| Author |
Message |
    
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4130
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 7:47 am: | 
|
The Dubai ports deal collapse is bad for the United States.
The Democrats are crowing victory. The Bush Administration dodged a bullet. The Republicans avoided having to embarrass their president.
The Emir of Dubai was humiliated on the world stage.
The ports are no more secure than before. And nobody ever demonstrated a real security risk associatd with having DPW run the ports.
So, we are increasingly xenophobic. We are increasingly associating all Arabs with terrorism.
My assessment. Many losers and one winner in the deal - Al Qaeda. |
Ace789nj
Citizen
Username: Ace789nj
Post Number: 303
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
nicely put |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1642
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 9:27 am: |
|
tjohn:
Interesting collection of observations.
If the DWP deal negotiations and contracts had been handled competently and openly from the beginning,
If the discussions had been fully public before the deal was pushed in everyone's face,
If the public and Congress as a whole had been aware of the international structure and management of DWP,
If the President had not put his foot in his mouth by forcing a confrontation with Congress (saying he would veto any bill questioning or forbidding the deal),
If the President had not declared in highly patronizing terms why he wanted the deal,
If the CEO of DWP had not been patronizing in his view of Americans' knowledge of the deal,
If the administration had not for almost five years made the fight against terrorism its central barking point,
If the administration had not spent five years feeding our fears and encouraging us to fear for our lives,
If the government of the UAE did not have several shady elements in its background (complicity in the BCCI scandal of the '90s, support for the Taliban, funneling funding of terrorists through its financial system)
If the deal did not contain provisions that allowed non-US DWP employees to obtain L1 visas to enter the US and "work" in the ports management operations,
If the president, much to his bad luck (and this is a pure matter of "perception" ) had not been seen as giving our nuclear technology expertise away to India in exchange for "Indian mangoes" while the DWP debate was going on,
If all these things hadn't happened, the outcome of the discussions and contract negotiations with DWP probably would have been different.
But then that is what makes the difference between competence and the lack of it. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 392
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
This isn't about port security. Any schoolchild knows by now that a port’s owner does not provide the actual security services. Rational, knowledgeable people have explained this ad nauseum on the TV talks shows over the last couple of weeks.
But this isn’t entirely rational. It's about the Republicans in Congress finally becoming fed up with the incompetence and hypocrisy of the White House. The ports deal was not carefully analyzed by the administration and, more importantly, it was not vetted politically. Then consider that Bush’s approval rating is still in the toilet and looking like it will be stay there for a while. Republicans are becoming genuinely fearful of losing congressional seats in the fall, and they finally stuck it to the president.
I think we are in for a very entertaining political season between now and November.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4131
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
Innisowen,
I would not defend the Bush Administration's handling of this whole situation. My only point was that we, as a nation, lost on this deal.
As a quite separate matter, I believe that Bush has a lock on "worst U.S. President ever", but it will take some time for that realization to hit everybody. |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6936
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
How is he the worst? Because he took out an evil tyrant?
Because he was slow in reacting to a natural disaster unlike any the U.S has ever seen?
I guess it can't be the economy since that's humming along.
I guess it can't be ending a recession since he did that.
I guess it can't be removing the Taliban in weeks, something the Mighty Soviet Union never accomplished.
Worst? nope..Not even close. (Unless of course, being a bitter Democrat you need Bush to fail so you can feel good about yourself.)
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14685
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Because he's an idiot. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4852
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
"If all these things hadn't happened, the outcome of the discussions and contract negotiations with DWP probably would have been different."
Yea, and "IF" the dog didn't stop to take a crap it would of cought the rabbit! This political debate over this stuff is all a lot of crap anyway...
I'll give you the best if of all, "IF" congress wasn't so "IF'd Up" with so many old political hacks, we wouldn't have most of the problems we do have today!!!
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1646
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
tjohn,
I agree with you fully.
I think the outcome of the DWP fracas is a win, however. At least for the next year or so, I contend that we will focus more on the difference between structuring deals like this for the deals' sake, and structuring deals that make it through reasonable scrutiny.
The second outcome MAY, just MAY, be that the president will think twice when he tries his scare tactics on us.
To my mind, the only xenophobes in this deal have been in the White House since 2000. But this time the xenophobia that they have tried to spread has lashed back at them.
"The chickens are coming home to roost," as the old saying goes. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4853
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:40 am: |
|
..."S", he's an idiot is not a solution! If you want to place blame, place it on the US Congress, and the American people...
No "one" person can screw this up, it take a nation!  |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6937
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:43 am: |
|
So according to Sbenois Bush will go down in history as being the worst President because he's an idiot.
Wow, such knowledge. MOVEON.ORG must have given you that insite.
Since Bush has superior schooling than you, has made 100x more money than you, has been elected to jobs you'd never be considered for, I have only one question for you..
If he's an idiot what does that make you?
No need to answer. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1647
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
AJC:
There you go again with your bold type and your bloviating.
Why not put a sock in it for a while?
A little less dogma (there might be a pun in there) would be refreshing. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4854
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
...it's to big for a sock pal!
And BTW, it's not "There you go again...", its keep going again, and again, and again.... Because it ain't never stopped, and it never will. Start paying more attention to who you are on-line and stop worrying about me!
What's troubling you anyway, is it the reality that...
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!
No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation! |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1648
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Straw:
Nice touch:
GWB went to Yale (was apparently a mediocre C student), went to Harvard for his MBA (lots of us have done that);
inherited a good amount of money from mommy's and daddy's families;
made a few millions on the Harkins Oil and Texas Ranger deals (that hardly qualifies him as a big financial success--Cheney has done a lot better with Halliburton);
Lost in at least one attempt to be elected to Congress;
Was elected governor of a state where the legislature meets every other year, where the governor's power is nominal at best, and which has produced such "stellar" national politicians as John Tower, John Connally, Rick Perry, Ann Richardson, and H. Ross Perot, to name a few;
Won election to the presidency in a constitutional cliff-hanger in 2000 which could have gone either way but for the Supreme Court;
Won handily in 2004 on a platform of fear, which may have begun to lash back at him, given the events re DWP and the fact that he ran away from that problem to stage a useless trip to India and Pakistan (wants to give our nuclear technology to the one), in the name of democracy and spreading freedom, he supports the other, (a country verging on being a dictatorship, where Al Qaeda runs free, and where a nuclear scientist was free to sell atomic weapon secrets to the highest bidders);
promulgated a prescription drug bill for seniors(the infamous part D) whose total costs he underestimated by several zeroes, and whose implementation has been a confusing catastrophe.
I think I'll stop there before the list sickens even me.
He's not an idiot, that's true. But he's not competent to govern outside of Texas.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 12:33 pm: |
|
AJC,
God, you're good.
How one person like you can keep on breaking wind in public without feeling the slightest twinge of embarrassment is beyond me.
But keep it up. It is a free country, after all. At least it is until GWB finishes with it. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
AJC:
"Start paying more attention to who you are on-line and stop worrying about me!"
I love the veiled threats that you so often throw into your posts.
Makes me so confident about our society and our way of life.
Thank you so much. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4856
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
I'm sorry, but there was no threat in that post and none intended...
Why don't you give it up, you sound like a paranoid little child. FWIW, I don't veil my threats, and if I feel a need to give one, I try to be very clear about it...
Was it a threat you were looking for? Your comments to me sound like you know who I am, so if you want to talk about how one person like "AJ Christensen" can keep on breaking wind in public and not feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment, I'll be happy to show "Innisowen" first hand and F2F...
Listen, as long as you want to get into it with me, let me be clear with you. I hate sarcasm... almost as much as I hate people telling me what to do. So, if after this you still feel a need to criticize me, or engage me in further discussion, (as you say bloviating), please say what you mean and mean what you say.
I hope all this discussion makes you feel more confident about our society and our way of life, BTW, you're welcome! 
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
AJC: from your post above:
"I'm sorry, but there was no threat in that post and none intended..."
"Was it a threat you were looking for? Your comments to me sound like you know who I am, so if you want to talk about how one person like "AJ Christensen" can keep on breaking wind in public and not feel the slightest twinge of embarrassment, I'll be happy to show "Innisowen" first hand and F2F..."
Interesting non-threatening wordiness?
Here is what I say, and I mean it when I say it:
I really don't care who you are or what your name is.
I dislike self-important wind-bags.
Are you one of those in my opinion?
Yes.
And you veil your threats until someone calls you out on them.
If there is a "paranoid little child" in the room, AJC, (to quote you above), I'd say it's yourself.
Clear enough?
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14686
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Quote:If he's an idiot what does that make you?
I think the better question is: if he's an idiot, and you still support him after he has stained this country with his half-hearted attempts at governing and planning, what does that make you?
No need to answer either. I think we know.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1901
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
The U.S. container operations were only part of the much larger purchase of P&O by DP World. The purchase has been approved by the shareholders and accepted in the jurisdiction where the transaction took place, i.e. the U.K. At the moment, DP World is essentially being threatened with the seizure of their U.S. property, the due process being provided by a law that the Congress is threatening to pass.
For a country that makes such a big deal about property rights of U.S. corporations in other countries, it's pretty hypocritical. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10913
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Straw, unless Bush pulls Iraq out of the fire in the next year and a half he will be on the list of worst Presidents, probably just above Millard Fillmore. Luckily, most people forget about the really bad ones in a generation or two.
I agree that if Bush had any sense and was willing to talk to Congress, at least the Republican members, some accomodation could have been reached on the Dubai PW deal. I am still not sure how this is going to be structured btw. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Montagnard:
"At the moment, DP World is essentially being threatened with the seizure of their U.S. property, the due process being provided by a law that the Congress is threatening to pass.
For a country that makes such a big deal about property rights of U.S. corporations in other countries, it's pretty hypocritical."
I was under the impression that these port operations were leased to P&O Steamship Navigation Company, and not owned by them, as your quote would seem to indicate.
And I am not sure of the effective date of the acquisition by DPW that would give DPW rights to P&O property.
In the quote below from P&O's official website, the company uses the expression "long term concessions" to describe its relationship with the ports. When you talk of seizure of their US property, I get the wrong impression. It seems as though you're talking of "ownership."
Enlighten me, please?
From the company's official website:
"P&O is a leading global port operator. With 29 container terminals and logistics operations in over 100 ports it has a presence in 19 countries. Its main service is containerised cargo handling based on long term concessions to operate terminals in ports which offer strong growth opportunities. It also provides a range of Maritime Services." |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4858
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
I don't think the "WE" crowd knows much about anything when all they do is sit on the side lines and flap their lips about what Bush did or didn't do..
I do need to answer you “S”, and all the rest of the Bush Bashers who disrespect our President. What you said speaks not only to me, but to the majority of all Americans. This isn’t about some poll, statistics, or the rhetoric of a bias main stream media, or a bunch of loser Democrats in Congress who lost their way and their power. The issue of disrespect to our leadership is about now, and about the future of this country, and of the world.
Who are we to support Bush? I’ll tell you who and what we are… Respecting the President of the United States makes us loyal to our country and to our Armed Forces in harms way, and to the millions of other Americans who have served and/or died for this nation. In a time of war, right or wrong, mistakes in judgment, or whatever, he is our president. Contrary to the alleged allegations of lying to us, or breaking our laws, he has not been formally charged, he has not had his day in court, and he remains the leader of our nation, and thus deserves all the honor and respect that goes with it.
Supportingthe President of the United States is also something we experience in the military about the importance of the chain of command. Bush is our Commander and Chief. Nobody calls their Commander or superior officers in the military an idiot without severe consequences. On the battle field you could be shot. I’d like to see some of you go into work on Monday and call any of your boss’s idiots, or go around the company bashing them.
Something many of you don’t seem to care about is the importance of respect. In this global society we live in the world is watching us. What do you think of parents who allow their children to be disrespectful to them or others? I can tell you, not much. I can also tell you that achieving success in most anything we try to accomplish in life goes a lot better with support.
The way I see it, the terrorist watching us around the world figure over half of us in America are on their side... Stupid “Idiots” All!!!
As for you, "Clear Enough” Innisowen, your reply was weak as a fart, and doesn't deserve a response... Get a life dip-sh*t!
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:24 pm: |
|
AJC,
Thank you.
Your posting comments only confirm my very clear statements about the windbag approach of your postings,, their fundamental brainlessness, and your habit of name-calling for people who disagree with you and who have the nerve to call your postings full of bluff and bulls--t.
You make me laugh. As we say where I come from, AJC, you're farting higher than your arse.
Go back to your pancakes. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14687
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Dearest Arturo,
I take it back. Bush is not an idiot.
Okay? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3320
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 5:52 pm: |
|
What some people who get themselves worked up into a lather can look like>
 |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4859
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
OK! Thanks "S". See, it really doesn't take much to make me happy....
Now I can go back to my pancakes and some "local" political issues...
*
*
*
BTW, Innisowen, your reply is still weak as a fart... Listen up pal, get a life and please stop thanking me all the time. I can see you're one of those insecure types that always needs the last word to prove how smart you are. I’m through with you, so go for it dip-sh*t!
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4502
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 7:29 pm: |
|
Art, all sarcasm aside, Republicans have zero credibility with me on the notion of respecting the president. I was active on this board in 1997-1998, while the Republicans in Washington did everything they could, up to and including trying to publish photos of Bill Clinton's penis in the newspaper, to weaken our commander in chief.
And you all were just fine with it. So don't come to me now all philosophical about the importance of respect. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 817
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
tom,
I agree with you. Finally, a poster who understands true politics. While we probably disagree on the issues at least tom and I are willing to call it what it is. It isn't a matter of Republican or Democrat. It is an issue of minority versus majority. The majority are always on the defensive and painting rosy pictures and the minority are always attacking because they feel their way is better. Why can't most of you understand this and lay off the childish stuff.
As a conservative, I of course will support conservatives or the party that more resembles those values. The current Repubs aren't perfect but they aren't socialists like the Democrat party, in my opinion. If the Dems become the majority in 2006 or 2008 then of course you libs will be painting the rosy picture and us conservatives will use every tool in the shed to destroy you.
I think most of the anguish is due to most of the liberal Democratic posters on this board have never been in the minority position before. And now that we are in year 12 for Congress and year 6 for combined, you guys really don't know where to turn. It took us conservatives a long time to figure out where to turn which is why I predict the Dems will continue to be the minority party for quite some time.
If I'm wrong and you guys become the Congressional majority, I will simply cut and paste many of your posts for the last few years and interchanged the terms Republicans and Democrats. It's called politics and it's a dirty game. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2634
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
I take a break from MOL, come back refreshed, read a couple of threads and suddenly I'm back in a fog!
sbenois, you have me confused. Is Bush an idiot or isn't he? I look to you for guidance on the subject. After all when those with whom you generally agree politically were attacking GWB mercilessly during the last election you were the voice of moderation, telling all of us to give the guy a break.
So, I need a definitive answer. Is Bush an idiot or is he not? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14692
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Ding Ding Ding: it's official, he's an idiot.
And, he's the only President to win a Poopyhead Award. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1654
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:10 am: |
|
AJC,
Nice exchanging posts with you.
It's so funny that you insist on demonstrating 1) how thin-skinned you are, and 2) how you have a habit of resorting to name-caling.
We used to do that in 3rd grade, but we grew out of it. You still do it. Interesting to see how an "upstanding local citizen" like you has held on to those 3rd grade, 3rd rate behaviors.
Or it just might be your way to demonstrate that you don't have the brains God gave to a pancake.
Pancake: That's probably a good nickname for you, Round, puffed up, and a bit soggy at the edges. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5320
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:46 am: |
|
It's a given that this deal was mishandled by the President.
