pistoff, 1/3 of the Afghan security forces trained by the US and coalition forces deserted. Things are hunky dory in the ME. I'm just wondering how many more body bags (over 400 at last count) and permanent injured (over 10,000) military our citizens are willing to commit to this farce?
Quote:John Webb: Clearly, to human scum, political objectives are more valuable than American lives or taxpayers' dollars, so long as it makes money for their friends.
Clearly you have learned one of the fundamentals of politics in the western world. Congratulations!
Right wingnuts
The right wingnuts are foaming at the mouth about this news.
Cheney is a scumbag and the rest of that crew are not much better. Powell is a disgrace. Lied to the UN and is still lying.
Dubya is clueless. He just does what he is told.
The only little problem is will the American people that are apolitical or right wing even hear about this and if so care about it.
It seems that even now many brainwashed Americans still believe Saddam masterminded 911. This is after Dubya had to confess there is no evidence of that.
The Bush and bin Laden families are thick as thieves. Dubya might not be working very hard to catch Osama due to the close family ties.
I feel another massive attack coming from Al Q in the US. Hope I am wrong but Al Q. has issued several warnings but has not struck. USA security will feel that Al Q. has been bluffing. That's what Al Q. wants. Then they will strike. This will bring Martial Law and cancellation of the election.
America will then be what the Neo-Fascists want it to be.
And you know what, John? Over 50 percent of Americans ARE going to vote for GWBush. We deserve everything that comes down from this administration's actions. It means 'we' approve of all the lies and actions taken by this president to destroy this country's international relations, the deficit spending, the changing justifications for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the billions spent on these wars instead of helping our own childrens' education and health. What the hey, we are a "christian" nation, arn't we?
NO!!!!!
"It means 'we' approve."
That is the most frustrating thing. I know that you don't aprove and you know that I sure as Hell don't aprove.
If this putrid regime gets re-elected it will appear like the American people approve of their foulness. I hope that those that don't approve will get into the streets and demonstrate that they sure as Hell don't approve.
I feel that Dubya the Dense and his gang of fascist, warmongering thieves should be put on trial for treason.
I still think that Al Q. will attack before the elections and that they will be cancelled. Martial Law will be declared and Amerika will be a Fascist Plutocracy.
D'artagnan:
It's already happening here in Canada. A potential candidate for leader of a newly merged political party here has said he will not run due to the fact he believes he will be unable to raise the necessary funding necessary to launch any sort of successful campaign. I hate to lower my standards by using the following language, but.....excuse me? What sort of bullshit is that? Any worthy candidate should be able to run! It shouldn't be the wealthy or those with connections to the wealthy that make it to the level of party leader. If that is the standard, what chance do any of the regular working public have for fair and honest (*choke*) representation??? Only the wealthy will get representation. We'll become like those in the Philippines in a story I saw on t.v. tonight. A Manila shantytown was destroyed by fire leaving 25,000 of Manila's poor homeless. The official cause was a kerosene lamp that was knocked over in one of the homes that quickly caught fire and spread through the area. But there were some residents who felt it was a deliberately set fire to force everyone out of the area in order for profitable housing to be built. Whether or not that is true, I don't know. What I do know is that it is possible. How many of the wealthy look down upon those who are destitute? Or, at the very least, have little respect for those "beneath" them? One only has to watch "The Simple Life" with Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie to know this is true. And another example? The "esteemed" (tongue firmly planted in cheek) premier of the province I live in made an ass of himself 2 years ago when he made an impromptu visit to a homeless shelter. He was drunk and ended the visit by throwing money at the homeless men and telling them to quit being lazy and get jobs. Nice. I thought for sure his political career was over, but you know what? I bet all of those with political power and clout (i.e. those with money) all agree with him, so why would they boot him out? How he ever got to be premier is beyond me. It just seems to me this country is going to hell in a handbasket, as the saying goes!
My apologies for this diatribe but I am so fed up with the politicians in this country.
For those non-Canadians who would like to see another fine example of political leadership in this country, click on the following URLs:
Not only a drunk, but a hypocrite too!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/campbell_gordon.html
The man (dumb ass) had the audacity to smile for some of his mug shots! (Something he shares in common with Bill Gates.)
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20030111/wxcamp0111/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
Oh and what discipline does he end up receiving? Jail? Like the average schmuck would get? Oh no. He pays a fine. And this man is STILL premier of British Columbia! (The event in question happened a year ago.)
And it isn't just these antics that burn my cookies. It is their blatant disregard of public opinion in how they conduct government business. I swear people in this country must be brain dead to vote these idiots into office. I hope that after the example of the 2000 presidential race in the U.S.A. that people realize their votes CAN count.
But those who don't vote is another rant I shall leave for another time.
Yeah.
In my view 99.99% Politicians are people that like to be in control of other people and love power.
pistoff, I agree. Not only power over other people, but over big money decisions that would otherwise be beyond their purview.
Poor Paul O'Neill[/u]
By:Bruce Bartlett
January 13, 2004
When Paul O'Neill was forced out as Secretary of the Treasury in December 2002, everyone knew that it was not the last time he would be heard from. Now, after a year of silence, he is speaking out again in a new book, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill" by Ron Suskind. A long excerpt appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Monday and O'Neill himself went on "60 Minutes" to promote the book, which is based largely on interviews with O'Neill and documents provided by him.
