General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: $130,000 from Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s checking account to the (9-11) hijackers [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Price of Loyalty. These events took place soon after Bush II was inaugurated!
First, the Bush administration was made aware of the extent of global warming at the time.
Please note that O'Neill, even while at Alcoa, was aware and trying to make others aware of our environmental crisis. I personally think that may have been one reason that he was so sensitive to the issues concerning oil and the Iraq oil fields. That's just my guess.
Anyway, from a book that should be on the shelf of everyone interested in the history of the Bush II administration:
"Beneath the surface was a battle O'Neill had seen brewing since the NSC meeting on January 30. It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hard-liners like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz, who were already planning the next war in Iraq and the shape of a post-Saddam country.
. . . .
One document, headed 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,' lists companies from thirty countries -- including France, Germany, Russia, and the United Kingdom -- their specialties, bidding histories, and in some cases their particular areas of interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for 'supergiant oilfield,' 'other oilfield,' and 'earmarked for production sharing,' while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine 'blocks' to designate areas for future exploration. The desire to 'dissuade' countries from engaging in 'asymmetrical challenges' to the United States -- or Rumsfeld said in his January articulation of the demonstrative value of a preemptive attack -- matched with plans for how the world's second largest oil reserve might be divided among the world's contractors made for an irresistible combination, O'Neill later said.
Already by February (2001 shortly after GWB's inauguration), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why, but the how and how quickly. Rumsfeld, O'Neill recalled, was focused on how an incident might cause escalated tensions -- like the shooting down of an American plane in the regular engagement between U.S. fighters and Iraqi antiaircraft batteries -- and what U.S. responses to such an occurrence might be. Wolfowitz was pushing for the arming of Iraqi opposition groups and sending in U.S. troops to support and defend their insurgency. He had written in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1999 that "the United States should be prepared to commit ground forces to protect a sanctuary in southern Iraq where the opposition could safely mobilize."
During his confirmation hearings, Powell had said that arming the Iraqi opposition would be logistically difficult and ultimately unsuccessful in toppling Saddam. Since then, Powell had discovered that he was outnumbered."
Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty (2004) pages 96-97.
I strongly, strongly recommend reading that book. Get a copy.
It is a pretty frank history of the first years of Bush II.
I have to say that I do not agree with Paul O'Neill on many issues, but the history is interesting.
I am not related to Suskind or O'Neill in any way. Don't know either of them. Never met them. I just like the book and recommend it.
Anyway, the question is, in their relationship with Saudi Arabia, did the members of the Bush administration give aid and comfort to an enemy of the US, of the American people? Or not?
It's just a question.