Paul O'Neill & His Bushie Tell-All... - Page 4 - 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 01-15-2004, 01:47 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:30 PM
ThatGuy,

"STING, before 9/11 al-Qaeda wasn't even on the Bush administration's radar. It is unfortunate that it took the death of 3,000 people to make them take notice."

If you read the time article and what I said, you will see that the Bush administration created a plan to try and ELIMINATE Al Quada prior to 9/11 instead of Clinton's plan that aimed to just "roll back" Al Quada. Unlike the Clinton plan that would devote millions, this plan was going to devote Billions.

So the comment about Bush not taking notice until 9/11 is rubbish.

"Was this in the works, STING? Do you have some sort of intelligence that wasn't reported to the UN, NATO or the US? Total speculation."

NO not total speculation. Its simply a matter of looking at ones capabilities and what they can do with that based on their location. It was a well known fact that Saddam had military of 400,000 troops. Iraq borders an area of the world that contains nearly 75% of the worlds oil resources. It only takes hours or at most a few days to have Armored and Mechanized divisions moving across the border at a rapid rate of speed.

Saddam's invasions and attacks on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are all the evidence one needs to show that such attacks are indeed a possibility in the future.

The UN inspectors confirmed in 1998 that Saddam still had substantial stocks of WMD and even Saddam admitted this back in 1998.

Saddam was required to disarm of all WMD because of his actions against Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

CAN you name another nation or leader that has had 17 UN Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations passed against them. These resolutions called for verifiable disarmament of Saddam and authorized this use of force if Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm.


"Again, I'm not disputing Saddam was a very bad man. And if you want to play the numbers game, how many Americans has Saddam killed? Over 3,000?"

Saddam attempted to engage and Kill an American force of 500,000 in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam fought a full scale war against the United States. He has invaded and attack unprovoked 4 different countries and threatened to destroy the Global economy through theft or destruction of the middle east oil. Once again the results of Saddam doing that would create a global economic depression that would actually kill far more people than Al Quada could dream of.

Saddam was only 1 year away from having a NUCLEAR WEAPON in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Saddam weaponized enough Anthrax in his labs to kill every single person on the planet although he did not have the means to properly deliver such a mass quantity at that time point. No other country in the world has spent a greater percentage of their GDP on WMD than Saddam. No other country has used WMD on more occasions that Saddam.

The amount of resources and money that Saddam had at his desposal to build military strength, WMD, and attack his neighbors or other country dwarfs anything that Mr. Bin Laden and his cave dwelling friends had!

"Are you saying that the Clinton administration didn't spend enough money to deal with the al-Qaeda threat, or that they spent too much money dealing with Saddam, or ...? In any event, I'd like to know how much the Bush administration had earmarked to spend on the al-Qaeda threat prior to 9/11. And no, you can't count the $43,000,000,000 the Bush administration gave to the Taliban in May 2001 to reward them for ending poppy farming"


No, I'm saying the amount of money spent shows you who the bigger threat was.

Real cute, but your 43,000,000,000 is rubbish. The sum total of money that the US government sent to all foreign governments around the world in 2001 was half that.


FACT: No leader in history has done more to dismantle Al Quada than George Bush.

All your scrutiny of the first 7 months of the Bush administration will find is that they were in the process of developing a plan that would cost several times as much as any Clinton plan to deal with Al Quada and the goal was not simply to roll them back but to ELIMINATE THEM!

Bush currently holds a 60% approval rating among American citizens and his approval rating goes up when talking about his handling of the war on terror and Iraq.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-15-2004, 02:41 AM   #47
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
ThatGuy,



If you read the time article and what I said, you will see that the Bush administration created a plan to try and ELIMINATE Al Quada prior to 9/11 instead of Clinton's plan that aimed to just "roll back" Al Quada. Unlike the Clinton plan that would devote millions, this plan was going to devote Billions.

