“I am my own man (but conveniently, all of my people worked for my brother and father)” doesn’t fly very far with me.
C’mon BG, you should know better. It’s up to the person making the claim, in this instance, that Hegel was a good Secretary of Defense, to back it up. :rolleyes:
I know that, but I thought you must have something specific in mind.
IOW, no right answer.
Guess I don’t need to bother taking this scale seriously.
What do you have against whores, BG?
Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center takes aim at Jeb with an ad that seems to tie him to Benghazi, no really.
Hey, they knew the assignment was dangerous when they took it.
Actually, the evidence certainly points to Jeb being his own man. Was GWB like his father as a President? THen it’s logical to conclude that Jeb will be different from his father and his brother.
It’s interesting that all those people who worked for Bush 41 and got rave reviews fell flat on their faces under GWB. That would seem to indicate that the Bush “people” aren’t the issue. GWB was the issue.
As for Chuck Hagel being a good Secretary of Defense, I think he did a fine job. The administration didn’t think so, because he couldn’t stay on message, and messaging is the be all and end all for these guys. It’s not the war, silly, it’s how you TALK about the war. Hagel talked about it wrong.
Well, not really. Most of them were promoted under 43. Our foreign policy might not have been an eight-year disaster if James Baker was in charge.
I think there’s also the sycophant issue. James Baker wouldn’t have worked for GWB as soon as he found out what kind of conditions he’d have to work under. The only guys who didn’t toe the GWB line were Powell and Armitage and as a result they had little stroke inside the administration. GWB values loyalty above all else and he made sure to select people who would stick with him no matter what.
We don’t really know what Jeb’s approach is, at least on foreign policy. Given that Bush 41 and Bush 43 were so different, it might be useful to find out how Jeb’s governing style differed from his brother’s in Texas. That would be if the media was interested in asking the right questions. More likely, they’ll just portray a Bush vs. Clinton race as George vs. Bill. It’s that kind of laziness that gives Jon Stewart as much influence as Bill O’Reilly.
Powell? Powell? Good God, man, he debased himself out of loyalty! He stood before the UN and lied his ass off, wiped GeeDubya’s butt with his last shred of dignity!
Well, George W. Bush’s approach was to militarily intervene in matters that were left incomplete by the preceding Bush administration. If Jeb Bush continues that trend, I expect the Army to invade AIG and Lehman Brothers.
Prudently.
Why shouldn’t Stewart have as much influence as O’Reilly? They’re both in the news-as-entertainment business, and only the latter invents things out of whole cloth.
One’s channel has Comedy in its name and doesn’t pretend to be anything else. The other’s channel has News in its name and doesn’t *admit *to being anything else. Different standards do apply, and it’s at their own implicit request, too.
LOL! Thank you. You just made my day!
Not saying he shouldn’t, only observing that his influence derives from a media that doesn’t do its job very well. Most notably the horse race-style reporting of campaigns that puts more emphasis on gaffes and inspiring speeches than on what the candidates have actually done or plan to do.
The “media” isn’t a monolithic entity. If you get your news from sources that put more emphasis on gaffes and inspiring speeches, then you get the news you deserve.
The media is varied, but CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the broadcast networks tend to have the same approach. If you want substance explained, that’s what Vox and TNR(at least before the shakeup) are for.
Jeb Bush says that even knowing what we know now, he would have still invaded Iraq in 2003.
Is he toast already? Does he just not understand the concept of “what we know now”?