Never liked Bush but the shrub grows on ya

[system]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
This is quite beneath your usual level. Rather a pity.

As you wish…

I sense elucidator has never lead or directed anything with money riding on the line.

You “sense”? Rather an implication without foundation, wouldn’t you say? Be that as it may, if a man who is not a meterologist tells you the sky is blue, it remains blue regardless of his qualifications. ad hominem, yes?

No, it is an observation. Your statements appear not to be informed by direct experience making policy, be it private or public, nor being responsible for something with real, direct consequences. I don’t see that as an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be to say you’re incapable of doing the same – no way for me to judge that very well—or something along those lines. I simply observe that your statements do not seem to reflect much experience in this realm.

The alternative is that your political position is driving your rhetoric to the point of disregarding experience.

A leader is necessary because leadership by committee, laying aside rhetorical posturing about “us” making decisions, is virtually always a disaster…

Laying aside for the moment my resentment of the implications of “posturing” (and I do resent it) on what do you base this sweeping generalization? Certainly not history, which is writ large primarily by “leaders”, and simply abounds with disasters attributable to blindly obeyed leaders. Would you care to make some comparison, disasters by committee vs. disaster by leader?

Well, I grant you the statement is overly strong – virtually always a disaster might be better written, “rarely optimal”— but I’ll stick with me sense that leadership by committee is largely disastrous or non-optimal. I believe that if you examine the history of the Spanish Civil War and attempts at ‘non-hierarchical’ military, at the disorganization of many Leftist groups without solid leadership – and counterpose that with the unfortunate success of the Stalinist Communist groups, of course self-defeating in a sense – you can see a direct example of this.

Now, I hesitate to odd that your insertion of blindly rather changes the argument. Neither my intervention nor Scylla’s supposed blindly following leaders.

Checks to leadership are necessary for civilian leadership, helps put a check on errors. It is no substitute for leadership, to give direction.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

It is precisely a substitute, it is the very foundation! We recognize that leaders are people, hence as venal and egoistic as ourselves. They are to be watched with cold-eyed clarity. They may suggest, they may not command! Therein lies the essential difference between democratic leadership and autocracy. Lest I be misunderstood, I am a fervent enemy of autocracy. It is not that the Emperor wears no clothes, it is that they are our clothes, and he wears them at our sufference.

Posturing. Leadership is of course leadership. You’ve only restated what I said but in what I suppose is more comfortable rhetorical clothing. Suggest but not command? Well, I suppose at some airy theoretical level, yes. I would be hard pressed to think of a working system in which executive power is limited to mere suggestion.

Reciprocal relationships, yes. Limits and checks to leadership, yes. Ability to overturn what in the end are deemed violations of whatever compact limits and checks leadership, certainly. Suggestions?

“we” can not always be appropriately informed at all times.

Dogma stated as fact. Sez who?

Says any reasonable examination of the economic costs of staying informed. Finding, digesting and analyzing information is a time and resource consuming act. Both time and resources are limited goods, no one has infinite amounts of them. I consider myself possibly the most well-informed person on the board about the Middle East and much of Africa. And among the least well-informed persons in regards to Latin America and Asia. And moderately but not so far above average “well-informed” about Europe. And here we’re talking simply about political and economic affaires. I can tell you relatively little about say Arab novels and high culture. Only vaguely informed about military affaires, regardless of the region.

Not solely because of interest, I am paid to be informed about the MENA region. My career hangs on me being able to make appropriate reads of both economic and political currents in the region. To do so, I invest no small amount of time following these things. Do I watch TV at home? Not like any normal human being, I try to follow the Arab media, even on my free time. Enjoyment? Well, I like Arabic but I can’t say that I’d choose to do so 24/7 if it were not for the crisis. It is a cost.

So, in terms of formulating and critiquing policy in the region, I think I am appropriately well-qualified, with the exception of military policy as military policy while observing that there is always a tension between achieving military and political goals. Without understanding the real tradeoffs in either direction one can easily end up with a hollow, Phyrric victory. Outside the region, ehhhhh, maybe in a vague sense but I certainly would not want to be responsible for formulating policy. Some general critiques perhaps of errors based on poor logic or the like.

