Paul O'Neill & His Bushie Tell-All...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
melon

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
O'Neill Calls Bush a Disengaged President
AP
2 hours, 57 minutes ago

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, pushed out of the administration for not being a team player, says President Bush was so disengaged during Cabinet meetings that he was like a "blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

O'Neill, who has kept silent about the circumstances surrounding his ouster from the Cabinet 13 months ago, is now ready to give his side of the story with a tell-all book that paints Bush as a disengaged president who didn't encourage debate either at Cabinet meetings or in one-on-one meetings with his Cabinet secretaries.

To promote the book which will be out Tuesday, O'Neill was appearing Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview with correspondent Lesley Stahl.

In an excerpt released by CBS, O'Neill said that a lack of real dialogue characterized the Cabinet meetings he attended during the first two years of the administration and gave O'Neill the feeling that Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."

O'Neill said that the atmosphere was similar during the one-on-one meetings he held with Bush.

Speaking of his first meeting with the president, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage (Bush) on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

O'Neill is described as the principal source for the new book, "The Price of Loyalty," being published by Simon and Schuster, and written by Ron Suskind, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

In addition to interviews with O'Neill, Suskind drew on 19,000 documents O'Neill provided, according to CBS, which said Suskind also interviewed dozens of Bush insiders to flesh out his account of the administration's first two years.

Asked about O'Neill's comment about a disengaged president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Friday, "I think it's well known the way the president approaches governing and setting priorities. The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."

Asked about the administration's opinion of the upcoming book, McClellan said, "I don't do book reviews."

O'Neill, the former head of aluminum giant Alcoa, did not immediately respond to phone messages from The AP left at his office in Pittsburgh. But in an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, O'Neill said he hoped his inflammatory comments did not overshadow the substantive issues he discusses in the book.

"If the 'red meat,' taken out of context, is all that people get out of this book, it will be a huge disappointment to me," he said. "Ideally, this book will cause people to stop and think about the current state of our political process and raise our expectations for what is possible."

O'Neill gained a reputation during his two years in the Bush Cabinet for frequently shooting from the lip with incendiary comments that shook up financial markets and antagonized Wall Street. O'Neill said he was just trying to discuss complicated public policy issues in greater depth than the television sound bites so often used by the typical Washington politicians.

O'Neill was fired in December 2002 when Bush shook up his economic team in search of better salesmen for a new round of tax cuts the president hoped would stimulate a sluggish economy.

O'Neill had publicly questioned the need for another round of tax cuts in light of the growing budget deficits. He was replaced by John Snow, former head of CSX Corp., who became a staunch advocate for new tax cuts, which Bush signed into law in May.

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

So now we can see what Bush is really like in office.

Melon
 
I think that Paul O'Neill might be a bit more trustworthy....maybe. :sexywink:

Melon
 
Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

I don't think that a purely negative book would humanize Bush in this light, though.

Melon
 
It is true....What I find disturbing is that people are making a big deal about it. Many books have detailed accounts that there were those in the administration that had wanted to deal with Iraq before 9/11. This has been documented before in other books. Other books have documented that President Bush was NOT in favor of such actions. 9/11 changed the lens through which foreign policy was viewed in that region.
 
Dreadsox said:
It is true....What I find disturbing is that people are making a big deal about it. Many books have detailed accounts that there were those in the administration that had wanted to deal with Iraq before 9/11. This has been documented before in other books. Other books have documented that President Bush was NOT in favor of such actions. 9/11 changed the lens through which foreign policy was viewed in that region.
Click to expand...

You are correct. In regards to the last two sentences, his administration, in terms of foreign policy, has been a tug-of-war between the hawkish "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) (which includes Cheney and Rumsfeld, among several prominent presidential advisors, like Wolfowitz) and moderates like Colin Powell. The more diplomatic and peaceful approach, advocated by Powell, was in control until 9/11, when PNAC gained ideological control. PNAC has made it no secret at all that they have wanted to take out Saddam in Iraq; they made that clear in 1998.

I think that's why Bush's "sense of urgency" about the war always seemed like a facade; just looking for some legalistic excuse to take care of something they've had plans to do for years.

Melon
 
Interesting I was reading this on a site I discovered earlier:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air Sunday. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.

"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."'

Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.

O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O'Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."'

We already know that Sandy Berger gave Condi Rice several briefings on the threat of Al Qaeda and the need to roll back terrorism in January 2001, which Rice virtually ignored. We also know from Rudman himself that the Rudman/Hart Commission report on the terrorism threat to our national security was given to the White House in February 2001 but was then given to Dick Cheney to ?study? and ignored.

:hmm:
 
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.

But if you find Saddam's complete Violation of 17 UN resolutions and total failure to verifiably disarm nothing to be concerned about, even in light of what he had done in the past and his threats to global energy supply, then I case one would be troubled by any attempts to invade Iraq.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were not the ones that directed this, it was all Powell. There would have never been a second inspections regime or , another resolution authorizing the use of military force if Iraq failed to comply, if it was not for Powell.

Cheney and Rumsfeld had no plans for more inspections or more UN resolutions authorizing the use of military force.

Powell did and Powell was the one who made the case to the international community of why war was necessary.
 
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. Bush met with Bono also and say's he giving 15 Billion dollar's for Africa. Which he really has no intention of fullfilling, of course. The man talk's out of both sides of his mouth that makes him two faced and I am really afraid he's going to buy his way back in.
 
Last edited:
sue4u2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is he just trying to get our votes? Or is he just using a word which perhaps he shouldn't have used, a la "crusade" right after 9/11? It's not good politics at any rate.:censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
Perhaps we should ask?
 
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 :D I'll have to check my tape...

Here's an article from Time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.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."
 
STING2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I have a prediction that things might get nasty between O'Neill and Bush from here on out. :|
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:


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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
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 said:
The White House is now going to investigate O'Neill to see if he stole documents.
Click to expand...

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. :hmm:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
862
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
M
Ticketmaster app
Replies
3
Views
485
rosephile
R
MrsSpringsteen
Need Help With How To Do Transfer And Sale Through TM
Replies
14
Views
582
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Z
Hello!
Replies
3
Views
821
zoo skis
Z
Miroslava
Friday, February 23, 2024 - MSG Sphere - Las Vegas, NV
Replies
2
Views
493
Miroslava
Miroslava

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom