Paul O'Neill Speaks out on Bush.

[Demrepdan]

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

[DarthKosh]

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

He used to be king and when he was in the cabinate he hated the he no longer wore the crown.  In other words sour grapes.

[Inmate Trump]

He's a disgruntled former employee of the White House.  If all this stuff was true (which is possible, I'm not saying it *isn't* true--I'm not a White House insider, so I can't say, only give GWB the benefit of the doubt), why didn't O'Neil come out with this stuff as soon as he left office?  Why wait until an election year if he's not just trying to get a snub at his former boss who fired him?

Just something to think about.

And as far as the accusations that Bush had Iraq plans from before 9/11.  Does anyone with half a brain really care about that?  Saddam has been either the biggest, or one of the biggest enemies of ours since 1991.  I say, good job, Mr. President.  Finally, someone did their job!

[jravnsbo]

Which truth are you wanting to iscuss, that Bush was planning a war with Iraq when he came into office or that the Clinton Administration already had the plans ont eh table when they left.  At least that is what O'Neill said this morning.  If hay is to be made accusing Bush by the Democrats it will be hard, in light of the full story O'Neill is telling.  Then if they attack his credibility, it just damages the whole issue for them.  

Non-issue be gone soon.

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

[NHPolitico]

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

He was a bad salesman and that's all he was hired to be.  Regime change has been our policy since Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Bush supported regime change in the campaign and supported it every year afterward. You can have regime change through non-war methods, though. You can push hard on new sanctions. You can fund anti-Saddam Iraqi resistance groups. You can enforce sanctions. You can press Middle Eastern countries to encourage Saddam to step down. You can do lots of things.  9/11 put war on the table and Bush made the decision to go that route in March of 2003.  

[12th Doctor]

I don't understand the guy.  Today, he made a statement that he still planned to vote for Bush.  Mean while that list of Companies that would split the Iraqi oil contracts once the country was free of Saddm turned out to be a list from Vice-Pres. Cheney's energy task force of campanies that were already exploring for oil in Iraq.  Does he have any credibility?

[12th Doctor]

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

He was a bad salesman and that's all he was hired to be.  Regime change has been our policy since Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Bush supported regime change in the campaign and supported it every year afterward. You can have regime change through non-war methods, though. You can push hard on new sanctions. You can fund anti-Saddam Iraqi resistance groups. You can enforce sanctions. You can press Middle Eastern countries to encourage Saddam to step down. You can do lots of things.  9/11 put war on the table and Bush made the decision to go that route in March of 2003.  

Ditto.  You should also remember that the united states drafts up plans to invade EVERY country if need be.  We probably have plans for the invasion of Canada.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Last time you tried that the White House got burned down

[opebo]

Paul O'Neill seems a bit crazy, but mostly he seems like an amazing fool.  How is it possible that someone that dotty got to be president of Alcoa?  Then again, he reminds me of another rich fool who screwed with a decent president - Ross Perot.  Though sane people can't understand it, there's a loopy element to the American public that actually likes these twits.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Which truth are you wanting to iscuss, that Bush was planning a war with Iraq when he came into office or that the Clinton Administration already had the plans ont eh table when they left.  At least that is what O'Neill said this morning.  If hay is to be made accusing Bush by the Democrats it will be hard, in light of the full story O'Neill is telling.  Then if they attack his credibility, it just damages the whole issue for them.  

Non-issue be gone soon.

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

I wonder how much of the Clinton Administration's plan was followed. Anybody have any comments?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I'm sure you've all heard it by now. I don't even need to post a link for that reason. But as you all know (or should know) Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill stated in his book that President Bush had intentions of going after Iraq since day ONE in office. LONG before 9/11 influenced anything.

What do you people think? Is Paul O'Neill telling the truth? Or is he just CRAZY?

He does intend to vote for Bush in the General Election. I think, perhaps, he is telling the truth.  But I don't see this story having much of an impact on the Election. I don't like the way He was fired. The Economy has been going south since the latter months of the Clinton Presidency. Maybe O'Neil was fired cause Bush doesn't like BONO?

[jaichind]

If O'Neill is just some disgruntled former employee, the White House is giving him crediblity by this revenge investigation over leaked "classifed" documents.  This kind of behavior plus various attacks from FOX "Fair and Balanced" News merely makes me more likely to believe O'Neill.

[jravnsbo]

But O'Neill also said he would vote for Bush.

And he said that the Bush Administration was just continuing the plans developed by the Clinton Administration.

If O'Neill is just some disgruntled former employee, the White House is giving him crediblity by this revenge investigation over leaked "classifed" documents.  This kind of behavior plus various attacks from FOX "Fair and Balanced" News merely makes me more likely to believe O'Neill.

[zorkpolitics]

When Bush came into office it was clear Clinton had done nothing significant to decrease the threat posed by Iraq but drop occaisional bombs and let Iraq throw out the UN Inspectors.  Like North Korea, Iraq was a left over threat to world peace, so should we be surprised Bush was looking for ways to solve the problem?

[12th Doctor]

When Bush came into office it was clear Clinton had done nothing significant to decrease the threat posed by Iraq but drop occaisional bombs and let Iraq throw out the UN Inspectors.  Like North Korea, Iraq was a left over threat to world peace, so should we be surprised Bush was looking for ways to solve the problem?

Not at all.

[mossy]

"Despite emphatic warnings from the departing members of the
Clinton foreign policy team that al-Qaida posed the most
immediate threat, the Islamists don't seem to have appeared on
the new administration's target list."

[WONK]

Mossy, would you mind letting us know where that quote came from.  That would go a long way in helping me decide whether to believe it or not.

[mossy]

Mossy, would you mind letting us know where that quote came from.  That would go a long way in helping me decide whether to believe it or not.

Sorry for the missing URL........I've been looking for an hour where I read it, but I've read so much on this the past 2 days, I cannot remember which source.

........ but it was a snippet from a very long quote from the book of the first cabinet mtgs.   (My copy hopefully will arrive today, and I'll be able to provide the page number.)   I think it will be seen again tho..........

mossy

[mossy]

I wonder just how many who responded with strong opinions have actually read the book?


(I am currently.)  For example.....


O'Neill and Alan Greenspan have been close friends for 35 years, having weekly breakfasts.

Their topics are almost entirely on policy, almost never getting into family, personal matters.

They know each other so well they finish each other's sentences, and are on the "same page".   Both are on equal footing mentally in understanding the financial systems, consequences, trends.

Both were enthusiastic about the $5 Trillion surplus, and estimated [correctly] that it would be $5.8 at the end of the Clinton Amin term.  

They considered this surplus a once in a lifetime opportunity, perhaps never to happen again.  

Their shared goal was to use this surplus to make Social Security, and Medicare permanent and safe for all the generations to come, to keep it from safe from raiding, or privatizing.

[mossy]

Ditto.  You should also remember that the united states drafts up plans to invade EVERY country if need be.  We probably have plans for the invasion of Canada.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But those scenarios occur in the Army War College, not the White House.  Ever.

[Gustaf]

Ditto.  You should also remember that the united states drafts up plans to invade EVERY country if need be.  We probably have plans for the invasion of Canada.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But those scenarios occur in the Army War College, not the White House.  Ever.

I'd like to concur. There has to be a difference between abstract plans for unlikely events and those who are first priority.

[NHPolitico]

I wonder just how many who responded with strong opinions have actually read the book?


(I am currently.)  For example.....


O'Neill and Alan Greenspan have been close friends for 35 years, having weekly breakfasts.

That's why Paul was chosen by Bush-- to sell the tax cut plan to Greenspan.  He'd never have been chosen without his friendship with Greenspan.