When Paul O’neill Sounds Like Tip O’neill

[Sandman]

WHEN PAUL O’NEILL SOUNDS LIKE TIP O’NEILL

Arianna Huffington
 
Struggling to reconcile the ever-widening gulf between what the Bush
administration claims to be true and what is actually true is getting
harder by the day.  Fortunately, Paul O'Neill has a timely, if disturbing,
diagnosis, backed up by some 19,000 pages of lab results: the country is
being governed not by the genial figurehead now running toward the center
in hopes of re-election but by a band of out and out fanatics.

On the administration's two defining issues, Iraq and taxes, the former
Treasury Secretary paints a scathing portrait of a cabal of closed-minded
zealots steadfastly refusing to allow anything as piddling as fact,
evidence, or truth to get in the way of their unshakable beliefs and
forgone conclusions.

According to O'Neill, invading Iraq was a Bush goal before he had even
learned where the Oval office supply closet was.  It came up just ten days
after the inauguration, at the new president’s first National Security
Council meeting.  "It was all about finding a way to do it," he says.
"That was the tone of it.  The president saying 'Go find me a way to do
this.'"

Of course, All the President's Men (and Condi, too!) did just that,
gathering a collection of dubious facts, half-truths, quarter-truths,
and--the House Specialty--no-truths (what "unpatriotic" people would call
lies) to match the desired outcome.  A slice of Nigerian yellowcake,
anyone?

But hey, why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a
perfectly good war?

The picture of a White House teeming with fanatics gets even clearer with
O'Neill's depiction of the Bush brain trust's dogged devotion to cutting
taxes for the wealthy.

And, before I go any further, one word of advice to the White House attack
dogs now unleashed on O'Neill:  If you want to belittle his bona fides,
you've got to come up with something better than saying "We didn't listen
to him when he was here.  Why should we now?"  Let's get real.  Is there
anyone more central to developing economic policy than the Treasury
Secretary?  To be any more inside, O'Neill would have to have been George
Bush's proctologist.

Now, of course, they're painting him out to be a cross between Jerry
Garcia, Karl Marx and the disgruntled former employee who just shot up
your local post office.  Yeah, what an anti-establishment wackjob: Former
CEO of Alcoa, and a friend of Don Rumsfeld's since the sixties.

Anyway, whether or not the cabinet choir of the church of tax cuts
listened to him, O'Neill certainly listened to them, and now he's doing
what this administration makes a fetish of not doing: telling the American
people what their government is really up to.  To hear O'Neill tell it,
the true believers surrounding the president, headed by Karl Rove and
O'Neill's one-time patron Dick Cheney, are all devout disciples of the
first commandment of Bush Republicans:  thou shalt cut taxes for the
wealthy, no matter what the cost to the greater good.  They have all drunk
the supply-side Kool-Aid -- and simply don't care to hear any debate on
this subject.  Or on any other for that matter.  According to O'Neill,
"That store is closed".  To disagree with the Bush clan is according to
their vast, self-serving post 9/11 definition of patriotism, to hate
America.

What's more, in classic fanatical fashion, the inner circle in the Oval
Office displays an utter intolerance of dissent.

When O'Neill, who had the gall to be concerned about the looming fiscal
crisis triggered by the growing budget deficit, argued against a second
round of tax cuts, he was quickly put in his place by Cheney.  "Reagan
proved that deficits don't matter," growled the Vice President, blithely
ignoring the nearly 20 years it took to undo the fiscal damage Reagan's
budget-busting had wrought. Besides, added Cheney, sounding less like the
most powerful #2 in history than a kid cajoling his parents into giving
him ice cream because he has cleaned his plate, "We won the mid-term
elections, this is our due."  An over-stuffed gift bag for the president’s
prosperous donor corps is our due?  Is it actually possible to so badly
misread what this country--or, indeed, democracy--is about?

It's a measure of how effectively the GOP radicals have framed the
political debate, with taxes as the root of all evil, that Paul O’Neill, a
bedrock-ribbed establishment Republican, comes across like Tip O’Neill.

Hell, it turns out even President Bush had his doubts about the virtue of
following his first round of serve-the-rich tax cuts with a heaping second
helping.  "Haven't we already given money to rich people?"  Bush asks at a
2002 meeting of his economic team.  "Shouldn't we be giving money to the
middle?"

This momentary bout of presidential scruples was quickly cured by Karl
Rove.  "Stick to principle.  Stick to principle. Don't waver," he urged
Bush repeatedly.  The principle, I suppose, being: "If we wanna win in
2004 we gotta keep our Pioneers and Rangers happy!"  Boy Genius, indeed.

