O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11

[BeautifulLoser]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html

(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."

meh

[Stearnsie]

meh meh

[The Omega Concern]

well then what the hell did he need to manipulate 9/11 for if he was already going to do in Iraq anyway?

The case for Iraq is above Dean's head, unless he can synthesize the entire picture well and really change the course of events towards this world Socialism that's approaching, he don't get my vote.

No one politician has that in him.

i guess i may not vote this November.

[mewl]

i wish i knew more about politics and shit so i could make an educated statement. i think iraq is better off without saddam, but on the other hand, i don't know how well they'll do under a forced democratic system (if that's what's going on). i was always on the side of "this war is not necessary", but now i do think it opens up the potential for good things to happen in iraq. the fact that bush planned this even before the war on terrorism began kind of pisses me off. he misled us. i think dean is a cunt, but i agree with him. it seems like the only reason bush took office was to finish what daddy started.

meh.

[sppunk]

That's obvious: George has been planning the war since Nov. '91.

[Homerpalooza]

Yeah, this was a huge mistake on Dubya's part. It think if he had just gone before the American people and just said "Look, I think we need to establish a democracy in the Middle East to stabalize the region and hopefully affect Al-Qaida's operations" he would've gotten the support he needed for war. I personally disagree with that argument but I bet a lot of America would have agreed. Instead, he mixed in this WMD bullshit, tried to connect Al-Qaida directly to Saddam, etc.

Now all the lies and manipulation is gonna hurt him and I hope the Democratic nominee keeps reminding people that Bush isn't so filled with integrity and honesty, which are the traits that most people admire him for.

[The Omega Concern]

im not sure if I agree with their big vision, but I think their big vision is based upon some ideal of democracy which is needed to thrwart this holy war (going on the premise its a legitimate threat and necessary hurdle to cross as we go into the NWO thing).

despite all the misgivings of the capalitistic structure, these people do operate on theories of how many human casualties are worth the risk of defending it as it fits into their view of how the world can be shaped for the next few decades.

I dont see how the Muslim religion gets around this ideal they have to destroy us "infidels". I dont think that's some propped-up excuse so the Bush cartel can have its way for a couple terms, I think its a convenient, albiet legitimate, factor in their big equation of the future.

anyway...the pre-emptive strike arguement on this level started with Truman really, and that's still being argued, so... if the Iraq/Al-Queda/Muslim jihad nexus is really out to destroy our way of life and its solely the inertia of forces Bush is party too because he has to deal with those forces on some level, and give and take with it while also fighting it, its possible the guy is the right man for these times.

but the immigration issue really has thrown a monky wrench into that for me...he's tooooo entrenched...and Cheney with this invisible V.P. thing, it is kinda creepy.

[mewl]

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
I dont see how the Muslim religion gets around this ideal they have to destroy us "infidels".

I hope I interpreted that incorrectly because I'm stoned and not because you're really an idiot.

[Isaac]

The thing that bothers me most is how long the Bush family has been in bed with the Saudis. At this point in America, major stories are being drastically under-reported. We all know about Britney, Kobe, and Michael Jackson. We all should know that the Bin Laden family and several other Saudis were flown around to gather up and leave the country for their safety. At the same time, New Yorker's were lied to and told that it was safe for them to be around ground zero. The Saudis have priority over us in our own country by the president of our country. Almost all of the highjackers were Saudis. The Saudi royal family has been shown to be sending funds to Bin Laden to keep his fanaticism out of Saudi Arabia. Yet, we're at war in Iraq to the tune of $166 Billion.


History is not going to be kind to this point in American history.

[BeautifulLoser]

Originally posted by Homerpalooza
Yeah, this was a huge mistake on Dubya's part. It think if he had just gone before the American people and just said "Look, I think we need to establish a democracy in the Middle East to stabalize the region and hopefully affect Al-Qaida's operations" he would've gotten the support he needed for war. I personally disagree with that argument but I bet a lot of America would have agreed. Instead, he mixed in this WMD bullshit, tried to connect Al-Qaida directly to Saddam, etc.

