Bush Administration Launchs Investigation of Former Treasury Secretary O'Neil

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."

Methinks that the Bush Admin is having trouble keeping its lies straight. Saying that if only Saddam had gotten rid of those pesky WMDs, the US would not have invaded is a dog that won't hunt.

I guess the WH should be saying now that if only Saddam has gotten rid of his intent to get WMDs the US would not have invaded.

Oh what the heck, let's all pretend the Iraq War never happened. It would be more convenient that way.

 

Nope.

 

This thread marks a momentous event. It marks the highest degree of disgrace which SamFisher has heretofore encountered in his brief time on this BBS. Henceforth, this event shall be named:

THE STRADIVARIUS CONQUEST

 

This thread is




LEGENDARY

 

While we're saving another political retread thread with pictures, I would like to cast T_J in a more sympathetic light.

Sometimes, when I read his posts in a "battle" like this, I am reminded of Angilas, perpetual friend to Godzilla.



Angilas was one of my favorite monsters when I sat watching these fantastic films as a child, but you always felt bad for him. He would always get his butt kicked by the bad monster, and this would make you cheer for Godzilla to fix everything even more than before. The poor armadillo type creature only had one vocalization, and we watched him: get his tongue pulled out by a giant robot, get picked up an dropped by a three-headed dragon from space, et cetera. He kept coming back though, voicing his battle cry and charging straight ahead.

 

it's beginning to feel like one of those catfight miller lite ads!

 

Seriously guys... I did score with that chick.

 

Back on track...



Ooops.

 

My word could he look any more evil or sinister?

Dick Palpatine is that you?

 

He had a press conference this afternoon and was asked several questions about it. He paints a different picture of Bush as Chief Executive and challenges the overall level of exposure that O'Neill had to the President (especially around matters of Iraq).

He didn't run the guy down at all. He had heard that the book was coming out a few months ago and called O'Neill up. O'Neill told him it wasn't going to be a rant against the President.

 

This is all I was able to find:

Again, this isn't exactly a substantive refutation, is it? "I did not have sex with that woman" is a substantive refutation of a factual allegation..."I certainly don't see any validity to his criticism of the president at all" is not.

BTW, I find it interesting that the chorus is silent as far as the President expressing indignation as to the inequity of his very own tax cuts...did O'Neill not have access to that information either?

 

MacBeth, read rimrocker's excellent post (man, he does that a lot!) for a good sense of the difference between the Republican Party of the Nixon/Ford era and the current Bush Administration. I'm older than rimrocker, having had the good fortune to argue with my father before we entered the voting booths that Nixon was a crook. How could a liberal (which he was an old-school, JFK liberal... I like to think I'm somewhat like him) vote for a Republican crook like Tricky Dick?? His reply was that Nixon hadn't been proven a crook yet and that he just didn't like McGovern. I didn't like him either, but I believed the growing scandal about Nixon. I was also far more in tune with McGovern's platform than Nixon's.

This was when I still considered myself to be a Liberal Independent voter. (whatever that is... ) I'm an ardent Democrat now. My father later said that he was wrong to vote for Nixon, by the way. This is why I'm concerned that the Democratic Party not nominate someone that people just don't like. That was the problem with McGovern and Dukakis... people just didn't like them. Look at the numbers for McGovern's defeat. It's pretty brutal.

The current Republican Party, as rimrocker pointed out, is far to the right of the party of Nixon and Ford. It's not even close. There isn't a moderate wing of the party worth mentioning, much less a liberal one. (yes, there used to be liberal Republicans) If Bush is re-elected, I really fear for the country. It may take decades to undo the damage.


(man, I can edit! Outstanding, Clutch. Thanks!)

 

If you use this logic, then you (not you specifically, but "you" in general) can't accuse Bush (or Republicans in general) of giving contracts to their buddies to make them rich. The Bush family is already rich (has been since WAY before Bush, Sr. got into politics) and Haliburton, last I checked was doing just fine.

So, if people want to believe that Bush invaded Iraq soley to help make his rich friends richer than you have to believe that O'Neil could do this in order to get richer as well.

If you don't believe that O'Neil would do it to make money as he's already rich, then you have to give the same benefit of the doubt to Bush.

Someone else mentioned that the country has alwasy been partisan and it hasn't destroyed the country yet. I believe parties are good for the nation (political parties, keg parties, bachelor parties, all good). However, BLIND partisan ship is what's bad. The kind that makes you think that the other side is EVIL. In reality both parties (actually all political) parties want to do good for this country and it's people. They just have different philosophies on how to go about it. BLIND partisanship would make you believe that the other side is not just wrong about how to go about running the country but that they have ulterior motives (getting rich, helping their buddies, new world order, handing humanity to the aliens who have bases on the dark side of the moon, etc....) BLIND partisanship is bad.

 

Nothing about the Bushies shocks me anymore after the shenanigans of the 2000 election.

 

I saw the live press conference. He said much more than you have indicated there.

We don't know if the president expressed such indignation about tax cuts just because one dismissed employee reported it to be so.

 

We don't know if the president expressed such indignation about tax cuts just because one dismissed employee reported it to be so.

T-R-A-N-S-C-R-I-P-T-S.

Does no one know the meaning of this word?!?!

 

What Major said.

I don't know what you guys are getting at here, the President himself seems to have already owned up to this and tried to spin it and deflect criticism by claiming that what they meant was just to continue the Clinton era- "regime change".

Why do you insist on fighting a battle that even the Bush administration's own flacks won't fight?

 

Another question, to giddyup, trader jorge, Scott McClellan, and unnamed Senior Administration Official who advance the theory that O'Neill is speculating:

How would O'Neill have no access to National Security Council meetings and materials when he was a member of the NSC ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/