Interesting article about O'Neill and his new book.
I'm not particularly surprised about this quote from the article, for instance:
quote:The former Treasury secretary, fired in 2002, says Bush was bored with economic facts and more interested in just playing politics.
O'Neill was soundly against the magnitude of the Bush cuts (as he apparently makes very clear in his book), and he's not exactly a liberal mouthpiece . His economics are quite pragmatic, and quite conservative. Emphasis on the first rather than the second, but not by much, and there's a lot of overlap between the two.
posted
Sounds like O'Neil will say something even more important in his interview: the Iraq war was planned prior to 9-11.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, because people who are fired always have wonderful things to say about their former employers. Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that he's not just badmouthing his former employer because he hates them... well, maybe he is, but he has thousands of pages of credible evidence to back up what he's saying.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'd actually rather have a president who had sex with interns and lied about it (as his greatest "sin" in office) than one that lies to us about education and war. (of course, as I've said, I'd still more prefer someone with real integrity).
The only thing that makes me more angry is that the guy will probably STILL get re-elected.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what Bush will do to punish O'Neill for speaking against him? With Wolfowitz, Bush exposed his wife as a CIA agent and put her life and her contacts' lives in serious danger -- I can't help but imagine he'll do some equivalent to O'Neill as a warning to future whistleblowers.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing that makes me more angry is that the guy will probably STILL get re-elected.
Oh come on, where's your faith in the American people? I still maintain that when it's down to Bush and his alternative, mano y mano, and Bush has to answer for his record in front of everyone, the American people (or at least the center) will have to see that the emperor has no clothes.
The Democratic nominee must understand, though, that his job is not just to hope the people come to agree with him on their own. He must CONVINCE the people.
posted
Lalo, it was former US Ambassador Wilson's wife who was the CIA agent, not Wolfowitz's. Please look up the facts before making accusations. You hurt your own cause more than you help it when you do this sort of thing. Look, you went and made me agree with nfl! *sigh*
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newfoundlogic, he specifically said he was not seeking revenge against Bush. O Neill is a naive, honest beaurocrat(quite a contradiction, isn't it?) that has been working for the American government since the days of Nixon and Ford, with a breather with ALCOA. He is an experienced and honorable man. He is a true conservative and that is his error for being hired by this administration. They are not conservatives, they are neo-liberal institutionalists. True conservatism includes fiscal responsibility and does not include interventionist wars and crusading around the globe in the guise of the week.
What really bothers me is that Rumsfeld warned Neil not to say anything and he did anyway. I hope nothing happens to him like him "committing suicide" or the FBI suddenly finding child porn on his computer.
Is anyone surprised that even Bush himself had misgivings about the second tax cut? We need a President that can think and stand up for himself.
quote:You know, I'd actually rather have a president who had sex with interns and lied about it (as his greatest "sin" in office) than one that lies to us about education and war. (of course, as I've said, I'd still more prefer someone with real integrity).
The only thing that makes me more angry is that the guy will probably STILL get re-elected.
posted
The name's my mistake -- I plead exhaustion. Though I'd like to point out that I mistook the name only, not the facts. An embarassing mistake, but an easy one after a long day.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Probe to focus on how possibly classified information appeared in a TV interview, spokesman says. January 12, 2004: 4:26 PM EST WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Treasury Department has asked for an investigation into how a possibly classified document appeared in a televised interview of ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a department spokesman said Monday.
Treasury Spokesman Rob Nichols said that "based on the '60 minutes' interview aired Sunday night there was a document shown that appeared to be classified."
Senior Treasury Department staff met Monday morning and decided to refer the matter to the department's Inspector General, who will review to see if further investigation is warranted, Nichols said.
In a new book about his term as Treasury chief, O'Neill, who left the job in December 2002 in a shake-up of President Bush's economic team, criticized White House policies and provided the book's author with thousands of administration documents.
While it is customary for departing officials to take documents when they leave, the probe is likely to focus on how possibly classified information appeared on a television interview as one of O'Neill's papers.
In the book, "The Price of Loyalty," by Ron Suskind, O'Neill describes a disengaged President Bush who appeared determined to bring the United States into a conflict with Iraq with the purpose of ousting Saddam Hussein.
Asked about the assertions Monday in Mexico, President Bush defended his decision to go to war with Iraq and disputed comments by O'Neill that plans were being laid from his first days in office to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
O'Neill clashed with the president on deficit spending and tax cuts, which ultimately led to his departure.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how they can investigate how a classified document wound up on "60 Minutes" and dispute the content of the document. One would seem to preclude the other, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. His economics are quite pragmatic, and quite conservative. Emphasis on the first rather than the second, but not by much, and there's a lot of overlap between the two.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