I could go on, but it seems obvious that no, it is not possible for “us” to be well-informed about all things at all times enough to coherently make regular decisions. It is simply a matter of cost and time. Thus the tradition of delegating appropriate binding decision making authority with periodic review.

Ergo, one delegates, upwards in a way, decisions to a set of folks who are supposed to be informed and make appropriate decisions. Periodic review, elections, board meetings, keep the decision makers at least moderately honest.

One can only hope. But these are delegates, not “leaders”

They aren’t? I suppose if one unilaterally redefines leader to mean autocrat, yes. Else, posturing.

Posturing …

See above, under “resentment”.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, well, I get that a lot don’t I. I’m an equal opportunity maker of resentment, calling it like I see it and as I see it your position seems to be largely one of rhetoric. I call it posturing.

Now, having gone one way, let me go the other: I don’t see any reason to agree with snide jabs at Clinton (and fairly hypocritical given some folks ease with which they get excited about perceived slights to Bush).

Further:

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Scylla *
I don’t think it was our leader’s nor or military’s fault what happened in Vietnam. I think the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Hanoi Jane’s and “baby killer,” shouters who with blithe total ignorance thought they knew better and undermined and sabatoged our country and dishonored the men who fought and died there.

[/quote]

Rubbish. The Vietnam war was poorly conceived, and those leaders who failed to understand the nature of Third World ideologies, the volatile mix of nationalism and various “socialisms” did immense damage to long-term US interests. More flexible and creative relations with such movements – rather than

The Vietnam was not a winnable war on the terms which the United States was fighting it. Winnable in a military sense, perhaps, but at the cost of the ultimate destruction of US reputation even with its own allies. Winning military at the cost of one’s ultimate political aims, even presuming this was possible and actually desirable, is a Phyrric victory. All in all, the errors of the Vietnam rest squarely on the shoulders of the leadership and to an extent the military leadership, neither of which engaged the larger issues nor were particularly honest with themselves. Blaming Fonda or others for a failed policy is stupid.

The failures of this policy are particularly relevant to the present insofar as they involve the same kind of misundertanding as I’ve seen in calls for the US to send in a large invasion force.

So, there is a difference between keeping one’s eyes open and not taking any wooden nickels, and using skepticism as an excuse to undermine critical leadership.

Indeed.

The wag the dog stories were just as dangerous to slick Willy and just as damaging to our country as any of the unfounded Dubya conspiracy, incompetance, or outright distrust scenarios being thrown about.

By all accounts Bill Clinton was very concerned about Osama Bin Laden and terrorism when he wasn’t getting head from interns.

As I am sure Bush is concerned about the same when not golfing or banging his wife. Or whatever the knee-jerk Bush-haters might come up with. Come one man, these sort of childish put-downs are fairly meaningless. I know you don’t care for throw away insults on Bush, why stoop to the same for Clinton, above all when it detracts from your point.

It is a scary thought indeed to consider whether if to avoid being crucified in the court of public opinion, and to dispel these rumors, Clinton might have had to lighten up his counterterror campaign at a crucial time for public relations reasons. Maybe a cruise missile with Osama’s name on it didn’t get sent because of this, or maybe a terrorist camp wasn’t bombed that held some of the people training for the WTC attack.

If that is indeed the case, the people, the press, and the GOP hamstrung Bill when he had the chance to preempt this attack.

Indeed, and goes to show knee-jerk hatred does oneself a grave disservice.

[elucidator]

Scylla:

Note for you in the Pit.

[Scylla]

collounsbury:

I know you don’t care for throw away insults on
Bush, why stoop to the same for Clinton, above all when it detracts from your point.

You may have been typing, but I answered that question in an earlier post.

Surely you’d agree that the lack of support for Vietnam was a large contributing factor to the failure of that Enterprise, and I’ll surely agree that the Miliary and our leaders made grave mistakes in both judgement and policy.

[system]

Yes, I was typing.

As for Vietnam, no I don’t actually agree that protestors were in fact the cause. They were the symptom of a poorly concieved strategy that fundamentally misunderstood the political costs and consequences of what was ultimately a marginal strategic interest.

