------------------------------
Right now, Mr. Fund's statement seems very prophetic, while, of course, Paul O'Neill's confused and contradictory statements do indeed seem pathetic (rhyme intended). Truly, Mr. O'Neill's confident interview with Katie Couric on Monday gave way soon after one of the centerpiece documents put on display, a document which he claimed showed how the President and his staff had planned on dividing up Iraq's oil fields, turned out instead to be a classified document from Cheney's energy summit which mapped the world's oil reserves and the way various nations were invested in those resources.
Now Mr. O'Neill is facing a possible investigation over this classified document, though, admittedly, it has been readily available to the public via the Judicial Watch website for several months. I seriously doubt there will be a full-scale investigation, but just the fact that Mr. O'Neill was willing to release this document, along with over 19,000 other documents, many of which are likely classified, says something of the man's character, don't you think?
Well, just as O'Neill's original statements sent waves rippling out into the political world, inciting folks such as Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy to immediately accuse President Bush of manipulating 9-11 for personal reasons, I would imagine Mr. O'Neill's complete flip-flop (does that sound familiar) would have some ripple effects as well.
The only problem is that the major news networks, which aired O'Neill's original statements and interviewed him en masse seem uninterested in giving any major coverage to the fact that O'Neill's claims were, at best, "exaggerated." Kudos at least to the Today Show and to Katie Couric for at least taking the time to follow up with Mr. O'Neill to ask for clarification.
Time to do a little prophesying myself:
This whole manufactured "scandal" will never be raised as an issue by whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for the 2004 election. By then, Mr. O'Neill's reputation will be nil with both Democrats and Republicans and only the extreme left blogs (can you say, "Dem-o-crat-ic Un-der-ground?) will try and keep the issue alive. O'Neill is already trying to slink away from all the controversy he has generated, as if he had no clue regarding the impact of his words. If that is true, then no wonder Bush fired him.
Nuff said.
David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Good job David, thanks! He does seem to be crawling off to a corner, seemingly surprised that the administration is addressing his allegations directly and forcefully. He's a statistic.
2 - Craig Lyndall
I am not the lefty around here and most of the people around here would attest to that. BUT, don't you think the chances are high that following some of these statements there were some significant threats made to O'Neill? It wouldn't surprise me if someone made a not-so tacit threat on his life. I don't buy all of what he said, but then again it wouldn't surprise me if some of what he said was true. And I voted for Bush.
3 - Eric Olsen
Who would have made these threats? And of course there was some truth to what he wrote, it's just that the spin he put on it for publicity's sake has now been completely retracted.
4 - David Flanagan
I agree with what Eric has said. In addition, I think what happened was that Paul O'Neill likely was prepped by the publisher on how to "sell" his book. The truth of the matter is, if you want to sell a lot of copies of a politically-oriented book, there has to be something juicy there to attract your audience.
But I think he went too far AND, in some ways, I think he was used by liberals who are eager to damage the President in any way they can. I know, I'm sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but one blog that I often visit, http://www.camedwards.com, posted an interesting theory. Cam noted that, very often, Clinton's scandals started out very small and grew over time, while Bush's scandals started out big and wound up shrinking to nothing over time.
In his opinion, it was due to the lack of substance on the part of Bush accusers, but when they think they have something on the President, or even if they do not, they make as much political hay out of it as possible, with help from liberal media, of course, then just let it drop later. The goal of these manufactured scandals is just to hurt the Prez as much as possible before the whole thing withers away.
If you want to read the post by Cam, you can go to http://www.camedwards.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/857.
Thanks. :-)
David Flanagan
5 - Craig Lyndall
I have no proof and I have no leads or suggestions as to who would have done that. All I am saying is that any situation where there is a whole lot of money involved like politics will be open game for people who have enough interest to make threats. I was just pulling it out of my ass and throwing it out there to see what other people thought. It seems like an oddly sudden retraction.
6 - David Flanagan
It seems like an oddly sudden retraction.
Craig,
I agree with you here. It seems very sullen and somewhat fearful perhaps, but VERY unusual in the way he retracts, almost like some kind of witness in a court case whose been threatened by the mafia or something, right?
With that said, I believe there are two reasons why threats were not the reason for his retraction:
1) Typically, books like this come along and make a big splash and go away. No way any of the issues raised in O'Neill's book would have enough life to last until November. Politically speaking, it makes sense to do what Bush did the other day, just leave it be and let it die.