Now all the lies and manipulation is gonna hurt him and I hope the Democratic nominee keeps reminding people that Bush isn't so filled with integrity and honesty, which are the traits that most people admire him for.

There is no way in fuck he would have gotten support simply by saying "I think we need a democracy in the Middle East, let's invade Iraq!!" He needed a smoking gun, and I bet when 9-11 happened, he was happy as a clam because he knew he could make up a reason from it.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Now I *know* this is bullshit

[Mr. Burns]

OOOH! This war wasn't about terror or a tyrant at all! It was about Dubya and all his Big Oil compadres making themselves richer! Look at how well-off America is NOW! Two cars in every pot and five chickens in every garage, all thanks to the sums of money we're making off of this Iraq war! Dubya just couldn't wait to get his hands on that Iraqi oil, so this country could grow even fatter and richer! The multiple hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has sunk and will sink into rebuilding Iraq is just a drop in an ocean of all that black gold!

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr. Burns
OOOH! This war wasn't about terror or a tyrant at all! It was about Dubya and all his Big Oil compadres making themselves richer! Look at how well-off America is NOW! Two cars in every pot and five chickens in every garage, all thanks to the sums of money we're making off of this Iraq war! Dubya just couldn't wait to get his hands on that Iraqi oil, so this country could grow even fatter and richer! The multiple hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. has sunk and will sink into rebuilding Iraq is just a drop in an ocean of all that black gold!

Goddamn, is it really THAT hard to understand this concept? EVERYONE pays for the war through taxes, but only a FEW actually get any return. It wouldn't be an all-round economy booster, it's more like everyone buying a lottery ticket and only a couple of people getting anything back.

Now I'm going to paraphrase your post for comedic yet poignant effect!

Originally posted by Mr. Burns
OOOH! This war wasn't about Dubya and all his Big Oil compadres making themselves richer at all! It was about terror or a tyrant! Look at how safe America is NOW! Two incoming flights cancelled every day and five holidays a year with terror alerts, all thanks to the blanket of safety resulting from this Iraq war! Dubya just couldn't wait to depose the leader of a weak ineffective nation which embarrassed his dad, so the world could become a safer more democratic place! The multiple dictatorships and human rights-abusing nations cited as allies are just a drop in the ocean of all that democracy and freedom from self-government!

[Elvis The Fat Years]

I'm planning on anal before I even meet DeviousJ. Is that so wrong?

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Elvis The Fat Years
I'm planning on anal before I even meet DeviousJ. Is that so wrong?

You're having anal before you meet me? Remind me not to shake your hand

[Toast]

Why is it such a shock that there were plans to remove Saddam? It's been the official policy to force a regime change since 1998. Hell, you could probably find plans to invade Canada somewhere in the Pentagon.

[Ugly]

"Remember, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad" - George W. Bush - September 28, 2002

There's your answer, fishbulb.

[EverlastingGlaze]

There's a surprise...

[Nimrod]

Originally posted by Isaac
At the same time, New Yorker's were lied to and told that it was safe for them to be around ground zero.

Holy crap, what the hell are you smoking now? New Yorkers (no apostrophe, btw) were lied to? By whom, Bush? I never heard him say "Hey everyone, it's Tuesday, come on down to the WTC, yeehaw!"

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser

I bet when 9-11 happened, he was happy as a clam

If you really believe this is true, maybe that troll was right and you should go AWOL. If you honestly believe the President was happy that the 9/11 events happened, you have no business serving under his command.

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Nimrod
If you honestly believe the President was happy that the 9/11 events happened, you have no business serving under his command.

Bush on 9/11
Ladies Home Journal (Oct. '03)
George W. Bush: But the day ended on a relatively humorous note. The agents said, "We need you downstairs," and so there we go. I'm in my running shorts and my T-shirt, and I'm barefooted. Got the dog in one hand, Laura had a cat, I'm holding Laura --

Laura Bush: I don't have my contacts in , and I'm in my fuzzy house slippers --

George W. Bush: And this guy's out of breath, and we're heading straight down to the basement because there's an incoming unidentified airplane, which is coming toward the White House. Then the guy says it's a friendly airplane. And we hustle all the way back up stairs and go to bed.