“Winning” militarily in Vietnam --and the domestic protestors had nothing to do with this-- would have required the US to engage in what might be fairly termed near-genocidal bombing of North Vietnam or invasion.

I am sure policy was modelled on the lessons of Korea. They were partly false ones. I base my comments on readings in re Ridgeway, the war and my own father who served there during the war, in front-line combat.

(a) While the South Korean government which we backed did have problems with a significant % of Japanese collabos, our presence and backing had some indigenous legitmacy as liberators from the Japanese and our strong backing for Korean nationalists. We were the folks who humiliated their oppressors. Buys baraka.
(b) Physically, the DMZ and Korean geography generally allowed the formation of a militarity secure and stable line.
© The international political situation was markedly different, the US was still wearing a mantle of anti-colonial rep from snubbing the European colonial powers. Further, radical tiers-mondisme and colonial nationalism are just getting off the ground in the 1950s.

By difference, Vietnam, we foolishly backed the French return – whose presence was not only hated, but thoroughly discredited by their conduct under Japanese hegemony. They were, after, Vichy in Vietnam.

Further, there was the China issue. From Korea, we knew that invasion and drive towards the North would provoke a dangerous Chinese response. No love lost between China and Vietnam, but sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Then there is the nature of the Southern government. A large presence of French collaborating Catholics whose corrupt governing practices made them all the more susceptible to nationalist-communist agitprop.

Further, the borders with Cambodia and Loas were not of a nature which one could control them and create a stable line between the North and South.

Finally, the very presence of our troops. One easily forgets that the USA funded the staggeringly unsuccessful French war in Indochina until their collapse. French troops had US uniforms, they were made up of white and black troops (Legion, sub-Saharan African and North African) who didn’t look too different from the US.

We plugged right into the old framework of the struggle against the colonial oppressor with very, very few advantages.

The moment US policy makers understood that the Southern government could not stand on its own (i.e. without large scale direct US troop intervention) they should have cut it loose and gone to shore up perhaps Cambodia. Of course there is the objection that one should not abandon friends in need. True, very true, but when your friend (ally) is a clear fuckup, there is time where you step back and say, he, he’s a fuckup and that’s why I’m just going to support my competent friends.

I will say though that I don’t particularly care for the anti-American aspects of the anti-War movement and a lot of easy rhetoric which goes on to this day demonizing one’s own country. That said, I don’t believe the movement was wrong in its goal of ending a war that simply was not well-concieved, had not a chance of achieving any rational policy, political or military goal. To win the war just to prove one can win is not policy, not warfare, it’s either madness, stupidity or pure childishness.

[Scylla]

Collounsbury:

I’m not contradicting the idea that Vietnam was an ill-advised and poorly executed undertaking, my argument lies with what you term as the easy rhetoric.

[DPWhite]

Actually George Washington is considered a great president and presided during a time of peace and prosperity. I’ve posted elsewhere on this, and I think that basically Washington was a giant of a human being in all respects. He set an example that was monumental, yet something that people could live up to at the same time.

As for Bush the Younger, as I’ve also posted elsewhere, the crowd he ran with in college did hashish, a lot of it. I don’t really care what he did in college, but I find it very hypocritical that he engaged in that conduct and then passes laws that put people in prison for long years for less, and then excuse his daughters for breaking more hypocritical laws he passed. (No this isn’t about hte daughters, they get a by from me so far.)

[elucidator]

Geez, Collonsbury do you wear a suit and tie when you post? Not knocking it, mind you, different strokes and all that. Is this how you talk when you go fishing?

Now: as to what reponsibilities I may or may not have held, I still maintain that another posters c.v. is, or at least ought to be, irrelevent, and treated accordingly.

As to the nature of leadership: you seem rather Hamiltonian in this, the people should place thier trust in an educated, trained elite. I would accept that, as far as it goes, given the impracticality of collective decsion making on a massive scale. As long as a cold, skeptical eye is trained on thier every move and thier discretionary power to shield those moves from the public eye is kept to an absolute minimum.

