An objective view of dubya

[Robert Harris]

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.

From: http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4101890

I think I have mentioned here before that Paul, many of whose policy ideas I do not agree with, is one of the smartest government exec I have dealt with -- before he became CEO of ALCOA. (He was fired by Bush because ghe spoke the truth about economic policy.)

[ethics]

An "objective news report about Bush" from:

1. A fired former employee.
2. Reuters
3. Bob Harris.

[Techie2000]

An "objective news report about Bush" from:

1. A fired former employee.
2. Reuters
3. Bob Harris.We love them all anyways, except maybe for the first one. Personally a statement from a former employee is hardly objective, or just a general statement by anyone for that matter.

[Robert Harris]

An "objective news report about Bush" from:

1. A fired former employee.
2. Reuters
3. Bob Harris.

Yes, sir.

[Stiofán]

Well the ladies only love Bob because of the promised spankings, I on the other hand, cherish his lively wit and never ending laser like observations on the failings of our President.

I wouldn't give two cents to rub together for Reuters or O'Neill"s opinion however.

[Robert Harris]

1) There is no Reuters opinion in the story.

2) O'Neill is quite reliable.

[ethics]

1) There is no Reuters opinion in the story.

2) O'Neill is quite reliable.
Says you.

You know, I wouldn't say boo if you posted a news story, you know that. But to call the entire topic An objective view of dubya (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?p=176019#post176019) is a stretch. Sorry for nitpicking but there it is. :)

[Techie2000]

Maybe they have an opinion, maybe they have conflicting views, maybe they don't care and just published it for filler. However I have not seen any published reuters opinion. They just reported what the dude said. It doesn't matter what their opinion is or not.

[Stiofán]

1) There is no Reuters opinion in the story.


I didn't say that. What I said was "I wouldn't give two cents to rub together for Reuters"

and

"I wouldn't give two cents to rub together for O'Neill's opinion."

But if you'd like to know, I care even less about Reuters' opinions (note the use of the possessive apostrophe this time) than I do about them as a whole.


:) :) :)

[Copzilla]

Says you.

You know, I wouldn't say boo if you posted a news story, you know that. But to call the entire topic An objective view of dubya (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?p=176019#post176019) is a stretch. Sorry for nitpicking but there it is. :)
Yeah, it's tough to say someone is most certainly objective when they've been fired. I mean, they have a reason to not be objective, but we assume they are because we might agree with their stance? I think Pup takes this type of reasoning - build a theory and search for anything substantiating it, without looking at it critically?

Besides, it seems the economy is turning around nicely, perhaps he has to make a stink to save face? I'm sure he'd be happier with the economy in the toilet, because then at least he'd have that to whine about.

[Stiofán]

Besides, it seems the economy is turning around nicely, perhaps he has to make a stink to save face? I'm sure he'd be happier with the economy in the toilet, because then at least he'd have that to whine about.

Let's not bring facts into the discussion. Bob's having a perfectly wonderful time in his little world tonight.

[Robert Harris]

Let's not bring facts into the discussion. Bob's having a perfectly wonderful time in his little world tonight.

Don't know what you are talking about here. Haven't seen any facts on the table -- except for what Paul had to say. Don't want to believe? You don't have to.

[cdw]

Let's not bring facts into the discussion. Bob's having a perfectly wonderful time in his little world tonight.

rofl

[cdw]

his ex-boss did not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate.
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.

Sounds like a lot of bosses that I've had. So, what's he really bitching about? They went in, gave a report and Bush said, ok, I'll take that all into consideration. Perhaps there were no questions to be asked, and/or, he wasn't interested in their "opininons", just the facts as reported?

[Robert Harris]

I an not going to tell you what he meant. Watch him on TV tomorrow.

[Coot]

I an not going to tell you what he meant. Watch him on TV tomorrow.
Here Bob, more grist for the mill. (http://drudgereport.com/flash9.htm)

<small>Grabbing a six pack and picking a good seat for the fireworks</small>

[Robert Harris]

Interesting stuff indeed. Not new or surprising, siknce the stories have been around for quite q while, with some documents reported in the press -- but this is the first confirmation by someone of Cabinet rank who was there when the discussions took oplace.

I love this O'Neill comment, so typical of him: "I can't imagine that I am going to be attacked for telling the truth."

Ho, ho, ho.

But in Washington circles, Paul has more credibility than anyone on the current Bush team so he will have lots of defenders.

[Robert Harris]

Get pre3view of the O'Neill interview at:

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030112oneilltwonat2p2.asp

[ditch]

I believe it was undoubtedly the case that GW was itching for an excuse to kick Saddam where it hurt most. Absolutely no doubt about it. Well before 911 in a press conference, at a time when the Iraq issues were not getting a hell of a lot of publicity, W was asked a question concerning the control of Saddam and his aggressive foreign policy. His answer "Oh he'll [Saddam] find out" was said in such a way that it was clear W's resolve to get this bastard was strong. A bit vague here with no links or references I know, but I remember the quote well.

Now if all that is at issue in this thread is Oneill's assertion that Bush had plans to get Saddam well before 911, then I'm sure he's 100% correct. This is nothing to do with any other Iraqi issue and whether the world is better off without Saddam which it is. But did W have long term plans to kick Saddam's arse well before 911, absolutely.

[Robert Harris]

O'Neill also has comments of the whacky Bush economic policies, expecially tax cuts we cannot afford.

