nimh wrote:Lash wrote:nimh wrote:Lash wrote:Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?
Of course not!
Well, Putin probably does ... which should tell you something, I suppose.
...
It never ceases to amaze that you guys snicker about what you consider to be
my naivete...
Hon, when there's a political crisis of sorts Prime Minister Balkenende gets thronged by groups of journalists with cameras who assail him while he's walking from one place or another and ask him questions in random, quickfire sequence - thats not the kind of scene that would allow for pre-discussed question-setting. Or for a careful selection by intermediates of who gets to ask a question and who doesnt.
Course, some questions he will dodge and others he will talk around; politicians. But to prevent people from even
asking undesired questions - from presuming he was in a position to do so - no way.
It goes with the whole debate thing. You know, four party leaders in discussion with each other, in direct interaction, none of your two-minutes-for-you and two-minutes-for-you stuff, or two by two where they ask
each other questions and directly follow-up; no pre-formulated questions there either.
Like I said, the
really scary thing, the real Big Brother thing, is that people like you have come to sincerely belief that it's
normal for Presidents to not allow anything but pre-agreed questions or insist at least on picking-and-choosing who gets to ask any. That they've indoctrinated you to the point where you smugly reject any suggestion that it might be done otherwise.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:But at least they consider you a moderate...
If Lash is a moderate then so is everyone on this forum. Apart from the actual loony fringe (the Gunga, Chrissee type), practically
everyone would be a moderate. She's on the far right of the furthest right parties in most of our countries, actual fascists excluded.
Nimh, I have to ask???? You must be from Baltimore or someother location in Maryland, because I always thought we were the only folds who called people "Hon". In fact at the entrace to Baltimore city off the parkway, where the obligatory "Welcome to Baltimore" sign is placed, someone for years has been pasting a "Hon" alongside the Welcome sign. Road crews tear it down and it keeps popping back up. Always makes me smile.
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:nimh wrote:Lash wrote:Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?
Of course not!
Well, Putin probably does ... which should tell you something, I suppose.
...
It never ceases to amaze that you guys snicker about what you consider to be
my naivete...
Hon, when there's a political crisis of sorts Prime Minister Balkenende gets thronged by groups of journalists with cameras who assail him while he's walking from one place or another and ask him questions in random, quickfire sequence - thats not the kind of scene that would allow for pre-discussed question-setting. Or for a careful selection by intermediates of who gets to ask a question and who doesnt.
Course, some questions he will dodge and others he will talk around; politicians. But to prevent people from even
asking undesired questions - from presuming he was in a position to do so - no way.
It goes with the whole debate thing. You know, four party leaders in discussion with each other, in direct interaction, none of your two-minutes-for-you and two-minutes-for-you stuff, or two by two where they ask
each other questions and directly follow-up; no pre-formulated questions there either.
Like I said, the
really scary thing, the real Big Brother thing, is that people like you have come to sincerely belief that it's
normal for Presidents to not allow anything but pre-agreed questions or insist at least on picking-and-choosing who gets to ask any. That they've indoctrinated you to the point where you smugly reject any suggestion that it might be done otherwise.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:But at least they consider you a moderate...
If Lash is a moderate then so is everyone on this forum. Apart from the actual loony fringe (the Gunga, Chrissee type), practically
everyone would be a moderate. She's on the far right of the furthest right parties in most of our countries, actual fascists excluded.
Nimh, I have to ask???? You must be from Baltimore or someother location in Maryland, because I always thought we were the only folds who called people "Hon". In fact at the entrace to Baltimore city off the parkway, where the obligatory "Welcome to Baltimore" sign is placed, someone for years has been pasting a "Hon" alongside the Welcome sign. Road crews tear it down and it keeps popping back up. Always makes me smile.
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:nimh wrote:Lash wrote:Are you suggesting other Presidents don't have advance notice of what questions they will be asked?
Of course not!
Well, Putin probably does ... which should tell you something, I suppose.
...
It never ceases to amaze that you guys snicker about what you consider to be
my naivete...
Hon, when there's a political crisis of sorts Prime Minister Balkenende gets thronged by groups of journalists with cameras who assail him while he's walking from one place or another and ask him questions in random, quickfire sequence - thats not the kind of scene that would allow for pre-discussed question-setting. Or for a careful selection by intermediates of who gets to ask a question and who doesnt.
