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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sylvester80 who wrote (34897)1/13/2004 12:43:35 AM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
69%

<ggggggggggggggggggggg>

It's a start. Now if we can get a few more "chickens to come home to roost".

lurqer



To: sylvester80 who wrote (34897)1/13/2004 10:30:36 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Non-Treasury Secretary

Most Washington memoirs recount how much power or influence someone had. So give Paul O'Neill credit for being a maverick even while impugning colleagues and betraying confidences to sell a book. His heavily hyped memoir reveals both how and why President Bush's first Treasury Secretary was irrelevant.

Mr. O'Neill cooperated fully with author Ron Suskind, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and well-known Bush antagonist, sharing recollections and 19,000 documents as well as fact-checking the final manuscript. After reading it, we're amazed he wasn't fired sooner.

Mr. Bush apparently thought he was getting a smart veteran of the Nixon and Ford Administrations -- a former CEO recommended by Vice President Dick Cheney and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. The expectation was that Mr. O'Neill would be both credible with business and politically astute.

Instead, he got a policy and political blunderbuss who must not have been paying attention during the 2000 Presidential campaign. In "The Price of Loyalty," Mr. O'Neill reveals that he disagreed with much of the Bush agenda, especially with tax cuts. Three years later the record shows that Mr. Bush was right to ignore Mr. O'Neill's counsel. The Bush tax cuts helped to make the recession one of the mildest on record -- despite the burst stock-market bubble, corporate scandals, 9/11 and war. And now the recovery is well under way, with the third quarter's 8.2% growth rate the fastest since 1984.

Mr. Suskind's book is especially shallow in the way it casts the tax cut debate as a replay of the 1980s fight between "idealogues" and "pragmatists." The idealogue/tax-cutters are supposed to be the villains. But Suskind-O'Neill haven't bothered to notice that even the major tax-cut opponents from the Reagan-Bush I era have come around.

Writing on this page last year, Reagan Treasury Secretary James Baker called himself a "reformed drunk" on tax relief. "The paradoxical lesson of the '80s is that when marginal rates are too high, cutting them is -- thanks to the resulting economic growth -- a win-win policy for both taxpayers and the treasury," Mr. Baker wrote. "This is not voodoo economics; it's hard, cold reality."

David Stockman, whom the Gipper famously took to the woodshed, has also been persuaded. Asked on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" this fall whether he supported Mr. Bush's tax cuts and war on terror, the Reagan budget director replied: "He is on the right track on both. I support both."

Mr. O'Neill describes Mr. Bush as not listening. But clearly the problem was that the President tuned him out early and didn't trust him enough to engage. This meant that even when Mr. O'Neill was right on the merits -- such as opposing steel tariffs -- he had no clout. It's hard to believe the same thing would have happened to Mr. Baker, or Bill Simon, or for that matter Robert Rubin.

The defrocked Treasury Secretary also assails Mr. Bush for preparing to depose Saddam Hussein two years before the war in Iraq. He and his co-author overlook that even President Clinton wanted to remove Saddam, signing a bill that made that official U.S. policy. The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act was passed by a unanimous Senate and a near-unanimous House.

All in all, the real story of this book is that Mr. Bush early on saw his mistake in hiring Mr. O'Neill, and cut his losses. This contrasts with his father, who retained budget director Dick Darman and Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady long after their counsel had proven disastrous. But there is a larger warning here as well, having to do with the dangers of a weak Treasury.

The Bush Administration has tried to run economic policy out of its hip pocket, which is to say the White House. While that has worked on tax policy, it is dangerous when it comes to managing the breadth of financial and global issues. Mr. O'Neill's main contribution on this score was to play the dashiki-clad straight man to Bono in Africa. While John Snow is a big improvement on fiscal policy, and on public decorum, he seems to share the White House blind spot on the dollar and international currencies.

Over at Defense, another ex-CEO and veteran of the Nixon and Ford Administrations has been doing just fine. Next time, Mr. Bush needs a Don Rumsfeld at Treasury.

Updated January 13, 2004
WSJ, Review & Outlook
online.wsj.com.



To: sylvester80 who wrote (34897)1/13/2004 10:33:25 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 89467
 
Ooops!!!

Looks like O'Neill and Suskind are the liars....

Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax
Laurie Mylroie sent out an email about Paul O'Neill's appearance on 60 Minutes last night; she notes what appears to be a major error in Ron Suskind's book, which casts doubt on the credibility of both Suskind and O'Neill. Here is the key portion of Mylroie's email:

"In his appearance this evening on '60 Minutes,' Ron Suskind, author of The Price of Loyalty, based to a large extent on information from former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, made an astonishing, very serious misstatement.

"Suskind claimed he has documents showing that preparations for the Iraq war were well underway before 9-11. He cited--and even showed--what he said was a Pentagon document, entitled, 'Foreign Suitors for Iraq Oilfield Contracts.' He claimed the document was about planning for post-war Iraq oil (CBS's promotional story also contained that claim): cbsnews.com.

"But that is not a Pentagon document. It's from the Vice-President's Office. It was part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Dick Cheney's attention before the 9/11 strikes.

"And the document has nothing to do with post-war Iraq. It was part of a study of global oil supplies. Judicial Watch obtained it in a law suit and posted it, along with related documents, on its website at: judicialwatch.org Indeed, when this story first broke yesterday, the Drudge Report had the Judicial Watch document linked (no one at CBS News saw that, so they could correct the error, when the show aired?)"

What Mylroie says about the "Foreign Suitors" document is correct. The Judicial Watch link still works as of this morning, and as you can easily see, the document, dated March 5, 2001, has nothing to do with post-war planning. It is merely a list of existing and proposed "Iraqi Oil & Gas Projects" as of that date. And it includes projects in Iraq by countries that obviously would not have been part of any "post-war" plans of the Bush administration, such as, for example, Vietnam.

So Suskind (and apparently O'Neill) misrepresented this document, which appears to be a significant part of their case, given that Suskind displayed in on 60 Minutes. It would not be possible for anyone operating in good faith to represent the document as Suskind did.

But the truth is even worse than Mylroie pointed out in her email. The CBS promo linked to above says that this document "includes a map of potential areas for exploration. 'It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,' says Suskind. 'On oil in Iraq.'"

True enough; there is a "map of potential areas for exploration" in Iraq here. But what Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind don't tell you is that the very same set of documents that contain the Iraq map and the list of Iraqi oil projects contain the same maps and similar lists of projects for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia! When documents are produced in litigation (in this case, the Judicial Watch lawsuit relating to Cheney's energy task force), they are numbered sequentially. The two-page "Iraqi Oil Suitors" document that Suskind breathlessly touts is numbered DOC044-0006 through DOC044-0007. The Iraq oil map comes right before the list of Iraqi projects; it is numbered DOC044-0005.

DOC044-0001 is a map of oil fields in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0002 is a list of oil and gas development projects then going on in the United Arab Emirates. DOC044-0003 is a map of oil fields in Saudi Arabia. DOC044-0004 is a list of oil and gas projects in Saudi Arabia. So the "smoking gun" documents that Suskind and O'Neill claim prove that the administration was planning to invade Iraq in March 2001 are part of a package that includes identical documents relating to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Does Paul O'Neill claim the administration was planning on invading them, too? Or, as Mylroie says, was this merely part of the administration's analysis of sources of energy in the 21st century?

There is only one possible conclusion: Paul O'Neill and Ron Suskind are attempting to perpetrate a massive hoax on the American people.
powerlineblog.com
Posted by Hindrocket at 11:18 AM | TrackBack (33)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Compliments of the "IDEA OF THE DAY-Trading in&out for profits" thread:

Subject 14747