Bush 'Angry' at media, second-guessers

[rjung]

*Originally posted by BickByro *
Surely, World Eater, you’ve heard that President Bush does not make decisions based on focus groups! That would be equivalent to, you know…

…Bill Clinton?

[World_Eater]

Good points, I’m eating lunch and will compose some thoughts in a little bit.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by CTB *
**World Eater and skankweirdall,

I recognize, and surely you do as well, that in the interest of terseness some of my statements were unable to explore all possible ramifications and so tended to the idealized. However, I would be interested in hearing why you think some of the items are not within the realm of possibility. It may be difficult to read, but I will use the numbers in my original post to respond.

1. Perhaps that is what we are doing. However, we have an administration that has said “I am not worried about him” re: bin Laden after promising him “dead or alive”. They are giving the appearance of putting this on the back burner, and I find this dispicable. This should be our top priority and any administration with honor would remind the people every day that the search continues, give updates re: progress, and not take a goddamn vacation to Texas or the woods of MD every goddamn month.
   **

Well as far as I am concerned, as long as they are searching everyday, I don’t feel the need to listen to a play by play of looking for a needle in a haystack. I think we all need to realize this will be going on for years, and we all know what a short attention span the public has. If Bush were personally doing the searching, then I would be annoyed about his vacations. I do wish the media would give us a bit more progress on it though. They have made some strides, they recently caught that fat hairy guy
**

2. I recognize that not all countries can always agree with everything and that dealing with one country my anger another. That is why I suggested that the UN have a role in the process so that it is not the US dealing with these countries, but the weight of the entire UN and all of its signatories. Please read my suggestion again, as I am not suggesting a third international body, just a strengthened UN. I have no understanding of the neo-con’s loathing of this organization.
   **

While there is obviously a need for a world body, but I have little faith in the UN. It seems that we have set a bad precedent, and it will be all-downhill from here. The weight of the signatories would be a good thing, if we ever get anyone to agree on something. I don’t even know what to say here.

**

3. I don’t see how you can disagree with the idea that Powell was sidelined until he “got with the program” and became a hawk. There are also numerous reports of folks in our intelligence agencies who have felt pressures to only report those things that agree with the previously stated intentions of the administration. Surely this happens a bit with each presidency, but it at least seems to be greater in this one. **

I agree, because I can’t imagine Powell handling things this badly. The real problem to me seems to be Rumsfeld, I can’t help but feel that he’s the one pulling the strings.
**

4. I am not familiar with the standard levels of review for intelligence information. I would expect that review and vetting would need to take place at every single level. Whoever passes that information up the chain of command needs to have some accountability for the quality of that information. If it is crap, but interesting crap, then sure pass it along, but at least let everyone know that it is probably crap. **

I would imagine this is pretty close to what actually happens. Is there anything to indicate that this is not the case?

**

The embarrassment to this nation because of the quality of our “proof” presented to the UN is immense. And as much as I (used to) admire Colin Powell, he needs to take responsibility for the contents, because it was his face, and his prestige, that put it before the world.**

I was cringing during that whole UN presentation, because that was about as tenuios as it gets. There was absolutely no intelligence, just a bunch of unconvincing half-baked extrapolations that didn’t amount to even a ditch of beans. Talk about shock and awe! Are we supposed to think that Saddam has some type of James Bond super villain capacity?

Here’s a quick breakdown.

Mobile chemical laboratory? - More like some dudes making some fucking moonshine in the back of a 1983 Ford van.

Chemical munitions? - Some bullets with Crazy Glue poured on the tips, they probably thought it would poison the infidels.

UAV that can disperse chemical agents? - Have you seen that thing? It looked like someone left it in the park after it crashed, Iraq came along, found it, and duct taped it back together.

Super underground complex? - Probably some basement where Saddam hid his Maxims from his 10 wives.

See the pattern here? Take something that in it’s vaguest form could be considered a biological weapon like, say, a Ziplock bag filled with urine, to throw at troops, and let the spin machine do the rest!

God that presentation was such a crock of shit.

**

5. Again, yes this was simplistic. I recognize that once the first shot is fired, almost all planning goes straight out of the window, but I do think that a clear exit strategy comes from a clear view of the end-game. If this administration has a clear idea of why we are in Iraq and when they will know that they are done killing people, they have made neither the plan, nor the fact that they even have one, very well known. **

I see no problem with creating a modular plan that can have the pegs plugged into it as we move along. The fact of the matter is there are too many unknowns to account for pre-invasion, so the planning has to be in the biggest most general scope until the specifics emerge during the course of the war.

I have a feeling the administration has a plan, if only for a covering their ass type of thing.

**

6. I wouldn’t say that this is so impossible. This administration has a greater challenge because of the strong ties its members have to the oil industry and the defense industry. All the more reason that they publicly acknowledge these ties, and demonstrably sever their ability to profit from the policies they promote. Why is this so unreasonable?**

It’s not unreasonable, it can be looked at a few ways. It’s entirely possible that someone has ties through former employment or family connections to a certain industry or company, and not be engaging in any misconduct. Unlikely? Sure but it’s still possible. The fact is these guys worked for a legitimate industry, and AFAIK, didn’t do anything illegal while running their respective companies. IMO that in itself shouldn’t be held against them, once they are in office they should be held accountable for their records in office, and only that.

Now their records in office are highly dubious, and it seems like they are giving out some sweetheart deals and returning some favors, so of course I’m going to take some issue with that, and hold them accountable. The indication that our current administration is not even bothering to quash the appearance of impropriety signals to me exactly where they stand.

Even if Cheney renounced his ties with Halliburton, that wouldn’t make a difference to the Chaney haters out there.

In Washington, everyone has a hand in the pie, and donkey or elephant, I don’t see anyone renouncing the people the got them in the White House.

**

7. This could too easily come down to Bush bashing and, for this thread at least, I will decline to expand the original, somewhat snarky comment.**

I think everyone would like to smack that smirk off his face at some point or another, we’ll leave it at that.

**

8. I am glad to hear that you are not a “dissent=anti-America” crowd. It is my opinion that these folks are hurting America more that bin Laden and Hussein combined could ever do.**

People like that have existed since the dawn of time, I blame the media, who try and get the most extreme sound bites they can, and give these idiots the coverage they don’t need.

**

9. Bush promised a “humble” foreign policy, and has delivered one of the most arrogant in history. He also promised a “foreign handed” one, whatever the fuck that means, but maybe that is what we are seeing now.**

A President breaking a campaign pledge? Say it ain’t so

I liked Bush during the campaign, (I hated him less then Gore, not liked him liked him), but his foreign policy scared me from day one.

**

10. If you know of a clear plan for post-war Iraq, please point me to it. I have heard rumors, most involving and US ex-general as an interim head of state, which is pretty bone-headed in my opinion. What I have not heard about is any consultation with area experts, or people who actually live there. Why does this necessarily have to take so long. I am not suggesting that you need unanimous acceptance of the idea. I am simply suggestion that you very publicly, and very genuinely, consult with people who actually know what the fuck is going on in that area. Of course you can’t please everyone, but asking them in good faith is the first step towards (grudging if necessary) acceptance.
    **

Well I think that would be accurate, if seasoned debate, and eventual grudging acceptance by the minority was what would happen. More like endless debate, until someone puts their foot down and enacts a plan nobody is happy with. I’ll tell you one thing, I don’t have the slightest fucking idea what to do with Iraq once this war is over. I can’t even formulate a vague concept, that’s how confused I am about what to do.

**

11. I am regrettably not familiar enough to know if similar things happened during similar events such as Pearl Harbor. I would agree that it is standard practice to try to push things through whenever you can. However, 9/11 was an extraordinary occurrence, and so required extraordinary restraint. Bush has so far shown extraordinary nerve.**

A shitload of people have shown extraordinary nerve, where to begin? America is great with promises and shitty with follow through. I was reading about all the legal wrangling going on over the reconstruction of Ground Zero, and it turned my stomach. It seems like the future of America will be about endlessly debating minutia, and accomplishing nothing because if people don’t get their way they’ll sue. People know less and less of compromise.

**

12. There have been witch-hunts and there have been effective investigations. I would say that it primarily depends upon the qualifications and perceived non-partisanship of the commission chairman and members. Thus my listed qualifications. Why is this so impossible? For example, certainly there are many individuals with “impeccable credentials and a strong reputation for non-partisanship”. I do not mean that someone must not have any party affiliation. If Powell had not, for some reason I will never understand, become the administration’s favorite lap dog, I would consider him a perfect example of someone to lead such a commission. These people exist, it just takes a President with enough character to create a commission that will not use the commission as a tool to further their own political ends.**

Well that seems to be the crux of the problem. We’ll never have a President with enough character to convince everyone. I think I’m just looking at these things from the human nature POV, and that’s what makes me see it through cynical eyes. There are perfectly qualified good people that should be in office, but since there are well paid shit spewing public opinion twisting people working for the opposition, they will never appear in the good light they should be in. What I wonder, and will it ever be a novelty if it ever happens is an honest guy (like Larry Hagman in Primary Colors), who will take the wind right out of peoples sails. Imagine some pol gets some dirt pulled up on him (something they always blow up huge, like smoking a joint when they were 15), and they say “Yeah I did, it was pretty stupid, but oh well you live and you learn. Next question?”

Boy I bet that would blow some minds.

**

13. Again, debate need not last decades. Many intelligent people have already thought this stuff through very well.
    **

And equally intelligent people have thought up the other side of the argument very well

**

They just need an open forum to discuss possible issues, and an administration that is clearly open to discussion. I do not know the legal basis, but I would also desire that a change of such magnitude must pass through some legislative review and approval. I guess not though.
**

To me this adds more bureaucracy. I see what you are suggesting, I just don’t thing it would work in execution. I am a cynic though.

**

15. Great. Why don’t “We the people” fucking demand this then? Why are we so goddmaned afraid to admit our mistakes. We would be a stonger and more respected nation if we could just muster the nerve to take a critical view of ourselves. Yeah, I know it’s a pipe dream, I just don’t fully understand why it has to be so. **

I’m wondering that right alongside you. What an example that would set to the world.

