Paul O'Neill is no ideologue, he is a true patriot

[SinisterMotives]

Perhaps you should set a height limit on signature images of, say, 100 pixels so that users won't have to scroll past excessively large images to get to the next post.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SinisterMotives
Perhaps you should set a height limit on signature images of, say, 100 pixels so that users won't have to scroll past excessively large images to get to the next post.

I don't believe vBulletin has the option to preset that. Let me look further.

 

[jones]

Everyone, the whole world disagrees with this. The support of VOTERS in your OWN party is wavering. Like recently there was a tv telethon for repubs and they had to CANCEL because everyone who called said they were not going to take it anymore and are not voting for Bush. I see it everywhere , Polls be damned! its bs.

Its very obvious that this whole population was mislead by this administration. 7 out 10 people think saddam has links to al qaeda. Bush and co were giving hints in EVERY SPEECH, sometimes refering the two and war on terrorism in the same sentence.
While Bush, powell, and rummy, NOW when asked directly say there are NO ties between the two.
I have much support for my claims, they are NOT theorys.

Ill leave it at that. Im going out. WW I hope you see the light as I have, its not too hard. Its just under the surface.

Have fun w/ this website, everything is linked to "respectable" news sources.

http://www.doyouknow.org/

http://www.doyouknow.org/topics/foreignpolicy/

Like this

The Bush Administration is spending $3 billion to set up a secret police force in Iraq, which will include ex-members of Saddam Hussein's own intelligence force.

Would like to add that I didnt always disagree with the war in iraq . I thought it was justified.

Then I turned off the TV.

 

[SinisterMotives]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I don't believe vBulletin has the option to preset that. Let me look further.

There's no technical way to enforce it. I mean you could just make it a board rule and put it in the TOS or FAQ.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Everyone, the whole world disagrees with this

The support of VOTERS in your OWN party is wavering

Polls be damned! its bs

"Infidel! There are no US soldiers in Baghdad"

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by wonderwench
I know it's bull from my memories of O'Neill's comments during his stint in this White House. At the time, his lack of discretion was often commented upon.

He was not a team player. That is why he is out.

And he is now trying to exact revenge. It is rather unusual for a departing cabinet secretary to take 19,000 secret documents.

Wow. Where's the link to prove that he took 19,000 secret documents? Where's the link to prove he took ONE secret document?


-Bam

 

[jones]

Bamthin you must be having fun too! Ok, i really gotta go now.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Wow. Where's the link to prove that he took 19,000 secret documents? Where's the link to prove he took ONE secret document?


-Bam

Where's the link to prove anything in his book or coming out of his mouth now is true?

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Where's the link to prove anything in his book or coming out of his mouth now is true?

I suppose they are in the 19,000 secret documents?


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
I suppose

That's just it, you suppose. Why did he wait 2 years to speak up? Why didn't he show the documents to someone earlier? Why aren't at least some of the documents being going public, wouldn't that bolster his claim?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by jimnyc
What, being clueless?

Nah, just seeing Howdy-Doody (<i>Dubbyuh <b>does</b> look like Howdy-Doody</i>) outed for the monster he really is. While Bill "Goatboy" Clinton couldn't (can't ) keep his pecker in his pants, consensual sex in the Oval Office pales beside lying to justify a war of aggression.

 

[jimnyc]

I noticed you couldn't help but respond to 'clueless'.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
What, guys getting fired and stealing sensitive documents on their way out?

"Interviewed on NBC's "Today" show Tuesday, O'Neill said he had asked the Treasury Department's chief legal counsel "to have the documents that are OK for me to have" for use in the book entitled, "The Price of Loyalty."


They gave him the documents. Now they want to launch an inquiry. This is getting good.

LINK


-Bam

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Nah, just seeing Howdy-Doody (<i>Dubbyuh <b>does</b> look like Howdy-Doody</i>) outed for the monster he really is. While Bill "Goatboy" Clinton couldn't (can't ) keep his pecker in his pants, consensual sex in the Oval Office pales beside lying to justify a war of aggression.

Wrong bp, he looks like Alfred E. Newman; all you libs are so offbase on the important issues!

 

[jimnyc]

#1 - your link is bogus
#2 - has anything written by O'neill been verified by showing the documents he has yet?

Come back again when he's willing to backup his statements, and you learn how to link properly.

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
#1 - your link is bogus
#2 - has anything written by O'neill been verified by showing the documents he has yet?

Come back again when he's willing to backup his statements, and you learn how to link properly.

Haha! Does this link work?

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

LINK



-Bam

 

[Bullypulpit]

<a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=>By PAUL KRUGMAN</a>

<i>People are saying terrible things about George Bush. They say that his officials weren't sincere about pledges to balance the budget. They say that the planning for an invasion of Iraq began seven months before 9/11, that there was never any good evidence that Iraq was a threat and that the war actually undermined the fight against terrorism.

But these irrational Bush haters are body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freaks who should go back where they came from: the executive offices of Alcoa, and the halls of the Army War College...

So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts. They have, however, already opened an investigation into how a picture of a possibly classified document appeared during Mr. O'Neill's TV interview. This alacrity stands in sharp contrast with their evident lack of concern when a senior administration official, still unknown, blew the cover of a C.I.A. operative because her husband had revealed some politically inconvenient facts.

Some will say that none of this matters because Saddam is in custody, and the economy is growing. Even in the short run, however, these successes may not be all they're cracked up to be. More Americans were killed and wounded in the four weeks after Saddam's capture than in the four weeks before. The drop in the unemployment rate since its peak last summer doesn't reflect a greater availability of jobs, but rather a decline in the share of the population that is even looking for work.

More important, having a few months of good news doesn't excuse a consistent pattern of dishonest, irresponsible leadership. And that pattern keeps getting harder to deny. </i>

No, it's only been apparent from the inception of his political career. Dubbyuh has been involved in more shady business and plotical deals than you can shake a stick at. You can find out about them at the Texas Observer website, Greg Pallast's website, or any of Molly Ivin's books about our great leader.

I say, nominate Mr. O'Neil for the highest civilian honor Congress can bestow. BTW, click on <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?pagewanted=print&position=>By PAUL KRUGMAN</a>
for a link to the full text of his editorial.

 

[jimnyc]

Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

And? This started with the Clinton Administration. Not exactly startling information. Is this all he has from 19,000 documents?

I say, nominate Mr. O'Neil for the highest civilian honor Congress can bestow.

Thanks for the laugh, BP!

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And? This started with the Clinton Administration. Not exactly startling information. Is this all he has from 19,000 documents?

It appears you did not read the whole article:

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."




There the Bushites go again asking not to be identified. I guess I can understand in this case though. We all see what happens when you speak out against Dubya.


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,"

You mean to tell me the president had officials look into military options against a country that we have had problems with for 9 years at the time? Tell me it isn't so, what an illogical thing to do.

There the Bushites go again asking not to be identified. I guess I can understand in this case though. We all see what happens when you speak out against Dubya.

As opposed to claiming to have documents of proof? Speaking of which, you haven't answered me yet - why haven't these documents been released? When will they be released? Wouldn't that make sense to avoid all the confusion? I'm wondering why he hasn't done so yet.