cj001f Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 She was ineffective as head of the NSA, That's NSC - National Security Council, advisors to the President (she is the National Security Advisor) not NSA - National Security Agency the largest US spy agency. She got run over in most every administration argument. Quote
marylou Posted November 16, 2004 Posted November 16, 2004 Sorry, I misspoke, you are right. Should have previewed the post. Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 16, 2004 Author Posted November 16, 2004 One thing that is clear is that loyalty is what cc.com craves. They DO NOT like listening to dissenting opinions. Werd. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Selkirk, I can't really fathom your arguments. You talk about Powell tempering the extremism of Bush etal; can you really give me any specifics? Just one, please? The administration has followed through on all of their agenda pieces, and Powell helped. Is this not true? What did he temper? Please, one thing. I also cannot fathom that a man, supposedly principled, would stand up in front of the WORLD and fabricate (oh all right-it was fabricated for him!) a case for the invasion of an already decimated country. My eyes cannot see how a principled respectable man with integrity could ever ever ever do that. Maybe I'm sounding harsh, but I've really never understood the support Powell has received from so many varied educated city-dwelling "liberal" types. And the "voice of reason" tag has me equally baffled. How has he been a "voice of reason", moderation, etc? I will agree that his COUNTENANCE gives perhaps this APPEARANCE, a demeanor of intelligence and reason (perhaps superficially a little like Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird), but is there a substantive underpinning that lends support to the view that there is more at work than simply Appearance? Quote
Alex Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 One thing that is clear is that loyalty is what Bush craves. He DOES NOT like listening to dissenting opinions. kind of like, oh... a dictator? the day may one day arrive when Dem senators and house members are quietly led out of Congress by red-armed GOP colleagues never to be seen or heard from again i wouldnt doubt it, shit, God's on W's side! Quote
jon Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 One thing that is clear is that loyalty is what cc.com craves. They DO NOT like listening to dissenting opinions. Werd. Get a fucking clue Scott. Quote
scott_harpell Posted November 17, 2004 Author Posted November 17, 2004 One thing that is clear is that loyalty is what cc.com craves. They DO NOT like listening to dissenting opinions. Werd. Get a fucking clue Scott. Quote
snoboy Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Run! Run! Why? I don't understand why all these people are resigning? Is it to disassociate with Bush so they can get back in on the next round in 4 years??? I am truly Quote
cj001f Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Why? I don't understand why all these people are resigning? Is it to disassociate with Bush so they can get back in on the next round in 4 years??? I am truly It's fairly common in recent 2-term administrations for substantial staff turnover for the 2nd term. These days 7-figure salary's in the private sector have to be a factor. Quote
snoboy Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Hmm, I guess this kind of shoots down the theory that the Staff is the real power behind the "puppet prez" then, eh? Quote
cj001f Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Hmm, I guess this kind of shoots down the theory that the Staff is the real power behind the "puppet prez" then, eh? The staff is the power behind any politician - the key is to watch for changes in the West Wing staff and in the past few days they've assumed the public positions of power some have said they already held - Gonzalez to Justice, Rice to State. I don't think this contradicts that theory an iota. Quote
Doug Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Pretty safe bet that eyeing two terms Bush's cabinet had a bit of balance to give the appearances of a moderate republican. Now, with term #2 in the bag, it's time to reward the faithful and push the big agenda through. My biggest fear is that Ashcroft resigned to stay out of the public spotlight longe enough to be a Bush Supreme Court nominee. Quote
Dru Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 Ashcroft will be dead within two years, they are removing chunks of his cancerous guts every month. He's already living without gallbladder and spleen. Quote
glassgowkiss Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 yeah, rice was cosidered an soviet union expert in the 80's. yet really what it boils down, she doesn't have a clue about soviet union or eastern europe or russia. that shows i the current policy of this administration, who treat russia as liable partner. i mean wtf? i predict russia will be chasing terrorists from bajkal to spain. Quote
selkirk Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 I honestly couldn't give you the example your looking for. But that doesn't really surprise me. I don't think he would ever do anything to undermine the president or his decisions regardless of his personal beliefs. My impression is that given his choice Powell would never have made that presentation to the UN. But I think there are two competing values there; his loyalty to the President, not as an individual but as the Commander in Chief, and his own principles. My impression is that given the choice between upholding his own beliefs and upholding the chain of command, he'd choose to uphold the chain of command, even if he didn't agree with the orders. If he had a dissenting opinion, I think it would have only been expressed in private and off the record (i.e. calling for more planning, more troops, as the generals requested). But once the course of action has been set he would do everything in his power to see it through successfully, since the choice of what action to take isn't his, it's Bush's. In my opinion that doesn't make him less than respectable, or impune his integrity or dignity. It means he was given two bad choices, disobeying and order and undermining the administration even further, and presenting false information to the UN. You would rather he have refused the order? I think as a military man, that's not an credible option. It doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile, other than letting the wider public know of his dissent, and undermines the presidnet which ultimately hurts the administration, and inderictly the country as well. It's a choice of two evils, and he made his own decision. I'm still glad he was there as opposed to say Condoleeza. Again, there are no smoking guns I can point to for my opinions, there are no instances of him directly contradicting the president, but again, I don't think he ever would, that's not an option. I think his integrity is just as strongly tied loyalte and to following orders as it is to honesty. You value honesty more strongly, I think he probably values loyalty more (to the country and the office of the president). Granted all of my opinions are based on his reputation prior to the administration, and second hand information through a coworker of my wifes, who is distantly related. Quote
Rabscuttle Posted November 17, 2004 Posted November 17, 2004 I think I should start a business manufacturing urinal cakes adorned w/ the faces of W, Dick, Rummy, and Condi. Then I could move into the upper tax bracket and actually get some noticeable tax relief, to hell with welfare programs; let grandma get a job at Wal-Mart so she can pay for her own home heating fuel. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.