**

Thank you for the rational discussion. I am a bit confused that I had to come to the Pit in order to discuss some of these things in a rational environment. I appreciate your cold realism, and recognize that some of my ideas are a bit idealistic, but, and I guess this is why I would have to put myself in the progressive camp even though I vote fairly centrist, if we do not have ideals to work towards, we are just spinning our wheels in a rut. **

I think aiming as high as you can is a good thing, because even if you’ve fallen short, you’ve still done some good. As far as the history books go, nothing is in there yet, but hopefully it will have a better ending then a Mad Max movie.

[CTB]

Well World Eater, I’m having flash backs to college. It would appear that we have solved all the world’s problems but no one else seems to get it…

As far as I can tell, where we diverge is that I am more prone to continued debate whereas you are a bit more anxious to just make a decision and get it over with. I can see the benefits of both sides, and the right answer probably lies at different places on the continuum between them at different times.

Where Clinton perhaps spent too much time mulling over every last aspect of a problem to the point of inaction, Bush and his cohorts seem to think it a sign of weakness to have any debate whatsoever. What I find most worrisome is the current administrations efforts to quash debate of any kind regarding their decisions. Seeing them both in action, I have to say that it makes me feel better to know that at least someone thought of different options. The neo-cons speak of moral clarity, good/evil, etc. which I find to be an entirely artificial construct. Sure it allows for action without any nagging doubts, but it also can get us ino the mess we find ourselves in currently.

I think that we get the candidates that meet our expectations. If we continue to just say, “well, that’s politics” without demanding something better, we have nothing to complain about. The candidates presented to us in 2000 were an absolute disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of America. Since we have already hopelessly hijacked this thread, I’ll just go ahead and ask: What on earth did you find appealing about GWB the candidate? Honestly. You seem like a reasonable fellow and I have been waiting for over 2 years to hear from someone who is not a raving lunatic why GWB appealed to them. I can understand the appeal to the religious right. Other than that, I cannot think what could be appealing about him. Not only did he strike me as ignorant, but he seemed to revel in his ignorance.

Did you just choose him as the lesser of two evils, or did you find something that actually lead you to believe that he would be a decent or even good president? I mean this as a completely serious question and not as some excuse to trash the guy or insult you for supporting him. I don’t get it, and would like to.

[skankweirdall]

OK CTB, my main point would be that I think #6 is an impossibility. You have since expounded on it further to where, while better, I still don’t think it’s workable. The business world and politics are in bed with each other, always have been. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back has been the mantra for as long as I know. I don’t ever see that changing. In fact it’s encouraged in the busines world, “the art of the deal” so to speak. It’s ingrained in our culture and not necessarily a bad thing.

[QUOTE]
** I have been waiting for over 2 years to hear from someone who is not a raving lunatic why GWB appealed to them. I can understand the appeal to the religious right. Other than that, I cannot think what could be appealing about him. Not only did he strike me as ignorant, but he seemed to revel in his ignorance.

Did you just choose him as the lesser of two evils, or did you find something that actually lead you to believe that he would be a decent or even good president? I mean this as a completely serious question and not as some excuse to trash the guy or insult you for supporting him. I don’t get it, and would like to.**

[QUOTE]

My answer to this question is he seemed by all accounts I knew of to be a person capable of working on both sides, to be fairly nonpartisan and able to surround himself with highly qualified people. Did I believe him to be the smartest of the bunch? No. Did I believe him to be the kind of person that would defer to people that knew better? Yes. Did I not look deep enough? Maybe. Lesser of two evils? Most definately. He was not my first choice, I much prefered Alan Keyes which may even horrify you more, I don’t know.

Having said all this I still think this war is the right thing to do on so many levels. I will concede it was not the way to go about it. Will that influence me enough to not vote for him again? I’m not sure. Depends on who the Dem’s put up. I won’t vote for Kerry though, I don’t like his hair.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[fessie]

Keep in mind, skankweirdall, as a Florida voter it may not matter who you THINK you voted for, anyway.

I think this country has lost its fucking mind.

Every time I talk with someone to try and get to the bottom of what’s supposed to “justify” our actions in Iraq, it comes down to frothing anger. They’re absolutely rabid. And now our sons and daughters are over there, scared to death but doing their best - how can anything good possibly come of this? Yeah, like the democracy we’ve established in Afghanistan? Like the problems we solved during our last first-strike war, in Cuba? Or our wild successes in Central America, hoo-boy.

A right-winger actually said to me that overthrowing Hussein was just like liberating Germany during WWII - huh?

Hubby keeps pointing out that during WWII Europe experienced much worse drummings than we received on 9/11 without going on a wild binge of revenge towards everything in the neighborhood. Sure, okay, unprovoked, trauma, terrorists - I grant all that. Still, the numbers are staggering - 100,000+ at Dresden, etc.

Bush has taken our national trauma and channeled it into Texas bravado, eyes slit and guns drawn, “somebody’s gonna pay”.

I’m just amazed that “The Onion”, “The Daily Show” and Jim Borgman’s cartoons are the only sane voices out there (absent present company, of course).

I’m telling you, this country has gone fucking nuts.