Course, some questions he will dodge and others he will talk around; politicians. But to prevent people from even
asking undesired questions - from presuming he was in a position to do so - no way.
It goes with the whole debate thing. You know, four party leaders in discussion with each other, in direct interaction, none of your two-minutes-for-you and two-minutes-for-you stuff, or two by two where they ask
each other questions and directly follow-up; no pre-formulated questions there either.
Like I said, the
really scary thing, the real Big Brother thing, is that people like you have come to sincerely belief that it's
normal for Presidents to not allow anything but pre-agreed questions or insist at least on picking-and-choosing who gets to ask any. That they've indoctrinated you to the point where you smugly reject any suggestion that it might be done otherwise.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:But at least they consider you a moderate...
If Lash is a moderate then so is everyone on this forum. Apart from the actual loony fringe (the Gunga, Chrissee type), practically
everyone would be a moderate. She's on the far right of the furthest right parties in most of our countries, actual fascists excluded.
Nimh, I have to ask???? You must be from Baltimore or someother location in Maryland, because I always thought we were the only folds who called people "Hon". In fact at the entrace to Baltimore city off the parkway, where the obligatory "Welcome to Baltimore" sign is placed, someone for years has been pasting a "Hon" alongside the Welcome sign. Road crews tear it down and it keeps popping back up. Always makes me smile.
That's what we call a "triple hitter." LOL
One other thing, I heard Sen. McCain being interviewed by Chris Mattews yesterday. Chris asked if McCain had been President would he have chosen the director of Arabian Horse Society (or what ever it was) to head up FEMA. Mc Cain said, no, not really, but he has heard the people are saying that no horses died while he was in charge. My first reaction was an attempted smile, but then the inappropriateness of the remark hit me kind of hard. I like McCain and I don't think he was trying to be cruel, I suspect he repeated something that he probably regrets now.
McCain has gone downhill since his support of Bush's initiatives - all for the wrong reasons. That he can't get himself to criticise the appointment of a horse show coordinator as the director of FEMA says more about McCain than it does about Bush. McCain is supposed to have more intelligence.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Same is valid for the UK and Germany and most certainly for dozens more countries.
"She's on the far right of the furthest right parties in most of our countries, actual fascists excluded" - totally agreed.
Well--not that I am
campaiging for the designation of moderate--but what are the "righty" immigration planks...? Quite vociferously anti-immigrant in the UK. What of Germany and Finland...? Other Scandinavian countries? Let's start there.
I was born in Baltimore, Hon.
(Me and my neighbor Nancy Pelosi)
I was born in Baltimore, Hon.
(Me and my neighbor Nancy Pelosi)
I was born in Baltimore, Hon.
(Me and my neighbor Nancy Pelosi)
Chrissee, I'll try to remember that! LOL
That's what we call a "triple fright." Yikes.
Ticomaya wrote:That's what we call a "triple fright." Yikes.
It's twue. It's twue. Many insecure, inadequate men fear strong women. Word.
Remember when the posters on the Bush supporters thread, once the smoke of Katrina cleared, were proudly highlighting news stories about individual survivors who turned out not to blame Bush for any malpreparation at all, but thought he was sincere, and had done a good job?
The perception would soon tip, they said
*.
It didn't.
Quote: No Change for Bush on Handling of Katrina Aid
Angus Reid Global Scan) - Many American adults in the United States remain dissatisfied with the way their president is dealing with last month's natural disaster in the Gulf Coast, according to a poll by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press. 51 per cent of respondents disapprove of how George W. Bush is handling the relief effort for victims of Hurricane Katrina, down one point in 10 days.
This part of the poll is highly interesting as well!
Quote:If you had to choose, which one of the following options do you think is the best way for the government to pay for the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina?
42% Cut spending on Iraq
29% Delay or cancel additional tax cuts
14% Add to the federal debt and gradually pay it back
11% Cut spending for other domestic programs like education, welfare, transportation, and health care
4% Not sure
* Obama-watchers note: not a literal quote
nimh, What I find more interesting is the fact that the people supporting Bush said they preferred him over Gore because Bush was a strong leader that will ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters.
Fact: When those planes hit the twin towers, Bush was reading to children when a secret service agent told him about the attack. He sat there for seven more minutes reading to the children.
Fact: Bush and his administration was slow to react to the Katrina disaster. He even admitted his mistake, and "accepted responsibility" for his failure.