This hogwash that is being passed around since last Friday that the xenophobic, non-thinking response to the port issue is because Bush spoke of a war against the US is ridiculous, and that supposedly smart liberal people are making it just shows how far they'll go to justify an ugly public stance they can try to capitalize upon.
Bush didn't make the US xenophobic on the deal because of his pursuit of the war. A majority of Democrats fed that xenophobia and fearful Republicans followed it. The Administration took great pains to say this wasn't a war against Islam. Despite that, a significant number of people view it that way. This was reinforced when Bali went up making the war on terror even more global, and the public then 'discovered' that the largest Muslim country in the world was Indonesia and wasn't populated by a bunch of Arabs. Bush meets with Muslim leaders in the WH. He did more than enough as the president to put the proper focus on the war as far as who and what we're fighting.
Democrats provided no education on the issue when it came about. They seemed to learn for the first time along with the public that -- wow -- the US doesn't run jack in terms of ports. They played right along with the xenophobia in this country for all the political opportunity it presented them rather than come out for a deal that they know is in the country's best interests.
The GOP response was shameful as well, allowing the polls to guide them rather than clear thinking that could have resulted in leadership. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5321
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
Let's start banning all Italians from having anything to do with our ports. I'm shocked to learn this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060311/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/port_security_mob&printer= 1;_ylt=AoFb2acuR6LtY_RTJvtkrqKWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 151
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
ajc:
I'm fairly new to all this, so I'm always learning something.
I guess the little happy face at the end of a post is that you are kidding.
I guess the bold type is to emphasize your point.
I guess the change in type font is to identify that the thought is from one of your many distinct personalities. I love when occasionally you will argue with yourself or take conflicting points of view-- like a few ago when you apoligize for seeming to threaten someone and then scream(?) that they are paranoid.
I too want to apoligize. Now that I realize where your many ideas/reactions are coming from, I better understand why you support a conservative president that spends money faster than the Chinese can buy the debt. And supports the troops by cutting VA benefits and letting Rumsfeld fail to equip them properly.
If there is a single thoughtful adult voice in your head, maybe you could give them a really formal font and let us know what we should do next. Because it looks like the two political parties are becoming Republicans that can't support the President and Democrats that can't support the President.
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
Property can take many forms. Obviously the valuation of a large enterprise like P&O will include the expected value of long term agreements with trusted business partners.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Wait. Lost in the repeated references to flatulence in this thread, ajc writes, "No "one" person can screw this up, it takes a nation!"
So, Art, you admit that we're screwed up, then. Care to elaborate? Are you referring to the war in Iraq, the Dubai crony deal, the Katrina response, or what? What's screwed up exactly in your opinion? It's like when an alcoholic finally admits he has a problem. Art admitted there is a problem, that things aren't all sunshine and lollypops. Let's work from there, and maybe we can hash out who really is to blame (btw, I agree it's not all Bush's fault, certainly Cheney and Rumsfeld, and Condi, and that nitwit Karen Hughes, and Scooter Libby, and Gonzo are all to blame as well...)
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1662
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
RL,
I think our pudgy pancake, better known as AJC, probably doesn't have an answer that will make logical sense.
Assume, however, that he will continue to "shoot from the lip," and don't expect real or serious content from him.
AJC will also make blathering comments about respecting the president, the chain of command, the severe punishment that occurs when you disrespect your commanding officers, and on and on...
I guess in whatever branch of the service he served in, if he served, no one ever removed an incompetent officer, no one bothered to discipline a leader who screwed up a mission, and no one wrote negative observations in the promotion jacket of an officer who made excuses for his own shortcomings or couldn't see his own weaknesses.
In the military that I served in as an officer, in this country, the "A" answer when you fouled up was "No excuse, sir."
I don't believe that you would hear that from AJC.
What AJC will give you are platitudes, excuses, hype, and veiled threats, with some name-calling to spice things up a bit and to throw his "overweight" around.
But then just consider the source of all that, and you may even be prompted to laugh at him and feel sorry for him, as I do. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Ah yes , the screwups. That is quite a one dimensional way of looking at current events.
