I have a feeling Rove won the O'Neill matter

Oh crap.

I have this sinking feeling that the O'Neill flap has been shaped by Rove into a "16 words" flap.

They shrank O'Neill's book into one criticism (Iraq war plan date), and then they neutralized it with Bush's admission yesterday.

Rove succeeded in controlling the fallout by FRAMING THE DEBATE AGAIN.

When will Democrats learn not to take the bait? Response to the O'Neill story should have been to look more broadly than the Iraq war plan accusation. Suskind interviewed other cabinet officials. Other assertions were made. But the war plan date has become the 16 words.

None of our candidates has weighed in on the subject and I bet they have a few things to say about it. Remember it wasn't all about Iraq. A lot of what was said was about Bush*'s governing style and believe me that is gunna get touched upon.

people will have another opinion of shrub with this book...even repugs.

All of the polls show that the American public is pissed about this. All of the polls I saw showed that people thought Neil coming out was the right thing to do, so Georgie had to admit thar he was planning it. Blaming it on Clinton was the only thing he could do, the little fucking weasel.

Until we own some media outlets there isn't much we can do, but I think you are buying what the media is telling you. Don't buy into it.

Bush's support is down no matter what the whores say, and if you are waiting for the media to call Bush out that isn't going to happen.

O'Neil has said he didn't meant to criticize Bush.

He's said he would vote for Bush because no one is more capable.

The whore media already have O'Neil on the ropes, saying he may have done something illegal.

My theory is that Rove actually DOES threaten people's family members with detention or death.

O'Neil has gone from saying "I'm rich, I'm old and there's nothing they can do to hurt me" to saying

"I sure didn't mean to criticize anybody. I'm voting for Bush again"


Now YOU connect the dots. They are obvious as the hands I'm typing this with.

But when the Dems, like Kristina Vandenheuvel, who STRANGLED Bush's talking points in their cradle yesterday on Hardball, will not be contrained by GOP Party Loyalty when they get hold of the facts in this book. After all, facts are facts. Let's toss them into court, (like the Bushies seem to already want to do, by accusing O'Neill of felonies) and see which side of the fence they fall.

Personally I think this attempt to prosecute O'Neill will fail miserably. These a*holes depend on secrecy to get their agenda in place. The light of day will cause it to shrink and die.

I hope. They sure look lame and guilty.

I've been trying to stay on top of the stories about the "suicides" of John Kelly and John Kokal. There have been other deaths, as well. I was dismayed to read that O'Neill, who supposedly has nothing to lose by "scorching Bush" like Yahoo news reported, suddenly started back-pedaling. Why? He's not working for them, so they can't fire him again. O'Neill is in the public limelight, so he probably doesn't have to worry about any death threats (unless he gets in a small airplane).

So what happened? I'm not sure. It would not surprise me if Rove threatened either him or his family.

However, if Rove is a murdering bastard, why did O'Neill write the book? He was around these people for 1 1/2 years. He knew them intimately. Surely he would have been frightened into silence if he knew more than he tells.

this one stings....a fired, dem will vote for him. not good.

None of it's been "neutralized." None of it. Nobody thought the Nixon Watergate thing would go anywhere either.

But little by little and day by day.

Rove isn't winning. He's making idiot gaffe after idiot gaffe. His advice has George in a sinkhole.

Name one person who did NOT vote for Bush in 2000 who IS voting for him in 2004. One.

which only works in his favor, considering the content of the book.

None of it's been "neutralized." None of it. Nobody thought the Nixon Watergate thing would go anywhere either.

But little by little and day by day.

Rove isn't winning. He's making idiot gaffe after idiot gaffe. His advice has George in a sinkhole.

Name one person who did NOT vote for Bush in 2000 who IS voting for him in 2004. One.

I work in collection development of a large regional library. The book appeared in the catalog today and is picking up holds like crazy. Reminds me of when the second Harry Potter came out. We are already ordering more. This isn't going away.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

It breaks off a few more votes and makes Bush looks bad, regardless of what happens to O'Neil. Even if most Republicans buy the "smear O'Neil" line, it's still good.

this will mean several news opportunities as the investigation shakes out some facts and eventually reaches a decision (or gets muffled because there was no there there.

If Rove tries to frame it (as his worst minions are) as "A Treasury Secretary Committing Felonies against the President of the United States!!!" they will find their own patheitc bleats being fed back to them as bitter plates of crow. After all, "The President of the United States (& closest advisors) is being investigated for committing TREASON!!" (Plame affair) (minion slithers back into den, licking wounds!) I witnessed it myself with one of the slimiest minions just a few moments ago on CNN.

This pile of dung is too big to fit in a frame.

This pile has legs! The book only came out today! Watch it grow and slouch inexorably toward Crawford!

I saw a piece about O'Neill on CNN .

The range of debate went from "Bush is a fraud" on the left to "you aren't supposed to know it" on the right.

The only way the Bush Administration can deal with this issue is to ignore it completely. I expect that's what the media will start doing in a week or so. Hell, that's what they were trying to do yesterday, until some moron started an investigation of O'Neill. Now they have to pay attention to it, at least for awhile.

I think any investigation of any kind keeps this story before the public. Prosecuting O'Neill looks like revenge, too, which harkens back to "Who outted Valerie Plame"?

The book only came out today. It's #1 at Amazon and Barnes and Noble.com. Probably what was on 60 Minutes is only the tip of the iceberg.

at Hotel Gitmo.

the democrats -- at some point a closer look needs to cast at our fellow citizens.
the truth about george's outrageous and illegal behavior has been out there -- look at the number of people in the streets PRIOR to the actuall war being fought.
so those who have ignored george's and rove's behavior must claim some responsibility here.
what have americans become? what's their responsibility -- when do americans take resposibility for their own. i.e. bush?

all they did was temporarily sway the media whores away from the truth...

millions of peopel watched 60 mins. of Sunday night. Millions more heard the teasers during the play off games...

And now there is the new leak being reported by ABC News!

Hahahaha!

Fuck you Rove! and fuck you to all you Bush supporters! You are the scum of the freakin' earth!

This morning while listening to C-Span a lady caller asked the guest what he knew about the name of "Deutche Bank" (sp?)written on the heading of the secret document shown on 60 min. I noticed the name but it didn't click that it seemed unusual to have it listed at the top of "that" document. But, she made a very good point. The guest could only speak on Iraq and didn't know the answer.

If I am not mistaken the former CEO of Alex Brown was a Mr. Krongard. I understand that either shortly before or shortly after the sale of Alex Brown to Deutsche Bank, the same Mr. Krongard was appointed to the #2 or #3 position at the Central Intelligence Agency.

It also seems like there was some alleged connection mentioned at one point between a trading unit at Deutsche Bank Alex Brown and the odd trades of United and American Airlines stock prior to September 11, 2001.

O'neill came out the big loser from all sides.

make sense with all folks have witnessed... then you would be correct.

The problem - is that the whole descriptions ring true.

Disengaged from policy...
Bush can rarely speak in-depth about any issues, this suggests that he doesn't grasp the big concepts... as if they are never presented to him... or the fly over his head.

There have been other stories over a couple of years that are consistent with this. First was a similar description (of politics determining policy in absence of any intellectual policy debates) from John DiLulio in Esquire, and then former speech writer Frum writes a fluff piece that has a surprisingly similar (but written in friendly terms) description.

Then there have been several instances where a foreign dignitary who has met with Bush later comments to the press that bush hadn't understood the issues so a great deal of time had to be spent "teaching" bush about the issues (on of these was a Saudi Crown Prince.) The point being that either Bush didn't want to be briefed before meeting an important foreign dignitary, or he couldn't grasp the issues if he had been briefed (or a combination - which actually fits a description condi gave - that the briefings are summarized into simplified sound bites for busy - missing all complexity.)

So on this point... the description sounds true.


Policy is decided by ideologues and is not discussed debated
Similar to the first point, but different. This suggests that one point side is given and people all agree (or just don't speak). The whole Iraq buildup but lack of contingency planning, and lack of plans for after the govt fell is HARD evidence of this being true.

It is backed up by criticisms of the lack of plans cited by several well respected, conservative republican senators.

The decision to invade Iraq was made in the early days.
Again, this makes sense when one begins to re-listen to bush's first major speech after 911 and the State of the Union speech (the Axis of Evil). In addition Rumsfeld's comments suggesting using 9-11 as a reason to invade, suggest that the plans and discussion about invading already existed... and he was asking for the pretext. So the description, makes sense. Then add the funky efforts of the VP to allow any records from his Energy Task Force... (which many folks have seen as unrelated)... and the document that O'Niell showed to 60 Minutes (btw we have seen the document before - so this can't just be spun as "leaking.").. and the impression that this had been a long-term, ongoing conversation as ONiell suggests... makes sense.


That there was little/no hard evidence of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Given not finding weapons, disproven "evidence" (in many places from many sources, covered in many media fora), the NewYorker piece about how intelligence was being handled (Seymour Hersh "StovePipe"), and insiders such as Karen Kiatowski saying the same thing... ONiell just seems to be corroborating info already out there rather than saying something new.

My point is that in the end - it is the overall gut-level impression that the public creates that will have a lasting impact (positive or negative). I believe that ONiell's interviews and Suskind's book give details and descriptions - but most importantly reinforce the impression on the points raised above that had already made it into the public dialog/psyche. I think it will push more folks who had already grown skeptical over the line... and will push some who had still been in denial but fighting skepticism... over into the skeptical camp. For those folks the next drip or so will push them over as well.

the Bush base is diminished, many not to ever return.

This was an attack on support, this wasn't supposed to lead to any charges, IMHO...

If Bush is the idiot that O'neill describes, that OUR fault, not his...