SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JBTFD who wrote (4937)1/10/2004 6:14:24 PM
From: Sidney Reilly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
No child left behind has to be the biggest joke in nomenclature I have seen. Just like many other republican nomenclatures, the result will be just the opposite of what the name suggests

You got that exactly right.

Homeland Security = Police State

Patriot Act = Dismantle the constitution

Republican = Double speak



To: JBTFD who wrote (4937)1/10/2004 8:14:44 PM
From: Rock_nj  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
In new book, ex-Treasury secretary criticizes administration
Saturday, January 10, 2004 Posted: 7:21 PM EST (0021 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.

Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.

"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"

Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."

In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said.

Suskind also described a White House meeting in which he said Bush seemed to waver about going forward with a second round of tax cuts.

"Haven't we already given money to rich people... Shouldn't we be giving money to the middle?" Suskind says Bush asked, according to what CBS called a "nearly verbatim" transcript of an economic team meeting Suskind said he obtained from someone at the meeting.

O'Neill also said in the book that President Bush "was like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" during Cabinet meetings.

One-on-one meetings were no different, O'Neill told the network.

Describing his first such meeting with Bush, O'Neill said, "I went in with a long list of things to talk about and, I thought, to engage [him] on. ... I was surprised it turned out me talking and the president just listening. It was mostly a monologue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan brushed off O'Neill's criticism.

"We appreciate his service, but we are not in the business of doing book reviews," he told reporters. "It appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinion than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people. The president will continue to be forward-looking, focusing on building upon the results we are achieving to strengthen the economy and making the world a safer and better place."

A senior administration official, who asked not to be named, expressed bewilderment at O'Neill's comments on the alleged war plans.

"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."

Even before the interview is broadcast, the topic became grist for election-year politics.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who is the early front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement in response.

"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.

"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.

"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."

cnn.com



To: JBTFD who wrote (4937)1/10/2004 10:03:07 PM
From: Don Earl  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20039
 
OT

I didn't save it but I did read the results I received in the mail for the school district where I pay taxes. Generally, the results were mostly pathetic compared to the State averages, which quite honestly weren't so hot either. Some of the items that stuck out in the report were along the lines of students scoring well at certain grade levels in English, but the same students had horrible results for math. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the numbers suggest there is something wrong with the quality of the math department.

The basics of what was outlined in the No Child Left Behind literature I received is really pretty simple. It's essentially a program to set standards for the educators themselves, and dump those who aren't getting the job done, plus give the students in under performing schools some alternatives. I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but after a certain period, the Administrators of under performing schools get fired. How you've come to the conclusion this is a Republican plot to privatize education is beyond my ability to comprehend, unless it's the result of a failure on your part to do some basic research. Try this link for a general outline: ed.gov

Just because Bush signed it doesn't make it a bad law, although I'd tend to go along with the idea he didn't have much to do with putting it together, any more than he did the "do not call lists". I've known some exceptionally talented educators. My view is they should be the rule rather than the exception. I don't think the NCLB program goes far enough fast enough, and I have my doubts about the actual execution, but the concept is the right approach as far as I'm concerned. Get better training for those educators with the aptitude to excel beyond mediocre, and dump those unsuited to the profession.

There's a point were we should agree to disagree and drop the off topic discussion. I think we share enough common ground on the main subject that it serves no useful purpose to make this a bone of contention.