Paul O'Neill & His Bushie Tell-All... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-12-2004, 12:28 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 03:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sue4u2
After watching 60 minutes and hearing that Bush refered to O'Neill's visit to Africa with Bono as having "quite a cult following" really pisses me off.

really.
__________________

__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 12:30 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 02:13 PM
It didn't surprise me at all when he said Rumsfeld was the one who tried to stop the book. I missed the part about Bono, it must have been during a bathroom break I'll have to check my tape...

Here's an article from Time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...574809,00.html

I love this quote from O'Neill

"Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel—your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 07:24 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Jeez,

Lets remember that when Bush entered office Saddam was in complete Violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire requiring him to Verifiably disarm of all WMD.

I would be very concerned if the President was NOT planning a military option to insure the disarmament of Saddam prior to 9/11.
Yes and no. First, Saddam tried to kill Bush's dad and yes, Saddam is a bad guy so no question we should have put more pressure on Saddam. Maybe not invading Iraq's soveignity with a war, but more sanctions.

That being said, Bush constantly used 9/11 as a reason to go to war with Iraq. He took advantage of Americans who were afraid of terrorism, he took advantage of NYC and the 3000 people that died that day so he could get his war in Iraq. Remember, we had to attack Iraq because of its connection to al Qaeda. Disarm Saddam if that's what you plan to do but don't lie to the American people about your motives. That's what really pisses me off and disgusts me about the whole thing. If you were planning this prior to 9/11, don't bring 9/11 into the argument to further your own agenda.

As for O'Neill, this book isn't just based on O'Neill. The author is a Pulitzer Prize winner for the Wall St. Journal, which has been accused of having a very right-leaning editorial page. Suskind talked to hundreds of people for this book. His main source is O'Neill but its not his ONLY source.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 07:45 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 12:13 PM
I have a prediction that things might get nasty between O'Neill and Bush from here on out.
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 08:29 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:13 PM
sharky,

1. Iraq was under the most intense international sanctions and Weapons embargo ever mounted in history. Saddam could not sell any of Iraq's oil on the world market. The UN would sell Iraq's Oil when Saddam released it to the market, and the UN would only purchase humanitarian supplies. But Saddam was violating the sanctions despite efforts to keep them strong and was making several Billion dollars a year on the Black Market.

While the Sanctions/Embargo policies were important in restricting Saddam's ability to get new material and weapons, they could never VERIFIABLY disarm Saddam of his WMD.

There were only two things that could achieve Verifiable disarmament as required by the United Nations 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

1. Saddam's cooperation with a group of United Nations Weapons inspectors in which Verifiable Disarmament could be achieved provided that Saddam was willing to.

2. A Military invasion that would remove Saddam and his regime and military there by insuring that there would be no obstructions to Verifiable disarmament.

Saddam failed to verifiably disarm in cooperation with the UN inspectors. This is why the use of military force was necessary.


The efforts to bring about the verifiable disarmament of Saddam started years before Bush was even in office. The need to resolve the issue of Saddams failure to comply with United Nations resolutions and his violation of the Gulf War Ceace Fire Agreement were things that had to be resolved regardless of 9/11.

Bush's speach before the United Nations in 2002 focused on Saddam's violations and the threat he posed to the world, not 9/11.

Bush responsibly listed the circumstantial evidence they had of dealings between Al Quada and Saddam but he never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 as DEMOCRATS would have everyone believe.

It has been the policy of the United States since 1998 to bring about disarmament and regime change in Iraq because of Saddam's violations. So the idea that this is "Bush's war" is rubish.

The fact remains that despite unproven accusations, Bush never lied about anything.

O'Neil sounds like a disgruntled employ who was just fired. If thats not the case, why didn't he resign in protest if he felt that way?

O'Neil is wrong in thinking that "preventive war" is some new doctrine developed by the Bush adminstration. This "preventive war" strategy or concept has been apart of US Foreign Policy since 1945!

I'm happy that O'Neil has come out and stated that the Bush administration was planning to deal with Saddam right after getting into office. That is precisely what he should have been doing and I would have been disapointed if that was not the case. The Clinton administration although it tried, had unsuccessfully failed to do so, leaving it to the Bush administration to do just that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 08:36 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 02:13 PM
You're probably right, Soulfulmofo. Oneill has 19,000 pages of memos, emails and documentation to back up anything he says. (According to Suskind on the Today show this morning) This will be one case where the White House won't be able to say, it's not true, show your proof. Because of the fact Oneill was so highly respected even during GW's own fathers administration, he will be able to provide the back up to anything he says. It took Suskind over a year to write this book with himself and Oneill going over these documents on a daily basis. This will take some spin control for sure.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 09:00 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:13 PM
If I were the White House I certainly would not spin this away. Yes of course the President was making plans to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office. It would be irresponsible for any President to not have a military option for removing a serious threat to US National Security.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 02:25 AM   #23
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
If I were the White House I certainly would not spin this away. Yes of course the President was making plans to invade Iraq as soon as he got into office. It would be irresponsible for any President to not have a military option for removing a serious threat to US National Security.
Then why why WHY STING did the president not make plans to remove the serious threat of al-Qaeda, an organization that made ACTUAL strikes against American targets and was a real threat to US National Security? Were plans like this even made while the administration was making plans to remove Saddam?
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 02:42 AM   #24
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy


Then why why WHY STING did the president not make plans to remove the serious threat of al-Qaeda, an organization that made ACTUAL strikes against American targets and was a real threat to US National Security? Were plans like this even made while the administration was making plans to remove Saddam?
Very good question. Maybe we could asume if the Bush admin wasnt so singled minded against Saddam then they could have seen Al-quada as the main threat!
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 02:44 AM   #25
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:13 AM
This just in, Bush officially becomes the last Republican to blame Clinton:

http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1597608
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 08:13 AM   #26
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 02:13 PM
The White House is now going to investigate O'Neill to see if he stole documents.

He was on the Today show and said all papers were cleared when he left office. Pretty interesting. He also restated his position that the tax cuts were harmful to the economy in the long term.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 11:32 AM   #27
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
The White House is now going to investigate O'Neill to see if he stole documents.
That investigation was launched pretty quickly. Interesting that the administration didn't show the same determination to find out who leaked CIA agent Valerie Plume's name to the press.
__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 06:28 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 02:13 PM
interesting as well that the 9/11 investigation took almost two years to start and the Bush admin. still won't hand over documents for no apparent reason other than to save their asses.

this is not O'Neill getting revenge. he did alot for Nixon and Reagan and Bush 1. But as treasury secretary, O'Neill spoke out against Bush on several occasions. why is it that all of a sudden he has an ax to grind? and what about all the people in the book that back up what he says? btw, go back and check O'Neill's comments about the weak dollar. he said it was a bad idea but the Bush admin. is going along with it now and the dollar is being heavily devalued on a daily basis now.

Sting -- I always respect your depth of knowledge when it comes to the Iraq/UN resolutions. And I agree with some of the points you brought up. BUT this war was sold partially as an attack on al Qaeda. You said it in your post -- CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. I don't want soldiers dying based on circumstantial evidence. There were several times when Bush gave a message similar to "You are with us in Iraq or you are with the terrorists." Americans were in support of this war because we thought this would take care of the threat against this country. It was a scare tactic to get support. And we still DON'T have bin Laden.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 07:10 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:13 PM
ThatGuy,

"Then why why WHY STING did the president not make plans to remove the serious threat of al-Qaeda, an organization that made ACTUAL strikes against American targets and was a real threat to US National Security? Were plans like this even made while the administration was making plans to remove Saddam?"

Do you have any evidence that the administration did not have any plans to deal with Al Quada? At worst, the administration continued operations that were ongoing against Al Quada from the Clinton administration. The administration that has done the most to remove Al Quada from the planet is the Bush administration.

I remind you that Saddam Hussein fought a full scale war with the United States and international community in 1991 and was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD as a condition of the ceacefire that stopped the 1991 war.


Bonoman,

Lets get something straight here. Most of the US troops in Iraq at the moment would not be used in any operations against Al Quada to begin with. Al Quada is not going to be hunted by 70 Ton M1 Tanks, M2 Bradley Fighting vehicles, Multiple Rocket Launch Systems, 155mm Self Propelled Artillery.

Most of the operations against Al Quada actually involve non-military assets from the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

So this idea that you either concentrate on Al Quada or Saddam is simply unfounded. Both are different types of targets requiring different resources to combat each. There is no lack of focus or diversion of resources from one to the other.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-13-2004, 07:22 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:13 PM
Sharky,

"BUT this war was sold partially as an attack on al Qaeda. You said it in your post -- CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. I don't want soldiers dying based on circumstantial evidence. There were several times when Bush gave a message similar to "You are with us in Iraq or you are with the terrorists." Americans were in support of this war because we thought this would take care of the threat against this country. It was a scare tactic to get support. And we still DON'T have bin Laden."


US soldiers went into Iraq to verifiably disarm Saddam of all WMD per the requirements of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire. The Bush administration listed the links that it had of Al Quada and Saddam, but those links were not vital to the reasons for going to war, such information was simply after the fact info.

The basis for war and all military action against Saddam's regime can be found in the UN resolutions and the history of the problem of the verifiable disarmament of Saddam from March 1991 to 2003. The war was not some new thing but rather the conclusion to an ongoing problem in which all other means had been unsuccessful in solving it over a 12 year period.

Bush never said you are with us in Iraq or you are with terrorist.

Americans have supported the overthrow of Saddam for some time now. It is a support that is independent of any consideration for Al Quada. Most people understand the threat Saddam's posed to the worlds energy supply and his attempts to aquire WMD of all types in order to further his aggressive ambitions.

It is a tactic of the DEMOCRATS in an election year to attempt to some how smear the president or catch him with his pants down. So naturally every attempt will be made to make the President seem dishonest and untrustworthy.

The smear and rubbish campaign to win the White House back for Democrats has been going for several months now, but its not working.

George Bush's current approval rating stands at 60%. Dean is behind Bush by an average of 20 points in most polls of head to head match ups.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com