Reader Interactions
51Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Can The Obvious Be ‘Uncovered’?
John Cole notes that Paul O’Neill is not turning out to be the walking, talking smoking gun the anti-Bush left craves. And just to reinforce the point, John documents Bush hiding his preference for getting rid of Saddam in plain…
-
Recycled Revelations
I picked up David Frum’s “The Right Man” at the airport in Charlotte last evening to read on the flight back to Saskatoon. Great read, and I recommend it to anyone the least bit interested in American politics. David Frum…
-
O’Neill (cont.)
A little clarification seems to be in order (link via John Cole). Here’s O’Neill earlier today: “People are trying to make the case that I said the president was planning war with Iraq early in the administration. Actually, it was…
-
More O’Neill
Speaking of pathetic, lots of people are piling onto the Ron Suskind tool, ex-Treasury Secretary for the Bush administration, Paul OāNeill. Leaving aside whether going into Iraq was planned earlier than 2002 by the Bush AdministrationāIād say pro…
-
O’Neill throwing himself into reverse
Since Ron Suskind’s alleged tell-all book has come out, Paul O’Neill, the ex-treasury secretary whose revelations the book is based on, has taken to the talk-show circuit in an to attempt to disavow many of the more sensational quotes from…
-
More O’Neill
John Cole is simply all over the attempts by several Lefty bloggers (among others) to manufacture a scandal out of…
-
Comparing Notes
First there was Paul OāNeill:āFrom the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,ā says OāNeill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the
HH
So basically O’Neill is ill-informed and Suskind is using him to further a political agenda, in hopes that the American people and media will be ill-informed (or deceptive in the media’s case) to buy it…
Mark Buehner
You have to understand that everyone knew Al Gore was blowing smoke. Bush actually meant what he said, which is unforgivable in some circles. Not ‘nuanced’ enough.
HH
For years and years, it was agreed upon by most non-extremists in both parties that not removing Saddam Hussein was a major mistake of the first Bush and we see that here in the debate. Gore, of course, was sadly mistaken about the opposition groups.
David
Note this oddly restrained quote from Al Gore:
“We need to insist that Arafat send out instructions to halt SOME OF the provocative acts of violence that have been going on.” (emphasis added)
I guess Gore thinks it’s OK to murder Jews as long as you don’t murder too many of them. :(
Russ
John, I’m again impressed (though I don’t say so very often) by your digging up of the historical record.
Are you sure you’re not an archaeologist?
axiom
“I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution.” – Al Gore
Didn’t Al Gore vote against the resolution to support the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait?
Dean
No, Axiom. Gore voted to support Gulf War I.
Subsequent reporting suggests that Gore may have “sold” his support to the side that could offer him a better televised deal. (The pro-war side apparently was willing to give him primetime to make a speech explaining/justifying his support.)
But regardless of motivations and the like, Gore DID vote to support that war.
axiom
Ok, I was wrong. Gore did vote for the Iraq war resolution in 1991. He just voted in favor of “air time”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15063
Geoff Matthews
This will be a dividing factor for the informed and the ill-informed. Your assessment, that the democrats hope we’re as dumb as they are, sadly sounds correct.
lk
I take O’Neill’s statements at face value. He saw, he reported. Draw your own conclusions. Mine is “The Emperor Has No Brains”.
Slartibartfast
But…that’s _always_ your conclusion, lk.
lk
Yeah, O’Neill just verified my prior opinion. Up til O’Neill opened his yap, I only had Bush’s embarrassing public speaking.
Robin Roberts
An amusing conclusion, lk, given it was O’Neill who didn’t have the brains for his job.
Becky
Hmm…those that fall for the original post are gullible! It’s not about embarassing Bush…it’s about elevating Clinton. From what I hear, that’s the whole point of the Weasle campaign to begin with.
Look at this quote, “Actually, it was a continuation of work that was going on in the Clinton administration”
HEY GUYS AND GALS! Don’t fall for it. This is a very clever attempt to make Clinton look like he really was doing something to prevent terrorism behind the scenes. All of you who think this is about Bush-bashing are a bunch of suckers.
John Cole
Umm.. Becky- it is the historical records. There is nothing to fall for- it happened. Period.
