| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 678 Registered: 8-2003 |
what's worse is lying to yourselves. Sudden sympathy over 10K civilians lost when you were silent on 300K in mass graves. Misled? 2100 bodies in Kosovo, when you were told that 100K were likely dead. I won't even address your sense of proportion with respect to US casualties. Your outrage is selective and partisan in nature and without merit. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2067 Registered: 12-2001  |
I am guessing that O'Neill and the War College professor are not overly sentimental types and are more concerned with: 1. Getting into a quagmire in Iraq. 2. Setting dangerous precedents through unilateral actions with our pit bull the British. The wisdom of the 20th Century was that collective security arrangements were vital. Bush has undone many years of bipartisan agreement. He had better be right, because all of the criticism in the world of the U.N. won't help us out of a quagmire in Iraq. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 361 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well, at least they won't do anything Nixonian like investigate O'Neill. Imagine if they suddenly investigated him? It would give a strange impression to that the Bush people will use any tactic, any smear, to maintain their power. But they...oh, they are investigating him. Oops. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 680 Registered: 8-2003 |
Nice try. On the Today Show, O'Neill says he'd investigate a "secret" document that ends up on a TV show if he was Secretary of the Treasury. And he's already spoiling your conspiracy theory. He said as well that Bush was continuing the 1998 Clinton policy you no doubt voted for, and that he wasn't lining up tanks to launch after his first week in office. Just that Bush's tone was one of seriousness and concentration on the Iraq issue. As you'll recall, there was talk about shifting the sanctions (and lack of enforcement by worthless UN member nations) and rethinking that brilliant plan of containing Saddam as he starved and killed his people while paying off families of terrorists in the West Bank. And to top it off, O'Neill said he'd probably vote for Bush in 2004. | ||
| Don Perkins Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 257 Registered: 9-2003  |
Paul O’Neil? Nobody outside of the true blue Bush haters don't really seem to care. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1764 Registered: 5-2001 |
Like these guys? | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 365 Registered: 12-2001 |
CJC - Let's have an old-time go-to-the-bookstore-and-read-the-book-instead-of-watching-the-today-show contest. I'm buying mine today. Bet this will outsell Al Franken (which in turn outsold O'Reilly). He also said he doesn't understand why they wouldn't ask the counsel's office about the documents before publicly announcing an investigation, since he cleared them. Who Launches tanks? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 686 Registered: 8-2003 |
themp, if O'Neill copied secret documents that backed up anything pertaining to Bush and there wasn't an investigation -- Dems would howl at the breach. They did something along these lines when senate memos were leaked on how they were going to tie up some conservative Latino that dared to yearn for a spot on the 10th Circuit. Ignore the content, call for an investigation. And yes, yes....you got me on 'launching tanks.' And I didn't watch the Today Show. The wires had it. However, I can imagine the sinking look in Katy Couric's face as he said those things discounting the conclusion that you and the democrats jumped at. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 369 Registered: 12-2001 |
Not for nothing, but what conclusion did I jump to? I haven't said anything about national security, because I don't think it is the most interesting part of O'Neill's comments, nor do I think it is his strong suit. The tax and deficit stuff is plenty for me. I think announcing the investigation before doing adaquate internal checks to see if it was necessary was a dumb move politically, and I think was intended, unwisely, to be intimidating. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 371 Registered: 12-2001 |
You can't deny the appearance thing, as below- Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days. Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day. You know what's interesting? If O'Neill spoke as you say this morning, then conservatives have to abandon the "oh, he's just a disgruntled, fired, embittered hatchetman" argument because here he passed up a chance to hurt the administration. In other words, maybe it's time to listen to the messenger and respond to his criticism? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 690 Registered: 8-2003 |
He's a disgruntled, fired man who was surprised to be seen as a hatchetman when people flew off the handle at his book comments, who's honest to enough to re-make those perceptions and was wrong on the economy and didn't like the way Bush ran his meetings. That about covers it. I will give you this -- O'Neill's account of what went into the steel tariff decision was depressing in it's blatant politics in the face of economic sense. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 374 Registered: 12-2001 |
Fair enough, although for me, it won't be covered until I've finished reading the book. Then I'll think about it for awhile. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10590 Registered: 10-2001  |
- Paul O'Neill today... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03 | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 854 Registered: 5-2001  |
There's egg on someone's face now... I'm just not sure who's. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2704 Registered: 10-1999  |
Okay, so while the old spin was "Clinton was asleep at the switch", the new spin is, "Bush is just continuing what Clinton was doing". I really hope someone can figure out what the real cover story is ... | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10591 Registered: 10-2001 |
O'Neill: "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government ... doesn't do contingency planning." I guess good old Paul read this thread in MOL and decided that he didn't want all of the Bush haters in his corner ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03 | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10592 Registered: 10-2001 |
Oh real nice cover. That's funny I didn't hear anyone bringing up Clinton being asleep at the switch. In fact, I do believe that I've posted numerous times that Clinton wanted to take out saddam hussein in 1998. Nice try though, sport. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03 | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2705 Registered: 10-1999 |
Oh, please. Why are there right-wing books out there trying to convince us that 9-11 was all Clinton's fault? It's either one way or the other, but to justify an obsessive intent to invade Iraq, by saying it's the same thing Clinton would have done ... As for O'Neill, you still have to explain the description of the President with his Cabinet as like "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people". Here's the Newsmax article you want in order to respond to me. | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10593 Registered: 10-2001 |
You are just too hysterical. Why are we now talking about right wing books and Clinton? Aren't you the guy who made up the thread ending rules where everything always reverts back to Clinton? Does the fact that you're now doing it mean that you want this thread to end? P.S. I don't have to explain anything. I thought O'Neill was a lousy Treasury Secretary, and I thought that long before he was canned. I also think he's a smart man who successfully ran a huge corporation. I don't doubt most of what he said the other night or what is in his book. But I don't feel the need to grab everything he says as gospel in a never ending quest to advance the views of the Democratic Party. Unlike you. ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03 | ||
| sbenois Citizen Username: Sbenois Post Number: 10594 Registered: 10-2001 |
Nohero is typing his response ---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <- Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03 |
