Paul O'Neill & His Bushie Tell-All... - 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 01-09-2004, 04:32 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Paul O'Neill & His Bushie Tell-All...

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
__________________

melon is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 05:07 PM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:41 PM
I bet you trust all "tell-all" books....
__________________

nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-09-2004, 07:29 PM   #3
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:41 PM
I think that Paul O'Neill might be a bit more trustworthy....maybe.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 01-10-2004, 09:01 AM   #4
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 64,461
Local Time: 11:41 PM
especially tell-all books about a guy who fired the author...
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 01-10-2004, 04:39 PM   #5
Registered User
 
U2andPolitix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA all the way
Posts: 231
Local Time: 10:41 PM
bush fired o'neill cause he was too frank. he was honest. GWB is an SOB
U2andPolitix is offline  
Old 01-10-2004, 11:11 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 02:42 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html

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

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 08:06 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 08:41 PM
O'Neill: Iraq Planning Came Before 9/11

If this is true, it's a bit disturbing.
If it's not true, it's still a bit disturbing.
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 08:25 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 10:41 PM
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 is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 10:23 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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.
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
melon is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 11:20 AM   #11
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: 10:41 PM
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.

sue4u2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 01:57 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:41 AM
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.
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2004, 06:46 PM   #13
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: 10:41 PM
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.
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 10:45 AM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 03:41 AM
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.
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.
Perhaps we should ask?
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 11:20 AM   #15
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 07:41 PM
.
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 01-12-2004, 11:28 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 11:41 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, 11:30 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 26,565
Local Time: 11:41 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, 06:24 PM   #18
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 11:41 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, 06:45 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 08:41 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, 07:29 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:41 AM
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  
 

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 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×