March to War

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Imported, Jan 11, 2004.

  1. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: So I wonder how the Bush administration is going to try to spin O'Neill's contention that from the beginning Bush was planning war against Iraq and his administration trying to find a way to do it.
     
  2. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    longtimelurker: What may be interesting as another aside is that Lord Hutton is going to release his report on the Inquiry that the current government here misled parliament to persuade them to vote for war next week. There are already rumblings in the corridors of power and noises that TB may well not be present for certain Commons debates discussing the issue. One thing is for certain, the report is not going to put either the Government or the BBC in a flattering light.

    Someone's head will undoubtedly roll, but the question is whose?
     
  3. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    I don't suppose it's possible that Mr. O'Neill, being a disgruntled former Whitehouse employee, could be a vengeful liar?

    Oops! What am I thinking? The guy says negative things about George W. Bush so they must be true.

    Forgive me.

    ::)
     
  4. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    Then again, Bush might have ousted O'Neill for the same reason he pens away his detractors whenever he arrives in a city -- because, lo and behold, if someone has anything bad to say about the man, he won't tolerate it, much less answer directly to the concerns being brought up. Of course, we've been learning this the hard way ever since that whole war thing came up -- and people are still asking why we did the dirty work in Iraq in the first place.

    To use the same reasoning, Dubya said we were fighting this war to protect American freedom, so that must be true... ;D
     
  5. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    mindseye: [quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1073836729;start=0#2 date=01/11/04 at 08:02:37]I don't suppose it's possible that Mr. O'Neill, being a disgruntled former Whitehouse employee, could be a vengeful liar?

    Oops! What am I thinking? The guy says negative things about George W. Bush so they must be true.

    Forgive me.

    ::)[/quote]

    How childish was that? Inwood acknowledged that O'Neill's statements were a "contention".

    Perhaps O'Neill was fired because George thought he had cooties.

    Now did you want to regress to the level of schoolyard barbs or do you have a credible basis for accusing O'Neill of libel?
     
  6. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    jerkin4-10: well...its the ole liberal...excuse me dee...'bleeding heart liberal'...hehehe..private joke between dee and i...and conservative arguements...know what i say...'let he without sin...cast the first stone'...*dropping BIG bag of rocks and walking off in silence*

    because there isnt any changing anyones opinion here on political arguements...and im too busy arguing about crocodiles...in another thread...LOL

    hey GIG..i know you are reading this...or will at some point in time...but heres an issue we CAN agree on...LOL
    carry on, oh ye defenders of the faith... :)
     
  7. Pecker

    Pecker Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    83,922
    Likes Received:
    34
    [quote author=mindseye link=board=99;num=1073836729;start=0#4 date=01/11/04 at 08:36:40]

    How childish was that?  Inwood acknowledged that O'Neill's statements were a "contention".  

    Perhaps O'Neill was fired because George thought he had cooties.  

    Now did you want to regress to the level of schoolyard barbs or do you have a credible basis for accusing O'Neill of libel?[/quote]

    Pardon me, but I don't remember calling anybody in particular out on this. It was not my intention. I apologize if I hurt anybody's feelings (except for Mr. O'Neill, of course.) :-[
     
  8. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    mindseye: I'll restate my point: You've suggested that O'Neill is lying in order to exact a personal vendetta. This is a serious accusation -- if true, it would constitute libel for both him and Suskind, and be a public relations disaster for Simon & Schuster, Time magazine, Reuters, and other sources that have helped bring this story out.

    But the tone of your message suggested that you have no actual evidence that he's lying -- it sounded like you're just upset that he bad-mouthed GWB.

    On what grounds are you accusing O'Neill of libel?
     
  9. bigstr8bulge

    bigstr8bulge Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    States
    Childish? Pecker's comments were sensible. O'Neill comes out with some unconfirmed "report" and the centre-left caucus of LPSG pipes up to sign on without question. Pecker says "wait...maybe, just maybe, this guy is a quack" and the left unleashes against him. Come on guys?

    And sorry Dee, as much as I've enjoyed our chats together, "W" doesn't tolerate dissent? No one can say anything bad? Well Howard Dean and his sort have been after him for over a year and there's been no comments from the White House, unlike Pres. Clinton's re-election campaign that started in 1994. If he wanted to avoid people who didn't like him so much he never would have gone to London where thousands of people marched the street screaming about him. And Colin Powell wouldn't be the Secy. of State if Mr. Bush wanted a Rumsfeld/Cheney only view of the world.

