Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2004 | 9 a.m.
PAUL H. O'NEILL, George W. Bush's first treasury secretary, is quoted in author Ron Suskind's new book, "The Price of Loyalty." I haven't read the book and unless more spare time appears on my calendar I may not read it anytime soon. Very simply, it's not on my top ten list of necessary reading.
Watching the CBS program "60 Minutes" last Sunday was interesting when O'Neill talked about the book. When discussing the new Bush administration's National Security Council's initial meeting in 2001, O'Neill said, "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go." According to O'Neill, the tone of that and future NSC meetings gave every indication Bush was seeking a way to help Saddam out the door.
Immediately following that interview, some columnists and commentators expressed surprise that such discussions had happened before 9-11. This fed speculation that Bush used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. He did use the impact of the terrorists attacking our country as additional motivation to go after Saddam. Iraq's leader had been toying with the United States and provoking it by several aggressive actions since they let him off the hook in 1991. That's when President George Herbert Walker Bush allowed the defeated Iraqi army to return safely home. Immediately Saddam turned his Republican Guard loose to kill the Iraqi Kurds and Shiite Muslims.
That Saddam's name should be brought up in a NSC meeting with implied threats to take him out shouldn't have shocked the new treasury secretary. Certainly he was aware of the Iraqi leader demanding the removal of U.S. weapons inspectors and threatening our U-2 observation airplanes operating over Iraq for the United Nations in 1997.
In early 1998 Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., presented a resolution calling for President Bill Clinton to:
"(1) call for the creation of a commission under the auspices of the United Nations to establish an international record of the criminal culpability of Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials; and
"(2) call for the United Nations to form an International Criminal Tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other violations of internal law; and
"(3) devise a long-term plan, in consultation with allies of the United States for the removal of Saddam Hussein from his position as President of Iraq, so that he can be prosecuted fully for war crimes and other violations of international law."
Specter went on to advise his fellow senators as follows: "As a generalization, our national policy is sound, not to kill a foreign leader for political purposes. But it is important to note that that prohibition is mandated only by a Presidential Executive order. It does not have the force of law of congressional enactment.
"Let me now pursue a series of questions relating to that policy.
"First, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein after he attempted to assassinate former President George Bush?
"Second, should that policy be applied to Saddam Hussein, considering his atrocious record of war crimes, or at least after he is convicted and sentenced to death?
"Three, would targeting Saddam Hussein constitute a lesser use of force and a more justifiable use of force than the President's contemplated air and missile strikes?
"Fourth, is it time to re-examine that policy as it applies to the likes of Saddam Hussein?"
Late in 1998 Clinton told our nation, "Over the past year we have deepened our engagement with the forces of change in Iraq, reconciling the two largest Kurdish opposition groups, beginning broadcasts of a Radio Free Iraq throughout the country. We will intensify that effort, working with Congress to implement the Iraq Liberation Act, which was recently passed; strengthening our political support to do what we can to make the opposition a more effective voice for the aspirations of the Iraqi people."
I would find it unbelievable if a member of the Bush NSC had written that Saddam wasn't discussed in depth in 2001 during the first meeting of that important body.
Maybe after reading a couple of book reviews I might move this latest book up a notch or two on my reading list. Right now the only surprise I have had is that an NSC member is out talking about what happened in meetings.
archive
