Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm saying that we need smarter, better-trained people making the decisions, and you're talking about the rules they follow.
|
No, I'm just trying to make sure that "smarter" doesn't mean "follows Ty's rules". I would make NO rule concerning "no profiling". I would actually go for the "discretion" idea - I'm just doubting that others would unless the no-rules situation clearly encompassed some rules. Er, "understandings".
On another note, O'Neil is backtracking fast:
"He described the reaction to Suskind's book as a "red meat frenzy" and said people should read his comments in context, particularly about the Iraq war.
"People are trying to say that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be a regime change in Iraq."
What surprised him, said O'Neill, was how much priority was given to Iraq by the president.
Asked about comments he did not believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the main reason cited for going to war, O'Neill said he never saw "concrete evidence" of such weapons.
"I think the fact that we have not found them makes the point. But that doesn't make the point that we should not have got rid of Saddam Hussein."
Asked about his comment that during Cabinet meetings Bush was like "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," O'Neill said he regretted some of the language he used to describe his former boss.
"If I could take it back, I would take it back. It has become the controversial centerpiece."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4117963
Didn't this exact same backtracking happen last time Susskind (sp?) wrote a semi-ghosted tell-all?
