Republican talking points countering O'Neill

[Granite]

Ok - lets list the Republican talking points that will be used to try and disarm the O'Neill claims. I'll start with the ones I've heard already -

1. Regime change in Iraq has been an official policy since 1998, and WJC supported this

2. The military has contingency plans for everything - that is what they do. They even have contingency plans for invading Mexico, if the need should ever arise (had a military guy actually tell me this)

3. The justifications for the invasion in 2003 were all there in 2001, so what did it matter that they were planning this 2 years earlier?

What other "justifications" have you heard from Repubs (and hawk-Dems) for O'Neill's points? More importantly, what is our response?

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. All of that is irrelevant because...

Bush lied about th WMD threat, period.

[Military Brat]

2. My response: If bush was so prepared for the war in Iraq ...

... then why the hell wasn't he prepared to avoid an attack by al Qaeda?

[atreides1]

14. He Didn't Choose to Prepare

Who ever said that he wanted to be prepared, or perhaps the neo-con
white American thought that anyone who isn't a white Christian, could
never come up with such a complicated plan. And then there's the old myth that no one would have the audacity to attack to only Super Power
left in the world.

Ask yourself this question, with all the intelligence gathering equipment that the US has at it's fingertips, why did this happen.
All of this intel just had us under orangfe alert for the last few weeks, this same stuff was there prior to 9/11, and yet they heard no
"chatter".

Add to this the fact that the Bush administration gave 43 million dollars to the Taliban government prior to 9/11, and was trying to negotiate a deal to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Pakistan coast.

Bush was going down in the polls prior to 9/11, his administration needed something that would bring it the support of the American
people.

This isn't the first time in history that those in power looked the other way in order to remain in power. And to those who don't think that there are those in this administration or close to it that would like nothing more then domination of the world you haven't been watching Perle and his pal Frum going around endorsing that very thing.

[Military Brat]

27. My response is to the right wing who defend the "prepared" plans

I'm a firm believer in LIHOP. Perle and Frum are neocon scum.

[Grins]

17. My point too..

3. The justifications for the invasion in 2003 were all there in 2001, so what did it matter that they were planning this 2 years earlier?

I agree. Planning for two years and they never planned for "nation building"? For guerilla war? For paying for it?

[loudnclear]

23. The problem is Bush use 9/11 as the reason for invasion of Iraq.

It's the lying and deceiving that's the problem. It's 504 dead. And Clinton never proposed an invasion for "regime change." Regime change can be accomplished in many ways, including waiting.

[cthrumatrix]

3. it's called "fear of the truth getting out"...he has memo's , email..facts

wait til data comes out...it's going to be a long year for shrub...they won't trust this guy again

[trof]

4. 4. Disgruntled former employee.

Got fired. Sour grapes. Hates Bush*.
You know the drill.

[Granite]

5. Good one

I've heard this too - already talking about O'Neill's incompetency as Treasury Secretary. Ugh.

Will be interesting to see what he has to say about Bush's overall incompetence (what's the line - "like a blind man talking to a room full of deaf people?")- this might be more enlightening than the Iraq plans. This is the first time in a LONG time that I'm actually looking forward to watching 60 Minutes.

[Danocrat]

8. They praised him up and down

when he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary. The nation needs to be reminded of this.

[Robb]

26. Bingo!!

Read it right here:

BUSH: And so it is incredibly important for me to find somebody who had vast experience, who is a steady hand, who when he speaks, speaks with authority and conviction and knowledge. I found such a man in Paul O'Neill.

(snip)

...People who knew Paul in that capacity knew him to be a straight shooter and innovator, someone who could lead.

(snip)

...I look forward to having this good man by my side. I look forward to having him making our administration's case to the Congress, to the American people and to the world.

(snip)

...And that's why I'm naming Paul O'Neill as the secretary of treasury. Such an important, important decision, because he is a man that's capable of doing that job.

(snip)

... I think people on Wall Street who are savvy will understand what a good pick Paul O'Neill is. And I am--I looked at a lot of folks, people with different backgrounds and different addresses, and I found the absolutely right person for the job.

(more)

[ewagner]

9. Accused O'Neil

of having a "political tin ear".

IOW he wouldn't "get with the program".

[Mel]

6. bing bing bing

Trof, you are correct the question this morning on C-Span 'is it sour grapes'
This was seen by DU'ers as what would be coming down the pike when the story first broke.

As pointed out by a C-Span caller anyone who stands up to this government is called unpatriotic.<---so true, so sad!