I believe that Washington was, as he was praised, a modern day Cincinnatus, that he accepted the leadership that was thrust upon him and dropped it at the earliest opportunity. But such men as these: how rare? Not I is a certainty, not you is a fair guess.

As to your claim that history proves that collective leadership is impossible: well, of course, it cannot. For every Spanish Civil War and Italian Republic, there are a hundred Churchill’s and thier respective Gallipolli’s. Because something has not been done is not proof that it cannot.

Boiled down, I object to and seek to discredit the romantic booshwah that pretends that a fairly bright mediocrity should be automatically regarded as a Collossus bestriding the world of men in times of crisis. It is bad enough if we should think so, it can be positively fatal if he does.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**and spitting at Marines like my father way back in the 60’s, **

[hijack]Scylla, I am under the distinct impression that spitting on returning soldiers in uniform is an urban myth. There have been other threads on the topic and I also ask every vet I run into (which is not many). Your father was a force recon Marine back from serious combat in Viet Nam. Was he really spit on, and what did he do to the spitters?[/hijack]

Collounsbury has already made a response much more eloquently than I could.

[system]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
Geez, Collonsbury do you wear a suit and tie when you post? Not knocking it, mind you, different strokes and all that. Is this how you talk when you go fishing?

Actually… yes.

Now: as to what reponsibilities I may or may not have held, I still maintain that another posters c.v. is, or at least ought to be, irrelevent, and treated accordingly.

Fair enough.

As to the nature of leadership: you seem rather Hamiltonian in this, the people should place thier trust in an educated, trained elite. I would accept that, as far as it goes, given the impracticality of collective decsion making on a massive scale. As long as a cold, skeptical eye is trained on thier every move and thier discretionary power to shield those moves from the public eye is kept to an absolute minimum.

Mm, well I am no fan of Hamiltonian thinking. It’s simply a practical matter in this rather large and complicated world. I’m not for the life of me advocating folks just suck up to the experts, only that its impractical to think anything but the most general policy (which is fine) can be formulated in a purely democratic-populist manner.

Boiled down, I object to and seek to discredit the romantic booshwah that pretends that a fairly bright mediocrity should be automatically regarded as a Collossus bestriding the world of men in times of crisis. It is bad enough if we should think so, it can be positively fatal if he does.

Well, if you mean by this – and it does seem a bit overblown-- that all that puffery going on about Bush is more than slightly overdone, well, yes I agree. Sam’s postings on the same, for example. On the other hand, while I have little fundamental respect for Bush ibn Bush, his administration has done a fair job overseas, to date.

Ashcroft is another matter.

BTW Scylla, I don’t really consider your remarks on Clinton well-explained nor justified by the prior page. One can not fairly compare back-handed insults to your comments on Bush, insofar as they seemed rather like a fair comment on Bush rather than intended as insult. If you think they are comparable, well I have no real comment beyond my original.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by China Guy *
[hijack]Scylla, I am under the distinct impression that spitting on returning soldiers in uniform is an urban myth. [/hijack]

Maybe. I dunno. I was being rhetorical or figurative, not specific.

As far as I know my father was never literally spat on.

[elucidator]

You wear a suit and tie to post? Or you talk like that when you go fishing? Not both! Please say not both! Well, if you ever get out to the People’s Republic of Minnesota, maybe we can help you with that. If I’m wearing a suit, theres a good chance I need bail.

Reading your post, I find little ground for disagreement. Darn. You’re a fun guy to argue with. But I’ll keep an eye out, I got lots of opinions, you’re bound to step on one sooner or later.

Oh, BTW Bush ibn Bush is cool. Yours? No fibbing, now. Big Bird is watching.

[system]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
You wear a suit and tie to post?

Well, only at work.

Or you talk like that when you go fishing? Not both! Please say not both!

Ah. No comment.

Well, if you ever get out to the People’s Republic of Minnesota, maybe we can help you with that. If I’m wearing a suit, theres a good chance I need bail.

Who said I need help? Well, lots of people actually come to think of it.

Reading your post, I find little ground for disagreement. Darn. You’re a fun guy to argue with. But I’ll keep an eye out, I got lots of opinions, you’re bound to step on one sooner or later.

Hmm, normally I get things implying that I am next to the spawn of Satan.

Damn it.

Oh, BTW Bush ibn Bush is cool. Yours? No fibbing, now. Big Bird is watching.

Nope, I can’t claim it, it is direct from the Arab press. I think I’ve seen it in al-Ahram.

[Scylla]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

BTW Scylla, I don’t really consider your remarks on Clinton well-explained nor justified by the prior page. One can not fairly compare back-handed insults to your comments on Bush, insofar as they seemed rather like a fair comment on Bush rather than intended as insult. If you think they are comparable, well I have no real comment beyond my original. **

Weeeellllll, it seemed like there was a lot of cheap shots being taken at Bush and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I called Bush a “cracker” in my OP, compared him loosely to Elmer Fudd, “a fucking leprechaun with a drawl,” “shrub,” “dubya,” bland chili you give to the dog, “Reagan the wonder years,” a “big-eared, snot in the nose, Texas, Bible thumping rich rednecked kid,” and you’re telling me I’m not entitled to take one gratuitous pot shot over Clinton’s extracurricular activities?

That’s just not fair.

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
Hmm, normally I get things implying that I am next to the spawn of Satan.

My ex lives in Houston. When were you there?

And Ashcroft. He nominated Ashcroft.

Case closed. Incredibly guilty. Motion to Fuhgeddaboutit.

[system]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

Weeeellllll, it seemed like there was a lot of cheap shots being taken at Bush and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I called Bush a “cracker” in my OP, compared him loosely to Elmer Fudd, “a fucking leprechaun with a drawl,” “shrub,” “dubya,” bland chili you give to the dog, “Reagan the wonder years,” a “big-eared, snot in the nose, Texas, Bible thumping rich rednecked kid,” and you’re telling me I’m not entitled to take one gratuitous pot shot over Clinton’s extracurricular activities?

That’s just not fair.

I missed the more interesting part of your Bush commentary. It was too buried in otherwise reasonable estimations. (Dubya is an insult? Ehhhh, okay I guess so. Reagon wonder years doesn’t strike me as wrong, I thought it was descriptive.)

As for the Ashcroft thing, everyone’s entitled to mistakes. I am presuming that Ashcroft is a mistake rather than a fundamental part of the Admin. I hope not to proven wrong.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by pldennison *

I would think that a critical component of “restoring honor and dignity” would be to quickly and honestly disprove any allegations of wrongdoing and misconduct.

Any allegations? Even ludicrous ones, or allegations for which not a single piece of credible evidence, or a single eyewitness, have surfaced?

If one is serious about holding oneself up as a paragon of “honor and dignity,” then it seems to me that addressing all allegations quickly and unambiguously would be critical. It’s not that hard, either – just say, “Here is my official record of all the ‘indiscretions’ in my youth, and I’m confessing to them.”

I mean, I can stand here and say that I’ve never willingly taken a drug stronger than caffeine (barring doctor’s prescriptions and cold/flu medicines), and anyone who wants to allege that I’ve used cocaine, marijuana, beer, etc. will be met by a flat-out refusal and a demand for evidence. And I never claimed to be a paragon of virtue – what’s George’s excuse?

Keep in mind, the Clinton Boosters Club keeps telling us all that Bill Clinton’s sexual activities in the Oval Office while President are part of his personal life and none of our business. Why, then, is the possibility of drug use 20 years ago or more our business?

Because the guy was campaigning as a paragon of virtue, that’s why. You keep missing this point; if George W. Bush is going to use his character as an election issue, then IMO he damn well better be prepared to be called on the carpet on it.

and the evasive answers he has given (particularly on questions of cocaine in his past) tell me he doesn’t value his “honor and dignity,” either.

Maybe he just doesn’t think it’s any of your damned business. Or mine, or anyone else’s.

I merely wonder why the Republican party made so much hay over Bill Clinton’s attempts to define “sex,” yet conveniently and continuosly ignore Dubya’s non-straightforward answers to questions about any cocaine use in his past.

Then, as soon as a Republican is in office: “Why won’t Bush talk about his coke-snorting? Why won’t bush talk about being AWOL?” The hypocrisy is nothing short of staggering.