Q: He's a strong leader? When, Why, and Where?
cicerone imposter wrote:nimh, What I find more interesting is the fact that the people supporting Bush said they preferred him over Gore because Bush was a strong leader that will ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters.
Not that I'd doubt anything you ever said, c.i., but just who said they preferred Bush over Gore because he could "
ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters."
Glad you asked, tico:
ROBERT KUTTNER
The failure to keep America safe
By Robert Kuttner, 3/31/2004
TWO PIVOTAL recent events should make a shambles of President Bush's contention right after 9/11 that a war on terrorism would be the defining mission of his presidency.
In late January David Kay, the president's own chief weapons inspector, admitted that no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons were found in Iraq. That finally made it respectable to question the wisdom of the Iraq war.
Then, last week, the explosive testimony of the president's former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke invited intense discussion about whether the Bush administration had done enough to avert the 9/11 attack.
However, a third and even more important inference is seeping into public consciousness: The failure to protect the United States against terrorism is ongoing and directly related to Iraq. The Iraq detour has set back America's security in at least five mutually reinforcing ways.
First, the war distracted top officials from domestic preparedness, which remains in organizational chaos. No senior White House official is coordinating antiterrorism, which sprawls across the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the hapless Department of Homeland Security.
Second, the war diverted resources -- regular troops, commandos, Arab-speaking analysts, and Predator spy missiles, which otherwise might have been deployed to tighten the noose around Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Two precious years have been lost.
Third, Iraq replicated the very scene that triggered Osama bin Laden's holy war in the first place -- the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War. Iraq repeats a direct American occupation of a Muslim nation, helping recruit new young Jihadists unknown to Western intelligence agencies.
Fourth, despite blather about a "forward strategy" to advance democracy, the invasion of Iraq significantly reduced American leverage against Syria and Iran (who really do harbor terrorist organizations like Hezbollah) because we need their military cooperation to secure Iraq's borders. We've also lost leverage with Saudi Arabia, the breeding ground of Al Qaeda.
Finally, the war undermined foreign cooperation against terrorists. "It used to be that when relations became testy with our friends, at least the intelligence cooperation continued to work," says a former CIA station chief in a Mideast post. "I used to be able to walk into a president or a prime minister and say, `Look, here's the deal.' I guarantee, today they'd say, `Sure, get out of here.' " A former ambassador told me, "Cooperating with the United States starts being seen as a political liability. It becomes repugnant to the political class."
Whatever you think of Richard Clarke's motives, this larger story of the anti-terrorism fiasco has been hidden in plain view for the past year. Much of Clarke's tale of White House misplaced priorities and more was previously revealed by former national security senior officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in their 2003 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror."
It has been documented in a score of reports by the RAND Corporation, the General Accounting Office, the Markle and Century foundations, three national commissions, and a dozen congressional reports. Nor are others who have observed this fiasco close up shy about revealing their frustrations to reporters. "It's bad enough that they screwed it up before 9/11," says a career counterintelligence official -- not Clarke -- who served well into the Bush administration. "What's really galling is that these people screwed up afterwards."
Unfortunately, much of the media, especially television, still treat all of this as a merely partisan story of charge and counter-charge. It is not. The administration's gross failure to keep America safe from terrorism has been amply documented.
Instead of limiting their focus to Clarke and reducing the story to "he said/she said" partisan catfight, the media should grasp the immense import of what has been revealed. If I hear the phrase, "There's plenty of blame to go around" one more time, I may take an ax to the TV.
There is, however, a partisan implication. Before the Vietnam schism, Democrats and liberals were not just credibly tough about protecting America. They were the realists while the Republican right were the utopians.
While the right lobbied, in the late 1940s, to start World War III, statesmen like George Kennan appreciated that containment of Soviet expansion and George Marshall's plan for the reconstruction of Europe added up to a policy that was more proportional and more effective. When right-wing extremists wanted to risk a nuclear exchange over Cuba, President Kennedy executed a policy that was both prudent and tough.
Now, courtesy of Bush's astonishing bungling, Democrats are on the verge of reclaiming that legacy -- not by being more-extreme saber rattlers, as some on their party's right commend, but by being better realists about how best to keep America safe. The country has never faced a more fateful choice.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
On Katrina:
September 04, 2005
KATRINA: BEHIND BUSH'S FAILURE -- FEMA head fired from last job, hurricane preparedness sacrificed to the politics of post-9/11 security hysteria
The backstory to the Bush administration's failure to prepare for or deliver hurricane relief to the victims of Katrina gets clearer every day. Yesterday's Boston Herald revealed that the current head of FEMA, GOP activist Mike Brown (right, at podium), "was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows."