Mrs. Bush: [LAUGHS] And we just lay there thinking about the way we must have looked.

Peggy Noonan (interviewer): So the day starts in tragedy and ends in Marx Brothers.

George W. Bush: THAT'S RIGHT-- WE GOT A LAUGH OUT OF IT!

[ammy]

duh?


duh.



duh duh duh duh.

duhbya!

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Holy crap, what the hell are you smoking now? New Yorkers (no apostrophe, btw) were lied to? By whom, Bush? I never heard him say "Hey everyone, it's Tuesday, come on down to the WTC, yeehaw!"

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets it's boots on." Mark Twain
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/epa-a28.shtml
Bush lied to NYC on post-9/11 pollution crisis
By Bill Vann
28 August 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The Bush White House intervened in the weeks following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to suppress warnings by the Environmental Protection Agency of health hazards associated with the toxic cloud of dust and debris created by the collapse of the World Trade Center, according to a report issued by the agency’s inspector general.

The highly critical 165-page report indicates that agency officials were pressured to issue misleading assurances that the air quality in New York City was safe, in part because of White House concerns that Wall Street be speedily reopened for financial trading.

These lies helped create the conditions in which thousands of “Ground Zero” rescue workers contracted serious illnesses, and many residents of lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, as well as infants born after the September 11 disaster, have had their health placed at risk.

On the day after the terrorist attacks, the report revealed, the office of then-administrator of the EPA Christine Whitman issued an extraordinary memo instructing agency personnel that, “All statements to the media should be cleared through the NSC (National Security Council) before they are released.”

Under pressure from the White House and the NS,c “reassuring information was added” and “cautionary information was deleted” from EPA public statements on the potential health hazards following the September 11 attacks, the internal report stated.

The EPA inspector general’s investigators were able to recover original drafts of statements prepared by the environmental agency and compare them to those that were released after being revised by the Bush White House.

For example, a press release prepared by the EPA for Sept. 13, 2001 reported that the agency’s samplings had detected “very low levels of asbestos” in the air, but noted that “even at low levels, EPA considers asbestos hazardous in this situation and will continue to monitor” the situation. It added that it would work with authorities to assure that the hazardous material was handled properly.

After being revised under orders from the White House, the final release stated: “EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City...Short-term, low-level exposure of the type that might have been produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is unlikely to cause significant health effects...the general public should be very reassured by initial samplings.”

Similar revisions were made to a September 16 press release issued on the eve of concerned employees returning to worksites on Water Street near Ground Zero. The original release noted, “Recent samples of dust gathered by OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos in EPA tests.” After passing through the hands of the White House censors, the final release read: “The new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern.”

And, in a September 18 statement, Whitman announced that the air in lower Manhattan was “safe to breathe.” At that time, the report says, the agency “did not have sufficient data and analyses to make the statement.” The EPA had yet to receive results from its initial tests for PCBs, dioxin and a host of other toxic substances. The inspector general’s report added, “The answer to whether the outdoor air around WTC was ‘safe’ to breathe may not be settled for years to come.”

The unfounded claims by the EPA that there existed no serious environmental threat in lower Manhattan were echoed by then-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who ridiculed those raising concerns.

“We knew at the time that the smoke and dust from the collapse was a serious health hazard and we made our best effort to get the word out to workers and the general publi,c” said New York Committee on Occupation Safety and Health director Joel Shufro. “But it is difficult to make a big impression when you have federal and city officials falsely claiming they have the scientific basis for saying that everything is safe.”

Other information deleted from EPA releases at the request of the White House *******d warnings about the special risks posed by the pollution in lower Manhattan to young children, the elderly and those with existing respiratory problems.

Likewise, Bush administration officials ordered the agency to remove recommendations that both residential and commercial buildings undergo “professional cleaning” before being reoccupied. Instead, the final release simply told people to follow instructions from New York City officials, who at the time were overwhelmed with the rescue and recovery effort and lacked the expertise to make valid recommendations.

