Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
In numbers that exceed the retention goals, yes. Good. Now, what are the figures for the Reserves and National Guard?

They're the ones who may well feel they got the old "bait and switch". Active duty is one thing, but going from one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer to repeated AD tours of six months to a year is another.

S_A_M

Everyone of the reservists knew being called up was a possibility. That they hoped for something far less intrusive is understandable, that fewer people may sign up for the reserves in thefuture is understandable. If what comes of this is the comp for reserves needs to be raised to reflect the reality of what could happen thats good too.

But to call it a "bait and switch" is a bit much, unless you mean they thought they'd get $$$ for horsing around on a weekend with no real commitment, and then they found out otherwise.

ps I can't believe Atticus took today off. I was so pleased with the cartoon post, and was waiting for his post BM reply, ahh the cruel fates- that was a bait and switch.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I have to ask: Are you one of those people who reads entire articles in the paper to your spouse over breakfast, rather than just noting "there's an interesting article about X behind the obituaries, you should check it out"?

Whilst I never eat breakfast, if I did I would be of the sort who reads only very short snippets because as you know, some people can be agonizingly long-winded.

Cheerio!

Diane (Meow!) Keaton

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


But to call it a "bait and switch" is a bit much, unless you mean they thought they'd get $$$ for horsing around on a weekend with no real commitment, and then they found out otherwise.

More than a bit much.

We had an even more egregious one in college. Woman was there on a ROTC scholarship as a pre-med. Then we went to war with Iraq, the first time. All of a sudden, when they started talking about calling up ROTC folks for things such as medical care she became a conscientious objector. Convenient--get your education paid for and then bail out when the military comes looking for the quid.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm equal opportunity. You know that.

I know you say you are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

My misgivings
Bruce Bartlett

April 21, 2004

On Monday, The New York Times reported that growing numbers of conservatives are turning against President Bush on Iraq. This follows an inarticulate defense of the Iraq operation by Bush in a press conference last week and growing attacks on our troops. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the basic rationale for the war was not well thought through and that postwar planning was deeply flawed at a minimum. These may result from a basic weakness in this White House's policy-making and decision-making processes.

I have to say that my own feelings on the war parallel those of many others who previously supported the war but now feel deep misgivings. Although I don't often write on foreign policy, I felt I had an obligation to take a stand on Iraq before the war started. In a February 2003 column, I reluctantly supported the war because at the time I thought there was credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. With that country being ruled by a lunatic dictator with known ties to terrorist groups, I felt that President Bush deserved the benefit of a doubt.

Since then, I have been very disturbed by the lack of WMD's. I am not yet convinced that President Bush manufactured evidence for their existence as a pretext for war. But I do believe that he has fostered a White House culture that contributes to error with a stifled internal debate, a decision-making process that seems to short circuit research and analysis, and an obsession with loyalty and secrecy that makes the Nixon White House appear as a model of openness and transparency.

In this respect, I have been strongly influenced by Ron Suskind's recent book, "The Price of Loyalty," which was based on interviews with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and thousands of internal documents provided by him. That book paints a picture of an administration in which it appears that President Bush often makes key decisions with little if any analysis or discussion among those with the job of implementing those decisions.

In short, President Bush often seems to operate like the character from "Alice in Wonderland" who declared, "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards." Instead of figuring out why and how things should be done before acting, the White House seems to act first and then create ex post facto rationalizations for that decision in lieu of serious deliberation.

Although I claim no inside knowledge of the national security process in this administration, I do know that Suskind and O'Neill's characterization of its domestic policy operation rings true. While it is conceivable that a completely different process operates in the national security arena, I think that is highly unlikely. Presidents establish a style and tone for their White House staff operations, and it operates across the board. Therefore, I have every reason to believe that the same weaknesses that exist on the domestic side exist within the national security operation, as well.

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists imagine, I don't think President Bush ever ordered facts to be invented to justify the Iraq war. Rather, I think there was a great deal of what economists call self-selection bias. Facts that confirmed what President Bush wanted to believe tended to filter up to him, while conflicting facts tended to be sidelined.

This sort of thing happens on every issue in every White House. But in this White House, the system of deliberation, debate, analysis and discussion seems to be unusually weak. As a consequence, there was no way of leveling the playing field, with the result that decisions end up being made on the basis of biased presentations rather than objective analysis.

In previous administrations, one safety valve has been the press. When participants in the decision-making process felt that the president was not fully taking into account certain facts or views, they would be leaked. At least then there was a chance that they would come to his attention. But in this administration, there is very little of that, with loyalty and secrecy being enforced to an amazing degree that appears unprecedented. Moreover, President Bush, by his own admission, is not a big consumer of news from outside sources. Consequently, alternate methods of communicating facts and views to him are shut down.

Of course, one cannot know whether a more open and honest debate on Iraq would have led to a different result. But I for one would not have supported the war if I thought that its principal justification was the liberation of the Iraqi people, which is what the White House now says was its primary mission. Our military exists to defend the nation, not be the world's policeman. If there is a linkage, President Bush has yet to make it.


link

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I know you say you are.

I've enough disdain to target three sexes.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Whilst I never eat breakfast, if I did I would be of the sort who reads only very short snippets because as you know, some people can be agonizingly long-winded.

Heh, you think that's bad, you should be around when I start reading the Sunday morning classifieds to the Mr.

But thank you for saying "whilst."

BR(this has been a very, very weird friday on the boards.)C

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
[FONT=courier new]My misgivings
Bruce Bartlett . . .

Shit, Ty is Bruce Barlett's sock!

Seriously, this is not surprising. As I've stated before, there are many conservatives that were (and are) anti-war before it even began.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Shit, Ty is Bruce Barlett's sock!

Seriously, this is not surprising. As I've stated before, there are many conservatives that were (and are) anti-war before it even began.

After all the trashing of O'Neill, it's nice to see that book being taken seriously by someone.

[sgtclub]

http://www.drudgereport.com/rcka.htm

[This time on abortion]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/rcka.htm

[This time on abortion]

Quite a scoop drudge has there: a 1972 interview. Wow.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/rcka.htm

[This time on abortion]

The quotes are from '72 and '75. Hardly a flip flop.

[Shape Shifter]

BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/rcka.htm

[This time on abortion]

Good thing someone is keeping track of Bush's flip flops too. So whoever has fewer in November wins, right?

[Shape Shifter]

After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax . . . .

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html