[BlackGriffen]

Former US treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has blasted his former boss, President George W Bush, describing Cabinet meetings with him as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people".

Also from the Beeb

This, to me, is reason enough to vote against him.

BlackGriffen

[Jansar]

He's a guy that Bush thought wasn't doing his job. Venting like a sore loser makes him right? I guess we should all believe him, then.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Jansar:
He's a guy that Bush thought wasn't doing his job. Venting like a sore loser makes him right? I guess we should all believe him, then.

You raise a good point, but he isn't the only source. There's Bush's own admission that he doesn't read the papers, but instead relies on aids. There's the signed letter from John DiIulio about how light the Bush admin is on policy. Last, but certainly not least, you can judge for yourself from his performance in his few press conferences.

The man has a lethal political acumen, but other than that he's riding the slow coach in the fast lane.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Jansar:
He's a guy that Bush thought wasn't doing his job. Venting like a sore loser makes him right? I guess we should all believe him, then.

yes, it should be taken with a grain of salt, if it were the only such report. Sadly, it is not.

[kindbud]

Odd how folks never blame themselves for getting fired.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by kindbud:
Odd how folks never blame themselves for getting fired.

There are lots of folks who get fired for things beyond their control. Whether O'Neill did is speculation; none of us were there. It doesn't change the wide perception that Dubya is no mental heavyweight. He relies too much on a very select few "advisors", and he has absolutely no sense of what's going on in the world beyond his closed little sphere.

[spacefreak]

O'Neill's upset that Bush didn't engage him in a 1-on-1 meeting on Treasury policy, and instead just sat and listened to him go through his prepared list? I don't see a problem with that. I wish some of my previous bosses would have done that insted of dictating their unstudied view of my field of expertise.

Personally, I've always envisioned Bush being a listener - gathering as much info as he can before making recommendations or decisions.

[spacefreak]

Here's more from O'Niell: Saddam ouster planned in 2001?

The Bush Administration began laying plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks as has been previously reported.

Suskind says O'Neill and other White House insiders he interviewed gave him documents that show that in the first three months of 2001, the administration was looking at military options for removing Saddam Hussein from power and planning for the aftermath of Saddam's downfall -- including post-war contingencies like peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil.

A Pentagon document, says Suskind, titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from...30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq," Suskind says.

Again, I don't see what the big deal is. Our government has had different plans to ouster Saddam since the first Gulf War. There was even a plan then, but Bush Sr. and the UN decided that Iraq's eviction from Kuwait and Saddam's disarmament concessions were enough at that point. Clinton's admin had the Pentagon-authored plans as well.

Ironically, this disclosure shows that the Bush admin did have at least one "plan" for post-Saddam Iraq. i wonder if this will quiet the liberal rhetoric that "Bush didn't have a plan", and instead change it to "Bush had a plan before 9/11".

I'm not surprised at all about this. I'd like to know more about the world's 30-40 oil companies listed as "suitors" for Iraq's oilfield contracts. I'm thinking it's probably part of the post-Saddam plan.

Still, I have no problems with Bush listening to individuals with expertise in their particular fields - especially those appointed to serve and provide said information at the President's request.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Again, I don't see what the big deal is. Our government has had different plans to ouster Saddam since the first Gulf War.

You don't? Here's my problem - they've been planning for it this long, and they still fcked it up? The army's performed admirably, considering that the orders they've been given from above and the plan to sew it all together have been lousy.

Still, I have no problems with Bush listening to individuals with expertise in their particular fields - especially those appointed to serve and provide said information at the President's request.

It isn't that simple, and you know it. Good listening isn't just a sit down and shut up thing - it's an interactive process. You need to ask questions, suggest possibilities, and interact to really get what's going on.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here's more from O'Niell: Saddam ouster planned in 2001? Again, I don't see what the big deal is. Our government has had different plans to ouster Saddam since the first Gulf War. There was even a plan then, but Bush Sr. and the UN decided that Iraq's eviction from Kuwait and Saddam's disarmament concessions were enough at that point. Clinton's admin had the Pentagon-authored plans as well.

Ironically, this disclosure shows that the Bush admin did have at least one "plan" for post-Saddam Iraq. i wonder if this will quiet the liberal rhetoric that "Bush didn't have a plan", and instead change it to "Bush had a plan before 9/11".

