O'Neill and Suskind book called a hoax.

[fjc]

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.




http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/005628.php

[HereSince1628]

1. Let me say this gracefully--this is horseshit

as the say in the comics that's enuf.

The entire fiasco regarding the mislead to war and its potential connection to the Cheney energy task force requires a credible, independent review.

I know THAT is impossible in Bush's Amurika.

So I am left to the alternatives...you are either with me or against me...even George can understand THAT!

[fjc]

2. Don't suger coat it, just tell me how you really feel.

I posted that here simply because I wanted to get the reaction of this community to the kind of efforts yall just know you're gonna see about this.

[xray s]

3. Somebody's pulling a hoax, that's for sure

Now lets see, is it more likely to be O'Neill and Suskind, in remarks made on a national news program that can easily be checked, or by 'Laurie Mylroie', whoever that is, in a rightwing blog?

I guess time will tell.

[RaulGroom]

9. FJC is right - this is a good puzzle

THINK about this. READ the post. Sometimes it is difficult to dissect and refute a confusing argument, even a specious one. What is LOGICALLY wrong with what this email is saying? Anyone?

These are the types of questions you must learn to answer if you want to be relevant in the political discourse, unlike 99% of the people in the world (including the extraordinarily well-paid journalists we blast on here all the time). Don't wait for someone to explain things to you, and DON'T rely on a sort of internal appeal to authority where you believe what comes from sources you like and disbelieve what comes from sources you don't like.

UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq... The series is presented as if they are parallel cases. But there's a big difference between the first two countries and the last one, one that renders this woman's line of argument useless.

What is it?

[madaboutharry]

4. Read about Laurie Mylroie here

in a fine article by Peter Bergen. "Armchair Provocateur - Laurie Mylroie: The Neocons' favorite conspiracy theorist."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

[xray s]

6. I think its really written by Dick Cheney

Something to pass the time while he broods in the "undisclosed secret location".

[Ekova]

5. Seems like a typical response

from any of the Jr. faithful. I have a feeling the book may go a tad deeper than the 11 1/2 minute interview allowed. It'll be interesting to see where this goes - European news outlets seem to be paying more attention to this when news at home has shelved it a bit.

[wryter2000]

7. Man

They are really scared. This is fantastic. I can't wait to get the book.

[librechik]

8. "O'Neil is wrong--they weren't planning on invading Iraq in January

They were planning on invading Iraq, and Syria, and Iran and Saudi Arabia! So obviously O'Neil is a liar!"

"And the documents didn't come from Bush--they came from Cheney's office!"

Oh, well, I guess she nailed O'Neil! (snicker)

(so pathetic!)

[leesa]

10. Let them claim hoax. Let them sue for defamation. I would love to have

every bit of it gone over with a fine comb.

[Martin Eden]

11. O'Neil's perspective as an insider...

...is perhaps more important than the documents about oil and plans for invasion of Iraq.

I say perhaps, because the documents may or may not be a bombshell (analysis pending). It is not unreasonable to expect an administration to gather all possible information about foreign competetion for a vital resource, or to develop military strategies for dealing with a potential adversary.

For these documents to be incriminating, it must be shown that they reveal an intent beyond what may be considered thorough contingecy planning.

The neocon intent for invading Iraq is already well documented by PNAC's own white papers. The major foreign policy makers in the Bush administration were on record long before 9/11.

Unfortunately, that hasn't particularly registered with the public, and this new information will hopefully serve to give wider exposure to the fact that 9/11 merely provided cover for implementing the pre-existing intent to invade Iraq.

But you don't want to put too many eggs into this new basket because if it fails prove incriminating (in the court of public opinion), the Bushies will hold it up as proof there is no case against them.

Which is why, at this point anyway, I felt that O Neil's insider observation about Dumbya's leadership (lack thereof), and quotes from Cheny (deficits don't matter, this is our due) may have a greater impact.

I'm hoping the documents will prove to be -- and be widely acknowledged as -- truly incriminating; but this remains to be seen.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Suppose there is an explanation for that document other than war plans

Suppose there is an explanation for that document other than war plans, and "60 Minutes" didn't present other reasonable explanations.

It doesn't follow that the BOOK is a hoax, or that anything the book says or Paul O'Neill said in the interview is untrue.

[RaulGroom]

13. Time's up

Read my blog for the answer to the riddle:

http://raulgroom.blogspot.com

[Charlls]

15. Excellent point RaulGroom

[murielm99]

14. 60 Minutes is extraordinarily careful.

I believe the only person who has ever sued the successfully was General Westmoreland.

I read a couple of books about 60 Minutes a few years ago. They were both older books, but carefully researched at the time.

I became interested after 60 Minutes visited my community for a segment called "Small Town, USA," back in the eighties. It created a major furor here. The townsfolk said that 60 Minutes told only one side of the story. (I think the townsfolk were essentially correct).

However powerful the Bushies might be, 60 Minutes is very careful. I do not think they would allow anything like a hoax, or the disclosure of secret documents to appear on their program.

[Cory]

16. Can't even get the facts straight

Laurie states that the documents came from Cheney's office. In fact they came from the Department of Commerce (hence the DOC designation). They were released in a request for information on the Energy Task Force. Cheney still refuses to release any documents related to the request.

People need to step back, open their eyes and look at the facts. Bush supporters will do anything to avoid the debate a good article addressing that came out today (see: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_7611.shtml).

Instead of scrutinizing every instance that contradicts the president they should focus on the lies of the administration.