[KayLaw]

7. C-Span

I didn't pay terribly close attention, but most of the callers attacked the O'Neill in a personal way, even saying he has a whiny voice! Another said if Bush hadn't started the war we'd be paying sky-high prices for oil.

I hear this sort of argument a lot and think it bizarre. Okay, things aren't great, but if it weren't for Bush, we'd be wearing turbans, the economy would be worse with even fewer jobs, terrorists would be attacking us left and right. How can you argue with that?

[Cooley Hurd]

10. When did the oil prices go down?

Damn! Did I miss it? Funny, gas is the same price it was a year ago...

[KayLaw]

13. That's just it

Whatever you're paying, if it weren't for the brilliant George Bush, you'd be paying far more. No matter how bad things are, they would be much worse if not for our wonderful leader, so be grateful.:eyes:

[Toots]

12. "How can you argue with that?"

Remind them that during the last Democratic Administration one thousand jobs were created every three hours for eight straight years. The greatest economic turn-around in the history of the US intil this Administration. This Administration now has that dubious honor only in the opposite direction. Argue it with facts that is how you argue it.

[librechik]

16. Did you hear the guy who said

O'Neil was "off touring Europe with Bono, drinking wine, eating cheese and enjoying anal sex..." (click!)

I'm not joking! And then right after that somebody else said they thought O'Neil was crazy because he caught some disease from Bono!

They have sent the harpies out in force this morning--They are terrified when the mainstream sources are suspiciously silent, but the backchannels are boosting broadband use.

It's starting to look like a Perfect Storm for Shrimpie McPoopypants!

[Catfish]

24. I have to laugh

if the line on O'Neill coming from the thugs includes such nonsense such as about Bono wine, cheese, etc. it's pathetic.

[wryter2000]

20. But

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1006289

If you read the times article cited here, you see that the book had many, many administration sources. O'Neill was the only one to go on the record, but all of them can't be disgruntled former employees.

[librechik]

15. yeah, they're countering with scurrilous personal attacks

on O'Neil. They aren't playing fair on this issue, (surprize!) so we must prepare to defend attacks like that!

How about "oh, so you want to punish the messenger when he brings bad news?"

or "O'Neil was fired by Bush because he had the courage to fight his boss's lies with the truth. Doesn't he deserve a hearing rather than blanket condemnation--even before anyone has read the book!" (It's out Tuesday)

Freepers like to also say that the economy "improved" after O'Neil left, implying there was some connection. After all, they tossed O'Neil's advice in the trash and bent over for their corporate donors.

This is one of those "association" debate tricks. It depends on utter magical thinking to have any credibility, so I have no good response. (except laughter) Any suggestions from debate captains howe to get out of this? I'm a bust at logic puzzles.

[badgolfer]

11. CBS 60 Minutes

I emailed the CBS 60 minutes new article to myself and guess what. The email had an attached flag saying the link was UNSAFE. This message was added by MSN. I went ahead and clicked on the link and everything was fine.

MSN is trying to shut down the spreading of this article through the internet. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[Cocoa]

18. simple ridicule

laugh at him, call him a loser, make fun of the way he talks, etc.

Nothing too complicated like disputing what he said...

[Oilwellian]

19. Ask them...

Why would Bush choose O'Neill to run our Treasury if he is what you say he is?

[cally]

21. If Saddam was a known threat, why did the Bushies

have to go in unilaterally and not take time for diplomacy? (that's a rhetorical question.) Why the rush to war? Remember, they said we were in emminent danger so we HAD to alienate our allies and go it alone. Now we're stuck, paying all the bills, over 500 US deaths. If we had waited and went in with a coalition, our deficit would be smaller, less casualties....

The above is the argument I use. I don't think we ever should have gone into Iraq for any reason.

[Granite]

22. I agree - post-hoc justification for a pre-determined decision

That is the key, IMO. While I'm sure it is true that we have contingency plans to invade any number of countries, O'Neill's claims go beyond that. He states:

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decided to do, is a really huge leap.”

Its not so much the contingency plans for Iraq. Its the fact that justifications and process were set up to support a conclusion that was foregone as early as January 2001. For those of us who argued for more time, more evidence, and more diplomacy and were told that we needed to act immediately because the threat from WMD's was real, O'Neill's revellations (if true) continue to cast doubt on this administrations' motives in Iraq.

[number6]

need Repooplikin taking points just watch ...

Faux nooze :puke: :eyes:

[PretzelWarrior]

25. God told us to so it doesn't matter. God is on our side.

Also, we're FRIGGIN AMERICANS. We got the bomb. we can do whatever the hell we want. Besides, we got big media, Diebold, and half of congress in our pockets so screw you, idealistic hippies!