Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M - Page 26

strandinthewind · #**376** 01-14-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/U...es_040113.html

A White House official confirms O'Neill's statements!

Again, even if this is true and even if Bush had a picture of SH on a dartboard in his office, regime change in Iraq was America's policy. So, they should have been working on a way to get rid of SH.

Also, the article states:
_______________________________________
In The Price of Loyalty, O'Neill says that from the very start of his administration, Bush was focused on ousting Saddam. Bush says that his policy at the time was merely a continuation of the Clinton administration's stance. White House aides have suggested O'Neill, whom Bush fired in December 2002, is merely trying to sell books.

Both the official who spoke to ABCNEWS and O'Neill have acknowledged that Bush had not yet made up his mind for a ground invasion at the start of his administration, but they say officials were told to find ways to get rid of the Iraqi leader.

"Getting Hussein was now the administration's focus, that much was already clear," O'Neill says in his book.
________________________________________________

So, even O'Neill admits W left all options open regarding how to acheive the policy of regime change

So, when people (not necessarily you

) assert that W's essential continuation and augmentation of the former administration's plan to oust SH is somehow a bad act, I just have to cry foul because that is what they were supposed to be doing

Also:
___________________________________________________

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld disputed O'Neill's account today. "I don't know what meetings he could have been in," Rumsfeld told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.
___________________________________________________

senility is a bad thing

dissention · #**377** 01-14-2004, 03:43 PM

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...health,+safety

"Under a new proposal, the White House would decide what and when the public would be told about an outbreak of mad cow disease, an anthrax release, a nuclear plant accident or any other crisis."

dissention · #**378** 01-14-2004, 03:46 PM

At the present moment, I don't believe a word that comes out of O'Neill's mouth. Not one word. Someone has gotten to him.

I'll stick by anything he said before Monday, but nothing else. He's been gotten to.

strandinthewind · #**379** 01-14-2004, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention

We can pussyfoot around all we want, but the American people did not elect him.

Wrong - they did elect him.

The popular vote is meaningless.

America is a republic and that is how we elect Presidents.

For you statement "American people did not elect him" to be true and not misleading in that I think it asserts, although I could be wrong, just a hint of "W stole the office of the Presidency"

- I think it should read, "Although W failed to win the popular vote which means a majority of Americans did not vote for him, W won the election fair and square because the popular vote does not determine who wins an election, the electoral vote does that and W won the electoral vote by all recounts"

BrianJ - agreed poor Gore could not even win his home state - I mean come on

strandinthewind · #**380** 01-14-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
At the present moment, I don't believe a word that comes out of O'Neill's mouth. Not one word. Someone has gotten to him. I'll stick by anything he said before Monday, but nothing else. He's been gotten to.

But I think what he is saying now is not different than what he said Monday. I think the press spun it that way.

estranged4life · #**381** 01-14-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
At the present moment, I don't believe a word that comes out of O'Neill's mouth. Not one word. Someone has gotten to him. I'll stick by anything he said before Monday, but nothing else. He's been gotten to.

about O'Neill on the "Today Show" earlier he sure didn't sound like a person who wanted to expose the President...

And what was really odd & confusing though is that he made sure to mention several times the co-author of the book (I cannot recall his name, But he was present on the "Today Show" appearance) should take a majority of the credit...

Brian j.

strandinthewind · #**382** 01-14-2004, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...health,+safety

"Under a new proposal, the White House would decide what and when the public would be told about an outbreak of mad cow disease, an anthrax release, a nuclear plant accident or any other crisis."

is right

I think they should release all information to a website and let the public determine, if they want to and can wade through it, what constitutes a threat. But, hey - what do i know

dissention · #**383** 01-14-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But I think what he is saying now is not different than what he said Monday. I think the press spun it that way.

No one light a match, I smell the pungent aroma of bull****!

Until this week, he was a big detractor of Bush. He trashed him, plain and simple, in interviews AND in the book (which is fabulous, I just finished it). Then, as soon as ChimpCo started investigating him, he changed his tune. He's been gotten to, pal.

dissention · #**384** 01-14-2004, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
is right I think they should release all information to a website and let the public determine, if they want to and can wade through it, what constitutes a threat. But, hey - what do i know

dissention · #**385** 01-14-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by estranged4life
about O'Neill on the "Today Show" earlier he sure didn't sound like a person who wanted to expose the President...

And what was really odd & confusing though is that he made sure to mention several times the co-author of the book (I cannot recall his name, But he was present on the "Today Show" appearance) should take a majority of the credit...

Brian j.

He claims that the deaf man/blind people" quote was taken out of context, but that he's sorry about it.

Hmmmm, kinda strange that he only mentioned that *after* ChimpCo started investigating him...

strandinthewind · #**386** 01-14-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
No one light a match, I smell the pungent aroma of bull****!

Until this week, he was a big detractor of Bush. He trashed him, plain and simple, in interviews AND in the book (which is fabulous, I just finished it). Then, as soon as ChimpCo started investigating him, he changed his tune. He's been gotten to, pal.

Not really. He has never said he hated Bush or that the Bush adminsitration was evil, etc. In his 60 Minutes interview (I think) , he insults Bush (blind room with deaf people), but the despite that rhetoric (which I assert may be true and funny but it also makes him look angry about being fired) - he never said W was hell bent on invading Iraq. He said all along that the administration was forming a plan, which they should be doing to be in accordance with America's lonstanding policy of regime change in Iraq. This is not inconsistent to me.

strandinthewind · #**387** 01-14-2004, 03:59 PM

Also, O'Neill wants to sell a book aned make a load of $$$$. So, anything he says, esp. the rhetoric, is a little suspect.

dissention · #**388** 01-14-2004, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Not really. He has never said he hated Bush or that the Bush adminsitration was evil, etc. In his 60 Minutes interview (I think) , he insults Bush (blind room with deaf people), but the despite that rhetoric (which I assert may be true and funny but it also makes him look angry about being fired) - he never said W was hell bent on invading Iraq. He said all along that the administration was forming a plan, which they should be doing to be in accordance with America's lonstanding policy of regime change in Iraq. This is not inconsistent to me.

No, he never said he disliked Shrub or that he hated him, but he didn't have to: he did it well enough without coming out and saying it. Read the book, it's rather telling of his thoughts on Bush and his admin, and some of the best parts haven't even been picked up by the media.

dissention · #**389** 01-14-2004, 04:01 PM

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazell...le-nolink.html

AMAZING essay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

strandinthewind · #**390** 01-14-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
No, he never said he disliked Shrub or that he hated him, but he didn't have to: he did it well enough without coming out and saying it. Read the book, it's rather telling of his thoughts on Bush and his admin, and some of the best parts haven't even been picked up by the media.

Its on the list behind many

I am kind of surprised O'Neill did not wait until Sept. 1, 2004 to release it. Talk about more of punch then. Sadly, the true things in the book will probably be forgotten or at least their effect lessened over the next 10 or so months.