To this day, there has yet to be an adequate cleanup of lower Manhattan, with many businesses and residences still contaminated from the toxic dust of September 11. Under substantial public pressure, the agency approved only a limited cleanup of residences south of Canal Street in lower Manhattan. According to the report issued by the inspector general, approximately 18,000 residential units in this area have yet to be tested or cleaned. The EPA, meanwhile, has refused even to do testing in non-residential spaces, including work-sites and schools. It has likewise excluded areas of the city—Lower East Side and Brooklyn—that were covered by the toxic cloud blowing from the World Trade Center site.

The report indicates that in the aftermath of September 11, the agency was essentially hijacked by the Bush White House and its National Security Council. In every instance, EPA officials bowed to demands that recommendations based on scientific evidence be replaced with politically motivated reassurances that everything was safe.

“We were unable to identify any EPA official who claimed ownership of EPA’s WTC press releases issued in September and early October 2001,” the report states. “When we asked the Chief of Staff if she could claim ownership...she replied that she was not able to do so ‘because the ownership was joint ownership between the EPA and the White House,’ and that ‘final approval came from the White House.’ She told us that other considerations, such as the desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns, were considered when preparing EPA’s early releases.”

How “national security” was enhanced by lying to people in New York City about the dangers posed by breathing air laced with asbestos, PCBs, lead, glass fibers and other toxic chemicals is nowhere spelled out in the report.

The impact of the government’s lies, however, has become painfully clear. A study by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine found that 78 percent of World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers suffered lung ailments and 88 percent had ear, nose and throat problems as a result of exposure to toxic materials at the site. Tens of thousands of workers were involved in the rescue and cleanup effort. Up to 500 New York City firefighters remain out of work on disability because of lung problems and most are expected never to return.

Dubbed “World Trade Center cough,” the illness is seen by some doctors as a new disease syndrome. It results in reduced lung capacity and extreme sensitivity to any inhaled particles, bacteria and viruses. Triggered by second-hand smoke, car exhaust, cleaning agents and even cold air, it leaves those afflicted gasping for air.

Others affected ******* thousands of day laborers, for the most part undocumented immigrants, who were brought into lower Manhattan to clean up dust-filled apartments and offices, working invariably with no protection.

The inspector general’s report noted that many of those involved in the rescue effort failed to wear respirators even when they were available. While this was due in part to the disregard for personal safety in the initial desperate effort to find survivors in the rubble, another significant factor was the reassurances offered by both the EPA and the federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) about air quality.

“Workers at Ground Zero may not have used respirators due, in part, to inadequate EPA and other government communication,” the report said. It cited statements from both a director of an environmental testing firm hired to conduct testing at the site and construction company officials as stating that they interpreted EPA statements as indicating that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe.

Safety and health advocates have questioned whether the same kind of White House pressure exerted upon the EPA was also used against OSHA. The latter agency adopted the position that it had no authority to enforce federal safety standards at Ground Zero because it was a rescue effort conducted under the government’s National Response Plan.

Another study has revealed a potentially horrific effect of the collapse of the World Trade Center and the pollution from the resulting fires that burned for the next four months. It found that expectant mothers exposed to the polluted air gave birth to abnormally small babies.

“Our best guess is that women who were exposed to overly large quantities of soot on 9/11 and the succeeding days developed the same problem you see in women who smoke during pregnancy,” said Dr. Philip Landrigan, one of the authors of the study, which appeared earlier this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study is to continue monitoring the children until they are three years old to determine whether there are lasting effects from their mothers’ exposure.

Doctors in hospitals in both lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, meanwhile, have reported a major increase in asthma and chronic bronchitis cases.

The EPA’s acting administrator, Marianne Horinko, dismissed the inspector general’s report as “out of touch with reality.” From the content of the report, it would seem that the “reality” Horinko had in mind consists of the reactionary politics of the Bush administration and the overriding demands of Wall Street investors. The inspector general’s report appears to take as a point of departure the agency’s mandate to protect the environment and the health of the American people rather than the reality of an agency that consistently subordinates such considerations to profit interests.

