Always Plan in Advance
Moderator: Super Moderators
- Devastated
- Moderator - Hammock Expert
- Posts: 4943
- Joined: 12-29-2002 03:00 AM
Always Plan in Advance
Report: Bush planned Iraq Invasion before 9/11
Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges president was searching for way to do it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/
NEW YORK - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.
O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.
He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."
To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.
The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.
"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."'
Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.
Bent on war? O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O' Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."'
White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O'Neill's remarks.
"We appreciate his service. While we're not in the business of doing book reviews, it appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people," he said on Saturday.
O'Neill also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill told "60 Minutes."
Suskind's book, whose full title is "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," uses interviews with O' eill, dozens of White House insiders and 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill.
O'Neill, who was fired due to disagreements over tax cuts, spent a difficult two years in Washington, joining the Bush administration with a background as a no-nonsense corporate executive.
Ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges president was searching for way to do it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3925358/
NEW YORK - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it.
O'Neill, fired in December 2002 as part of a shake-up of Bush's economic team, has become the first major insider of the Bush administration to launch an attack on the president.
He likened Bush at Cabinet meetings to "a blind man in a room full of deaf people," according to excerpts from a CBS interview to promote a book by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, "The Price of Loyalty."
To go to war, Bush used the argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had to be stopped in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world. The weapons have never been found.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill said in the "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air on Sunday. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
CBS released excerpts from the interview on Friday and Saturday.
The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.
"There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq."'
Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Suskind said.
Bent on war? O'Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the president was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it," said O' Neill. "The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this."'
White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected O'Neill's remarks.
"We appreciate his service. While we're not in the business of doing book reviews, it appears that the world according to Mr. O'Neill is more about trying to justify his own opinions than looking at the reality of the results we are achieving on behalf of the American people," he said on Saturday.
O'Neill also said the president did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour. The president's lack of engagement left his advisers with "little more than hunches about what the president might think," O'Neill told "60 Minutes."
Suskind's book, whose full title is "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," uses interviews with O' eill, dozens of White House insiders and 19,000 documents provided by O'Neill.
O'Neill, who was fired due to disagreements over tax cuts, spent a difficult two years in Washington, joining the Bush administration with a background as a no-nonsense corporate executive.
Thank you, Devastated, for this devastating post! Abraham Lincoln was wrong: you can fool all of the people all of the time. But you cannot fool the historians after the fact, and The Price of Loyalty (which I intend to read as soon as I can get my hands on it) is but the first scratch in the death of a million cuts that the Bush Junta is going to suffer in the years to come. And all that I would ask of the historians is that they would make sure that the Bush Junta's devoted tens of millions of followers be implicated, fully implicated, in its crimes against humanity...
Regards and best wishes to you, Devastated,
Joe Quinn
Regards and best wishes to you, Devastated,
Joe Quinn
Last edited by joequinn on 01-11-2004 04:29 PM, edited 1 time in total.
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
A Heads-up On the January 19th Issue of TIME Magazine
On the 19th Time magazine is going to print an article on Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill. I have just read an advanced copy of the article, and it is dynamite!
Paul O'Neill was the Treasury Secretary between January 2001 and December 2002, and he was a longtime Republican partisan who had previously served in the Nixon Administration as well as in the Ford Administration (with Cheney and Greenspan) before becoming CEO of Alcoa Corporation. Cheney was the individual who picked O'Neill for the Treasury Department --- Bush neither knew nor cared who he was! --- and, to O'Neill's mind, Cheney was not merely his godfather but also the powerhouse of the Bush Administration from day one. But Bush, not Cheney, is officially the President of the United States; in his role as Treasury Secretary, O'Neill had to deal with Bush; and O'Neill was shocked by his first policy meeting with him. Bush did not ask a single question of him during his initial hour-long briefing, and O'Neill could not understand whether Bush was incapable of understanding what he was being told or whether he was unwilling to trust his Treasury Secretary with his economic plans. "I wondered from the first, if the President didn't know the questions to ask, or if he did know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange."
