ratbastid

*Please Note* I'm posting this having learned from my mistake on the Randy Cunningham thread I started. I'm going to start with facts, then note clearly where my opinion starts. I'm interested in others' opinions, not partisan rancor. Although I doubt my opinion will surprise anybody, I intend for this thread to be an INCLUSIVE AND RESPECTFUL DISCUSSION. This thread WILL necessarily involve comparing current politicians with historical ones. I declare that fair game for this thread, provided the comparison is in terms of leadership and management style. Responses like, "Oh yeah, well YOUR guy did X" are off limits for purposes of the discussion I'm intending to start in this thread.

This week's Newsweek has a cover story by Evan Thomas and Richard Wolffe on the Bush Administration's alledged isolation and the degree to which they're seen as out-of-touch. The full content of the article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek/ . I'm not going to post it all here because it's quite long. I recommend you read it before you post. In fact, when you first post on this thread, I request that you let us know whether you've read the article or not.

I don't think anyone can dispute that the Bush administration is pretty insular. Bush has surrounded himself with old friends from Texas and conservatives who basically follow his same line of thought. It's said that disagreement is equated with disloyalty in the White House.

This is a real change from how past presidents have operated. The article constrasts Bush's practices against those of Lincoln, JFK, Regan, Bush Sr., and others. It works out that other presidents--or, at least, those cited in the article--surrounded themselves with a plurality of opinion. They wanted people talking to them who didn't just agree with them. They wanted several viewpoints to choose from.

By contrast, Bush appears to have surrounded himself with people who will basically support his actions and opinions. He doesn't appear interested in contrasting viewpoints or grey areas. It seems he's 100% certain of himself and in the rightness of his actions at all times, and he uses his staff not as a wellspring of advice, but as an extension of his will.

What do you think about this? Is this a valid way to run things? What do you see as the upside or downside of this?

--Begin ratbastid's Opinion--

Personally, I think this is a pretty dangerous way to run a country. I think that without dissenting viewpoints, mistakes are compounded and errors in planning and thinking aren't caught. Iraq is a good example--it looks to me like our actions there are basically a nosedive into poor planning and policy.

The last few weeks have shown some planning and leadership from the administration on the Iraq issue (or perhaps shown the public display of their planning and leadership), and I applaud that. But that only started happening when those on the outside, starting with Jack Murtha, took a sledgehammer to the concrete wall surrounding the Oval Office. It got so obvious in the polls that people were unwilling to tolerate more of the same that the administration got the message and made a slight course correction.

I think that keeping an insular pocket of like-thinking advisors leads to shortsightedness and a lack of nimbleness on the part of the administration. Ignoring anything other than what is already known seems dangerous to me.

What are your thoughts?

Lebell

First, a sincere thanks for the way you have approached this thread. I know that it can be difficult to approach things from a factual/non-emotional standpoint when the subject evokes such strong emotions, so again, thank you.

I personally go back and forth on this issue, but it also occurs to me that I can only personally think of 3 other presidents that I have an adult understanding/experience of. Were things really that different for Johnson? Or for Roosevelt? Or for Taft?

I don't know.

I don't hold it against any president that surrounds himself with like minded advisors; I mean, do you really go out of your way to find people to disagree with you? I suppose other political systems where cabinet positions are filled according to the precentage of votes that certain parties get in elections have some merit, but I haven't seen that they are functionally any better.

No, I think it gets back to the man Bush and how he perceives the world. Bush definitely decides on a course of action and then sticks to it. Again, I can see advantages and disadvantages to such sticktoitiveness.

I do note that Collin Powel was definitely a free thinker and that he left of his own accord. I also have heard reports that there was quite abit of in-fighting and marginalizing between him and other staff members.

Well, for better or worse, in one more year we won't have to worry or be happy about Bush in the White House.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ratbastid

Lincoln did. He filled his cabinet with the people who ran against him for president. He called it his "Team of Rivals".

When JFK was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, he brought in all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds and political philosophies, listened to them argue policy for a while, and made his decisions based on what seemed best to him from what he heard.

