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

[Psychoblues]

Paul has served under presidents for several decades now. Republican and Democratic alike, his service, according to them, has been superb. His expressions considering this latest is certainly not indicative of any unpatriotic or disgruntled opinion. They reflect his honest opinions concerning management style and facts to which he was exposed. Why would any intelligent person have a problem with that?

 

[jimnyc]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040112/ts_nm/bush_oneill_dc_8

 

[Psychoblues]

That's just sour grapes from the admin., jimnyc. I watched the program. The "secret" delegation was related to a cover sheet. But I guess a case can be promulgated that it was something more ominous. We'll see in the coming days.

 

[wonderwench]

John Fund said it well:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2000

 

[jimnyc]

True patriot.

 

[Psychoblues]

There's a thing or two I've learned about numbers crunchers in my life. They are without any abundant sense of humor and they tell it like they see it. But maybe you just can't stand any critisism?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
There's a thing or two I've learned about numbers crunchers in my life. They are without any abundant sense of humor and they tell it like they see it. But maybe you just can't stand any critisism?

Nope, I just see it for what it all is - sour grapes. Most likely a thief too if he isn't supposed to have all those documents.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
There's a thing or two I've learned about numbers crunchers in my life. They are without any abundant sense of humor and they tell it like they see it. But maybe you just can't stand any critisism?

Hey! I'm a number cruncher and I have a pretty dang good sense of humor, even if I do say so myself.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Hey! I'm a number cruncher and I have a pretty dang good sense of humor, even if I do say so myself.

(We really could use a few additions to the smilies selection, hint hint.)

 

[jones]

Thanks for pointing out the spin jim.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by wonderwench
(We really could use a few additions to the smilies selection, hint hint.)

Make a post down in the chat section and include all the new smilies you want. I'll make sure they get uploaded!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Thanks for pointing out the spin jim.

Nope, just reporting the news. He's under investigation for having secret documents. I just pointed out the obvious, that if he did he is a thief.

 

[jones]

His first obligation as a public servant is to be truthful to the public. The White House is the entity retaliating, thats EXACTLY LIKE a corporation launching an investigation into someone who tells the truth about whats going on inside. However, in this case ITS HIS DUTY.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
His first obligation as a public servant is to be truthful to the public. The White House is the entity retaliating, thats the corporation launching an investigation into someone who tells the truth about whats going on inside. However, in this case ITS HIS DUTY.

And how do you know HE isn't the one retaliating from being fired? You would rather just make that assumption without waiting for all the facts to come out?

 

[jones]

Who cares if HES retaliating. He rightfully should get back at them for wrongful termination. Actually I believe that cheney asked him to resign. But whats really important is whats revealed in the authors book(ya, hes not writing it, just quoted).

 

[jimnyc]

Who cares if HES retaliating.

So it's wrong if that's what the administration does but it's ok if it's O'neill. Gotcha!

He rightfully should get back at them for wrongful termination.

Did O'neill file a claim about wrongful termination? Did he express this on the news that he was wrongfully fired?

But whats really important is whats revealed in the authors book(ya, hes not writing it, just quoted).

What's important is whether or not he releases the documents to prove his words. If he fails to do so then all this will be worthless and he'll come out on the bottom.

 

[jones]

Its ok (for me) if hes doing that because hes telling the truth to the public. Cheney asked him to resign because oneil questioned his motives for giving tax cuts. And you got that right, if he fails to publish the documents it is all worthless. Atleast we have his earlier statements to go on. They're priceless, exactly what we expected to see in the whitehouse.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
They're priceless, exactly what we expected to see in the whitehouse.

What, guys getting fired and stealing sensitive documents on their way out?

 

[jones]

Not only that, but all these.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

 

[wonderwench]

Originally posted by jones
Its ok (for me) if hes doing that because hes telling the truth to the public. Cheney asked him to resign because oneil questioned his motives for giving tax cuts. And you got that right, if he fails to publish the documents it is all worthless. Atleast we have his earlier statements to go on. They're priceless, exactly what we expected to see in the whitehouse.

That is b'loney.

From day one, O'Neill was a loose cannon. He shot himself in the foot with his own blathering public statements.