 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
When the reporters have the same access to information, the same expertise, and lose the desire to break big contoversial stories at the expense of truth, then get back to me.
For now I'll rely on the guys hired to do the job, not a agenda driven reporter. The nice thing is that if you don't like the job, then fire him in November...if you can. |
Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Cabinet members are there to advise the president yes, but NOT TO BE HIS SOLE FILTER OF INFORMATION- this puts them, NOT the president, in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is a prisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as if not more biased than any reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results, or fail to push along thier pet policies. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freey, without resrtng to the sole word of their ministers- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals is a fool of some sort.
quote:
So you have to be a wide eyed liberal to have a different agenda than Bush's?? Interesting. |
NO, but Bush hired O'Neill, and O'Nel went out there and sld some great monkeyshine to the people for Bush, and when it didn;t have the results Bush wanted, well, guess who goes....
quote:
Unlike you, I don't doubt that the French understood the real reasons for war. They chose to try to elevate their own status and create a power block as opposed to trying to help make an inevitable plan work. Well guess what? The plans going to work and all they did was make it harder...We should thank them for that? I think not. |
Base on what do you say the plan will work? Sorry, but this is a 10 year plan, we aren't even at 1 year, and things are at best 50-50, and this admin. has not shown it has the ability to make it work given how poorly they have done in so many araes and how much they vasilate an so forth. As for the French knowing the reason for the plan- O agree they knew the WMD story was crap, and I bet they could not figure out why the Bushies could not simply say : we need to do this as a world community to fix the problems in the ME that threan us all- will you join us in this great act and experiment, as opposed to: "they are a horrid threat- we must attack NOW, and anyone who does not join is a weakling and must die!
quote:
Actually most plans ARE like this. Every comparison to post WWII reconstruction shows this plan ahead of that one. Iraqi elections should happen this year or at the latest next year. Elections in Germany occured when? I assume with your vast political background that you should have no trouble answering that one. |
Elections did not happen till 1948- but then of course, not a single allied soldier died in either Germnay or Japan due to insurgents. I id not think yo so naive as to think that once elections occur everything is finished and dandy. nd if you do think so- let me say tat you have plenty of history to read on the subject.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Also, GePap, the best position the Democrats could take on the War is that it was totally justified but that Bush failed to win the support of France because of his maladroight handling of relations with the Europeans.
Actually, there are several Democrats who take this essential position, including Hillary Clinton. Clark is close. I think this was his original position, but he changed it in response to Dean's position. |
I think the best position Dems could take on this was that the Bush amdinistration soured relations with the world for no good reason by pushing the war on faulty grounds and not allowing a frank discussion on the valid reason there were for invading iraq, a discussion that would probalby have ended with the US having the same sort of backing they did going into Kosovo, that of our European allies but not states like China and so forth. Instead, the BUshies started late, rushed this (probably did not want to ake it happen to close to '04 elections), and then fumbled the aftermath.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:33
|
|
Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Reporters are there sell newspapers yes, but NOT TO BE A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE NATIONAL POLICY- this puts them, NOT the professional in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is able to determine choices based on the best information available and not be aprisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as biased as a reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freely, without resortng to the sole word of any one minister- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals, such as reporters, is a fool of some sort.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Reporters are there sell newspapers yes, but NOT TO BE A MECHANISM TO DETERMINE NATIONAL POLICY- this puts them, NOT the professional in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is able to determine choices based on the best information available and not be aprisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as biased as a reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freely, without resortng to the sole word of any one minister- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals, such as reporters, is a fool of some sort. |
The only thing you leave out completely is that a wise ruler would listen to both, bush is the one who excludes all sources of evidence save one. You only further make my point. Why don;t you try making your own.
May I add you little attempt at creative editing failed. The mechanism for creating policy is taking in all relevant information and using it to make the decision: Bush is adminitting he limits his sources of information, andf thus it is questionable that he had all relevant information when he makes his decisions. nd that is the point I am making, and the point you have yet to argue againts..
Now, if the sole point you are arguing is that caninet members are totally professional and unbiased, please answer the question of whay they change with adminstrations? After all, if what you say has any validity, Bush would have been just as good keeping all of Clinton's people, and Clinton should have kept all of Bushes people, and Bush Reagans, and Reagan's Carters and so forth, since you claim, these guys are simply professionals hired to do a job.... (maybe you forget the part of them being POLITICAL APPOINTEES)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Two seperate comments here, that I've made in other threads. From a different group of people, who definitely have access to their own, and possibly almost as good, intel. The Russian Foreign Minister heavily critisized Bush for blowing the world sympathy and backng after 9/11 with how he pursued Irag. Essentially he said that the US had a chance to really lead a war again terrorism (implied : international consensus) and blew it. That was what his government was furious about, they have had there own terrorist issues, to which they've contributed. It still doesn't justify the terrorists seizing hospitals and possibly blowing up apartment blocks.
