For a more detailed analysis of the O’Neill story, see Katherine‘s post below. My InstaReaction to the Sixty Minutes’ interview was:
1. O’Neill is telling the truth, as he understands it, but
2. O’Neill’s truth does not necessarily accord with the generally-accepted definition thereof.
In other words, O’Neill is credible without being believable. He definitely saw something, but it may have been a weather balloon and not the UFO that he insists upon. Undoubtably, then, this story will energize the usual suspects, but it will be brushed off by everyone else, left to sink by the media, and ultimately have no effect on the election. The classic “story/nope” reaction one sees with the grey cases.
That’s my sense of it, at least. I leave it to you whether my “sense” accords with the generally-accepted definition thereof.
Von, you are even-handed to a fault, but that’s part of your charm. As for the story being brushed off, maybe, tho’ this is the sort of thing that manages to add to existing impressions, and, sometimes, create some new ones. And the media will chew on this for a while, at least until they can get someone, off-the-record or not, to call O’Neill ‘disgruntled’ or worse.
And maybe it’s just me, but every sentence Katherine quoted sounds not only possible, but probable. Oh, and if Tac comes looking for me, tell him I’m not here. 🙂
And maybe it’s just me, but every sentence Katherine quoted sounds not only possible, but probable.
I don’t doubt that Bush pretty much acted exactly as O’Neill described — but O’Neill’s weird enough that I just don’t trust the conclusions he draws. He’s just so . . . what’s the technical word for it? Oh, yeah: wierd.
Oh, and if Tac comes looking for me, tell him I’m not here. 🙂
You’re secret’s safe with me.
Yeah, and rich weird, which is the weirdest weird of all.
Von, was that Tac or Mac, who would be looking for you.
OK, I just walked in from my usual Sunday evening roleplaying game session. Can somebody tell me, using a calm and rational tone that does not assume that I’m being mendacious and/or willfully obtuse, what precisely the significance of all of this was?
So do you think O’Neill also heard Bush and the national security folks discuss the situations in and available options with North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya and other trouble spots?
I don’t see anything wrong with discussing military options regarding Iraq in 2000; I am sure it was discussed by the Clinton administration many times between 1992 and 2000, and by the Bush 41 administration prior to that.
Moe, hard to say what the significance is. Von and I have already traded ideas re the politics of it. If you’re talking about the objective truth of it, well, who knows? Folks came out of the Clinton WH with good-Bill and bad-Bill stories. I’m assuming the Bush admin. will be no different.
O’Neill seems to fall into the maybe-not-so-good-George category. Tho’ maybe we should wait for the book. And Frederick’s probably right re discussing military options, tho’ the latter is different from planning an invasion.
I think it’s unfortunate that so much has attention has been lavished on O’Neal’s allegations about Iraq, as there seems to be plenty of other material in there…
That said, does anyone really think there was much of a “debate” within the administration about whether to do Iraq?
as there seems to be plenty of other material in there…
I agree, Praktike. Take this for what it’s worth — for I’m in large part supportive of the effort to remove Saddam — but I find the notions of the subject being discussed in Bush’s first nat’l security meeting to be, well, yawn.
The tax cut issues, though less sexy, may in fact be far more damning.
Von, yup, or the general malaise — malaise! — suggested by this (via Calpundit):
“According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.”
Works for me.
In the interests of time I read the write up only. All talk of invading Iraq pre 9/11 doesnt really suprise me. and I am sure that the way events unfolded after 9/11 make the picture more damning than it really is.
the tax cut stuff is way more interesting and hopefully someone dig further to uncover more information that points to why the second cut, while nice, was bad policy.
and the quote of bush asking “Haven’t we already given money to rich people?” I have a hard time believing even bush can ask so foolish a question.
Yes, the tax cut issues are big. I think that the “didn’t we already give money to rich people?” quote is pretty embarrassing, as is the stuff about Cheney.
As for the Iraq stuff, I wasn’t saying I agreed that there was a secret plan to invade Iraq; I think it was just a backburner thing that some in the administration were advocating, and it got frontburner status after 9/11. We know from lots of past adminstrations that people advocate all sorts of policies, and there’s a jostling process that goes on as official’s compete for the President’s attention. Take Bosnia under Clinton, for instance. Lake and others were pushing to get involved a lot earlier than we did. Plans were made in support of that, I imagine. But it took awhile and a media drumbeat before anything happened.
