And Where Lies the Truth?

As Paul O'Neill backs off some of the more controversial comments he's made, we have to ask: What's really going on?

But first let's back up. Paul O'Neill said in the WSJ reporter's book: "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," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.

"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.'"

There's no denying this was said, at least. Only the meaning has been questioned.

Everyone wants to jump on both the initial statement and retraction as evidence of the correctness of the left or the right, essentially. But critical reading skills need to come into play, preferably before the emotional outburst but at least very soon thereafter.

We'll treat it like an investigation. What is the motive? Who stands to gain by each statement?

First things first: Paul O'Neill was fired by the Bush administration. (The Bush administration basically chalks that up to incompetance, but the media tends to be pointing to the fact that O'Neill disagreed with the tax cut, among other things dear to Bush's heart.) Clearly, he has a bone to pick with the Bushies. He may well have exaggerated early meetings in which Iraq policy was discussed to make the administration look bad, especially if he didn't agree with the Bush Iraq policy. If O'Neill bears a grudge and also disagrees strongly with Bush's positions, he may want to hurt Bush's chances for re-election.

The counterargument for this? It's a little early yet to be attacking Bush's re-election chances, as we're not even into primary season. Also, pettiness seems like an insufficient motive to take to the national stage. It's not like O'Neill will be winning his position in the administration back by doing this (far from it), and considering his political orientation, he's unlikely to be taken up by a Democratic president.

And now for the retraction: Let's face it -- the Bush administration, like them or not, is full of bullies. You may consider this a good thing if you favor aggressive foreign policy "to keep America safe," or you may, like the rest of us, dislike bullies in general. But they do throw their weight around and act imperiously, such as when they barred noncoalition nations from bidding on reconstruction contracts (because we all know Guam and the Marshall Islands have thriving reconstruction industries that could easily take this project on and make supercompetitive bids). Odds are, when O'Neill criticized them, they didn't take it lightly. In fact, they launched an investigation of Paul O'Neill (obviously a terrorist), a move that smacks of the Nixon administration in some ways. O'Neill naturally must feel some pressure from the powers that be to tone down his statements if he doesn't want to end up taking an extended vacation in Guantanamo Bay.

Against this theory? Well, it makes a lot of sense for the administration to have had some discussion of Iraq during their transition into office, considering the Clinton administration had tussled with the country several times. I even remember us dropping bombs on occasion. And if you consider that Bush was not well-acquainted with the intricacies of foreign policy, it makes sense that he would need the situation explained (and that he might make comments about Iraq policy that displayed poor judgment). As for them being bullies -- hey, I can't explain that away. You try taking on Donald Rumsfeld and tell me that you didn't feel intimidated by Mr. New Trier.
So where do you stand?