2) Threats, veiled or overt could prove far more disasterous than the original accusations from O'Neill. If such a thing went public in a verifiable way, it would turn this issue into a HUGE scandal for Bush.
Those are just my theories, but truly, I don't think O'Neill was threatened in any way other than when the Treasury Department decided to investigate O'Neill for the use of a classified document during his TV interview. Ultimately, I think O'Neill was blown away by the magnitude of the attention he attracted to himself with his book. He just wants to sell a book and make some money, not launch investigations and elevate the already overblown rhetoric coming from Washington.
Thanks. :-)
David Flanagan
7 - Nyx
He's a weasel. Like everyone in the Bush administration.
8 - Craig Lyndall
Good points David. Like I said, I have no proof. I especially like your point about the scandal of the threats being a potentially bigger issue than his original statements.
9 - David Flanagan
He's a weasel. Like everyone in the Bush administration.
We are ALL weasels! Everyone in the whole WORLD is a weasel!!!!!!!
Sorry, I'll pull myself together now.
David Flanagan
10 - Hal Pawluk
This whole manufactured "scandal" will never be raised as an issue by whoever becomes the Democratic candidate for the 2004 election.
You're right because O'Neill's statement is unnecessary - the Dems have plenty of ammunition on the same topic: last week's Carnegie report, the War College report, Woodward's book, etc.
It was a trumped-up war for political gain.
11 - David Flanagan
It was a trumped-up war for political gain.
I disagree. The fact is, you and other liberals who so adamantly oppose the ouster of Saddam would not have a problem with this if it were Al Gore who had decided to finally hold Saddam accountable.
The issue over Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq, it has everything to do with a conservative President in office who many liberals see as illegitimate. You believe that Bush stole the 2000 election, you are mad that Republicans in 2002 made even more historic gains by increasing their numbers in the House and winning back the Senate, and you are most certainly upset by the fact that Bush has enjoyed much success in the war on terror, including the fact that Saddam is in a jail cell awaiting trial.
You won't accept President Bush as legitimate, therefore, anything that President Bush does is also not legitimate. I accept that fact and I accept the fact that this will be something Bush faces for entirety of his second term in office, no matter how large the margin is when he is re-elected in November.
Thanks for your comments.
David Flanagan
12 - Mark Saleski
The fact is, you and other liberals who so adamantly oppose the ouster of Saddam would not have a problem with this if it were Al Gore who had decided to finally hold Saddam accountable.
pure conjecture on your part. i would not have supported it.
13 - Brian Flemming
Josh Marshall:
14 - Jim Carruthers
I don't have a lot of stake or say in this, living in a sovereign (for now, though this picture of our PM seems like the countdown has started) state.
However, when I see rote phrases like this: you and other liberals (hmmm, no Ted Nugent font style), I am reminded that political-corporate machinations have usurped governance, responsibility, accountability and transparency.
David, indulge me and try this mental experiment. Substitute "shareholders" for "liberals", and imagine the questions and allegations are being directed at the Board of Directors of Enron, Tyco, Parmalat or Hollinger. And some members of the company are saying there are suspect dealings going on. And the BoD respond with anonymous innuendo and PR spin instead of facts.
Do you feel comfortable and confident now?
15 - predictor
Nov. 5th 2005 - Much to everyone's surprise, George Bush was not re-elected on Nov. 4th 2005. Many credited his demise, in hindsight, to recent revelations regarding the Iraq debacle, over spending and lack of international respect.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Comment 11 posted by David Flanagan on January 15, 2004 04:30 PM:
The fact is, you and other ...
The fact is that everything you said is wrong, the danger of living your life in labels rather than thinking issues through on their merits:
I did not vote for Gore, and don't give a pinch of coon-droppings about how Bush got in.
I'm concerned about the gang of neos that Dick Cheney put into place and what they've got Bush doing.
The issue over Iraq has everything to do with the neoconservative agenda to invade Iraq long before 9/11, then using 9/11 as an excuse to do so.
17 - David Flanagan
Well, first let me say that my statement was, specifically, "you and other liberals," NOT, "you and all other liberals." I certainly know better than to paint everyone with a broad brush.
