Well, what did you think (60 MIN.)?

[slor]

I liked it, very damning, and that book is so purchased!

[ShimokitaJer]

1. O'Neill seems supremely naive about all this

I mean, "I can't believe I'd be attacked for telling the truth?" He has GOT to be kidding. What the hell did he think Bush was doing with those plans for Iraq on his desk.

It was a bit surreal, having seen all the information before but realizing that this could be the moment that the rest of the US finally gets it. I wonder what the Freepers are doing right about now.

[displacedtexan]

6. the former prez of alcoa isn't naive.

he's decided to take on the schoolyard bullies for ruining the country. o'neill is a shit, but even shits know certain lines simply aren't crossed.

[Nlighten1]

10. No kidding...

I thought the exact same thing. Surely he isn't that stupid...you don't get that close to the President and not see how the machine works.

[AlinPA]

15. O'Neill is not stupid. Repeat, not stupid. I have seen him in action.

He calls it like he sees it. He is smart, tough, backs things up with data and demands that others do the same. I doubt any major company wouldn't have wanted him as their CEO or on the board of directors. (maybe now now, since Rove will blacklist him)

In Pittsburgh, about a week after he came back from the WH, he said "its good to be back where you can say what you think".

Plus, that remark about the book sounding tough ("really?") to Leslie Stahl is typical O'Neill. When things are obvious, he mocks the question.
I'm not saying I like his policies, just telling it like I see it.

[ShimokitaJer]

20. He didn't look mocking to me

Maybe he's going for the "plausible deniability" thing with his reactions, but he certainly didn't seem sarcastic to me.

[Gin]

26. he learned at the feet of the master....say one thing and mean another.

he was being facetious.

[koopie57]

37. yes Gin

I was thinking the same thing. I use the same sort of tactic when I want to point out something that is going on without actually making the accusation.

[qanda]

48. My husband and I were discussing this tonight

I got it a little late, but it suddenly hit me that O'Neill didn't get where he is in life by being naive. The man is smart enough to know that by acting like the kid being picked on instead of the schoolyard bully, his believability factor goes way up. I think playing the stupid role was a marvelous touch.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[question everything]

52. Not so much naive as not reading the map well

He worked with Nixon and Ford, who were decision makers. Bush was never picked by the inner circle of the Republicans to make any decision. He was picked because he was a Bush and becuase, like Reagan, he could follow orders; do and say what he was told to do and day.

Thus, O'Neill comments that Bush was not engaged - why should he? and How?

The comment about how Bush was "convinced" to go ahead with the second round of tax cuts again, shows that he is just a facade for Cheney and Halliburton.

That comment about how Reagan got away with deficit was also revealing. I hope that all the candidates would use these revelations, though I doubt that the "dittoheads" would understand any of them.

[Danocrat]

2. "Why would I be attacked for telling the truth."

Welcome to the real world Mr. O'Neil.

[Wickerman]

19. I found it a nice proactive defense

Its the truth, you can't be justified in attacking it. Hey, its all he's got. I hope he is still breathing a year from now.

[Terran]

34. That's a set up, get it?

When the WH attacks DO start coming, they will look like assholes for making the attacks, because O'Neill is telling the truth. He asked the question rhetorically, because every ordinary person in country with an ounce of moral fiber would agree with him.

[Nay]

39. I have to agree that O'Neill set up the WH, so that when the

spin machine starts spinning, the WH looks like a pack of liars and bullies. There is, of course, no way that the CEO of Alcoa is really so naive as to actually believe that he won't be attacked for telling the truth.

[mrdmk]

45. Here is a paragraph from time.com

<snip>
Loyalty is perhaps the most prized quality in the White House. In the book, O'Neill suggests a very dark understanding of what happens to those who don't show it. "These people are nasty and they have a long memory," he tells Suskind. But he also believes that by speaking out even in the face of inevitable White House wrath, he can demonstrate loyalty to something he prizes: the truth. "Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel—your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear." That goal is worth the price of retribution, O'Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me."
<snip>

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040119-574809,00.html

To really think O'Neill does not know what he is doing after saying is nonsense, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me." Of course they are going to try to discredit O'Neil and have already started.

More from Time.com

<snip>
O'Neill's tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. "We didn't listen to him when he was there," said a top aide. "Why should we now?"
<snip>

<snip>
There is no effort to offer an opposing analysis of O'Neill's portrayal of his tenure. The book lists his gaffes—he ridiculed Wall Street traders, accused Democrats of being socialists and disparaged business lobbyists who were seeking a tax credit that the President supported—but it portrays these moments as examples of brave truth telling in a town that doesn't like it. White House aides have a different view: It wasn't just that O'Neill was impolitic, they say; his statements had real consequences—roiling currency markets and Wall Street. What O'Neill would call rigor, Bush officials say, was an excessive fussiness that led to policy gridlock and sniping within the economic team.
<snip>

O'Neill is a Conservative and he is not happy with the radical policies of the Mr. Bush Jr. administration. I will think we will be seeing a lot of this in the up coming elections. The Mainstream Conservatives will not endorse Mr. Bush Jr. re(?)election.

[Eric J in MN]

3. They implied that in March 2001, the Bush admin listed of oil fields

They implied that in Jan 2001, the Bush administation listed of oil fields in Iraq and which foreign corporations might lay claim to each oil field.

------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which 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.?

-------------------------------
edit: changed January to March

[ShimokitaJer]

12. They didn't imply... they said it directly

That information has been seen before, though I believe it was from later in the year... March, 2001 maybe?

[Jazzgirl]

24. I saw that or a similar list months ago.

Interesting how they've been planning this. Hope the repukes choke on it too!

[Killarney]

4. I hope people listen!

I thought it was great. I hope the book sells.

[candy331]

14. The one thing that is hopeful is the hundreds of

documents that were mentioned some of top clearance. Perhaps that is O'Neill's ace in the hole to keep him from a mysterious accident is for them to believe he has these documents whether he has them/not. I hope that he has copies which no one knows where they are except him because no one can be trusted as evidenced by Linda Tripp.

[Momof1]

5. I think he should go into hiding.... they are going to be pissed n/t

[Eric J in MN]

7. They implied that Bush himself said "Why give more tax cuts to the rich?"

They implied that Bush himself said "Why give more tax cuts to the rich?"

and that his advisors said, "Because they're the entrepreuners" and ultimately persuaded him to support a second round of tax cuts to the rich.

It's amazing.

It's like Bush views his tax cuts the same as Al Gore views Bush's tax cuts.

[nostamj]

13. it shows that * is not seriously 'in the loop'

i never believed he made a single policy decision.

a spokesmodel, a cheerleader, a puppet, a tool.

certainly not a leader

[aquart]

33. They did NOT imply it. They said it outright.

[nostamj]

8. they did throw some mud on o'neil

BUT

they shoveled shit on bushco

is he naive about feeling safe in 'telling the truth' OR
is he daring them to call him a liar since he has the documents?

[Wickerman]

22. ding, ding, ding!

is he daring them to call him a liar since he has the documents?

The truth (as a great man once said) is his weapon of mass protection. Its all he's got and it could be enough to take down that lousy empire.

[jonoboy]

9. a wake-up call to honest & genuine Conservatives in the USA

that the GOP has been hi-jacked by idealouges

[qanda]

11. I thought it was good

It seemed a little too short. I was looking for more reporting from CBS, like bringing up other evidence to support what the book is saying and then asking some tough questions. For instance, how 911 was used to justify the war in Iraq and doesn't the revelation that the Iraq war was being planned all along mean that the Bush* Administration is using 911 for a more sinister agenda.

[grytpype]

16. The bias of Leslie Stahl was farking awful!!!!

My feedback to CBS:

I just finished watching the segment about Paul O'Neill's revelations. I wish to complain about the editorial position taken by 60 Minutes on the revelations.

Here we have a very credible, well-placed source revealing a very shocking picture of how the Bush White House operates. Instead of that being the story, it is presumed by 60 Minutes that he must be lying, and the story is "Who is this nut and why is he slandering the President?"

Can the truth get a fair hearing on your show? It didn't tonight.


---- leave your feedback.. go to CBS.com, click on feedback link at bottom of page

[Nlighten1]

35. I liked how...

she said that she thinks what he is saying about the President is "unflattering".

[grytpype]

36. Perfect comeback to that:

"I don't think it's my job to flatter the president. Maybe you think that's your job, but I know it's not mine."

[buycitgo]

42. he didn't say that, did he?

tell me he said that

please......tell me he said that

PLEASE!!!!!

I know he didn't

did he?

[DrBB]

17. The editorial slant was anti O'Neil

Posted this on another thread, but since there are several going on this, I'll put it up here too.

