The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Candidate RSS Feeds Added | Main | Latest Iowa Numbers (1/11/04) »
January 11, 2004
Bush | O'Neill Sheds Negative Light on the Bush Administration

From 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.



Posted by Mike Van Winkle at January 11, 2004 11:05 AM | TrackBack
Comments

According to Newsweek, the administration has this to say about O’Neill’s allegations:

An administration official told NEWSWEEK, “We didn’t pay attention to the crazy things he said while he was here, so why would we start now after he’s gone?”

Advantage Bush.

Posted by: Dan spencer at January 11, 2004 01:39 PM

O’Neill also said he never heard evidence to suggest WMDs in Iraq. Nice timing.

Posted by: jones at January 11, 2004 02:39 PM

Of course O’Neill didn’t hear evidence on WMD’s, he was the Treasury Secretary. This reminds me of a quote from Harry Truman: “If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog.” Now O’Neill can be the darling of the Democrats and their friends in the media for the next couple of months, and maybe get a job in the next Democratic administration, whenever that occurs.

Posted by: popd at January 11, 2004 05:24 PM

At what point will we find out his wife is a deep cover CIA agent … ?

Posted by: CERDIP at January 11, 2004 06:47 PM

You know, it really doesn’t bother me that a cabinet member whose task is Commerce and Finance, says he wasn’t involved in Military or Foreign Policy decisions. O’Neill is just showing why it was necessary he be shown the door.

Posted by: GDubya at January 12, 2004 09:51 AM

I always thought that O’Neill’s problem was that he was CEO too long. He was Chairman and/or CEO of an old line company (International Paper or ALCOA) from 1985 through 2000. Guys like that find it hard to play second fiddle again. It’s going from a god back to being mortal again.

When he was in office he tended to say weird things. That sounds like he was unwilling to listen to staff and handlers when they tried to prepare him. This is very common with guys that have been on top for years. No staff type could possibly as smart as he in any task, especially in what he should say.

This attitude comes out in some of the other snippets from the book. The “I tried to engage the President on dozens of issues” quote could be interpreted as “He didn’t think my issues were that important” or “He thought I should be able to manage minutia without bringing it to his attention”.

Overall it’s dangerous to hire someone that’s not use to taking orders to play a supporting role.

Posted by: Buckland at January 12, 2004 11:03 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)