don't like Iraq anymore. Can I come home now?wish you could man but heh blame bush

[Kuchana]

Paul O'Neill is a liar when he says Bush planned the Iraq War before 9/11. Plain and simple. His stint on 60 minutes proves that by far.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11722

"Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:

"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 Iraq oil (CBS's promotional story also contained 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?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman is ecstatic about O'Neill's allegations, and views them as vindicating his three years of over-the-top Bush hatred. Needless to say, Krugman has nothing to say about O'Neill's and Suskind's fraudulent misrepresentation of the documents on which their claims are based. The battle is joined: the New York Times propagates lies, the blogosphere points out undeniable facts that are inconvenient for the left. Spread the word."