HH
Actually O’Neill admitted today that he NEVER bothered to look at the documents and handed them over to Suskind, an act of astonishing stupidity. So the distortions of the documents that have already been exposed are Suskind’s doing and I think it’s clear that O’Neill is unhappy with the way he’s being portrayed (and I have little doubt the words he now regrets were egged on by Suskind).
lk
Robin Roberts – Your opinion – O’Neill did not have brains for his job. Good opinion, well reasoned, and backed up by data. You win.
Bruce
lk – Ok, how does O’Neils story that Bush was continuing existing US Policy on Iraq back up your opinion? You give NO data, NO reference, nothing at all!
I say this whole thing PROVES my prior hypothesis; lk is a moron who is unable to form conclusions; he must be given his conclusions by sheeple he trusts
Dean
lk:
You can have a very smart person, and slot them into a position that is inappropriate to their talents and skills.
In the case of O’Neill, iirc, he made quite a few statements early in his tenure that raised the eyebrows of varous folks.
Like noted right-winger Brad DeLong:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000444.html
He apparently had problems w/ his counterparts on the Hill, so much so that less than a year after being appointed, the head-hunters were already out:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/05/economy/treasury/
And one suspects that if “the Nation” magazine is actively praising his selection, is it that much of a stretch that maybe he wasn’t all that popular in the Admin?
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20010129&s=greider
All of which suggests that O’Neill’s differences were matters of long-standing (i.e., he was disaffected early).
lk
Then it is decided – re O’Neill – shoot the messenger. Nuff said, move on, there is nothing to see here.
dadmanly
Thanks for excerpting from the 2nd debate of the 2000 Presidential Campaign! Especially:
GORE: I haven’t heard a big difference right — in the last few exchanges.
Isn’t this the precise series of responses that SNL used for its hysterical skit of the kinder, gentler Gore?
dirkleisure
Other things from the debate are interesting to note, particularly Bush: “The coalition…isn’t as strong as it used to be.”
He then calls that lack of the coalition a failure of the Clinton administration. So doesn’t that make the lack of a coalition for Iraq, Part Deux a failure of the Bush administration? Or is this just another way Bush was continuing Clinton policy?
the talking dog
Certainly, plans for the invasion of Iraq were drawn up during the Clinton Administration, and to be fair, it probably would have been irresponsible of the Bush Administration not to have prepared similar plans, even in the early days (and indeed, I suspect this and other Administrations have drawn up plans to invade dozens of countries).
The issue is whether the Bush Administration was so obsessed with these particular
plans to remove Saddam that they tortured the facts and circumstances at hand to justify carrying them out.
Unfortunately, most people have made their minds up on that one; I’ll just say I think the jury is still out on it, but there is much we know that is troubling.
Also, the jury is still out on the whole Iraq project: it might yet prove to have been a really good idea (justifications aside), or it might yet prove to be a disaster.
guthrie
Everyone always agreed that Saddam should go – just like we would all like Castro to go. However, we don’t all support a unilateral invasion of Cuba. The point is that Republicans and the right are alwyays trying to portray Iraq as part of the ongoing response to 9/11 – e.g., Foxnews will report on events from Iraq under the heading “The War on Terror.” This is of course not true – since it has been the goal of this President to remove Saddam since he took office.
Steve
Guthrie, would you be willing to entertain the notion that Bush’s goal of removing Saddam (which was also Clinton’s stated goal) could coincide with strategic goals in the war on terrorism?
That’s certainly not an unreasonable position: Iraq was supporting terrorism in the region, and was a notoriously loose cannon. And a reasonably democratic Iraq with Saddam removed from power makes the the strategic situation in the Middle East a little easier.
It’s quite likely that Bush, knowing that his and the official US position on Iraq was regime change, saw an opportunity to accomplish this while scoring an important strategic win in the war on terrorism.
Dean
Guthrie:
We all agree that Castro ought to go?
That’s a new one.
After all, Castro provides health care, has the best literacy rates in Central America, etc.
You really sure that all good liberals and Lefties want him to go?
drew
Cole,
Your Gore referneces don’t prove anything, because you fail to address the means while focusing only on the ends.
The Clinton adminstration wanted regeime change, but was not willing to put American troops on the ground.
Last time I checked Joe Lieberman was hardley anti-war (prehaps that is why i love him so).
Guthrie
Steve-
That would be a reasonable position, if it an actual link between Al-Q and Iraw was proven. But w/ Osamma still at large, and Al-Q still acting as a threat against the US, it seems an odd choice to go after a dictator who actually had little in common with radical Islamic extremists. You can say – “9/11 made me realize how dangerous the world so now I want to go after all threats” – and that’s actually sort of what Bush said today. But to argue that Iraq was a direct response to 9/11 doesn’t make all that much sense. Saddam and Osamma have little in common except that they’re both Arabs (and that is enough for some Americans) and both bad.
guthrie
Dean-
Very good point. You found me out. Yes, most Democrats do support Castro.
drew
I day without red-baiting is like a day without sun shine.
Steve
Guthrie, that’s an awfully disingenuous assertion to make. This has NEVER been a war against al-Qaeda. This has been a war against terrorism. Al-Qaeda isn’t the only terrorist organization in the world.
Iraq routinely provided cash and logistical support to terrorists in the region. That’s certainly a valid goal in the war against terrorism.
Besides, there have been numerous instances of connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda operatives. But I guess that’s not ENOUGH proof for you?
lk
A quote, for whta it is worth: February 24, 2001:
“And frankly they [the sanctions] have worked. [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
— Colin Powell
HH
“This is of course not true – since it has been the goal of this President to remove Saddam since he took office.”
It has been the goal of the United States of America, Democrat, Republican, whatever, to remove Saddam Hussein since 1998, until the Dems pulled the bait and switch in the past year. Does this mean Clinton was against fighting terror?
lk
Another Powell quote – last week -On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no concrete evidence of a link between the terrorist organization and Iraq.
HH
“The Clinton adminstration wanted regeime change, but was not willing to put American troops on the ground.”
So they wanted regime change, but not in any real way… This is supposed to be a Good Thing.
And frankly they [the sanctions] have worked. [Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
— Colin Powell
This, of course, shows exactly what was going on here. Bush was getting it from both sides. Powell’s voice had the upper hand prior to Sep. 11 and after Sep. 11 he was convinced the sanctions were an utter failure and something else had to be done.
lk
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. OBL did, and he is still lose, and not being pursued with enough force. Screw Hussein, I want OBL’s head on a stick, now. Note to Bush – Please please me.
dg
How the United States should react IF Iraq acquired WMD:
“The first line of defense…should be a clear and classical statement of deterrence
HH
“Bush has used the tragedy of September 11 as an excuse for a war he had already planned. ‘Find me a way to do this.'”
That’s not a direct quote from Bush, that’s O’Neill, who now confirms that Bush was NOT planning a war, saying Bush wanted regime change. Sorry, folks, but we’re going around in circles at this point.
Which force has not been used in pursuing OBL?
Robin Roberts
Oh, good. The Al Queda terrorists didn’t use WMD at the World Trade Center – so I don’t have to worry about them ever using it … despite all the evidence of their attempts to acquire WMD and delivery methods.
That’s a relief.
Is that going to be Wesley Clark’s method of meeting his promise that nothing like 9/11 would ever happen again?
lk
Which force has not been used in pursuing OBL? Well, ya gotta ask yourself, how many US troops are after him in his current location (thought to be Pakistan)?
dg
Re: ”…all the evidence of their attempts to acquire WMD and delivery methods.”
What evidence? And what does it have to do with Saddam Hussein?
Bush’s ”pre-emption” was to secure WMD! Bush ”knew for a fact” Saddam had them and ”knew where they were.”
Where are they?
If you say they’ve been smuggled out of Iraq, well that could have happened WITHOUT a war!
If Saddam was able to get WMD out of Iraq–with Bush watching–then the arrogant notion of ”pre-emptive war” is a failure.
HH
Yes, the weapons could have been smuggled and Saddam Hussein would have still been in power without the war. Or we could have lucked out somehow and deposed him some other way, leaving Uday and Qusay running things instead of making them food for worms…
“Pre-emptive war” would be a failure if Saddam and Uday and Qusay were still in charge in some way…
HH
Self tells me that OBL is still being pursued…
Robin Roberts
You really don’t follow current events, do you dg? That the 9/11 hijackers investigated obtaining a cropdusting aircraft was reported years ago. As was the evidence found in Afghanistan of Al Queda’s experiments with low tech chemical weapons.
By your logic, anything the Bush administration did to forstall any attacks based on those possibilities is illegitimate. A bizarre logic at best.