Brett Arends of the Herald's business section reports: "before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position.
The Oklahoman got the job through an old college friend who at the time was heading up FEMA. The agency, run by Brown (shown to the right in photo with Bush) since 2003, is now at the center of a growing fury over the handling of the New Orleans disaster."
The Herald's story provides the details on the man Bush put in charge of disaster relief: "Before joining the Bush administration in 2001, Brown spent 11 years as the commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, a breeders' and horse-show organization based in Colorado. 'We do disciplinary actions, certification of (show trial) judges. We hold classes to train people to become judges and stewards. And we keep records,' explained a spokeswoman for the IAHA commissioner's office. `This was his full-time job . . . for 11 years,' she added. Brown was forced out of the position after a spate of lawsuits over alleged supervision failures. 'He was asked to resign,' Bill Pennington, president of the IAHA at the time, confirmed last night. Soon after, Brown was invited to join the administration by his old Oklahoma college roommate Joseph Allbaugh, the previous head of FEMA until he quit in 2003 to work for the president's re-election campaign."
But the failure in the Katrina disaster is much, much bigger than that of a single political hack in a job for which he wasn't qualified. Today's Washington Post has a long team report on the disarray in the Bush administration in preparing for and responding to the horrors of hurricane Katrina -- and lays the blame squarely on post-9/11 national security hysteria, if one reads past the soporific headline the Post put on the piece.
The WashPost piece reports that "the warnings about New Orleans's vulnerability to post-hurricane flooding repeatedly circulated at the upper levels of the new bureaucracy, which had absorbed the old lead agency for disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, among its two dozen fiefdoms....But several current and former senior officials charged that those worries were never accorded top priority -- either by FEMA's management or their superiors in DHS...."
The Post investigation lays out how the Bushies practically destroyed FEMA, noting that "after 9/11, FEMA lost out in the massive bureaucratic shuffle." The paper quotes top FEMA officials to make this point: "From an independent Cabinet-level agency, FEMA has become an underfunded, isolated piece of the vast DHS, yet it is still charged with leading the government's response to disaster. 'It's such an irony I hate to say it, but we have less capability today than we did on September 11,' said a veteran FEMA official involved in the hurricane response. 'We are so much less than what we were in 2000,' added another senior FEMA official. 'We've lost a lot of what we were able to do then.'"
Buried deep in the Post's story is the conclusion that the Department of Homeland Security "in reality emphasized terrorism at the expense of other threats, said several current and former senior department officials and experts who have closely monitored its creation, cutting funding for natural disaster programs and downgrading the responsibilities and capabilities of the previously well-regarded FEMA. In theory, spending resources on response to terrorism should result in improved response to any disaster, but FEMA's supporters argue that the money was being spent outside the framework of the agency actually equipped to respond.
"'The federal system that was perfected in the '90s has been deconstructed,' said [Jane] Bullock [a 22-year agency veteran who was FEMA chief of staff in President Bill Clinton's administration]. Citing a study that found that the United States now spends $180 million a year to fend off natural hazards vs. $20 billion annually against terrorism, Bullock said, 'FEMA has been marginalized. . . . There is one focus and the focus is on terrorism.'"
That focus was, of course, electorally driven -- the crux of Bush's re-election strategy was surfing on the post-9/11 climate of national security hysteria, as Karl Rove made clear in a now-famous speech to Republican activists. And erecting the huge boondoggle that is the DHS -- with its blinkered refusal to focus on anything except terrorism -- was a key part of that re-election strategy. I wish the WashPost had made this political point in the analytical part of its investigative piece -- but it didn't. However, for anyone who knows American politics, it's the inescapable conclusion: A crass political strategy was behind the decimation of the federal government's ability to respond to hurricanes and other natural disasters and the creation of the terror-focused bureaucratic nightmare known as DHS. There's a lot more in the WashPost's story, which you can read by clicking here.
cicerone imposter wrote:Glad you asked, tico:
I'm glad I asked too. Were you planning on answering?
In case you forgot, this was my question:
Earlier, Tico wrote:... who said they preferred Bush over Gore because he could "ensure our safety from terrorism and natural disasters."
Almost 100 percent of the neocons said or implied it.
