o'neill is a very rich man...this is in no way about money...
little history: O'Neill was chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. Prior to joining Alcoa, O'Neill was president of International Paper Company from 1985 to 1987, where he was vice president from 1977 to 1985.
O'Neill's unique experience transforming an old economy firm into a new economy success has been chronicled as a study by the Harvard Business School, and studied in business schools across the nation. O'Neill has gained valuable insights into international finance and the global economy as head of a major corporation with 140, 000 employees spread across 36 nations.
more info...he is a longtime republican and friend of GBush sr.
"Public-Private Background
When hired as treasury secretary, O'Neill was thought to bring a mixture of public- and private-sector experience to Washington as a veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations, and a successful corporate leader who stepped down as chairman of the Alcoa corporation just before joining the Bush administration.
Like many of Bush?s Cabinet and staff selections, he was a man with long-standing ties to the Bush family. O?Neill is a good friend of Bush?s father, former President George Bush.
He also was a former colleague of Vice President Dick Cheney. O?Neill served as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Gerald Ford from 1974 until 1977. Cheney worked as Ford?s de facto chief of staff during that time.
In the business world, O?Neill expounded a belief that timely technological investments can produce high long-term growth rates. "
Ok. *We* all know the facts of the situation. But will the media accurately report it? Anybody spot any egregious errors or distortions from major news sources?
Its funny. The left sees the media as right and the right sees the media as left. Listen to a conservative talk show and the opinion is that the main stream media is in the pocket of the anti-American , Euro-loving socialists. Listen to one of the few liberal shows remaining and you will hear that the mainstream media is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Gov.
the problem lately is the game has changed a bit to:
people who agree with us are genius
people who don't are dangerous and un-american
from both sides--i am starting to think that the 2 party system is not the way to go, but can't see it changing...as it is 50% of the population will always be unhappy with the current government...especially as whoever is in power rarely listens to the other side...too much money involved not to listen only to your backers
Ok. *We* all know the facts of the situation. But will the media accurately report it? Anybody spot any egregious errors or distortions from major news sources?
many things i read yesterday wear saying o'neill is the author of the book. one of the san francisco papers did a story on how wesley clark was crowing because "paul o'neill's book" vindicated him.
kind of like your dole post yesterday.
plus many have somehow turned the saddam issue, from the first NSA meeting into an invasion issue. when clearly o'neill never mentioned invasion in any interviews. maybe it's posed that way in the book, we'll have to see. i'm looking forward to reading the book.
and i thought the 60 minutes piece was very week, many questions were left unanswered.
So apparently now the Bush administration wants to investigate him over that interview.
Quote:
The Treasury Department said Monday it is looking into how a government document from the very early days of the Bush administration -- marked "secret" and outlining plans for a post-Saddam Iraq -- became part of a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast Sunday night.
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'm not American, so I don't profess to know much about your society. Take this for what you will...
I agree that it would be a kind of betrayal. I profondly disagree a fired secretary does not have the right to openly criticise his President during a major crisis. I think all public servants in a liberal representative democracy have a duty to act according to their conscience at all times, no exceptions. Things like 'manners', and 'protocol', &c. have no place. I'm not saying this guy acted contrary to his conscience, but I am saying a princple that he ought not simply because he would be openly criticising his President is fundamentally wrong. I think it is wrong because it defers to authority unnecessarily. Authority ought to be openly challenged (in an intellectual and moral sense) at all times, relentlessly.
he's still going through a major crisis? what exactly is the statute of limitations on a crisis? perhaps we should call off the elections, wouldn't want a sitting president to feel the sting of any dissent!
major crisis.....phooey!
maybe just maybe that's why o'neill didn't say anything when he left, by the time the book came out the war should've been winding down.
i don't know what the timeline is on a book of this magnitude, but when he gave the information to susskind, the war may have been in the "cakewalk" stage. his criticsim of it may have been unimportant at the time.
i for one, during the "shock and awe" phase of the war didn't think we'd be where we are today, in this quagmire.
