It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Secret Documents on TV Anger Treasury Department

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 04:56 PM
After sensitive administration documents were flashed in front of the camera on CBS's 60 Minutes last night, the Treasury Department would like to know how. As a new book criticizing the Bush administration hits store shelves this week, based in a large part on the information and documents supplied by Paul O'Neill, a probe is being requested as to how the documents were obtained. Jonathan Nicholson (Reuters) writes: "According to a summary of the segment on CBS's web site, Suskind said one of the briefing materials O'Neill had included a paper marked "secret" that was titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq." This is just the beginning of the fallout. [Edited on 12-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 05:12 PM
Doesn't the Secret Service fall under Treasury? If this is the case, they are adept at preventing assasination and the like. If they just reverse the process, with the knowledge they have, I wouldn't want to be this guy.

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 08:46 PM
Now lets watch the double standard at work as they seek to prosecute O'Neil while impeding the Palme investigation. It seems outing President Bush on issues will be far more painful than outing a career intelligence officer.

posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 10:52 PM
I wondering how this can be classified or termed "double-standard".....
I have mentioned it before here and some knew this before I mentioned it: If O'Neil is using or revealing 'sensitive' or 'secret' or 'for official eyes only' information, he runs the chance of having his arse pinned against a wall. The man held a position that entitled him to see, hear, and have access to information was not to leave the confines of his post, job, or etc.
Evidence produced on the "60 Minutes" show consisted, I believe and have read, of the first page of a "Secret" NSC document/report containing or stating the outline or writings dealing with 'Postwar-Iraq'. I also believe another document was produced and dealt with the document/report on the possible 'Suitors for the Iraq's Oil Field'. Anyone confirm this more than I have mentioned?
Now according to articles I have read, his 'side-kick': Suskind comments that O'Neil obtained such authority and permission to view and use over 19,000 pieces of documents for this book.
I don't believe that it is a terminal matter for Mr. O'Neil and the 'investigation' will likely find nothing other than 'loose' US government beaucracy at work.

Bush is not denying what was said anyhow.....he stated today, that he "inherited" the policy of "Regime Change" from the previous administration. Ouch...
(I believe this was reported by the AP)


posted on Jan, 12 2004 @ 11:07 PM
And I just ran across this very informative Blog....yeah, I can hear it coming now, BUT it may be of worthy a read:

"Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax"

I am not going to excerpt it because the individual has links to the "DOCUMENTS" in question!
Ah hell, I post this to entice the read:

"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."

Pretty much of the "numbered" documents the blogger mentions are link activated. Seriously, well worth reading and checking out what is said.

Here is one of those links from this blog that I am asking folks to read:

"Iraqi Oil Suitors" document"
Link:*.PDF FILE*


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:17 AM
You'll never stop believing your false gods have purposely taken advantage of youa and decieved you, will you? You will believe the fantasy just for your own piece of mind because the reality is too hard to bear. Even resorting to a blog from another repugnant to hold on to the transparent lie.

its just so sad like a dog mewling and pawing at the door of his master when there is no one home....

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Colonel]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:31 AM
Pretty informative, eh Colonel?
It had so much an impact of "fear" on you that you had to goto your favorite area: the mud pit and open a thread to further dismiss the information.

The information must have hit you like a brick, huh?


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 07:22 AM
You know what... I really don't have any problems with high-ranking members of our government theorizing behind closed doors about how to take action against countries which may be our enemy... long before these countries have taken any overt action against us. I feel this is appropriate contingency planning on their part, and an important piece of what they get paid to do. What I do have a problem with is giving us and congress shaky and/or fictional reasons for going to war. This is my problem with the story and the Bush administration. No matter which documents are exaggerated or taken out of context, there remains a clear message that this administration began its first day in office with a desire to go after Saddam and Iraq... and were looking for reasons to pick a fight. Now... that's where the press focus of this story should be. The blog and other stories in the press are deflecting attention from this much more important angle.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 07:42 AM
At least it's shaping up that way this morning. FoxNews is already saying this may be the "shortest probe in history."

O'Neill Defends Himself to "Probe"

The Next victim of the White House witch hunt? Chief Legal Counsel of the Treasury (if he indeed approved those documents).

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by RANT]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:38 AM
"These people are nasty and they have a long memory."

"Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feelyour best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear." That goal is worth the price of retribution, O'Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," he tells Suskind. "And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The President saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"

On he, Whitman & Powell ( the non-ideology all the time appointments) - We "may have been there, in large part, as cover,"


Take the most ominous: "I'm old & rich, they can't touch me". did they waste any time in trying? Seems he knows the old team quite well.
wonder if he's going to be expecting tht "heart attack?"

Or maybe they'll do him like the babysitter where the car is running & slipps out of park while he's reaching for the morning paper?

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 08:47 AM
That is ominous speculation BT.

I was chilled hearing O'Neil talk about how Bush treated dissent, bullying him, belittling him, calling him "The Big Oh" and making cracks in public. All while still working for him!

There's some mixed opinions on the Fox & Friends phone polls; some of course don't believe anyone against Bush, but some quite thoughtfully saying this guy seems level headed and sincere.

