Be best for Paulie if he stays out of small aircraft.

Doesn't that bookcome out today? On Sunday it was like 18th on Amazon sales rank... this is sure to help it. Way I see it, Paul O'Neill is a national hero...

From the CBS link:
"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."
From your prior post:
"Judicial Watch, which has gone after Bush as resolutely as it went after Clinton, has the results from its Freedom of Information Act request on the secret energy task force meetings led by Dick Cheney. And interestingly enough:"
So which is it? War plans or energy study?

War plans or energy study?

When the Middle East is involved, the two categories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I don't think anybody is quite certain what is going on here besides the administration itself and they aren't talking.

As I understand it (which is to say, vaguely at best), there are actually two documents being discussed here. One is "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts" and the other is "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq."

"So which is it? War plans or energy study?"

As for the oilfields document, energy study... wink, wink. Although, like I commented: Any analysis of world oil resources (which any self-respecting (sic) energy task force would want to conduct) would "contain map(s) of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects".

But the point is what O'Neill has to say about the Bush White House MO and agenda for war.

"But the point is what O'Neill has to say about the Bush White House MO and agenda for war."

How can this be believed if they are loudly misrepresenting their 'evidence' so badly?

"How can this be believed if they are loudly misrepresenting their 'evidence' so badly?"

What! Sorry it early for me:)

Paul O'Neill's words alone carry a fair amount weight for me. I've already consistently stated that the oilfields document, inandofitself, means very little, unless you're skeptical of the administration to begin with.

Nobody I've read is trying to make Suskind's book or O'Neills analysis grounds for legal action, impeachment, or any other such sillyness. It just reinforces the claim that these clowns are reckless to the detriment of the country. I hope it catches on and causes some people to see this administration in a new light, and think it will. Too bad for W.

The left feels jilted! Katie Couric was almost spitting from anger this morning as O'Neill was backpedaling and refusing to go along with her scripted vendetta toward Bush.

You people are funny. Bush will take 42 states.

Dean is performing doctor-assisted suicided on the Democratic party.

You people are funny. Bush will take 42 states.

And Jake Delhomme will throw for 1500 yards and 32 touchdowns this weekend.

Shouldn't the term be "Rove Rage?"

this is funny.

seems like sour grapes to me, but i'll read the book and confirm it later.

it's too bad the Clintons were part of the Bush plan to return to Iraq - who else could get regime change laws passed with such a large majority while a Bush was not in the White House?

shock and squirm. . .

But I'll read the book and confirm it later...

Heh heh, that is kinda funny, but you might not realize why.

Look, I want my country's military to be versed in all sorts of contingencies. And I'm glad Clinton's military did such a good job in the initial phase in Iraq. But there's a difference between being prepared and the kind of fixation for war against Saddam that W had.

The lousy job of working the inspections and diplomatic side of things as well as the pathetic planning for the aftermath, coupled with the ficticious selling of it to the public, leads me to see Bush as reckless and dangerous. What O'Neill has said bears that out.

Excuse me, but could you write in English next time? This psuedo-intellectual bull crap you are peddling makes me sick.

Excuse me, but could you write in English next time?

Sorry if it's over your head, but we won't be dumbing it down just for you. It simply isn't fair to make the entire class learn at your rate. It's not their fault they didn't eat lead paint.

This psuedo-intellectual bull crap you are peddling makes me sick.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, my friend. Unless you've got your protective headgear on good and secure.

"This psuedo-intellectual bull crap you are peddling makes me sick."

Glad I could help; pepto's in bathroom cabinet, sweetheart.

I'm in the middle of the Suskind book now, and if half of it is true, it's grounds to have Bush tried as a war criminal, crazy as that sounds. But we don't even need this book for that. There can be no doubt now that the President lied when he talked the nation into the war. Where are the weapons? Where are the weapons?! Where is the imminent threat? The plain fact is that there wasn't one. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the security of the United States.
It just wasn't. It certainly wasn't an ally, but it did not present such an overwhelming threat that war was the only options. So pick your own reason for why the Administration did it, but don't believe for a second the garbage they peddled leading up to it. Not one word of it has been backed up by hard, irrefutable evidence.
Our President lied to the public, because he knew the truth would be a harder sell. This is that Hussein was and is indeed a terrible and cruel dictator and that Iraq as it existed under him was flint for the fire, so to speak. And we are I believe better off without him (although it wouldn't have hurt to have a good post-war plan in place), but selling a pre-emptive war is hard, and that wasn't going to cut it. Scaring the collective wits out of the public was easy.
Ach, I can't even write anymore, it makes me so mad. We wuz had, that's all there is to it.