Quote:President Bush was so disengaged in Cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people," says former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in his first interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill speaks to Lesley Stahl for a report to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Jan. 11...
You don't suppose Paul O'Neill is a little bitter, do you?
"...he was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people"...
Damn, that's funny, except we all know it's true, and that makes it real unfunny.
pd
Yes, I saw that piece too. Good on him for the honesty. Waiting now for the 'disgruntled former employee' cliches and character assassination machinery to be engaged...and for that bullshit to be repeated endlessly here.
PD, link please, thank you very much in advance.
If you don't mind, Lola :wink:
O'Neill: Bush 'like a blind man'
(I wonder a little bit about the rather minimal reaction in US-media and public to this.)
I think perhaps the "powers that be" wish for it to be ignored.
I agree Walter and Hobitbob. I am amazed that this administration gets away with this. It is a testament to the power of advertizing.
?
Did Powell lie to the UN? Are his statements now contradictory?
In my view he lied then and now is trying to have it both ways.
Now he says that they "thought" there was solid evidence but not concrete evidence, no smoking gun. Then goes on to say he stands behind what he told the UN which was there "was" solid evidence, not that they "thought" there was.
The statments seem real weasly to me.
Seems to me that the facts changed. That happens.
Here's more from O'Neill. Interesting. I'm not at all surprised.
Quote:Saddam's Ouster Planned In '01?
Jan. 10, 2004
The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq,
including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's
inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11
attacks as has been previously reported.
That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first
interview about his time as a White House insider. O'Neill talks to
Correspondent Lesley Stahl in the interview, to be broadcast on 60
Minutes, Sunday, Jan. 11 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was
a bad person and that he needed to go," he tells Stahl. "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."
O'Neill, fired by the White House for his disagreement on tax cuts, is
the main source for an upcoming book, "The Price of Loyalty," authored
by Ron Suskind.
Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave
him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the
administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam
Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall
-- including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes
tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil.
"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret'
says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi
Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about
contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have
what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.
According to CBS News Reporter Lisa Barron in Baghdad, "The Iraqi
National Congress, an umbrella group of former exiles, says it's not
surprised by O'Neill's remarks. Spokesman Entifadh Qanbar tells CBS News
that the Bush administration opened official channels to the Iraqi
opposition soon after coming to power, and discussed how to remove
Saddam. The group opened an office in Washington shortly afterwards."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in
a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be
invaded. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of
it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill in
the book.
Suskind also writes about a White House meeting in which he says the
president seems to be wavering about going forward with his 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 the president
uttered, according to a nearly verbatim transcript of an Economic Team
meeting he says he obtained from someone at the meeting.
O'Neill, who was asked to resign because of his opposition to the tax
cut, says he doesn't think his tell-all account in this book will be
attacked by his former employers as sour grapes. "I will be really
disappointed if [the White House] reacts that way," he tells Stahl. "I
can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."
O'Neill also is quoted saying in the book that President Bush was so
disengaged in cabinet meetings that he "was like a blind man in a
roomful of deaf people."
O'Neill is also quoted in the book as saying the administration's
decision-making process was so flawed that often top officials had no
real sense of what the president wanted them to do, forcing them to act
on "little more than hunches about what the president might think."
"It's revealing," said Stahl on The Early Show Friday. "I would say it's
an unflattering portrait of the White House and of the president -- and
specifically, about how they make decisions."
A lack of dialogue, according to O'Neill, was the norm in cabinet
meetings he attended. And it was similar in one-on-one meetings, says
O'Neill. Of his first such meeting with the president, O'Neill says, "I
went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to
engage [him] on...I was surprised it turned out me talking and the
president just listening...It was mostly a monologue."
On Friday, a White House official tried to brush off O'Neill's
assessment of President Bush's decision-making policies. "It's well
known the way the president approaches governing and setting
priorities," says Spokeman Scott McClellan. "The president is someone
that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities, and that is
exactly what he'll continue to do."
CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller reported Saturday that, as the White
House sees it, O'Neill's remarks are those of a disgruntled former
official, and it should not have come as a surprise to O'Neill that the
U.S. advocated Saddam's ouster.
In fact, a senior administration official tells CBS News it would have
been irresponsible not to plan for Saddam's eventual removal.
As for the charge that there were early plans to invade Iraq, Knoller
says the official calls that "laughable." Suggesting that O'Neill
doesn't know what he's talking about on this matter, the official told
CBS News O'Neill had enough problems in his own area of expertise.
Another senior administraiton official told CBS News Saturday, "No one
ever listened to the crazy things he said before, why should we start
now?"
Separately, McClellan added Saturday, "We appreciate his service. While
we're not in the business of book reviews, it appears the world
according to Mr O'Nneill is more about justifying his own opinions than
looking at the reality of the results we're achieving on behalf on the
American people.
"The president is going to continue to be forward-looking and focus on
building on the results we've achieved on the economy and efforts to
make the world safer and a better place."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/printable592330.shtml
(Edited once to add link.)
Quote from above post, "Separately, McClellan added Saturday, "We appreciate his service. While
we're not in the business of book reviews, it appears the world
according to Mr O'Nneill is more about justifying his own opinions than
looking at the reality of the results we're achieving on behalf on the
American people." Yes, the American People have been hoodwinked several times on the reasons we attacked Iraq, and they're still buying. I'm not.
But its not just Americans who're being blind is it? Australians too are being incrediably naive, in fact people all over the world are ignoring facts, and being willingly decieved.
Cayla, It's true that ignorance is world-wide, but the American People still support GWBush's deceit, and continue to support him by numbers that exceeds over 50 percent of the voting public. Fool me once, and shame on you. Fool me twice, and shame on ..........it's a hopeless case.
I see your point, and i agree. But here in Australia its the same story, over 50% (well over it think) support Howard on issues like the war, and refugees, when his policies are not far short of barbaric. He has been accused of arse-licking Bush, lying to the electorate last election. Basically, he's not a man to be trusted, in many peoples eyes. But still, he looks as if he is overwhelmingly likely to win the election this year.
As you say, fool me twice....its humilating
Its a strange world-wide phenomenea....ignorance and willingness to stay so.
SO, only the elitist left on A2K has the intelligence neccessary to judge who best to lead the masses?
God help us all.
Of course we do. Oh, and please show more respect when addressing your "betters."
McGentrix wrote:SO, only the elitist left on A2K has the intelligence neccessary to judge who best to lead the masses?
God help us all.
No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the next--if not a damn sight better
..."elitist left"...
That brings to mind an incident recounted in an old New Yorker by a 'far flung reporter' writing from England. A man with a bowler and umbrella had waved a taxi over, but as it approached the curb, another fellow (younger, well dressed) stepped out onto the road, hopped into the cab, and closed the door. The first man approached the cab and, as the window was rolled down and the cab was slowly departing, said "That was very impudent, young man!" To which the young man replied "One can't be impudent to one's inferiors."
Elitist left.............isn't that a label coined by good ole Spiro Agnew? Or was it the creative work of our friend Newt? Or was it Rush?
McGentrix, you really must work a little harder to be creative in your insults. Content, man, we need content.
This, "oh yeah, well but you're worse" business gets us no where.
Lola
McG is, I think, unlikely to hire you or I on as mentors.
"Elitist left" gets tossed out by a lot of folks who usually aren't very well educated and who feel inferior for that lack, suspecting that other folks with a greater level of education look down on them. And frankly, we do.
But the notion (and similar notions) have a rich tradition in the US - the educated fellow vs the practical fellow (or in McG's likely take on this; the effete, snooty, welfare-loving northeasterner who has no physical courage and is a deluded dreamer VS the hard-working, go get 'em, straight-seeing practical guy upon whose broad shoulders the great nation was built).
Bush knows his constituency. He is of it. He thinks being stupid is a grand thing, an American thing. And he's partly right.
blatham, Correction: not partly right. More than 50 percent thinks he's right.
