Paul O'Neil is NOT a good man!!!!!!

[funkyflathead]

He got screwed over by B*sh and is trying to extract revenge.

He is probally lying like his ex boss does.

He is slime!

[GephardtClark]

1. I agree

Move on from this bitter, FIRED old guy. To try and wrest any political advantage off of his rantings smells of desperation. We must have something better than this to run on.

[Webster Green]

3. Sounds just like the spin coming out of the White House...

You don't work there, do you?

[GephardtClark]

7. I bet you dollars to donuts

O'Neill is forgotten in a week if not less. Where do you work Disneyland?

[wtmusic]

11. I'll bet you mushrooms to screwdrivers

you don't have anything to back up that opinion...:eyes:

[Selwynn]

15. Nor do you to back up yours.

:eyes: back

[wtmusic]

19. OK how about this

O'Neil was the Treasury Secretary in George W. Bush's cabinet. He has presented, in his book, documents which reveal a plan to attack Iraq years before the president claimed to be 'seeking paths to peace'. The veracity of the documents is unquestioned by anyone.

Regardless the motives--this is earth-shaking and will cast serious doubt in the minds of all but the moronic faithful.

Your turn! :-)

[GephardtClark]

22. One of those "Paths to peace"

Had a tank on it that rolled right over Saddam.

[aquart]

29. Non sequitor.

Since Saddam was no threat to us, an administration that planned to invade his country and depose him from DAY ONE, is an administration that was NOT attending to the vital needs of this nation.

And, as you seem not to notice, we are not at peace.

[wtmusic]

30. Oh, so the lying part was OK then

is that it? :eyes :eyes:

[GephardtClark]

33. First get Dean to stop lying

Then work on others. (Log in your own candidates eye and all that jazz). That's in the bible, just ask Dean.

[wtmusic]

35. First get Gep to answer a question

then come back and answer mine :D

[GephardtClark]

38. What question do you have?

[wtmusic]

40. So Gep is answering them now? Good...

Why did he help abdicate Congress's responsibility to provide a check to the executive branch of the government, and place the power to declare war in the President's hands?

Hmmmm?

:shrug:

[GephardtClark]

43. There is no declared war

There hasn't been for over 60 years.

[wtmusic]

45. oh kee-rist

an absolutist. We don't see to many of them around here.

So if it's not declared, it's not a war.

Tell that to the families with only pictures left.

:puke:

[GephardtClark]

49. There is no declared war

And the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed by Democrats. It gives the President the right to committ forces to battle.

Just the plain old truth.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

"The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations."

[wtmusic]

56. wrong

lol did you read your own link?


"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

[Webster Green]

59. Christ-O-Rama, It doesn't give him the authority to lie to Congress

about non existant threats in order to make it happen. He should pay the consequences for having done so. There are no WMDs.

[BackDoorMan]

71. Paul O'Neil IS A GOOD MAN!!!!!!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Paul O'Neil IS A GOOD MAN!!!!!!

Now don't fuck with me and go away!!!

[Webster Green]

47. Soldiers are still dying though..........

Because of lies!

[GephardtClark]

50. So you say

[Webster Green]

51. They're not dying then?

Or have they found the WMDs?

[GephardtClark]

52. I don't believe it was a lie

[Webster Green]

53. OK, I give up...its hard to argue one liners with no content...

It seems like an endless string of RW talking points. Have you picked out a tombstone yet?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Webster Green]

60. What the hell does this have to do with Dean?

I haven't said a word about Dean. I have no indication in my sig as to who I support. You sound a little obsessive!

P.S. There are no WMDs.

[GephardtClark]

66. And there won't be any there EVER now.

Unless, of course, we have them and that would be okay with me.

[wtmusic]

61. eom

[ariellyn]

57. Well...where are they then?

It's been nine months, nearly 500 of ours are dead and 10,000 of their's. We captured Saddam and posted his son's heads on the front pages of all of the news despite the fact that they had not engaged in mass murders in their country in at least the last six years. We've made enemies of France, Germany, Russia--turned them against the US dollar in favor of the Euro and thrown billions at Iraq when they were no threat to this country whatsoever.

So, considering the facts, why don't you believe they lied? What do you call it when countless associations and incessant innuendo are used by BushCo to suggest a link between Saddam and 9/11 so that 70% of the public erroneously believe he was involved? What do you call it when said liars insist Saddam supports terrorists although they fail to disclose the full truth about that support going to Israel/Muslim efforts and not anti-American efforts--again, no threat to us (especially when the amount of "support" is $25,000). What do you call it when Bush claimed unmanned drones could attack us or that tons of sarin and nerve gas would be used against citizens of the world? What do you call it when Bush claimed he would not engage in nation building and then does just that when he invades Iraq and attempts to install a democracy?

[GephardtClark]

62. Gee, there are many people that think

Wellstone was murdered and that 9/11 was a US conspiracy against itself. I don't know or care what 70% of the public thinks. I never thought Saddam was behind 9/11 and I STILL support the war to remove him. Like Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, Edwards. It's only the flake candidatess that don't

There, how do you like that huh?!!!

