Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Be sure to watch 60 Minutes

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3315-2004Jan9.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2004Jan9.html[/url]

    Reuters
    Friday, January 9, 2004; 10:38 AM

    Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill likened President Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts Friday from a CBS interview.

    O'Neill, who was fired by Bush in December 2002, also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour.

    "As I recall it was just a monologue," he told CBS' "60 Minutes," which will broadcast the entire interview Sunday.

    In making the blind man analogy, O'Neill told CBS his ex-boss did not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate.

    "There is no discernible connection," CBS quoted O'Neill as saying. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neil said, according to the program.

    CBS said much of O'Neill's criticisms of Bush are included in "The Price of Loyalty," an upcoming book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    No conservatives want to comment?

    Is Paul O'Neill simply a disgruntled employee? How does this make you feel about W if O'Neill's observations are correct. Based on his comments and Bush's comments in the past one could argue that

    1. Bush does not read newspapers or watch the news, instead he says he gets all his information from his advisors.
    2. According to O'neill Bush does not encourage a free flow of ideas or open debate from his advisors.
    3. By 5evers own admission Bush was duped by his advisors on WMD.

    Pretty scarry if you ask me.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    I'll let my fellow Americans speak for me:

    Fully 70% of Americans say they feel optimistic about how things are going in the country right now.

    Almost two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they "like" Bush, including 37% that "strongly" like him. One in five say they dislike Bush (12% "strongly" dislike and 8% "somewhat"). Another 11% say they are "neutral."

    When asked to take into consideration all three years of the presidential term so far, about half (49%) say Bush has done a "good job," 28% say an "okay job" and 21% say he has done a "bad job" as president.

    The president receives his highest ratings over his handling of terrorism with 67% of Americans today saying they approve, up from 57% in November. On managing the economy, 50% approve and 42% disapprove — a reversal of the president's November ratings.

    In other words, the media blitzkrieg ain't working! Enjoy the show.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    There's a reason this clown is the ex-secretary-[I][img]http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/docs/photo-gallery/africatour2002/hi-res/wamale6.jpg[/img]

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]I'll let my fellow Americans speak for me:

    Fully 70% of Americans say they feel optimistic about how things are going in the country right now.

    Almost two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they "like" Bush, including 37% that "strongly" like him. One in five say they dislike Bush (12% "strongly" dislike and 8% "somewhat"). Another 11% say they are "neutral."

    When asked to take into consideration all three years of the presidential term so far, about half (49%) say Bush has done a "good job," 28% say an "okay job" and 21% say he has done a "bad job" as president.

    The president receives his highest ratings over his handling of terrorism with 67% of Americans today saying they approve, up from 57% in November. On managing the economy, 50% approve and 42% disapprove — a reversal of the president's November ratings.

    In other words, the media blitzkrieg ain't working! Enjoy the show.
    [/b][/quote]

    That doesn't answer my question. Either way though I have no doubt Bush will win his first real election as President. I have to tip my hat to you guys, you recruit at all levels of society even though you really only represent the wealthy.

    What media blitzkrieg? I never understood this propaganda that the media is biased to the left. Who owns 90% of the media outlets in this country? There are like 5 men, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, and some others I cant remember. Murdoch is by far the worst, they all bring us their version of the "fair and balanced" news and its all completly right biased.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Sect-

    He won the 1st one too. The rules, called The Electoral College, have been in the Constitution since the beginning. Read it sometime, which apparently few liberals ever bother to do. Feelings, nothing more than feelings, is what you guys run on. O'neill was the one guy in the cabinet that most conservatives detested form the beginning anyway.


    Viacom/CBS/MTV-they're fair and balanced? Right.

    Turner and AOL/Time Warner and CNN (where news chief Steve Kaplan took his orders direct from the CLinton White House)-they're fair and balanced? Sure.

    The New York and LA Times-fair. Okay.

    Newsweek/Washington Post-fair-oh, yeah.

    NBC-fair-sure.

    NPR and PBS-paid for by everyone's tax dollars-above politics-sure.

    Fox News gets on the air and outperforms all of the above in terms of viewership and profitability and NOW it's the end of the world. How dare anyone look beyond the tripe, pap and biased nonsense these liberal BS artist media outlets fed us from the Tet Offensive until Clinton. Thank God for Fox and the internet. I can't wait for one of the broadcast networks to fold the it's news division altogether.Meantime, have some cheese with yout whine.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]There's a reason this clown is the ex-secretary[/b][/quote]

    Well I tried to find out what exactly you meant so I did a google search for "Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill Fired" and the first hit I got seems to sum it all up nicely.

    [url=http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/120602.asp]http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/120602.asp[/url]

    PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATEMENT ON THE WHOLLY VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF TREASURY SECRETARY PAUL O'NEILL
    Statement by the President

    THE PRESIDENT: Prior to my election, our nation saw eight years of unparalleled peace, growth and prosperity. Yet, since taking office, I have noticed that economic indicators have steadily declined. Economists working with me believe the signs may be pointing to a second Great Depression. Attempts to revive the economy by lowering interest rates have largely failed, and while I am confident this administration's tax cuts will enrich CEO's in the long term, poor folks are cold and starving now, and so we must act quickly to create the illusion that we give a damn.

    As all of you know, I have been devoting all of my time over the past year to a national emergency: campaigning in all fifty states – even the ones that suck – to get Republicans elected. So, naturally, I didn't have time to waste on spreadsheets and all that other boring crap that always gets rolled out when I make the mistake of bringing up the economy at cabinet meetings. But that doesn't mean the state-of-the-dollars-stuff isn't important to this administration. In fact, I just recently had my yearly meeting with my Treasury Secretary. After he told me he was not the one I was supposed to go to when I wanted petty cash for the snack machines in the basement, I asked, "Paul, so how's the economy going, bud?" When he told me it stank I got angrier than a bobcat asked to fetch and I fired him on the spot. I'm here to tell you, it really steams me when folks don't do their jobs. Laura thought I was just Angry because this damned snow interfered with my golf game this afternoon, but I think that was only 40% of why I fired the bastard.

    The man I will appoint as the new Secretary of the Treasury is a good man. I can vouch for this man, as I've known him all my life. This is a man who has shown the highest level of fiscal responsibility, even at personal sacrifice. This is a man who will do what is right for the nation, shepherding our economy back to a state of health. And above all, this is a man American taxpayers can trust with their economic future.

    Please join me in welcoming our new Secretary of the Treasury, my brother, Neil Bush.

    (Applause.)

    END

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 06:37 PM
    [b] [quote][b]I'll let my fellow Americans speak for me:

    Fully 70% of Americans say they feel optimistic about how things are going in the country right now.

    Almost two-thirds of Americans (63%) say they "like" Bush, including 37% that "strongly" like him. One in five say they dislike Bush (12% "strongly" dislike and 8% "somewhat"). Another 11% say they are "neutral."

    When asked to take into consideration all three years of the presidential term so far, about half (49%) say Bush has done a "good job," 28% say an "okay job" and 21% say he has done a "bad job" as president.

    The president receives his highest ratings over his handling of terrorism with 67% of Americans today saying they approve, up from 57% in November. On managing the economy, 50% approve and 42% disapprove — a reversal of the president's November ratings.

    In other words, the media blitzkrieg ain't working! Enjoy the show.
    [/b][/quote]

    That doesn't answer my question. Either way though I have no doubt Bush will win his first real election as President. I have to tip my hat to you guys, you recruit at all levels of society even though you really only represent the wealthy.

    What media blitzkrieg? I never understood this propaganda that the media is biased to the left. Who owns 90% of the media outlets in this country? There are like 5 men, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, and some others I cant remember. Murdoch is by far the worst, they all bring us their version of the "fair and balanced" news and its all completly right biased. [/b][/quote]
    Unlike you demokRATS who keep the poor people poor, make big business out of it then brainwash them to believe your on their side even though you fought to keep them in slavery for years, burnt their churches in the 50's and 60's and had icon of your party like George Wallace sic dogs on them when they marched for civil rights or Al Gore's poppy who voted against civil rights legislation.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    As to "bias", Bernard Goldberg-an employee of CBS- says it better than I ever could

    [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11650]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=11650[/url]

  10. #10
    Didn't watch it, but wish I had...

