... which is arguably even worse. When I'm lying, at least I know what the truth is and my not telling it is a choice, not a necessity. But when I surround myself with advisors who yessir me, I don't even care enough about the facts to want a choice.
As for the firings, any single one of them is a bit like an employee calling in sick. He may be faking, he may be sick, and it's usually hard to tell. But when you see a pattern -- the employee calls in sick every Friday, and stays sick until Monday every time -- you know what's going on. Similarly with contrarian staffers. I take your word for it when you say that Shinesky's firing was a moderately complex affair. But with Shinesky, Lindsey, and some others whose names I don't remember right now, the pattern is that they all got fired shortly after saying that what did happen, would happen. Other advisors, who bullshitted Bush in a way he found convenient, were either not fired at all, or very reluctantly. Consider the case of Mr. Tenet, who got fired
very reluctantly, and after repeated assurances of what a magnificent job he had done.
georgeob1 wrote: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.
Damn -- you caught me on the wrong foot here. Antique history is an extremely weak part of my knowledge. I keep telling myself to read up on it, but never get around to actually doing it. For now, I'll just take your word on this point.
georgeob1 wrote: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.
This could indeed be a central problem in this administration. On January 20, 2001, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and O'Neill all had excellent reputations from the work they had done in previous Republican administrations. And while Bush isn't exactly the moron Michael Moore would like to think he is, he is a weak leader. The abovementioned veterans must all be believing -- I think correctly -- that they could do a better job as president than their boss. Not conducive at all to tolerance and common purpose.
georgeob1 wrote: 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.
I agree Eurosklerosis is a potential problem under a Democratic administration. That's why I worry about the prospect of a president from their Dick Gephardt wing, as distinguished from their Bill Clinton wing. But Kerry isn't Gephardt. And between the American and the European model, there are lots of intermediates that strike me as attractive. Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are some of them.
Georgeob1 wrote: 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.)
It's nice that we can end on a note of agreement. While I strongly prefer Kerry over Bush, I'd like to see the return of some gridlock, and would prefer the GOP to keep at least one house of Congress. But a sweeping Democratic victory in all three elections doesn't seem likely anyway.
