The Paul O’Neill ‘tell-all’ book and interview has created some inspired thinking by the Calpundit:
BETTER DUCK AND COVER, PAUL….Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill isn’t finished with his, um, unkind remarks about George Bush, remarks that we all get to hear and see tomorrow on 60 Minutes. But then there’s this:
O’Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax cut, says he doesn’t think his tell-all account in this book will be attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. “I will be really disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way,” he tells Stahl. “I can’t imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth.”
He’s got to be kidding. After all this time is he really that clueless about the kind of people he’s dealing with?
How did a naif like him get so rich, anyway?
Neat-O! In other words, everything O’Neill says is true, automatically, and any attempts by anyone in the administration to state otherwise is evidence of the ‘kind of people he’s dealing with.’
No mention of whether O’Neill’s ‘cluelessness’ is only towards the subjects Kevin knows best, or infects all of his perspectives.
I guess I should view this falling out in a new light:
In a nonstop round of interviews, George has been hit with scathing criticism. On NBC, Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a “turncoat” whose take on the President was “kind of creepy.” Over at CBS, Mark McEwen said the author was being called a “backstabber” and an “ingrate.” On CNN former Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn’t given George the “opportunity of a lifetime,” George might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a “multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator” (inside the White House make that “commentraitor”). And James Carville says Washington has become The Truman Show, broadcasting Clinton’s private life in something approaching real time.
If I inhale the California ether and use the Calpundit’s standards- everything bad Stephanopoulos stated in the book is true, and that all of these attacks from the Clinton White House is evidence of the type of people we were dealing with.
Democrats.
Dave Weigel
1.)Paul O’Neill becomes Treasury Secretary
2.)economy flounders
3.)Paul O’Neill is fired
4.)bit by bit, economy rebounds
Now, we should care what Paul O’Neill has to say … why?
caleb
This is indicitive of both parties.
Whenever one of their own comes out and speaks against them, true or not, it’s attack, attack, attack the accusor.
We saw it during Clinton, we are/will see it now with Bush.
Nothing new here.
Ralph Gizzip
I liked the comment attributed to a White House staffer, “Nobody listened to Paul O’Niell when he was a Cabinet member so why should anyone listen to him now?”
dg
The fact that no one listened to O’Neil is proof of what O’Neil says about ”deaf” policy makers.
Now let’s get to the nut. When did Bush plan the invasion of Iraq?
What does the statement ”find a way to do this” mean?
Follow the chronological events of Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Cheney’s involvement with Iraq from the mid 80’s to present.
Who risked their life and who got rich?
charles austin
Poor Paul, even Bono won’t return his phone calls anymore.
I guess former President Clinton’s failure to take out Saddam or prevent the planning for 9/11 are all former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin’s fault too.
dg
Not only did members of Clinton’s NSC meet with Condoleeza Rice and warned her about Usuma bin Laden in Affganistan, but she actually lied month’s later when asked about the meeting. Now she’s trying to get out of testifying before 9/11 investigators.
Clinton’s failure to take out Saddam?
Better read your history, pal. Reagan and Bush’s daddy made this monster, and Bush’s daddy didn’t take him out when he had the chance.
You must live in FOX News’ Imaginary Land.
Dave Weigel
dq, you use rhetoric to disguise your lack of sense. Why did Bush I “have the chance” to remove Saddam, but not Clinton?
CleverNameHere
Reagan and Bush made Saddam? Do you even know how long he was in power?
dg
Saddam came to power in the late 70’s. But Reagan took an interest in Iraq’s peroccupation with killing Iranians.
Although the US was supposedly ”neutral” in regards to the Iran-Iraq war, Reagan/Bush played both sides for profits.
Department of State Cable from George P. Shultz to the United States Consulate General, Jerusalem. “Follow-up Steps on Iraq-Iran” [Includes Transmittal Sheet], January 14, 1984.
The U.S. intensifies its diplomatic efforts to curtail arms sales to Iran and imposes anti-terrorism export controls on that country. However, it does not plan to prohibit U.S. imports of Iranian oil.
The U.S. was developing plans to liberalize its export policy for Iraq. The revised rules would permit the export of U.S.-origin armored ambulances, communications gear, and electronic equipment for the protection of Saddam Hussein’s personal aircraft. The Reagan administration was continuing efforts to persuade the Export-Import Bank to provide financing for Iraq — a positive Eximbank determination would improve Iraq’s credit rating and make it easier for it to obtain loans from international financial institutions.
Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation
CleverNameHere
Profits? Where do you get that? Did we support Saddam against what we thought was the larger threat? Sure did. Did we “arm Saddam”? No way. We were only a bit player in arms sales; we don’t even hold a candle to Russia, France, and China.
Nothing in your last post comes even pitiably close to suggesting Reagan/Bush “made” Saddam. And seeing as how he rose through the ranks of the Ba’ath throughout the 60’s and 70’s, I hardly see what then Governor (or even actor) Reagan had to do with it.