They kid themselves they're being "fair and balanced" by equivocating between the content (plenty of stuff on "both sides") and the structure. The structure is really what counts.

That stuff at the end about O'Neil not having a clue that he's painting an unflattering protrait of the *administration was carefully sequenced to help put things back in the box, as was the final comment from McCellan.

There are two narrative arcs for this kind of story. One starts with a defense of the target and ends with the big torpedoing statements; the other leads with the torpedos and ends with the defense of the target. The editorial decision as to which one to go with is complex, but it is essentially the calculus by which the editor convinces him or herself that the story is "balanced." We got "both sides" of the story, here, but they selected the clips and arranged them in such a way as to leave O'Neil's credibility, rather than Bush's, as the final question in the viewer's mind.

[economic justice]

25. I'll ask again here....

I responded to your other post in the other thread.....so I'll ask you here....

Do you think that the administration is happy tonight about that segment since it ended the way it did....the last two or three sentences?? Do you think they would trade "their" time with O'Neill and Suskind's?? I doubt that very much.

[DrBB]

43. Answered it there: link

Thus I illustrate the problem of posting the same comment in different threads. To avoid confusion, I'll direct us both to my answer in the other thread rather than reposting it here.

[Danocrat]

18. As expected, the truth has no effect on the freepers

To: daler
sounds like a out of touch socialist, his whole caring about society jargon.

2 posted on 01/11/2004 4:17:29 PM PST by Pikamax

To: daler
Paul O'Neill has issues, I think he is a couple of French Fries shy of a Happy Meal

7 posted on 01/11/2004 4:19:48 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)

To: Pikamax
What impressed me was his self-centeredness. A classic example was he was taken aback when it was suggested he was critical of President Bush! He could not conceive of anyone having a different view than his own.
IMHO President Bush gave him every opportunity to be a team player and he wasn't. Perhaps it shouldn't be said, but some of his body language and mannerisms are unusual for dominant, masculine man.


11 posted on 01/11/2004 4:24:22 PM PST by shrinkermd (i)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1055975/posts

[LunaC]

29. They're not saying a word!

On the Freeper-like board where I lurk/slum, there isn't ONE word about the "60 Minutes" segment. I guess they figure if they don't talk about it, it will just go away.

[mrdmk]

51. Dropped in on the Freepers, off topic I know!

"announcers point out Rush Limbaugh in the audience."
No talent exjock Chris Collingsworth made the Limbaugh remark after the camera panned the crowd and highlighted a mask with a football jutting from the mouth.

Announcers like him ruin the audio of the game. This is CBS top crew, sad!

Doesn't Joe Buck resemble Ernie from My Three sons?


Can these people say more than on line on anything but sports?

[Jazzgirl]

21. I'm getting the book too!

I thought O'Neill was kind of naive when Leslie asked him if he thought the repukes would go after him. He said he was telling the truth so why should he be afraid? <he should stay out of small planes..>

Jazzgirl

[Fleshdancer]

23. Wow.

I feel vindicated.

How could anyone defend this administration after watching this? They actually showed the documents proving the administration was planning to take over Iraq long before 9/11.

I would be interested to hear Pat Buchanan's reaction since he was against the war too. I wonder if this will push him to run against Bush.

I have a feeling we're going to see a very interesting debate tonight.

[doc03]

32. Pat Buchanan said it's to late

Saw an interview the other day with Pat Buchanan and he was complaining then that Bush brought out the immigration thing to late for anyone to appose him in the election.

[PatrickS]

27. I thought it was very good

Concise and to the point.

And the point is that Dumbya doesn't do anything. He's a big boob. We all knew this but to hear it coming from someone from his administration, well, it's great.

[Gin]

30. They are selling a CD too...is it the cd with the files??? or of the book

anyone know?

[Ilsa]

28. "Bush gives people nicknames to bully them..."

That's a very disrespectful thing to do, calling someone by another name against their wishes. Just goes to show what a bullying asshole 2Stupid 2B pResident is.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Yes. A very good point.

I'm glad he brought it up, and I'm glad you did too.

Let's take it a step further: to name someone is to effectively claim ownership of them. Okay, a bit of a stretch, you say, think about it. Junior's feeling of entitlement and privilege is a core element of his personality, and it is a true human ugliness. It presumes superiority to others, and it is part of the essence of Republicanism. By assuming the right to name others, one presumes dominance; we've seen his ugliness aplenty, and this is a classic example. It's akin to saying that someone has a "face for radio".

