's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Now who's being disingenuous and misleading?(44 posts)

Now who's being disingenuous and misleading?Live Steam
Jan 13, 2004 6:45 AM
"O'Neill also saidTuesday said he did not mean to imply that the administration was wrong to begin contingency planning for a regime change in Iraq but that he was surprised that it was at the top of the agenda at the first Cabinet meeting.

O'Neill in the book also contends the administration's decision-making process was often chaotic and Bush Cabinet meetings made the president look ''like a blind man in a room full of deaf people.''

O'Neill told the ''Today'' show he was guilty of using some ''vivid'' language during his hundreds of hours of interviews with Suskind for the book. ''If I could take it back, I would take it back,'' he said of the blind man quote."

On the nationally broadcast interview Tuesday, O'Neill said, ''It was not my intention to be personally critical of the president of anybody else,'' but to cooperate with Suskind ''on a chronicle of 23 months'' in government.

So much for convictions!
Oh he'll be convicted all rightOldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 6:53 AM
as soon as the junta's Inspektor General is through with him.
Well he should at least have some ...Live Steam
Jan 13, 2004 6:59 AM
balls and say he stood by everything he was quoted as saying. If he violated the law by disclosing secret information he was sworn to protect, he should pay the penalty. His participation in the book was nothing more than a petty chance to get back at Bush. There was nothing magnanimous about it. It just shows his true colors!
Apparently it scared theOldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 7:34 AM
piss out of the Junta. They went after him like a pack of starved wolverines. O'Neill better watch his back. We'll be seeing news stories with the phrase 'of an undiagnosed heart ailment' in the first sentence.
scared? hardlyDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 7:45 AM
If *that* was "scared," then what the heck was Clinton when Star was after him? He must have been "pissin himself every day," to quote Bernie Mac.

Hyperbole is fun, though, isn't it?

Apparently it scared therufus
Jan 13, 2004 8:03 AM
white house reveals the name of covert cia operative. takes months before ashcrotch even begins a halfhearted "investigation".

paul o'neill badmouths the emperor in print. investigation begun the very next day.

2-3 odds they find some kiddie porn on o'neill's computer.
Just like the White House staffer(s)torquer
Jan 13, 2004 7:40 AM
who have shown their cuhones by admitting that they "outed" the CIA lifer in order to punish her husband for exposing another administration fabrication.
THERE'S true magnaminity!
I smell an IRS audit for O'Neill as payback ...HouseMoney
Jan 13, 2004 7:38 AM
Oh, wait, that was a different Administration! Looks like the O'Neill camp is in damage-control mode right about now.
If he's convicted, they'll have to convict WH counsel too.dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 9:08 AM

WASHINGTON (AP)--Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday that he "didn't take any documents at all" for use in a book about his time in the Bush administration.

Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, he said he had asked the Treasury Department's chief legal counsel "to have the documents that are OK for me to have."

He said that about three weeks after his request, the General Counsel's's office "sent me a couple CDs, which I never opened." He said he gave them to former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the book's author.

Excuse me for a minute.

he's a loathsome, disloyal, little twirpDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 7:43 AM
I'd say the same if he had backstabbed Clinton. A cabinet level position is one of the utmost trust and certain loyalty is expected. To turn and intentionally try to disgrace his former boss is really low. It tells us that he is a not a man worthy of trust or respect. It's lowdown, dirty, loathsome, immature, miserable, immoral, and just plain wrong, no matter which party or former President he worked for.

If he violated the law by stealing secret documents, well, yes he should be prosecuted, the slimey, rotten, little punk.
Tell us how you really feel, Doug ! [nm]HouseMoney
Jan 13, 2004 7:49 AM
In principle and practice, I agree.OldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 8:02 AM
If you find a politician is offensive to your sensibilities, you take your leave and shut the hell up. That's the unwritten code, and if you ever want to work again, you follow it.

I guess I'll withold judgment on whether you'd be quite so exercised about this if Robert Rubin had been quoted in a book saying: "Man, I could never get Clinton to focus on monetary policy, he was CONSTANTLY bopping interns in the Oval Office, everyone running around STARK NAKED with white powder dribbling out of their noses!"

I suspect most on the Right would find Rubin a hero, in that event.
Dick Morris?DougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 8:06 AM
I don't care for Dick Morris (when a partisan Republican should, right?). He's one of these types, too, isn't he?

Traitors, I think, can be valuable in discrediting adversaries, but then NOBODY likes the guy afterward.