    Now I support people like Powell and rather often dislike the stuff I hear from the Vice President's mouth, but it continues to amaze me how much reaction Mr. Bush stirs from the left, they just hate him more than life itself. I actually think Howard Dean is kinda cool...he's not getting my vote but I sure won't cry if he gets elected. Lefties however just think the sky is falling, teachers are being fired, toxic nuclear waste is being dumped in forests and lakes, and innocent Iraqis are being killed by our malicious Bush-worshipping armed servicemen. I just don't get it. To quote the New Republic a moderate Democratic magazine (who recently endorsed Sen. Lieberman, a great candidate), "Americans are more scared by terrorism than by Donald Rumsfeld."

    Sorry if I over-reacted, but as a moderate living in Kucinich/Dean Land (aka Seattle) one gets pent up anger sometimes!
     
  10. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    mindseye: [quote author=bigstr8bulge link=board=99;num=1073836729;start=0#8 date=01/11/04 at 13:41:04]Childish? Pecker's comments were sensible. O'Neill comes out with some unconfirmed "report" and the centre-left caucus of LPSG pipes up to sign on without question. Pecker says "wait...maybe, just maybe, this guy is a quack" and the left unleashes against him. Come on guys?[/quote]

    I disagree.

    It's one thing to disagree with someone's opinions -- I'm generally respectful of other people's beliefs. But O'Neill wasn't spouting out an opinion that could be dismissed as that of a quack -- he didn't simply say, "I think George Bush hated Iraq from the get-go". O'Neill's book contains specific assertions of fact -- direct quotes from meetings and memos and from Vice-President Cheney.

    The word Pecker used to describe O'Neill was "liar". He didn't suggest that O'Neill's opinions were disagreeable; he's attacked O'Neill's facts. To me, that's a much more serious assertion, and one that requires a lot more justification that Pecker offered.

    In fairness, Pecker didn't out-and-out say "O'Neill is a liar". He couched his accusation with "I don't suppose it's possible that...", but it's still a serious allegation here.

    Personally, I don't hate life itself.

    Teachers are being fired. My department's gotten smaller every year since 1999 while enrollment's gone up every year. Even with early retirement incentives to try to get people to leave voluntarily, we've had to terminate contracts.

    Toxic chemical waste is being dumped in lakes. Over 220 million pounds of toxic waste were "released" into lakes, streams, and rivers in 2001; the latest year for which the EPA has made data available to the public. (Texas alone accounted for over 11% of this total.)

    Dunno what religion the servicemen practice, but you do know there have been civilian casualties, don't you?
     
  11. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    jerkin4-10: it will be interesting how 60 minutes spins it tonite...
     
  12. jay_too

    jay_too New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA
    I respect O'Neil. For some on this board, this may be the kiss of death.

    He may not have been the best person to be Treasury Secretary, but he agreed when asked. He was not the financial whiz that Rubin had been, but he brought a breadth of business experience to the cabinet that was unmatched by anyone else. Under his leadership Alcoa went from being a basket case to a fundamentally sound company. He is a man noted for his personal integrity and "tell it like it is" approach. Unfortunately for him, Bush did not want to hear a different drummer and the tune "that prolonged deficits do matter." O'Neil so far as I know remained honest in his statements to the public; and thus, he has my respect.

    I will listen to anyone who gave up an important job and cushy life to serve his country; I tune them out when they lie about substantive, national issues.

    jay
     
  13. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    jerkin4-10: hmmm...prolonged deficts do matter...wonder how many times clinton was told this...as far as 'tell it like it is'...theres 2 sides to that...might be..tell it like i perceive it...too...mmm...also...giving up a cushy job to serve his country...sounds real patriotic there patrick henry...but...like so many others...im sure he has a book deal in the works and hired an agent for speaking engagements...i think we should wait a bit to see if he deserves a nomination for 'sainthood'...
     
  14. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    [quote author=bigstr8bulge link=board=99;num=1073836729;start=0#8 date=01/11/04 at 13:41:04]Childish? Pecker's comments were sensible.  O'Neill comes out with some unconfirmed "report" and the centre-left caucus of LPSG pipes up to sign on without question.  Pecker says "wait...maybe, just maybe, this guy is a quack" and the left unleashes against him.  Come on guys?[/quote]
    He might be, but then again, I don't trust the Bushies.