That said, I think it’s clear that the whole UN campaign was about getting the UN to back and invasion, and clearly not about WMD per se.
btw, how about a backscratch link to http://www.americanfooprint.com?
I apologize that I haven’t seen or read O’Neill’s interview so perhaps I shouldn’t even comment. (I was up to 3am last night helping prepare briefs regarding a serious local government issue), but I’m not quite sure why he (or anyone) finds the Iraq discussions odd or of concern. Since regime change has been US policy since 1998 it would be incumbent on a new NSC to address it.
Also, (again without hearing the interview) I can say that I don’t think O’Neill ought to be talking about “the price of loyalty”. People had been calling for his head for a very long time. There was a great deal of criticism in conservative circles about Bush’s “foolish loyalty” to his appointments and Bush took heat (and for a very extended period of time) from many quarters. So regardless of the merits of what O’Neill has to say today, Bush went way beyond the norm and burned up a fair bit of political capital on O’Neill’s behalf. Paul O’ apparently knows as much about the price of loyalty as he did about Argentine currency.
Also, (again without hearing the interview) I can say that I don’t think O’Neill ought to be talking about “the price of loyalty”. People had been calling for his head for a very long time.
Yes, and let’s not forget the O’Neill had a habit of sending markets into a tailspin with an ill-timed or ill-considered remark. Price of loyalty or no, any president had justification for dumping him.
I guess it’s the damn librul media — though this would be an example of stupidity, not bias — but everybody’s leading with the Iraq stuff. Though everyone here seems to be in agreement: they wanted to take Saddam off the board. Gee. Big surprise.
On the other hand, the Big O’s comments re WMD are interesting. (Though not worth debating for the 33,456th time.) The comments re Bush’s ‘management style’ (code for he’s a doofus) and tax stuff also. And then of course the material that naturally warms my heart: Cheney is Satan, er, ‘an unstoppable force.’
As for getting dumped, wasn’t that due to his opposition to the tax cuts?
I’m still waiting for substantive refutation from the Bush administration about O’Neill’s claim that Bush is disengaged.
Why refute the unsubstantiated? Why even bother commenting on it?
19,000 documents, Slati.
1) It’s Slarti.
2) Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over?
Sorry, I have a congenital defect that prevents me from reading r’s.
19k documents of what, where? Perhaps I ought to have been more specific. The dropped r was just poking fun.
Oh, sorry. Suskind says he has 19,000 documents–many of them classified, some of them O’Neill’s hand-written notes from high-level meetings–that were given to him by O’Neill.
That sounds substantiated to me.
er, pages of document, I mean.
Ah. So, we don’t have to just take O’Neill’s spoken word for it, we also have his
Oh, Jeebus, Slarti.
Suskind conducted hundreds of interviews, with several other cabinet officials speaking off the record. O’Neill didn’t write all of those 19,000 pages himself. Read the DiIulio letter, too, while you’re thinking about this.
Keep talking nonsense, and I’ll take that “r” away from you again.
Now I’m going to have to beat the shirt out of you, praktike.
DiIulio on Bush:
In my view, President Bush is a highly admirable person of enormous personal decency. He is a godly man and a moral leader. He is much, much smarter than some people—including some of his own supporters and advisers—seem to suppose. He inspires personal trust, loyalty, and confidence in those around him. In many ways, he is all heart. Clinton talked “I feel your pain.” But as Bush showed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, he truly does feel deeply for others and loves this country with a passion.
Bastard. Could he have possibly been more denigrating?
Oh, sorry. Suskind says he has 19,000 documents–many of them classified
Excuse me?
“denegrating”, even. Hey, even I screw up spelling from time to time.
Keep reading, Slarti. That r of yours in on shaky ground:
Gosh…the number of times the name “Bush” appears in that clip is simply uncountable.
I’d have to be a read-between-the-lines kind of guy (in spades) to concede you’ve got anything resembling a point, there. Sorry.
Oh, sorry. Suskind says he has 19,000 documents–many of them classified
Excuse me?
Exactly. As exciting as it is for all of us to be privy to O’Neill’s handwritten notes of and confidential memoranda from NSC meetings,* well, WTF is going on? If true, we’d talking about a massive breach in security with potentially disasterous results. It’s potentially far, far greater than the havoc caused by outing Plame.
…but don’t worry von. Everyone so outraged about Plame will be equally ready to demand some frog-marching for O’Null.