Are you fucking high? How did you get so far in politics yet be so ignorant of politics to say “I can’t imagine that I’m going to be attacked for telling the truth”?
Sweet Christ, has a more naïve statement ever been uttered?
Or was this an attempt at a joke? It sure as shit made me laugh.
Well, I’d say two things to that.
Remember, O’Neill is prone to political foot-in-mouth disease. He may well have a first impression that telling the truth should be inviolate. The reasons he’s a former SecTreas is that he can’t control what he says.
He’s cannier than he looks and he’s setting himself to be the noble truth-teller who’s being wronged by GWB and company for political purposes.
My money’s on #1 with a dash of #2 mixed in for leavening.
He also said that he was old and rich and that there was nothing they (the Administration) could do that could hurt him!
Wasn’t he plucked from nowhere by GWB? You can get an awful long way overnight in American politics.
If nothing else, it made a pretty funny Moment of Zen on last night’s Daily Show.
“Won’t be attacked for telling the truth.” Heh. And again, heh.
Unless he was plucked from a moon of Saturn, I’m still astonished at how ignorant the statement was.
Ex-secretary O’Neill sort of makes the guy who climbed in the lion’s cage because God told him to look like a piker. I can only hope that Old Paul has one foot in the stirrup–Friend Rowe and the boys will make him wish he had never heard of George W. Bush.
Maybe Mr. O’Neill assumed that the people in the White House were actually decent Americans as opposed to the evil cabal that they really are.
No, but he’s smart enough to know that if he acts like that’s what he thought, it’ll look like he made all these revelations about the White House out of principle, and not out of some sort of a feud with GWB. It’s pure spin: O’Neill knows exactly what he’s saying, and knows that how he phrases something has more to do with it being accepted than what he actually says.
Anyone get the feeling that one of Paul O’Neill’s New Year’s resolutions was “I shall not tacitly support soulless evil”?
He struck me as a man who chose his words very carefully. I think that he knows full well that there will be repercussions. His point is that he has told the truth and shouldn’t have to expect any difficulties from it.
And already the Administrative Staff is complaining about classified documents being “illegally removed” from O’Neill’s office when he left.
You mean like telling your boss he’s got cheese for brains? Your spin rather deftly implies he was sacked for being undiplomatic in a general way. It does implicitly ignore the possibility that he was sacked for pointing out that cutting taxes while simultaneously engaging in military adventure and nation building is gardening with napalm. Tres stupide, may no?
O’Neill didn’t exactly come from nowhere; he’d been president or chairman (can’t remember which) of Alcoa before joining Bush’s cabinet.
I believe he’s honest, and in some ways he may even be well-meaning. But I’ve disliked him from the day back in early 2001 when he was bothered by the prospect that Congress might take until summer to deliberate over the Largest Tax Cut Ever, and derided them by saying that in the corporate world, something like this would be decided in a matter of weeks.
I thought I’d take this moment to thank you for such a great laugh. 
I suspect that JChance has a good point.
Well, obviously O’Neill is in league with terrorists.
Both, actually. And back in the day he was deputy director of OMB.
O’Neill is being investigated for a very serious security breach. 60 Minutes showed the cover of a document entitled “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.”
The seriousness of this offense cannot be overemphasized, because it’s obvious that there was only one copy of the document, and O’Neill took it. With no plan for post-Saddam Iraq, the situation quickly devolved into chaos.
The Bush Administration’s actions underscore the seriousness of the offense. Unlike the case of Bob Novak, who named an undercover CIA agent and was not investigated for 74 days, it took less than 24 hours for the Treasury Department to call for an investigation of O’Neill.
He should be hung for treason, if you ask me.
I find it amusing that the Administration is so gung-ho over one folder appearing briefly in one TV broadcast (what, like it couldn’t have been a prop?), but can’t muster half as much enthusiasm for finding the source of the leak that outted Joseph Wilson’s wife as a CIA operative.
Ah, priorities.
I have to say, he feels like I do about the Bushies. I at least expected some competence. Apparently, competence is simply not valued, only loyalty to ideology:
from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/opinion/14WED4.html
(like all NY Times cites, this one will become pay-only in a few days.)
That said, I agree with Jonathan Chance’s appraisal of the man. He was a loose cannon as Treasury Secretary, and he continues to be one now. Doesn’t mean he isn’t telling the truth, though.
And, as usual, very well put, Sofa King.
This (spin) was my thought at the time I saw his interview, too. I thought he was choosing his words pretty carefully, and laughed at what was between the lines. Like Zoe said, he shouldn’t have to expect difficulties. Of course he will, though.