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
you don't know what your talking about, he's always been outspoken.
he's not the author. he has no interest in whether it sells or not.
has christine todd whitman commented yet?
Neither was Hillary of any of her own books. What does that prove? He can certainly be paid a percentage of the sales regardless of whether he wrote the actual words, or retold them to an writer who them shaped them into the book.
The point is the information he claims would have saved lifes and he is given a pass because he is criticizing Bush. Where are the people who should be pointing at the blood on his hands caused by his silence.
Neither was Hillary of any of her own books. What does that prove? He can certainly be paid a percentage of the sales regardless of whether he wrote the actual words, or retold them to an writer who them shaped them into the book.
The point is the information he claims would have saved lifes and he is given a pass because he is criticizing Bush. Where are the people who should be pointing at the blood on his hands caused by his silence.
Anyone defending this guy has hit a new low.
Nick
again you don't know what you're talking about, you obviously know nothing about paul o'neill.
again you don't know what you're talking about, you obviously know nothing about paul o'neill.
Link to something, provide something corroborative or stop being dismissive. Claiming that I know nothing and you know it all backed by nothing but your own personal opinion isn't persuasive.
He has been outspoken about tax cuts and things of that nature. I'm sure any major news agency would have jumped on the news of a Bush official claiming everything said about Iraq was a lie and innocents were going to die.
you insinuate that he's just trying to sell books so obviously you are ignorant to the fact that he he didn't write the book the allegations sprang from.
he was fired from the white house don't you think anything he'd said immediately after being fired, would be viewed as sour grapes? and the whining of a spurned insider.
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
you just see him as a crazy man attacking your precious.
so he must be in it for the money, the fact that he could've saved lives by coming out earlier is ludicrous.
you insinuate that he's just trying to sell books so obviously you are ignorant to the fact that he he didn't write the book the allegations sprang from.
he was fired from the white house don't you think anything he'd said immediately after being fired, would be viewed as sour grapes? and the whining of a spurned insider.
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
you just see him as a crazy man attacking your precious.
so he must be in it for the money, the fact that he could've saved lives by coming out earlier is ludicrous.
Who said anything about the firings and sour grapes? The point is that he knew about this before action was even taken in Iraq. He could have done so whether hired or fired. Likewise what the heck would sour grapes be compared to death?!?
If you knew you could save a thousand people be they civilians or service people by simply saying what you know, even if it were going to be called sour grapes, wouldn't you do it?
I would in a second if I had information like that. I can't think of a person here, regardless of political affiliation that wouldn't spill the information and save the lives.
And again, with the authoring thing, as if it mattered. The author needed a basis the write the words that were written. Paul O'Neill is the basis for those words.
If we can spend hundreds of hours of cable news time parsing the 16 words Bush used in a State of the Union speech, then how many would be given to the allegations made here, if they were made before the war. Heck they will probably still get lots of time, but the point is that he chose silence. That either makes him an accomplice via silence to the evil he claims, or it makes him someone who is trying to make a buck off of that blood by the tell-all book he is promoting that discloses that information
I would in a second if I had information like that. I can't think of a person here, regardless of political affiliation that wouldn't spill the information and save the lives.
You've concocted a fantasy that Paul had a magic button that when pressed could have stopped the war from happening. You're avoiding reality.
The biggest difference between then and now," O'Neill tells Suskind about his two previous tours in Washington, "is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl (Rove), Dick (Cheney), Karen (Hughes) and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics. It's a huge distinction.
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the war or at a minimum call the motives regarding the war into question and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the or at a minimum call the motives into question regarding the war and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
Nick
and you ignore everything just because it wasn't done in a timely enough manner for you.
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the war or at a minimum call the motives regarding the war into question and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
Nick
I see your point, but i don't think that a fired secretary has the right to critics openly his president (even if he disagree) during a major crisis. It will be a kind of betrayal and lets say a political suicide.
I don't know if this man belong to the classical conservatives or the neo cons, but it seems that there may be a underground battle of influence in the conservative party. It's sad but it's politic.
"violent overthrow should be extremely rare, well thought out, and supported by many across the world..."
I agree to a point. However, one can not always wait for "consensus " to act. Sometimes one needs to be decisive and GWB is just that. Unfortunately, decisiveness without thought gets you into trouble. This American President has made it clear that he will do what he wants when he wants and for now, I don't see the American people tossing him out of the saddle. It is frightening, but no matter how many facts surface about Bush's flawed thought processes and integrity, an overwhelming percentage of Americans who can and DO vote will support Bush.