So the comment about Bush not taking notice until 9/11 is rubbish.
STING, the plans were approved on September 4. One week? Splitting hairs a little, no? Also, let me quote from the TIME article: "The [outgoing Clinton administration's] plan was estimated to cost 'several hundreds of millions of dollars.' In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to 'everything we've done since 9/11.'"

So there was a plan ready right when Bush took office, almost nine months before the plan was finally approved. Interesting. Is it reasonable to think that the outgoing Clinton administration's pre-9/11 plan closely resembled Bush's post-9/11 plan since the Clinton administration's proposals amounted to, "everything we've done since 9/11."?

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

NO not total speculation. Its simply a matter of looking at ones capabilities and what they can do with that based on their location. It was a well known fact that Saddam had military of 400,000 troops. Iraq borders an area of the world that contains nearly 75% of the worlds oil resources. It only takes hours or at most a few days to have Armored and Mechanized divisions moving across the border at a rapid rate of speed.

Saddam's invasions and attacks on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are all the evidence one needs to show that such attacks are indeed a possibility in the future.

The UN inspectors confirmed in 1998 that Saddam still had substantial stocks of WMD and even Saddam admitted this back in 1998.

Saddam was required to disarm of all WMD because of his actions against Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

CAN you name another nation or leader that has had 17 UN Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations passed against them. These resolutions called for verifiable disarmament of Saddam and authorized this use of force if Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm.
When Saddam has invaded other countries, was it a surprise attack, or did he let his intentions be known? You know STING, I'm not disputing that Saddam was a very bad man. However since, as you pointed out, he was heading such a large army, the chances of him striking suddenly and without warning (like al-Qaeda might, and did) were pretty slim. You can look at his capabilities, but you also have to look at his weaknesses.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Saddam attempted to engage and Kill an American force of 500,000 in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam fought a full scale war against the United States. He has invaded and attack unprovoked 4 different countries and threatened to destroy the Global economy through theft or destruction of the middle east oil. Once again the results of Saddam doing that would create a global economic depression that would actually kill far more people than Al Quada could dream of.

Saddam was only 1 year away from having a NUCLEAR WEAPON in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Saddam weaponized enough Anthrax in his labs to kill every single person on the planet although he did not have the means to properly deliver such a mass quantity at that time point. No other country in the world has spent a greater percentage of their GDP on WMD than Saddam. No other country has used WMD on more occasions that Saddam.

The amount of resources and money that Saddam had at his desposal to build military strength, WMD, and attack his neighbors or other country dwarfs anything that Mr. Bin Laden and his cave dwelling friends had!
And yet who was the greater threat? Quoting again from TIME, "Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. 'I'm coming to this briefing,' he says he told Rice, 'to underscore how important I think this subject is.' Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, 'I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.'"

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

No, I'm saying the amount of money spent shows you who the bigger threat was.

Real cute, but your 43,000,000,000 is rubbish. The sum total of money that the US government sent to all foreign governments around the world in 2001 was half that.
You got me, it was only $43,000,000. Got the zeroes mixed up. Still, I think it's important to consider that a $43,000,000 gift given to the Taliban would be the equivalent of someone giving the US a $215,000,000,000 gift, given the respective size of their economies at the time. So while $43,000,000 may sound like chump change to you, it was a pretty hefty sum to the al-Qaeda-harboring Taliban. Economic figures from the Cato institute.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

FACT: No leader in history has done more to dismantle Al Quada than George Bush.

All your scrutiny of the first 7 months of the Bush administration will find is that they were in the process of developing a plan that would cost several times as much as any Clinton plan to deal with Al Quada and the goal was not simply to roll them back but to ELIMINATE THEM!
"The [outgoing Clinton administration's] plan was estimated to cost 'several hundreds of millions of dollars.' In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to 'everything we've done since 9/11.'"

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

Bush currently holds a 60% approval rating among American citizens and his approval rating goes up when talking about his handling of the war on terror and Iraq.
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm

Posted on Thu, Oct. 02, 2003

Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war

By FRANK DAVIES
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans have held at least one of three mistaken impressions about the U.S.-led war in Iraq, according to a new study released Thursday, and those misperceptions contributed to much of the popular support for the war.