Back again to the blind person.... If you look at, was it Ned's, I believe it was, thread on Rumsfeld, man of the year, I had some real criticism about that man and the Bush administration, comparing him to McNamara during Vietnam (yes, Ned, at least I learned from the links for Hitler's "man of the year" from Time, that it doesn't mean it necessarily as a compliment - you can always learn something on these forums).
They COOKED the intel. Hello. American soldiers died because Rummy appointed a tame intel group to regurgitate what the administration wanted to hear. They chose to ignore the pros in the CIA and military intelligence, who had been doing analysis over the years (which is their job). These pros from my understanding predicted EVERYTHING that went wrong. When they leaked the fubars, they were pursued under the Patriot Act. Sheesh. Cooked intel and muzzle the dissenters. That, on the intel side, is what gave us Vietnam. We aren't there yet, but until we get a stable country which is not imposing Sharia from a Shia viewpoint, I won't grant the "success" of the operation.
Good old dad, Bush Sr., knew exactly what he was doing when he left Saddam in place. I voted for him the first time, and against him the second time. The massacre of Kurds the second time around, on the altar of real-politik was too much for me to stomach. But dad had a rationale, and it worked. Jr. does not, he has a cause and he is sure of his righteousness. Look how much damage his rhetoric has done on the Korean peninsula. Moron. Yes, he wanted to get rid of the b****** who tried to assassinate his dad. I would to. You don't do it on cooked intel, without a solid plan on how to build a democracy in a country that has absolutely NO tradition to go on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Arrgh! You really don;t get it!
Cabinet members are there to advise the president yes, but NOT TO BE HIS SOLE FILTER OF INFORMATION- this puts them, NOT the president, in control. Someone can only make a choice based on the choices they know exist. IF the presdent only has t chose from those choices his advisors give him, then he is a prisoner to the interests of indvidual who are, excuse me, as if not more biased than any reporter, because reporters rarely lose their jobs if they report something, while cabinet members do lose thier job if they do not show results, or fail to push along thier pet policies. One of the oldest stories in the book is abotu the good king who is lied to by his ministers and contrlled that way- today rulers have te ability to get information freey, without resrtng to the sole word of their ministers- any ruler who CHOSES to limit his sources of information to a group of biased individuals is a fool of some sort. |
Whilst I generaly agree with you, Gepap, there are 2 problems in my opinion:
1st: Bush is the President, so it is upto him how he gets his info.
2nd: Even if he had a wide rang of sources, do you think he would bother to listen to things that idsagree with him anyway? I don't, he is just doing what anyone else would do, ie. ignoring stuff he would never beleive in a million years anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Whilst I generaly agree with you, Gepap, there are 2 problems in my opinion:
1st: Bush is the President, so it is upto him how he gets his info. |
Of course it his decison how he gets his info..who ever questioned this? What I am saying is that his decison here is a foolish one.
quote:
2nd: Even if he had a wide rang of sources, do you think he would bother to listen to things that idsagree with him anyway? I don't, he is just doing what anyone else would do, ie. ignoring stuff he would never beleive in a million years anyway. |
How is this a problem with my arguemnt? If the president whishes to ignore opposing arguements, then that is a fault of HIS, not my arguement. I would like my leaders not to act like dictators, a class of people who generally have this trait of ignoring all information that does not confrom to their worldview and acting on limited info for their decisions, or info cooked up by underlings trying to keep their jobs or push their own agenda.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ned, talk is cheap (Rumsfeld's talk - not trying to diss you, at least you try and listen). The man is part of a White House that learned all the wrong lessons from the Clinton White House, spin is their middle name. While Rumsfeld claims he is for the soldier, he is pushing a light mobile force that is GUARANTEED to take higher casualties, plus an abomination of an AFV, the Stryker. Here is a link to his new rapid deployment unit.
http://www.geocities.com/wheeledibct/
It's why I keep comparing him to that moron McNamara. He knows his vision for a new army is right, and the hell with the pros who know better. By the way, slide 5 has some info on the Stryker - I've collected a bunch, it's all the turkey its opponents claim, and more. Reference the link's claims on the automation problems the army is having, we get Government Computer News where I work, and what the fellow in the article claims pretty much matches what I've been reading, though project problems are put more politely in official organs.
I guess that's why Rumsfeld is for the infrantyman. He knows they are going to have to take up the slack, and take the casualties, so he can have a cheap intervention force.   I want us to have a world class military, paid for on delivery (no deficits).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill charges in a new book that President George W. Bush entered office in January 2001 intent on invading Iraq and was in search of a way to go about it. |
I'm sorry, but I don't quite buy this. I can buy that he was intent on war with Iraq after 9/11, but not before. His stance during the election was totally contrary to this, and his actions during the months before 9/11 don't support this - he acted no differently than Clinton had, and if anything, my mpressions pre-9/11 is that he would have been less supportive of such a war than Clinton was. If he had been intent on war, I think it would have shown during those nine months or during the election.
(Now, having plans for an Iraq war I can see, but then, I'm sure we had such plans under Clinton too - so that should the necessity arise, we would have plans available)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2004 03:16
|