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Jan 9 2004, 11:13 PM
    [b] As to "bias", Bernard Goldberg-an employee of CBS- says it better than I ever could

    [url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11650]http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=11650[/url] [/b][/quote]
    He's very good...they actually had him on Commie-Span for one of those book signings. It was interesting to say the least.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    I wonder if they struck a deal with O'Neill to give him his own show where he could sing and dance and moonwalk like they did with that other guy :D

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Didn't watch it, but wish I had... [/b][/quote]

    It is on this Sunday.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Funny how after O'Neil left, the economy began to skyrocket. A strong example of a true leader (the President) replacing non-performers in his cabinet, with someone who knows what he's doing and has the RESULTS to show it.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 10 2004, 02:26 PM
    [b] Funny how after O'Neil left, the economy began to skyrocket. A strong example of a true leader (the President) replacing non-performers in his cabinet, with someone who knows what he's doing and has the RESULTS to show it. [/b][/quote]
    Weeb, those are the facts, something the libs are not interested in. They'd rather rely on speculation, conspiracy and hearsay.

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Jan 10 2004, 02:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Jan 10 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 10 2004, 02:26 PM
    [b] Funny how after O&#39;Neil left, the economy began to skyrocket. A strong example of a true leader (the President) replacing non-performers in his cabinet, with someone who knows what he&#39;s doing and has the RESULTS to show it. [/b][/quote]
    Weeb, those are the facts, something the libs are not interested in. They&#39;d rather rely on speculation, conspiracy and hearsay. [/b][/quote]
    And Weeb...let&#39;s see how legit 60 Minutes is and if they bring up what is the obvious point you&#39;ve posted on a football site&#33;&#33; ;)

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    So did anyone else watch it? It was pretty damaging. Some new information not in the article was that from day 1 the Bush administration wanted to find a way to oust Saddam.

    One other interesting tidbit, is that O&#39;Neil says that Bush second guessed the second round of tax cuts saying that they should go to the middle class. Channey and Rove put him in is place and said to stick to the principle. Here is the whole transcript.



    [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/...ain592330.shtml[/url]

    (CBS) A year ago, Paul O&#39;Neill was fired from his job as George Bush&#39;s Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president&#39;s policy on tax cuts.

    Now, O&#39;Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

    Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents.

    But the main source of the book was Paul O&#39;Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul O&#39;Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

    Will this be seen as a “kiss-and-tell" book?

    “I&#39;ve come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I&#39;m sure somebody will say all of that and more,” says O’Neill, who was George Bush&#39;s top economic policy official.

    In the book, O’Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

    At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

    This is what O&#39;Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: “I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening … As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.”

    He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn&#39;t his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

    O&#39;Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book&#39;s author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he&#39;s taking no money for his part in the book.

    Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members.

    O&#39;Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O’Neill not to do this book.

    Was it a warning, or a threat?

    “I don&#39;t think so. I think it was the White House concerned,” says Suskind. “Understandably, because O&#39;Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, ‘This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.’"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Not only did O&#39;Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

    “Everything&#39;s there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that&#39;s sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

    And what happened at President Bush&#39;s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O&#39;Neill&#39;s most startling revelations.

    “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

    “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

    As treasury secretary, O&#39;Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

    "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

    And that came up at this first meeting, says O’Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

    He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,’" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on his interviews with O&#39;Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq&#39;s oil wealth.

    He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

    “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

    During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don&#39;t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we&#39;re going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I&#39;m going to prevent that."

    “The thing that&#39;s most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said ‘X’ during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing ‘Y,’” says Suskind. “Not just saying ‘Y,’ but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.”

    The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
    But O&#39;Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O&#39;Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

    “Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don&#39;t matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O&#39;Neill is speechless.”