The three common mistaken impressions are that:

# U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

# There's clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein worked closely with the Sept. 11 terrorists.

# People in foreign countries generally either backed the U.S.-led war or were evenly split between supporting and opposing it.

Overall, 60 percent of Americans held at least one of those views in polls reported between January and September by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, based at the University of Maryland in College Park, and the polling firm, Knowledge Networks based in Menlo Park, Calif.

"While we cannot assert that these misperceptions created the support for going to war with Iraq, it does appear likely that support for the war would be substantially lower if fewer members of the public had these misperceptions," said Steven Kull, who directs Maryland's program.

In fact, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. U.S. intelligence has found no clear evidence that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaida or was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Gallup polls found large majorities opposed to the war in most countries.

-------------------------------------------------------

Guess it goes to show you that 60% of Americans are bound to get it wrong every now and then.
__________________

__________________
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 01-15-2004, 07:12 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:30 PM
ThatGuy,

"STING, the plans were approved on September 4. One week? Splitting hairs a little, no? Also, let me quote from the TIME article: "The [outgoing Clinton administration's] plan was estimated to cost 'several hundreds of millions of dollars.' In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to 'everything we've done since 9/11.'""

1. That presumes that the administration new that 9/11 was about to happen.

2. The Senior Bush Administration official is wrong in their assessment because Bush has spent several dozen Billion dollars with in Afghanistan while the most the Clinton administration plan to spend was a few hundred million.

3. Clinton after 8 years of being President developed a plan to "roll back" Al Quada". The Bush administration in turn developed a plan to "ELIMINATE" Al Quada. Big difference, both in terms of goals and funding.

"So there was a plan ready right when Bush took office, almost nine months before the plan was finally approved. Interesting. Is it reasonable to think that the outgoing Clinton administration's pre-9/11 plan closely resembled Bush's post-9/11 plan since the Clinton administration's proposals amounted to, "everything we've done since 9/11."?"

NO, thats incorrect. The Bush administration looked at the Clinton plan and saw that it was totally unsatisfactory, and developed a plan of their own to "Eliminate" Al Quada instead of simple "roll back".


"When Saddam has invaded other countries, was it a surprise attack, or did he let his intentions be known? You know STING, I'm not disputing that Saddam was a very bad man. However since, as you pointed out, he was heading such a large army, the chances of him striking suddenly and without warning (like al-Qaeda might, and did) were pretty slim. You can look at his capabilities, but you also have to look at his weaknesses."

Every invasion and attack came as a surprise. It is true that there was a small stand off at the border of Kuwait two weeks prior to the actual invasion, but this only involved two Iraq Divisions out of an Army of more than 60 Divisions. Arab governments told other governments around the world that Saddam would never invade. Saddam never said he would invade and said he wanted to resolve the issue of what he believe was Kuwait "slant oil drilling". Suddenly on the morning of August 2, Saddam sent the two divisions in Iraq accross the border into Kuwait, and by the afternoon of August 2, all of Kuwait was under Iraqi control. Even the CIA did not believe Saddam was going to invade. Saddam would later move in another 10 divisions into Kuwait in the days after his take over of the country.

In the case of Iran, Iraqi Divisions were still in their base camps deep inside Iraq when the invasion was launched. They drove to the Iranian border crossed it and began engaging what every Iranian units they ecountered of which there were few because Iran had not anticipated an attack from Iraq.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam sent several divisions in Kuwait across the border into Saudi Arabia taking Marines covering that area of the border totally by surprise. They had to withdraw from the area. The Iraqi divisions captured the town of Kafghi. US forces then retaliated and drove them back, but the attack, a bold one, had not been anticipated.

Israely and Saudi citizens only had minutes, sometimes seconds to warn them of incoming Scud missiles.