So apparently now the Bush administration wants to investigate him over that interview.
The Administration might want to investigate its own President for giving Woodward classified documents for his book, Bush at War. And how many months did it take for an investigation into the Valerie Plame/ Yellowcake Uranium scandal? (attr: Atrios)
he's still going through a major crisis? what exactly is the statute of limitations on a crisis? perhaps we should call off the elections, wouldn't want a sitting president to feel the sting of any dissent!
major crisis.....phooey!
maybe just maybe that's why o'neill didn't say anything when he left, by the time the book came out the war should've been winding down.
i don't know what the timeline is on a book of this magnitude, but when he gave the information to susskind, the war may have been in the "cakewalk" stage. his criticsim of it may have been unimportant at the time.
i for one, during the "shock and awe" phase of the war didn't think we'd be where we are today, in this quagmire.
By crisis i meant the war. The war in Iraq is finish now.
And i still say that criticising openly in public, the decision to go to war, when you belong to a governement is wrong : your first duty is to do everything possible to let your army win or at least do nothing against it. If the war is a failure (means a military disaster) and the life or the soldiers is threaten, then you have the right to criticize your own governement.
What people will think if o neil said " hey boys, you are going to risk your life for nothing good : i am sorry for you".
What people will think if o neil said " hey boys, you are going to risk your life for nothing good : i am sorry for you".
This, of course, is the problem: a public servant not speaking his or her mind because he or she is afraid of what people think. It's a very dangerous attitude (for the maintenance of democratic institutions).
Addressing the particular point you make though: people might think that he's right, and public opinion might sway towards not conducting an unnecessary war, in which case it's a good thing, right? Or maybe they would think he's a crackpot who talks smack all day. Either way, it fosters open debate about issues rather than a blind(ish) following of officials.
One last point, that his or her first duty is to either do things to increase the chances of your army to win, or to refrain from doing things that increase your army's chances of losing: that's all well and good, but aren't armies just functionaries - don't they do a government's bidding?; if the Government is engaged in military activities which you believe to be unjust, why would you want them to 'win'? To pre-empt the 'troop morale' argument, which I think is credible, I would say that if a soldier's opinion is affected by the comments of a public servant opposing the war, so be it - you don't get a free pass from humanity just because you've got a gun in your hand. Each human has an obligation to each other human to consider the ramifications of his or her actions.
One last point, that his or her first duty is to either do things to increase the chances of your army to win, or to refrain from doing things that increase your army's chances of losing: that's all well and good, but aren't armies just functionaries - don't they do a government's bidding?; if the Government is engaged in military activities which you believe to be unjust, why would you want them to 'win'? To pre-empt the 'troop morale' argument, which I think is credible, I would say that if a soldier's opinion is affected by the comments of a public servant opposing the war, so be it - you don't get a free pass from humanity just because you've got a gun in your hand. Each human has an obligation to each other human to consider the ramifications of his or her actions.
A soldier obey to the orders, and risk his life for the defense of his countrie. If a soldier, do not feel that he is supported by his countrie, he will be very sad, and the level of his moral very low : "why is more depressing than to risk your life for nothing worth of value ?". The soldier during a campaign is not in the right place to do political analysis or philosophical essays about humanity. All his energy, and all his thoughts must be focused on his mission.
And to answer to your question, if it's unjust why do you want them to win. Simply because if they lost many people of your own countrie (read your soldiers) will die. Of course if the war is a genocide, forget this arguments. But if it's a war, with odd arguments like the Iraqi war, my argument is still valid.
Couldn't follow the thread, but just spotted a clarification by O'Neill who says that his comments have been taken out of context. He says that there was an ongoing, pre-existing exploration of "regime change" in Iraq by the Clinton administration. So, that takes a little bit of the grunt out of the War Plan discussion.