Oh no! One who will not bow down to the antiwar alter!!

Kill him, KILL HIM!!!!!

[ariellyn]

65. My question was about the lies....

Why do you believe them when the facts are to the contrary? How can you support a war that obviously was unnecessary since, if the WMD haven't been found by now, Hans Blix could have been allowed to continue his work with the same results? We haven't done any better than the UN...and much much worse.

[Webster Green]

67. Actually, I think complete disregard for international law is flaky

No WMDs=no justification to invade a sovereign nation, even if you don't like it's leader. Thats the law. The chimp lied about WMDs. If he felt justified going to war for regime change, why didn't he present that argument to congress? Because they would have said no. So he made a bunch of shit up. He lied to congress and to us. Those who support international law are the real conservatives. Those who do not are the radical flakes.

[saltpoint]

74. Just saying...

Your 'alter' should be altered to 'altar.'

[saltpoint]

75. Edit:

My #74 meant for #62, not for #57. I atone.

Also I think your points are right-on.

[NickB79]

69. You honestly still believe that Iraq had WMD's?

I could ask you the obvious question: where are the WMD's? But my question is: where are the nuclear reactors and biochemical production labs needed to produce any WMD's? Freepers can always pull out the claim that the mythical WMD's were buried or moved out of country, but could they have moved or destroyed entire factories, reactors and labs without anyone noticing? Hardly. We're talking about the need for large, complex facilities that would be nearly impossible to hide, especially considering how the US has been maintaining aerial and satellite recon. for the past decade.

You can't produce anywhere near enough WMD's, in a pure enough form, and in a weaponized and deployable form, in mobile weapons labs (of which they still haven't found; the 2 ones they found this summer have been dismissed as mobile weapons labs by weapons experts).

So Saddam not only hid hundreds of tons of WMD's, he also produced them out of thin air?

[Selwynn]

63. Do you deny that there are troops dying in Iraq? Yes or no.

[GephardtClark]

64. Mr. Prosecuter that is a ridiculous question

[Webster Green]

68. Sad to see such disregard for US soldiers lives.

Really sad!

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. errrrr

...you might want to read up on this. o'neil didn't write a book.

[Webster Green]

12. Well, no I don't......

Say, have your read the PNAC documents? Very interesting. They support everything O'Neill is saying.

[underseasurveyor]

6. Yeah I'm sure there is nothing at all to see

in those 19 thousand documents he has. :eyes:

[wtmusic]

9. Wow GC, you sound kind of bitter yourself

it wouldn't be because your man is polling 2nd and losing ground is it?

:eyes:

[aquart]

27. Jobloss George is the one who is desperate.

I didn't hear any ranting. I heard clear, documented statements from the wealthy, former head of a major conglomerate.

[Webster Green]

2. Huh?

What makes you say he is lying? All the evidence I've seen indicates he's telling the truth.

[GephardtClark]

4. You don't get it.

IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE PROVED! HE IS EASILY DISMISSED AS A BITTER, VENGEFUL HACK.

MOVE ON TO SOMETHING POSITIVE OR EAT ELECTORAL DUST!!!!!

[wtmusic]

10. Did your caps key get stuck on, or are you new around here?

Or both?

All caps is *very* negative, especially coming from a *positive* poster like you :eyes:

[underseasurveyor]

13. He who establishes his arguement by noise and command

shows that his reason is weak.
MdM

[Webster Green]

18. YOU sir, are missing the point!

It was the WMD's that needed to be proved. We do not go to war based on bullshit.

[aquart]

32. Documentation is usually called "proof." We use it in courts.

O'Neill has documentation out the wazoo.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention.

[Punkingal]

5. Most people don't lie and then produce....

19,000 pages of documents. Did you hear that part of the story?

[funkyflathead]

23. He is still a liar

All repukes LIE.

[aquart]

37. Now what would we call that attitude? Bigotry? Prejudice?

I've known some scrupulously honest Republicans. Still do.

[Selwynn]

39. You're argument doesn't even make sense.

"Yes, he did produce 19,000 pages of government documents, review idenpendantly, but somehow those manage to all be "lies" to support his "lie."

Okay... well, there's a conspiracy theory to top all the ones I've heard so far.

[Kinkistyle]

73. This is hate speech. No better than Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Weiner etc.

Gross generalizations, baseless accusations and unresponsive to reason. Plonk this person. These are the people that Limbaugh and Co. point to as representations of "Liberals". Either a repug plant, or a kid who still needs alot of growing up to do.

[snippy]

83. Agreed.

[JailForBush]

8. Revenge? Perhaps. Lies? No.

O'Neill may well be exacting revenge. But use a little common sense:

1. Merely speaking out against George Bush, Inc. is dangerous. Would you make it still more dangerous by LYING?

2. Why would he HAVE to lie, when the truth about George W. Bush is so bizarre and disgusting?

Truth can be a fearsome weapon; it's my favorite.

[wtmusic]

14. Anything to back that up or is there ulterior motive here?

Just wondering...

