Former Treasury Sec. Paints Bush as 'Blind Man'

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill likened President Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts on Friday from a CBS interview.
O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour.

"As I recall it was just a monologue," he told CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast the entire interview on Sunday.

In making the blind man analogy, O'Neill told CBS his ex-boss did not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate.

"There is no discernible connection," CBS quoted O'Neill as saying. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill said, according to the program.
...
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4101890

Ow, that's gotta hurt, but I'm sure it will be dismissed as the raving of a disgruntled ex-employee.

[hgc]

Originally posted by subgenius
...

"There is no discernible connection," CBS quoted O'Neill as saying. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill said, according to the program.
...
Suffice it to say his advisors know as much about what he thinks as he does himself.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by hgc
Suffice it to say his advisors know as much about what he thinks as he does himself.
As Gordie Howe said when asked why he never wore a helmet, but always wore a cup, "I figure I can always get someone to do my thinking for me."

(gosh I never get tired of this quote),

[Demigorgon]

Raving disgruntled ex-employee!

[TillEulenspiegel]

George W. Bush ..."Like a rock!"


only dumber

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Raving disgruntled ex-employee! Raving?

[Demigorgon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Raving?

Yes......glow sticks and all.

[subgenius]

Shameless bump to supercede shemp's thread.
Frankly, O'Neil said that he was completely ignored at the time when he was there. Not exactly a raging Liberal either. If you hire someone you either trust their judgement, or you're guilty of bad judgement in picking them. Just another example of dogmatists attempting to pick people who will do their bidding, rather than picking people who can think for themselves.
Its all about empiricism vs. dogmatism.......
Walk your dogma, park your karma.

[subgenius]

He may be blind, but he had a vision:

"The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider."
http://drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

[subgenius]

Who's in charge?

"Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the president seems to be wavering about going forward with his second round of tax cuts. "Haven't we already given money to rich people," Suskind says the president uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting, "Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" "

http://drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

[subgenius]

He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence."
http://drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

Oh, and here's more ammo for his detractors: he's just trying to make money from a book.

[subgenius]

Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Scratch off "making money from a book."
He was high up in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and the Alcoa Corp. Got some credibility.

[LTC8K6]

How much would the Treasury Secretary have to do with any of this anyway? How important was he to the removal of Saddam / The war in Iraq? Why would he be shown evidence of WMD in Iraq?

IOW, How much of this would have been discussed with him?

[hgc]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
How much would the Treasury Secretary have to do with any of this anyway? How important was he to the removal of Saddam / The war in Iraq? Why would he be shown evidence of WMD in Iraq?

IOW, How much of this would have been discussed with him? The Treasury Secretary is a member of the National Security Council. O'Neill claims to have gotten copies of all the CIA, and other, intelligence reports, and to have read them.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
How much would the Treasury Secretary have to do with any of this anyway? How important was he to the removal of Saddam / The war in Iraq? Why would he be shown evidence of WMD in Iraq?

IOW, How much of this would have been discussed with him?

Before 1st quarter 2003, The Treasury Dept. was responsible for the US Secret Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Of course, these have all been moved to the Dept. of Homeland Security, but during O'Neill's tenure, he was responsible for them.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by subgenius
Just saw the 60 Minutes piece. Scratch off "making money from a book."
He was high up in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and the Alcoa Corp. Got some credibility.

O'Neill is increadibly credible. When researching my paper on Iraq I researched each member of the cabinet, and I found no dirt on him, and in fact he seemed out of place ideologically among the others because he had done many good things and had a track record of high personal integrety. It confused the heck out of me at the time as to why he was even in the administration, but he was a long time friend of Bush Sr, so I just assumed that was why, probably was why actually.

I feel a lot better now that he has been able to come out about the truth, knowing that at least there are a still few "good guys" left at the top.

[subgenius]

"Incredibly credible": It hurts my head but I like it.

[LTC8K6]

Hmmmmm......from that WP article.

The Treasury Department issued a statement saying officials there had not provided any classified documents to O'Neill. Administration officials expect to conduct investigations.

[LTC8K6]

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040112&cat=news&st=newsbushoneilldc

Did O'Neill reveal a secret document on public TV?
Inquiring minds want to know. :D

[Evolver]

Isn't O'Neill Bono's buddy (the guy from U2, not the bad skiier)?