Hubris will certainly be his downfall, but is the field too rigged already? It's sad to think that he can comport himself with the viciousness that he regularly does and still be considered a nice guy.

Sigh.

[Must_B_Free]

31. Extremely damaging indictment

but the subtlety is lost on fools.

[salin]

38. I thought so too (not the fools part)... think about this folks:

To refute this... on Iraq... they are on the defensive to say...

"We Did Not Plan Invading Iraq in the First Two Months of Our Presidency"

But there is documentation that they did just this.

And the likelihood that why Dick Cheney has been fighting the blocking of the release of the Energy Task Force papers (now pending before the US Supreme Court are because they refer to discussions about a post war Iraq and Oil... just went up.

Admin is in a corner. To deny - they keep the story going - and there is documentation that refutes them. To stay silent appears to give 'proof'. They are luckiest if the story just dries up and goes away. But I don't think that it will.

This is very significant.

[Cleita]

40. Wow, they slammed it to Devilya, didn't they?

First the interview with O'Neill, then the outsourcing of American jobs to India. I particularly like the little jab about when the Indians start asking for living wages, those jobs will then be outsourced to China. And, finally the story about the bakery who not only watches it's bottom line, but finds that social conscience is even more important.

I get the impression that the media's honeymoon with Bush is over.

[booradleyjr]

41. I liked it.

I thought it was wonderful to finally see some truth about the gang of thugs on a mainstream program like 60 minutes that alot of working people rely on for "information". It will give me something to talk with them about.

[Obamarama]

44. I thought it was GREAT. But I don't think it will make a difference...

Why?

Because I think the masses in this country are far too obtuse and lazy to give a rat's ass.

Bush smoked big, bad, old Saddam right outta his spider hole. That's all the idiot stick figure dunderheads who profess undying support for the idiot-in-chief and his posse CARE about. That's good enough for them.

And the rest of our fellow citizens who may be fence-sitting are too caught up in Ryan and Trista's freaking wedding to seek out answers as to why our country is spinning around on this carousel of Republican madness.

Yeah, you and I get it. We've gotten it all along. We felt vindicated by this piece. I hate to be so cynical but I have no confidence that the average American is going to sit up and take notice, even after seeing this piece.

[booradleyjr]

46. You have to talk with them about it

because some of them will have seen it and now it's not just "your opinion" that bushco is corrupt, there is now evidence showing up on the telescreen. Use it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. I thought it was a great piece...

O'Neill was brilliant when he was clearly playing with Stahl (and Bush) when he was answering her questions about the unflattering portrait and why would they attack him for telling the truth. I literally laughed out loud when I heard him say that.

Yes, a lot of American is asleep and couldn't give a rat's ass about this, but there are good, old-school Republicans out there -- yes, I know some of them -- who will be appauled at this.

Bush's downfall will have to come from within his own party -- this could be the first step.

[mrdmk]

50. The piece was damming

There were interesting revelations there:

1) Rumsfield told O’Neill not to do the book. This is a worry because why Rumsfield (DOD)was doing the talking and how did Rumsfield know that O’Neill was involved in the book.
2) Cheney being the “Perternian Guard (sp?)”, another words Cheney makes sure what news Mr. Bush Jr. receives. That is a good one. (Note: I hope to see Cheney in French Court shortly.)
3) Rove said, “stick to principles”, on the tax cuts. So Rove is out to give money to rich people. What office does Rove hold? (He does not; he gets his pay from Mr. Bush Jr. himself.)

The ending of the story had something left to be desired, I have no cue as to what the reporter was implying when she said she appalled. Apparently she was attempting to get a reaction, but was ambiguous in her apporch.

[Selwynn]

53. I really don't care about O'neil - I care about the 19,000 pages of docs

To me, the fact that this is not just one man saying a bunch of things without any evidence is what makes me sit up and take notice. Its the pages an pages of documentation to support what he is saying that interests me.

I don't think it will have any impact on the public at large though. I just don't think they care about anything that goes on in politics unless they see how it directly effects them and their interests.

The best way to get people roused up and ready for real political action is to show them how the Bush administration plans to ban football, or restrict the sale of SUVs or hamburgers. Then you'd see marches in the streets, and people marching on Washington. Until then, people will flip through the channels and sigh while wondering when The Bachelor will be on again.

And that's.... the way it is.