And I’ll say it again; I am only bothering to go over the details of George W. Bush’s character because he made it an issue during the election campaign.

I normally have no interest in poking into other people’s private lives, but if you stand before me and say “I am a paragon of virtue,” then [I[you* have made your private life a public issue – and you better be prepared for the consequences of that action.

[squeegee]

]*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
“Winning” militarily in Vietnam --and the domestic protestors had nothing to do with this-- would have required the US to engage in what might be fairly termed near-genocidal bombing of North Vietnam or invasion.
etc. etc. etc.

You know, every time I think I’m starting to know a little bit about world politics or political history, Collounsbury tosses off one of his little essays and reduces my ego to a mote on a bacterium’s eyebrow. Keep it up! [sub]…totters off to le encyclopedia…[/sub]

[panzermanpanzerman]

Elucidator:

Leadership is not crucial to our well-being; scepticism is.

You really painted yourself into a corner on that one. Time to disavow that statement, rather than continue to try to defend it any longer.

But this much I do know: the difference between tactical leadership and strategic leadership. In a situation of immediate and present danger, a tactical leader is crucial, coordination saves lives, this is not in question.

Hmmm. So your position is that good, forward-thinking leadership at a strategic level does not save lives? I think you need to read some history–starting with FDR between 1937 and 1942.

Three words: George Armstrong Custer.

Don’t know much military history, huh? Custer took a lot of risks as a commander in the Civil War–and saved the Union’s ass many a time for it. He took a risk which didn’t pay off at Little Bighorn. Why? Because Crazy Horse was an excellent leader, himself.

They are to be watched with cold-eyed clarity. They may suggest, they may not command!

Utterly false. The President has both moral and statutory command authority. He is commander in chief of our armed forces. Together with Congress, he can raise and train armies, institute a draft, and jail everyone who doesn’t play ball. The President is not only authorized to command, but is expected to as part and parcel of his job.

Me and mine, we tried. Futilely, I believe. Ineffectually.

That you were ineffective is no surprise, given your lack of knowledge about the basics of leadership.

Now: as to what reponsibilities I may or may not have held, I still maintain that another posters c.v. is, or at least ought to be, irrelevent, and treated accordingly.

I think that’s silly. If you are going to propound your opinions on the nature of leadership, then your own experience in positions of responsibility is absolutely relevant.

It does as though you’re saying you’ve never held a position of responsibility and authority of any kind. If this is true, then you ought to defer to some of us who have. If it’s not true, then fill us in, so we can at least assess your qualifications for arguing what you’ve argued.

[PunditLisa]

You forgot that little part about (Washington)helping to win the War of Independence.

No, I didn’t forget. You are correct, though, that Washington’s greatest accomplishment occurred before the Presidency. The Presidency was a denouement, really. My point is that prior to the great conflicts that were the backdrop of their lives, these men were pretty ordinary. A planter, a politician – not very extraordinary. Ah, but then came the war. It was their leadership during these very important wars that pushed them up into the ranks of extraordinary leaders. Take the same men and put them in a different period of time (e.g. a peaceful time) and they undoubtedly would not have had their mugs sculpted onto Mt. Rushmore today.

And I take great issue with people who write off George W. already simply because he hadn’t done anything “great” prior to taking office. So what? There is no time limit for “greatness.” The terrorists have unfortunately given him the backdrop, let’s allow him to rise to the occasion. And God willing, he will. Because we are at WAR here and very possibly on the cusp of another world war because of the instability of the Middle East. Instead of writing him off, why not give the guy a chance to prove himself? Why NOT rally behind him?

[Sam_Stone]

The argument that he never achieved anything ‘great’ is simply laughable.

Hands up, all those making this argument that have an Ivy League graduate degree, flew jet fighter aircraft, ran several large companies, was governor of a State for two terms (toppling a very popular incumbent, then getting re-elected in a landslide), and then was elected president of the United States.

Just what would this guy have to do to impress you? Walk on water? Ascend bodily into heaven?

C’mon, make some real arguments, and drop this ‘lightweight daddy’s boy’ crap. It doesn’t wash.