Hell, GHWB was a private citizen when Saddam took over the reins of the Ba’ath.
Shark
*GASP*
You mean that Bush was planning the invasion of Iraq from the get go? Well, considering that the stated policy of the US Govt was REGIME CHANGE (and this policy was in effect during Clinton admin) it only makes sense that this sort of thing was planned for. News flash: There’s also a war plan for the invasion of Syria, Iran, N. Korea and probably China. IT’S THE WAY THESE THINGS ARE DONE.
I think Mr. O’Neill needs to be jailed for a spell- surely he’s violated laws by leaking contents of classified memos and meetings?
dg
Didn’t Arm Saddam?
Department of State, Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs Information Memorandum from Jonathan T. Howe to George P. Shultz. “Iraq Use of Chemical Weapons,” November 1, 1983.
Officials from the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs tell Secretary Shultz that the department has additional information confirming Iraq’s “almost daily” use of chemical weapons. They note, “We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, presumably from Western firms, including possibly a U.S. foreign subsidiary.” The issue is to be added to the agenda for an upcoming National Security Council meeting, at which measures to assist Iraq are to be considered. The officials note that a response is important in order to maintain the credibility of U.S. policy on chemical warfare.
Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act
Or this:
United States Interests Section in Iraq Cable from William L. Eagleton, Jr. to the Department of Commerce. “Helicopters and Airplanes for Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform,” September 20, 1982.
Iraq’s director of agricultural aviation invites U.S. crop-spraying aircraft manufacturers to provide information about helicopters and pilot training, noting problems with its existing equipment because pilots have been inhaling insecticide fumes.
Iran was reporting chemical weapons use against its forces by this time. According to a 1991 article in the Los Angeles Times, American-built helicopters were used by Iraq for some of its chemical weapons attacks; according to the Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq experimented with using commercial crop sprayers for biological warfare.
Source: Declassified under the Freedom of Information Act
Here’s another:
Department of State, Special Adviser to the Secretary on Nonproliferation Policy and Nuclear Energy Affairs Memorandum from Dick Gronet to Richard T. Kennedy. “U.S. Dual-Use Exports to Iraq: Specific Actions” [Includes Document Entitled “Dual Use Exports to Iraq” Dated April 27, 1984], May 9, 1984.
An internal State Department paper indicates that the government is reviewing policy for “the sale of certain categories of dual-use items to Iraqi nuclear entities,” and the review’s “preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities.”
Source: Declassified through Congressional investigation
You can say we didn’t create him. But the evidence is abundant that Reagan/Bush made the beast.
capt joe
No, Saddam came to power in the 60’s.
Here at http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/shussein.html
we have: ” In 1968 he helped lead the revolt that finally brought the Baath party to power under Gen. Ahmed Hassan Bakr. In the process, he landed the vice president
HH
The Clintonoids did a whole lot of “warning” but when it came to do something about the Cole, for example, Clarke was met with silence.
CleverNameHere
The Ba’ath came to power in the 60’s, but Saddam wasn’t head of the Ba’ath back then.
And no, Reagan/Bush did not “make the beast”. As far as arms transfers is concerned, we represented a whopping 1% of the world total, the same figure as such notable military powers as Denmark. Saying the Reagan made Saddam is akin to saying Montana gave Reagan the victory over Mondale.
Mike
One of the first rules of the Art of War is that to accomplish your goal you must manage meaning. The campaign you undertake must be seen as just, otherwise you are just vulnerable to any chickenshit.
In 1983, after White House memos confirmed Iraq was employing chemical weapons against Iran, Ronald Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to shake Saddam Hussein’s hand and give him a letter of praise — the president of the United States legitimized the crazy son of a bitch after he had established himself as a crazy son of a bitch.
Now we have George W Bush harvesting middle-class savings — unless you laughably think Jenna and Barbara’s gildede nest-egg is somehow vulnerable — with a record-breaking $400 billion spending-deficit to invade Iraq.
I said it before in John’s forums, and I still think it applies here — watching guys with confederate flags on their trucks defend these last few Republican administrations is like watching a prostitute stick a knife in a guy’s leg for trying to stop her pimp from beating her. That’s how insane it looks.
Dean
When discussing dual-use items, it would help to actually have some knowledge of the background.
Take CW, for instance. One of the great difficulties with chemical weapons, especially nerve agents, is that many of them are, in fact, modified for commercial use. Thus, many insecticides are simply extremely diluted versions of nerve agents. (And repeated, extended exposure to the insecticide can produce some symptoms of exposure to nerve agents.)
The problem, of course, is that no one’s prepared to deny a country access to insecticide—public health would suffer, farming would suffer, etc.
Ditto BW. The anthrax strains that we “exported” to Iraq? Perfectly legal and legitimate, since the Iraqis were interested in developing vaccines against anthrax that threatened their sheep herds.
