PDA

View Full Version : Paul O'Neill: Bush with Cabinet was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people"


shemp
9th January 2004, 02:37 PM
No Dialogue In Bush Cabinet? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

(CBS) President Bush was so disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people," says former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in his first interview about his time as a White House insider.

O'Neill speaks to correspondent Lesley Stahl for a report to be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

...

A lack of dialogue, according to O'Neill, was the norm in cabinet meetings he attended. The president "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people," O'Neill is quoted saying in the book.

It was similar in one-on-one meetings, says O'Neill. Of his first such meeting with the president, O'Neill says, "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."

Why should it be surprising? Bush has the brains of a turnip. He can't discuss anything more intelligent than "Dick and Jane" with anyone.

Aoidoi
9th January 2004, 02:56 PM
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33621

shemp
9th January 2004, 05:03 PM
OK, nobody's perfect.

a_unique_person
9th January 2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by shemp
OK, nobody's perfect.

So, are you the deaf or blind one Shemp?

subgenius
9th January 2004, 11:44 PM
And frankly its an insult to blind and deaf people, who presumptively have brains.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33621

subgenius
12th January 2004, 05:34 AM
I hope O'Neill has somebody watching his back.

"...
A senior administration official said O'Neill's "suggestion that the administration was planning an invasion of Iraq days after taking office is laughable. Nobody listened to him when he was in office. Why should anybody now?"
..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004Jan10?language=printer

What does this say about the wisdom, from their point of view about appointing him in the first place?
Not like he didn't have a track record to examine.