Think There’s Any Connection?
From Andrew Sullivan:
The Bush administration doesn’t quite realize it yet, but the president and vice-president will, in the future, become moral pariahs to a lot of people. Not pariah in the sense of Clinton, whose sexual addiction evokes both pity and anger that he kept lying about it. And not pariah in the sense of Nixon, who committed a crime against his opponents, his office and the constitution. What the revulsion of Brigham Young students – yes, Brigham Young students – suggests is that for many of the next generation of natural Republican supporters, Bush and Cheney are moral pariahs.
From The Washington Post:
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job . . . At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, underscoring the administration’s difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
10 Responses to “Think There’s Any Connection?”
They damned well should be moral pariahs. By any definition of morality.
it isn’t just that they destroyed and dishonored everything they touched; it’s that they did so knowingly and deliberately, and for personal gain.
So should their enablers be moral pariahs, for protecting them for so long.
Theydon’t have to worry, the Regency and Liberty University crowd will proudly put on their brown shirts and fight for W.
The problem with systematically using the bureaucracy to build a permanent majority for your political party is that even though you may advance your ideology in the short run, in the long run there will be a backlash that will bury it.
The Democrats don’t have to be brilliant to win or efficient or inspiring- all they have to do is not be Republican because of Bush and Cheney.
I agree kritter. I could tell a few years ago, that I was getting the sense that the GOP was lowly becoming bullies, and I’ve been in reaction to that for a while. I still have a lot of conservative thoughts and ideas for solutions, but it’s more like having favorite tools in a box. You bring ‘em out more often, but you’ve learned to have a few other things handy.
No No No, you can’t get away with that….
Bill Clinton cannot be compared to Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton had legal consensual sex with an adult. Attacking him about it was pure political BS and the irrelevent impeachment was done by a republican dominated congress without integrity. Now, the republicans are now reaping what they sowed and Bill Clinton is still serving America.
Richard Nixon attempted to subvert the American election process. This is treason. There should NEVER be a political pardon allowed for treason, but after all it was a republican scenario. Richard Nixon died in disgrace, but without shame.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
As for the stupid Defense CZAR idea; What, the Joints Chiefs are not telling King of the rednecks what he wants to hear? He now needs a Yes Man? Typical corporate weasel tactic. Will the decider’s next move be armed soldiers surrounding the capital building?
> As for the stupid Defense CZAR idea
It’s bigger than that. Rather than I, let Gates explain:
“Well, first of all, I frankly am kind of amused by the level of excitement over this. Both Republicans and Democrats for some time have been urging that there be somebody in the White House who could act as a coordinator for the civilian side of the government along with the Defense Department. And the idea is to have someone in the White House who would work as part of the National Security Council, so they’re not detached from it, but also have a direct reporting line to the president…This kind of position is intended to ensure that where other parts of the government can play a contributing role, that in fact they understand what the president’s priorities are and make sure that the commanders in the field, the ambassador in the field gets what he needs. ”
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3928
I have wondered for years why Bush was so dismal at governing after all he had been a successful bipartisan Texas Governor. He was a little heavy on the death penalty for my taste, but I at least expected a competent conservative who could work with Democrats when push came to shove. Then I finally realized that advancing his ideology throughout the bureaucracy and improving his party’s standings was the real goal-not governance. Thus he’d rather have a USA that quotes Bible verses, but cannot get along with the management level employees in the office.
A Czar? for what. We got a commander and chief. a secretary of Defense, a Commander of the Joint Chiefs. Why do we need a czar?
I don’t think we need one either, C Jordan. And given that three generals have turned down this opportunity already, it may be a scapegoat position to put a layer of responsibility btwn the President and his war decisions. Rummy took a lot of the heat away from Bush, and Gates so far seems to be doing too well to be cast in that role.
DLS-[coordinator for the civilian side of the government along with the Defense Department]…WHAT? What the heck is the Secretary of Defense, (and his massive staff), used for then……answering the phones and making coffee?
Good grief I thought these repubs where all about smaller government?! Makes me think the Democrats never got the proper credit for being downright FRUGAL in their government operations! Sort of makes Newt Gingrich look like an idiot with all his “big government” BS.