Truth about Bush from Ex-Treasury Sec. PaulO'Neill

Originally posted by THENEO
T

Democrats know they cannot win next election with lame candidates that are instantly forgettable and with policies that Joe average American hate...

so instead the party decides to...

offer bribes to anyone that will talk, hoping to get some dirt...,

If you are correct Great work on their part for apparently there is plenty of dirt there that Bush would prefer we not know.

Would Seekerof rather nobody speak up about potential wrongdoing then? Thats what I'm reading into his replies on this topic.

Whistle blowers are almost always former & angry employees. Why would O'Neill be any different?

Nada, let me post my own thoughts please. I've been doing ok at that and have yet to encounter a situation where I need you to do it for me. Thanks.

I also have to wonder if Mr. O'Neill saw so much wrong doing while he was in his position of power why did he not say anything during the months of buildup towards the Iraqi conflict? Had he spoken up then perhaps he could have helped avoid what happened. But no... instead he waits until the act was done. Then suddenly when the deed is done and it can't be undone, the martyr stands up against his boss. Suddenly Mr. O'Neill grows some balls and has something to say about the Iraq conflict. Why didn't you say anything before Paul? Maybe if you would have said something before the attacks were launched some lives could've been saved. Instead what we have here is another mother#er selling his book and you people buy into it.

If this prick was genuine he would've said something when it mattered.

"In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterise as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," O`Neill told Time magazine in a separate interview. "There were allegations and assertions by people... To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else."

How good of you to point that out now that it's too late to go back and change what according to you was an unjust conflict. Sounds like sour grapes to me Paul.

Instead what we have here is another mother#er selling his book and you people buy into it.

Despite what you may like to think, all people are not good samaritans looking to better their country. Or has this current presidential administration not shown you this? O'Neill wants to profit off his story and he has every right to in a free and capitalist country. Of course that will shoot down the credibility of the story to some people such as yourself, but you must realize that he had every right to come out with this information in the manner he has. He may be a greedy bastard, but he's at least coming out with something now rather than never.

FYI...the 60 minutes report said that O'Neill is the primary source for the book, which also contains statements from other cabinet members, not that he is the author.

O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind � and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book. www.cbsnews.com...

So to claim that he is not credible, because he is profiting from a book deal, is untrue. If there are other facts to the contrary, then I will stand corrected.

Why don't you get any recognition for it THENEO?...ermmm...oh yeah...because just about every single thing that comes out of your mouth is an assumption and not based on anything at all except your opinion.
Why do you seek recognition anyway?

I feel sorry for people like Seekerof who, despite me not agreeing with them, come on here and make their points using facts, evidence and generally show that they know what they're talking about.
It's a pity they have someone like you in their corner, someone who passes off their assumptions as though they were FACT, it's truly pathetic.

Someone who shows this degree of arrogance and contempt for other members does not deserve respect from anybody.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by John Nada]

Originally posted by Djarums
Nada, let me post my own thoughts please. I've been doing ok at that and have yet to encounter a situation where I need you to do it for me. Thanks.

I don't recall posting your thoughts for you. I seem to remember asking you a question, one which you didn't bother answering so your gratitude is not needed.

As for my post I suppose it was an attempt at ironic humour, something which seemed to fall about 500ft away from you but nevermind.

Originally posted by Seekerof
JohnN, the same can be asked as you have asked:
Can the man be trusted? Is he really speaking the truth?
He is, after-all, a disgruntled ex-employee.....

The man speaks with almost the same forked-tongue as Mr. Scott Ritter does....I mean, when he is removed or fired, he says he is not angry with Bush, etc, etc., and yet, now that he has a BOOK coming out or is about out, he is now RECANTING those comments and revealing information that is or is not true and is defintiely "for those who saw the information EYES ONLY"?
Yeah.....he's definitely a DISGRUNTLED ex-employee!

regards
seekerof

I didn't disagree with that at all Seekerof. What I was saying was, if he is lying he's certainly learnt from the best.

Has there been much reaction to the program in America? We don't really hear about 60 minutes over here.

I am the first person to admit that I am not qualified to debate the truth of Mr. O'Neill's charges because I do not work for the President and I would not have seen any such memos to know if they existed or not.

What I am criticizing is his timing. If I knew in advance of something happening that it was bad, and it should be avoided, I would want to let the public know beforehand so they could avoid it.

