War Of Words Over War Plan - Paul O'Neill Was Fired In December, 2002

[54anickel]

Here we go...spin, spin, spin

edit to add link :dunce:
http://news4colorado.com/topstories/topstories_story_012093453.html

WASHINGTON (CBS News) The Bush administration, which justified the Iraq war partly by arguing the Sept. 11 attacks made preemptive attacks necessary, was mum Monday on when it began planning for the invasion.

A former Cabinet official claims planning for a war began during President Bush's first days in office, some eight months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl that at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting, "there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

snip>
The Bush administration has never accused Saddam of a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, but has repeatedly suggested the attacks necessitated a new, more forceful foreign policy.

[aquart]

1. Huh?

"The Bush administration has never accused Saddam of a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, but has repeatedly suggested the attacks necessitated a new, more forceful foreign policy."

I'm pretty damn sure they did. Did they leave themselves a way out?

[HereSince1628]

4. The Bush admin didn't say it, they implied it, and allowed false

ideas to remain in play.

The implications came from discussing the disasterous WTC terrorist attack in the same breath as Saddam and WMD.

Moreover, they continued that practice even when they finally came out and said there was no linkage.

[monobrau]

5. plausible deniability

"I'm pretty damn sure they did."

Ah, but if you go back and parse all of the speeches, you won't find a direct accusation. You will, however, find dozens of sentences with "Iraq", "Saddam Hussein" and "Sept. 11th" juxtaposed in such a way that the average TV viewer is left with the association in their brains. It's devious, underhanded stuff. That's why you could swear that you remember it.
(not to imply that you're average :) )

[TacticalPeek]

8. Also, they were apparently very careful, to the point of obsession almost,

to never get caught saying "imminent threat"; they used "threat", they used "imminent", but not together.

Which tells me they knew there was no "imminent threat", that they knew they would be called on it if they tried that, and instead had to use Madison Ave techniques, "hidden persuaders", to get Americans to picture mushroom clouds and cackling jihadists.

Treasonous bastard scumbags.

[Virginian]

13. It's a little trick of the mind that makes you believe it more if you put

the statements together and come up with the conclusion yourself.

It is so "subliminable" that you don't even realize you didn't hear it.

They are using crafty psychology on those who only hear the sound bites. They morphed Osama into Saddam. They tried to change Weapons of mass destruction into programs to build WMD.

One of the funniest was when Bush said we want Osama Dead or Alive.
Not long after that, Rummy announced that Osama was either dead or he was alive. I guess that means they succeeded on that one.

[Dover]

2. Depends on what you mean by "it".

As Clinton would say...

[Fridays Child]

3. Got a link?

:)

[54anickel]

6. Sorry, edited original post for link. n/t

[salin]

7. note... wh spokesman won't confirm or deny early war planning

(from the beginning of the administration - long before 9-11). They can't deny it. IF they do they will ignite a bigger round of refutations, documentation and a bigger media stir. They want to discount ONiell and let the story die. The non-denial (and they can't deny it or it would be even worse for them) is telling. Will it work? Only time will tell.

[GRClarkesq]

9. They will spin this by using

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" signed by Clinton.

Just doin what Bill told us to!

[Eloriel]

10. Which is an absolutely perfect example of how

they use Dem "cooperation" and "bipartisanhip" against us.

If we want to complain about, say, the Medicare Bill or PATRIOT Act or the IWR, all they have to do is say it was a "bipartisan" effort. Meanwhile OUR side has been thinking the old rules apply, that cooperation would be duly noted, appreciated and reciprocated.

I've seen Bush do this several times already. There'll be lots more of it.

Eloriel

[BenFranklinUSA]

11. let's not be too hasty...

...there are ALWAYS plans to do these sorta things.

9/11 just gave Durbyu an excuse to implement.

[Sterling]

15. Funny how that worked out huh?

You would think they planned it or something. Oops, read the PNAC document please, you will find they acknowledge needing an event such as 9-11 to impliment their plan. Read more you find that it was vitally important to the BUsh gang that 9-1`1 happen. Everyday it becomes more clear that their is a seperate agenda not acknowledged in the mainstream media but no less a reality.

[pinto]

12. notice that WMD justification for war is unmentioned...

focus is framed on regime change as a good thing, and pre-emptive regime change as "necessitated" by 9/11......I think this is preposterous, but B*shco may feel this line will work with enough of the electorate and the Congress....that and stonewalling the whole issue.

[pinto]

14. Treasury Dept. says it will "investigate" removal of documents

by O'Neil when he left position. O'Neil has already said removal ws cleared but the cables are all over this. Spin and attack.