So, dg, simply b/c the US (among others) sold dual-use items hardly is indicative of support for a CW, BW, or even nuclear weapons program.
But then, as one who, I suspect, opposed the continuation of sanctions, you must be familiar w/ the reporting from folks like “Voices in the Wilderness” who wanted chlorine and other items exported to Iraq. The same sorts of items that, in fact, were dual-use.
Or did those sanctions, which were killing “thousands and thousands of children” make sense to you (since they were in place during a Democratic President)?
dg
Reagan, Bush and Jr., have the history with Iraq–Not Clinton.
”As far as arms transfers is concerned, we represented a whopping 1% of the world total…”
Who’s ”we”? That ”1%” does not include foreign subsidies of US corporations. (Halliburton, for instance, has French subsidaries.)
Reagan/Bush encouraged Saddam–secured financing, turned a blind eye to his brutality, hooked up corp. contractors, and ignored Iraq’s specific use of WMD in Iran-Iraq war. (Wasn’t that USA v North?)
Foreign subsidaries of US corp. were supplying components for Iraqi Soviet weaponry. (It’s like using Russian guns, with US bullets.)
Shoulder mounted, ground to ground to air, anti-aircraft missle launchers were the favorite export of US and foreign firms. No not directly. One made the trigger, the other made the shaft, etc. and finally another country puts it all together. But the US made sure the deal went through.
And all the talk about helping Iraq, ”the lesser of two evils” is bunk when you consider Reagan’s hero, Ollie North, made sure US ”interests” secured an illegal arms sale to Iran during our ”neutral” support for Iraq.
Weren’t they TOWE anti-aircraft missles? Their favorite. (And they’re shootin’ down US aircraft in Iraq–maybe elsewhere, with shoulder mounted missle launchers.)
Reagan and Bush made the mess and junior’s supposed to clean it up:
”Find me a way to do this.”
–George Bush
Random Numbers
Another former Administration official responds:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary011204.asp#022610
Dean
dg:
Put your money where your mouth is. What kind of weapons were assembled in Iraq from American-supplied components?
You are suggesting that US SUBSIDIARIES provided equipment on the scale that the Soviets and the Chinese (and the French) did? Then there’d be examples, prominent ones.
Otherwise, it’s a lovely theory—I rank it just below the one of a jolly old guy flying from the North Pole w/ goodies for all the good kiddies at mid-wintertime.
Robin Roberts
You’ve got it correct Dean. It is dg who is in Imaginary Land.
dg
Hey Dean, behold:
United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]” [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq’s defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) Many of these firms tried to defend themselves by establishing that providing military materiel to Iraq had been the actual, if covert, policy of the U.S. government. This was a difficult case to make, especially considering the rules of evidence governing investigations involving national security matters.
Source: Court case
Slartibartfast
The idea that we supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war (which is fairly well-known and hardly an earth-shattering revelation) doesn’t equate to that we created Saddam. Got anything else?
Joey
Yeah, those thousands of Russian T-72 tanks Saddam had are Amerikkka’s fault..
Peddle that bullshit on Democratic Underground.
Joey
And furthermore, even if we did “create” Saddam, wouldn’t that mean we’d have a greater moral burden to REMOVE him?
Slartibartfast
Well, I didn’t want to go into irrelevancies, such as dg’s characterization of “TOWE” as antiaircraft missiles. There’s no such American-made missile as TOWE. There is a TOW, however, but it’s an antitank missile. It’s practically useless against airplanes. The Iraqi’s favorite antiaircraft missile is the SA-7 Grail, which was made in the former Soviet Union.
dg
Did you not read this, or do you just pick through what fits your argument:
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq’s defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
We made sure that Saddam had whatever it needed to fight Iran. Further more, as these lawsuits proved, the US made sure that Soviet military hardware was updated and repaired.
And rather it is TOWE or TOW, or rather it’s anti-aircraft or anti-tank missles, and regardless who made them, YOUR government (the one Reagan and Bush have told us not to trust) made sureSaddam AND Iran had plenty.
And what are they using to shoot down helicopters in Iraq today? Modified shoulder mounted ground to ground rockets.
You would rather argue about the type of missle launchers these were, instead of the fact we sold them to BOTH SIDES during the Iran-Iraq war when we were supposed to be neutral.
You neocon’s okay with that?
Slartibartfast
I dunno…any neocons here? I’ve been conservative all my life, so that pretty much excludes me.
And…wow…we repaired Soviet military hardware? I guess we can do anything.
Again, it’s not a new idea that we provided Iraq with some assistance during the Iran-Iraq war. The case being that Iraq was seen as the lesser of two evils at the time. The question is, what’s your point? That we provided anything other than a miniscule fraction of Iraq’s inventory just prior to GWI? If that’s it, your point is incorrect.
Slartibartfast
Here’s what they’re using to shoot down helicopters in Iraq: SA-7 Grails, and RPGs. Both Soviet.