Imagine if while Bush was making the case that it was imperative NOW to go invade Iraq Mr. O'Neill came out and said "Hey asshole, why don't you tell them about how you've been gunning for Iraq since Day 1". Instead he did NOTHING!!! He let it slide until After everything happened. Why???

Heelstone you're right, this is a capitalist country, and I agree that if he wants to make some cash, let him. But people should understand it for what it is! If O'Neill was such a fighter for the truth who wants to stand up for what is right he would've done it when the time was right.

Some of you folks love quoting the Iraqi War body count on a daily basis so you know the numbers. If O'Neill showed proof of Bush's motives being bull# imagine how much of that body count would still be living with their families...

I wouldn't call him the problem, but he sure as hell did ZERO to correct it.

Why would a former chairman of Alcoa be disgruntled over losing a job like that? It's a thankless job that nobody at his level would take other than as a favor to the President in the first place. Let's see, I can make 150k a year as the secretary of the treasury for the United States or 50 million in my current job. No brainer. The truth is that George Bush is a common man and he takes direction from Karl Rove who is a thief and a scumbag. George Bush has yet to run a profitable business in his entire life and the debt that is piling up today in this country is further proof.

Originally posted by John Nada
Has there been much reaction to the program in America? We don't really hear about 60 minutes over here.

Answer: Yes and No. If you already hated Bush, it's proof of everything you every speculated. If you're overly invested already, it's easily dismissed.

I monitor the AOL political boards, and it's like every single republican got the memo from seekerof. Um, sour grapes.

Bottom line: Bush could fall off the wagon, marry Britany Spears in a Vegas quickie and go on Leno saying he has no idea what he's doing, he just does what Cheneyburton says... and the tax cuts fans would say: What refreshing honesty, Bush is a breath of fresh air... at least he married Spears, and didn't get a BJ behind Laura's back. Thank God we don't have Clinton.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by RANT]

Rant said:
"I monitor the AOL political boards, and it's like every single republican got the memo from seekerof. Um, sour grapes."

Damn Rant....I thought we was 'tight' bro.....geez....





regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

Rant said:
"I monitor the AOL political boards, and it's like every single republican got the memo from seekerof. Um, sour grapes."

Damn Rant....I thought we was 'tight' bro.....geez....

regards
seekerof

Just joshin' Consider it an "homage". Somebody had to write the memo.

www.nytimes.com...

I am at a loss for words, even still there will always be STUPID people with a conspiracy, with no proof....*cough* liberals.

Bullseye.....no thats gotta hurt....wow.



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Minion
www.nytimes.com...

I am at a loss for words, even still there will always be STUPID people with a conspiracy, with no proof....*cough* liberals.

Why does it continue to bother Bush fans so much that practically the entire country believed Bush and our Intel pre-war? There are tons of DEM quotes from pre-war supporting THEORIES... like the one you just cited:

Clark quote: "Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda," he said in 2002. "It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds [read: WMD's] and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?"

Again, speculation in support of what the PRESIDENT said he KNEW to be true. I BELIEVED BUSH, RUMSFELD and POWELL AT ONE TIME TOO.

The difference is, when I (like others) learned I was being mislead, I got angry. What sane person wouldn't?

And why is this font all red?

Hey minon all kinds of proof they knew about 9/11. All kinds of proof they have wanted to invade Iraq since the late 1990's. All kinds of proof Clinton and Bush are brothers in greed. It's all out there you guys just want to believe in conspiracy theories that fox news spin. BTW Clark will be the next president and the current United States polices will not change. After all Clinton has endorsed him.

O'Neill is corroborating what another administration official has said, he's in no way poorer for having left the role and it does the country a benefit to have this truth ( that Bush is not engaged & is merely a figure head), that was obvious to most, gain traction with the mainstream.
Scott Ritter sure has been fully vetted, huh? I mean, there were a ton of allegations out of the woodwork when he called it straight. Wonder of O'Neill, since he's Cheney's homeboy, will endure the same fate?

The 'weak Dem choices' Canard, again!?!?! Geez!
So obviously inept, so obviously corrupt, yet you boys hold them so dear.

Remember:
"The Great American Eagle needs both a Left Wing and a Right Wing to fly." - let this administration ( broken right wing) heal ( get booted the hell out ) , so that we can get this bird flying straight again.