With that said, I stand by my assertion. This debate on Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with the President who chose to ouster Saddam Hussein, formerly one of the world's greatest threats to international peace.
When Bill Clinton unilaterally attacked Iraq in 1998, liberals across the country praised him for his courage and willingness to stand up to the Iraqi dictator. Democrats in congress inisted that the US had to prevent the spread of WMD and offered their support to the Clinton for any action he might take against Saddam, including sending in troops to find Saddam.
Clinton never went to congress for authorization and he CERTAINLY never went to the UN for a resolution. Instead, in late December, he ordered a devastating military attack and then went to the American people to explain his actions.
Now, Republicans did voice their concern over his timing as it was right before his impeachment hearings were due to begin, but they too would not have complained if Saddam was found buried under tons of rubble. And where were all of you when Clinton launched his preemptive attack? Were you cheering or jeering?
Inquiring minds want to know.
David Flanagan
BTW - Jim from Canada. I'm sorry, whats the point of your "exercise?" First of all, in this "mental exercise," one can just as easily envision that the BoD knows full well that those trying to ask the questions are not concerned about truth or about just but, rather, about raw political power. They want the BoD out of power for their own gain, not for any high-minded standard. And that, without a doubt, is an accurate reflection of the political arena as you are going to get.
18 - David Flanagan
Well, first let me say that my statement was, specifically, "you and other liberals," NOT, "you and all other liberals." I certainly know better than to paint everyone with a broad brush.
With that said, I stand by my assertion. This debate on Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with the President who chose to ouster Saddam Hussein, formerly one of the world's greatest threats to international peace.
When Bill Clinton unilaterally attacked Iraq in 1998, liberals across the country praised him for his courage and willingness to stand up to the Iraqi dictator. Democrats in congress inisted that the US had to prevent the spread of WMD and offered their support to the Clinton for any action he might take against Saddam, including sending in troops to find Saddam.
Clinton never went to congress for authorization and he CERTAINLY never went to the UN for a resolution. Instead, in late December, he ordered a devastating military attack and then went to the American people to explain his actions.
Now, Republicans did voice their concern over his timing as it was right before his impeachment hearings were due to begin, but they too would not have complained if Saddam was found buried under tons of rubble. And where were all of you when Clinton launched his preemptive attack? Were you cheering or jeering?
Inquiring minds want to know.
David Flanagan
BTW - Jim from Canada. I'm sorry, whats the point of your "exercise?" First of all, in this "mental exercise," one can just as easily envision that the BoD knows full well that those trying to ask the questions are not concerned about truth or about justice but, rather, about raw political power. They want the BoD out of power for their own gain, not for any high-minded standard. And that, without a doubt, is an accurate reflection of the political arena as you are going to get.
19 - Hal Pawluk
Comment 17 posted by David Flanagan on January 15, 2004 09:29 PM: Well, first let me say that my statement was, specifically, "you and other liberals," NOT, "you and all other liberals." I certainly know better than to paint everyone with a broad brush.
Obviously you do not.
You "painted" me with your "broad brush" when you addressed me - specifically - with the word "you" and everything you said was wrong.
20 - David Flanagan
You "painted" me with your "broad brush" when you addressed me - specifically - with the word "you"
Yes I did point my comments directly your way, however, if you are not of the group I described, that is fine with me. Typically, the arguements you presented are the exact arguments I hear from angry liberals who cannot and will not accept President Bush as legitimate.
So, are you saying that you DO think Bush's presidency is legitimate? And I would like to hear your thoughts on the double-standard being imposed on President Bush, whom Democrats seem to want to hold to a far higher standard than President Clinton, who invaded Haiti and bombmed Bosnia and Iraq without going to congress for authorization or, as far as I remember, the UN for a resolution.
Two presidents, both taking military action as needed, yet Democrats support one without question and condemn the other without hesitation.
Any thoughts on that?
Thanks.
David Flanagan
21 - Mark Saleski
why is it so hard for you to understand that there are people out there who just don't agree with bush's policies?
my disagreement with him has absolutely nothing to do with whether i think he's a legitimate president or not.
if a dem was in the white house i wouldn't have supported the action either (just like i didn't support clinton's actions)
22 - David Flanagan
if a dem was in the white house i wouldn't have supported the action either (just like i didn't support clinton's actions)
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
David Flanagan