Well, just for grins, IOldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 8:17 AM
would point out that O'Neill was fired by Cheney for being a loose cannon who was too outspoken and critical of the Junta's policies. There was bad blood even WHILE he was working there. It's not like he was a good company man all along, who parted on supposedly good terms, who just suddenly and inexplicably leapt up to betray a former boss who thought he was a trusted ally.

I doubt anyone in the Junta felt blindsided by this.

Still, I wouldn't have done it. But -- of course -- I'm amused at the brouhaha.
... and if you ever want to work again...dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 8:37 AM
I think O'Neill's statements about his being "rich and old" speak to why he did what he did. He can't be hurt financially by attacks, and he does not fear death. And he does not expect to work again.
Even if he...............Len J
Jan 13, 2004 8:16 AM
is acting out of moral princile as opposed to "getting back"?

Doug: You can't be serious with a blanket statement like that. You believe it is all about "getting even" for being fired, but what if, (And we don't really know) he is truly acting out of moral outrage at the manipulation of the entire process that got us into the mess we are in? Is he still a "loathsome, disloyal, little twirp".

Or are you suggesting that there is never a good reason to go public with incriminating information about your boss or your former boss? To take your position at it's face value ("To turn and intentionally try to disgrace his former boss is really low. It tells us that he is a not a man worthy of trust or respect. It's lowdown, dirty, loathsome, immature, miserable, immoral, and just plain wrong"), then I suppose the whisleblowers at Enron should have been taken out and shot.

Face it, the administration came in with a preconceived agenda about Iraq, used the 9/11 tragedy as a justification to do whatever they wanted, manipulated the data to support their claim and now there is evidence to support it. The only way the administration can react is to attack the messenger. If they had any real contrary evidence, they would present it and the story would go away, as it is the only option is to discredit the messanger (and ignore the documents). You have probably used this in court when defending a weak case.

Sounds like sour grapes for getting caught to me.

I applaud itDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 8:29 AM
I applaud the President having an agenda to oust a murdering dictator, one of the worst in history. How could anyone have a problem with that who has even the slightest respect for human rights? I have zero problem with that. I do disrespect a guy for attempting to discredit a President by disclosing confidential information.

This is not Enron; no crimes were committed. This is pure political/personal revenge.

How can you know people's motivations with certainty?dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 8:41 AM
"This is pure political/personal revenge. "

How do you KNOW?

It might be part of it, it might be all of it, it might be none of the motivation. But how do YOU know with certainty what his motivations are?
If you're going to fault Sloan for some speculationNo_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 8:49 AM
are you going to wave that wand equally without discrimination to all here?

I'd have to say that OldE is most guilty of pure speculation, guessing, creating words in between the lines, and pure fantasy.
I did not fault Doug.dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 9:15 AM
I asked for the basis for his judgement. I asked for a clarification/expansion. There is a difference.
Maybe, maybe not.No_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 9:47 AM
However, you asked him the impossible. To know for an absolute certainly what a particular motivation might be. Why ask something you know is impossible?

You going to ask for the same absolute certainty of all the wild and ridiculous accusations that fly around here? Especially coming from Rufus?

How about asking for some absolute certainty about some alleged lies regarding the current administration. Absolute factual certainty?

Semen on dress and lies while under oath.
what rediculous accusations?rufus
Jan 13, 2004 9:59 AM
keep bringing my name into it. care to raise some substantive points, or just continue to counter with snide commentary?

a snarky putdown does not pass for depth of intelligence, or knowledge of a subject, especially in your case.
not.dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 10:13 AM
He made the claim that the motivation was PURELY revenge. I asked how he knew that.

If he wants to point to evidence for his position, I can understand how evidence will point to political motivation. But the claim that is was PURELY revenge is an extraordinarily strong claim, especially given counter evidence of O'Neill's own stated reasons.

If he said he thought it was MOSTLY revenge, PRIMARILY revenge, no problem. If he said he THOUGHT it was purely political revenge, no problem. However, he said it WAS (categorically, no qualification) PURELY (no other factors involved) motivated by revenge.

Given this strength of claim, asking for the reasoning and evidence behind the claim is not out of line.

Yes, I think it is impossible. That's why I asked.

Feel free to challenge the claims anyone makes. It will make a nice change from your usual over the top insults.
He can't do it, hooBottomBracketShell
Jan 13, 2004 10:21 AM
Really, his entire *contribution* to this board is nothing but surly insults that usually make no sense. He never really says anything. Kind of scary, I think he has some real problems.
How do you know anything?DougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 8:54 AM
Not saying I'm "certain," whatever that means. All evidence leads me to believe that, and I've heard nothing to the contrary.