[Beaker]

16. Is this thread still here?

has anyone seen a mod...?

[hellhathnofury]

25. It's legal. We're talking about Repubs.

[Selwynn]

17. 19,000 pages of documents. 19,000 pages of documents. 19,000 pages of doc

I don't really care what kind of a "man" Oneil is. I do however, care about the 19,000 pages of documents he turned over that DON'T LIE.

[EXE619K]

20. You're right!

These accusations are slime...comming from a disgruntled ex-employee of our president! We should be ashamed of ourselves for digging up this kinda trash to smear the President of these United States!

"it's not nice to kick a man when he's down!"







Sorry mah.....

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce: :party: :bounce:

[aquart]

21. Revenge is often a motive for telling the truth.

Wherever did you get the idea that vengeance is only for liars?

And while I do not doubt that slime is the proper epithet for any member of the BushCo regime, it really does help if you present just a soupcon of evidence for it.

[funkyflathead]

26. It's also a motive for spreading untruths

Screwing over B*sh, screwing over us Dems.

O'Neil is a repuke hack.

[Selwynn]

28. 19,000 pages of documents. 19,000 pages of documents. 19,000 pages of docu

[funkyflathead]

31. Go ahead believe a repuke and what he produces

It just shows your desperate. End of story.

[wtmusic]

34. 'end of story', let's see...it's right here under 'e'...

n. phrase a thread-terminating attempt during a post, as in, 'I've run out of argument'.

[Selwynn]

36. you don't 'make up' NINETEEN THOUSDAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTS

unless you're the CIA (OOOOOO BURN!! hehe)

[aquart]

41. No. What it shows is something else altogether.

So, you won't even look at the evidence because you know all Republicans lie all the time?

What a great way to heal a nation. Why don't we round them all up and put them in camps.

This is a bloody fight we're engaged in, but there will never be peace with that unreasoning hatred fueling it.

[Webster Green]

42. Is there ever any logic in ANY of your posts?

Just curious. Seems like you post just for the sake of posting.

[Kinkistyle]

72. Are you messed in the head?

So a Republican can never tell the truth? Are you for serious? How old are you? MY DAD IS A REPUBLICAN. He is misled, not a liar. I mean seriously.

[arwalden]

78. How Many? Nineteen Thousand, You Say?

:-)

That ought to be enough to impress ANYONE. ESPECIALLY those folks who think that THESE TWO PAGES are evidence of a WMD program.

[TexasPatriot]

24. considering he's responsible for a strip mine near my home

Alcoa, Governor Bush, long story

but i'd have to agree....
he's way up on the 'reincarnated as a bug' list, i just hope it's my windshield that gets to do the honors.

[hellhathnofury]

48. Lovely. I hope Christie Whitman repents.

I think she'd be a salmon. Mmmmm....Salmon.

[Cat Atomic]

44. For the love of god! There's nothing to see here! Nothing at all!

Move away! No! Don't look at that! Dammit! Stop it! Move away! Get away!!!

/boggle

[ariellyn]

46. "Slime"? What do you base this rant on?

You don't back up your argument with anything to prove he's slime. If what he says sheds light on BushCo's corruption, you should be happy. Why aren't you?

[Fridays Child]

55. Hee hee. Good question, ariellyn.

Only four posts old and I like you, already!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ariellyn]

58. Thanx for the welcome.

:hi:

[jcc]

70. Ask any Gulf War Intelligence Vet and they will tell you what O'Neil...

said was true. O'neil is scuzzy perhaps even purely because he is a Republican, but his claims are completely true.

[rman]

76. that's what the Repubs are saying

after all their lies (WMDs, Saddam-9/11, taxcut foor the rich, etc) what reason do you have to trust them?

[snippy]

77. Dubya? Is that you?

[Gin]

79. mr. Rove thou doth protest too much!

:)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

80. He is better "slime" than bush* and at least he went to Africa with Bono..

and showed some REAL compassion for the plite of the AIDs vitims....what is your agenda?

[Walt Starr]

81. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh man, the satire in this post is JUST TOO RICH!!!

You had me going for a few seconds there. Thought I was reading Rush Limbaugh spewage at first, but then I got it that you were just doing some satire on the Right Wing attempts to discredit the man who came clean and produced documentation to back it up.

Hee hee, you're good, man. really good!

[rasputin1952]

82. I find it somewhat amusing that...

there is so much discussion on something that we are all ignorant of at this moment.

Until there is proof that O'Neill is lying, I will withhold any criticism of him. BUT there is ample evidence that the administration is pretty well fried on this issue. PNAC is the most important part of this; but there are reams of documents from all over the spectrum, that support the allegations I am hearing.

I will read the book and then decide if O'Neill is onto something new.

O8)

[LeahMira]

84. So???

He got screwed over by B*sh and is trying to extract revenge.

Whatever the man's motives, they are a matter for his own conscience. The truth of his claims can be proved or disproved given time. Try to separate the messenger from the message.

[Moderator]

86. Locking.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.


4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.