Why haven't the Democratic candidates all seized the O'Neill revelations?

[Timefortruth]

Most of what I have heard is pretty lame, some have seemed to say that O'Neill must be mistaken about his impressions.

What's up, this is the best opportunity yet to out Chimp for what he is, both pertaining to the war and *'s competence generally.

edited for spelling.

[wryter2000]

1. Hmmmm...

Maybe they're waiting to read the book before they comment in any depth. I think that would be wise.

[edzontar]

2. Dean and Kucinich have talked about it, I think....

Maybe Clark, but I haven't seen it.

You can't blame the others, since the revelations make Kerry, Gephardt, Liberman, and Edwards, look bad for voting for it.

Which they deserve on this issue.

[Timefortruth]

5. But ignoring the Iraq stuff it is still pretty damning.

"A blind man in a room of deaf people."

[blm]

13. You're wrong. Kerry's statement was swift and strong.

It's posted downthread.

[democratreformed]

3. Wes Clark's Statement

Excerpt:
"Today, Paul O'Neill confirmed what I have been saying all along: the Bush Administration's focus on Iraq was not tied to the war on terror. It was a long-standing plan that was discussed from the opening days of the Bush White House.

In White House meetings during the months of January and February 2001, President Bush and his advisors were planning for what they presented to the public in January and February of 2003: peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and nation building memos for a post-Saddam Iraq. Bush and his advisors even went so far as to plan for the divvying up of Iraq's oil wealth.

According to Secretary O'Neill, President Bush was focused on finding a way to overthrow Saddam, and he demanded that those around him find a way to do it. In the end, they used the war on terror as an excuse to execute their long-standing plans."

Link: http://clark04.com/press/release/168/

[IndianaGreen]

4. Clark gets kudos from me for his unrelenting attack on Bush

This is in sharp contrast to Kerry's changing the topic when he was asked about the O'Neill revelations by Chris Matthews during the post-debate show.

[maddezmom]

6. and another article about O'Neill probe by bush admin.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2004/nh__clark_democrats_17_2004.shtml

[beaconess]

7. They're all talking about it, but the press is focusing on other aspects

of the race.

[redqueen]

8. Kucinich on O'Neill Revelations - 1/11/04

Kucinich on O'Neill Revelations

Dennis' campaign for the presidency developed out of the response to a speech he gave in February 2002 opposing the Bush Administration's build-up to a war on Iraq.

Dennis today released this statement in response to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's charges that President Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it:

"These revelations are not just about the past. The Bush Administration is still with us. They manufactured justifications for the war, and they are now manufacturing justifications for continuing this occupation. The war is not over, and the invention of justifications for it is not over. Even Democratic presidential candidates are joining in. But the idea that we can stabilize Iraq and develop a legitimate democracy prior to turning control over to the United Nations is as impossible to believe as were the claims about an imminent threat from vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction."

[ClarkGraham2004]

9. The best was Mort Kondrake bashing O'Neill and praising Bush

I thought that was really shocking.

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. Because most voters think the fact that bush lied was a secret and

O'Neill is a traitor for having revealed it.

[emulatorloo]

11. Kerry on O'Neill - 1/10/04

John Kerry Responds to Secretary O’Neill’s Iraq Charges


January  10,  2004

For Immediate Release
Des Moines, Iowa -

 

“These are very serious charges by a former high ranking Administration official. We already knew the Administration failed to focus on the threat from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda. We already knew the Administration broke every promise they made to work through the U.N., use the resolution to enforce inspections, build a coalition, and plan for peace. But Secretary O’Neill’s revelations would mean the Administration never intended to even try to keep those promises. It would mean they 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. 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 their already damaged credibility as never before.”

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0110.html

[eissa]

12. They HAVE been talking about it

I watched Dean last night on C-Span mention it. But the response from the media and the general public is usually a yawn. Now if O'Neill or * were getting their dicks sucked, maybe that might arouse (excuse the pun) some interest.

[Jerseycoa]

14. Yep

For a year or two, at that.