critique of the bush admin from former powell aide

[roachboy]

Former Powell Aide Says Bush Policy Is Run by 'Cabal'
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff has offered a remarkably blunt criticism of the administration he served, saying that foreign policy had been usurped by a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," and that President Bush has made the country more vulnerable, not less, to future crises.

The comments came in a speech Wednesday by Lawrence Wilkerson, who worked for Mr. Powell at the State Department from 2001 to early 2005. Speaking to the New America Foundation, an independent public-policy institute in Washington, Mr. Wilkerson suggested that secrecy, arrogance and internal feuding had taken a heavy toll in the Bush administration, skewing its policies and undercutting its ability to handle crises.

"I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back," he said. "We haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time."

Mr. Wilkerson suggested that the dysfunction within the administration was so grave that "if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."

Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations."

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues," he said.

The former aide referred to Mr. Bush as someone who "is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either." He was far more admiring of the president's father, whom he called "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."

Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/po...icle_popular_1

recent events have certainly made this a plausible outline of the bush administration.
what do you make of these remarks?

[Lebell]

I'm interested in your remarks.
Then I will probably post a few.

[aswo]

Suprising that he could be that strong in damning of GWB and then praise his pops,

[Elphaba]

The neocon ideology and those that adhere to it is a cabal in every sense of the word, so I wonder why this is even "news." One only needs to read the PNAC manifesto to understand that the neocons intend to fundamentally change traditional Republican conservatism. I believe it is this "small group" ideology that refuses to listen to critical thinking outside of their vision that has led us to where we are now.

[raveneye]

Here's a transcript of most of his speech (from UPI, no link available).

The following are extracts from the presentation Col. Lawrence Wilkerson give Wednesday, Oct. 19 at the New America Foundation, a non-partisan Washington think tank.

I would say that we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran. Generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita - and I could go on back - we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it sometimes again.

... Read in there what they say about the necessity of the people to throw off tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. And you're talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don't get our act together.

... The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. And then when the bureaucracy was presented with the decision to carry them out, it was presented in a such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out.

Read George Packer's book, "The Assassin's Gate," if you haven't already. George Packer, a New Yorker -- reporter for the "New Yorker", has got it right. I just finished it, and I usually put marginalia in a book, but let me tell you, I had to get extra pages to write on. (Laughter.) And I wish I had been able to help George Packer write that book. In some places I could have given him a hell of a lot more specifics than he's got. (Laughter.)

But if you want to read how the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And of course there are other names in there: Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, whom most of you probably know (U.S. Army Gen.)Tommy Franks said was the stupidest blankety, blank man in the world. He was. (Laughter.) Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. (Laughter.)

And yet -- and yet -- and yet, after the secretary of state agrees to a $40 billion department rather than a $30 billion department having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw itself in a closet somewhere. Now, that's not making excuses for the State Department; that's telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished. Read George's book.

In so many ways I wanted to believe for four years that what I was seeing -- as an academic now -- what I was seeing was an extremely weak national security advisor, and an extremely powerful vice president, and an extremely powerful in the issues that impacted him secretary of defense -- remember, a vice president who has been secretary of defense too and obviously has an inclination that way, and also has known the secretary of defense for a long time, and also is a member of what Dwight Eisenhower warned about -- God bless Eisenhower -- in 1961 in his farewell address, the military industrial complex - and don't you think they aren't among us today - in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled.

It all happened because of the end of the Cold War. ... How many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department did we have in 1988 and how many do we have now? And they're always working together.

If one of them is a lead on the satellite program -- I hope there's some Lockheed and Grumman and others here today, Raytheon -- if one of them is a lead on satellites, the others are subs. And they've learned their lesson; they're in every state. They've got every congressman, every senator. They've got it covered. Now, that's not to say that they aren't smart businessmen. They are -- and women -- they are. But it's something we should be looking at, something we should be looking at.

So you've got this collegiality there between the secretary of defense and the vice president, and you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either. And so it's not too difficult to make decisions in this what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you'd thought were made in the formal process. Now, let's get back to Dr. (Condoleezza )Rice again (national security advisor thorough the first Bush administration and secretary of state in the second one).

For so long I said, yeah, Rich, you're right -- Rich being Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage (in the first Bush term) -- it is a dysfunctional process. And to myself I said, okay, put on your academic hat; who's causing this? Well, the national security adviser. Even if the framers didn't envision that position, even if it's not subject to confirmation by the Senate, the national security advisor should be doing a better job. Now I've come to a different conclusion, and after reading Packer's book I found additional information, or confirmation for my opinion, I think. I think it was more a case of -- in some cases there was real dysfunctionality -- there always is -- but in most cases it was Dr. Rice made a decision, she made a decision -- and this is all about people again because people in essence are the government. She made a decision that she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.

And so what we had was a situation where the national security advisor, seen in the evolution over some half-century since the act as the balancer or the person who would make sure all opinions got to the president, the person who would make sure that every dissent got to the president that made sense -- not every one but the ones that made sense -- actually was a part of the problem, and probably on many issues sided with the president and the vice president and the secretary of defense. And so what you had -- and here I am the academic again -- you had this incredible process where the formal process, the statutory process, the policy coordinating committee, the deputies committee, the principal's committee, all camouflaged -- the dysfunctionality camouflaged the efficiency of the secret decision-making process.

And so we got into Iraq, and so George Packer quotes Richard Haas in his book as saying, "To this day I still don't know why we went to war in Iraq." I can go through all the things we listed, from WMD (weapons of mass destruction) to human rights to -- I can go through it -- terrorism, but I really can't sit here and tell you, George, why we went to war in Iraq.

And there are so many decisions. Why did we wait three years to talk to the North Koreans? Why did we wait four-plus years to say we at least back the EU-3 approach to Iran? Why did we create the national director of intelligence and add further to the bureaucracy, which was what caused the problem in the first place?

The problem is not sharing information. The problem is not that we don't have enough feet on the ground or enough people collecting intelligence or enough $40 billion eyes in the sky -- national technical means. That's not the problem. The problem is our people don't share.

The problem is the FBI is over here in its niche, and the CIA is over here, and INR (State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research) is here, and Treasury is here, and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) is here, and the NSA (National Security Agency) is here, and the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) is here, and God Almighty, they never talk to each other.

They don't share. They don't pass information around. They don't work in the same cultures. They don't have the same attitude about the information they're handling, sometimes for good reason. Some are domestic law enforcement; some are not.

There are all kinds of problems that need to be dealt with and we are not going to make it into the 21st century very far and keep our power intact and our powder dry if we don't start to deal with this need to change the decision-making process, and an understanding of that need, which, for whatever reason, intuitive or intellectual I don't know, I'll give credit to the Bush administration for, by suddenly concentrating power in one tiny little aspect of the federal government and letting that little cabal make the decisions.

That's not a recipe for success. It's a recipe for good decision-making in terms of the speed and alacrity with which you can make decisions, of course.

...What this administration did for four years. ... It made decisions in secret, and now I think it is paying the consequences of having made those decisions in secret. But far more telling to me is America is paying the consequences. You and I and every other citizen like us is paying the consequences, whether it is a response to Katrina that was less than adequate certainly, or whether it is the situation in Iraq, which still goes unexplained.

... my army right now is truly in bad shape -- truly in bad shape. And I'm not talking about the billions and billions of dollars of equipment it's burning up in Iraq at a rate 10 or 15 times the rate its life cycle said it should be burned up at, but I'm also talking about when you have officers who have to hedge the truth, NCOs who have to hedge the truth.

They start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam, my war. They come home and they tell their wife they've got to go back for the third tour and the fourth tour and the wife says, uh-uh, or the husband says, uh-uh, and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel. And the signs are very concrete right now that the Army and the Marine Corps -- to a lesser extent the other services because they're not quite as involved in the deployments that we're talking about here and the frequency thereof, the op tempo as we say it -- problems are brewing. Problems are brewing.

[raveneye]

His description sounds like Soviet Russia . . . same combination of secrecy at the top levels, manipulation of the press, cronyism, cluelessness.

My wife, who grew up behind the iron curtain, has pointed out the similarity many times to me in the last couple years.

Yep, problems are brewing.

[ratbastid]

I believe I first said it around October 5, and I've said it several times since: it's a LOUSY month to be a Republican.

I hope you will all forgive me a little smugness. Everything I've been saying about this administration for the last five years is coming out in the press now. All the rumors and suggestions are being confirmed by insiders, people who know first-hand. This administration has been an unmitigated DISASTER. It has set back the American economy further than any government in US history. It has left us wide open and vunlerable to further attacks--indeed, it has created more new terrorists than Osama Bin Laden could have ever dreamed of. And, as Wilkerson says here, it has singlehandedly destroyed the fighting force that it wants to police the world with.

Pardon me: I said "unmitigated" disaster. There are mitigating factors. For instance, the rich people are richer now than they've ever been. Hurrah for that. Never mind that 40% of america is below the poverty line and we've created in five years a debt that our great-grandchildren's government will still be paying off.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

*snip*

You said, huh? Whatever

Thanks for the talking points regurgitation.

Fortunately for most us working class stiffs, everything you offered is false or purposely misleading. But hey, that's all the opposition has (had, will have). Keep it up, ~you~ are solidify the implosion of your ideology.

Mr. Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former director of the Marine Corps War College, said that in his years in or close to government, he had seen its national security apparatus twisted in many ways. But what he saw in Mr. Bush's first term "was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations" and "perturbations.

This sums up this character perfectly. Retired techer, who never attained a star needs to sell a book. Who wants to wager we see it on Amazon in time for the holidays?

Mr. Wilkerson has long been considered a close confidant of Mr. Powell, but their relationship has apparently grown strained at times - including over the question of unconventional weapons in Iraq - and the former colonel said Mr. Powell did not approve of his latest public criticisms.

Hmmm, wonder why that is?

Looser. Just like me. Unfortunately he spews the appropriate and approved kind of hate and gets a nod from the ole grey lady.

Good God, Who fucking cares what some full bird, professor like government girl friday thinks about the administration.

There is a fair amount of critism to be leveled about the Bush admin, but the lefts dream of unmitigated failure, and crumbling economies is so far off base, and with out a shred of reality existing to substantiate it.

Oh well...if the left keeps it up, and props piss ants like this up as critiques we are destined for more NEOCON ideological directions.

-bear

[albania]

All I can think of is what will people 10 years from now think of this Bush, will he be thought of as one of the worst presidents. I don't know, I can't make up my mind. I see all the signs that this is the case, the low approval rating and the scandals, but it seems as though that some people are behind George Bush 100%. How can this be? Almost as if reality is somehow skewed by their admiration of him. I think he would need to pull something big to change his course, Bush is headed towards being one of the worst presidents that the united states has had.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by aswo

Suprising that he could be that strong in damning of GWB and then praise his pops,

Not really.
Personally, although I had my problems with him, I generally respected "Pops". I felt that he had a handle on, and control of, the Oval Office. I don't get that with Dubbya. One is certainly not the other.

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by albania

All I can think of is what will people 10 years from now think of this Bush, will he be thought of as one of the worst presidents. I don't know, I can't make up my mind. I see all the signs that this is the case, the low approval rating and the scandals, but it seems as though that some people are behind George Bush 100%. How can this be? Almost as if reality is somehow skewed by their admiration of him. I think he would need to pull something big to change his course, Bush is headed towards being one of the worst presidents that the united states has had.

didn't you hear? vietnam was actually a noble endevor and one in which we won.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by j8ear

This sums up this character perfectly. Retired techer, who never attained a star needs to sell a book. Who wants to wager we see it on Amazon in time for the holidays?

so all retired teachers and non star officers are of questionable character?
i saw nothing about his 'book' either.

This is the one thing i've started to really dislike about american politics in the last 12 years. That whosoever should come out with a message we don't like, whether its the truth or not, shall be disregarded, discredited, and/or disrespected in any way, shape, or form imaginable whether its the truth or not.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This is the one thing i've started to really dislike about american politics in the last 12 years. That whosoever should come out with a message we don't like, whether its the truth or not, shall be disregarded, discredited, and/or disrespected in any way, shape, or form imaginable whether its the truth or not.

True. Gosh, I hope his wife's career isn't a sensitive matter of national security or anything...

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by j8ear

This sums up this character perfectly. Retired techer, who never attained a star needs to sell a book.

Am I missing something? I'm guessing that you're trying to discredit his character. We have...retired teacher...which, in my estimation, is one of the nobelest of professions that one can pursue. How does that shoot holes into ones character? I don't see it.
As far as never having attained a "star"...OK. Does this imply that anyone in the military that has not attained the level of a flag officer is of discredible character? I don't make a corelation between character, and the amount of hardware that one wears upon ones shoulders.
He needs to sell a book? Maybe. I missed that part. I'll have to go back and re-read, but I didn't see where he wrote a book. But, even if he did, does that fact erode the man's character?
Help me to see what it is that you're seeing, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Am I missing something? I'm guessing that you're trying to discredit his character. We have...retired teacher...which, in my estimation, is one of the nobelest of professions that one can pursue. How does that shoot holes into ones character? I don't see it.
As far as never having attained a "star"...OK. Does this imply that anyone in the military that has not attained the level of a flag officer is of discredible character? I don't make a corelation between character, and the amount of hardware that one wears upon ones shoulders.
He needs to sell a book? Maybe. I missed that part. I'll have to go back and re-read, but I didn't see where he wrote a book. But, even if he did, does that fact erode the man's character?
Help me to see what it is that you're seeing, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

C'mon Mr. O'Rights. Surely you've been around long enough to recognize j8ear's tactics for what it is - after all they do tell me you're incredibly old

He's been boxed into a corner in a big way (chiefly because everything ratbastid said is spot on) and there's not a damn thing he can do about it, so he's gotta resort to the tactics his party has made so famous - make shit up!

Bush has spun a fantasy ideology that j8ear agrees with, but j8ear realizes, as do most of us, that this ideology is in danger of being destroyed by the fact that it's simply not working. Everything Bush has touched is crumbling around him (a fact which shouldn't have been hard to predict considering every business and every other political office he touched turned to junk as well) but after supporting him so fervently for the past two terms, people find it hard to see that perhaps this Savior President isn't so hot after all.

This forces them to deny reality, publicly, and to attack those who mention reality. That's what's happening here. Doesn't matter what evidence we come up with. We could get videotapes of Bush and Rumsfeld plotting Iraq's destruction before 9/11, but there would still be those who insist it's not true, the tapes are doctored, and the cameraman never served in vietnam and is therefore a liar.

Fortunately, the numbers of people who insist on believing everything Bush says simply because Bush says it are dwindling. You can only maintain a charade so long before people start to see through it, and that's exactly what's happening now.

[roachboy]

i dont think there is anything terribly surprising in wilkerson's remarks: that the power within the administration is divided as it is i thionk most who are critics of this administration had worked out long ago; that bush himself is not getting anything like a spread of opinions when it comes time to make a complex decision is also pretty obvious. in a way, this last feature is of a piece with what i take to be the therapeutic core of conservative politics in general: much of its appeal is a function of telling the faithful what they want to hear. it is much less about a coherent description of how the world either is or ought to be. which is strange in itself.

what i fiind interesting is that something has happened to the presentation of the administration to the public--it seems to have fractured--i have been thinking a bit about the timing and cuases, but am not sure i have the details straight--it seems to have become a problem maybe around the john bolton nomination (a real prize, bolton--you should check out some of his absurd pronouncements about international law/treaties and then maybe wonder how and why this guy is american ambassador to the un)--katrina seems another obvious marker--then the investigation of the leaking of plame's name to the press, which revealed something of the outline of this same cabal scenario as wilkerson outlines--then the more recent harriet meiers debacle--but i am not sure about the events/ timing. and the fracturing of the administrations public image itself could be more an impression than anything else. perhaps the mainstream press is finally developing something like a spine. not sure. what do you think?

[Elphaba]

perhaps the mainstream press is finally developing something like a spine. not sure. what do you think?

It has been so long since I have witnessed an aggressive msp, that I continue to be surprised when I see it now. I believe that it was Katrina that finally revealed that the emperor has no clothes, even though the Iraq war was already grinding away at the president's approval ratings.

I would not go so far as to say that the msp has recovered it's spine. It seems more likely to me that they see a wounded administration that has been prematurely pushed toward a lame duck status. They no longer fear losing access to the administration to sell the news, and have caught the scent of carrion.

[Arc101]

didn't you hear? vietnam was actually a noble endevor and one in which we won.

Yep which is why the The Green Berets is the most realistic vietnam movie ever made !

At the end of the day, Bush can spin things as much as he likes, but he can't hide all the gravestones. And the comment - Bush is not versed in international relations, and not too much interested in them, either - is hardly news, everyone knows that. I think Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents because the civil war in Iraq will continue until a Sadam mark II takes power, the debt he has landed you will bugger your economy for many years, and over the coming years I imagine lots of revelations about dodgy contracts being awarded in return for money / favours will be revealed. He will make Nixon look like the Pope in terms of honesty !

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Am I missing something? I'm guessing that you're trying to discredit his character. We have...retired teacher...which, in my estimation, is one of the nobelest of professions that one can pursue.

I agree that that the teaching profession is a noble one, and I am not trying to discredit his character.

Instead I question the value and frankly the reliability of the observations and opinions of a one full bird war college professor of the inner workings of the excecutive, whose experience is that of a girl friday to the SecState? That's all.

Don't read into it to much.

-bear

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by shakran

...fallacious aside...

I feel very sad for you.

I don't agree with ~most~ of what Bush is doing, and just echoing agreement with someone, as you have done, without substantiation, does not refute, or establish a single thing. Except for the irrelevance of your dying ideology.

-bear

[BigBen]

Originally Posted by j8ear

...Instead I question the value and frankly the reliability of the observations and opinions of a one full bird war college professor of the inner workings of the excecutive, whose experience is that of a girl friday to the SecState...

I imagine that sometimes when the little girl friday tells the nation that the emperor is naked, she is critiqued on her expertise in fashion design and stitching.

A "full bird war college professor" holds quite a bit of weight in my books.

How would you describe George Bush in five words or less?

/begin threadjack (sorry, I don't usually do this)

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by BigBen

How would you describe George Bush in five words or less?

President of the United States.

[BigBen]

I think it is a window into my political soul when I say:

President of the United States does not carry as much weight as a Colonel military college professor.

In my humble, quiet, non-judgemental, liberal, Canadian view.

/end threadjack.

[Elphaba]

Wilkerson published a piece in the LA Times today, and he makes it quite clear that the chief of staff is not a girl Friday. I doubt anyone would call Rove or Libby a girl Friday.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Not really.
Personally, although I had my problems with him, I generally respected "Pops". I felt that he had a handle on, and control of, the Oval Office. I don't get that with Dubbya. One is certainly not the other.

Even though I voted for Clinton in '92 (I did vote for BushI in '88), I totally respect and like Papa Bush.

I agree with your analysis of his handle and control of the Oval office. The problem he had was he was too compassionate and understanding of politics. He didn't want nor do I believe that he felt a partisan war would benefit anyone, unlike his son and the cronies his son surrounds himself with.

I believe Papa Bush worked hard to compromise and try to keep things fair for all. Not just the rich.

I wonder what history would have been had Bush beaten Reagan in '80's primary and had been president. I have a strong belief the nation would be far stronger with less poverty, and a more evenly distribution of the wealth. Plus, I believe we wouldn't have the out of control healthcare costs, nor as large of a trade deficit.

After all Papa did call Reaganomics "Voodoonomics", it's interesting his son, W, would use Reaganomics as a starting point and take it further so as to build the division between rich and poor even greater.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by j8ear

President of the United States.

Cheap copout. You know what the question was asking. Why avoid it unless you can't think of anything good to say? Oh. . . I get it



As for my "dying" ideology - - - if you hadn't noticed, the other guy's numbers are so far down the toilet they're almost to the sewer. Everything my side has said since before this bullshit war started is being proven categorically. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, most of these proofs are coming in the same month. If you think sub-39 percent approval ratings, indictments of key Bush players, investigations of more key bush players, being proven to be a liar on WMD and other issues, being proven to be incompetent with regard to protecting his citizens, and being proven to be more fiscally irresponsible than just about anyone indicates the death of MY side then you've got some rethinking to do.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by shakran

Cheap copout. You know what the question was asking. Why avoid it unless you can't think of anything good to say? Oh. . . I get it

There was a five word maximum. My displeasure runs far deeper then five words could ever convey.

Originally Posted by shakran

As for my "dying" ideology - - - if you hadn't noticed, the other guy's numbers are so far down the toilet they're almost to the sewer. Everything my side has said since before this bullshit war started is being proven categorically. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, most of these proofs are coming in the same month. If you think sub-39 percent approval ratings, indictments of key Bush players, investigations of more key bush players, being proven to be a liar on WMD and other issues, being proven to be incompetent with regard to protecting his citizens, and being proven to be more fiscally irresponsible than just about anyone indicates the death of MY side then you've got some rethinking to do.

Perhaps.

I'll keep in mind that your ideology, as demonstrated by this clarification, is exclusively a visceral hatred for the bush administration. That being the case, it certainly seems to be thriving.

-bear

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by j8ear

Instead I question the value and frankly the reliability of the observations and opinions of a one full bird war college professor of the inner workings of the excecutive, whose experience is that of a girl friday to the SecState? That's all.

Indeed. My bad. I read "This sums up his character perfectly", instead of "This sums up this character perfectly", which is, of course, what you wrote. I shall have to remember to wear my bifocals when reading future posts.

In so far as his experience being that of a "girl friday"...perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it. It is true, that in a rank heavy environment, a Colonel can be relegated to a glorified file fetcher. I was assigned to SAC Headquarters when I was in the Air Force during the 1980's. I've seen officers that, anywhere else, would command an entire Air Force Base, reduced to little more than office coffee bitch, due to a top heavy rank structure. I seriously doubt, however, that his entire military experience can be summed up as that of a girl friday. You don't get an eagle on your shoulder without having a little "background" to support it.

Originally Posted by j8ear

President Of The United States

Oh, by the way, you get 1 point for that answer.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by j8ear

I'll keep in mind that your ideology, as demonstrated by this clarification, is exclusively a visceral hatred for the bush administration. That being the case, it certainly seems to be thriving.

-bear

You seem to be overly good at jumping to the wrong conclusion. My dislike of the Bush administration is based entirely in facts, not a gut reaction as you suggest. I gave you a long list of FACTS about the Bush administration that explains why I do not like it, yet you decided to ignore these FACTS and pretend that I'm a raving lunatic. Being grounded in reality helps when you enjoy debating.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Oh, by the way, you get 1 point for that answer.

Thanks.

As far as my characterization of this character goes, I concede that I was probably a little harsh on the fella, and while my brief, yet exciting, 4 year Marine Corps career, was but that of a lowly E-4 at its end, I do know enough to know that one who retires without a star having spent the meat of the end of their career as an instructor at the war college is no Audie Murphy like warrrior.

Additionally, my characterization of girl friday is similarly harsh, but rest assured this was not intended reflect on his military career, regardless of it's distinction or lack there of, but instead on the manner in which this 0-6r decided to spend the days of his hard earned golden years.

Certainly Gen Powell had his pick of the litter, and that in itself should have spoken volumes about the man himself.

But still...qualified to comment about and judge the inner workings of cabinet level interactions? I think not. Entitled, without a doubt, but informed and adequately included in the inner circle, doubtful.

-bear

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by shakran

I gave you a long list of FACTS about the Bush administration.

Here's your long list of facts::

Originally Posted by shakran

...f you hadn't noticed, the other guy's numbers are so far down the toilet they're almost to the sewer. Everything my side has said since before this bullshit war started is being proven categorically. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, most of these proofs are coming in the same month. If you think sub-39 percent approval ratings, indictments of key Bush players, investigations of more key bush players, being proven to be a liar on WMD and other issues, being proven to be incompetent with regard to protecting his citizens, and being proven to be more fiscally irresponsible than just about anyone indicates the death of MY side then you've got some rethinking to do.

I see several statistics, a gleeful fantasy, some wishful thinking, some hyperbole, some unsubstantiated suppositions and a pointedly drawn line in the sand. Oh yeah, you've facts alright....

-bear

[shakran]

Originally Posted by j8ear

Here's your long list of facts::



I see several statistics, a gleeful fantasy, some wishful thinking, some hyperbole, some unsubstantiated suppositions and a pointedly drawn line in the sand. Oh yeah, you've facts alright....

-bear

Care to break that down? No wait, I'll do it for you.

Originally Posted by me

If you think sub-39 percent approval ratings,

Polls which support this claim:

CNN/USA Today/Gallup, CBS, Pew, AP-Ipsos,

Now admittedly the CNN and the Pew have new numbers which show 40% but that info wasn't available at the time of my original post. And the new polls still show a 52-55% disapproval rating, which is pretty huge for a sitting president, especially one that was so strongly reelected.

indictments of key Bush players,

Delay is a key bush player. I didn't mention future indictments, but it's expected that several in the bush whitehouse, possibly including Rove, will be indicted soon.

investigations of more key bush players,

Sparking Cheney resignation rumors even. So far we're still on the fact train.

being proven to be a liar on WMD and other issues

So. . .are you trying to tell us you STILL think Iraq has WMD?

being proven to be incompetent with regard to protecting his citizens,

Two words for you: Hurricane Katrina.

and being proven to be more fiscally irresponsible than just about anyone

Clinton screwed up royally in foreign policy but he did manage to get the deficit situation turned around. In less than 4 years Bush had already undone all the work Clinton did, and he's now spending money at an astonishing rate. He's pouring countless dollars down the rathole of war, he's got a multibillion dollar bill coming for hurricane relief that he insists he will not raise taxes to pay for even though he's already slashed taxes (no don't worry, you didn't see much if any of those cuts because you're not filthy rich either) to the point where the government cannot possibly afford to pay for itself. Bush said, and I quote "I don't care about the deficit, I care about jobs." This, of course, demonstrated a vacuous stupidity when it comes to understanding how money works - not that this should surprise us given his track record.






Sorry man, but as much as it might pain you Bush is a crappy president who's hurt this country immeasurably. It is not visceral or illogical to dislike him or what he has done to us.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by shakran

Sorry man, but as much as it might pain you Bush is a crappy president who's hurt this country immeasurably. It is not visceral or illogical to dislike him or what he has done to us.

It doesn't pain me in the least. All though most of what you offered is irrelevant (polls, delay, Katrina, etc....), I agree whole heartedly that Bush has spent far to much. Almost like a democrat? Imagine where we'd be if the left controlled things.

It's strange that this doesn't please you?

Clinton "balanced the budget...?" That is just absurd. The productive and the tax paying balanced the budget, thanks to the frugleness of a republican legislator.

Maybe the only real solution is one party counter acting the other with either one in the executive and the other in the legislator.

Unfortunately the democrats are probably finished in this country...they evolved from the slave advocating party into the party of the working class industrial economy protecting, and are now the party of fringe lunacy, social experimenation, poverty pimping, government solving advocates with not one success to show for all the money they've extorted and then squandered.

Maybe some party will rise up and make a valiant opposition to this out of control republican snafu.

I can only hope.

-bear

[shakran]

Originally Posted by j8ear

It doesn't pain me in the least. All though most of what you offered is irrelevant (polls, delay, Katrina, etc....), I agree whole heartedly that Bush has spent far to much. Almost like a democrat? Imagine where we'd be if the left controlled things.

You're forgetting that the last democrat in office turned the economy around while paying down the deficit.

Clinton "balanced the budget...?" That is just absurd. The productive and the tax paying balanced the budget, thanks to the frugleness of a republican legislator.

Gee you guys love to have it both ways don't you? During the campaign we hear "I'll fix the budget the democrats broke." As soon as the campaign's over we hear "hey the legislature directs the budget, the president has nothing to do with it." Which is it?

Like it or not, the "frugalness" came from Clinton. He's the one that submitted the budget (I know, it's hard to remember that because Clinton didn't pull the theatrics of wrapping it in an american flag). The guy that dreams up and then submits the budget has a BIG part in what that budget does.

Maybe the only real solution is one party counter acting the other with either one in the executive and the other in the legislator.

You're getting closer. If you want my real opinion I'd just as soon drop both parties and start fresh.

Unfortunately the democrats are probably finished in this country

That's rich.

they evolved from the slave advocating party

Learn history. The democrats were not the slave advocating party. That's just stupid. The entire country stood by and let slavery happen. I know you'd like to dump all that in the democrats' laps, but it's simply not true.

And people who actually study history are aware of the fact that, even though modern day republicans take credit for being the party that abolished slavery, it's simply not true. Back when Lincoln was a republican, the republicans had radically different ideals than they do today. In fact, they were more like democrats. Even Bush acknowledged to the NAACP that the republicans "have not always carried the mantle of Lincoln." Not surprising he would say that considering the complete values and platform shift the party underwent since Lincoln. And now the republicans stand firmly in opposition to basic human rights such as equal treatment under the law (gay marriage anyone?)

Besides, comparing any party today to what that party was 200 years ago is asinine and accomplishes nothing.

into the party of the working class industrial economy protecting, and are now the party of fringe lunacy, social experimenation, poverty pimping, government solving advocates with not one success to show for all the money they've extorted and then squandered.

A bunch of hyperbolic crap with not a shred of real evidence to back it up.

What social experimentation? If by poverty pimping you mean democrats don't want people to suffer while neo-cons don't care if people suffer as long as the wealthy don't feel it, then I guess you have a point there. I don't know what you mean by government solving advocates. The fringe lunacy comment is just absurd. Were I in your shoes I'd be embarassed at having written that, as it demonstrates either a vacuous ignorance of politics or a knee-jerk opinion formed on little evidence or independent thought and much regurgitation of what others have said.

Maybe some party will rise up and make a valiant opposition to this out of control republican snafu.

Neat. We agree on something. And for the record I don't think the democrats are that great either. They're better than the republicans any day of the week because instead of spending money killing innocent iraqis and american soldiers they'd rather spend money making life better for people. But they've lost the ability to state a clear goal and convince the public of it, and they seem to have found an uncanny ability to get the least likely presidential candidate to win all the primaries and go up against the well oiled republican spin machine.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by shakran

...and they seem to have found an uncanny ability to get the least likely presidential candidate to win all the primaries and go up against the well oiled republican spin machine.

Heh, heh..."well oiled"...that's funny.

[j8ear]

Originally Posted by shakran

That's rich.

I agree

This will certainly get the conversation flowing:

Originally Posted by shakran

The fringe lunacy comment is just absurd. Were I in your shoes I'd be embarassed at having written that, as it demonstrates either a vacuous ignorance of politics or a knee-jerk opinion formed on little evidence or independent thought and much regurgitation of what others have said.

Of everything you wrote, most of which contained alot of substance and thought provoking points of view, this is what stands out to me the most. I guess we'll just be mutually embarrassed then.

Originally Posted by shakran

If you want my real opinion I'd just as soon drop both parties and start fresh.

I'm with you here.

-bear

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by j8ear

It doesn't pain me in the least. All though most of what you offered is irrelevant (polls, delay, Katrina, etc....), I agree whole heartedly that Bush has spent far to much. Almost like a democrat? Imagine where we'd be if the left controlled things.

It's strange that this doesn't please you?

That's a pretty cheap shot. Our last democrat president was fiscally sane. Our current Republican is an economic H-bomb. But, hey, go ahead and dance out the ol' "Democrats want to spend all yer hard earned money" straw man. I'm just not going to dance with it.

Originally Posted by j8ear

Maybe the only real solution is one party counter acting the other with either one in the executive and the other in the legislator.

Could be. Maybe the mid-terms will give us a shot at that.

Originally Posted by j8ear

Unfortunately the democrats are probably finished in this country...they evolved from the slave advocating party into the party of the working class industrial economy protecting, and are now the party of fringe lunacy, social experimenation, poverty pimping, government solving advocates with not one success to show for all the money they've extorted and then squandered.

Sigh. Folks, I'm afraid j8ear might, in a sense, be right about this. And I mean that literally: I'm afraid he might well be right.

Say what you will about the Republican machine, it's smooth, efficient, and, until this month anyway, remarkably unified. It was probably the unity of the right that had this whole Neocon Ascendency take place over the last decade or so. The left is completely fragmented, continually hijacks itself with fringe players screaming at the top of their lungs. It's no wonder that moderate middle America equates the left with environmental vegetarian abortionists--those are the ones promoting the "left agenda". There's no single voice, just a collection of shrill individuals. The public is left to make up its own mind about what the "party" (though I don't mean strictly the Democrats) stands for. I think it's entirely possible that the Democratic Party as we know it may never rise from the ashes. That may be a good thing.

Now: "not one success to show for all the money they've extorted and squandered" is just another cheap shot, given the practices of the current administration. Let's not talk about lying to America and Congress for the funding for a pointless war that has killed thousands with no objective or exit strategy, hm?

[Elphaba]

The following article is relevant to the topic in that it comments on the number of criticisms coming from the Republican "establishment" regarding the neocon influence within the White House. I also found it facinating that these same neocons brought Reagan's popularity to the basement in much the same way that is now happening to Bush. Reagan's solution was to kick the bums out, but I wonder if Bush is capable or even willing to take the same corrective action.


http://www.salon.com/opinion/blument.../index_np.html

Shipwrecked
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Thursday 27 October 2005

Bush has so thoroughly destroyed the Republican establishment that no one, not even his dad, can rescue him now.

There is no one left to rescue the Republican Party from George W. Bush. He is home alone. The Republican-establishment wise men whose words were once quiet commands are shouting unheeded warnings. The Republican leaders of Congress are distracted and obsessed with their own crises of corruption.

Suspended House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is under indictment for criminal campaign practices while Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider stock trading in his family-owned Hospital Corporation of America. The only revolt brewing in the Senate is on the right against President Bush's nomination of his White House legal counsel, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court; some Republican senators fear her potential for secret liberal heresy despite the president's protestations of her conservative purity.

On Aug. 7, 1974, three Republican leaders of Congress made a fateful journey down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. Sen. Barry Goldwater, tribune of the conservative movement; Sen. Hugh Scott, the stalwart minority leader from Pennsylvania; and Rep. John Rhodes, the minority leader in the House, informed President Richard Nixon that as a result of the Watergate scandals he must resign the presidency in the interest of the country and the Republican Party. Two days later, Nixon quit.

On Nov. 25, 1986, Attorney General Edwin Meese announced at a White House press conference that tens of millions of dollars from illegal sales of weapons to Iran had been siphoned to Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua by a far-flung conspiracy centered in the National Security Council. National Security Advisor John Poindexter immediately resigned and NSC military aide Oliver North was fired. Within the next month, President Reagan's popularity rating had collapsed from 67 to 46 percent; it did not recover until a year and a half later, in May 1988, when he negotiated an arms control treaty with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and traveled to Moscow to declare the Cold War over. After the revelation of the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan purged his administration of right-wingers and neoconservatives in particular. The Republican establishment in all its aspects took control. Former Sen. Howard Baker, who had been the Republican leader at the Watergate hearings, became White House chief of staff; Colin Powell was named national security advisor; neocon protector and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger was forced out and replaced by pragmatic bureaucratic player Frank Carlucci; and Secretary of State George Shultz was given charge of foreign policy in order to negotiate terms with Gorbachev.

The storm enveloping President Bush is a consequence of his adoption of the vicious smear tactics of the Nixon political operation, learned there by Karl Rove, who was called as a witness to testify about them before the Watergate inquiry, and of Bush's elevation to power of the neoconservatives removed by Reagan and excluded from office by Bush's father. Bush is haunted by the history he insisted on defying.

The elements of the Republican establishment that Bush brought into his first administration as a sort of symbolic tribute were gone by his second. By their nature, these people are discreet, measured and private. It is not their impulse to voice disagreement in public. Their sweeping and emotional jeremiads against what Bush has wrought are extraordinary not only in their substance but in having been made at all. Those expressing their disquiet about Bush are more than simply losers in bureaucratic struggles for primacy of place. Once representative of the heart and soul of the Grand Old Party, they are historical castaways. They stand for another Republican Party that has been supplanted by Bush's version.

Paul O'Neill, the former CEO of Alcoa, was shocked at the degradation of policymaking he witnessed as Bush's first secretary of the Treasury. He had anticipated that the councils of government under Bush would be no different from those he had experienced as an economic aide under Nixon. Nixon had rigorously insisted on objective analysis, hearing all sides and considering all options. In Cabinet meetings, O'Neill wrote in his memoir, "The Price of Loyalty," Bush was like "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." The White House struck back at O'Neill by falsely charging him with leaking classified materials and subjecting him to an investigation, which had the desired effect of silencing him. In retrospect, the accusation of leaking classified information can only appear ironic.

Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican governor of New Jersey, was stunned by her denigration and the suppression of science when she was Bush's first director of the Environmental Protection Agency. After her resignation, she compared Bush unfavorably to Reagan, who, she said, "didn't reach out in a way that indicated that there was no room for others." Whitman's book, "It's My Party Too," was a meek plea for attention from the "social fundamentalists" she claimed had seized control of the family firm. She would not name names, as though she might have another go at riding the tiger that had already devoured her.

John Danforth, for 18 years a U.S. senator from Missouri, served briefly before resigning as Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. He did not stipulate the reasons for his departure, but he did publish an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on March 30 of this year decrying how "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians." The GOP, he wrote, has become "a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement." Danforth, an old friend of George H.W. Bush's, lamented the loss of the party's heritage: "Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots." Danforth was replaced at the U.N. not with a believer in old-fashioned bipartisan internationalism but with John Bolton.

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former head of the Marine War College who had served as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, revealed the inner struggles of the Bush administration in a speech before the New America Foundation on Oct. 19. A "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" ran U.S. foreign policy for a president "not versed in international relations and not too much interested." Wilkerson defined the Bush doctrine as "cowboyism." Condoleezza Rice as national security advisor was "extremely weak" and more interested in "her intimacy with the president" than in acting as an honest broker. Cleaning up after Bush's tarnishing of America's image in the world was an impossible task. "It's hard to sell shit," said Wilkerson.

Powell, Wilkerson's principal, has remained publicly quiet since his September outburst, in which he said that his speech before the United Nations arguing the case for the existence of WMD and an invasion of Iraq, which subsequently was revealed to be filled with disinformation, was a "blot" on his record and continues to be "painful now." Behind the scenes, however, Powell has been active in countering the Bush torture policy, which he opposed from the beginning. Powell sent personal letters and made telephone calls to Republican senators urging them to support the amendment to the military appropriations bill that would end the torture policy. As a result of Powell's lobbying, 90 senators voted for it. It was a stinging rebuke to Bush, who has threatened to veto the entire military appropriations package if the amendment is attached.

Brent Scowcroft, perhaps more than anyone else, personifies the realist, bipartisan Republican tradition of internationalism. He is also the former national security advisor to the elder Bush and among his closest friends. President Bush dismissed him early this year from the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, having ignored his advice through the first term. Scowcroft's candid views appear in an article in the current issue of the New Yorker, in which he details his rejection by Bush at length. "I don't want to go there," Scowcroft replied when asked about the difference between the father and son. He said dismissively of the Iraq policies of a leading neoconservative, former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, "He's got a utopia out there." On Cheney, Scowcroft sounded perplexed: "The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney. I consider Cheney a good friend - I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore."

But Scowcroft the foreign policy mandarin may not have been exposed to the partisan Cheney when he served as secretary of defense in the administration of Bush Sr. He may have missed Cheney's tenure as a representative in the House leadership, where he compiled a far-right voting record and, as House minority whip during the 1980s, was the hidden hand behind the rise of Newt Gingrich and his band of radicals. When he was slated to be Bush's running mate, it was widely assumed that Cheney would act as a stabilizing and moderating presence. Only those who understood his congressional career knew of his affinities with the radical right, his vengeful instincts and his mean-spiritedness. His emergence at the center of the "cabal" now under investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should not surprise those who have penetrated his avuncular image to see the hard man beneath. Cheney was not the substitute father figure but the false father.

Bush's highhanded treatment of the few Republican moderates of his first term all but eviscerated what was left of the establishment that once controlled the party. The story of the old party's fall from grace and Bush's part in it is a well-known bildungsroman, a family saga that begins with the father.

The son of Prescott Bush, a patrician moderate Republican senator from Connecticut and a Wall Street investment banker, George H.W. Bush traveled to Texas to make his fortune in the wildcat oil industry. He was hardly a roaring success, but he took up his father's line of work, getting elected to the House from suburban Houston. It was then that he opened the negotiations of his Faustian bargain. His father had been the head of the United Negro College Fund; he and his wife were prominent members of the local chapter of Planned Parenthood. But George Bush Sr., seeking political advantage in Texas, declared his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bush spent the next decade advancing himself as a consummate Republican loyalist in positions ranging from chairman of the Republican National Committee under Nixon to Gerald Ford's CIA director and United Nations ambassador. After losing the Republican presidential nomination to Ronald Reagan in 1980, he swallowed his criticism of Reagan's supply-side nostrums as "voodoo economics" when he became his running mate.

The Faustian negotiations deepened. In 1988, he ran for president as Reagan's anointed successor. Faltering on his own, with unenthusiastic backing from Reagan's evangelical supporters, he ran a series of nativist and racially charged attacks on his Democratic opponent. Bush won that election with the right-wing Republican base voting for him but still doubtful of his authenticity. As president his compromises on taxation and realism in foreign policy led to their open disillusionment.

His son George lost his first campaign for the House from Texas, tainted by association with his father, who was tarnished by the right as a member of the Trilateral Commission international conspiracy. From then on, Bush was never outmaneuvered on his right flank. His political field marshal, Karl Rove, managed the right wing for his benefit. The Faustian bargain of the father became business as usual for the son.

Now the old establishment is faded. Its remnants largely consist of his father's superannuated retinue. Not even the old Texas establishment in the person of James A. Baker III, Bush's father's field marshal and the former secretary of state (among his many official posts), who managed the Florida contest that gave the presidency to the son, is welcome in this White House.

The Republican Party after Bush, minus its traditional establishment, threatens to become the party of its irreducible base, the party of the old Confederacy and the sparsely populated Rocky Mountain states. But this base, however loyal and obsequious to Bush, regardless of any crisis, does not offer statesmen to step in to handle his shaken White House.

A sharp reversal of policy and turnover in personnel are the only actions that may enable Bush to salvage the shipwreck of his presidency, as they did for Reagan. But bringing in the elders, even if they could be summoned, would be psychologically devastating to Bush, a humiliating admission that his long history of recklessness and failure, from the Texas Air National Guard to Harken Energy, with rescue only through the intervention of his father and his father's friends, has reached its culmination.

[roachboy]

bear's comments strike me, as they almost always do, as dispatches no-one asked for ripped from the script of the right media apparatus. the characterization of the opposition he trots out only even makes sense from a viewpoint wholly beholden to the all too ubiquitous trove of conservative cliches. sometimes it seems that the main thing holding together a conservative constituency is fear generated by that same ideology's lunatic characterizations of those who oppose it.

what is funny in bear's description of the democrats is the fact that is is wholly unhinged from any empirical mooring: it does not take a rocket scientist to see the effects of dlc domination of the democratic party--the thing that drove conservatives nuts most about clinton was that he kept co-opting their issues, via the famous "triangulation" procedure--a procedure that only makes sense in the context of a significant shift to the right-center in democratic party ideology. i am still not sure of what the thinking within the dlc was--that is, what good they thought would come of driving the republicans further to the right--but i guess they underestimated the scale and efficiency of the right media apparatus the outlines of which were developed in a serious manner during the right's 8 years in opposition. that and the scale and efficiency of the christian right's grassroots voter mobilization campaign. maybe they understood far right politics as so bankrupt and so marginal that any convergence of the republican part with it would spell instant doom--apparently, in this they were not adequately p.t. barnum about it--you know, you will never go broke overestimating the stupidity of the american people.

at any rate, one thing i would agree with ratbastid about above is that the right has been characterized by a relatively homogenous front. i still am not sure that i have the best chronology/explanation for explaining/thinking about the breakdown of that homogeneity, but it clearly has taken place. there is the possibility that this is temporary (i suppose we'll have to wait and see) but i think it might well not be. for example, i think it was a huge tactical mistake on bush's part not to throw the far right an adequately public bone with the meiers nomination--but while we were all distracted by that fiasco, bush got to appoint yet noather reactionary to head the fed and there was little or nothing said about it. who knows what kind of relation there is between these?

[Elphaba]

Roachboy, I have never assumed that there was true homogeneity in the Republican party and I think it would be a mistake to so. We are finally seeing a break in the masterful front that has been in place since the Republicans won a majority and the presidency.