    ”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation&#39;s resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

    Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it&#39;s for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

    The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, the White House was losing patience with O&#39;Neill. He was becoming known for a series of off-the-cuff remarks his critics called gaffes. One of them sent the dollar into a nosedive and required major damage control.

    Twice during stock market meltdowns, O&#39;Neill was not available to the president: He was out of the country - one time on a trip to Africa with the Irish rock star Bono.

    “Africa made an enormous splash. It was like a road show,” says Suskind. “He comes back and the president says to him at a meeting, ‘You know, you&#39;re getting quite a cult following.’ And it clearly was not a joke. And it was not said in jest.”

    Suskind writes that the relationship grew tenser and that the president even took a jab at O&#39;Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.

    The two men were never close. And O&#39;Neill was not amused when Mr. Bush began calling him "The Big O." He thought the president&#39;s habit of giving people nicknames was a form of bullying. Everything came to a head for O&#39;Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

    “It&#39;s a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,” says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

    He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

    “He asks, ‘Haven&#39;t we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut&#39;s gonna do it again,’” says Suskind.

    “He says, ‘Didn’t we already, why are we doing it again?’ Now, his advisers, they say, ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they&#39;re the entrepreneurs. That&#39;s the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That&#39;s their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn&#39;t we be giving money to the middle, won&#39;t people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’"

    But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

    “Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again,” says Suskind. “Don’t waver.”

    In the end, the president didn&#39;t. And nine days after that meeting in which O&#39;Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

    With the deficit now climbing towards &#036;400 billion, O&#39;Neill maintains he was in the right.

    But look at the economy today.

    “Yes, well, in the last quarter the growth rate was 8.2 percent. It was terrific,” says O’Neill. “I think the tax cut made a difference. But without the tax cut, we would have had 6 percent real growth, and the prospect of dealing with transformation of Social Security and fundamentally fixing the tax system. And to me, those were compelling competitors for, against more tax cuts.”
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While in the book O&#39;Neill comes off as constantly appalled at Mr. Bush, he was surprised when Stahl told him she found his portrait of the president unflattering.

    “Hmmm, you really think so,” asks O’Neill, who says he isn’t joking. “Well, I’ll be darned.”

    “You&#39;re giving me the impression that you&#39;re just going to be stunned if they attack you for this book,” says Stahl to O’Neill. “And they&#39;re going to say, I predict, you know, it&#39;s sour grapes. He&#39;s getting back because he was fired.”
    “I will be really disappointed if they react that way because I think they&#39;ll be hard put to,” says O’Neill.

    Is he prepared for it?

    “Well, I don&#39;t think I need to be because I can&#39;t imagine that I&#39;m going to be attacked for telling the truth,” says O’Neill. “Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?”

    White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the book on Friday and said "The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he&#39;ll continue to do."


    © MMIII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    Damaging to who <_<

    It&#39;s already been established that regime change in Iraq was a policy that went back to blowjob bill clinton. Have you ever heard of contingency planning? Funny how the liberal press has all of a sudden buried the story about the danish finding WMD yesterday isn&#39;t it??

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]Funny how the liberal press has all of a sudden buried the story about the danish finding WMD yesterday isn&#39;t it?? [/b][/quote]

    Are you refering to the mustard gas shells that were buried in the desert since the Iraq-Iran war? If so I hope you were trying to be funny.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    The DoD has always planned for potential conflicts with any number of countries and in any number of scenarios. To not so plan would be foolishness. And as noted, the CLinton Administration, even if half-heartedly, also had Saddam&#39;s removal as a policy.Do O&#39;Neill and CBS believe we shouldn&#39;t plan for all possibilities? It would be pretty dumb to wait for bad stuff to happen before you figured out how you would respond.

    His description of cabinet meeting is also laughable-cabinet meetings are basically photo ops and have been for a while. Any Presdient meets with those he needs to meet with as needed. O&#39;Neill, notwithstanding that Wall Street hated him, didn&#39;t really factor into national secuirty directly, nor is it his expertise. O&#39;Neill was braindead as Treasury Secretary, and apparenly hasn&#39;t wised up any since. It&#39;s a wonder this guy was ever CEO of Alcoa in the first place.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us