He is an old man, and rich...not only with nothing they can do to him, but also nothing to gain.

Fox Caller this morning: This guy is a life long conservative, a good Republican, why would he say this if not concerned for the party?

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:10 AM
Yeah....keep skewing this how you wish Rant and BT....
Witch hunt? Doubtful!
O'Neil and Suskind have revealed just what?
That there was a "plan to Regime Change" Saddam/Iraq? Just what are they revealing that wasn't already in MOTION long before the current Bush Administration entered the White House?
I don't give a rat's arse how much money O'Neil thinks he has, the matter is that this supposed "explosive" expose' of the Bush Administration was BS and hyped, more-so, by the BS media. You deems and haters of Bush never hestitate to produce your "so-called" evidences but as and in most cases, when it gets literally and figuratively BLOWN OUT THE WATER, you counter with more BS.

All the hype here in the past few days dealing with this "revelation" of the Bush Administration was the so-called "mystery documents" and once produced on '60 Minutes" the proof of the matter was that it was BS, and BS from the start.

PBS ran a series on this and mentions that this "Regime Change" plan was hatched long before the current Bush Administration. That Clinton had plans drawn up for the take down of Saddam/Iraq and dealing with a "postwar-Iraq". Lack of "Brass Balls" and Congressional support prevented such an "Action" from taking place!

NewsMax today:
"Clinton, Congress Ratified 'Secret Bush Plan' to Depose Saddam"

The New York Sun:
"The ONeill Scoop"

The Washington Dispatch:
"O'Neills Contentions Warrant Skepticism"

Icing on the "cake":
"O'Neill: Bush Is Better Than the Democrat Wannabes"

So.....what startling and "scathing revelation" did Mr. O'Neil and Suskind bring out/forth? Nothing but already known and documented BS. Period.


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:31 AM


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:41 AM
I enjoy watching how the Democrats are back-tracking on this issue myself.......


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:42 AM
Please people, there is nothing to see with regard to Seekerof. Its just a man wallowing in the death throes of betrayal and pain over his disgraced false gods.

I mean, hell, it's obvious. He's quoting from NEWSMAX!

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link O'Neill Says He Did Not Believe Documents Under Scrutiny Were Secret Former Treasury Secretary Claims Documents Were Given to Him By Treasury Dept. Counsel By Fred Barbash Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 13, 2004; 12:03 PM Former Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill said today that the documents he turned over to an author, which are now the subject of a Treasury Department inquiry, were sent to him on a compact disc by the department's own general counsel after O'Neill left the administration last year. O'Neill said he did not believe the documents were classified or secret. "Under the law," he said, the general counsel is "not supposed to send me anything that isn't unclassified. And so if there's anything in that file that's unclassified, the general counsel failed to be sure that everything was clear."

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:53 PM
You hear about this great eatery, & make reservations for you & your significant other. You then run into a High school friend who happens to be the maitre'd at that eatery. He emphatically warns you NOT TO EAT there.
Do you keep your reservation?

O'Neill: Worked as a Cabinet Official in the Bush, Ford & Nixon Administrations.
Does he know when things are a clusterf***K? Sure.
Is he telling us that? Absolutely.
So why attempt to scuttle his opinion? He knows there are rat turds in the soup!

So your argument against Clinton, having a contingency plan to move against a potential problem ( all administrations have them for all potentials in the world ), is the same in your eyes as assuming office & having one of your new administrations first priorities is to draw an action plan against a country that's shown no agression against the US? In support of the PNAC dogma!?!
Clintons " Brass Balls" were just fine, he just had common sense to see the clusterf**k we're in now & wasn't suckling hard & steady from the corporate cronyism teet.

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:55 PM
Didn't O'Neil reveal here in the past day or so, that he sent the documents to Suskinds without reviewing them? In such, how can he make the "O'Neill said he did not believe the documents were classified or secret" statement?

In such, "Under the law" also specifies and clarifies that anyone with a 'secret' security clearnace would refrain from exposing anything deemed 'secret' to a public forum or medium. And that anyone with such a clearance or previous 'secret' clearance knows the full legal ramifications of doing so when applied and in regards to those 'uncleared' individuals and organizations, etc.


posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 12:59 PM
BT, PNAC........please, you guys are beating a dead horse beyond death on this one.
Think not?

Hows this in relation and in regards to PNAC:

"H.R.4655 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: Signed and bankrolled by President Clinton"

This PNAC issue has been discussed on multiple threads since the "scathing revelation" from and by O'Neil and Suskinds hit and was posted on depth.


[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:18 PM
really? so that International Tribunal is just around the corner, huh?
PNAC called for ownership of resources & occupation....that's in the clinton plan?
Which "plan" has come to being?
Still, do you think O'Neill's opinion of politics being the only policy driver inaccurate? If so, what example of policy action that was not catered to the constituency can you reference, because I can't think of one?
Really, you don't have a moral leg to stand on with this bunch. I don't see why republicans don't start backing honorable individuals like Richard Shelby, Peter King, John Mccain and even Arlen Specter. There is undeniable talent in the just has to redicover it's voice under th pile of special interests that own the party at present.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in