Does this give him more or less credibility?

[demon]

Just how long is the charade going to last...the words "rats" and "sinking ship" come to mind.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A12

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Read the rest at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8435-2004Jan11.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[subgenius]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040112&cat=news&st=newsbushoneilldc

Did O'Neill reveal a secret document on public TV?
Inquiring minds want to know. :D
First they say he wasn't given any classified documents, and now they say he released a secret document.
The full power of this administration will now be brought to bear on Mr. O'Neill, a man who has served his country honorably for decades, and who put his country's interests above that of his own party.

"Asked if seeking the probe may look vindictive, Nichols said, "We don't view it in that way." "

No, of course they don't. The more they pile on this guy the more it will come back to haunt them.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Malachi151


O'Neill is increadibly credible. .....

I feel a lot better now that he has been able to come out about the truth, knowing that at least there are a still few "good guys" left at the top.

Whatever, bubba.

Want a rebuttal? http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004541

[DavidJames]

"Want a rebuttal?"

Interesting, in the "rebuttal" there is no "rebutt". Instead of trying find facts to refute the charges, he paints a negative (i.e. non-conservative) picture of O'Neill. No facts, just smear, no wonder you provided a link :rolleyes:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by hammegk


Whatever, bubba.

Want a rebuttal? http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004541

Comment about what, "damage control"? Give me a break. That's an obviously baised opinion piece, whcih si in fact very interesting, for how it portrays the "new conservative" (isn't that an oxymoron?).

I'm here to tell you that O'Neill, the "old conservative, is going to carry a lot of clout with many other "old conservatives", those being the voting men and women in the 45+ age group, who aren't friggen morons, and actually do remember the "good 'ole days", and in fact helped to build them, and have been largely skeptical of Bush as it is.

Who is left on Bush's side? Yuppies, middle aged millionaires, and Christian fanatics. Though they have the dollars, influence, and general control of the corporate/state propagnada machine, there are still enough very motivated seniors in America who aren't stupid and know BS when they see it, for these games to continue to go on.

Yes, the younger generation have been corrupted by the corporate media and state control, but I am willing to bet money right now that you will see a huge shift away from Bush in the over 50 crowd in the next election.

The smear campaign against O'Neill is noteable for itse lack of anything concrete, and its reliance on personal opinion and a twisting of words, and I guarentee you that when the seniors of America see a man that I guarentee you they DO identify with, being slammed by this administration, I am very happy for it, because with every slam on O'Neill thousands of more senior votes are lost. He is a man of that generation, and this opion piece, so eloquently pointed out, that there is a generation gap, that was SUCH a big mistake. He just turned this into an US vs THEM, OLD vs "NEW", and I hope that all the critics follow this lead, becuase it will be the death of Bush if they do it.

The author is a pure idiot.

Do you think people care about "saying things that should be kept secret?" This is the most damned secret adminsitration ever, people are tired of it, the last thing they are going to agree with is that if people inside the administration see serious problems they should just keep quite!

WTF kind of stupid position is that? This is a DEMOCRACY, not a tyranny, this is not IRAQ! O'Neill's loyalty in his position was to THE AMERICANS PEOPLE, as every government position, his loyalty was NOT to Bush!

I hope they go right ahead and blame him of being disloyal to Bush, they should say it over and over again, because guess what, he recognized where his REAL loyalty lies, and that is with the people.

Oh man, the "counter attacks" on O'Neill are more self damaging than O'Neill himself. I say carry on :D

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151


I am willing to bet money right now that you will see a huge shift away from Bush in the over 50 crowd in the next election.
I’ll take that bet! Something modest, say, $100? You get to define “huge” with a percentage. If I agree that the percentage you set is “huge” then the bet is on.

The parameters are that if the number of voters over 50 years old decrease (from the 2000 election) by [the percentage that you set] in their vote for Bush in the next presidential election then I will pay you $100. If this fails to occur, you will pay me $100.

Of course we will only have our honor to go by, but I am good for it. What about it, chump?

[no one in particular]

I have reported my previous post to the moderators and if they decide that it is against the forum rules… I’ll handle it by pm.

