Heads should roll! Widening rift in Administration.

You know what gives me hope? That Americans hate incompetency more than any ideology.

 

Re: Re: Heads should roll! Widening rift in Administration.

Yep, we hate losers.

 

Ironic that the NCAA's remind me that Americans love the underdog. I still wouldn't take Iraq and the 12,364 points that Vegas are giving.

At any rate, stop being so negative. Americans don't hate losers, incompetency or ideology...we just love winners more.

 

Had Powell not been against Gulf War I, maybe people would have taken him more seriously this time around.

 

It's a good test of leadership to weed out the underlings who don't measure up and get rid of them. Didn't Bush do this awhile back with his top economic advisor?

Let's see what happens from here.

On the other hand, despite what the New York Times and other organizations keep reporting, we seem to be pretty much kicking Iraq's ass so far, even if it has been a little tougher than previously thought.

BTW, if you want to put it in NCAA terms we're up 18 about with 10 minutes to go in the first half.

 

Triq Aziz to give the halftime speech...Win one for the Butcher! Translated to English by Peter Arnett.

 

So was MSU and they barely held on.

 

That's why I figure we've still got a long way to go.

 

The defeatists around here are amazing - the war is 2 weeks old, more soldiers killed in accidents than by the enemy, so little action that the war coverage is nauseatingly repetetive.

A few months from now you defeatists will be gloating about the odd mortar shell someone lobs at the occupation force. Hopefully Saddam will be dead or else the euro-whiners will be eternally clamoring for his return to power with each suicide bombing incident.

By the way, during the cold war the state department was in a continual huff over confronting the Soviet Union, there were lots of people who thought that we shouldn't do anything to make them angry. Foggy bottom attracts the appeasers and the second-guessers.

 

Screw Powell. Who told him to trot out that stupid "irrefutable" case to the UN back in February?

If he was what his fans say he is, he would have resigned months ago. I'd trust him as far as I could toss him.

 

The adminstration is really looking stupid as this war runs its course.

Of course, that should come as no suprise to anyone who has been paying any attention.

 

Kennedy was the only President who directly confronted the Soviet Union. Not even Reagan ever did.

 

That's worked wonders so far.

It certainly wasn't the enemy we war-gamed against.

 

Wait!!! Stop the presses!!!

This just in!!!

People in the same administration disagree on policy!!! They argue different sides, and take on different positions!!!

Omigod, what WILL we do??

Horrible, just horrible!!!

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the growing rift between Powell and Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz isn't newsworthy?

 

Newsworthy??

The Frontline documentary suggested that this difference in viewpoints is a decade old.

Besides, apparently Bush likes "creative" tension between his top policy guys and, you know what? Some good CEOs swear by that approach.

"Criminal negligence??" Please. This war isn't over yet, and let's see how things shake out.

From one point of view, the Rumsfeld vision of the war is something that, one one level, the liberal anti-war crowd SHOULD have wanted if face with the Hobson's choice: fast, with precisoin airpower, population rising up, and highly leveragable special forces ops. On the other hand, the Powell "docrtine" of overwhelming force should be an anathema: lots of men, lots of time, lots of "preparing" the battlefield.

Yet it isn't it ironic that liberals complain about what DIDN'T happen??

Of course, what they REALLY want is to see the Bush administration tied up in its own underwear.

Finally, state department officials, if they truly are against the policy, should resign, and not whisper to the press. But that's another topic.

 

Good luck trying to find a statue that says altering the rules of a war game in the middle of the contest demands time in the slammer for "criminal negligence."

Meanwhile, don't hurt your joints leaping to the conclusion that the strategy laid out, though not having its desired effect IMMEDIATELY, is somehow a criminal event. Would we have spared fewer American lives had we followed the Powell Doctrine?

Maybe, but it's unknowable.

Is it possible that the Powell doctrine, with its slow build up and and relentless softening up of the battlefield, might have led to MORE civilian casualties than we've see so far?? Maybe, but it's unknowable.

Finally, it's a common time-honored practice for government insiders to leak to the press when they don't like the way things are going. And you know what, it's an honorable thing to do if viewpoints are suppressed or important knowledge is being kept under wraps.

But is this true in this instance?? The Military guys, and presumably Powell, made their arguments, Rumsfeld made his, the President decided. The fact that they DO disagree, and DO contest policy in the arena of ideas is in my view quite healthy. Beware, instead, the administration that engages in excessive unanimity and group think behind closed doors.

One thing about the Army guys, though, they have more guts than the State Dept. Shinsheki was castigated for saying, a while ago, that it may take 300,000 guys and three years to occupy Iraq. But guess what he did? When asked on the record, he says the very SAME thing, despite being raked over the coals the first time.

 

Except that Rumsfeld seems to have made his roll with loaded dice.

 

C'mon.

Wargames were undoubtedly one factor in the decision making policy. Are you saying the military and Powell are so inept at constructing arguments that their position is going to be COMPLETELY overshadowed by this ONE decision point?

That's awfully patronizing.

Instead, this is another example of grasping at straws. No doubt a lot of other factors went into the decision making process -- the state of the Iraqi military, intelligence on the ground about population, the prospect of decisive special forces actions, the understanding of precision munitions capabilities -- a whole host of factors in a complex mosaic went into the plan.

 

I'm saying that it appears Rumsfeld made his version of events seem so appealing that the President chose to go along with it (which the President pretty much wanted to do anyway so he had a bit of a head start there to begin with). The indications that he ignored information that suggested it wouldn't be as easy as he wanted it to be are worth looking in to.

 

How's that straw holding up under your grip?? Still in one piece??

"Making your version of events appealing" is a pejorative way of saying he put together a more persuasive argument than the other side.

Welcome to life.

Again, your view about decision making at the senior level of an organization -- governmental, corporate, you name it -- is naive in the extreme.

A good executive says "Here's what I want to do..and here's why." And the WHY, let me tell you, is not some off the cuff opinion. Especially from Donald Rumsfeld who, like him or not, is absolutely NOBODY's FOOL. You had better believe that the "why" is his arguments are borne from a fairly painstaking granular look at ALL the details, with a marshalling of ALL the evidence in your favor

That's not to say his argument is a good one, or the right one, or one we should stick to no matter what happens in the meantime.