I mean, no, I don't deliberately seek out those who fundamentally disagree with me to give me advice, but I admire that there have been presidents that do. Seems to me that if I was in a position of real power, where my decision would directly affect the lives of millions, I'd want to get a second opinion on a lot of my thinking. I'd want something outside my own head to sanity-check my planning and reasoning. It frightens me that Bush avoids that.

I know it's understandable, my question is: do you think it's wise? Do the upsides outweigh the risks? What ARE the upsides and risks as you see them?

(Edit, because I KNEW I left something out) You know, this is an interesting question even beyond the current presidential term. I believe I'd be just as disturbed by presidential insularity if it was a moderate liberal in power whose decisions I agreed with 100%. I don't intend this to be a discussion of Bush or his policies or whatever, so much as a discussion about the style of staff management he practices.

A couple years ago, I was Executive Vice President of a company that had a staff of 15. Some of our most productive meetings included downright arguments about how to proceed with certain technical or business matters. We always left the table knowing we'd thorougly gone over everything needing going over, and I was generally always satisfied that the optimal solution got chosen. Not everyone left the table thinking that necessarily, but everyone left knowing they'd gotten heard out, at least. We made the right choices on some hard decisions around that conference table, but I always knew my choices were grounded in my team's knowledge, not just my own. We could even change course, when that was appropriate. It was a really effective way to run things.

dksuddeth

loose on the facts here, but this is how I see it....

someone said that the Iraq war would cost hundreds of billions after cheney/rumsfeld/wolfowitz estimated only 60 billion......so that one person was dismissed/resigned/fired.

Former Treas/Sec O'neill disclosed that the iraq invasion had been planned even before 9/11 had occurred. O'neill resigned while 'loyal' admin folks denied this report only to have more documents released later that actually show this to be correct.

Medicare overhaul costs were misrepresented by various administration people while near threatening Rick Foster, the agencys chief actuary, that the consequences of revealing the real costs would be severe. Later the real costs are revealed to be nearer to twice the misrepresented cost of 400 billion.

Thats just a few for starters.....One would have to assume that either the administration is doing everything it can to stretch/bend/twist the truth in order to pursue Bushs political agenda or he truly lives in a bubble staying out of touch with reality in middle america.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

curiously, the reactionary economist von hayek provides a nice model for thinking about bushworld.

for hayek, monopolies are irrational by definition because they eliminate feedback (which enables a ratinoal assessment of performance) as they eliminate competitors. the result was that monopolies tended to substitute internal political considerations for information about performance--they tend to see the space in which they operate as they would prefer it to be, that is as shaped by the desires of the folk who run the apparatus. this is substituted for any rational assessment of the world outside the organization. this slippage----from dealing with complexity in the environment into dealing with the environment across a simplified image of it which is driven more by affect than friction----is the simplest thing in the world--so simple that the process would go unnoticed----that this substitution had happened would be demonstrated via results---but there is no reason to assume that results would necessarily trigger a rational response. the simplified image of the world could be defended--after all there would be considerable affect channeled through it (the illusion of mastery of a complex environment would follow from its [imaginary] erasure)


so it seems to be in bushworld. except in this case, you have this organizational problem repeated at the level of politics (rooted in a flight from complexity, a flight from change, into a simplistic view of the world rooted in types of categories and belief proper to christianity). not only that, but you have this bizarre fetishism of power, the assumption outlined most consistently by cheney that holding power makes one rational. which is just as idiotic as its free-market correlate (that money makes actors rational)--but it is simple, and simple has its appeal, apparently.

i dont think that it is asking too much that a regime within a democracy operate internally in a manner that reflects the pluralistic character of the system itself, and not revert to a mode more associated with a single-party system in its internal organization.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Gitmo

This thread reminds me of the three leader ship styles if you don’t know what they are here is a link that explains them. Which style or styles do you think the president and past presidents fall under?

Leadership Styles

alpha phi

Thank you ratbastid for yor intelligent, and fair aproach to this issue
I very much appreciate that.


If we look back in history at china or japan.
when they entered an isolation period
how much culture and technology was lost
the same isolation happened in european kingdoms
with a weaker effect because their neighbor preserved what would be lost.

an isolated (insulated) president is dangerous
I wonder if Bush is questioning current intelligence
in light of the tonkin gulf info recently released
I saw on CSPAN an interview with President Johnson's press secertary
He said President Johnson was given the untrue intelligence
because "it was what they thought he wanted to hear"
But if he had known the truth, history would be quite different.


on a side note:
from the msnbc article
That is a dramatic contradiction
"refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president"
and
"dismisses the notion that Bush is isolated or out of touch"
IMO the above statement makes the capitalhillblues
articles easier to swallow

__________________

Willravel

To quote redlemon, ratbastid speaks the truth. (and you can quote me on that). The dangerous question in this is does Bush know he's in the bubble? This takes us to two possible answers, something I have been unsure about since 2000: either Bush is grossly incompetent, and his lack of experience, foresight, and general politics, economics, and sociology are leading him deeper into his hole, OR Bush is a purpous driven man who is able to give the illusion of good old boy incompetence in order to cover for his war of vengence and deep lust for power and money. The first option puts his friends in office like a rich kid buys his friends toys and takes them to Chucky Cheese veery day; it's a simple "comon and join the fun" move, along with possible fear and lonlyness. The second option is that he puts his friends in office and makes them money (and of course get's plenty of money and power from this) in order for him to have the leeway to push all the adgendas he wants and twist the nation into the place he wants it to be.

Neither of these options is a positive for Bush. Incometence has no place in Politics at all, let alone the highest office in the land, and said incompetence could lead to disasterous decisions that are unforseeable by those of us who could make the right decisionsand are no stupid. Purpousfull powermongering means that he is willing to do great damage to the country and our poltiical alliances in order to make a buck for him and his friends, and maybe piss off some liberals in the process (myself included). Either of these two options is unacceptable, and I imagine that this is why Bush's approval rates are FINALLY plummeting (who would have thought a hurricane could do what pretzels, a war of aggression, and stolen elections couldn't?). Normally I'm not all about the whole impeachment thing, but this could be a good option if he's only willing to finally start to think about maybe moving slightly on his views after all of what's happened.

alpha phi

I have been wondering the same thing.
Will that be the excuse for plausible denialability
OR
Is Bush kept in the dark for real
Just as LBJ would have reacted differently in Vietnam
Bush might have reacted differently
in his responce to events of today

__________________

shakran

That's the crux of the problem right there. It's bad enough to have a president who doesn't want to hear opposing opinions from his advisors, and who won't read the newspaper or watch any TV news. That puts him in a bubble right there. It's worse when he doesn't understand that he's in the bubble.

When I took a week's vacation to hike all over Glacier national park, I didn't see a newspaper or a TV for 7 days straight. No internet either. I was in an isolation bubble and I knew it, and it damn near drove me nuts. And it drove me nuts when the biggest decisions I had to make that week were when to have that granola bar.

But, as we saw yet again in the NBC "exclusive" (exclusive if you count the fact that Fox got a day like that too) interview they broadcast the other day (that was a piss poor piece of journalism, btw, but that's for another thread) Bush happilly admits that he doesn't try to read or watch the news. He admits that he's in the bubble, without realizing that he's in the bubble.

THAT is the scary part - that this guy doesn't KNOW he's in the bubble. He thinks surrounding himself with yes-men and then believing everything they tell him is an acceptable way to get the facts which he bases his decisions on.

Well, 30,000 dead Iraqis and 2,000+ dead americans, plus countless wounded on both sides later with still no enhancement in our national security, should show us that this is NOT the way to govern.

Bush cannot make a good decision, except by a stroke of luck which has yet to strike, without good information. That's understandable, but what is not understandable is that he keeps running away and hiding from that information.

Redlemon

This is all based on my dim memory, and I don't know where to search/quote to verify it, but...

...as I recall, when it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, a strong theory stated that Saddam Hussein honestly believed that he possessed WMD. This was because he had authorized the programs, and "yes men" told him that the programs were coming along nicely, because no one was going to risk their own lives to tell him differently. Surrounding himself with "yes men" therefore directly led to the destruction of his government.

I hope that the US is not in the same position. I fear that we are.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

alpha phi

Do you know something I don't?.....Tecumseh's curse?

__________________

Poppinjay

Oddly, I was thinking about this this morning. I've recently come into contact with two conservative pundits. They are both very intelligent, well spoken, and popular. However, one will literally work an issue from as many points of view that he can muster. This is a person whose opinion I respect(fully disagree with much of the time).

The other, despite being a gifted journalist, relies on red herrings to basically "get over" on lesser debaters. I find it frustrating to work with him.

I was thinking about it this morning, there are so many folks of a mind that the success of the Bush presidency is somehow vital to them that they can't allow any odor of error to be attached to their judgement. Many of these are bright folks that could contribute, but are instead locked away in an insular mindset.

Part of what started this thought process was Bush's recent attempts to communicate, and allow information to be heard. My thought was that maybe some of the people who so adamantly support him to the extent of calling detractors "unamerican" will now be able to hunker down and offer up some reasonable ideas.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Charlatan

I was thinking the same thing... Bush has 3 (and a bit) more years in office no?

Though he was elected in 2000 so he's open for the curse... I think the pretzel was the curse but it didn't take. Just like Reagan getting shot by Hinkley and not succumbing to the curse... damn Republican grit.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Poppinjay

The Brian Williams interview? I believe Bush retracted his statement that he didn't follow the news as "needling" reporters in that interview. He said he got up with the morning papers, news mags, and journals, but lightly watched TV news.

Far be it from me to praise Bush, but that's the course of action I like to follow.

Otherwise, you're right. It was poor journalism. When I first saw Brian Williams on CNBC, all I could think was that he was a Republican stooge. Then he made some noises about growing up in a blue collar liberal household, but this wet kiss makes me wonder.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Ustwo

Lebell ixnay alkingtay outabya the upcoay

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

shakran

Me too. And yeah, Bush said that, but then later in the same statement he modified that to getting briefs from his advisors. The more he talked the more you saw that the man wasn't touching the news media and instead was relying on his advisors to, at best, interpret the day's news for him.

Of course the proper follow up question was "Mr Bush, you just said two different things. Which statement was a lie" but naturally that wasn't asked since network journalists have become such political lapdogs.

Lebell

Oops, mea culpa.

My mental calculator went on the fritz.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

raveneye

I think we should call it the "spoiled toddler" leadership style, maybe the invention of that new style is going to be Bush's legacy

Seriously, all his life he has been insulated from cold reality by his money and family. It's a fact of life for him, like the sun rises in the east. I think his presidency is just a microcosm of his life, where bad outcomes are screened off, those surrounding him are just an extension of his will (as are family members of every coddled child), external controlling mechanisms are dismantled, and failures are abundant and never his fault.

It's his personality. IMHO it's the worst personality you can have in any powerful leader, because you know that he's going to do whatever he wants and is not going to be accountable.


Note that this topic has been touched on in this thread, and it's surprising that the OP link doesn't mention Lawrence Wilkerson, who has argued this point quite eloquently recently:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ighlight=cabal

aceventura3

I read about half of the article and got bored.

First the article seems to want to perpetuate the myth that Bush is not too smart. That's one thing I love about Bush; the dumbest guy gets elected Govenor of Texas and then elected President. He has to be the luckiest dumb guy on the planet. So there is hope for me to accomplish something that will make my mother happy.

Second, when he was elected half the country did not accept him has the true President. And Washington insiders never accepted him, including some members of his party. So, what does he do? He turns to people he trusts. That is a big surprise.

Third, the President can't do much without congressional support. So even if his ideas are born in an enviroment with "yes men", congress has to buy into it. In reality he doesn't even have much control over foreign policy because he doesn't control the money.

In the end you have to conclude the article is perhaps entertaining, but certainly trivial.

Locobot

How is this both a "myth" and the "one thing [you] love about Bush"? You might want to rethink what you're saying here. Personally I have a higher standard for president than just someone who will make aceventura3's mother happy through comparison.
That's a nice fairy tale but the reality is that he purposefully avoided any semblance of coalition building. A few moderate appointments would have eased the shakey ground on which he entered the Whitehouse, but he did nothing of the sort. From day one he's been a divider. He siezed power by dividing the nation and during his presidency we've only seen that division widen.
Well we've certainly learned exactly what the president is able to do without the approval of congress from GWBush who has sought the absolute limits of his power, only to be occasionally reigned in by congress or the courts. And it has been a very seldom occasion. The problem of course is that the majority of both houses of congress can be included in Bush's cadre of yesmen. I don't find the article trivial at all.

We've seen the ill effects of this M.O. again and again with this presidency and there's no sign of change. No one wants to tell GWBush anything bad. If they do, their own political life is at stake. If we didn't have a free press in this country there would probably be another 5000 hurricane Katrina dead. "Don't you guys watch television? Don't you guys listen to the radio?" -Ted Koppel to (then) FEMA director Michael Brown. It's too bad no one in the Federal government had the guts to tell their superiors what was actually happening.

cybersharp

The Bush reign over the country sounds alot like Andrew Jackson's when he was president though from what I know. Though Jackson actualy did HELP the nation despite the whole Trail of Tears thing. I simply dont see how our war helps the nation in anyway truly, the lives of U.S soldeirs is being spent. Usualy war is faught for land, in this case it somthing less... physical that we are fighting for supposedly... ha.....
The presidents do truly have alot in common though, both getting alot of people killed because of their personal beliefs on what is right and wrong and such..

__________________
0PtIcAl

aceventura3

My poor attempt at sarcasm. Actually, I think Bush is smart. I think I am smart (eventhough a bit Tilted). And, I have accomplished a few things that have made my mother proud.

Perhaps you are correct. Given the tone at the time, I don't think I would have been able to appease the left. Takes a "big man" to do that, I admit imperfection, I bet Bush would also.

I thought he was elected inaccordance with our constitution. I also think the nation was divided before he was elected.


The bubble expands. I guess it also included the Iraq war coalition, the one that doesn't exist. And perhaps even the UN.


Perhaps Bush should have flown to New Orlean and put his thumb in the levy.
Or, he could have taken control of the State using the military. Well actually no, its not Constitutional. Do you remeber Brown got fired. Noone at the state or local level got fired.

Locobot

I'm sensing more "humor" here. Perhaps it wouldn't have taken a week to mobilize the national guard, something that is completely constitutional, had the president not been so insulated from bad news.

This is a tangent, but I have a good friend who was in New Orleans during the storm and for a week afterward. His impressions of what went on were starkly different from the way things were portrayed by right-wing media outlets. Mayor Nagin was on the local radio every night coordinating the response and talking to the citizens. During the day he was out on boats pulling people to safety, well before the national guard got in the act. If we're catagorizing people Ray Nagin belongs with the Rudy Gulianis not with the Michael Browns.

ratbastid

Actually, I sincerely doubt it. That's pretty much what this whole article and everyone commenting on it so far has been saying.

aceventura3

I apologize for my humor, after a second look it was in bad taste.

However, my position is the same. Bush, even as President, had limited authority without the cooperation of the State and local governments. In a major disaster initial relief normally has to be local or from advance preparation. the Federal Goverment has to take some blame and so do others at the state and local level.

alpha phi

That is an excellant point.
When Bush finally stepped up, and started giving orders.
Things started getting done the way they should have been.
He said he saw what was going on in The gulf on the news.
If I were him, I'd be pissed at the people who kept me in the dark
........I wonder if he is?
......it would explain the changes he has had lately in policy

__________________

aceventura3

I guess you prove another point. No matter what Bush does, it won't be enough for those on the left.

He has admitted errors, failings and shortcomings many times.

aceventura3

Bush was trying to work with the Governor. In the end after all the investigations are complete, I would bet it was her ego that prevented things from happening sooner.

alpha phi

After he heard about the chaos on the news
that is true.
the point is about the isolation of the POTUS.

About the Katrina responce...
I think it will boil down to
Gov. Blanko and FEMA

__________________

Locobot

And I would take that bet. The main objection to Governor Blanco's response has been that she didn't "ask for help in the right way." Of course the record is pretty clear that she was asking everyone she could access on the federal level for "help." It may very well be fair to say that she didn't ask for the right specific types of help she needed. She is a former school teacher, with little or no experience with disaster management. It's also very fair to say that the people who did have this experience at FEMA were either laid off due to "Homeland Security" restructuring, Republican budget cuts, or not mobilized by the FEMA chief Michael Brown.

aceventura3

I have admitted Bush should have done better. Are you suggesting there is nothing at the State and local level that could have been done to save lives?

Did new Orleans have a disater recovery plan?
Did they do enough at the local level to get people out of the area?
Did they have food and water reserves at the Super Dome in advance?
Did they use any state and local tax dollars to fortify the levy?
Did state and local police and fire have command and control centers?
Did they mobilize police, fire and municiple personnel to minimize damage after the fact?

Or, were all those things the responsibility of George Bush?

Locobot

No, I'm not. What I am suggesting is that the most egregious and most reprehensible errors occured at the federal level through negligence and, as a corollary to this thread, the encapsulated nature of the Bush whitehouse.
Yes.
"enough" is subjective. We've all seen the photos of the rows and rows of school buses sitting idle in the flood water. We also know however that that lot had never flooded before. We also know that those buses were fueled and ready to go before the flooding but the national guard failed to supply drivers as requested. The city was evacuated by the order of the mayor, this is where I believe FEMA should have become involved not 10 days later. And yes, the evacuation of cities is fully under their jurisdiction constitutionally.
No.
Yes.
Yes, but they were flooded.
Yes.
These are your ideas, not mine. yay! I get to quote myself:

aceventura3

We will not agree on this. Here is my final thought:

My common sense approach to a natural disaster is to be prepared to survive about 3 to 5 days on my own, and then hope someone steps-up and helps me. And I will be thankful for whatever help comes.

Elphaba

Great topic, rb. I finally had the chance to read through the linked article and another Newsweek article concerning Bush's response to Katrina. In both, I saw evidence that Bush encourages the "bubble" in his discourse with others. Staffer's are relunctant to bring "bad" news to this president because he becomes "surly". Those that watched the first presidential debate with Kerry, saw a side of Bush not seen before, and that was before a national audience. Given that lack of self-control in public makes me wonder what "surly" might be in a private audience. Another piece of data that he discourages open discussion is in this quote from the article:

I have been trying to understand where his "certainty" comes from and perhaps that has been the precondition for his chosen insularity. Bush's animosity to disagreement or alternative opinions might be explained, if he sincerely believes, as a "born again" Christian, that his choices and actions are being guided by God. I have a hard time getting my head around this one, because of the many obvious contradictions he presents that challenge my notion of a loving God. Belief in a vengeful God might better explain his decisions, such as supporting the torture of prisoners.

I suspect we are decades away from fully understanding what makes #43 tick, but I have come to believe that the "bubble" is of his own making. I consider that a very dangerous flaw in a president.

ratbastid

I don't know what POTUS you're talking about, but the consensus about GWB is that he is decidedly reticent to admit errors. That's pretty much exactly what this thread is about.

Yesterday he "took responsibility for the wrong intelligence" that took us to war--and it was shocking that he did so. All the news agencies just about shit themselves. The one other time in his entire term to date was when he "took responsibility" for the cluster-fuck of the Katrina recovery. That moment was equally gasp-inducing. Note that in neither case did he actually change his approach to or view of these issues. The Katrina recovery is an ongoing, though now overshadowed, cluster-fuck, and however wrong he was about Iraq, he was still right. So, okay. Take responsibility. Great. Thanks for that.

ace, it looks to me like you looked at this whole thread, including the cover article of a major weekly news magazine, and said, "Nope!"

Really! That pretty much appears to be your response! "Nope!"

Forgive me for not being convinced by that!

aceventura3

First time he ran for office I think he admitted drug and alcohol abuse. His hole premise was his imperfection and errors.

I have heard countless times when the administration admitted intlligence was wrong. I remember the head of the CIA being removed. I remember a re-organization of intelligence agencies and a change in communication channels between intelligence agencies.

I remember the FEMA director being fired. I remember during the first week of Katrina, Bush saying we made errors and we are going to fix them.

Yes.

Yes.

O.k.