O'Neill begins his waffling

[JeffL]

Anyone listening to the interviews this morning with O'Neill? Suddenly he's backpeddling like crazy. He was caught up in the emotion of the moment and wished he hadn't said a lot of the things he said. Trying to qualify other comments. And so on.

What is baffling to me: another former Washington cabinet member said it is more common to leave with maybe a dozen or a few dozen documents. O'Neill now says he took 19,000 documents, "doesn't think any are classified", but he doesn't know because he didn't review them before giving them all to a writer. Even though at least the page he was waving around in the 60 Minutes interview had Classified written on it. Yeah, maybe it was just the cover page (even though the cover page of a Classified document is also classified) but what in the hell is he doing giving a writer 19,000 documents that he didn't review?

He also said that he'd vote for Bush because he doesn't see anyone else more qualified. That he didn't fault the administration for adopting the contingency plan from the previous administration for Iraq, although he was surprised it was an agenda item in the first Cabinet meeting.

Even if you don't like Bush, this guy (who was attacked like crazy by the Democrats when he was in the Cabinet) sounds less than reliable.

[chet]

How long did it take the administration to decide their should be an investigation into this matter?

How long did it take for them to decide to investigate the CIA agent leak?

Yeah, priorities are dead on.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

O'Neill gave author Ron Suskind two compact discs containing 19,000 documents from his 23 months as Bush's Treasury chief. O'Neill said the records were given to him by the department's lawyers, who should have removed any classified material.

"I don't honestly think there's anything that's classified in those 19,000 documents," O'Neill told NBC's "Today."

I don't see any backpeddling by him over his major allegations, just the name calling, but Rush it up. Make the unimportant the important.

And I love how Bush supporters always have to add the disclaimer, "even if you don't like bush..." Like wow! How can I deny what you say now! You said I have to believe it even if I don't like Bush!!!

Chet

[Lizard_King]

Doesn't sound like waffling to me either (the actual quotes). Paul O'Neill is suddenly a pariah for telling the truth as he sees it? For being honest about his perception of the administration and his decisions? Give me a break.

I liked him when he was in charge and he still seems the same eminently decent, competent man now. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that comes out of his mouth or pen, but all these hystrionics about treason seem overblown to say the least.

[Jason McCullough]

The straight-shooter thing was always cool.....or rather, it'd be cool if he wasn't the Treasury secretary sending the money markets all to hell with flippant comments. Pretty much agree with Delong's assessment:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/003032.html

Amusing bit about the "classified" docs: they were sent to him by the Treasury after he resigned!

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/mov...es/000010.html

[JeffL]

I don't see any backpeddling by him over his major allegations, just the name calling, but Rush it up. Make the unimportant the important.

And I love how Bush supporters always have to add the disclaimer, "even if you don't like bush..." Like wow! How can I deny what you say now! You said I have to believe it even if I don't like Bush!!!

Chet

Oh, bullshit. I love it how Bush haters assume anyone who says anything that challenges anything at all that helps besmirch Bush is a "Bush supporter." If the Democrats could come up with a decent candidate I'd be REALLY happy. Believe it or not, there are some folks who can see more than one side of things and think about things without an agenda. I heard the interview, and O'Neill was backpeddling big time - you could see it and hear it, and Katy was surprised by it.

I suppose the comment that "even if you don't like Bush" ISN'T true - it appears that if you hate Bush you aren't going to allow a thought that might interfere with that.

[chet]

So much rage.

Why would you add the comment, "even if you don't like bush" unless you were trying to deflect any comment before hand. That is just a stupid thing to say, the point stands on its own, you are just trying to color the point before it is even read.

And I call you a bush supporter, not because of this post alone, but because of the 500 posts on here lately whenever any dares to question your beloved GWB, you go off screaming like some 14 year old girl whose brother just said N'Sync sucks .

And why would besmirching bush, make you a bush supporter?

But the rest of your post is just as funny, you dismiss all of the democratic canidates, and then tell me how you see more than one side of things... good stuff. At this point you are just trolling, right?

Chet

[Anaxagoras]

But the rest of your post is just as funny, you dismiss all of the democratic canidates, and then tell me how you see more than one side of things... good stuff. At this point you are just trolling, right?

Nah... he really believes his own non-sense. Most of the Bush supporters do. That's what makes them so effective.... they are true Believers, which is what makes them so goddamn dangerous. They'll invade several countries, erode civil liberties, and allow the rich to rape the poor, and all the while they'll really Believe that it's all for the good of the country. Hell.. it's for the good of the whole world.

By the way, nice post Chet.

[XPav]

Brad Delong is reading the book and posting the doozies that come out of it.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/

[JeffL]

So much rage.

Why would you add the comment, "even if you don't like bush" unless you were trying to deflect any comment before hand. That is just a stupid thing to say, the point stands on its own, you are just trying to color the point before it is even read.

And I call you a bush supporter, not because of this post alone, but because of the 500 posts on here lately whenever any dares to question your beloved GWB, you go off screaming like some 14 year old girl whose brother just said N'Sync sucks .

And why would besmirching bush, make you a bush supporter?

But the rest of your post is just as funny, you dismiss all of the democratic canidates, and then tell me how you see more than one side of things... good stuff. At this point you are just trolling, right?

Chet

Why would I add the comment "even if you don't like Bush?" Because in general, if anyone makes a comment on here that even hints that someone who attacks him may be off-base, people go ape-shit attacking that person. Because it is so rare to see most people here who don't like Bush make anything that even looks like an even-handed comment.

"When anyone even dares to attack my beloved Bush????" "screaming?" What is this, junior high? I'm not a Bush fan, I'm in favor of tax cuts but think that doing that while not only not cutting spending but increasing spending is completely fiscally irresponsible, I think his actions recently with regard to the borders and illegal immigrants is blatant pandering to try to get some of the Hispanic vote, I think much of the Patriot Act is just fundamentally wrong, I think his ability to communicate - change that - I think lack of a desire to communicate his visions to the country is a lack of understanding of one of the key functions of a leader, and I could go on. I do approve of the removal of Saddam, the hunt-and-destroy commitment on terrorism, the ouster of the regime in Afghanistan. But on balance, I would prefer someone else in that chair.

And I don't really give a damn whether that person is a Democrat or Republican, I'd prefer McCain, I could think about Gephart, if Wesley Clark could demonstrate that he would surround himself with good advisors and a good cabinet I'd think hard about him. Lieberman is someone who I've often said that I believe I could support. But Dean is the clear Democratic choice at this point, and I don't like him at all, and I'd also never vote for Kerry.

And why in the hell am I responding to your childish rant? sheesh. The point of the original post was that O'Neill was backing up so fast he needed to have a light flashing above his head and a beeper. I didn't expect that to threaten people so. The guy said Bush was an idiot, a blind man in a room of deaf people, that he didn't understand what was going on around him, portrayed him as a complete, non-engaged doofus. Then he turns around and says he wished he could take all that back, that he was tired when he said that stuff from all the hours of interviews and did't really mean it, in fact he'd vote for Bush for President. I'm not sure why that isn't an obvious waffling and backing down.

[Brian Rucker]

Once in a blue moon I watch Hardball and Chris Matthews was on about how 'somebody must have gotten to this guy' and compared it to a scene in Godfather where a witness recanted under mob pressure.

Who knows why he's saying what he's saying now? Maybe it is all out of context. Any of us read a book that isn't out yet? On the other hand, it could be that he finds the new pressures and criticism he's under too much and wants to get away from it. Or perhaps someone does have something on him? Who knows?

[bago]

He blurts out something, causes a big reaction, and backs down.

That's why he got fired.

[Bub, Andrew]

Because in general, if anyone makes a comment on here that even hints that someone who attacks him may be off-base, people go ape-shit attacking that person. Because it is so rare to see most people here who don't like Bush make anything that even looks like an even-handed comment.

This is a really insulting--and completely inaccurate--paragraph Jeff. And I don't even participate in most of these political arguments. From what I've seen here, this is one of the more balanced and respectful boards I've ever seen. Plus this crap makes it look like Chet's right, you are trolling.

[JeffL]

Because in general, if anyone makes a comment on here that even hints that someone who attacks him may be off-base, people go ape-shit attacking that person. Because it is so rare to see most people here who don't like Bush make anything that even looks like an even-handed comment.

This is a really insulting--and completely inaccurate--paragraph Jeff. And I don't even participate in most of these political arguments. From what I've seen here, this is one of the more balanced and respectful boards I've ever seen. Plus this crap makes it look like Chet's right, you are trolling.

Right Andrew. I start a thread asking if people had heard O'Neill's backpeddling that morning, saying that while he had earlier called Bush an incompetent bozo, he now says he didn't mean it and wishes he could take it back, plus he would vote for Bush for president. That's a pretty significant turn of events and interesting in why he would suddenly change his stance. I was interested in what folks thought caused O'Neill to make such a dramatic set of comments.

And in return for that post I get called a "Bush lover", that I'm acting like Rush Limbaugh, attacked because I said that I thought folks on either side of the political spectrum must find that interesting, etc. That kind of knee jerk reaction is why I took a hiatus from reading or posting in this section for a while.

[Kyle Wilson]

I'm with Jeff. I don't have a high opinion of Bush, but I find the knee-jerk Bush hatred around here a little off-putting.

[Jason McCullough]

I think your problem is in Chet's general direction, sir. :D

[JeffL]

And obviously my comments don't apply to everyone - I love to debate/argue with Jason, for example, who has never met a conservative of any ilk who ever had a worthwhile thought - but Jason makes a good argument and it's usually data based or at least an opinion based on reasonable data, rather than an emotive knee-jerk. I just get weary of the people who live to rant. (and of course, no one's forcing me to read the threads, which is why I take a break when it gets too frustrating to me.)

But back to what was the intended topic - I do wonder what was behind O'
Neill's sudden "clarifications" - suddenly he's pratically apologizing and saying he'd vote for the guy he called a buffoon. I can understand a high ego guy being bitter about being attacked from everyone while in office and then being fired in a high profile manner; I can't understand why the backing down.

edit: I typed this before seeing Jason's comment. ;)

[JeffL]

I think your problem is in Chet's general direction, sir. :D

Yeah, that and going on about 4 hours sleep in two days due to a little health thing going on. That always makes me react a bit more emotively than usual.

[Midnight Son]

I'm with Jeff. I don't have a high opinion of Bush, but I find the knee-jerk Bush hatred around here a little off-putting.

He got hated the old fashioned way: He EARNED it.