Katrina: Initial response was delayed and beauracy got in the way. This added to the misery factor of the Superdome and surrounding area. Bottom line is that it was the largest rescue operation in US history. Truth be told only complete evacuation could have saved significantly more lives.
Harriet Miers: Initial response horrible , Alito home run.
Dubai: Bush was right but politically wrong. He quicky saw this and got Dubai to pull out. Quick effecient response.
Iraq: Mistakes and successes. Lost advantage and wasted the year of 2004. Iraq political progress has been huge. Finally training Iraqis properly. American deaths too high but decreasing for the past 5 months.
You cannot be intellectually honest and describe any of the above as total screw ups. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 915
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Guy - I almost buy what you conclude except -
Katrina - stonewalling on relief, not knowing that people were suffering and needed relief, not paying full attention to the disaster - as you say the largest rescue operation in history is not the time for a vacation, nor a photo op.
Alito - Jury is out, whatever you may think of him now from his record or his interviews the point is moot. He is an SC judge and his record will define him.
Dubai - Bush was in the dark (not his fault) but then promised to veto any bill before him - stupid comment not knowing the ramifications of the issue. I dont think he has anything to do with Dubai's response. It was pure capitalism that caused the quick response - huge money deal needed to be closed.
Iraq - Since this whole war is a mistake there really cant be any success story here however if I grant you that Bush went into Iraq for honorable purposes - a very large grant - then what he has done since is absolutely horrible. Progress huge? Counted as what that the country will be run defacto as a theological state once the shia are in power? That there are bombings daily, murders daily, internal strife on a level approaching civil war daily? Sorry, I am not buying any of that. The US commited a huge, giant, unforgivable error when Bush ignored his generals, his best information and instead went with the slanted neocon propaganda. The whole theory of democratizing a soveriegn country by force is ludicrous.
You cant be intellectually honest and describe Iraq as anything other then a screw up. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hoops: According to Bill Kristol, Rove called the good folks in Dubai and told them to kill the deal.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/11/rove-dubai/ |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1664
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Guy:
I see your point. And I believe that you are being overly generous about our Commander in Chief.
I guess where we differ is that I expect the CEO of the country to "get it right" the first time, not after bouts of trial and error.
Anyone who becomes a national leader (Bush, Blair, Fox, Chavez, Lula da Silva) has a certain amount of "on the job" learning to do. We must respect that.
It appears, even from your list above, that our guy has a way tougher time learning to do things right the first time than he should have... given the fact that he bragged about himself as the first MBA president, and about the high experience level of his appointees.
Every example you listed above is one where the administration first screwed up and then had to "fall back and regroup" to try to get it right. At this point, the administration still hasn't gotten it right about post-Katrina recovery and about Iraq, and still continues to bewilder people with its tolerance of non-performance by appointed cronies, and by appointed relatives of cronies.
So there are several dimensions to ponder in looking even at the screw-ups that you list.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1739
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
And here is the exit strategy the White House has devised for our troops and position in Iraq, according to Bush's speech today:
"We will not lose our nerve."
This guy is just tactically brilliant, I tell you. Books will be written about our commander-in-chief's military maneuvers and plan of action. Unfortunately it will be in the how-not-to section.
What are the odds that Bush wears his flight-suit again after we invade Iran? I'm going with 50-50.
Which, of course, leaves the question: How prematurely will Bush declare "mission accomplished" in Iran? I'll set 10 years as the over/under and take the over.
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
No president has ever run a perfect war. If you cut through the propoganda on both sides it looks as though the Iraqis have been taking a much larger roll in security. I would not be suprised if American casualties continue to diminish.
Whether the entire campaign will finally succeed is another story.
Far from a total screwup.
Innis, speaking of CEO's , here is a top one's take on Katrina.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007256
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4515
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
"I would not be surprised if American casualties continue to diminish" is a pretty low bar to set for the "war on terror". By this point in World War II, there were no more American casualties because it was over. Ditto the Civil War -- talk about your sectarian strife. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1665
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 6:02 pm: |
|
Guy,
Thanks very much. I had previously read the article, and it's a pretty good one.