"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..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
I see your point, but i don't think that a fired secretary has the right to critics openly his president (even if he disagree) during a major crisis. It will be a kind of betrayal and lets say a political suicide.
I don't know if this man belong to the classical conservatives or the neo cons, but it seems that there may be a underground battle of influence in the conservative party. It's sad but it's politic.
he's a pal of cheney's. he's always been blunt and not afraid to speak his mind. i don't know if he voiced his opinion on the war when he was in the administration or not. (he sat on the national security council) perhaps not, because he was already on the shit-list for voicing his disdain for the second tax cut.
when he lost cheney's ear he knew it was over for him.
plus he was treasury secratary, who's going to listen to him on iraq.
i suggest everyone interested to watch 60 minutes tonight and read the book next week.
"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..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
US was not fighting for his life during the end of WW2. But according to the hawks of the US army of the time, the invasion of Japan will cost many many lifes. Both from the US and the japanese camp.
The question is , if they have bombed an another target and made less dead, perhaps it would have work the same (a demo if you want).
We will never knows. But perhaps these horrible deaths have shown to the face of earth how terrible where nuclear weapons. We can imagine that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an another nuclear war happened later.
Those bombing were the most horrid events in modern history without a doubt. However, if were a Chinese person in China during WWII, I might have a different take. The war was not going to stop by itself. Many people had to die to stop it. Sick, but true. Is a military leader to chooses the lives of his own men a "hawk". I don't think so.
I never want to see such a weapon used again and to hear "George the Liberator" propose new additions to the nuclear arsenal is unsettling at best. However, WWII was a very different time and we are best to learn from that decison without being critical of those who made it.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Something much better to consider is whether this is just bashing to sell books.
Nick
o'neal is not the author. he has no interest in whether it sells or not.
has christine todd whitman commented yet?
Originally posted by trumptman
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
you don't know what your talking about, he's always been outspoken.
and he didn't write this book.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
he's not the author. he has no interest in whether it sells or not.
has christine todd whitman commented yet?
Neither was Hillary of any of her own books. What does that prove? He can certainly be paid a percentage of the sales regardless of whether he wrote the actual words, or retold them to an writer who them shaped them into the book.
The point is the information he claims would have saved lifes and he is given a pass because he is criticizing Bush. Where are the people who should be pointing at the blood on his hands caused by his silence.
Anyone defending this guy has hit a new low.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Neither was Hillary of any of her own books. What does that prove? He can certainly be paid a percentage of the sales regardless of whether he wrote the actual words, or retold them to an writer who them shaped them into the book.
The point is the information he claims would have saved lifes and he is given a pass because he is criticizing Bush. Where are the people who should be pointing at the blood on his hands caused by his silence.
Anyone defending this guy has hit a new low.
Nick
again you don't know what you're talking about, you obviously know nothing about paul o'neill.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
again you don't know what you're talking about, you obviously know nothing about paul o'neill.
Link to something, provide something corroborative or stop being dismissive. Claiming that I know nothing and you know it all backed by nothing but your own personal opinion isn't persuasive.
He has been outspoken about tax cuts and things of that nature. I'm sure any major news agency would have jumped on the news of a Bush official claiming everything said about Iraq was a lie and innocents were going to die.
Nick
he was fired from the white house don't you think anything he'd said immediately after being fired, would be viewed as sour grapes? and the whining of a spurned insider.
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
you just see him as a crazy man attacking your precious.
so he must be in it for the money, the fact that he could've saved lives by coming out earlier is ludicrous.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
you insinuate that he's just trying to sell books so obviously you are ignorant to the fact that he he didn't write the book the allegations sprang from.
he was fired from the white house don't you think anything he'd said immediately after being fired, would be viewed as sour grapes? and the whining of a spurned insider.
so what does he do? he works with a pulitzer prize author to get his views out in a timely and cogent manner.
you just see him as a crazy man attacking your precious.
so he must be in it for the money, the fact that he could've saved lives by coming out earlier is ludicrous.
Who said anything about the firings and sour grapes? The point is that he knew about this before action was even taken in Iraq. He could have done so whether hired or fired. Likewise what the heck would sour grapes be compared to death?!?