[ditch]

Can't have tax cuts AND go to Mars. :)

[Sierra Mike]

Get pre3view of the O'Neill interview at:

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030112oneilltwonat2p2.asp
I'm a 100% with him on this:

One of his biggest regrets, O'Neill said, is leaving behind unfinished business, such as reforming the tax code and addressing Social Security's long-term ills.

He called the current tax code "an abomination ... there's no single human being who understands it all." Due to the tax code's complexity, he estimated that roughly $200 billion a year goes uncollected and an additional $200 billion a year is spent by businesses and individuals to comply with the tax rules.
I can't vouch for the bit about corporations spending $200 billion a year just to comply, but I can tell you that, as someone who owns foreign and domestic real estate that generate a modest revenue, tax time is a tremendous pain in the ass. Added to the fact that I'm doing 1099 contract work, it's an unbelievable burden to navigate through. I have to pay two different accountants to go over the returns I file, because they're so complex that mistakes can be made, even by professionals. It's a tremendous waste of my time, if nothing else. I've always been a marginal proponent of a flat tax, which while perhaps disasterous to implement, seems to be the only way to arrive at a condition that could tepidly be defined as "fair taxation."

But as an individual taxpayer alone, with a modest annuity and retirement accounts, why do I need to hire people to determine the state of my financial well-being? Why isn't the code simplified enough to take these variables into account, so I don't have to unwillingly engage in business practices (paying two accountants!) I don't wish to be involved with? Makes no sense to me.

SM

[ethics]

Too bad all of this looks like some serious hoax?

Don't believe me (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php)?

"In his appearance this evening on ‘60 Minutes,’ Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

“Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.’ He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS’s promotional story also contained that claim).

“But that is not a Pentagon document. It’s from the Vice-President’s Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney’s attention before the 9/11 strikes.

“And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website (http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml). Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)”

[Stiofán]

Why am I not surprised this whole thing is about selling more books for some ex-government crony and his ghost writer. It always is. Yawn...

[Steve]

Well....if one is going to give 19,000 documents to a ghost writer to produce a book that puts the government in a bad light, one should make sure no classified documents are in there, lest one come under investigation. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/12/news/economy/oneill_probe/index.htm?cnn=yes)

[ethics]

Well....if one is going to give 19,000 documents to a ghost writer to produce a book that puts the government in a bad light, one should make sure no classified documents are in there, lest one come under investigation. (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/12/news/economy/oneill_probe/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Serves him right.

Hey Bob, you've been silent on the "objective" report by O'Neil.

[Robert Harris]

There is no point arguing with the Bushie fan club. They know he can do no wrong so anyone who is critical must have an ulterior motive.

For the record, Paul is not author of a ghost-written book, but a source. He has no need to hype sales since he has no finanfial interest in it. And he left Alcoa well-fixed for life. I believe his last year's pay was something like %50 million.

[ethics]

There is no point arguing with the Bushie fan club. They know he can do no wrong so anyone who is critical must have an ulterior motive.
You must have confused this forum with some other one. There are no Bushie fan club but there are people here who do not believe incredible things that are hand fed to them. Which is a good thing, no matter what political side you are sitting on.


For the record, Paul is not author of a ghost-written book, but a source. He has no need to hype sales since he has no finanfial interest in it. And he left Alcoa well-fixed for life. I believe his last year's pay was something like %50 million.

Which is why he will be investigated since he spilled the beans that should have been kept under wraps.

[Net Inquirer]

Watched the interview with Paul O'Neill on Sixty Minutes last night.
The guy is not the brightest bulb is he?

First he states what everybody knows--that Bush, (and Clinton before him) were for a regime change in Iraq because they thought that Saddam was a "bad guy."

Second, O'Neill often publicly disagreed with Bush while serving under him.

Third, after being fired he writes a book for profit that is a kiss and tell with criticism and then expresses surprise that some, including anyone in the Bush administration, would think ill of him for doing so! :crazy:

And finally he uses as his some of his source(s) classified documents.

Would you want this man working for you whatever your views or mission?

[Robert Harris]

Just a couple of points.

1) He is extremely bright and capable.

2) He did not write a book for profit.

[ethics]

Just a couple of points.

1) He is extremely bright and capable.

2) He did not write a book for profit.You forgot #3

3) he is also very objective. :rolleyes:

[Robert Harris]

You forgot #3

3) he is also very objective. :rolleyes:

I wasn't sure anyone here understood the meaning of the word. But he is, and he is honest -- a straight shooter.:)

[Net Inquirer]

Just a couple of points.

1) He is extremely bright and capable.

2) He did not write a book for profit.

1. Evidently not regarding "bright." I guess it is possible to lack common sense and professionalism but still be "capable." So I will defer to you on that one as an overall trait of his. I only know of him from his foolishness in the matter covered on Sixty Minutes.

2. He wrote it gratis? I am impressed.

[Robert Harris]

He did not write it. It was written by a journalist whose name escapes me. Paul was a source.

[btdude]

He did not write it. It was written by a journalist whose name escapes me. Paul was a source.


Ron Suskind Author (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html)

[Steve]

And finally he uses as his some of his source(s) classified documents.Well, it appears that O'Neill may not have been solely at fault (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114862,00.html). Is this a problem with "the system", or just a reflection that too much useless crap is classified these days?