This is an internet forum discussion, where 95% of the time we all are talking out our butts. The standard for "certainty" here is fairly low. It's not like we are jurors sitting on a criminal trial.

'Talking out our butts.' LOL!!!!! nmOldEdScott
Jan 13, 2004 9:03 AM
"pure"dr hoo
Jan 13, 2004 9:12 AM
Pure, unadulterated, unsullied by other things.

Motivation is hard to get at. It's an entire field of study in itself.

You discount O'Neill's own stated reasons for his actions. Are not a person's statements evidence? What other "evidence" do you use to attribute pure political/revenge as the only motivation?
No wonder your argument stinks.czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 10:44 AM
Just admit that you have no basis for your statement (what evidence?), we'll write it of as panicky Republican defensivness, and we can all move on.
Personal revengeSpoiler
Jan 13, 2004 8:53 AM
Kind of like sacrificing U.S soldiers to get to the guy that make your dad look bad. If upholding human rights was the rightous cause, we'd go after North Korea, a much more evil offender. Of course, Dubya's flawless intelligence told him NK wouldn't be a push-over. Seems our beady-eyed leader judges evil dictators according to size of their resistance capabilities rather than the size of their offenses. And even then, he can't get the story straight on Saddam's resistance capabilities. On the one hand, Saddam was supposed to have a world-threatening pile of bio weapons. On the other hand, we're told taking over will be a snap.
The guy who made your Dad look bad?No_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 8:58 AM
LOL! Now that's funny. I don't think so.

We went in and completely kicked @ss and outed a maniac who was trying to take over a country that needed our help.

Made look bad? Did you even watch the news during that time? Our dominance and power and might was overwhelmingly impressive and convincing. In no way whatsoever did we look *bad*. If that's your impression, the sky in your world is colored differently than that of most.

You know who looked bad? The guy in charge for Somalia and blowing up the factory. Now that looks really bad.
Well, we did allow him to rebuild all those chemical weapons.Spoiler
Jan 13, 2004 9:27 AM
Is that your idea of kicking ass? According to Dubya, his own father and Clinton allowed him to rise from the dead to become the greatest threat to the free world, right? After all, that's why we had to come back and finish the job. Think, please think truly and deeply.
We accomplised the goal.No_sprint
Jan 13, 2004 9:31 AM
We prevented him from taking over another country with our absolutely stunning power. He then made a deal with the UN which he thwarted for years, that was after our accomplishment.

Simple facts.
that's irrelevantDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 9:35 AM
I don't care what happened in 1984. The fact is he was a menace to the world and his own people. It was right to take him out, regardless of how we may have supported him in the past.

If a cop goes nuts and starts shooting innocent people, does the police department not take him down because they gave him a gun? It's silly.

I'd like anyone to tell me sincerely that Saddam should not have been removed from power. I'd really like to hear that.

ok i will.rufus
Jan 13, 2004 9:53 AM
it is against international law for another country to remove the recognized leader of another country by any means. but i know that fact means little to all you america uber alles types.

I just love how you so blithely can state that you "don't care what happened in 1984". what a shortsighted, small-minded view of the world, politics, and the repercussions that actions and policy can have years, even decades later. that's exactly the reason we have saddam to deal with today, because of politically expedient decisions made for short term stability versus a visionary view of the world.

so i guess in thirty when we're dealing with every tin horn despot that has arisen out of the ashes of today, you aren't gonna care what circumstances brought them to that position? even if it was oole georgy boy who put them in place?
Saddam was nasty, but he kept the lid on the kettle of Iraq.Spunout
Jan 13, 2004 10:33 AM
Now that Saddam is gone, the US has a nasty hornet all over its ass and is going to get stung.

There are alot of bad bastards around, USA didn't bother many of them if the oil kept flowing.
hell, the US set most of them up in power.rufus
Jan 13, 2004 2:52 PM
Yes but the US took him out as soon as he was no longer useful.czardonic
Jan 13, 2004 3:16 PM
So it all evens out.
that's irrelevantSpoiler
Jan 13, 2004 10:02 AM
The cop analogy doesn't fly. Saddam wasn't a cop. He was the head of his own household. We're the cops. We had him on a relatively inexpensive and effective program of house arrest. We had a UN neighborhood watch system.