If you knew you could save a thousand people be they civilians or service people by simply saying what you know, even if it were going to be called sour grapes, wouldn't you do it?
I would in a second if I had information like that. I can't think of a person here, regardless of political affiliation that wouldn't spill the information and save the lives.
And again, with the authoring thing, as if it mattered. The author needed a basis the write the words that were written. Paul O'Neill is the basis for those words.
If we can spend hundreds of hours of cable news time parsing the 16 words Bush used in a State of the Union speech, then how many would be given to the allegations made here, if they were made before the war. Heck they will probably still get lots of time, but the point is that he chose silence. That either makes him an accomplice via silence to the evil he claims, or it makes him someone who is trying to make a buck off of that blood by the tell-all book he is promoting that discloses that information
Nick
i'll wait to read the book as to why he waited. maybe he felt it couldn't be stopped (that's how i felt dec. '02)
but coming out with it now is pretty timely,
president bush's defeat next november will save many lives.
Originally posted by trumptman
I would in a second if I had information like that. I can't think of a person here, regardless of political affiliation that wouldn't spill the information and save the lives.
You've concocted a fantasy that Paul had a magic button that when pressed could have stopped the war from happening. You're avoiding reality.
The biggest difference between then and now," O'Neill tells Suskind about his two previous tours in Washington, "is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl (Rove), Dick (Cheney), Karen (Hughes) and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics. It's a huge distinction.
suskind says o'neill is not his only cabinet source, just his only "on the record" cabinet source.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the or at a minimum call the motives into question regarding the war and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
Nick
and you ignore everything just because it wasn't done in a timely enough manner for you.
Originally posted by trumptman
As I said new lows. You guys find profound means of avoiding what has been posted. The guy is a Republican and kept silent with information that could have stopped the war or at a minimum call the motives regarding the war into question and for you it is business as usual. Amazing. Do that stupid dance for me.
Nick
I see your point, but i don't think that a fired secretary has the right to critics openly his president (even if he disagree) during a major crisis. It will be a kind of betrayal and lets say a political suicide.
I don't know if this man belong to the classical conservatives or the neo cons, but it seems that there may be a underground battle of influence in the conservative party. It's sad but it's politic.
I agree to a point. However, one can not always wait for "consensus " to act. Sometimes one needs to be decisive and GWB is just that. Unfortunately, decisiveness without thought gets you into trouble. This American President has made it clear that he will do what he wants when he wants and for now, I don't see the American people tossing him out of the saddle. It is frightening, but no matter how many facts surface about Bush's flawed thought processes and integrity, an overwhelming percentage of Americans who can and DO vote will support Bush.
"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..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I see your point, but i don't think that a fired secretary has the right to critics openly his president (even if he disagree) during a major crisis. It will be a kind of betrayal and lets say a political suicide.
I don't know if this man belong to the classical conservatives or the neo cons, but it seems that there may be a underground battle of influence in the conservative party. It's sad but it's politic.
he's a pal of cheney's. he's always been blunt and not afraid to speak his mind. i don't know if he voiced his opinion on the war when he was in the administration or not. (he sat on the national security council) perhaps not, because he was already on the shit-list for voicing his disdain for the second tax cut.
when he lost cheney's ear he knew it was over for him.
plus he was treasury secratary, who's going to listen to him on iraq.
i suggest everyone interested to watch 60 minutes tonight and read the book next week.
Originally posted by Beige_G3
"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..."
This is a tuff one for me. I don't know if it is possible to fairly judge this one if you were not alive at the time and I suspect none of us were. I think that WWII was the last time that the US was truely "scarred" that it might loose in a big way . (the feeling after 911 could have been nowhere near that during WWII) Perhaps the US was truely fighting for its life near the end of WWII?
US was not fighting for his life during the end of WW2. But according to the hawks of the US army of the time, the invasion of Japan will cost many many lifes. Both from the US and the japanese camp.
The question is , if they have bombed an another target and made less dead, perhaps it would have work the same (a demo if you want).
We will never knows. But perhaps these horrible deaths have shown to the face of earth how terrible where nuclear weapons. We can imagine that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an another nuclear war happened later.
We canno't remake history, we will never know;
I never want to see such a weapon used again and to hear "George the Liberator" propose new additions to the nuclear arsenal is unsettling at best. However, WWII was a very different time and we are best to learn from that decison without being critical of those who made it.