    But he can't make a law saying that anyone who protests him in London is to be jailed.

    Teachers are being fired! That's the whole idea behind No Child Left Behind: If your school's demographics - all of them, even the mentally retarded (who are all placed in poor schools anyway, regardless of their parents' social standing) - don't pass a certain test, you don't get any money. Eventually, this means teachers will have to be fired, schools can't afford new textbooks, etc.

    And how does one pass NCLB? Simple: Teach the test.

    Toxic chemical waste is being dumped in forests and lakes.

    I don't know their religion, but I have two words for you: Depleted uranium. Actually, today, Iraqis are more scared of being abducted in the middle of the night than they were pre-Bush.
     
  15. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    SpeedoGuy: Paul O'Neill isn't the only former insider now questioning the administration's policies. Below is a summary of some of the comments of retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, Bush's former special envoy to the mid-east, on the war in Iraq.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122403B.shtml
     
  16. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Well O'Neill actually said something that surprised me about Bush. Apparently during one of the meetings about handing out more tax cuts to the rich Bush piped up and said something to the effect "shouldn't we give some of these tax cuts to the middle class?" That's not a direct quote from the article but it's a close approximation. So Bush does think of the little guy sometimes.

    Of course, it's kind of a two sided "compliment." Since he is president, why isn't he just ordering that tax cuts be directed to the middle class?

    But I guess we'll get a lot to talk about when the book is released. And damn it. I missed 60 Minutes. But I have a good excuse. I was having sex. ;D
     
  17. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: I guess I disagree that what is posted in these types of threads can't change someone's mind. I don't think it's necessary to change your political beliefs just because someone presents an argument that is persausive.

    The charge "Bush has lied" can rankle someone who supports him. But if it's shown that Bush was planning from the very beginning of his administration (if not before) to go to war with Iraq then at best he's commited a sin of omission in his statements about Iraq and at worst he has lied. But this will only be determined if O'Neill's statements are shown to be based on actual meetings and documents.

    Now does that mean a Bush supporter will become a Democrat. No. But it might mean that a blind faith in anyone isn't the smartest thing to let yourself fall into. As I've said before I had no problem getting rid of Saddam. I wished the first Bush had done it.

    What I do have a problem with is possibly being given reasons known to be false to take the USA into war. If Bush 2 had said Saddam is a Bad man and it's in everyones best interest for him to go I would have been fine with it. I still wouldn't be keen on Bush but that would've been a good enough reason in my book to go into Iraq.

    And there is probably some truth to O'Neill wanting to stick it to Bush. But maybe not for the reasons you might think. Maybe he thinks being a team player means working for the interests of the USA and not for one particular person. He apparently wasn't real happy to hear Bush push the pre-emptive doctrine. I guess he thought it wasn't what the USA was about. But that would be just his opinion.

    If there are mistakes in the book I can assure you they will be thrown up so fast as to make our heads spin.
     
  18. Imported

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    56,713
    Likes Received:
    55
    Inwood: Just to be clear...the book isn't written by O'Neill. A Mr. Susskind is the writer and his book is based on several interviews with various members of Bush administration. O'Neill apparently is the only one who allowed his name to be used.

    Also, according to the news, O'Neill was not paid anything for his contributions to Susskind's book. This information is current as of 1/11/04
     
  19. bigstr8bulge

    bigstr8bulge Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    States
    Now to set the record straight, I do like Paul O'Neill.  I agree with jay_too, and I supported his policies.  The economic policies of the administration are probably my biggest gripe; I never supported the tax cuts (as I think I mentioned in another thread I voted and campaigned for John McCain in the primary).

    As for libelous accusation mindseye, you've got to be kidding.  When former white house administrators come out and criticize actions of the administration we have every right to question the validity of their statements.  Simply because tons of magazines report what someone is willing to say (not because it is necessarily true, but because the person doing the talking is of a high stature) does not mean it's golden.  Paul O'Neill is accusing the administration of tricking everyone about Iraq, and we of course have to believe him??  If we do, we therefore assume the claims of the administration are libelous, etc. etc.  These "quotes" of meetings with the Vice President can't actually be confirmed, so we are not disputing findings of fact, but rather one person's claims.

