More on Paul O'Neill

Some updates on the attempts to dismiss O'Neill's explosive allegations about Bush's plans to attack Iraq.

First, Blake at AmericanFootprint sent me a link to a discussion thread about O'Neill at Reason magazine's site. There, the Shrubberies are leaning heavily on the "contingency planning following on the Iraq Liberation Act" defense. One has used the term "ersatz scandal" at least a half-dozen times. It's interesting watching them go into mindlock mode - no matter how many times others point out that, as I've said, what O'Neill describes is an action plan, not a contingency plan, they just repeat "contingency plan contingency plan contingency plan."

Tom Tomorrow got this one dead on: "[T]o put it in terms Winston Smith would understand, 'We have always been at war with Iraq.'"

More to the point, he also demolishes the argument in two simple quotes:

- George Bush during an October 3, 2000 debate with Al Gore: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. I'm going to prevent that."

- George Bush at a joint press conference with Tony Blair, January 31, 2003, replying to a charge that he started making plans to invade Iraq in the immediate aftermath of September 11: "Actually, prior to September 11, we were discussing smart sanctions. We were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein."

The New York Times chimes in with a similar note in today's paper.

But the administration has disclosed few details of its early thinking about war with Iraq and did not publicly raise the prospect of such a war seriously until August 2002.

Either a)Bush was lying then, b)his minions and acolytes (such as those on the Reason board) are lying now, or c)those same faithful followers have no clue what the hell they're talking about.

I go with a and c, myself.

But unknowing ignorance never dissuaded any of the right wing flake squad from wild-eyed arm-flailing and the most absurd sort of nit-picking. The right-wing blog Powerline has a wonderful fantasy claiming to "blow the lid off" O'Neill's "hoax." The argument - if I can stretch the word that far - boils down to because one of the documents Ron Suskind (author of The Price of Loyalty) showed on "60 Minutes," the one about nations with interests in Iraqi oil, was actually information about oil supplies also gathered on other countries in the region, the whole thing is a "massive hoax."

That this is childish nonsense has not prevented it from already appearing in other posts as a basis to claim the documents O'Neill supplied to Suskind "do not stand up to scrutiny." I expect we'll see more of this sort of "make whatever wild charges you can in the hope something will help your cause" thing in the days to come.

Footnote: As an inoculant against the already-beginning attacks on O'Neill's character, a BuzzFlash reader offered a few quotes to keep around:

- "Paul has earned a reputation as a straight shooter and an innovator. And I'm proud to welcome him as the Chief Financial Officer of this nation. I value Paul's vast experience in the world economy. I value his background in employing American workers. And I value his steadiness, his conviction and his authority." (George Bush, January 30, 2001)

- "Paul O'Neill is doing a fine job as Secretary of Treasury. I find him to be refreshingly candid. I appreciate his judgment. He's a man of great experience." (George Bush, August 16, 2002)

- [One of the] "most fine, honorable, decent men I've ever served with." (George Bush, December 9, 2002)