As I said before, considering the size of Iraq's Army and the fact that it is a Mechanized Army and that it is close to oil rich area's just across the border, the amount of warning time any country would have is tiny if anything at all. Saddam also would not have had to move his entire Army. He could even use it to mask other activities by a smaller number of Army units.

So no, the chances of him suddenly striking out were not slim because that is what he has done on 4 different occasions invading and attacking 4 different countries unprovoked.

When doing risk assessment, one has to plan and prepare based on worse case senerio's.



"And yet who was the greater threat? Quoting again from TIME, "Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. 'I'm coming to this briefing,' he says he told Rice, 'to underscore how important I think this subject is.' Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, 'I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.'""

During Berger's 8 years as National Security Advisor, he spent far more time and money on Saddam than Al Quada. He may claim that the Bush Administration would spend more time on Al Quada than any other subject, but the plan that he was crafting would only spend a few hundred million on Al Quada, while the USA was already spending over 3 Billion dollars a year trying to contain Saddam under his administration and would certainly continue so under Bush. So it appears Berger got his Wires crossed if that is in fact what he said. Rice said she does not even recall meeting with Berger.

"You got me, it was only $43,000,000. Got the zeroes mixed up. Still, I think it's important to consider that a $43,000,000 gift given to the Taliban would be the equivalent of someone giving the US a $215,000,000,000 gift, given the respective size of their economies at the time. So while $43,000,000 may sound like chump change to you, it was a pretty hefty sum to the al-Qaeda-harboring Taliban. Economic figures from the Cato institute."

Oh really a lot of money to them? Well, the Taliban did not buy or build weapons domestically and 43 million dollars is not a lot of money at all when it comes to purchasing weapons for a national army.

This happened in May and then looked what happened in November of that year. Yep, looks like that money did them a lot of good.


""The [outgoing Clinton administration's] plan was estimated to cost 'several hundreds of millions of dollars.' In the words of a senior Bush Administration official, the proposals amounted to 'everything we've done since 9/11.'""

Once again, if a Senior Bush Administration official did say that they are wrong. The Bush administration plan was Billions of dollars compared to the Clinton plan that was under a Billion dollars.




Its only natural that those who opposed the war would try to find some way to rebuff the fact that the majority of the American public supported and continued to support it.

Most Americans new that many countries were opposed to the war. Just look at what happened to French Wine and tourism in France over that period of time. Ever heard of "FREEDOM FRIES". People were indeed aware.

While US forces may not of found WMD in Iraq, everyone knows that the UN inspectors did find plenty of WMD prior to 1998, and that as of 1998 when UN inspectors left that Saddam had failed to VERIFIABLY disarm of 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 10,000 Liters of Anthrax. In 2002 they also watched as the inspectors were let back in and Saddam was supposed to give up the above stock piles or show the remains of their destruction. They also saw that SADDAM DID NEITHER!

It would be rather foolish to take Saddam for his word that he had indeed disarmed without any evidence. That is why the conditions of the resolutions and ceacefire stated that SADDAM was required to VERIFIABLY DISARM.

The Majority of Americans know he never did this which is why they supported the war.

Polls taken before 9/11 show that a majority of Americans supported the overthrow of Saddam anyway.

The Majority is not always correct, but in this case they are overwhelmingly correct.

As time goes by, this will only become more apparent.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-16-2004, 07:20 PM   #49
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 63
Local Time: 01:30 PM
O'Neill was fired, now has sour grapes

If O'Neill was so shocked about Bush trying to go to war from day one, then how come O'Neill didn't say anything way back when he was appointed to Secretary of Treasury way back in January 2001 ???

It's now January 2004, if O'Neill was disturbed, shocked, alarmed, or surprised by Bush trying to find any way to go to war, O'neill had more than enough time to quit and alert the press. Instead, O'Neill keeps his mouth shut for 3 years and then writes a book to cash in on his little story $$$.

Sorry O'Neill, you were fired and now have a motive, we just can't trust you
__________________

__________________
U2LipstickBoy 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 08:30 AM.


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