As time went by, O'Neill began to be even more deeply troubled by the total emptiness of the Oval Office. He came to conclude that Bush was nothing more than "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" and that he himself (along with Colin Powell and EPA Secretary Christine Todd Whitman) was nothing more than window-dressing, "in large part, as cover." He noted that Bush directly and humiliatingly contradicted in public both Powell and Todd (now long gone from the EPA), and he himself was skewered by Bush on stupid criticisms that the Democrats were actually socialists (alas, they are anything but!) as well as on perceptive criticisms of Wall Street traders and business lobbyists who sought a tax credit which Bush supported. But the scariest thing that O'Neill encountered was the Bush Administration's monomania --- from day one --- on getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In his capacity as Treasury Secretary, O'Neill sat on the National Security Council (NSC), and he states that, during his 23 months in office, he never saw any legally impressive evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration, which has already begun to attack The Price of Loyalty, responds: "That information was on a need-to-know basis. He wouldn't have been in a position to see it." To which my rebutting question is this: wasn't O'Neill put in the NSC precisely in order to evaluate such evidence from a fiscal point of view?
Everything came to a head after the 2002 Congressional elections. I have repeatedly stated within The Fantastic Forum that these elections were a major event in American political history --- a conclusion which most people, especially Bush-haters, absolutely refuse to accept --- and these elections were the point at which I personally began to despair over the future of the American Government and of the American people. O'Neill begins to provide me with evidence that I was correct to feel the way that I did and that the people who disagreed with me or ignored me on this matter are wandering around in la-la land. For right after the 2002 Congressional elections, where the Republicans won big, Bush decided to make considerable changes in his economic teams and to press for a second round of tax cuts.
Bush, of course, assured O'Neill that he himself would be immune from the impending personnel changes, but O'Neill now had 22 months' personal experience of the man and knew that he was in great danger. And he also knew, better than anyone else in the Bush Administration, what a catastrophic effect the proposed second round of tax cuts would have on the future of the American economy. So he went to his old friends, Greenspan and Cheney, for political protection and support. Greenspan --- who is exceeded as a bureaucratic political survivor only by Powell --- sympathized with O'Neill, but he threw up his hands officially and said that there was nothing that he could do in his capacity as the Federal Reserve Chairman. That left Cheney, whom O'Neill always had considered to be his ace in the hole and whom he remembered to be a voice of reason and moderation in the Ford Administration a quarter of a century earlier.
O'Neill had a formal meeting with Cheney at the Vice-President's Office, at which he began to lay out the facts and figures about the disastrous proposed tax cut. But no sooner did O'Neill get started than Cheney cut him off: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms. This is our due." And when O'Neill tried to steer the conversation back on the fiscal track after such a political non-sequitur, he began to understand the realities of the situation at last: "I realized why Dick just nodded along when I said all of this, over and over, and nothing ever changed. This is the way Dick likes it." The meeting ended. O'Neill left Cheney's office knowing that he had failed to press his case successfully. What O'Neill did not realize at the time was he had also just lost his job.
A couple of weeks later, Cheney called him up on the phone to inform him that, contrary to what Bush had told him, O'Neill was part of the changes on the economic team that Bush had in mind. Cheney even had the nerve to tell O'Neill to announce that he was resigning as Treasury Secretary to return to private life, whereupon O'Neill told him before he hung up the phone: "I'm too old to begin telling lies now." So Bush publicly fired O'Neill as Treasury Secretary in December of 2002, but not before O'Neill had left town with a minute-by-minute record of his 23 months in office and nineteen thousand pages of documents on CD-ROM. Then he hooked up with Suskind, and The Price of Loyalty is the result.
The Administration ridicules both O'Neill and the book: "We didn't listen to him when he was there. Why should we now?" But O'Neill just laughs: "These people are nasty and have a long memory... [But] I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me." Don't be so sure, Paul: if Saddam Hussein could suddenly develop cancer, then so can you... then so can you...
