Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Not directly on point to your post, but . . . .
Here's an example of how Suskind's conclusions can be directly opposite conclusions reached with the same info by others, even within the same source:
--------------------
. Ron Suskind, who created a bit of a stir sometime back with his book airing erstwhile Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill's grievances against the president, says the administration is too rigid:
"The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision--often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position--he expects complete faith in its rightness. "
Then the Times' David Sanger, writing in the Week in Review section, says the administration is too fractious:
"Mr. Bush, more than most recent presidents, has tolerated--even encouraged--a constant battle in his administration over how to shape its approach to the world."
|
The two are not that inconsistent. Suskind is writing about Bush personally. We all know that there have been terrific battles within the Administration over policy, but they've been aimed at the next decision, not what Bush has already done.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