[Malachi151]

Assuming that these figures can even be tabulated I'll bet that there is at least a 15% lower rate of seniors voting for Bush in 2004 than did in 2000. First, in order to finalize the bet, you would have to present data for the percentage of seniors who voted for Bush in 2000 just so we know that this bet is even possible to make.

[no one in particular]

All right, then. I commend you for standing by your off-hand comment. I do not consider %15 to be “huge” but I also don’t think that it is negligible, so I say that it is on.

About finding the numbers… I assumed that you had them on your website or sumthin’. Oh well, I did not know that this would involve work for me! I’ll get around to it though, maybe by the weekend.

[Malachi151]

I'll go 18%. To be honest I have no idea what really constitues a "huge shift" :p I tend to think though that 15% of the 50+ population must be over a million votes. I guess we could figure it out if we wanted to, maybe I will later.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I'll go 18%. To be honest I have no idea what really constitues a "huge shift" :p I tend to think though that 15% of the 50+ population must be over a million votes. I guess we could figure it out if we wanted to, maybe I will later.

I am also interested in this bet, but I need to see some numbers first. For instance, how many of the 50+ population voted for Bush and Voted for Gore and not Voted at all, or are we just talking 50+ voters here?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am also interested in this bet, but I need to see some numbers first. For instance, how many of the 50+ population voted for Bush and Voted for Gore and not Voted at all, or are we just talking 50+ voters here?

It might be difficult to get good numbers - that was the year exit polling data was screwed up. According to the U.S. census, about 63,400,000 reported voting in the 2000 election aged 45 and over. They break it down age 45-64 (39,300,000), 65-74 (12,450,000), 75 + (9,700,000).

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by BTox


It might be difficult to get good numbers - that was the year exit polling data was screwed up. According to the U.S. census, about 63,400,000 reported voting in the 2000 election aged 45 and over. They break it down age 45-64 (39,300,000), 65-74 (12,450,000), 75 + (9,700,000).

So then we are talking 18% out of 39,300,000 which is the 45-64 group. Still want to make that bet Malachi?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by subgenius
He may be blind, but he had a vision:

"The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq including the use of American troops within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001, not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported. That is what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider."
http://drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

I'm confused with why this is a bombshell, or a bad thing. If the administration and intelligence agencies already determined that a regieme change should occur *before* 9/11, isn't that a good thing? I would think that if the plan to oust saddam was made *after* 9/11, that might be suspicious.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RussDill


I'm confused with why this is a bombshell, or a bad thing. If the administration and intelligence agencies already determined that a regieme change should occur *before* 9/11, isn't that a good thing? I would think that if the plan to oust saddam was made *after* 9/11, that might be suspicious.

That's right, we'll just let the administration and intelligence agencies cook up a few wars, and trust them to get it right.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, we'll just let the administration and intelligence agencies cook up a few wars, and trust them to get it right.

Cook up? The recipe was created way before this chef. It was even revamped under another chef. It's only a complaint for you that this particular chef decided to turn te oven on and start cooking.:p

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, embroiled in a dispute with the White House over his harsh criticism of President Bush's leadership style, denied Tuesday that he used classified documents for his new book.

Reacting to an announcement by the Treasury Department that it was launching an inspector general's investigation into how an agency document stamped "secret" wound up being used in his interview Sunday night on the CBS program "60" minutes, O'Neill said, "The truth is, I didn't take any documents at all."

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday, O'Neill said he had asked the Treasury Department's chief legal counsel "to have the documents that are OK for me to have" for use in the book entitled, "The Price of Loyalty."

Asked if he thought the internal Treasury probe was a get-even move by the administration, O'Neill replied, "I don't think so. If I were secretary of the treasury and these circumstances occurred, I would have asked the inspector general to look into it." But O'Neill also said he thinks the questions could have been more readily answered if top Treasury officials had talked to the agency's legal counsel.

"I'm surprised that he didn't call the chief legal counsel," O'Neill said of his successor, Treasury Secretary John Snow.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040113/D801VSEO0.html

A classy guy, still refusing to attribute bad intent to his critics.

[subgenius]

The betting hijack might be a good subject for a seperate thread, no?