The most alarming thing that emerges from O'Neill's revelations is the
total lack of leadership on Bush's part.  Just as the president was
finally outgrowing the long-standing rumors that he was a cheerful pawn in
a game he was too dumb to understand, O’Neill applies the paddles to the
“Bush as clown” image, turns on the juice, and yells, “Clear!”

At the very moment that Rove and the Bush re-election team are gearing up
to sell us the president as the macho, heroic cowboy from Crawford who is
going to keep us all safe from terrorists, despots, and Mad Cow meat, here
comes his former Treasury Secretary with his devastating assessment of
Bush as "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people".

Will this be the wakeup call that finally opens the American public's eyes
to the deadly consequences of being governed by a disengaged dolt in the
hands of a gang of brazen fanatics?

[majic]

Boy that sure is an interesting "interpretation".

[doobs]

A pro National zealot like Bush anyday, shoot first ask later, protect the homeland at all costs. I was within 4 miles of the wtc when it came down. And i never want to see anything near that again. I lost a few close friends, and if it looks like a threat smells like a threat sounds like a threat, DESTROY IT!!! What no WMD found in Iraq well good for us, cause if we left them alone they would have restored the WMD's and hmmmmmm who would they target besides israel   mmmmmmmmmmmmmm    I know the USA.
I have traveled  to the middle east, and outside of working for a living(cause the women do most of the work), the USA runs a close second in hatred. And a Bath runs a close third. And I thought the far east smelled terrible.

And if ya think Bush is bad, I wonder what Reagan would of done,
it would have been great.

gotta go I hear the sound of heads pulling out of the sand.

[Sandman]

FWIW, I was a mile from the Pentagon on 911.

[Lazerus]

Here's a take that might be a little more 'balanced'. And I won't even cut and paste it, I'll give ya the    link.

[Eagler]

Oneil has one objective - to sell his book to as many bobbleheaded admin haters as he can as quick as he can b4 it goes to the discount back rack

j another p-off fired employee with a grudge out to make more $$$ at the expense of others

i fault the admin for hiring the loser in the first place

[Dune]

Treasury Troublemaker
Paul O'Neill is all wrong all over again.
by Bruce Bartlett

When Paul O'Neill was forced out as secretary of the Treasury in December 2002, everyone knew that it was not the last time we would hear from him. Now, after a year of silence, he is speaking out in a new book, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, by Ron Suskind. A long excerpt appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Monday and O'Neill himself went on 60 Minutes to promote the book, which is based largely on interviews with O'Neill and documents provided by him.
 
The picture O'Neill paints of President Bush is that of a man totally disengaged from policymaking; an enigma, whose views on key economic issues were a mystery even to his principal economic spokesman, Paul O'Neill. In cabinet meetings, the president appeared "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people." O'Neill implies that decisions on key issues, such as the imposition of steel tariffs, were made with no regard to the substance and were based solely on politics.

One of the most serious charges made by former Secretary O'Neill is that President Bush expressed concern about the proposed 2003 tax cut being too tilted toward the rich at a November 2002 White House meeting. The book quotes the president as saying, "Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again. ... Why are we doing it again?" It goes on to say that he was talked out of these reservations by his political adviser, Karl Rove, who said that Bush must "stick to principle."

Although the books cites a transcript of this meeting provided by O'Neill, participants in the meeting tell me that no such statements were ever made. Former Council of Economic Advisors Chairman R. Glenn Hubbard states flatly, "The president never made any of the distributional comments referred to in the interview." Cesar Conda, Vice President Dick Cheney's domestic policy advisor, also told me that the president never said anything about giving money to rich people. Referring to his own notes of the meeting, Conda said that the discussion was about extending depreciation rules that were due to expire, not about reducing income-tax rates.

Conda is also critical of O'Neill's portrayal of the debate surrounding the imposition of steel tariffs in March 2002. The Wall Street Journal excerpt clearly implies that Vice President Cheney supported the tariff decision, when in fact he opposed it. At the meeting O'Neill refers to, Cheney was simply acting as an honest broker, keeping his personal views private. Vice President Cheney generally made his views known to the president only in one-on-one meetings, so as to facilitate discussion in open meetings.