The government lying exposed by the EPA inspector general constitutes criminal activity in the strictest sense of the word. The statements issued in the name of the agency and at the behest of the White House constituted the reckless endangerment of millions of people and have contributed directly to destroying the health of many thousands. The long-term effects of exposure to the toxic cloud in lower Manhattan are not known, and many may yet pay with their lives for the Bush administration’s lies.

Significantly, those in the White House responsible for deleting safety warnings and recommendations from the EPA’s post 9/11 announcements stonewalled the inspector general’s efforts, refusing to meet with investigators. This is part of the pattern of concealment and lying that has pervaded the Bush administration’s response to any attempt to probe the September 11 attacks, what led up to them and their aftermath.

[Nimrod]

Hahahaha, thanks for the unbiased report from the World Socialist Society.

[Mr. Burns]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Goddamn, is it really THAT hard to understand this concept? EVERYONE pays for the war through taxes, but only a FEW actually get any return. It wouldn't be an all-round economy booster, it's more like everyone buying a lottery ticket and only a couple of people getting anything back.

Now I'm going to paraphrase your post for comedic yet poignant effect!

You're missing the point I'm trying to make, liberal schmuck.

There IS NO PROFIT OUT OF THIS, AT ALL. Not for Big Oil, not for Dubya, not for ANYBODY. Go ahead and keep kidding yourself that if it ain't left, it ain't right.

By the way, nice comeback. Very glib.

[Mr. Burns]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Hahahaha, thanks for the unbiased report from the World Socialist Society.

Remember kids, if it ain't left, it ain't right!

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr. Burns


You're missing the point I'm trying to make, liberal schmuck.

There IS NO PROFIT OUT OF THIS, AT ALL. Not for Big Oil, not for Dubya, not for ANYBODY. Go ahead and keep kidding yourself that if it ain't left, it ain't right.

By the way, nice comeback. Very glib.

Oh shit, so all these rebuilding contracts (not to mention administration contracts for the country's infrastructure) AREN'T generating profit for the companies carrying them out? How generous of them to work for free like that! And here I was thinking that the US had approved huge sums of taxpayers' money for this rebuilding project - I must have been mistaken since the work is apparently being done pro bono. That's why there was a fight for these contracts you see - companies just *love* doing huge amounts of work for absolutely no profit to themselves. It's how business works.

Ironic that you decided to call yourself Mr Burns, don't you think?

[Isaac]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Hahahaha, thanks for the unbiased report from the World Socialist Society.

Well, here it is from USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...itehouse_x.htm
White House pressured EPA on air quality after Sept. 11 attacks
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog says White House officials pressured the agency to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe a week after the World Trade Center collapse.
The agency's initial statements in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were not supported by proper air quality monitoring data and analysis, EPA's inspector general, Nikki Tinsley, says in a 155-page report released late Thursday.

An e-mail sent just one day after the attacks, from then-EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff to senior EPA officials, said "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, the report says.

Approval from the NSC, which is chaired by President Bush and serves as his main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, was arranged through an official with the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the report said.

That council, which coordinates federal environmental efforts, in turn "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones," the inspector general found.

For example, the report found, EPA was convinced to omit from its early public statements guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and tips on potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a telephone interview Friday that EPA did "an incredible job" with the World Trade Center cleanup.

"The White House was involved in making sure that we were getting the most accurate information that was real, on a wide range of activities. That *******d the NSC — this was major terrorist incident," he said.

The White House directed EPA to add and delete information, Connaughton said, based on whether it should be released through press statements, information on the Web or other means.

"In the back and forth during that very intense period of time, we were making decisions about where the information should be released, what the best way to communicate the information was, so that people could respond responsibly and so that people had a good relative sense of potential risk," he said.

The EPA inspector general recommends EPA adopt new procedures so its public statements on health risks and environmental quality are supported by data and analysis. Other recommendations ******* developing better indoor air cleanups and ways of handling asbestos in large-scale disasters.

[Isaac]

Thank you, though, for reiterating my original point. Stories are under-reported. So much so that when I state a fact I get countered with "What are you smoking?" from one of the more informed members of the board.