The real shocker for me in the Time article are the characterizations of Bush and Cheney. I have known people like O'Neill's Bush and Cheney in my own personal life, and I am starting to see the global criminality of the Bush Administration as nothing more than the capstone of the essential, the petty and yet the nastily vindictive criminality of bourgeois mainstream life. Bush is not some hallucination that has descended upon us from above like the Great Pumpkin: he is the necessary and inevitable outcome of decades of our own criminality. And books like The Price of Loyalty, which I intend to read as soon as I can get it, reinforce that instinctive feeling of mine.
The American people are not going to learn what O'Neill found out. How could they? The mass media (including Time magazine) will never cover the matter comprehensively or attempt to learn the truth or falsity of O'Neill's claims. And the American people, a sizeable minority of whom are functionally illiterate, are post-literate in any case. And to the extent that they do learn the truth about Bush and Cheney, I believe that the American people would approve of their actions. The people like Bush and Cheney whom I have known in the course of my own life were not merely feared: they were also envied and admired for having the selfishness to grab-n-git and the cunning to grab-n-git it without getting caught. But this kind of behavior --- on the local level, at one extreme, and on the global level, at the other --- can only last so long before it all comes to an end in catastrophe. But then, at the old wit put it, the only thing that we learn from history is that we cannot learn from history. And so it goes...
Regards and best wishes to you all,
Joe Quinn
Paul O'Neill was the Treasury Secretary between January 2001 and December 2002, and he was a longtime Republican partisan who had previously served in the Nixon Administration as well as in the Ford Administration (with Cheney and Greenspan) before becoming CEO of Alcoa Corporation. Cheney was the individual who picked O'Neill for the Treasury Department --- Bush neither knew nor cared who he was! --- and, to O'Neill's mind, Cheney was not merely his godfather but also the powerhouse of the Bush Administration from day one. But Bush, not Cheney, is officially the President of the United States; in his role as Treasury Secretary, O'Neill had to deal with Bush; and O'Neill was shocked by his first policy meeting with him. Bush did not ask a single question of him during his initial hour-long briefing, and O'Neill could not understand whether Bush was incapable of understanding what he was being told or whether he was unwilling to trust his Treasury Secretary with his economic plans. "I wondered from the first, if the President didn't know the questions to ask, or if he did know and just not want to know the answers? Or did his strategy somehow involve never showing what he thought? But you can ask questions, gather information and not necessarily show your hand. It was strange."
As time went by, O'Neill began to be even more deeply troubled by the total emptiness of the Oval Office. He came to conclude that Bush was nothing more than "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" and that he himself (along with Colin Powell and EPA Secretary Christine Todd Whitman) was nothing more than window-dressing, "in large part, as cover." He noted that Bush directly and humiliatingly contradicted in public both Powell and Todd (now long gone from the EPA), and he himself was skewered by Bush on stupid criticisms that the Democrats were actually socialists (alas, they are anything but!) as well as on perceptive criticisms of Wall Street traders and business lobbyists who sought a tax credit which Bush supported. But the scariest thing that O'Neill encountered was the Bush Administration's monomania --- from day one --- on getting rid of Saddam Hussein. In his capacity as Treasury Secretary, O'Neill sat on the National Security Council (NSC), and he states that, during his 23 months in office, he never saw any legally impressive evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Bush Administration, which has already begun to attack The Price of Loyalty, responds: "That information was on a need-to-know basis. He wouldn't have been in a position to see it." To which my rebutting question is this: wasn't O'Neill put in the NSC precisely in order to evaluate such evidence from a fiscal point of view?
Everything came to a head after the 2002 Congressional elections. I have repeatedly stated within The Fantastic Forum that these elections were a major event in American political history --- a conclusion which most people, especially Bush-haters, absolutely refuse to accept --- and these elections were the point at which I personally began to despair over the future of the American Government and of the American people. O'Neill begins to provide me with evidence that I was correct to feel the way that I did and that the people who disagreed with me or ignored me on this matter are wandering around in la-la land. For right after the 2002 Congressional elections, where the Republicans won big, Bush decided to make considerable changes in his economic teams and to press for a second round of tax cuts.
Bush, of course, assured O'Neill that he himself would be immune from the impending personnel changes, but O'Neill now had 22 months' personal experience of the man and knew that he was in great danger. And he also knew, better than anyone else in the Bush Administration, what a catastrophic effect the proposed second round of tax cuts would have on the future of the American economy. So he went to his old friends, Greenspan and Cheney, for political protection and support. Greenspan --- who is exceeded as a bureaucratic political survivor only by Powell --- sympathized with O'Neill, but he threw up his hands officially and said that there was nothing that he could do in his capacity as the Federal Reserve Chairman. That left Cheney, whom O'Neill always had considered to be his ace in the hole and whom he remembered to be a voice of reason and moderation in the Ford Administration a quarter of a century earlier.
O'Neill had a formal meeting with Cheney at the Vice-President's Office, at which he began to lay out the facts and figures about the disastrous proposed tax cut. But no sooner did O'Neill get started than Cheney cut him off: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms. This is our due." And when O'Neill tried to steer the conversation back on the fiscal track after such a political non-sequitur, he began to understand the realities of the situation at last: "I realized why Dick just nodded along when I said all of this, over and over, and nothing ever changed. This is the way Dick likes it." The meeting ended. O'Neill left Cheney's office knowing that he had failed to press his case successfully. What O'Neill did not realize at the time was he had also just lost his job.
A couple of weeks later, Cheney called him up on the phone to inform him that, contrary to what Bush had told him, O'Neill was part of the changes on the economic team that Bush had in mind. Cheney even had the nerve to tell O'Neill to announce that he was resigning as Treasury Secretary to return to private life, whereupon O'Neill told him before he hung up the phone: "I'm too old to begin telling lies now." So Bush publicly fired O'Neill as Treasury Secretary in December of 2002, but not before O'Neill had left town with a minute-by-minute record of his 23 months in office and nineteen thousand pages of documents on CD-ROM. Then he hooked up with Suskind, and The Price of Loyalty is the result.
The Administration ridicules both O'Neill and the book: "We didn't listen to him when he was there. Why should we now?" But O'Neill just laughs: "These people are nasty and have a long memory... [But] I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me." Don't be so sure, Paul: if Saddam Hussein could suddenly develop cancer, then so can you... then so can you...
The real shocker for me in the Time article are the characterizations of Bush and Cheney. I have known people like O'Neill's Bush and Cheney in my own personal life, and I am starting to see the global criminality of the Bush Administration as nothing more than the capstone of the essential, the petty and yet the nastily vindictive criminality of bourgeois mainstream life. Bush is not some hallucination that has descended upon us from above like the Great Pumpkin: he is the necessary and inevitable outcome of decades of our own criminality. And books like The Price of Loyalty, which I intend to read as soon as I can get it, reinforce that instinctive feeling of mine.
The American people are not going to learn what O'Neill found out. How could they? The mass media (including Time magazine) will never cover the matter comprehensively or attempt to learn the truth or falsity of O'Neill's claims. And the American people, a sizeable minority of whom are functionally illiterate, are post-literate in any case. And to the extent that they do learn the truth about Bush and Cheney, I believe that the American people would approve of their actions. The people like Bush and Cheney whom I have known in the course of my own life were not merely feared: they were also envied and admired for having the selfishness to grab-n-git and the cunning to grab-n-git it without getting caught. But this kind of behavior --- on the local level, at one extreme, and on the global level, at the other --- can only last so long before it all comes to an end in catastrophe. But then, at the old wit put it, the only thing that we learn from history is that we cannot learn from history. And so it goes...
Regards and best wishes to you all,
Joe Quinn
Last edited by joequinn on 01-11-2004 06:39 PM, edited 1 time in total.
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
I have just seen Leslie Stahl's interview with Paul O'Neill on 60 Minutes. Suskind also was interviewed.
I have some additional pieces of information for you:
1. O'Neill is the only officially named source in Suskind's book: he is not the only source. Suskind says that he spoke to hundreds of people, including cabinet secretaries.
2. O'Neill will not receive a single penny from the proceeds of the book.
3. Rumsfeld called O'Neill directly to warn him not to participate in Suskind's book. Just how long do you think that O'Neill is going to remain cancer-free, huh?
4. O'Neill's successful trip to Africa while Treasury Secretary was a big part of his unpopularity within the White House. With a deadpan humor that Caligula would admire, Bush told O'Neill one day in front of all assembled at a Cabinet Meeting, "I see that you are developing a cult following." Bush was not joking when he said this, and nobody at that meeting thought that he was joking when he said it. It was shortly after that that Bush began to call O'Neill "the big O," a move that made O'Neill very, very nervous.
5. Within 10 days of Bush's inauguration --- and in direct contradiction to his campaign attack on Gore for the Clinton Administration's interventionism (which I saw and heard) --- Bush was plotting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I saw, with my own eyes, the cover page to a winter 2001 classified report entitled "Post-Saddam Occupation of Iraq" as well as a 5 March 2001 map of Iraq showing the oil parcels that would be of interest to foreign investors. I repeat, I saw these things with my own eyes.
Need I continue? What else is there to say?
If you believe that Bush is going to be easy to defeat in November, then you are an idiot --- pure and simple.
If you vote for Bush in November and are you are pulling in less than $250,000 a year, then you are an idiot --- pure and simple. You may be one or more other things as well...
And when Bush is elected (never, never, never re-elected), if you doubt for one moment that Bush will destroy Social Security in the exact same way that he is presently destroying Medicare and that he will reinstitute the draft to man his orc armies in a war of global conquest, then you are the biggest idiot of all --- pure and simple.
What else at this stage of the game is there to say? So let's say it as it is, and let the chips fall where they may...
Regards and best wishes to you all,
Joe Quinn
I have some additional pieces of information for you:
1. O'Neill is the only officially named source in Suskind's book: he is not the only source. Suskind says that he spoke to hundreds of people, including cabinet secretaries.
2. O'Neill will not receive a single penny from the proceeds of the book.
3. Rumsfeld called O'Neill directly to warn him not to participate in Suskind's book. Just how long do you think that O'Neill is going to remain cancer-free, huh?
4. O'Neill's successful trip to Africa while Treasury Secretary was a big part of his unpopularity within the White House. With a deadpan humor that Caligula would admire, Bush told O'Neill one day in front of all assembled at a Cabinet Meeting, "I see that you are developing a cult following." Bush was not joking when he said this, and nobody at that meeting thought that he was joking when he said it. It was shortly after that that Bush began to call O'Neill "the big O," a move that made O'Neill very, very nervous.
5. Within 10 days of Bush's inauguration --- and in direct contradiction to his campaign attack on Gore for the Clinton Administration's interventionism (which I saw and heard) --- Bush was plotting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. I saw, with my own eyes, the cover page to a winter 2001 classified report entitled "Post-Saddam Occupation of Iraq" as well as a 5 March 2001 map of Iraq showing the oil parcels that would be of interest to foreign investors. I repeat, I saw these things with my own eyes.
Need I continue? What else is there to say?
If you believe that Bush is going to be easy to defeat in November, then you are an idiot --- pure and simple.
If you vote for Bush in November and are you are pulling in less than $250,000 a year, then you are an idiot --- pure and simple. You may be one or more other things as well...
And when Bush is elected (never, never, never re-elected), if you doubt for one moment that Bush will destroy Social Security in the exact same way that he is presently destroying Medicare and that he will reinstitute the draft to man his orc armies in a war of global conquest, then you are the biggest idiot of all --- pure and simple.
What else at this stage of the game is there to say? So let's say it as it is, and let the chips fall where they may...
Regards and best wishes to you all,
Joe Quinn
Last edited by joequinn on 01-11-2004 07:52 PM, edited 1 time in total.
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
Very informative Joe. I am sorry I missed the interview.
I was also intrigued that O'Neill's publishers were able to keep the lid on the book and there was not an outbreak of cardiac arrest, strokes or accidents.
Just printed all these posts and will zip them over to my Dad's. I'll have to drop them off and run back home cuz I know he will start some pretty wild ranting!
I wondered something along the same lines. A car accident, or a slip and fall in the shower.joequinn wrote: ...how long do you think that O'Neill is going to remain cancer-free, huh?...
I was also intrigued that O'Neill's publishers were able to keep the lid on the book and there was not an outbreak of cardiac arrest, strokes or accidents.
Just printed all these posts and will zip them over to my Dad's. I'll have to drop them off and run back home cuz I know he will start some pretty wild ranting!
Last edited by mudwoman on 01-11-2004 09:14 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Mudwoman, be sure to include a copy of my latest post, plus attachment, to the "Money, Money, Money" thread. It goes with the articles in the way that a fancy dessert goes with a fine meal. I am sure that it will excite your dad tremendously --- which is what a good dessert is always supposed to do!
As always, your humble and obedient servant,
Joe Quinn
As always, your humble and obedient servant,
Joe Quinn
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
Joe
Already printed the "Money, Money, Money" thread and I double thank you for your contribution. Such a gentleman you are.
Joe my dear, what wine(s) would you suggest to compliment such a fine feast? I was thinking of a 1975 Mouton Rothschild - Bordeaux to go with the main course followed by an 1996 Chateau d'Yquem Sauterne with dessert (but I have expensive tastes. )
Always,
Sandy
Already printed the "Money, Money, Money" thread and I double thank you for your contribution. Such a gentleman you are.
Joe my dear, what wine(s) would you suggest to compliment such a fine feast? I was thinking of a 1975 Mouton Rothschild - Bordeaux to go with the main course followed by an 1996 Chateau d'Yquem Sauterne with dessert (but I have expensive tastes. )
Always,
Sandy
Joe Quinn,
Joolz and I watched the 60 mins.... we both noticed that a name one one of the documents was "Deutche Bank". Did you also notice this and remember which document it was?
Might not make much of a difference in the scheme of "global capitalism" or "corporatism" or "world economy"..... whatever they call fascism this season. Not much amazes me anymore.
It will be a long year.
Joolz and I watched the 60 mins.... we both noticed that a name one one of the documents was "Deutche Bank". Did you also notice this and remember which document it was?
Might not make much of a difference in the scheme of "global capitalism" or "corporatism" or "world economy"..... whatever they call fascism this season. Not much amazes me anymore.
It will be a long year.
- CindyLouWho
- Pirate
- Posts: 3533
- Joined: 01-02-2003 03:00 AM
Deutsche Bank, Corvid? Wasn't that Mohammed Atta's bank once? Very old, very decent, very respectable. And they never proved that Deutsche Bank was part of the massive short-selling of airline stocks in the week before 9-11. No need for you to poke around there...
Joe Quinn
Joe Quinn
Last edited by joequinn on 01-11-2004 11:38 PM, edited 1 time in total.
"Fuggedah about it, Jake --- it's Chinatown!"
Thanks for starting this, Dev, and for your great contributions, Joe. I was hearing about this on my car radio... but like it was just business as usual -- not like it had the impact we see that it does. I'm absolutely amazed, and horrified anew at the news each new day brings.
Mudwoman, please DO share your dad's response.
I'm just sitting here shaking my head.
Mudwoman, please DO share your dad's response.
I'm just sitting here shaking my head.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin
mudwoman wrote: OK folks, my bottom line question about Cheney and Bush destroying our economy is:
WHY?
We must be witnessing the final death blows to America and the full empowerment of the NWO. I am so sad...
Kinda seems like they want Our country to be a bankrupt cheap labor part of the third world.
mebbe then they buy it for 3 cents on the dollar... the corps will still be solvent.