The picture O'Neill paints of President Bush is that of a man totally disengaged from policymaking; an enigma, whose views on key economic issues were a mystery even to his principal economic spokesman, Mr. O'Neill. In cabinet meetings, the president appeared "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people." O'Neill implies that decisions on key issues, such as the imposition of steel tariffs, were made with no regard to the substance and were based solely on politics.
One of the most serious charges made by former Secretary O'Neill is that President Bush expressed concern about the proposed 2003 tax cut being too tilted toward the rich at a November 2002 White House meeting. The book quotes the president as saying, "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it againÂ…. Why are we doing it again?" It goes on to say that he was talked out of these reservations by his political adviser, Karl Rove, who said that Mr. Bush must "stick to principle."
Although the books cites a transcript of this meeting provided by Mr. O'Neill, participants in the meeting tell me that no such statements were ever made. Former Council of Economic Advisers Chairman R. Glenn Hubbard states flatly, "The president NEVER made any of the distributional comments referred to in the interview." Cesar Conda, Vice President Dick Cheney's domestic policy adviser, also told me that the president never said anything about giving money to rich people. Referring to his own notes of the meeting, Conda said that the discussion was about extending depreciation rules that were due to expire, not about reducing income tax rates.
Conda is also critical of Mr. O'Neill's portrayal of the debate surrounding the imposition of steel tariffs in March 2002. The Wall Street Journal excerpt clearly implies that Vice President Cheney supported the tariff decision, when in fact he opposed it. At the meeting O'Neill refers to, Cheney was simply acting as an honest broker, keeping his personal views private. Vice President Cheney generally made his views known to the president only in one-on-one meetings, so as to facilitate discussion in open meetings.
Although Mr. O'Neill portrays himself as the principal opponent of steel tariffs, in fact he was AWOL at a critical moment. According to a Sept. 19, 2003 report in the Washington Post, at a crucial meeting of the economic team, tariff opponents were abandoned by Mr. O'Neill, who sent an underling in his place. Lacking the stature of the Treasury secretary to beat down tariff supporters like Commerce Secretary Don Evans, the opponents essentially lost by default.
Mr. O'Neill would have us believe that he was the only honest man in an administration of sycophants. Another interpretation would be that he was simply ill-suited to the job he had been given, too used to being the boss and incapable of taking direction, too interested in doing things his own way instead of the way his boss wanted them done, and too easily led to believe that outspokenness is the same thing as honesty.
Even without the details made public in this book, we know that Paul O'Neill was not a very effective Treasury secretary. Looking through my files I find headlines like these from his tenure:
"All Thumbs at Treasury" Washington Post (5-20-01)
"Mr. O'Neill's Gaffes" Washington Post (8-1-02)
"Treasury Secretary Gets Into Hot Water On U.S. Cuba Policy" Wall Street Journal (3-15-02)
"O'Neill Solidifies Maverick Status With Public Jabs at Bush Policies" Wall Street Journal (3-18-02)
On Oct. 2, 2001, the New York Times had this to say: "Mr. O'Neill's erratic statements have sometimes rattled investors andÂ…marginalized him as a policymaker and spokesman."
You get the idea. Yet O'Neill never improved. He continued to go out of his way to be out of step with the Bush Administration, both substantively and stylistically, right up until the end. The only question is why he wasn't fired sooner.
Mr. O'Neill may think he is getting revenge on a president he believes treated him shabbily. But I think that all he has really done is remind people of why he never should have been named Treasury secretary in the first place.
John Webb wrote:Fedral said "Mr. O'Neill may think he is getting revenge on a president he believes treated him shabbily. But I think that all he has really done is remind people of why he never should have been named Treasury secretary in the first place."
Fedral, can you possibly be saying that the person who originally appointed him is an incompetent fool unfit for public office? 
No, what I
AM saying by posting this article is that sometimes people who may look like the proper choice for a job, later turn out to be a 'bad fit' for the team you are trying to build.
Happens all the time in politics. Someone may look good 'on paper', but may turn out to not be able to handle the responsibilities given to them.
pistoff
Quote:In my view 99.99% Politicians are people that like to be in control of other people and love power.
I think the citizens of the world would be grateful if these types would just get their control and power fix in the BDSM world instead of taking it out on the rest of us.
O'Neill is backing down -- which is not suprising considering all the heat he's getting from the rabid attack dogs on the right:
Quote:Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
It comes as no shock to me that O'Neill is changing his story now -- not when you consider the enormous pressure being applied to his skull by the administration, the GOP smear machine and the right-wing media.
O'Neill reminds me of the middle-aged businessman in Sinclair Lewis's novel
Babbit, who briefly and naively rebels against the conservative establishment that has shaped his life, but quickly backs down once he realizes the establishment has it in its power to crush him like a walnut.
I'm a little encouraged, though, that O'Neill and Suskind's allegations have become a Big Story -- despite the best efforts of the neoconservative goons to discredit them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace