Inspector O'Neill: There was no evidence of WMD

[warrior1]

Sorry but this is from Drudge.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

New York – Discussing the case for the Iraq war in an interview with TIME’s White House correspondent John Dickerson, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who sat on the National Security Council, says the focus was on Saddam from the early days of the Administration. He offers the most skeptical view of the case for war ever put forward by a top Administration official. "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction," he told TIME. "There were allegations and assertions by people. But I’ve been around a hell of a long time, and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and illusions or allusions and conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else. And I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence." TIME’s new issue will be on newsstands Monday, Jan. 12th.


snip

In Suskind’s book, O’Neill’s assessment of Bush’s executive style is a harsh one: it is portrayed as a failure of leadership. Aides were left to play "blind man’s bluff," trying to divine Bush’s views on issues like tax policy, global warming and North Korea. Sometimes, O’Neill says, they had to float an idea in the press just to scare a reaction out of him. This led to public humiliation when the President contradicted his top officials, as he did with Secretary of State Colin Powell on North Korea and Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman on global warming. O’Neill came to believe that this gang of three beleaguered souls—only Powell remains—who shared a more nonideological approach were used for window dressing. We "may have been there, in large part as cover," he tells Suskind.


snip

[DS1]

1. Not an inspector of anything

Besides, arcane rules require this be locked because you put it in caps.

[cthrumatrix]

2. he's not about the obvious he's about "information in 2001"....bush lied

[glarius]

3. I'm not surprised by the reaction of Bush's aides

"Aides were left to play "blind man’s bluff," trying to divine Bush’s views on issues like tax policy, global warming and North Korea. Sometimes, O’Neill says, they had to float an idea in the press just to scare a reaction out of him."
Why would ANYONE be surprised at Bush's vagueness?...The man doesn't have a clue! He DOESN'T KNOW OR UNDERSTAND most of these issues....He was dumb before he became president and why would he suddenly be a brilliant problem solver simply because he now has the title "president?".....:shrug:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demgrrrll]

6. I think that talking about something and actually doing something are two

different things. Many issues are discussed in a political
arena, what matters the most is what actions are taken.
Bush and his cabinet are solely responsible for their actions.
A long list of quotes does not deflect from their responsibility.

[DS1]

7. let's see

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Apparently it worked

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Threat diminished

"Iraq is a long way from , but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Correct, Iraq was a long way from (NBC), I'd like to see the rest of the quote in context, she could be talking about any 'rogue state' beyond the first sentence

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Unless contained, see above

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Air and missile strikes do not equal full out invasion. Remember he couldn't even fly his planes in most of his own airspace, let alone launch "drones" or any other things like that. During this time Saddam was still just a big talking bigshot, all hat no cattle you might say, who refused to publicly denounce the weapons programs he didn't have for political purposes.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

You don't even want me to bring up some of the statements made by Republican Senators

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeliene Albright personally ordered the invasion of a sovereign country when

All the other quotes 2001 to present

BECAUSE SOME ASSHOLE WAS INSISTING THAT EVERYTHING THEY WERE RESPONDING TO WAS TRUE!

[DS1]

4. On another note, that's Drudge's title

Why should a Treasury Secretary see this stuff?

The whitewash has begun.

[Gin]

8. Clinton would not have been able to use pre-emption to invade Iraq

while he was in office. He would have been crucified.

I would have been opposed then...as I am now. The issue is the factor.