Help me understand, why is everyone getting so excited? As far as I know there were plans to topple Saddam since Clinton’s time. So what exactly is the new hush hush secret which O’Neil revealed now?
The War was marketted on specific premises...Saddam hussein is an immediate threat to the US and UK and new intelligence information was available (Gulf of Tonkin Mark 2) that his regime had established links with groups like Al Qaeda.
Mr O'Neil's insider info are essentially a reflection of the fact that the war was not about any of those premised..and neither did it have a moral justification (because of the double standard ..as their are plenty of other dictatorial regimes which deserve overthrowing)
The reasoning..well as far as South Asians are concerned, their is an odd parallel between the British invasion of Sindh and the American occupation of Iraq, a major superpower(Britain) fresh from a ultimately unsuccessful invasion of Afghanistan invades the state of Sindh...for those who want a bit more about the history...
*In 1843 General Napier annexed the rich Indian province of Sind in what is now Pakistan, an operation that is best remembered for the one-word, bilingual pun the general is said to have sent back after his victory:
"Peccavi" -- Latin for "I have sinned" (Sind)."We have no right to seize Sind, but we shall do so," he declared. "And a very advantageous, useful, humane piece of rascality it will be." ..one critic called it an act of Imperialism done in the fine tradition of "like a bully who has been kicked in the street and goes home to beat his wife in revenge", *
Why such a big hooplah about the O'Neil story?
Because American opposition members are myopic frothing idiots. There is so much else they could be talking about but they choose the least valid point to push.
Yes, of course there were plans for the event that we have to face Iraq in combat.. there are plans for fighting China too. That in itself doesn't mean we want to attack. BUT, if they wanna jump on Iraq, even after getting smacked down so many times before, they should say something along the lines of 'you've been planning this how long and still screwed it up?!' That's still a hard argument.. at least for these chimps, but its better than the hysterics we're witnessing.
A better point would have been on Bush's fiscal recklessness. I mean damn, this is the Treasury Secretary we're talking about.. not Rummy. Talk about what you know, you'll have more credibility. That and character issues, though it might make them look shrill and turn you off to some it could also activate just as large a base.
I've really gotta get a Dutch passport.. America is just too dumb anymore.
Yes they did plan to attack iraq years ago that is clear cut.
The War on ISlam or as the Americans call it War on terror is excuse to do what they like and say its in name of terrorism.
Even though they have'nt even found any traces of these so called WMD's in Iraq or that iraq sponsors terrorism.
This should show clearly they will lie to implement there colonial policies, and now that Bush's old buddy is saying Bush is lying, its no surprise to anyone really except maybe to the right wing nutcases in amerikka who think US Government is whiter than white.
I think the importance or interest in the O'Neil "revelations" is in the type of decision-making process that this administration uses. At the extremes, you have two styles of leadership possible. One is the detail leader who wants to get knowledgeable about minutia and make decisions at every step of the process. The other is the leader who wants to establish broad general policies and direction and delegate decisions on the details to others.
Either management style can be effective. Eisenhower, Reagan and GWB all seem to have adopted the style of decision-making and management that detractors can criticize as being ill-informed about details.
IMO, Reagan was successful because he had a clear vision of where he wanted the country to go, his vision was based upon a consistent and understandable philosophical foundation, he was effective in communicating that vision to the American people and his top advisors, and he surroounded himself with a highly intelligent and competent group of top level advisors and administrators.
GHWB was far more "intelligent" than Reagan and far more involved in making detail decisions. He lacked the "vision thing" and lost the white house.
What the O'Neil thing suggests to me is that GWB probably has not formulated and/or been able to communicate a clear broad vision of where he wants the country to go. At least, he has not formulated a clear vision that integrates foreign policy and domestic policy within an understandable and coherent philosophical foundation. This leaves his top level advisors in some departments (like Treasury) very frustrated and unsure about how to exercise the delegation of authority they have been given. Thus, they are left to react to events as best they can rather than be proactive and try to shape future events by policy.
No doubt a lot of the big discussion was going on while O'Neill was jetting about with Bono....
MV, I agree with your last paragraph. I think what scares people about this, the micromanager v. delegator styles, is that when you take the hands off approach there remains the possibility that you become too distant from the operations and your subordinates follow their own visions which may be contrary to yours or the good of the country even. With strong willed characters like Cheney and Rummy that scenario is all the more plausible. So really this just gives fodder to the folks that think Cheney is Satan and running things along the lines of the Templar Knights or whatever ;)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
MV, I agree with your last paragraph. I think what scares people about this, the micromanager v. delegator styles, is that when you take the hands off approach there remains the possibility that you become too distant from the operations and your subordinates follow their own visions which may be contrary to yours or the good of the country even. With strong willed characters like Cheney and Rummy that scenario is all the more plausible. So really this just gives fodder to the folks that think Cheney is Satan and running things along the lines of the Templar Knights or whatever ;)
[/QUOTE]
And I agree with your statement. IMO, a "good" team for a delegator necessarily means your top level guys are very strong willed, are self motivators and highly intelligent people ready, willing and able to make high level decisions and implement them without being blessed or patted on the back by the leader. If the leader doesn't hold the reins and becomes too distant, you can end up with incoherent and non-integrated policies. A micro-manager's good team isn't dependent upon strong willed people because these people don't make the decisions. They need to be good administrators who say "yes sir" and salute when the leader tells them what to do.
