Yep, I'd leave to if I had to answer questions about why the EPA wasn't honest with rescue workers and New Yorkers about the air quality after 9-11. I'd leave if I had to answer questions about why I allowed or encouraged scientists to be intimidated and studies changed to reflect my political interests. And I would be scared of Dingell and especially Waxman. Really now, how many more are going to leave across government? A bunch I bet... it's hard to think of a Federal agency that hasn't been tarnished in some way by this administration and the people they put in charge. And who but the lowliest true-believers can Bush now get to replace them? What looms is a rudderless government for the next two years... which after the last 6 years is probably good in comparison. And what does this say about the way Republicans ran the government over the last few years? They can't even take a few questions about their actions? Worst. President. Ever. Worst. Congress. Ever. Worst. Administration. Ever.
Really? I don't think so. With the end of the administration in sight this is the time those officials start to plan for their post-government future. You wouldn't wait until the end and leaving immediately after reelection makes little sense.
Gosh Hayes. I didn't think of that... and apparently neither did Evans and Novak. What a dunderhead I am. It's all perfectly logical and has nothing to do with gross and criminal mismanagement of our government.
Well, if you want to claim that is an objective assessment that's your perogative. I think the rhetoric in the passage shows otherwise: "rather than undergo two years of hell" and "fearing investigation" are not objective assessments. Further, the fact is that it is normal for officials to start cycling out of a second term administration. It's possible this isn't such a case but then again it is NORMAL for this to happen, so until your get more substance to back up the Evans and Novak report you might consider calming down a little bit.
History and time will be the judge, but Bush is definitely in the running for the title you decry as "hyperbole."
You may believe that. I don't think he's great but if you study history, he's not in the running for the worst ever. Bottom 5-10 maybe depending on your view but not worst ever. My comment was made more in response to the penchant for hyperbole in everything today. Everything always has to be the "best ever" or "worst ever." I guess living in a time without the best/worst ever of something makes some people feel inadequate and unimportant.
Friedman: This thing is not working and we need to dramatically change course—We have to set a date—a clear and defined date circled on the calendar for us to leave there.—if they have to stare in the face, a very clear reality that on date X, 6,9,10 months from now—we are gone. c&l
