I’d feel better if the original source for this material was not www.realchange.com. I’m positive that I’m getting a spun, heavily biased analysis missing other important facts. I’d like to compare their take with a different source for this same information.
They make quite a few claims that are specific enough to be refutable. If you find any evidence to the contrary, you’ll be sure to let us know, right?
OK, that’s some, but let’s look at them:
[ul]
[li]What are our militarty objectives? Who wanted to attack immediately? It was George Bush who said wanted Dead or Alive on the day after the attack.[/li][li]You mean very isolationist, as in ignoring all the other world leaders until the crisis.[/li][li]The congressman who leaked was apparently Orrin Hatch, who should be one of George Bush’s main allies. A strong President should have this kind of congressman in his pocket.[/li][li]WTF? A stirring speech?? You would have to be his mother to the guy to like the speeches I heard.[/li][li]I like to see a cite where Gore or Clinton micro-managed the military. And they didn’t have the support of the military, who are notoriously conservative Republicans.[/li][li]Yankee Stadium? 1200 cops outside?? How many Secret Service - probably safer than the White House. Sheesh.[/li]He hasn’t tried to blow sunshine up our asses?? Isn’t that wonderful? I would have said his whole political life was trying to blow sunshine up our asses. Everyone says he doesn’t know policy, he doesn’t have a grasp of facts or figures, but he’s a truly “nice guy”. Most of us learned in High School to avoid the truly “nice guys”, especially ambitious nice guys, because the bullshit factor is too much to handle. All hat, no ranch. [/ul]
I feel like I’ve just had a bucket of ice-cold water thrown in my face. Scylla, my heretofore hero, has fallen from his his marble pedestal. ‘A mighty hedge’…good grief, I can hardly put finger to key board. Waaaaaaah - he’s on the wrong team.
Nonsense. I just came to the realization that arguing against a particular viewpoint can inadvertently position you as it’s diametric opposite if you’re not careful.
I’ve spent a lot of time defending George JR. from overblown and unworthy attacks recently, and it occurs to me that I must sound as extreme as those I argue against. I don’t really think he’s the savior, nor do I think he’s a rotten guy. My OP is something of an attempt at lightening up accompanied by a reality check.
Hi. My name is Dave, and I’m an arm chair general.
It all started when I started having doubts about the overall strategy of the American assault on Afghanistan. Irrespective of my lack of military background and on-the-ground intelligence, I decided that America had no idea what it was doing in Afghanistan, and lacked a strategy.
My problem is of course that I am used to being told by newspapers what will happen next in the fog of war, and when it doesn’t happen, I think there is no strategy.
My other problem is that the Pentagon won’t take the time, for selfish security reasons, to tell me what they are planning next.
One of my other problems is as an arm chair general I expect that the war should be resolved in 4 weeks - the period of time since the bvombing campaign started. I’ve been looking for my toe nail clippers for 4 weeks, and I can’t find them in the vast expanse of my house, but that should not excuse the American military for not being able to find bin Laden in Afghanistn in 4 weeks.
The fact that countries like Australia and Japan are sending forces seems to me to indicate that this is a long haul war; that there is an international strategy; that no one is telling me what it is because Osama reads the newspapers (although the interview in GQ magazine this month does suggest otherwise).
As I said, I don’t like Bush. But for the arm chair generals to start pounding the keyboard demanding answers for the lack of strategy in Afghanistan is premature and naive.
That is a hell of a lot more than Bush has done!
And JFK was an obviously intelligent, thoughtful man. Bush is an intellectual zero, and a sloppy, careless thinker.
Just for those keeping score, let me present Sam Stone’s description of the difference between legitimate political opposition (acceptable at any time, even in war), and petty partisanship (unlikeable at the best of times, very poor behaviour when a war is on):
I’d like to demonstrate by example.
Valid political dissent:
or,
Partisan Crap:
I trust most of you can see the difference.