I'm shocked, you mean Bush isn't the one calling the shots? Some ground breaking stuff here guys, of course I haven't met to many puppets that pull their own strings.
Why do you want to spoil a good discussion with your anti-Bush rhetoric? The issue isn’t whether Bush calls the shots. He has called the shot in terms of what type of management style he utilizes. The issue is whether he is an effective delegator and has clearly established and communicated the philosphical foundation and vision necessary to guide his administration in formulating and implementing policy. Is his hold on the reins too tight or too loose?
Even I have some issues with GWB’s administration in this regard. 
In a nutshell, GWB is no Reagan. IMO, on the whole, the current administration is too reactive to the day to day events. A great leader is one who is proactive and tries to shape future events to conform to a vision and philosophical foundation. I think GW is a pretty good President because his administration has done a pretty good job reacting to some very difficult challenges and unforeseen events. I don’t think he will be known as a great president because he doesn’t have the vision and philosophical foundation which is necessary to dramatically change/shape future events in conformity with a vision/philosophy.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
GWB probably has not formulated and/or been able to communicate a clear broad vision of where he wants the country to go.
[/QUOTE]
chuckie cheese maybe?
As a follow up to the O’Neil “revelations,” it appears as if Alan Greenspan disputes quotes attributable to him by O’Neil in the book.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan disagrees with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s claim in a controversial book that the Fed chief considered Bush administration tax cuts “irresponsible.”
…
He told the Wall Street Journal, in a quote confirmed by the Fed on Thursday, “It’s been rare over the many years of our friendship that Paul and I have a different recollection of events, but in this case we do.”
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4134754
Given that Greenspan is about as insulated as can be from reprisal or reward by the Bush administration, his recollection of events should be given some great deference. Maybe O’Neil is motivated by the desire to sell books and/or has some serious axe to grind with GW.
Name the one cabinet member Bush has fired. Axe to grind?
if we take the motives out of the equation, and focus on the facts, is what he saying is true, whether he did it out of the goodness of his heart or whether he had an axe to grind.
I am less interested in his motives and more in whether what he is saying is true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
if we take the motives out of the equation, and focus on the facts, is what he saying is true, whether he did it out of the goodness of his heart or whether he had an axe to grind.
I am less interested in his motives and more in whether what he is saying is true.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with that Fraudia is that you must look at motives to lie when you are in the position of having to pick between two competing statements to determine the truth. Here you have O'Neil saying that Greenspan said "such and such." You have Greenspan saying I did not say "such and such." If O'Niel has an axe to grind and/or could financially benefit from his statement while Greenspan has no axe to grind and is neither benefited or harmed from his statement, that gives you a rational basis to decide who is telling the truth.
rational basis maybe, but not necassarily the facts.
One can also argue than Greenspan is trying to protect his standing by responding against ONeil, and that he has a vested interest in the status quo.
either way, whats done is done. The truth would come out sooner or later, although nothing that Oneil said really comes as a surprise.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
rational basis maybe, but not necassarily the facts.
One can also argue than Greenspan is trying to protect his standing by responding against ONeil, and that he has a vested interest in the status quo.
either way, whats done is done. The truth would come out sooner or later, although nothing that Oneil said really comes as a surprise.
[/QUOTE]
If there is one guy in the US who is probably insulated against political pressure from anyone in any party, it is Greenspan. He's sort of like J. Edgar Hoover. People are more afraid of him than he is of anyone else. He's got no vested interest in any spat between Bush and O'Neil. What it comes down to on this particular item is who do you believe. I submit that there's far more reason to believe Greenspan than O'Neil.
Originally posted by myvoice: *
**If there is one guy in the US who is probably insulated against political pressure from anyone in any party, it is Greenspan. *
"probably".. agreed.
*He's got no vested interest in any spat between Bush and O'Neil. What it comes down to on this particular item is who do you believe. I submit that there's far more reason to believe Greenspan than O'Neil. *
I dont know if he has No vested interest, or Low vested interest :)
based on logic yes, and for this particular incident.. but it is still not proof right? As of right now I have no reason to believe either of the two.
the he said- he said stuff is so high schoolish :) b/w oneil and greenspan i mean.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
based on logic yes, and for this particular incident.. but it is still not proof right? As of right now I have no reason to believe either of the two.
the he said- he said stuff is so high schoolish :) b/w oneil and greenspan i mean.
[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, it is proof. And, in this case, it is as much proof as is possible. When you only have two people in a conversation and they each claim something different was said, each of their statements is "proof" of their claims. Then objective evidence of facts that might constitute bias and/or other issues of credibility are presented as "proof". Then the fact finder (you in this case) must decide what is more likely than not the truth.
In your day to day life, you deal with issues like this and make decisions based upon this "proof" all the time.
If Greenspan said those tax cuts were irresponsible they maybe they were...hmm I’m pulling out of the stock market and not spending my money as now my confidence in the economy is faltering.
Unlikely? Probably, but Greenspan wouldn't want this and there is your reason for him to deny.