[TillEulenspiegel]

This is reminiscent of the Ragan/Stockman debacle. Where the latter was a darling of the administration and fiscal conservatives ( well, trickle down people really ). His program was touted as the new market miracle that would boost growth and make jobs. When it didn't work as planned -because of what Stockman said himself was a faulty implimintation-Stockman quit and wailed loudly to the press. He was cut off at the knees because of disloyalty and accused of ignorance by others of the inner circle as not understanding the dynamics of the policy . Remember this is the guy who WROTE the plan. So here we are again shooting the messenger. Pres.Bush on O'neill :" I find him refreshingly candid"...................evedently too candid.

Sucess has many fathers, failure is an orphan

[subgenius]

Wow, someone who knows and remembers history. Got sick of being condemned to repeat it didja? Too bad we all are made to relive history because some forget it.

[NoZed Avenger]

From the Katie Couric interview - tscript off website:

COURIC: Very quickly, will you vote for President Bush in November?

O'NEILL: Probably. I don't see anybody that strikes me as better prepared and more capable.


Wha- ?

Is this a slam on the other guys running, or what is O'Neill talking about, given the criticisms in his book?

N/A

[crackmonkey]

As is being reported today, the document O'Neill waves about as purported evidence that Bush was readying to pounce on Saddam immediately upon seizing the reins of power...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

The document is actually an Energy Department map of Iraqi oil-producing regions, one of a number of maps showing oil-producing regions and contracts worldwide.

O'Neill seems to be backing off considerably, as well... he is now saying that the Iraq plans were merely 'contingency planning' and he saw nothing untoward about it - he was just surprised that the plans were touched upon so early.

[crackmonkey]

O'Neill backs off...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I am also interested in this bet, but I need to see some numbers first. For instance, how many of the 50+ population voted for Bush and Voted for Gore and not Voted at all, or are we just talking 50+ voters here?

Since 99% of these people live in Florida, we may never know.

Not a slam against Florida; rather, a slam against old people. Bring it on, grandpa. I'll bust your head so bad you won't be able to read a simple ballot straight.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
O'Neill backs off...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html
He hasn't backed off anything. You haven't been reading along. He's only telling the truth as he sees it, and letting anyone take it the way they're gonna take it according to the colored glasses of their prejudices. He said all along he'd be stunned if the administration got angry about it.
So, now is he a good guy or a bad guy? Or just a guy? A guy who put his country above his own party?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by subgenius

He hasn't backed off anything. You haven't been reading along. He's only telling the truth as he sees it, and letting anyone take it the way they're gonna take it according to the colored glasses of their prejudices. He said all along he'd be stunned if the administration got angry about it.
So, now is he a good guy or a bad guy? Or just a guy? A guy who put his country above his own party?


First he slams Bush, then says he'd vote for him anyhow. Sounds like backing off to me.

Maybe he's putting country ahead of party. Then again, maybe he's punting for a new job by rationalizing getting fired from his last one. Wouldn't be the first time.

Disgruntled employee. Until I hear something concusive to the contrary, that's how I'm filing it.

[subgenius]

He never slammed him....did you watch the interview?
Looking for a new job....he's served his country and industry for decades.
Unclear on the concept?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by subgenius
He never slammed him....did you watch the interview?
Looking for a new job....he's served his country and industry for decades.
Unclear on the concept?

Didn't see the interview, but read the article. It was sensationalistic claptrap desinged to appeal to the simpleminded.

Apparently it worked. How's that for clear on the concept?

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by subgenius
The betting hijack might be a good subject for a seperate thread, no? I apologize for the hijack, subgenius. I did consider making this ordeal a separate thread, however, as you may be able to tell by my post immediately following my first post, I was concerned about how election/political gambling would reflect on the JREF. For that reason, I though this topic would be better suited hidden in this thread instead of out on its own.

[Attrayant]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
O'Neill backs off...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

As other sources corroborate his account...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

[renata]

Bush replies to O'Neill's criticism of their briefing

....Let me say something about that book. Paul said I was disengaged because he talked to me for 45 minutes and I didn't say a word. I wasn't disengaged. I was bored as hell and my mother told me never to interrupt. . . . "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/?nav=hptop_ts

Ok, Ok...so it was a joke at a top secret Alfalfa Club dinner. Not a clever joke...but a joke.

More jokes from Bush and others at that dinner

here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45813-2004Jan25.html)