Bush Administration Launchs Investigation of Former Treasury Secretary O'Neil

Well, you know what they say... Mess with bull's rear end...

 

bb, i like your sig. words dean should take to heart, no?

 

1. There is a Dem Primary going on, which means the Dems will be more fractious. The kind of intraparty squabbling is nothing compared to Bush and McCain, yet the GOP united for Bush just as the Dems will for their candidate.

2. Iraq is not the only issue, yet Brooks only looks at Iraq-related questions. Are Republicans as united on the Energy Bill or Medicaid, or a host of other issues as they appear to be on Iraq? I think not. This is cherry-picking at its finest.

3. Dems have two things going for them... they dislike Bush and are willing to sacrifice to win. Bush will have to move left during the general election campaign cycle and will end up ticking off complacent whiners like Grover Norquist and far right preachers.

4. The poll Brooks uses in the Bush/Dean matchup is weeks old. More recent polling shows Dean much closer. So, Bush is not "at the moment" crushing Dean.

This is better than the "Criticism of Neo-Cons = anti-semitism" column he ran last week, but still lacking.

 

That's not what Donald Rumsfeld says.

 

Yes, I'd agree. Words I should take to heart more often as well.

 

Yawn....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Sorry, SamFisher, but your hero Paul O'Neill has already received a stern rebuke from the administration. I pronounce your latest efforts a

 

Haven't the Truth Police locked Rummy up for life for all of his Iraq transgressions?

 

This is a denial: Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman"

This is a denial: Bush: "I did not make those comments, Mr. O'Neill is mistaken, I did not say the things that he alleged"

This is a cop-out: Pansy Senior Admin official too chicken to give his name: "The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

This is a character attack, and a cop out, with which you are intimately familiar: Scot McClellan: "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people"

Understand? back to the old google board for you young fellow.

 

The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

Maybe if GWB gets reelected, the US premanently can lose another 2.4 million job!!! Heavens, if GWB and his policies have "strengthened" our economy, I would hate to see the reverse.

You go George. More tax cuts for the super rich. Less jobs for the middle class. A bigger long term debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. A shorter time before Social Security goes belly up. Four more years!!!

 

I agree, the McCain/Bush rivalry was pretty intense, but some of Dean's comments give the lie to the idea the Dems will unite if he's not the candidate.

This election will be a referendum on Iraq. it's the only issue that truely ignites passions on either side. Most republicans would agree with the president that the fight against terror, inc (and they view Iraq as part of that war) is the most important issue facing the country.

and the republicans feel just as strongly about bush. unlike his dad, he's protected his right flank and can move left w/out endangering his base. i actually don't believe he'll have to move at all- the electorate is moving in his direction, at least as far as foreign policy and the economy are concerned. what're the dems gonna run on, gay marriage? most of the country remains opposed (not me). no, this will be about Iraq, and barring some major blowup, that issue plays to the presidents strengths. even if you disagree w/ specific aspects of the war, it's hard to argue that this president is anything but steadfast and resolute in the face of mortal threats to the country's security. you're gonna beat that w/ tax hikes?

 

Hilarious!! SamFisher gets the evidence he'd been looking for and now he frantically tries to cover his tracks by ignoring the administration official's announcement and trying to denigrade the words of McLellan. Retreat mode has begun! Out of substance? Run out of facts to support your wild allegations? Time to obfuscate and distract!

Sam, the first rule of a lawyer in court: Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to. You are in major violation of this rule. You rolled the dice and got burned. I have DESTROYED your musical instrument:

 

Tabling his frequently abusive attitude towards truth telling, what does Rummy have to say, pray tell? I've heard no public comment from him.

 

On the Deep Throat hunt, modern times...


We know the unnamed Senior Official isn't Bush...29 consecuative words, and no mention of 'Evil'...


We know it's not Rummy, cause he doesn't call O'Neil a traitor...


These two, and a few others in the admin could also be ruled out simply because of the phrase 'head-scratcher', indicating a knowledge of anatomy foregin to many in the current White House regime, who clearly don't know their heads from their...


Any bets as to who it is?

