Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch Your shorthand requires a lot of gloss.

I think the problem is that it appears to be using the words in the same way that the English language does.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please tell me: In what way did O'Neill implement his own policies instead of the President's?

I've read his book, and as far as I can tell, the only way that what you're saying makes any sense at all is that O'Neill advocated one set of policies, others (Karl Rove, Larry Lindsey) another, and the President went with the latter, not the former. When O'Neill got in trouble for speaking out of turn, it was often minor things that no one really cares about (e.g., drilling wells in Africa). But you tell me -- what are you talking about?

Minor point, it is not "his" book. He has gone out of his way to distance himself from it.

I misspoke regarding implementation, but what I'm referring to in particular, among other things, are his statements regarding the tax cuts which undercut (though not successfully) the Bush tax policy. Is there a legitimate debtate to be had on tax cuts? Of course, but that debate should not be spearheaded by the Treasury Secretary in public. He is free to argue them internally, which apparently he did. But once policy is settled, his freedom to debate should cease or he should resign.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Do you still use "incompetent" to summarize the above? Your shorthand requires a lot of gloss.

It may not be that much of a stretch. As stated earlier, the job of cabinet members is to come in and use their expertise to further the goals of the administration. O'Neil, for all of his smarts and experience, failed to do that, pushing his own views which were quite at odds with Bush's. I am a competent lawyer, but probably an incompetent elephant trainer. Incompetence is defined by the job to be done, not the qualifications and abilities to do something else.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Minor point, it is not "his" book. He has gone out of his way to distance himself from it.

If you read the book, it is clear that he was the primary source. You are right that his name is not on it. Gregg Easterbrook, for one, has lauded him for letting the ghostwriter take credit, unlike most politicians (e.g., Howard Dean), but much of the book is implicitly from O'Neill's point of view. And distancing himself from it? Bitch, please. He hasn't said any of it is wrong. He has lamented the reaction to it, but that's different. It seems to me that O'Neill wrote the book out of (1) a philosophical commitment to openness -- this is a guy who put everyone at Alcoa in cubicles, including himself -- and (2) a hope that someone would find a way to pierce the tight circle of ideologues around Bush.

I misspoke regarding implementation, but what I'm referring to in particular, among other things, are his statements regarding the tax cuts which undercut (though not successfully) the Bush tax policy. Is there a legitimate debtate to be had on tax cuts? Of course, but that debate should not be spearheaded by the Treasury Secretary in public. He is free to argue them internally, which apparently he did. But once policy is settled, his freedom to debate should cease or he should resign.

Please describe an instance in which you think O'Neill did what you say. There is no doubt that he was attacked for not being on the same page as Larry Lindsey, but his opponents were leaking this stuff to hurt him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
O'Neil, for all of his smarts and experience, failed to do that, pushing his own views which were quite at odds with Bush's.

That's really not what happened. Over a range of stuff, it was not clear what Bush's views were, and there was debate about what ought to be done. People with different views urged their views on Bush, and he decided how to go. O'Neill is no more guilty of not being in karmic tune with the President's eventual course of action than was anyone else, except probably Karl Rove.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
It may not be that much of a stretch. As stated earlier, the job of cabinet members is to come in and use their expertise to further the goals of the administration. O'Neil, for all of his smarts and experience, failed to do that, pushing his own views which were quite at odds with Bush's. I am a competent lawyer, but probably an incompetent elephant trainer. Incompetence is defined by the job to be done, not the qualifications and abilities to do something else.

Which members of Bush's administration are allowed to direct policy, and which are supposed merely to shill for it? Do they wear different colored hats, so they all know which ones are supposed to shut the fuck up during meetings?

Let's not pretend Bush had a well-formulated monetary policy between 1946 and 1999. It strains credulity.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Almost accurate. I said I was waiting for the Kay Report and expected WMDs to be found, though you will also remember me stating that WMDs were not a necessary condition for me to back the war.

Question for you: As late as 1998, we (meaning the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, England, France, the UN, etc.) know SH had WMDs. We also know that SH never produced sufficient evidence of their destruction. So what is your hypothesis? Did he destroy them and if so why isn't there proof of that? Seems to me that the far bigger issue is (a) to find evidence of destruction or (b) figure out where they went.

Almost is not bad for recollecting a post from eight months ago.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that puzzle. I agree with you about the big issue -- and that is what aI said to Not me and part of why I was so pissed at Bilmore's response to my post. Anything I say about what may have happened would be pulled out of my rear:

e.g. Hypothesize he destroyed remaining stockpiles in or shortly after 1998 after defection of son-in-law -- but didn't want the world to know both for reasons of prestige and fear of enemies abroad (esp. Iran). His failure to produce evidence of their destruction could heva been a monumental miscalculation based on prestige reasons _and_ belief that he could continue to dick over the world indefinitely and survive until sanctions were lifted _and_ the belief that there was NFW the Americans would actually invade Iraq.

Or

He shipped a few tractor-trailers to Syria -- pre-War. However, I simply can't believe that Syria would not have turned them over by now. Holding and hiding those WMD is far too dangerous a game for the new Syrian regime to be playing in today's world. They have also cooperated with us in many ways.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Pussy.