Comments
little history: O'Neill was chairman and CEO of Alcoa from 1987 to 1999, and retired as chairman at the end of 2000. Prior to joining Alcoa, O'Neill was president of International Paper Company from 1985 to 1987, where he was vice president from 1977 to 1985.
O'Neill's unique experience transforming an old economy firm into a new economy success has been chronicled as a study by the Harvard Business School, and studied in business schools across the nation. O'Neill has gained valuable insights into international finance and the global economy as head of a major corporation with 140, 000 employees spread across 36 nations.
here is the link
g
o'neill's is not the only story in the book.
o'neill was one of the wealthiest members of the cabinet, his stock sale of his alcoa stock alone when he joined the cabinet was 100 million dollars.
believe him when he says he's not getting paid, i think he has a lot more on the line than money.
"Public-Private Background
When hired as treasury secretary, O'Neill was thought to bring a mixture of public- and private-sector experience to Washington as a veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations, and a successful corporate leader who stepped down as chairman of the Alcoa corporation just before joining the Bush administration.
Like many of Bush?s Cabinet and staff selections, he was a man with long-standing ties to the Bush family. O?Neill is a good friend of Bush?s father, former President George Bush.
He also was a former colleague of Vice President Dick Cheney. O?Neill served as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Gerald Ford from 1974 until 1977. Cheney worked as Ford?s de facto chief of staff during that time.
In the business world, O?Neill expounded a belief that timely technological investments can produce high long-term growth rates. "
find more here
g
people who agree with us are genius
people who don't are stupid fools or worse
the problem lately is the game has changed a bit to:
people who agree with us are genius
people who don't are dangerous and un-american
from both sides--i am starting to think that the 2 party system is not the way to go, but can't see it changing...as it is 50% of the population will always be unhappy with the current government...especially as whoever is in power rarely listens to the other side...too much money involved not to listen only to your backers
sigh
g
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ok. *We* all know the facts of the situation. But will the media accurately report it? Anybody spot any egregious errors or distortions from major news sources?
many things i read yesterday wear saying o'neill is the author of the book. one of the san francisco papers did a story on how wesley clark was crowing because "paul o'neill's book" vindicated him.
kind of like your dole post yesterday.
plus many have somehow turned the saddam issue, from the first NSA meeting into an invasion issue. when clearly o'neill never mentioned invasion in any interviews. maybe it's posed that way in the book, we'll have to see. i'm looking forward to reading the book.
and i thought the 60 minutes piece was very week, many questions were left unanswered.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
and i thought the 60 minutes piece was very week, many questions were left unanswered.
agreed.
I thought Leslie Stahl was a poor interviewer and seemed to want more face time than her subject.
She kept interrupting O'Neill just as he seemed about to add evidence or examples.
OT: Hey, GlobalNational TV News is running a segment on BushIn30Seconds ads
The Treasury Department said Monday it is looking into how a government document from the very early days of the Bush administration -- marked "secret" and outlining plans for a post-Saddam Iraq -- became part of a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast Sunday night.
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'm not American, so I don't profess to know much about your society. Take this for what you will...
I agree that it would be a kind of betrayal. I profondly disagree a fired secretary does not have the right to openly criticise his President during a major crisis. I think all public servants in a liberal representative democracy have a duty to act according to their conscience at all times, no exceptions. Things like 'manners', and 'protocol', &c. have no place. I'm not saying this guy acted contrary to his conscience, but I am saying a princple that he ought not simply because he would be openly criticising his President is fundamentally wrong. I think it is wrong because it defers to authority unnecessarily. Authority ought to be openly challenged (in an intellectual and moral sense) at all times, relentlessly.
Originally posted by NJANJA2
I profondly disagree a fired secretary does not have the right to openly criticise his President during a major crisis.
That's exactly when the criticism is needed most.
major crisis.....phooey!
maybe just maybe that's why o'neill didn't say anything when he left, by the time the book came out the war should've been winding down.
i don't know what the timeline is on a book of this magnitude, but when he gave the information to susskind, the war may have been in the "cakewalk" stage. his criticsim of it may have been unimportant at the time.
i for one, during the "shock and awe" phase of the war didn't think we'd be where we are today, in this quagmire.
Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.
Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritcal goons ... priceless.
From Talking Points Memo
Originally posted by BRussell
So apparently now the Bush administration wants to investigate him over that interview.
The Administration might want to investigate its own President for giving Woodward classified documents for his book, Bush at War. And how many months did it take for an investigation into the Valerie Plame/ Yellowcake Uranium scandal? (attr: Atrios)
Edit: Sorry Northgate. Missed your post.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
he's still going through a major crisis? what exactly is the statute of limitations on a crisis? perhaps we should call off the elections, wouldn't want a sitting president to feel the sting of any dissent!
major crisis.....phooey!
maybe just maybe that's why o'neill didn't say anything when he left, by the time the book came out the war should've been winding down.
i don't know what the timeline is on a book of this magnitude, but when he gave the information to susskind, the war may have been in the "cakewalk" stage. his criticsim of it may have been unimportant at the time.
i for one, during the "shock and awe" phase of the war didn't think we'd be where we are today, in this quagmire.
By crisis i meant the war. The war in Iraq is finish now.
And i still say that criticising openly in public, the decision to go to war, when you belong to a governement is wrong : your first duty is to do everything possible to let your army win or at least do nothing against it. If the war is a failure (means a military disaster) and the life or the soldiers is threaten, then you have the right to criticize your own governement.
What people will think if o neil said " hey boys, you are going to risk your life for nothing good : i am sorry for you".
Originally posted by Powerdoc
What people will think if o neil said " hey boys, you are going to risk your life for nothing good : i am sorry for you".
This, of course, is the problem: a public servant not speaking his or her mind because he or she is afraid of what people think. It's a very dangerous attitude (for the maintenance of democratic institutions).
Addressing the particular point you make though: people might think that he's right, and public opinion might sway towards not conducting an unnecessary war, in which case it's a good thing, right? Or maybe they would think he's a crackpot who talks smack all day. Either way, it fosters open debate about issues rather than a blind(ish) following of officials.
One last point, that his or her first duty is to either do things to increase the chances of your army to win, or to refrain from doing things that increase your army's chances of losing: that's all well and good, but aren't armies just functionaries - don't they do a government's bidding?; if the Government is engaged in military activities which you believe to be unjust, why would you want them to 'win'? To pre-empt the 'troop morale' argument, which I think is credible, I would say that if a soldier's opinion is affected by the comments of a public servant opposing the war, so be it - you don't get a free pass from humanity just because you've got a gun in your hand. Each human has an obligation to each other human to consider the ramifications of his or her actions.
Originally posted by NJANJA2
One last point, that his or her first duty is to either do things to increase the chances of your army to win, or to refrain from doing things that increase your army's chances of losing: that's all well and good, but aren't armies just functionaries - don't they do a government's bidding?; if the Government is engaged in military activities which you believe to be unjust, why would you want them to 'win'? To pre-empt the 'troop morale' argument, which I think is credible, I would say that if a soldier's opinion is affected by the comments of a public servant opposing the war, so be it - you don't get a free pass from humanity just because you've got a gun in your hand. Each human has an obligation to each other human to consider the ramifications of his or her actions.
A soldier obey to the orders, and risk his life for the defense of his countrie. If a soldier, do not feel that he is supported by his countrie, he will be very sad, and the level of his moral very low : "why is more depressing than to risk your life for nothing worth of value ?". The soldier during a campaign is not in the right place to do political analysis or philosophical essays about humanity. All his energy, and all his thoughts must be focused on his mission.
And to answer to your question, if it's unjust why do you want them to win. Simply because if they lost many people of your own countrie (read your soldiers) will die. Of course if the war is a genocide, forget this arguments. But if it's a war, with odd arguments like the Iraqi war, my argument is still valid.
Here's the article:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush/index.html
I guess maybe you guys jumped the gun slightly?