Mark Morford has a piece in today's(?) SFGate about how Bush is not perceived to have "tail".... (vs. Clinton)
Fair enough, they are the tick making the tail wag the dog
BillW, You give this administration too much credit. They can't even be considered "tail." c.i.
The US has to have this exemption, otherwise the whole Administration would be in jail! This is unAmerican what they are doing - it is the tail wagging the dog!
The MacDonald Douglas and General Dynamics I worked with when in the industry were in Southern California. I could drive to them in conferencing with their engineers. Ray Gun had all the depth of a puddle.
Quote:The administration has led the country into an unprovoked war against a sovereign foreign state for reasons that were certainly overstated and quite possibly deliberately mendacious. It has mistreated detainees after Sept. 11 with a disregard for basic civil rights that worries the inspector general of President Bush's own justice department. But look not to Capitol Hill for remedies.
Those committees, with their sweeping subpoena powers? As they say in polite New York circles, "fuggeddaboutit." First of all, the Republicans who control the White House also have majorities in both chambers of Congress -- and thus in the committees of Congress. If push comes to shove, Republican senators and representatives will make sure that no great embarrassment befalls a popular Republican president and his senior officials. And the latter know it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deals with questions in the manner of an aged bull, idly swatting away flies with his tail on a warm summer day. Or take John Ashcroft, the attorney general, who on the very day the inspector general's report appeared, breezily informed the house judiciary committee that he wanted even more draconian powers to fight terrorism. A Justice Department spokesman commented, apropos of the report, "We make no apologies for using every legal measure to protect the security of the American people." There you have it: national security, in whose name all is permitted, nothing has to be explained, and no one need provide a serious account of their behavior.
Accountability Missing in Bushland
I'm beginning to think that American journalists have all been hypnotized, and columnists like Rupert Cornwell from the Independent are the only ones still in full charge of their own brains.
Why do the Brits see the obvious, while their American counterparts completely miss the point?
C.I. Very goog article. I thought it portrayed Reagan very nicely. I agrre with most of what is said, especially:
Quote:The public face of Reagan's principled, honorable life is his undying sense of optimism -- of the three qualities mentioned, perhaps the one for which his was most often mocked. Yet, with what many mistook as naïveté, Reagan was able, in the face of adversity, to communicate a hopefulness and resolve that inspired others.
The way he approached his own life was the same way he approached the life of the nation. When America struggled through a recession in the early '80's, or faced such national tragedies as the Challenger explosion, Reagan was not a leader who merely responded with weak words of sympathy or tear in his eye.
He didn't lack compassion; on the contrary, he was compassionate enough to point the nation to higher ideals, a greater good that transcends immediate hardship.
"My optimism comes not just from my strong faith in God," Reagan once said, "but from my strong and enduring faith in man."
Greatness. It is, without a doubt, a question of character -- it cannot be measured in economic or political currency. Reagan, in giving a charge to the graduating class of the Citadel in 1993, in his own words best encapsulates the thing that separates him from other modern presidents: "The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in the seemingly unimportant moments ... It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away -- the decisions that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity -- or dishonor and shame.
Try to imagine those words coming from the mouth of an "average" president, like Bill Clinton. It's not easy.
"Oh fatherland, fatherland, show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come when the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me!"
georgeob1 wrote:Setanta,
There are no victories or defeats here. Clearly we see the situation we were discussing differently and have reached very different conclusions about it. I do believe we should be able to dispassionately examine the bases for these judgements. If I have offended you in the process, please recognize that was not my intent.
Then let us agree to disagree, and agree that to continue this exchange will be profitless.
BillW, I hope there's a "Tomorrow." c.i.
... is a stack... God, I'm getting out of this country before I forget English!
Thanks, Bill. There are a stack of icky poos on NPR this afternoon. Hope you heard the report on Dems in Chicago.
Tartarin, Here's another icky-poo for you from NPR in case you didn't hear it from yesterday:
Quote: Pentagon Study of Mini-Nuclear Weapons Nears Approval
Congress moves closer to giving the Pentagon permission to study -- though not to develop -- small nuclear weapons potent enough to destroy underground facilities in a precise fashion. Supporters argue that such weapons might cause fewer unintended deaths and injuries above ground, but fallout remains a concern. NPR's Tom Gjelten reports.
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=June/10/2003
Depending on which poll one wishes to use on the ranking of Ronald Reagan, he can be 11th or 25th. Here's a perspective on the subject.
http://www.reaganranch.org/leadership/media/sbnp_02_06_01.htm
c.i.
Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And three cheers, Setanta!!!
You know, George, i had a long and detailed response to you before the site went south-but in the interim, it has occurred to me, why bother? I'm heartily sick of reading comments from you which suggest that I've not sufficiently informed myself, or am somehow incapable of correctly interpreting information-because i would otherwise come to agree with you. I do not agree with you, i will not agree with you, and am certain that the reverse is true as well. As an individual, Ronald Reagan was a mediocrity in every career he pursued. To me, the man was an amiable light weight, which largely explains his appeal to his generation, and the self-deluded of younger generations-he was photogenic and non-threatening. The legacy of the administration to which his name is attached is one of lowering fatally the standards of honesty, probity and legality of governance, all in the name of pursuing a political agenda, as though it were the reliquary of great religious truth. The "Reagan Era" and all it's works, and effects, sicken me. I'm not going to bother any longer, and if you wish to view this as some sort of rhetorical victory, you help yourself.
Setanta,
There are no victories or defeats here. Clearly we see the situation we were discussing differently and have reached very different conclusions about it. I do believe we should be able to dispassionately examine the bases for these judgements. If I have offended you in the process, please recognize that was not my intent.