"Shut up, you whyny [sic] little bitch."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's really not what happened. Over a range of stuff, it was not clear what Bush's views were, and there was debate about what ought to be done. People with different views urged their views on Bush, and he decided how to go. O'Neill is no more guilty of not being in karmic tune with the President's eventual course of action than was anyone else, except probably Karl Rove.

There is a difference between:
1) a cabinet secretary saying I believe we should do X, being over-ruled by the President* choosing Y, and the secretary then moving to implement y; and
2) a cabinet secretary saying I believe we should do X, being over-ruled by the President choosing Y, and the secretary saying I don't want to do this, I want to stay with X.

*Despite the reprise of the "Bush is dumb" today, he is still in charge.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please describe an instance in which you think O'Neill did what you say. There is no doubt that he was attacked for not being on the same page as Larry Lindsey, but his opponents were leaking this stuff to hurt him.

The fact that O'neil opposed the tax cuts is common knowledge and easily googleable. I'd also advise you to read the book critically. I admit that I've not read it, nor anything else by the author, but I understand that the author has, in the past, been criticized for being less than truthfull. I'd also caution against relying on one source, but you of course already know this.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That's really not what happened. Over a range of stuff, it was not clear what Bush's views were, and there was debate about what ought to be done. People with different views urged their views on Bush, and he decided how to go. O'Neill is no more guilty of not being in karmic tune with the President's eventual course of action than was anyone else, except probably Karl Rove.

1. Bush was emphatic on tax cuts. Even after the first round, O'Neil was publicly berating them.

2. O'Neil was vocally pushing global warming as a crisis even when Bush's views were well known. I believe he was even told directly to tone it down at one point, and didn't.

3. O'Neil made several public remarks concerning his views about the lack of need for a strong dollar, at odds with the positions Bush was taking. (If I remember right, he crashed the market for a day or two because of some stupid, off-the-cuff remark about this that seemed to call into question our governmental policy.)

4. His public pronouncements on AID's were not helpful at all to the way Bush was putting together his package. Didn't Bono even come back and say that Bush had a good AIDs policy, but O'Neil seemed . . . unfocused?

5. He kept commenting publicly that SS needed drastic reform, which, although a pet subject of his own, was not a Bush item.

In short, he was a loose cannon, and not even a well-aimed loose cannon. He kept, publicly and loudly, pushing the O'Neil agenda, to the direct detriment of the Bush agenda, which can be a problem when O'Neil was the one elected.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Almost is not bad for recollecting a post from eight months ago.

I don't pretend to have the answer to that puzzle. I agree with you about the big issue -- and that is what aI said to Not me and part of why I was so pissed at Bilmore's response to my post. Anything I say about what may have happened would be pulled out of my rear:

e.g. Hypothesize he destroyed remaining stockpiles in or shortly after 1998 after defection of son-in-law -- but didn't want the world to know both for reasons of prestige and fear of enemies abroad (esp. Iran). His failure to produce evidence of their destruction could heva been a monumental miscalculation based on prestige reasons _and_ belief that he could continue to dick over the world indefinitely and survive until sanctions were lifted _and_ the belief that there was NFW the Americans would actually invade Iraq.

Or

He shipped a few tractor-trailers to Syria -- pre-War. However, I simply can't believe that Syria would not have turned them over by now. Holding and hiding those WMD is far too dangerous a game for the new Syrian regime to be playing in today's world. They have also cooperated with us in many ways.

S_A_M

Let us not forget that the term WMD is an imprecise one, presumably adopted in the hopes of scaring people into confusing chemical weapons (which Iraq had and used) with biological weapons (which it may have tried to develop, but did not ever weaponize) and nuclear weapons (which it would have liked to develop, but was not even close to doing).

edited to fix spelling

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Which members of Bush's administration are allowed to direct policy, and which are supposed merely to shill for it? Do they wear different colored hats, so they all know which ones are supposed to shut the fuck up during meetings?

As for policy directors, Look for older guys, who knew their way to the Commisary the first day in the new administration.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Which members of Bush's administration are allowed to direct policy, and which are supposed merely to shill for it?

Shill for it? As in, to push for your boss's agenda is "to shill"?

They are not coequal positions. If I'm hired to enlarge the profit of my employer, am I merely "shilling" for it?

Which of Clinton's staff "shilled" for him? By your definition, it would have to be all of those who acted in concert with his views.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
e.g. Hypothesize he destroyed remaining stockpiles in or shortly after 1998 after defection of son-in-law -- but didn't want the world to know both for reasons of prestige and fear of enemies abroad (esp. Iran). His failure to produce evidence of their destruction could heva been a monumental miscalculation based on prestige reasons _and_ belief that he could continue to dick over the world indefinitely and survive until sanctions were lifted _and_ the belief that there was NFW the Americans would actually invade Iraq.

This one is my guess. Got rid of them, but could never admit this publicly, as it would not only demasculate him, but put him at risk of invasion from many sources.