Thomas wrote:
I do observe, though, that you're not defending any of Cheney's specific lies that nimh and I have listed in our replies to you. I also observe that your list of dishonest tactics doesn't contain an item saying something like: "You can fire your top staffers for the sole transgression of telling the truth to you (Lindsey, Shinesky (sp?)), thereby creating a work environment for your administration where reality drowns in a flood of 'yessir' requirements." You once said, in an entirely different context, how important you find it as an executive to surround yourself with smart people who tend to disagree with you. You must have registered Mr. Bush's determination to do the opposite, and I'd be surprised if you approved of it. Having observed all this, it appears to me that in your heart of hearts, you don't trust this administration anymore either; but that you're evading this thought because they're on your side, and you want to trust them. Needless to say, I could be wrong.
I'm not an habitue of the fact check sites, and I don't know the details of the lies that Cheney is alleged to have made. I have seen references to the ?'I have never met you before' bit on these threads. I infer that someone has found evidence that there indeed was a prior meeting. I would want to know more details before making a judgement. Were they merely in the same room at some prior event or was there a substantial meeting? Cheney was responding to several direct provocations by Edwards and, with such a bon mot in mind, I am inclined to give him some slack. If, instead the prior event was a substantial meeting, I would call it a lie.
As for the ?'firing your top staffers for the sole transgression of telling the truth to you' part. I don't think it evidences dishonesty, but rather possible foolishness and a lack of wisdom. The key phrases here are "sole transgression" and "truth". Cicero was, in the main, a serious teller of truth, but after Caesar's coup he had a serious problem choosing whether to speak out or remain silent. In that area, particularly on important matters to the state, he was (in the Navy lingo) WEFT. Was Octavian wrong in having him killed? By the standards of the time, I think not. The republic was beyond recovery and Octavian, by cleverly retaining the forms of the republic without the substance delivered a century of relative peace and justice.
Your "heart of hearts" insight did touch fertile ground. Well done! I have indeed expressed the need for contrarians and beneficially used them in my experience. However for this to work there must be a certain degree of tolerance and common purpose on both sides. Moreover leaders do face several dilemmas for which I know no general solution. One is the conflict between the wisdom of tenacity and that of flexibility. In the words of the song, "You got to know when to hold ?'em, know when to fold ?'em - never count your money 'till the deal is done.". This is a very complex issue, and in matters of politics, history is generally the arbiter - even there revisionist interpretations arise. Is Bush wisely holding to his purpose or foolishly clinging to errors that may undo him? Elements of both are present. Which one will dominate? I don't know, and I freely acknowledge that I am concerned about that. The only resolution for me is the firm conviction that his critics, both here and in Europe, are unambiguously wrong, and themselves incapable of either wise flexibility or wise tenacity - they are tenacious only in their denial and flexible only in their purpose..
I don't know enough about Lindsey's positions or departure from the Administration, and on such economic questions I will -watchfully - defer to you. Shinsecki's departure was a mixed bag. I know that Rumsfeldt felt that the senior military leadership had, under two Clinton Administrations during which they were basically ignored, underfunded, and exploited, become complacent and excessively politicied. Moreover the Army, which has always been the most backward of the services in its strategy and weapons development, greeted him with a new 90 ton "mobile" artillery piece as its top budget priority. Such an organization does need a little bloodletting.
Many critics have noted Shinsecki's estimate for much larger forces in Iraq and assigned the lack of troops as a cause of the current insurgency. However none has acknowledged the merits of economy of force in war, or taken the trouble to analyze the effect of a larger deployed force on our ability to reliably sustain it for the time required to find a solution. I find these criticisms superficial in the extreme. I thought Rumsfeldt treated Shinsecki rather badly at his retirement, I also note the hostility of some of my service buddies, one a recently retired Marine General, a former CENTCOM commander who believes the Bush Administration has foolishly overextended our forces in the Gulf.. Four star generals often become a bit complacent and entranced with their own wisdom and I think this disease has infected my friend to a degree. (He probably thinks something equivalent of me.) However, I do acknowledge that pressing so quickly to invade Iraq may have been an error. Waiting a year or so may have been better.
I don't have any such doubts about John Kerry. He is a feckless, vain poltroon who lacks the character, energy, executive experience and will to lead our country. Moreover the party he represents is so in the grip of single-issue interest groups that no coherent policy could emerge from it. At best they will lead us to the internal sclerosis that now infects Europe.
Some long for a return of the successes of the Clinton era. I wouldn't mind that either, but would require the whole bag as well - a Republican Congress, no pressing external problems, and a prolonged expansion in the economic cycle. (Please don't tell me Clinton created all those conditions.) .
) The list seems to go on and on, and I don't remember this happening in any previous election. But maybe that's just my senility setting in.