BTW, Gigo, I wasn’t talking about the Orrin Hatch leak, although that was certainly one of them (and Hatch has always had a big mouth), but another much more serious leak, the details of which the administration managed to get squashed after spending a frantic half-day with the editor of the Washington Post. Apparently, it was very serious, which is why the administration had to go into a flurry of activity to get the paper to hold it back from publication. We don’t know which Senator or Congressman was responsible for that.
Well, your opinions speak volumes about you, but that’s all they really shed light on.
I entirely agree.
themoon - I am only vaguely familiar with American politics. It has never been “obvious” to me that JFK was an “intelligent, thoughtful man”, and you haven’t rebutted what december lucidly put to you. Assuming you are correct, for the sake of us poor ferrners, please back up what you say.
Your description of Bush is so partisan it is hard to answer. Give examples of his “sloppy careless thinking”. Everything else you point to makes him out to be a shrewd hard businessman who came clean about his drinking problem.
I was finishing last weeks Economist last night: Bush is described as having taken full advantage of the current situation to rein in his opponents in the Houses, who have complied “meekly”. This doesn’t sound like a bumbling booby to me.
Again: if I could have voted for him, I wouldn’t have. But, if he is indeed the village idiot, you’re not backing it up with the facts.
Is “partisan” a put-down? I don’t get it.
Generally, if somebody cannot rebut an attack, they respond with cries of “partisan!” But this is really saying nothing. What does it mean to be partisan? Why is it bad? Is everything bad simply because it is partisan?
I have contempt for Bush. He is a mediocrity who has been raised far above his competency level, by a bunch of morons.
Does this make me partisan? Perhaps. But so what?
If you mean, by “partisan,” somebody who would criticize any republican, then you are wrong. And such a charge would be an ad hominem attack, attacking not the charge, but the character of the person putting it forth.
I do not dislike Bush just because he is a republican. If this is what you are saying with your cries of “partisan,” then you are being an idiot. There are plenty of people who hold the same views bush does, but who are not reptilian medicocrities. I have no contempt for them simply because they are republicans.
An example of sloppy, mediocre thinking? Something less than is called for in a “great leader”? It is this: he went with the flow of emotion immediately after 9/11. He felt the focus of all that emotion and it utterly overwhelmed him. He started talking “war” right away.
Now, it may be that direct military action was necessary. I remain unconvinced, but perhaps. But in my mind, a truly great leader would have spent his leadership power in asserting calmness and rationality, rather than delivering a series of patriotic punch lines and basking in standing ovations.
War is a brutally expensive endeavor. Though it is callous to discuss death and horror in strictly economic terms, nonetheless it is a very real question. What kind of deep thinker starts pushing tax cuts with his left hand while flinging piles of money into the war machine with his right? “Voodoo economics” ring a bell?
It is one of our most cherished myths that great crises will enoble a man, somehow lift him from mediocrity to greatness. Parallels are sometimes drawn to Lincoln, which is laughable. Lincoln was a deep and thoughtful man before he became President, it did not descend upon himm from Heaven after Fort Sumter. Lincoln agonized over the suffering, stayed up nights to sign pardons for soldiers sentenced to death. Bush signed death warrants by the bushel basket, if he agonized over it he hid it very well indeed.
If there was ever the wrongest time to have a likeable doofus in the Oval Office, this is it. But we’re stuck with him, and that’s that.
Pray for Colin Powell, he seems to be the only sane officer on the bridge, and the ship of state is sailing into very dangerous waters indeed.
Good point.
Another example of Bush’s sloppy thinking is when he said that he was certain that none of the 140 odd people executed in Texas while he was governer was innocent. Not even the slightest possibility, huh?
War makes some presidents, and breaks others. Korea didn’t work out too well for anyone. And LBJ resigned over Vietnam. And the Iran hostage crisis torpedoed the presidency of Jimmy Carter because he couldn’t muster the balls to take decisive action, and then when he finally tried something he micro-managed it from the White House and screwed the operation up.
It’s still to early to call on Bush, but so far so good.
However, the domestic front is driving me batty. WHY isn’t anyone in government complaining about how STUPID these new airline regulations are? Banning nail clippers? A laptop has a dozen components in it that are more dangerous than nail clippers. Hell, the laptop is more dangerous as a club.