I would simply offer that, while each and every crisis is different, and that natural calamities are different from terrorist attacks, some amount of awareness and preparedness for crises has to be done, so that an administration portrays competency in its handling, rather than borderline lunacy.
Welch summarizes his insights by talking about "organizational learning." What he fails to mention, or perhaps what the article failed to say, is that major companies like GE are continually engaging in "what-if" exercises and examining potential crisis scenarios in order to decide what measures will be taken, who will be responsible, and what needs to be done by when. And what are the back-up plans, should the initial plans fail.
It's contingency planning, business resumption planning, or whatever name you wish to give it.
No way does it appear that this has happened in the current administration with regard to Katrina, Iraq, the Senior Prescription Drug Plan (Part D), the Dubai fracas, the Illegal Immigration Issue, or overall port and rail and chemical/biological facility security.
That's the problem I have with citing Jack Welch's article as an offset to the screw-ups that the administration is responsible for, but refuses to be held accountable for and seemed totally unprepared for. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1652
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 7:39 am: |
|
tom , by this point in WW2 there were over 500K Americans dead. The casualty rate for Americans in Iraq is a positive trend.
Innis, good news for you is that the Congress and states are taking up some of your concerns. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5932
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:15 am: |
|
Quote:The casualty rate for Americans in Iraq is a positive trend.
Again, this is no way to measure the success of a war. And what it proves is that you have bought the "line" coming from the WH. That winning the war on terror is measured by reduced American casualties and increased Iraqi security. And while both of those are, in some small measure, a positive "trend"...they are both things that should occur anyway. What happened to all the Shock and Awe rhetoric? If you say that we couldn't have anticipated the insurgency turning into religious based violence, then I say WHY NOT?? There had to have been end game plans. I get the very real feeling that the leadership of this action, outside the military (many of whom said go in with enough folks to actually secure the place) thought that we could just go in wipe up the place and leave. That isn't happening, and while I agree that a certain level of "OTJ" training does indeed happen, where is the "worst case scenario" file on Iraq?? It seems that the WH never allowed for failure. And the old saw applies quite aptly,
"Expect the best, but plan for the worst". |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 8:28 am: |
|
Duncan, casualty rate is no way to measure the failure of a war either. This is what some Democrats have been doing. The plan that has been in place for the past 18 months has been to train Iraqis to handle security so Americans can come home. This seems to be working.
If Iraq becomes a strong , somewhat Democratic ally then it will be a success.
You have to admit the political progress in Iraq has been extraordinary.
I don't get my marching orders from the Whitehouse. It has come to the point where Iraqis will be able to significantly take over for American soldiers.
This website shows the casualty numbers in Iraq.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Very nice picture of the skyline, by the way.
|
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5933
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
Thanks (re: Picture)
I think it wasn't until it became clear that the US went into Iraq under dubious circumstances that the democrats started keeping a running tally of casualties. This was an effort to personalize the loss of life in what many people feel is a poorly executed effort. And when the WH started to deny access to the numbers, many here started to question the motive behind that decision.
As for the resultant political landscape of Iraq, it is way to early to say...good or bad...what that outcome will be. Right now I am more inclined to believe that it will disintigrate into the sectarian war that is already showing its face. It seems that no matter how fast we train the forces there to watch over themselves and each other, that we are outpaced by people who would rather blow each other, and us, up. The deep tribal, ethnic, and religious roots seem to be more of a binder to them than any one political philosophy. Plus the power hungry are seeing the opening and grabbing what they can.
The trouble with assembling an Iraqi force is that the best trained folks are those that served under the "previous administration" of Saddam. And who knows where their allegiance is now. Certainly not to our flag, and quite possibly not to their own.
It is a mess, and I think what is being questioned is the inability of our own gov't to acknowldege that fact and move with speed and purpose to correct it. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
Duncan:
Well said. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page