I'm not surprised at all about this. I'd like to know more about the world's 30-40 oil companies listed as "suitors" for Iraq's oilfield contracts. I'm thinking it's probably part of the post-Saddam plan.

Still, I have no problems with Bush listening to individuals with expertise in their particular fields - especially those appointed to serve and provide said information at the President's request.

spin.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You don't? Here's my problem - they've been planning for it this long, and they still fcked it up?

There is no rational and thoughtful standard by which you can proclaim that they've "fcked it up." I understand that you don't like the admin and what they are doing, but when you say stuff like this it shows a painful lack of understanding and perspective on your part.

[spacefreak]

O'Neill in January 2003:

"I'm determined not to say any negative things about the president and the Bush administration," O'Neill said. "They have enough to do without having me as a sharpshooter."

It's quite amazing what a book deal can do to one's convictions.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It isn't that simple, and you know it. Good listening isn't just a sit down and shut up thing - it's an interactive process. You need to ask questions, suggest possibilities, and interact to really get what's going on.

My analysis was based solely on the brief quotes attributed to O'Neill. If all I hear is that there was a meeting where O'Neill came in with a list of points, and Bush "just listened", I don't see that as necessarily being a problem - at least not in the context of a single meeting.

What were the goals of the meeting? Was it a briefing, or was policy to be decided at that exact moment? What were the events surrounding the meeting? What was Bush's take on the meeting?

For all we know, Bush may have been completely disappointed with O'Neill's presentation, simply sat idle until adjournment, and then placed a call to Andy Card with the directive of "We gotta get Paul out of here...he's all over the place. I don't think we'll accomplish much with him on board".

There's not too much to go on here. Perhaps the book will expand on this a bit more. But I'm not going to label anyone as "mentally disengaged" based on the few quotes we do have.

[theolein]

"Bush mentally disengaged" - This implies that he was mentally engaged in the first place which might be stretching it a bit

Actually, although I personally can't stand Bush, I think some of the stuff he has done has been ok. I found that getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, although I also think that the execution and the post war situation has been a complete and utter mess. I also think that, paradoxically, Bush's "Axis of evil" drivel and the pressure on Iran and NK have actually done some good in getting those two nations to at least scale back their nuclear weapons programmes.

I say paradoxically because Bush was overly nice to Pakistan in order to get them to cooperate in his Jihad in Afghanistan, and all this while many people, including some here, suspected that Pakistan was a possible source for nuclear materials in Iran and NK and Libya as it has recently been shown. (NYT, BBC and others have stories).

I am most interested in what develops between Pakistan and the USA in the future. Perhaps Bush will invade if he gets a second term.

Also, I think Bush's tax cuts have helped businesses in the US, even if most of the growth has been in companies that outsource huge numbers of jobs overseas.

Perhaps, a bit more, ahem, mental engagement on his part would bring a job or two back to the US?

[zigzag]

Paul O'Neill spent 15 years running International Paper and Alcoa, so I suspect he has an inkling of when a chief executive is intellectually engaged or not. John Dilulio, no wild-eyed liberal, agrees that White House policy is driven more by politics and ideology than analysis. That doesn't settle the question, but it's not exactly confidence-inspiring either.

On the other hand, it's results that count. I'm sure Dubya has thought about management styles - he governed a large state for 8 years. I think he models himself after Truman and Reagan: be decisive, delegate, don't get bogged down in details, avoid paralysis-by-analysis. While it would be nice to think a President is intellectually curious and understands everything that's going on, I can see the potential merits of the Dubya approach as well.

Being President is probably a pretty overwhelming job and I think people respond positively to the sense that even if Dubya isn't a policy wonk, he seems well-grounded. I can't say whether it's true or not, only that he projects that quality in the eyes of many.

[MathewM]

So Theo, the truth be known: You hate Bush the man but don't mind his policies.

I don't get you guys sometimes.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by MathewM:
So Theo, the truth be known: You hate Bush the man but don't mind his policies.

I don't get you guys sometimes.

I'd disagree with theolein on this one. Bush the man is just the embodiment of a policy that stretches back years; he's the spokes-puppet for those hawks behind him, pushing their agenda. Bush jr. is not responsible for virtually anything to do with the international arena, look to those who are standing beside him.
The government exists to serve big business, and for Bush jr. that is certainly the case. So for me, the charge that Bush is disengaged, still stands.

On a side note, I think the approach by Bush (his cronies, IMO) in regards to Iran, N. Korea, iraq, etc. is an extremely dangerous one on many levels. If anything, it's going to push new groups, countries, into arming themselves secretly due to their fear of an America which is hell-bent on dictating what they should possess, how they should defend their sovereign rights. Don;'t they have every right to arm themselves up to the teeth if they feel inclined? Doesn't ti seem rather hypocritical that the one nation that is pushing for these changes, is the one that is retaining its nuclear arsenal? the one which is driving forward many a civil rights eroding policy? We're seeing a nation bullying its policy into effect across the world, and many just stand by thinking that this is going to give them security, are we any securer? Do we take Bush's words for face value and assume all of this is in the benefit for the world? Doubt it, and I'm highly sceptical of what is going on just now.
What we're seeing is the same type of scenario that the UK played out with the East India co. the beginings of the British Empire, the formation of the British army. We're seeing a cause, reaction, solution situation in which those who are promising to combat the fear that they tell us is present, are those who are actually the instigators.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
There is no rational and thoughtful standard by which you can proclaim that they've "fcked it up." I understand that you don't like the admin and what they are doing, but when you say stuff like this it shows a painful lack of understanding and perspective on your part.

There is no rational and thoughtful way that you can proclaim they didn't fck up a whole lot of the post war situation.

That is, unless you've been living in a cave and not reading the news.

BlackGriffen

[MathewM]

Originally posted by sanny the carpathian:
I'd disagree with theolein on this one.... instigators.

I don't agree.

[davesimondotcom]

Just curious (really) - but could someone explain the blind man/deaf people metaphor? It really doesn't make sense to me!

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Just curious (really) - but could someone explain the blind man/deaf people metaphor? It really doesn't make sense to me!

If deaf people use sign language to communicate...

BG

[BlackGriffen]

An excerpt from what looks like a 60 minutes transcript (emphasis added):

Meanwhile, the White House was losing patience with O'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'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'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'Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.

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

“It'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't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut'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're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’ And the president kind of goes, ‘OK.’ That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won'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't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'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 $400 billion, O'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.”

Is it just me, or does this portrayal make Bush sound like a puppet? Running with that image, O'Neill wasn't in with the puppeteers, and him and Bush rubbed each-other the wrong way, and bye-bye O'Neill.

I especially liked the mental image of Cheney's telepresence. It reminds me of an episode of News Radio. The one where the boss was off fishing, and he used a two way radio to do his job.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

especially interesting is Rove repeating the mantra over and over again.

[Shaddim]

I just love all this pissing and moaning, all the Liberals pitching a fit. It just means that the odds are higher that Bush will get 4 more years, and their tails are in a knot over it.

Funny thing is, if a Democrat had done everyting in Iraq the same way Bush has done, you libs would be celebrating and calling the Pres a hero. Ol' Clinton sat on the pot too long and didn't get to do what he'd planned, and now GWB gets defamed.

You do see that the political parties really aren't that different on these types of issues, don't you? Or are you still sadly holding on to the idea that any Democrat who was running for the office would have went forward with the ultra-liberal tree-hugger agenda? Pfffttt.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I just love all this pissing and moaning, all the Liberals pitching a fit. It just means that the odds are higher that Bush will get 4 more years, and their tails are in a knot over it.

Funny thing is, if a Democrat had done everyting in Iraq the same way Bush has done, you libs would be celebrating and calling the Pres a hero. Ol' Clinton sat on the pot too long and didn't get to do what he'd planned, and now GWB gets defamed.

You do see that the political parties really aren't that different on these types of issues, don't you? Or are you still sadly holding on to the idea that any Democrat who was running for the office would have went forward with the ultra-liberal tree-hugger agenda? Pfffttt.

do you provide a dinner with that floorshow?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I just love all this pissing and moaning, all the Liberals pitching a fit. It just means that the odds are higher that Bush will get 4 more years, and their tails are in a knot over it.

Funny thing is, if a Democrat had done everyting in Iraq the same way Bush has done, you libs would be celebrating and calling the Pres a hero. Ol' Clinton sat on the pot too long and didn't get to do what he'd planned, and now GWB gets defamed.

You do see that the political parties really aren't that different on these types of issues, don't you? Or are you still sadly holding on to the idea that any Democrat who was running for the office would have went forward with the ultra-liberal tree-hugger agenda? Pfffttt.

I got it! You're trying to derail the (dying ) thread by making a horse's @ss out of yourself, and drawing flames?

It was his ex-cabinet members (O'Neill and DiIulio) who've made the accusations, not me.




BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
do you provide a dinner with that floorshow?

Not as well as you guys... You Libs make Siegfried and Roy look like newcomers. haha

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...Funny thing is, if a Democrat had done everyting in Iraq the same way Bush has done, you libs would be celebrating and calling the Pres a hero...

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer!

I don't give a flying fig what party the President of the US represents. It is his policy that offends me. If any President, of any political persuasion, took it upon himself to do what this US president has done, then the outcry would be the same from those people that understand the principles of diplomacy (other than 'hit him first, and hit him harder')

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I got it! You're trying to derail the (dying ) thread by making a horse's @ss out of yourself, and drawing flames?

It was his ex-cabinet members (O'Neill and DiIulio) who've made the accusations, not me.




BlackGriffen

Ok, but you guys are the ones grumbling about, as if one of yer fellas would have done differently.

It's funny how an [R] or [D] in front of a person't name makes so much of a difference. <snicker>

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer!

I don't give a flying fig what party the President of the US represents. It is his policy that offends me. If any President, of any political persuasion, took it upon himself to do what this US president has done, then the outcry would be the same from those people that understand the principles of diplomacy (other than 'hit him first, and hit him harder')

yeah, yeah, and you fellas were bitching about Clinton too. Go fig'.

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
yeah, yeah, and you fellas were bitching about Clinton too. Go fig'.

What was it about Clinton that we were bitching about? (Not disagreeing, just curious as to how that helps your point about 'libs')

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ok, but you guys are the ones grumbling about, as if one of yer fellas would have done differently.

It's funny how an [R] or [D] in front of a person't name makes so much of a difference. <snicker>

Last I checked, you've only seen me talk about two Presidents - Bush and Clinton. That is hardly a representative sample. I think that I could have lived relatively contentedly with McCain, and probably would have been quite happy with Powell. Bush II has rubbed me the wrong way since day one, and continues to do so.

I'm no more partisan than you are a fawning Bush League sycophant... Unless, of course, you really are one.

BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Last I checked, you've only seen me talk about two Presidents - Bush and Clinton. That is hardly a representative sample. I think that I could have lived relatively contentedly with McCain, and probably would have been quite happy with Powell. Bush II has rubbed me the wrong way since day one, and continues to do so.

I'm no more partisan than you are a fawning Bush League sycophant... Unless, of course, you really are one.

BG

Nah, they're all the same on that level. I just vote for the scumbag who's more likely to lower my taxes and cut Gov't programs.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Nah, they're all the same on that level. I just vote for the scumbag who's more likely to lower my taxes and cut Gov't programs.

You may have got one (depending on your income), but you certainly didn't get the other. Bush is spending money faster than you could burn it, and expanding the government faster than any previous pres.

Look it up.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
You may have got one (depending on your income), but you certainly didn't get the other. Bush is spending money faster than you could burn it, and expanding the government faster than any previous pres.

Look it up.

BlackGriffen

For a larger military, and it's about time too.

And, yes, I got a tax cut. Fairly nice one.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by dum****:
I think that I could have lived relatively contentedly with McCain, and probably would have been quite happy with Powell. Bush II has rubbed me the wrong way since day one, and continues to do so.
DF

So if I call you dum**** it's not because I dislike your policies I just don't like you.

Fair enough.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
For a larger military, and it's about time too.

And, yes, I got a tax cut. Fairly nice one.

Non-military descretionary spending is through the roof.

Remember the largest farm subsidy bill anyone had seen? The biggest increase in entitlement spending anyone can think of since The New Deal?

As usual, people who complain about government spending don't really know what the money is spent on and who is doing the most spending.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Non-military descretionary spending is through the roof.

Remember the largest farm subsidy bill anyone had seen? The biggest ineffective increase in entitlement spending anyone can think of since The New Deal?

As usual, people who complain about government spending don't really know what the money is spent on and who is doing the most spending.

Fixed that for ya.

BG