It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House attacking truth

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
US Treasury to probe O'Neill book

news.bbc.co.uk...

US Treasury to probe O'Neill book
O'Neill has been out of the Administration for two years
The US Treasury Department has called for an investigation into whether its former head leaked secret documents in a new book.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill appeared on a US news programme to promote the book in which documents marked "secret" were shown.

A Treasury department spokesman said it had asked its inspector general to see if disclosure laws were violated.

----------------

Typical of the Bush Administration. Somebody exposes there corruption, and they try to find a way to punish them. They our sending a strong message that if you expose us, there will be severe penalties.




posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
No big surprise.

The important thing to consider with regard to O'Neil is that he isn't getting paid a dime for these disclosures. Mighty big risk, considering Rummy "warned" him AND he's not makin any bucks.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
what else would you expect from the White House???

I certainly hope that O'Niell has taken care of his personal matters...I wouldn't be shocked to hear he met an unfortunate but "normal" demise before the year is over....

Someone tell me WHY this story isn't causing a bigger stir in the USA as of yet...to me DEAN"S TEMPER seems to be getting more airplay than O'Niell's story? ..or is it just what I am watching?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Still a traitor as is Powel, Rice, Rumsfield and the rest of them. ONeil had this information the whole time but never leaked it because he had a job. Not leaking information that shows what Bush is doing behind the scenes simply to protect your job is no excuse. I am sure there is way more damaging information in Rumsfield possession but he wont release it probably why he still has a job after putting his foot in his mouth so many times.



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Actually this whole thing is typical of this administration from the Pentagon to the EPA to the White House. You either tow the line and say yessuh, or you're shown the door. Boy do I feel safe! NOT!



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Huh?

Just posted this and find it quite fitting for posting here also:

O'Neil and Suskind have revealed just what?
That there was a "plan to Regime Change" Saddam/Iraq? Just what are they revealing that wasn't already in MOTION long before the current Bush Administration entered the White House?
I don't give a rat's arse how much money O'Neil thinks he has, the matter is that this supposed "explosive" expose' of the Bush Administration was BS and hyped, more-so, by the BS media. You deems and haters of Bush never hestitate to produce your "so-called" evidences but as and in most cases, when it gets literally and figuratively BLOWN OUT THE WATER, you counter with more BS.

All the hype here in the past few days dealing with this "revelation" of the Bush Administration was the so-called "mystery documents" and once produced on '60 Minutes" the proof of the matter was that it was BS, and BS from the start.

PBS ran a series on this and mentions that this "Regime Change" plan was hatched long before the current Bush Administration. That Clinton had plans drawn up for the take down of Saddam/Iraq and dealing with a "postwar-Iraq". Lack of "Brass Balls" and Congressional support prevented such an "Action" from taking place!
Link:
www.pbs.org...

NewsMax today:
"Clinton, Congress Ratified 'Secret Bush Plan' to Depose Saddam"
Link:
www.newsmax.com...

The New York Sun:
"The ONeill Scoop"
Link:
daily.nysun.com...:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/01/12&ID=Ar00802

The Washington Dispatch:
"O'Neills Contentions Warrant Skepticism"
Link:
www.washingtondispatch.com...

Icing on the "cake":
"O'Neill: Bush Is Better Than the Democrat Wannabes"
Link:
www.newsmax.com...

And the "nail in the coffin:
"Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax"
Link:
www.powerlineblog.com...


So.....what startling and "scathing revelation" did Mr. O'Neil and Suskind bring out/forth? Nothing but already known and documented BS. Period.
"Typical of this administration"?
Better lok deeper into the facts on presidential administrations. Seems to be a tactic that has been used quite extensively.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
How much did they pay O'Neill is what I want to know?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
How much did they pay O'Neill is what I want to know?


He's receiving no money for this.

Seekerof,
the truth is, all you have to do is look into the Clean Break Strategy (which was written at the end of the first Bush administration) and the PNAC, drawn up next (mid-90's). The neo cons pushed that agenda through Clinton's second term. He rebuffed them. Once Bush stepped into the oval office, it was full-steam ahead.

The interesting thing is When this stuff came across Bush I's desk, he, too rejected it. He appropriately called the neo cons "loonies."



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Really ECK....
Seems to me all I have to do is look no further than:
* a documented Pentagon "plan" envisioned and written in 1992.

* and this:
"H.R.4655 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: signed by Bill Clinton"
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Really ECK....
Seems to me all I have to do is look no further than:
* a documented Pentagon "plan" envisioned and written in 1992.

* and this:
"H.R.4655 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998: signed by Bill Clinton"
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]


He didn't act upon using force, though. There are many ways to support a leader's ouster, apart from war. It's no secret that Clinton was greatly pressured by the neo con faction to use force against Saddam. My only question is why didn't he acquiesce?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Well, I mean geez, we are on a 'conspiracy' board right and in such, perhaps here is what I mean by "connection" of how this unfolded:

(from a previous old post on this 'issue')

"I agree with that SkepticOverlord...
and in the 'spirit' of conspiracy theories.......
I noticed Dreamz post concerning the names of those who signed the PNAC letter to then President Bill Clinton in 1998.

Most have varying connection within governement and with Bush, but in such, so did Bill Clinton.
Strangely enough, Bill Clinton was and is a reputed member of the "Skull and Bones" of Yale secret organization.
Now, if this is true, and it is known that GW Bush is also a member of the reputed "Skull and Bones" (Hall of Fame member, at that), then wouldn't both be seen as "blood brothers" of the same 'fold'? In such, wouldn't there "agendas", perhaps in relation and with regards to Iraq and the policies in and with the Middle East, be seen as "working towards the same goal"?

Again, would this not make a "connection" likely between the Clinton Administration's plans for removing Saddam in Iraq and the post-Iraq agendas in the same likely hood as those of the current Bush Administration's agendas and goals? Let's say that Bush Sr. set the stage on Iraq but didn't remove Saddam, for various reasonings....
Clinton comes into power and continues the 'silent' policies towards and directed to Iraq and Saddam. In such, in 1998, the Clinton Administration, along with Congress, sign, pass, and enact the Iraq Liberation Act, which then sets the stage for the PNAC agenda, "which began from a recycled conception put forward in a Pentagon strategy document in 1992."
Clinton is impeached and/or ends his term(s) and the now current Bush Administration continues and ultimately fulfills the above mentioned main agenda: "the military securing of the Persion Gulf Region?"
Link to some of the above mentioned comments/ideas.
www.wsws.org...


Again, as I mentioned, I see no deviation by the current Bush Administration from that set forth by the previous Clinton or the Bush Sr administrations...."




regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
What bothers me about this entire thing:

They begin to investigate O'neill ONE DAY after the book comes out (Oh, he might have used classified docs).

It took something like 74 days for the administration to actually call for an investigation in the CIA name leak fiasco.

what's wrong with this picture?



posted on Jan, 13 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   
PAUL KRUGMAN summed it up well.
www.nytimes.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join