    I do disagree with jay_too however on his point that O'Neill gave up his "cushy" job for the rough-life as a cabinet Secretary.  Life in limos, private jets, a amazing office at the Treasury, hob-nobbing with the leaders of the free world, and indeed being one, doesn't seem too rough to me.  If I was CEO of Alcoa I would already have made enough money to last me forever and a chance to be a Secretary of the United States would take be about two minutes to decide on.  Especially for O'Neill who had a strong interest in public service as an exec in the Nixon and Ford white houses (as were Cheney and Rumsfeld; these folks go way back).

    As for No Child Left Behind, that one gets me going.  I love NCLB; I think it is the most common sense legislation that has come around on education in a long time.  And lets talk about bi-partisan; the bill's sponsor was Sen. Edward Kennedy.  We don't get more left folks.  If memory serves (no doubt others will correct me) only 8-16 senators voted against it.  And it actually increased funding for education.  And no, the whole idea od NCLB is not to fire teachers.  Do you actually read these posts before clicking "post"?  Yes, schools that don't have passing scores are considered failing.  What on earth is wrong with that?  This test was prepared by educators for students (special ed included) about what they need to know.  Why can't we demand that if students go to school in AL or AK they get the same education up to the same standards?  And no one will learn the material needed to pass the exam without incentives to do so.  If school administrators know that the tests don't matter or have any effect on them who cares?  Just keep proceeding as normal.  And schools don't start getting federal reductions in aid until they have had plenty of time to address the problem.

    In my state pre NCLB we have had the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) which has had no effect on funding to schools.  As such, most students in the state have failed the WASL over the last 10 years it has been administered and results have not improved. Why?  Who cares, it affects no one.

    And as for teaching to the test, at least they would learn something up to a level that educators think students should know.  After students start passing the tests then we can talk.  And its not like there is study guides or content analysis or KAPLAN reviews for it.  The idea is that most students going through traditional public education programs that teach the basics should pass them, no matter the teacher or school.

    Sorry you didn't see the interview Inwood, it was good.  While I personally did find several of the reports concerning, I would say one thing:  regarding pre-9/11 planning it seems only prudent that the National Security Council would be studying plans to deal with dangerous and reckless countries should there ever be need to do so.  I hope that's what they're doing; it's what they're paid to do.  However, any Presidential directives re toppling Hussein "how do we do this" over and over again are another matter.  Also, did anyone find it concerning that a former Secretary can take 19,000 documents with them when they resign, top secret ones even, and later disseminate them to the media?  Seems like that would be illegal to me...
     
  20. D_Martin van Burden

    D_Martin van Burden Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    3,365
    Likes Received:
    6
    Just had to make two quick comments....

    Um, yes, "failing" by definition means that a school is not performing up to academic standard. But then again, if school districts are dilapidated and have gone without funding, maintenance cannot possibly work under these conditions. Schools are on as much of a class level as the family. That said, if a school cannot afford to keep up with computer and Internet technology, cannot afford to give its underappreciated teachers raises, cannot afford to keep up with the newest editions of school books, or cannot afford to maintain extracurricular activities which would normally keep kids active and participating in their local communities, teams, what not...

    It won't matter if we give the same standardized tests to every school in the country. A standardized test is statistically set up so that one half of the schools will fall BELOW the mean score (guideline, etc.) and that one half of the schools will fall ABOVE it. Standardized tests also presume that everyone taking them has a roughly equivalent preparation as well. Until every school across the United States has the same level of funding, we're shooting ourselves in the feet -- and needless to say, we're penalizing the schools for factors that might be beyond their control. (My kids might have a harder time picking up on mathematics or history because there may be a shortage of available teachers, tutors, or even reliable textbooks to help illustrate concepts. Kids with learning disabilities may not receive the special attention and assistance they require. So on and so on...)

    And concerning Mr. O'Neill...

    You know what? He might be violating the law and he may have to suffer the consequences for that, but I respect any political representative who has had enough of the president's policies -- whether said Prez is Democrat or Republican -- and decides, once and for all, to draw attention to some potentially heinous shit that went on behind the administration's closed doors. Even if it were Dean under fire right now, the point is, the President's committing a serious injustice to his people if he's passing legislation with ulterior motives. Though I would smirk if the President said, "Well, I needed to take care of some business my daddy left behind..." fine! Damn! That's more of a straight answer than the public has seen or heard in a long time.

    In my head, the Truth supercedes the Law.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted