Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 22, 2004.
This administration is gross. Facts don't concern them.
Most of my life has involved some degree of "risk vs. reward analysis". Whether buying some shares of a stock or racing a sports car or whatever, I commonly tried to figure out the downside vs. the profit or the enjoyment.
So, when Watergate came along, I was hesitant to believe the accusations for the simple reason that to me the risks far outweighed the rewards. It just wasn't worth it!
In today's world there is far less privacy and secrecy than ever before, no matter how hard any governmental folks work at it. Too many folks whose jobs involve ferreting out the facts about what's going on. Too many people who are willing to Tell All, and I'll ignore the issue of motivations on this.
So where I'm puzzled by all this is in the realm of "competency". To me, that includes thinking through the consequences of actions. I may not like the direction of policies or actions, but I like to think that they've been thought through, that those "in charge" have some idea of what final results will be.
I've always thought of the world as an unending chess game. Seems like a whole bunch of allegedly bright folks in politics would flunk TicTacToe 101.
allegedly bright? bush?
You have the budget numbers, the medicare bill, the reasons for war in Iraq, the muzzeled scince report findings...
and numerous reports for inside the administration.
They don't look at analysis.
Makes me nostalgic for Bush 41.
THAT dweeb? It's worse than I thought...
i think gw bush makes reagan appealing
From Rep. Tom Daschle. I think this is very well said.
. . . When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward to criticize the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, he was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President and his credibility was attacked. Even worse, the Administration launched a government investigation to see if Secretary O'Neill improperly disclosed classified documents. He was, of course, exonerated, but the message was clear. If you speak freely, there will be consequences.
Ambassador Joseph Wilson also learned that lesson. Ambassador Wilson, who by all accounts served bravely under President Bush in the early 1990s, felt a responsibility to speak out on President Bush's false State of the Union statement on Niger and uranium. When he did, the people around the President quickly retaliated. Within weeks of debunking the President's claim, Ambassador Wilson's wife was the target of a despicable act.
Her identity as a deep-cover CIA agent was revealed to Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, and was printed in newspapers around the country. That was the first time in our history, I believe, that the identity and safety of a CIA agent was disclosed for purely political purposes. It was an unconscionable and intolerable act.
Around the same time Bush Administration officials were endangering Ambassador Wilson's wife, they appear to have been threatening another federal employee for trying to do his job. In recent weeks Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services, has revealed that he was told he would be fired if he told Congress and the American people the real costs of last year?s Medicare bill.
Mr. Foster, in an e-mail he wrote on June 26 of last year, said the whole episode had been "pretty nightmarish." He wrote: "I'm no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political purposes."
Think about those words. He would lose his job if he did his job. If he provided the information the Congress and the American people deserved and were entitled to, he would lose his job. When did this become the standard for our government? When did we become a government of intimidation?
And now, in today's newspapers, we see the latest example of how the people around the President react when faced with facts they want to avoid.
The White House's former lead counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, is under fierce attack for questioning the White House?s record on combating terrorism. Mr. Clarke has served in four White Houses, beginning with Ronald Reagan's Administration, and earned an impeccable record for his work.
Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.
The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people.
The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line -- perhaps several lines -- that no government ought to cross.
We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.
I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.
The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.
Don't panic, I don't see where Bush is all that stupid. His worst flaw is that he's absolutely lousy as a public speaker, which has little to do with intelligence.
Regardless, guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld are supposed to be bright, savvy Washington insiders. They're supposed to have backgrounds indicative of an ability to play "International Chess".
A buddy of mine and I were kicking this around, this morning. His comment about Rumsfeld was that Rummy is too reminiscent of MacNamara. Overly in love with high tech, and impatient with any advice which is contrary to his preconceived notions. IMO, too many of these types let their egos interfere with reality, and then they wind up playing that old game of "Stonewall It!" That game doesn't work all that well...