 

Oh my. Sam, your argument has been shredded to pieces. You have been reduced to attacking my typographical errors. Is this the only arrow left in your quiver? I have utterly destroyed your argument -- ripping it to shreds as you furiously try to defend an indefensible, unsubstantiated position. I have dominated you in this thread, reducing you to a mere grammarian. You have been tarred and feathered. You have been stripped nude and placed in the middle of Times Square for all to see (in chilly weather). You have been utterly shamed. This magnitude of conquest hasn't been witnessed since MacBeth's shaming regarding the weapons inspectors (and then begging his friends to intervene, only to see them stand in silence). You bit off more than you could chew, and now your esophagus needs some Dran-O. My advice: Don't go bear hunting with a stick.


GAME, SET, MATCH -- Thanks for playing, ROOKIE

 

More non-denial denials. And can anyone point to just one other of Clinton's policies so ardently followed by the Bush Administration? They can't even say his name... it's always "the previous administration."
______________
Bush admits he targeted Saddam from the start
Comments could boost criticism of president's case for war against Iraq

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.

Bush's comments came in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's contention in a new book that the chief executive was gunning for Saddam nine months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and two years before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Bush's comments appeared likely to stoke campaign claims by Democratic rivals for the White House that the president was planning to attack Iraq, possibly in retaliation for Saddam's attempted 1993 assassination of his father, former President Bush.

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines."

Bush said al-Qaida's surprise Sept. 11 attacks on the United States put him on a hair trigger to take pre-emptive action against Iraq rather than await evidence of a new threat to Americans.

"September the 11th made me realize that America was no longer protected by oceans and we had to take threats very seriously no matter where they may be materializing," Bush said.

A president's "most solemn obligation" is to protect the United States, Bush said, adding: "I took that duty very seriously."

Democratic presidential candidates seized upon O'Neill's comments. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the accusation of a ready-to-go effort to oust Saddam "calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us."

Asked about O'Neill's contention that the first National Security Council meeting of the Bush administration in January 2001 discussed ousting Saddam, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan didn't deny that account.

McClellan tried to focus attention on Bush's claims of success in Iraq rather than preparations to oust Saddam.

Bush "exhausted all possible means to resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully" before launching the invasion in March, McClellan said. Saddam defied a "final opportunity to comply" with U.N. demands to disarm, prompting Bush to take action "in the aftermath of Sept. 11th (because) it's important to confront threats before it's too late."

Bush, who fired O'Neill as treasury secretary in December 2002, said he "appreciated" O'Neill's nearly two years of service in the administration.

McClellan said the O'Neill book appeared to be "more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."

McClellan said the White House was "not in the business of selling or promoting or critiquing books," adding: "It's just not something this administration gets caught up in."

O'Neill told CBS News' "60 Minutes" program Sunday night that "from the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go."

O'Neill, who headed Alcoa before joining the Bush administration in 2001 as treasury secretary, gave the interview as part of an effort to promote a new book, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill." The book was written by Ron Suskind with O'Neill's cooperation, including providing access to some 19,000 notes and documents.

Treasury Department spokesman Rob Nichols said Treasury officials had asked for an investigation into how a possibly classified document appeared in O'Neill's televised CBS interview.

Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe accused the White House of launching "an all-out attack on the man Bush once praised as a straight shooter," adding: "Implied in O'Neill's allegations is that the president of the United States and his administration may have consistently lied to the American people in making the case for war against Iraq."

 

What a laughable, partisan article title. I guess Clinton was preparing for this when he was in office as well. Keep trying, liberals.

 

You know, this reminds me of all the virgins in High School who were so insecure they felt they had to boast of their "conquests" all the while not realizing most folks thought they were pathetic.

 

No, it was your tightfistedness that I was ripping, rather than your malaprop syntax.

There's no more telling sign of yet another failure when you bust out the tired "game set match rookie" etc. line. Once again, your forces are on the run. Protect your flanks and maybe you will fight another day...bundle up, Russia is quite chilly this time of year

 

Am I the only one laughing my ass off while I read this thread?