FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL ONEILL SAYS INVASION OF IRAQ WAS PLANNED IN THE FIRST DAYS...

Drudge ^ | 1/10/04 | Drudge

[CyberAnt]

Typical Drudge .. any opportunity to smear Bush.

O'Neill was FIRED because he wouldn't follow orders. I really don't give a tinkers damn what his opinion of Bush is .. I'm capable of forming my own opinion .. thank you!

[Republican Wildcat]

O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded.

Good thing he was fired. He's not playing with a full deck.

[joesbucks]

Sinkspur said the effort prior to the war was to paraphrase, a sales job. A little misinformation or in sales jargon "puffing" is ok as long as the customer (citizens) approves or is happy with the outcome. So if the citizens want free college education, that seems to be ok too.

That approach is Clintonesque. Plain and simple.

[joesbucks]

Cyber: Nothing wrong with supporting Bush. My question has been IF his statements are indeed factual. No matter whether he (or for that matter Drudge) are trying to smear him on not. Is it wrong to smear the President with the truth?

[joesbucks]

O'Neill was thinking about raping those little boys again when he got out of the meeting. O'Neill was there. Does that make it factual?

Only if indeed he was thinking about it.

[Joe_October]

...Only if indeed he was thinking about it....

And O'Neill's statement can only be fact if Bush was blind and everyone (including himself) was deaf.

Sorry, it's still not a fact.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I don't suppose you can really "smear" the President if O'Neill's statements are the truth.

My question is this: How do you know O'Neill's statements the truth ..?? They're just O'Neill's opinion. That does not at any point make them truthful.

What I'm saying is that Drudge doesn't care if they're truthful. All he cares is that somebody is dissing Bush. During the campaign in 2000 .. Drudge did this all the time.

[joesbucks]

My question is this: How do you know O'Neill's statements the truth ..?? They're just O'Neill's opinion. That does not at any point make them truthful.

I am in total agreement. If they are simply O'Neill's opinion or if they are fabrications, then his comments are out of line.

However, if they are true, possibly even despite the some denials or maybe some crafty wordsmithing that sounds like denial, then they are indeed a problem. Maybe O'Neill should submit to a polygraph if asked. I doubt administration officials or spokesperson would and it will be likely doubtful if O'Neill will be asked. Frankly, he should.

What I'm saying is that Drudge doesn't care if they're truthful. All he cares is that somebody is dissing Bush. During the campaign in 2000 .. Drudge did this all the time.

Drudge seems to scour the web for headlines that will draw attention to his website. This story was carried by many major sites and he simply linked and provided the headline to attract attention.

I will give him credit. While he is clearly more consevative than liberal, he will dish the muckracking on a 60-40 basis. (60% conservative favorable).

I believe there are some who believe that the dirt, problems, or issues of conservatives should be left alone, ignored and in no way promoted if the reporting organization is right leaning.

Integrity demands that news should be reported no matter who it may promote or damage.

[Peach]

There were WMD in Iraq, and you know that, don't you?

They used them before. UNSCOM found them. Hence many of the UN resolutions. Saddam wouldn't get rid of them. Hence the war.

[Miss Marple]

I believe the President and his administration acted on the intelligence available at the time. If it was wrong, then we need to improve CIA. However, I think that events will prove that the intelligence was correct.

The President didn't do a sales job (i.e. "lie") to the American people.

If you think differently, go ahead, but I do not agree.

[FreeReign]

One of the expert commentators on Fox once said, during the war phase, that these plans exist as contingencies, and include a lot of countries, some of which we currently regard as allies. These plans are revised and updated regularly, but it doesn't mean we're going to put them into use unless provoked.

Exactly right.

[FreeReign]

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.

The U.S has the unilateral right to defend itself.

Saddam was found to have anthrax and other WMD by the UN. Saddam was told to destroy these weapons and to prove that he was doing so. Saddam never showed us the proof of the destruction of these weapons. Saddam got what he deserved.

O'Neill represents everything that I can't stand about certains segments of the human race. He s*cks.

[Action-America]

"...you are the one who claimed "Bush lied". It's up to you to back up your absurd lie..."

Dubya swore to protect and defend the Constitution. That was not just an idle campaign statement. He took an oath. Since then he has ignored the 6th Amendment rights of at least 2 US citizens, by unilaterally imprisoning them without trial or access to an attorney and ignored the court, when it was ruled that the administration had to give one of those citizens access to an attorney, signed the (ANTI)Patriot Act, which seriously subverts the 4th Amendment, has encouraged Congress to support the European Cybercrimes Treaty, that would represent an extremely serious assault on the 1st Amendment and has done almost as much damage to the 10th Amendment as did klinton and the list goes on. Now we have O'Neill telling us that, contrary to Dubya's claims, Dubya was trying to find an excuse to invade Iraq, long before the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

I'm not saying that O'Neill is telling the truth. But, considering the above, I am much more inclined to believe him, than a person like Dubya, who has so blatantly disregarded an oath to the people, on so many occasions.

Considering Dubya's track record, this appears to be just one more example of Dubya's duplicity. It's time for conservatives to elect a real trustworthy conservative to the Presidency. The one we have certainly isn't cutting it.

 

[eleni121]

In this interview below (01) on PBS's Newshour O'Neill was quite flattering of the President and the President's policies. He correctly forecasted a renewal of the economy quickly if the congress would only pass the President's tax cuts and that the tax cuts were the best means by which to stimulate the economy.

I am not sure about what has happpened here but it must be related to the fact that he was forced to give up his shares in ALCOA upon becoming Tresury Sec. He resisted that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june01/oneill_2-8.html

[jagrmeister]

How the hell would O'Neill know? As Treasury Secretary, he doesn't sit in on the meetings with national security staff such as NSA, CIA, Defense Sec., etc. Heck, Bush kept O'Neill in the dark on just about everything to keep him from shooting off his mouth to the press and jolting the markets. You think he would entrust him with national security planning??

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Keeps insisting on another card when his count is 18 and dealer shows 17.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Yes, I know that many Presidents share their detailed foreign policy invasion plans with Secretaries of the Treasury.

O'Neil, fired, is just crying sour grapes. Wait'll he sees that no one is listening to him, except the Democrat Operatives in the press.

[Thebaddog]

How about picturing Paul Oneill smoking a spleef with Bono on the plane back from Africa. Now that's believable.

[Vigilanteman]

BTW, the US must have contingency plans to invade N. Korea, if circumstance would ever demand it.

Exactly. Plans and contingencies are exactly that. Kennedy's cabinet discussed an invation of Cuba. Truman's cabinet discussed a strike on the Soviet Union in the days leading up to the Berlin air lift. LBJ's cabinet discussed whether an invasion of North Vietnam would widen the war. Nixon's cabinet discussed whether China would intervene if U.S. toops went into Cambodia. Reagan's cabinet talked about a number of pre-emptive strikes. Grenada was one such result. Panama was such a result under Papa Bush. Heck, even Clinton's cabinet discussed which targets to bomb when impeachment needed to be pushed off the front pages.

Bush's cabinet would be idiots if they didn't discuss plans and contingencies for conflicts with the enemies of our nation. If Paul O'Neill needs to peddle a book, he needs to come up with something more revealing than this tripe.

[Peach]

You're really out there. You care more about the rights of American citizen terrorists than about the rights of civilians, it seems.

As you are well aware, rights under the law are argued in different courts, with different outcomes, depending on the judge and his INTERPRETATION of the law.

If the law was as clear cut as you would have us believe, there would be a lot of unemployed attorneys.

The very fact that you are more apt to believe O'Neill rather than the president tell us everything we need to know about you.