We threw that away to spend our own money and the lives of our own police force to take over his household (and a fridge full of oil) despite the fact we don't have the money to take care of our own precinct, nor the skills to raise someone else's family.

Now we have neighborhood crack addicts (insurgants and terrorists) squatting in all the bedrooms. And our own teenage policemen are forced into a situation where they have to shoot the children in their beds cause their rattles might be full of TNT.
not the sameDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 9:02 AM
I wonder if all you Saddam apologists have read or seen any of the volumes of information about how he has been murdering, torturing, and maiming people for over 30 years? Regardless of what is happening elsewhere, he unequivocally was worthy of being removed. If anyone disputes that, they are either uninformed or care absolutely nothing for human rights.

I'd like to see evidence that North Korea is a "much more evil offender." Besides, unless someone is completely naive, we must take into consideration the political effects and difficulty of invading a country to oust a dictator. Of course we size up their resistance capabilities! We aren't completely stupid. My guess is that Iraq was much, much easier and with less fallout (literally) than invading North Korea. In any event, it is defective logic to argue that it was wrong to invade Iraq because we did not also invade all other countries with human rights problems.
so effin' what.rufus
Jan 13, 2004 9:43 AM
the majority of those atrocities were committed while he was an ally and business partner with the united states. in fact, if it were not for a cia involved coup that assassinated the former leader of iraq, saddam might never have come to power. but i guess that's past history, so that doesn't matter, right?

all these instances of saddam wiping out whole villages, using chemical gas, etc. were happening while ronald reagan and george bush senior were president, and they turned a blind eye to these atrocities at the time. where was your concern for human rights then?

why now? why weren't you outraged then? why weren't you calling for the US government to stop selling saddam these chemical and biological agents that he was using to kill all those people? why weren't you condemning reagna and bush for doing business with this monster? why are you suddenly so outraged by the type of person saddam is, when it's been known for all that time exactly what he was? why no concern for the poor iraqi people then? and don't give me that bullshit about the "realpolitik". are brutal dictators evil, or only evil when they stop killing the right people? wasn't the shah a brutal dictator who killed and tortured thousands of his own people? how about somoza?

this "human rights" concern is simply hypocricy of the highest order.
The ends do justify the means, eh?Len J
Jan 13, 2004 10:03 AM
"I applaud the President having an agenda to oust a murdering dictator, one of the worst in history. "

It's not the agenda that bothers me, it's the manipulation of information to acheive that end. It's the selective hearing, the "Damn the truth, full speed ahead" attitude. We as a country are better than that, and our president should be too.

"How could anyone have a problem with that who has even the slightest respect for human rights?"

So this is now about human rights? Give me a break. If we were interested in human rights abuses, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia, or North Korea. This was, pure and simple, about power and influence. The administration wanted a ckey control point in the Middle East, saw the opportunity with the combination of 9/11, and the ease with which we seemingly handled Afganistan to create a (House of cards) justification for invading Iraq. If you think this was done out of a sense of otrage about human rights violation in Iraq you are more naive than I can imagine.

"This is not Enron; no crimes were committed. This is pure political/personal revenge."

This has yet to be determined. If Bush or any of his administration lied to congress, then a crime has been committed. O'Neill's memos certainly appear to be smoking guns. As to personal revenge, that certainly is one opinion, there are others that fit the known facts, if one is inclined to be open minded enought to see them.

The ends do justify the means, eh?rufus
Jan 13, 2004 10:07 AM
How could anyone have a problem with that who has even the slightest respect for human rights?"

if we cared about human rights, we would never have put saddam in power in the first place.

human rights hypocrit.
that said Doug...does it excuse the Bush administration?ColnagoFE
Jan 13, 2004 9:17 AM
I mean not being honest with COngress about WMD and that they had been planning to invade Iraq since before 9/11? I suspected as such all along, but if this document proves it then it looks really bad for Bush and co.
no problemDougSloan
Jan 13, 2004 9:24 AM
I see nothing wrong with having an undiclosed desire to oust Saddam, then taking the opportunity to do it when presented. Clinton should have done it years ago.

I still have not been shown anything to indicate that the administration with not honest with Congress about WMD's. We've beaten this to death here, but all evidence and reasoning showed that there was good cause to believe Iraq still had WMD's before the war. I have read where Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright agreed. They, too, thought the weapons were there, and they may very well still be.

So, I don't think it looks bad for Bush in the slightest. I'm damn proud of a President with some balls to go after Saddam.