Former Treasury Sec. Paints Bush as 'Blind Man'
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill likened President Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts on Friday from a CBS interview.
O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour.
"As I recall it was just a monologue," he told CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast the entire interview on Sunday.
In making the blind man analogy, O'Neill told CBS his ex-boss did not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate.
"There is no discernible connection," CBS quoted O'Neill as saying. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill said, according to the program.
CBS said much of O'Neill's criticisms of Bush are included in "The Price of Loyalty," an upcoming book by former Wall Street Journal reporter
Ron Suskind.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=4101916
OUCH!
I think we now have a clearer of the Real Bush.
It's what's been suspected anyway.
Leader of the free world. Doesn't give a sh!t.
But he'll raise $750,000 this weekend in Florida.
O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour.
"As I recall it was just a monologue," he told CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast the entire interview on Sunday.
In making the blind man analogy, O'Neill told CBS his ex-boss did not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate.
"There is no discernible connection," CBS quoted O'Neill as saying. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill said, according to the program.
CBS said much of O'Neill's criticisms of Bush are included in "The Price of Loyalty," an upcoming book by former Wall Street Journal reporter
Ron Suskind.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml...toryID=4101916
OUCH!
I think we now have a clearer of the Real Bush.
It's what's been suspected anyway.
Leader of the free world. Doesn't give a sh!t.
But he'll raise $750,000 this weekend in Florida.
Comments
Anyway i will be surprised, by testimonies discribing him as a genius, but who knows ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Anyway i will be surprised, by testimonies discribing him as a genius, but who knows ?
Post of the year!
See what happens when you don't compromise your beliefs for
a wrongheaded president. You get fired.
Then you get to spill the beans on what a joke the administration is.
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in592330.shtml
O'NEILL BEFORE ZOD! BOMBSHELL!! Former U.S. Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, says that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began immediately after Dubyah took the oath of office.
You know. The one where he swears to "protect and defend" the Constitution from all enemies "foreign and domestic?"
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," [O'Neill] tells [60 Minutes corrsspondent, Leslie] 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," says O'Neill.
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.
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.
What this interview obviously also means is that Bush indisputably knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing, as well as conspired with big oil companies in a global conspiracy to invade an pillage Iraq.
This is monumental news.
Originally posted by rageous
What this interview obviously also means is that Bush indisputably knew about 9/11 beforehand and did nothing, as well as conspired with big oil companies in a global conspiracy to invade an pillage Iraq.
Ease back on the rhetoric throttle, please. You cannot make the logical leap that because Bush wanted to overthrow Hussein from the beginning, that he also knew 9/11 was coming. Two separate things.
You can make the logical connection that he used a national tragedy as his personal excuse for invasion, but that's about it. Either way it's bad leadership (or I should say, lack of leadership).
Originally posted by Moogs
You can make the logical connection that he used a national tragedy as his personal excuse for invasion, but that's about it. Either way it's bad leadership (or I should say, lack of leadership).
I'd say that's more than lack of leadership, it's worse than just immoral as well. I avoid thinking about it because if it were proven I'd want more than just impeachment.
Originally posted by bunge
To those that always argue that the war wasn't for oil: if these reports are true, would you finally admit that the war was for oil?
Funny, my take on the info presented in this thread is that the Bush/Hussein thing was more personal than anything.
From the time he came into office he wanted to get the guy. Probably for the attempt to assassinate his family. There are far easier ways to get oil.
Originally posted by Frank777
Funny, my take on the info presented in this thread is that the Bush/Hussein thing was more personal than anything.
From the time he came into office he wanted to get the guy. Probably for the attempt to assassinate his family. There are far easier ways to get oil.
That's not much of a ringing endorsement....
Originally posted by bunge
I'd say that's more than lack of leadership, it's worse than just immoral as well. I avoid thinking about it because if it were proven I'd want more than just impeachment.
you can't get impeached for starting an illegal war......unless you're getting a blowjob at the time.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
you can't get impeached for starting an illegal war......unless you're getting a blowjob at the time.
Originally posted by bunge
That's not much of a ringing endorsement....
It wasn't meant to be. It was just an observation.
Originally posted by Moogs
Ease back on the rhetoric throttle, please. You cannot make the logical leap that because Bush wanted to overthrow Hussein from the beginning, that he also knew 9/11 was coming. Two separate things.
You can make the logical connection that he used a national tragedy as his personal excuse for invasion, but that's about it. Either way it's bad leadership (or I should say, lack of leadership).
I think you missed the tone of my post entirely.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
"There are memos," Suskind tells Stahl, "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
They must have misplaced that one.
Originally posted by bunge
To those that always argue that the war wasn't for oil: if these reports are true, would you finally admit that the war was for oil?
Yes, I would.
Originally posted by Beige_G3
is the World better off with SH out of power....you bet.
true, but we have to be careful about this line of thinking...many many people think the World would be better off without g w b , but a violent overthrow is clearly not the answer...but some may think it is...just like some in this admin thought violent overthrow of SH was the answer
violent overthrow should be extremely rare, well thought out, and supported by many across the world...
9-11 was clearly an act of terrorism against this country...but in baghdad what would they consider "shock and awe"?? it was tactics designed to scare and terrorize a country into surrendering...what was hiroshima and nagasaki? why did we bomb cities instead of military locations...because we wanted to scare the japanese into quitting the war...the ends may justify the means, but you have to be very very careful when you walk that edge of, what they do is bad, what we do is good...
just my thoughts
g
Originally posted by bunge
To those that always argue that the war wasn't for oil: if these reports are true, would you finally admit that the war was for oil?
Something much better to consider is whether this is just bashing to sell books.
I'll tell you why I would rather consider it that than what it claims for those that declare this is just a defense of Bush at any cost.
If this Secretary knew that Bushes war was totally based on a lie, totally without merit, and totally about oil, why would he wait to explain this to push some books as opposed to say, when it would have saved lives?
What does it say that the actions of this former Treasury Secretary were to basically keep a secret until after the civilians die, after the sevicemen and women die, and finally let it go when it sells a few books?
Would I really give someone with that type of thinking credit, even if it were information related to someone I opposed politically? He is literally trading lives and dollars for his silence if what he claims is true.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Would I really give someone with that type of thinking credit, even if it were information related to someone I opposed politically? He is literally trading lives and dollars for his silence if what he claims is true.
It's impossible to shift the blame. to someone else.
Originally posted by bunge
It's impossible to shift the blame. to someone else.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not saying blame him instead of Bush. I'm saying how credible is someone who would remain silent about a secret that would save the lives of a couple thousand people and then later release that secret on a book that will make him money?
You must be blind with your hatred.
Nick