Although O'Neill portrays himself as the principal opponent of steel tariffs, in fact he was AWOL at a critical moment in the tariff debate. According to a Sept. 19, 2003, report in the Washington Post, at a crucial meeting of the economic team, tariff opponents were abandoned by O'Neill, who sent an underling in his place. Lacking the stature of the Treasury secretary to beat down tariff supporters like Commerce Secretary Don Evans, the opponents essentially lost by default.

O'Neill would have us believe that he was the only honest man in an administration of sycophants. Another interpretation would be that he was simply ill-suited to the job he had been given, too used to being the boss and incapable of taking direction, too interested in doing things his own way instead of the way his boss wanted them done, and too easily led to believe that outspokenness is the same thing as honesty.

Even without the details made public in this book, we know that Paul O'Neill was not a very effective Treasury secretary. Looking through my files I find headlines like these from his tenure:

"All Thumbs at Treasury," Washington Post (5/20/01)
"Mr. O'Neill's Gaffes," Washington Post (8/01/02)

"Treasury Secretary Gets Into Hot Water On U.S. Cuba Policy," Wall Street Journal (3/15/02)

"O'Neill Solidifies Maverick Status With Public Jabs at Bush Policies," Wall Street Journal (3/18/02)


On Oct. 2, 2001, the New York Times had this to say: "Mr. O'Neill's erratic statements have sometimes rattled investors and ... marginalized him as a policymaker and spokesman."

You get the idea. Yet O'Neill never improved. He continued to go out of his way to be out of step with the Bush administration, both substantively and stylistically, right up until the end. The only question is why he wasn't fired sooner.

O'Neill may think he is getting revenge on a president he believes treated him shabbily. But I think that all he has really done is remind people of why he never should have been named Treasury secretary in the first place.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200401140846.asp

[Mini D]

Ah sandman....  weazel jr.  Does he send you these clips or do you find them yourself?

You're qoute of scathing commentary and lack of contribution to discussion are duly noted.

MiniD

[Dowding]

You're qoute of scathing commentary and lack of contribution to discussion are duly noted.

You have been judged!

Thanks for your contribution, MiniD.

[kappa]

How can you guys just toss O'Neils statements to the side? Doesnt he have some 19,000 pieces of evidence in the form of minutes, emails, and other corispondence to back up his claims? That means nothing to you guys?? The fact that he has articles of paper proving GB wanted to go into Iraqi pre-911 means nothing to you guys? The  fact that our president has a better relationship with our secratary of defence than our secratary of the treasury during a depresion? This means nothing??

No matter how close you guys were to any 911 happenings, your president was far far away.. Far away in florida(?) reading a story to preschoolers about a goat(?)... Far enough away he had no worries about being under attack.. Far enough away that even after being told an airliner had crashed into one of the World Towers, he continued to read his story to the children...

[Eagler]

Originally posted by kappa
No matter how close you guys were to any 911 happenings, your president was far far away.. Far away in florida(?) reading a story to preschoolers about a goat(?)... Far enough away he had no worries about being under attack.. Far enough away that even after being told an airliner had crashed into one of the World Towers, he continued to read his story to the children...

Now, this is funny cheese LOL

[Frodo]

" How can you guys just toss O'Neils statements to the side? Doesnt he have some 19,000 pieces of evidence in the form of minutes, emails, and other corispondence to back up his claims? That means nothing to you guys?? The fact that he has articles of paper proving GB wanted to go into Iraqi pre-911 means nothing to you guys? The fact that our president has a better relationship with our secratary of defence than our secratary of the treasury during a depresion? This means nothing??  "


I think Kappa summed it up pretty well.  

Frodo

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Dowding
You have been judged!

Thanks for your contribution, MiniD.

Judged? Nope.  Labelled.  It's hard to judge someone when they don't say anything.

Though... you have been judged... and dubbed "stalker".  Or did you actually have something to say in a thread where nobody is really saying anything?

MiniD

[Dowding]

Yeah, I'm stalking you.

[kappa]

Originally posted by Eagler
Now, this is funny cheese LOL

Funny? What these facts seem to suggest is far from funny.. Very scary I would think to be a better description.. And now with O'Neil's accusations coming to light, even more...

Unless you find yourself in the top earning 2% of the country, everything Pres. Bush has done to date is a slap in the face. Most recently our president offers amnesty to illegal immigrants taking away more American jobs. Legalizing American corporations to import ever more desperate people to work for less thereby increasing their own pockets should be viewed as a slap in the face by Americans. These illegal folks eventually will build value and take away better paying jobs from Americans.

Why is it so difficult for some to see Dubya for what he is? Why is it so difficult to see where Dubya’s interest lay? To understand who’s interest our president fights for..