# West Wing 2/5 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [February 6, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187 "2003-02-06T13:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/21 "2003-02-07T07:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BobT \* > So just why would Reese have to get transfered? If the Commander in Chief orders you to do something, you do it. So the Secretary of Defense is upset? Last time I checked, the President outranks him. > > And if the Secretary of Defense seems to have such a fractious relationship with the White House, wouldn’t he just be told to take his business elsewhere? I just don’t see Donald Rumsfeld getting into a shouting match with Karl Rove and coming out the winner. There was a British comedy back in the 80s called “Yes, Minister” (along with its sequel, “Yes, Prime Minister”). It was a political satire, but it viewed government not as a battle between liberals and conservatives, but as a battle between the elected members of government (in particular, the Cabinet Ministers who headed the ministries, and changed with the majority in Parliament) and the civil servants who were more-or-less permanent within a ministry. > [@](#): > > _From the “Editor’s Note” at the beginning of “Yes, Prime Minister”:_ > Unfortunately their conflicting roles generally ensure that they have opposing aims: the politician is seen by the civil servant as a squalid, vote-grubbing figure obsessed by opinion polls who will do anything for short-term electoral advantage; whereas the civil servant is seen by the politician as an unelected, unaccountable, bureaucratic empire-builder, unresponsive to the will of the people, determined at all cost to defend his own power and thus maintain the status quo. Both views are, of course, substantially correct. It was hysterical, and I’ve never seen anything remotely like it on American television. And it had a fair degree of insight. The comedy was a bit broad, and I’m not sure I want to see “The West Wing” venture too far down that path. Of course the first problem is that the Secretary of Defense would have been appointed by Bartlett. (And if I remember correctly, aren’t Cabinet Secretaries expected, as a matter of courtesy, to submit a resignation even if the President is elected to a second term?) There was definitely a trace of this with the Assistant Secretary who met with Will Bailey; how dare the White House not show proper deference to someone of his seniority! ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/22 "2003-02-07T07:41:27Z")
I believe that CJ already mentioned that the Cabinet had tendered their resignations. As for the Assistant Secretary, as Will pointed out repeatedly, he’s the Assistant Secretary of the Public Affairs Section. It’s not like that guy fills in for the Secretary of State. He was just a career civil servant. Actually that battle seemed realistic. I just don’t buy the idea of the Secretary of Defense getting all high and mighty with the Chief of Staff. A good president would cashier one of those two people. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/23 "2003-02-07T12:22:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Baldwin \* > \*\*No. > > We have values and principles as well as interests. When we act in ways that seem in the short term to protect our interests, but which go against our stated core values, it turns out badly. (E.g., the CIA helping to topple democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Chile in favor of military dictatorships.) > \*\* > > Sorry, but you’re simply wrong about that. It may turn out badly for THEM, but it didn’t immediately turn out badly for US. We backed an undemocratic Shah in Iran and it worked well for US for years. It was only when Carter did “the right thing” and withdrew support for the Shah that we had the disaster of the Aytollah and the hostage crisis. You need to read some history. > > \*\* > If we only at on the basis of short-term economic and political interests, without regard to the things we say we believe in, then we (as a nation) aren’t worth defending. I don’t believe that’s the case, most of the time. \*\* It’s the case for ALL nations, nearly all the time, throughout history. You seem to be living in a dream world, my friend. You may find it a pleasant dream, but it has no relation to reality. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/24 "2003-02-07T23:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BobT \* > \*\*Well, it wasn’t that bad. They sent him to Italy. > \*\* [Here’s where](http://www.aviano.af.mil/) Jack was transferred. I recalled correctly that it was an Air Force Base (all that time spent listening to Armed Forces Radio during my daily commute finally paid off!), and I seem to recall that’s where the guys were stationed that inadvertently cut a gondola cable while hotdogging, sending a bunch of people hurtling to their deaths. But I digress. I can think of worse billets, but it seems strange that a Naval Officer would be sent to an AFB. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/25 "2003-02-08T02:02:25Z")
My question about the whole Jack Reese/Donna situation is: what did Donna do exactly that pissed Leo off so badly? At the beginning of the ep, he’s telling Josh that Donna did SOMETHING about which he was “going to speak to her.” Anyone have an guesses? Was I supposed to know what Leo was alluding to, or did they not say? Josh was acting like an idiot about Donna. I think she had a thing for him way back and is now over it-- she encouraged him about Joey Lucas, and seemed unfazed by Amy. Josh is the one carrying a torch, and it doesn’t put him in the best light. I could hardly blame her for getting peeved at him for insinuating that Jack ASKED for a transfer. That was mean-spirited and beneath him. Don’t get me wrong, I like Josh, but he needs to give it a rest. ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/26 "2003-02-08T06:25:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rubystreak \* > \*\*My question about the whole Jack Reese/Donna situation is: what did Donna do exactly that pissed Leo off so badly? At the beginning of the ep, he’s telling Josh that Donna did SOMETHING about which he was “going to speak to her.” Anyone have an guesses? Was I supposed to know what Leo was alluding to, or did they not say? > \*\* They never said. I am sure we will find out in the next episode. ---
**Author:** ![light\_strand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a6a055/32.png) [@light\_strand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/light_strand)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/27 "2003-02-08T15:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > My question about the whole Jack Reese/Donna situation is: what did Donna do exactly that pissed Leo off so badly? At the beginning of the ep, he’s telling Josh that Donna did SOMETHING about which he was “going to speak to her.” Anyone have an guesses? Was I supposed to know what Leo was alluding to, or did they not say? They never said, but I’m going to guess that Donna shoots her mouth off about the fax that Reese showed her. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187/28 "2003-02-10T02:37:52Z")
Just saw it on tape. What a terrific episode this was. Drama, humor, issues and a bunch of people overwhelmed by unimaginable responsibilities acting human. All with scripting that makes everything else on television seem simple-minded. Can’t wait for next week’s show. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-2-5/153187.md?page=1)