Rove issues O'Neill talking points: It's Clinton's fault (surprise!)

[Faygo Kid]

Well, been checking out the BushBot media talking points on O'Neill's allegations, and the message is uniform. Rove jumped on this quickly; had to, given that "60 Minutes" airs tonight (no doubt they are hoping for a long and close Packers/Eagles game). Here they are, and they are simple: There is nothing new in regime change as a goal of American policy. The Clinton Administration developed plans for a post-Saddam Iraq in 1998. This is a "non-story" that the media is at fault for for pursuing. We appreciate Secretary O'Neill's valued service.
OK, the reality: A senior Cabinet member confirms that Bush pursued preemptive war against Iraq in line with neocon dreams of controlling the Middle East, and used 9/11 as its excuse, knowing full well Saddam had nothing to do with those attacks, and had no WMDs. Clinton's plans were standard contingency stuff, not contemplating initiating an imperialistic war of aggression (remember imperialism? A useful word. Time to start using it again). O'Neill is going to be mercilessly trashed over the next few days by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Fox News generally and the usual gang of idiots, then will be ignored.("Remember what happened with the O'Neill thing? Oh yeah. Say, wasn't that about the same time Britney got married and divorced in one day?"). The national media will ignore the story in favor of covering what sweaters the Dem candidates are wearing. Bush will rattle the sabres in the next week to scare the ever more gullible American electorate. And the morality of imperialistic, first strike war as the cornerstone of American foreign policy will be shrugged off by those who have a responsibility here to investigate (hello, Sen. Daschle). And we will continue to wonder what has happened to our country. Watch this story shrivel and fade as a microcosm of what is going on in this nation. My only hope is that Pres. Clinton, finally free of Dick Morris, will speak out with passion to set the record straight.

[GAspnes]

1. I figured as much when I saw the NewsMax story

we now know Scott McClelland's talking point tomorrow when the press asks. Isn't it nice to have a Kristol ball?

[UTUSN]

3. The Flaw in the Talking Points

ABC. Anything But CLINTON. It was clear out of the gate that the Shrubbites were conscientiously taking decisions based on ABC. They ignored the security briefings from the exiting Administration and they ignored the HART-RUDMAN report and anything else that was What Would CLINTON Do.

[w13rd0]

2. Hope Clinton will speak out?

Would this be the same Clinton that, in one statement, completely SANK the "16 words" story? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh, and furthermore, Bush & Iraq is not the ONLY bombshell O'Neill dropped. He also said that Bush had no interest in dissent, no interest in listening to others, and Cheney thought driving up the debt was "his due". But nah, we'll ignore all that...

Liberal media my sparkled ass...

[Faygo Kid]

8. Sadly, you are right

I sadly agree that Clinton will once again ride the fence on this one. If television v-chips were his idea of a raging controversy, I guess it's too much to ask him to show moral courage now. He could and should give this story the traction it deserves, if he only challenged the claim that he was pursuing the same policy in 1998. As to your other points, you are absolutely right about O'Neill's other claims, but I confined myself to this one, or nobody would read it (too long). That, my friend, is another problem. And, you are right about the "liberal media" claim, as well. Can't comment on your sparkled ass, though.

[Selky]

20. It would be rather hard for Clinton to deny,

since it was Clinton's intention to help the overthrow of Saddam's government...by signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

Quote: "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."

"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law."

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

Short memories, folks!

[Timefortruth]

21. I'm guessing you think the tax cuts helped America also?

Here's another leap, but since I'm clairvoyant I also know you think Bush was elected President?

Name one time this administration has been honest with the public about a substantive issue. Just one major issue where they have been honest, one would think that it wouldn't be too hard would it?

[DrBB]

9. That's the DLC way!

Thanks for that reminder. If Clinton doesn't do it, surely we can rely on Lieberman to come to Bush's defense:

"They were right to make ousting Saddam a priority right from the start, without waiting for a 9/11. We should be thankful for such prescient leadership. Oh, and also, I'd like to be president too now if the Republicans will let me. Please, guys? No? Oh, okay. What a great buncha guys."

[wryter2000]

4. O'Neill isn't the only source

O'Neill isn't the only source for Suskind's book. Trashing him doesn't defeat the rest of the contents of the book.

Let's all buy it and move it to #1 on NYT. It's due out on Tuesday.

(I already pre-ordered at Barnes and Noble.)

[okieinpain]

17. I will be picking up a copy.

[lovedems]

5. The one thing that has to be explained, and a dem has to bring it up

is * repeated statements that he didn't have a plan on the table for invading Iraq. I remember hearing him say OVER AND OVER again that he was waiting for diplomacy to work. If you think about the issue, while he was complaining that Saddam wasn't cooperating, you had Hans Blix stating that the Iraqi's were cooperating, they just hadn't found anything yet. Then you have * stating that he didn't have a plan on the table, wrong again. There are far to many inconsistencies coming from this administration. The time has come that I don't think they can keep up with their lies anymore. There are to many facts that have come to surface. Combine that with the administrations pattern of discrediting people who speak out against them, I don't think many will automatically discredit O'Neill just becasue Rove want them too. Especially since the Plame story seems to getting some legs. Wishful thinking? I hope not.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. Don't worry, Tom Daschle is going to demand an investigation....

IMMEDIATLY and................

......Oh...never mind.

:eyes:

[DrBB]

10. Actually, that's the best thing we've got

That's a very good point--he did say this, IIRC. We need to compile an archive of those quotations, just like we did for the "imminent threat" thing. I'll see what I can find....

[lovedems]

15. Thanks, I have dial up, so fact searching stinks for me. It all moves so

slow!

[mouse7]

6. There are supposed to be documents supporting O'Neill

According to what I saw this morning, O'Neill's charges are supposed to be backed with documents.

Sounds like there will be a lot of scanners busy when this book is released.

[nickgutierrez]

11. And possibly shredders, too

<eom>

[lovedems]

12. Yep! I heard that too!

He took an assload of papers with him when he left. Nothing like proof to bring down a liar.

[Eloriel]

16. Only 19,000 documents, that's all n/t

[Torrey Pines]

13. Bush on O'Neill: He "speaks with authority"

This is how Bush described O'Neill when he appointed him Secretary of the Treasury:

"Our economy is showing warning signs of a possible slowdown and so it's important for me to find somebody who has vast experience, who has a steady hand, and when he speaks, speaks with authority and conviction and knowledge," Bush said. "I found such a man in Paul O'Neill."

[rumguy]

14. Ha ha...you damn well right he speaks with authority

I knew there was a reason I always kinda liked O'Neill

[doubleyoi]

18. yes, and O'Neill's take on Bush

That in his cabinet meetings it was "like a blind man talking to a room full of deaf people" is priceless.
Of course the Clinton's had a post-Saddam Iraq plan. They probably had a post-Blair Great Britain plan, a post-Keith Rolling Stones plan, and a plan to handle alien invasion, so freakin' what? If this is the best they can come up with, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think O'Neill is going to be devastating to the BFEE.
'

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Plus Clinton didn't blame everything on 9-11

Oh I forgot, 9-11 happened on Bu$hler's watch. I could have sworn if was Clinton's fault.