We’re going to spend billions for a useless defense, create a huge new government service, and for nothing. The airline threat ended the moment the heroes of flight 93 brought it down.
And for those of you who think federalized baggage handlers are going to be efficient like the military or police… I think a better model for what they’ll become is the post office, or the DMV. Won’t having to be searched by a disgruntled postal employee be PEACHY?
Thanks, rjung & Tejota. It’s even funnier after you posted the link.
You’ve adopted the ravings of an internet site with an agenda? Pardon me for exiting before the Roswell newsflash.
And here’s a real ditty: “I have long suspected this is why Cheney kept him out of the loop on airforce one.”
I’m sorely tempted to stuff dollar bills in y’alls g-strings.
I don’t have to find evidence of anything. You are the one making an extraordinary claim. You are the one using a dubious source. Because something is on the Web, I’m supposed to automatically buy it?
No way. After reading the articles at realchange, I reject realchange.org as a legitimate source due to their political agenda. They have strong motivation to misrepresent the facts, and have no presumed duty to remain objective. Therefore, cites from them are rubbish until backed up with more objective news sources.
The burden of proof is on you, Tejota … not me.
Then we agree. realchange.org is not credible.
Neither is Rush Limbaugh.
Bill O’Reilly - not credible.
President Bush - not credible.
All these people have a political agenda and at least as strong a motivation to misrepresent the facts. A duty to remain objective? That makes no politician credible. Who can we trust?
Columnist Peggy Noonan made the same observation, but she saw it as a credit to GWB’s perceptiveness.
Straw man. But let’s look at your post anyway:
Rush Limbaugh does not have a duty to be objective. He does have a political agenda, and is up-front about it. So it’s fair to place Rush Limbaugh’s statements in the same class as those of realchange.org’s.
Bill O’Reilly, as a political commentator and talk-show host, does not have a duty to be objective. He does have a political (more like “philosophical”) agenda, and is up-front about it. However, his show actually has an air of objectivity even if O’Reilly himself doesn’t because he commonly has liberal guests on his show presenting an opposing viewpoint. Even if O’Reilly disrespects the liberal viewpoint, at leat the audience get to evaluate it for themselves. Realchange.org does not present opposing viewpoints or any facts which may compromise their opinions.
George W. Bush, as a politician, has a duty to be true to his political philosophy, but not necessarily to be objective about information presented to the public IMHO. Politicians are not obliged to make their opponents’ arguments for them – that goes double at campaign time.
However, George W. Bush does not move in a vacuum. He is accountable to Congress and to the nation at large through public opinion (as shaped by a free press). In contrast, realchange.org is accountable to no one – they may present whatever information they see fit to present without repercussion. This is true of many websites, and is a major reason that websites are an inferior source of information compared to mainstream media sources, who may not be completely objective, but are countering each other at every turn.
On a website, anyone can say what they want and present it as Absolute Truth. Political commentators can also do so, more or less – though some will offer a forum for opposing viewpoints.
As for “who can your trust”? We can only decide that for ourselves.
Gee, all this vitrial from the left toward a supposed dumbo of a stumbler. You’d think they would show some pitty, rather than this complete hatred.
You know, I can’t blame you. I remember plenty of occasions when I put down words even more harsh than yours in the direction of Bill and Hilary Clinton, and some toward Gore. I could not stand their politics and condescending attitudes towards “the people”, so I let it rip.
I don’t pretend to worship George, either. I think he is “speech making” way too much, just as I though Clinton did. And although he made a good speech, I though one was enough. I wish the speeches would stop, and we could hear some straight talk. Just exactly what can we expect? In your own words, George.
On the other hand, some of the posts in this thread, like Mr. Firefly, leave absolutely no room to manuever (paraphrase)- can’t do this, that will surely fail, and the other option is even worse. OK, let’s see your approach - got a better idea? Of course moon is just a roving lunatic, but that’s OK, he’s entitled.