Is O'Neill Pulling a Hoax?

[Sir_Shrek]

Emailed to me by a co-worker.....

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.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

[cthrumatrix]

1. if that were true - Cheney would have no problem releasing Energy Papers

but he's not....he's going to the Supreme Court to hide the truth

[oldcoot]

10. Good point

Why is he fighting so hard to keep those documents from being released? It should be fairly obvious to even the most trusting conservative that Cheney has something to hide. They certainly wouldn't let Clinton get away with such things.

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. Yeah, and the Treasurey is investigating the hoax...LOL!

Is this the best they can come up with.

Cheney is the real president, so the fact that it came from his office only makes sense.

Besides, if it was so innocent why did he not reveal it?

[bahrbearian]

3. Either O'Neill is perpetuating a Hoax or Cheney is.

[rumguy]

4. O'Neill sat on the Council that considered the plans for Iraq

pre-9/11 - he knows what he speaks of...

[proud patriot]

5. No Hoax ...Our Energy policy was to invade Iraq

That's why cheney's been fighting to keep it all
secret . I wonder if the Afganistan oilpipeline
was also discussed at Cheney's energy meeetings .

[cosmicdot]

15. bingo - and, we have a winner

I doubt if Dick had to do much 'work' putting the Energy Task Force together ... they likely had things ready-to-go ... including the California energy gouging ...

[xray s]

6. They are not pulling a hoax. They are exposing a hoax.

And he sits in the oval office.

[el_gato]

7. are you going to email them back

As far as I'm concerned we aren't learning anything new.
Everybody I know understands the bush gang have been lying
their asses of the whole time. This is alot bigger than
O'Neill.

[ThomWV]

8. Are You Nuts?

Just because it ended up in a later document doesn't for a moment mean that it did not originate in an earlier document.

Do you honestly think that O'Niel spent the last year furiously making up 19,000 pages of documents? It would have only been 45 pages a day, not so hard ..... Jesus ........

Thom

[rumguy]

11. me thinks the repukes doth protesteth to much!

the pigs are out and squealing...I'm loving it!

[arcane1]

9. but the UAE and Saudi Arabia are both on the PNAC hit-list

including them doesn't automatically mean Iraq wasn't a target... am I missing something?

I remember when JW got these documents, I promptly printed them out and kept them. I'm failing to see why these documents make O'Neill's story invalid..

if only they would study BUSH'S and CHENEY'S statements with such a fine-toothed comb!!! :grr:

[RememberTheCoup]

12. I fail to see the significance of this.

If they had proven that the document was not created until after 9/11 and Suskind and O'Neill were claiming it was created before 9/11, THAT would be significant. But all they are saying is that this document is part of Cheney's energy papers. So what? Can't a document be used for more than one purpose? Someone please explain what they are trying to say here. How does this go toward demonstrating that Suskind and O'Neill are lying?

[rumguy]

14. it's pure smoke and mirrors...and pathetic at that!

[JailForBush]

13. Hmmmmmm...

Was this thread started by an operative attempting to defang O'Reilly? If the information related in the first post is true, then did O'Reilly make a colossal blunder, or is he indeed part of a monstrous hoax?

At the moment, I find it rather hard to understand what the purpose of such a hoax might be. His revelations - even if not wholly true - are rather damning to Bush. If it's all part of an ingenious plot that will ultimately empower Bush, then it's too ingenious for my mind to fathom.

But if the statements above are true, then we can expect the media to quickly begin exposing (or promoting) O'Reilly's revelations as a hoax.

And what kind of organization is Judicial Watch? Is it trustworthy?

[Sir_Shrek]

16. O'Reilly?

HA! I'm the last person that would defend O'Reilly!

[Kolesar]

25. O'Neil? Paul O'Neil

Per your question, go google judicial watch. They were antiClinton operatives.

[Timefortruth]

17. There is nothing secret about the map, never has been.

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1008118

It is a red herring if ever there was one. The reason it was released is because it was meaningless but threw a crumb to Judicial Watch.

on edit:

Later tonight I will find out where they can be ordered and start a thread.

[scarletwoman]

18. Hyperbole and hoohaw...

If Mylroie wants to make a credible critique of the book, she ought to actually read the book itself, before getting her panties in a bunch over some television coverage.

Television interviews are HEAVILY edited. The statements made by the interview subjects are cut and pasted from substantially longer footage, and there is absolutely no guarantee that an apparent response from an interviewee has any relation to a specific question shown in the broadcast. Bits and pieces are cut, re-arranged, and manipulated. Basing a judgement of factualness on a TV interview is idiotic. Therefore, there is actually no way of knowing -- short of getting hold of the entire uncut interview tape -- what the original context of the statements shown in the broadcast might actually have been.

Before crying "hoax", people ought to read the book, and find out what was actually written, and what arguments are presented in what contexts.

In any case, anyone who has been paying attention already knows well the history of the "Get Sadaam" movement in the bush* (mal)adminstration. Fer cripesakes, "regime change" in Iraq was even part of the 2000 election Republican Party platform!

The only "hoax" here is that someone is passing judgement on the contents of a book without having read it.

sw

[Timefortruth]

19. Someone listen to me! The map is not secret and never has been.

That's why it is out, the damaging stuff has all been burned and the ashes stirred.

[Blue_Roses]

21. EXACTLY

Mylorie definitely needs to hold her opinion until she reads the book.

My, people are just jumping to all kinds of conclusions trying to defend Bush. O'Neill must have seriously hit a nerve!

[Stuckinthebush]

20. Brilliant move

Put out the word to the true believers that it could be a hoax.

True believers jump on the word hoax and spread this rumor.

They run with the "hoax" word until it becomes common knowledge that it was a hoax.

The real story of pre-9/11 planning of Iraq invasion is lost on the masses.

Are Americans really this stupid? I'm afraid so.

[JanMichael]

22. Isn't this a violation of GD Rules?

"5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises."

It sure looks that way. What's Sir_Shrek's opinion on this crap?

[Stephanie]

23. Yes, it is

"5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

"Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
--Winston Churchill

"Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof."
--Inscription on the Liberty Bell

"The best group blog in America is Power Line, and I am beginning to think it may be the best blog period..."
--Hugh Hewitt

"You guys have a GREAT blog!"
--Michelle Malkin

"I never miss Power Line."
--Steve Hayward, author of "The Age of Reagan"

"The blog is excellent--I'll make it regular reading!"
--Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review

[Kolesar]

24. Yes, I cannot distinguish this from a RW attempt to "disturb" DU

What pathetic parsing. "It was not a Pentagon document, it was an energy meeting document! BF Difference.

[Moderator]

26. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator