There was a segment on Paul O'Neil, then a segment on indian outsourcing, and a piece on a Bakery in NY that employs people that most businesses would consider "unemployable" and manages to turn a pretty good profit.
They discussed it? The President of the United States?
wow. There's a bombshell. Heavy, heavy stuff. I wonder what they did in the Clinton cabinet meetings the weeks that we were launching cruise missiles and airstrikes into Iraq. They probably never discussed taking Saddam out...
As per all the intelligence gathered during the Clinton presidency, Clinton himself said Sadam was a serious threat and needed to be dealt with. Clinton didn't have the time before he left or the desire to get in to it with Sadam. He did however leave a lot of info for Bush on the matter, none of this is new news if you followed all the details. I just wish CNN would report these things, instead it makes it look like it was all hidden, which it wasn't, just not passed along to the public in a mass forum. I personally feel some things are better decided by the people in the know.
First- There is no doubt Saddam HAD WMD's, he used them repeatedly against the Kurds and Iranians during his wars with them.
Second- Who knew when? Of course Bush knew early on, the problems with both Iraq and BinLaden were and are common knowledge in the intelligence community and should be common knowledge worldwide, just pay attention to what the escapees and dissidents have been saying. The earliest sources for the information about the Holocaust was from escapees/dissidents, most of the world simply chose not to listen, just as most of us chose not to listen when some Iraqis were trying to tell us about the purges Saddam had committed.
So where is the news here? In the networks heads, trying to drum up anything to throw a little dirt!!
Saddam needed to be dealt with only because all the oil contracts of his country s oil wells were given to European companys instead american ones. Dont let anyone else tell you otherwise. WMD and his torturing rule were just a sad excuse to invade the country.
You want proof? NO WMDs WERE FOUND!!! Plus Saddam is captured but still the us troops wont leave.
When Paul O'Neill was fired from his position for incompetence, he STOLE 19,000 pages of documents, some classified as Secret or higher. He gave them to an anti-Bush reporter who wrote a book for which Oneill is trying to drum up sales. If O'Neill is such a great patriot, wanting to save the world's oil supply from being taken over by the Evil Bushaliburtons, why didn't he make these accusations immediately, instead of waiting nearly three years?
O'neill is guilty of:
1: Treason: releasing classified documents.
2: Sour grapes: he was fired for incompetence, and is trying to get even.
3: Idiocy: Many of the stolen documents were actually plans and analyses from the Clinton administration, that were under review by the new Administration.
For those of you who are completely ignorant of the way that this country operates, there are contingency plans on conducting military and political operations in EVERY country that has a "post-stone age" technical capability, and some strategically located primitive nations.
Even for our best "friends" we have such plans. This has been true since the end of World War One. Pentagon and Division level commanders are CONSTANTLY refining these contingency plans. Plans exist for war with Canada, Mexico and yes, even Greece, not to mention those countries that have made direct threats against America or Western Civilization in general. Any administration that did not plan ahead for "the worst" would be criminally negligent.
4: Extreme Naievty: Even though SecTreas is a member of the National Security Council, he wouldn't have been shown specific military plans, or Intel reports UNLESS his own department were specifically involved. Cabinet members see classified material only on a need to know basis; Even Condi Rice, the National Security Advisor doesn't get to see everything. And since from the first day O'neill showed up for a cabinet meeting they knew they were dealing with a loose cannon, he would have been cut out of the loop even more than usual. And if O'Neill thinks that he would have been shown the "Secret Bush Family / Haliburton world domination and oil stealing plans" he is REALLY dreaming.
5: Extreme Hubris: O'neill was universially disliked by everyone in the administration within days of starting work. He felt that EVERYONE he worked with (and for) were idiots. Only he had all of the answers....
For instance, HE used his influence to force Argentina to drastically devalue their currency. He did this against the advice of Greenspan, most economics experts, most of the directors of the IMF; Argentina did follow his recommendation, plunging the entire country into the worst economic crisis in the history of the country. And this collapse of the Argentinian economy severely hurt most of its neighbors; Chile also had an economic and political collapse, Brazil, Bolivia, and even poor little old Patagonia are hurting more than usual.
AND HE WANTED THE UNITED STATES TO GREATLY DEVALUE IT'S CURRENCY ALSO, AND RAISE, not cut TAXES! And when the rest of the Administration told him he was an idiot, he went to the American and world press badmouthing the entire American Government and the business leaders that opposed his brilliant plans to plunge the entire world into a depression. Even if you don't care about the starving Argentinians, the taxpayers and financial institutions of the IMF member nations are going to be paying for this for years
6: Derelection of Duty: When the United States was at the worst point of the economic downturn he spent a couple of weeks touring Africa with some rock star (Bono). When he finally came back he demanded that the American Taxpayers send hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize and cure AIDS in Africa.
Yes, unfortunately, O'Neill WAS a Bush Appointee. He didn't really want him; did it for VP Cheney who got to be friends with him when they were working for Nixon. They are friends no longer. Cheney has little tolerance for disloyal treasonous fools.
While it isn't a direct refutation of the "The Age" article it does kind of enlighten those (that are "enlightenable" but hadn't figured it out on their own yet) that the Bush Strategery is working quite well.
Tombeis said:...So what's the problem believing Saddam had WMD's?
After all, we did find his sons after offering a big reward.
We do know he used gas against the Kurds and chemicals against Iran. Although, that was well over a decade ago...when Saddam was our ally that we supported with money and technology.
Actually, he wasn't presented to the American people as "worse than Hitler" (quote from President Bush '41) until he invaded Kuwait. This was after Saddam asked the U.S. ambassador under Bush '41 what our interest would be IF he invaded Kuwait. Answer: The U.S. does not take an interest in border disputes between Arab nations. So...he invaded.
Hmmm. Once he was in possession of Kuwait's oil...and in a position to threaten Saudi Arabia's oil...our whole perception of Saddam changed; from ally to monster.
Actually, I think he was a monster before he invaded Kuwait; a thoroughly dishonorable person that seems like a poor ally for the "land of the free and the brave". Maybe if the Reagan/Bush administration hadn't laughed at the attempts to restore energy independence to the U.S. and gutted most of the renewable energy programs, we wouldn't have felt forced to ally with such a monster. Maybe, that would free up our foreign policy right this very minute to stop cuddling up to repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia (the only country that ever attacked us with an "oil weapon").
There is an old quote; "Those that do not know history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past". Unfortunately, all too few know anything about the history of the middle east. I'm no expert, but I read, research and try to learn.
As far as energy policy and foreign policy goes, I don't feel right needing to ask my neighbors that serve in the National Guard to leave their families and risk life and limb so that I can go "fill up" for my trip to the mall. If you don't feel there is a linkage between our energy policy (or lack thereof) and our foreign policy...you are entitled to your opinion.
For myself, U.S. energy independence has become a serious priority.
MichiganMan said:...its only the Republican presidents' fault
Well, for what is worth, I also blame the Clinton administration for not doing more. Although, it was Reagan/Bush where the policy diverged from energy independence. I didn't like Nixon either for his Watergate fiasco, but at least he (a Republican) announced an initiative to get/make the U.S. energy independent. Carter didn't invent that idea, he continued on and expanded Nixon's policy.
And...since you seem to think that my post was all about being partisan...yes, I was thoroughly disgusted with Clinton's sexual affair and lying to the American public about it (geez, I hope that helps you feel better about my post about energy independence).
You know, this isn't about politics. It is about the lives of American service people and the native inhabitants of the middle east who have the fortune/mis-fortune to live right above huge deposits of oil. Our society as it exists today NEEDS energy. We will do whatever it takes to get it. I'd just rather focus that "whatever it takes" on developing energy sources here that we have in abundance; agriculture, wind and sun.
do you really think that this (and every other problem in the world?) is related and only related to oil?!
Actually, I'm sorry I posted either one of these items and I apologize for the tone which I'm sure sounds way too negative. I'm doing what I can on an issue that means something to me. Each person makes their own decisions in their own time.
Again...sorry for the tone.
You can see why I'm trying to cut down on posting.
To believe that this issue has NOTHING to do with oil IS lunacy.
Saddam obviously was a monster (now he looks like a passive little puppy in all the press releases). However, there are many other monsters that the US does not deal with-if we went to Iraq to liberate the citizens then why don't we deal with the atrocities in other countries?
A part of the war is to secure cheap oil. Ironically, our addiction to oil helps partially fuel the terrorists. We buy more and more oil, giving them more and more money and they take a portion of this money and set up terror cells. The other countries where atrocities occur don't have the means to threaten us, i.e. don't have our oil money.
to DrJ: oh, i see. just because two professors dislike what Bush is doing, it suddenly becomes the opinion of "the war college".
welll, there are two professors here at the university that agree with the war, so i guess this university likes the war.
Cheesehead: interesting argument. here is a scenario, strawman be damned:
you are in a large field. you have a rifle with 1 bullet. you can get more bullets, but it will take 2 days and cost a few billion dollars.
a hundred yards across the field you see a man with a long range rifle, severely beating a woman. (this man has averaged killing 20,000 people a year over the last 20+ years. he also may decide to reach out and touch you with his rifle...or he may hand it to one of his friends that hates you).
also a hundred yards away, you see another man with a knife, beating up a woman.
also a hundred yards away, there is another man beating a woman with a bat.
all three are 10 seconds away from death. you have 10 friends with you (the UN), and they are very busy arguing over what to do. what do you do?
do you choose to ignore all three atrocities, just because you cannot stop all of them? or do you decide to make a difference with the resources you have to stop one?
which one would you take out?
it is amazing to me how many could think that stopping a murderous madman, regardless of the reason, could be in any way a bad thing.
oh, yeah. so why isnt the beloved UN going into all these problem areas and just fixing them right up??? all that power and all those wonderful countries such as russia, germany and of course, france...why dont they just fix the world?
where is all the condemnation for the rest of the world for allowing atrocities to occur?
come on, europe, come forth and save the congo!
oh...arent the french already there? oops. they havent been doing well, have they? how many people did the wonderful european union/UN allow to die in that area?
people just love to beat up on the US, while giving "the world" a pass.