The mouth that whined

By Charles Bloomer
web posted January 20, 2004

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill made a splash last
week, starting with a 60 Minutes interview and hitting all the
usual gab shows. I'll be upfront with you and tell you that I have
not read the book, nor did I see any of the interviews with him.
From reading the various reports of his performances, though, I
get the distinct impression that O'Neill is a disgruntled, vindictive,
and petty has-been whose ego needs to be stroked. Evidently,
he figured that his Bush-bashing screeds would catapult him into
the ranks of "somebodies." The predominantly anti-Bush media
have been happy to cooperate.

His cheap shots at the president aside, I find it terribly annoying
when people like this try to turn normal events into indictments of
evil-doing. Specifically, O'Neill has brought two items that he
thinks are utterly damning – first, no real evidence of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction ever surfaced during Cabinet
meetings, and second, the Bush administration had plans for
invading Iraq even before September 11, 2001. These two
points are presented as shocking – shocking! – proof that
President Bush lied to the American people and dishonestly led
the United States into invading Iraq.

Actually, O'Neill is trying to make mountains of molehills. Given
less than ten nanoseconds of thought, the average American can
see just how nonsensical these points are.

As for the first point, it will be remembered that O'Neill was the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury is not
included in the President's National Security Council. While I do
not claim to know what is discussed in Bush's cabinet meetings, I
seriously doubt that details about Iraqi WMDs would be prime
candidates for open cabinet meetings. I expect that the president
reserves discussions regarding sensitive intelligence issues to
meetings with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State,
the CIA Director and the National Security Advisor.

Whatever O'Neill's qualifications were that got him appointed to
the Treasury, expertise in foreign affairs, military or intelligence
matters were not among them. I would no more expect a
president to consult the Treasury Secretary on weapons of mass
destruction than I would expect him to consult the Secretary of
Defense on economic issues. So it comes as no surprise to me
that O'Neill was not privy to whatever evidence the president
had to prove the existence of Iraqi WMDs.

Did the president have plans to invade Iraq before September
11? Of course he did. I am also sure that the president, via the
Pentagon, has plans for several dozen contingencies. Despite
what some people seem to think, the military does not just sit
around waiting to react to crises. Military planners, when not
working on a current crisis, write contingency plans for any
number of potential conflicts. Many are products of War College
assignments; others are the bases for war games. This pre-
planning allows the military leadership the ability to review and
critique assumptions, logistics requirements, transportation
issues, and resource assignment.

As a result, it would not surprise me if there were plans on the
shelf that deal with every hostile or potentially hostile country in
the Middle East – Iran, Syria, Lebanon, probably even Saudi
Arabia. I expect there are contingency plans for a major conflict
with China, or even Russia. Certainly there are plans for minor
crises for places like Cuba and North Korea.

The lack of contingency plans for potential problems areas
would be utter stupidity that would reflect gross irresponsibility
and incompetence on the part of our military leadership.
 
Is it unreasonable to expect that the president might have
expressed an interest in Pentagon plans regarding Iraq?
Considering that Iraq had been a festering problem since the first
Gulf War, considering that Saddam Hussein had ignored and
violated 17 United Nations resolutions regarding WMDs, and
considering the available intelligence that tied Saddam Hussein's
brutal dictatorship to Al Qaeda terrorists, it would have been
totally irresponsible for President Bush not to consider his
options, including aggressive, preemptive military options.

Paul O'Neill's overblown hyperbole has convinced me that he
isn't worth listening to. His whining comes across as petty and
juvenile. This president fired him and now he wants to get even.
He is trying to make the president look bad. It isn't working.

Charles Bloomer is a Senior Writer for Enter Stage Right. He
can be contacted at clbloomer@enterstageright.com.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com