« Germania | Main | Answer the &$%#* Question! »

January 12, 2004
That Didn't Take Long

Before the book is even out, almost all of the news stories about this Paul O'Neill thing are taking a decidedly pro-Bush position. Tom Brokaw opens the story by saying, "... Bush has a loyal team, with one notable exception, and that exception is apparently determined to get even for being fired."

What the fuck is that?!? Get even? That's quite an assumption, isn't it? That his motivation is revenge? No mention that maybe he wants the truth to be heard? I personally don't know what his motivation is, but there's no evidence that it's one of bald-faced revenge, that's just irresponsible.

They go on to focus substantially on the Treasury Department's launching of an investigation to see whether O'Neill illegally took documents and gave them to Suskind. If he did, he shouldn't have, agreed. But why no insinuation that this is an act of revenge? Maybe the Treasury Department just wants to get even with the former boss? They said themselves today that the legal threshold for an inquiry was "very low." In other words they can launch an investigation if they feel like it. Sounds like revenge to me.

So they focus on the possibility that O'Neill violated ethical rules by providing documents. Little mention of the allegations made in the book, that the administration had decided to go to war with Iraq from the very beginning, and were just looking for a way to justify it. Does that strike anyone as a bit unethical? A bit? It's a real, actual war they started you know. With real, actual dead people. I know it doesn't really seem that way, but it's true. Thousands of people have died.

This makes me so angry. NBC News spends 80% of this story just talking shit about O'Neill. Bringing up (again) that he was in Africa with Bono during a stock market crisis. Now, I'm confused. How does that HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT?

Oh, I see. Since he wasn't a very good Treasury Secretary, then we shouldn't listen to anything he has to say. Got it.

And then the coup de grace, an unnamed "White House insider" is quoted as saying that O'Neill was fired for his "inability to deliver what the President wanted". Ah yes, I had forgotten that the job of the Treasury Secretary is to do what the president says. He went on to say about O'Neill, "He was off the wall, off topic, repeatedly embarrassed himself and no one knew how to respond." An unabashed ad hominem attack. Well, I guess it's a bit abashed, considering the shadowy "unnamed source."

So he's a betrayer, he's disloyal. That's all we need to know. Forget what he had to say, they literally hardly mentioned it. This is scary shit. I wonder how Karl Rove found the time to produce a news story so quickly.

Comments

Previous Comments

It also didn't take long for him to start back tracking.
Given the fact a Congressional resolution passed in 1998 formed official policy (IE Saddam had to go) O'Neill's remarks are at best disingenuious.
While no great supporter of GWB I would think it incumbant upon him to continue the already in place plans.

I agree it was a shame to see him backpedal so quickly, especially ironic considering his hilarious statement that he didn't expect to be critcized for telling the truth.

While it is true that regime change was already the country's, and the world's, policy, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there was any rush to war. The official policy of everyone was to get Saddam out of power, but that is not the same thing as deciding to do it with ground troops, with no real provocation.