JAG, it's end of the day and end of the week....I'm tired as hell...could you please translate that last post into simple english for us?
It doesn't necessarily make Bush look better, however it explodes the myth that Bush is led by the nose by the neocons, namely Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. You've seen the caricature, crudely exprrassing Dubya as a little tyke kid looking up to Cheney with a confused expression and asking "What are we gonna do now Mr. Cheney?" As far as things in Iraq, I do not think they are going nearly as bad as everyone here suggets. However, there have been mistakes made by the man put in charge of the rebuilding project- Rumsfeld. There have been many criticisms of him not just by Democrats, but by Republicans as well. How things are going in Iraq is a whole different subject, which is why I have not expanded on it in this space. Also, I must criticize your characterization of the situation. Yes, certainly the buck stops at the Presidents desk, as we learned from previous great leaders of the US, yet you should be quite aware that said Presidents did not do every thing by themselves. Bush did not draw up the invasion of Iraq nor the rebuilding of it any more than the great FDR did the same for Germany or Japan. Now in making this analogy, I am trying to characterize the situation in a clearer light than some posters in here, insofar as it is possible to draw them away from the "Bush isn't in charge, he's a puppet/Bush is in charge, it's all his fault" dichotomy. What I am saying is the truth is in the middle, in that Bush delegated some work, it did not get done properly, and he is quickly making the desired changes. Was it too late? Was it too soon? We shall find out, but if we are to make those judgments, we should at least wait more than 10 minutes after learing of said changes.
I don't see that that's conclusive at all...Again, I have virtually no opinion on this subject, but objectively, I would say that your conclusion is a possible way ot taking this...or you could suggest, as others have, that this means Bush is finally taking control...or you could infer that Cheney has told him to do this...or whatever. I do not see this as any more conclusive about what has been going on in this regard than anything else...ie nothing either way, aside from showing that Rumsfeld, and sadly Powell, will no longer have whatever power they have possessed up till now. Sorry, but aside from all the other evidence, just looking at this development, a shakeup of this magnitude...involving not just Rumsfled, but Powell and others...a year before the elction os not something administrations do because of a few isolated mistakes. Honestly, Mr. C, this is as close to an admission as we will ever get about just how much worse things have gone than anticipated/advertised. But MC, if this was merely mistakes beyond Bush's control, where was he when Rummy et al were making the mistakes all of us against the war so clearly identified? Why did he continue to allow Rummy make comments disparaging our allies, etc. if he had a problem with it? And either way, the buch stopping with the President means just that...look at how Truman handled the situation with MacArthur as a comparison. And as to whether or not it is too late, clearly I think so, in that we're in a country we shouldn't be, but I agree that it is too soon to predict the future implications of this move...but I don't think it's too soon to read the implications this reveals about what has already come to pass.
I fail to see how Rice getting more power is a good thing. Perhaps someone would explain to me what she has done to deserve it. And she is supposed to be an improvement over Colin Powell?? Rumsfeld has been looking for a brick wall to run into for a long time. It looks like he may have found one.
Indeed, you can come to those various conclusions. My point is not so much that I have an accurate view from afar of what exactly is developing within the Oval Office. Far from it. I am really just point out that, if "Rumsfeld, and sadly Powell, will no longer have whatever power they have possessed" then perhaps Bush is not a figure that is easily controlled, or, as I stated earlier, a "puppet." I have no way of knowing if Bush was in fact misled, or if he all of a sudden decided to take charge of the reigns of an outlaw group of neocon superhawks. Sure that is possible, but let us be reasonable. Is it perhaps not more possible that Bush is like any other President- he makes the decisions, he is in charge, and he is not eating pretzels watching the Rangers while the big boys are up all night making the real decisions. Well, your characterization of this as coming "a year before the election" makes it sounds explosive and dramatic, but perhaps a bit more than it deserves. In truth, it has only been 6 months since the rebuilding project began, and it is quite reasonable that he wanted to not make any rash decisions, for this is a situation fraught with unintended consequences, and while downtown Houston looks as bad as downtown Baghdad, certainly Bush doesn't expect the same kind of tranquility. And also, I have heard of criticism of Rumsfeld for a while now, so, and this is my own conclusion, I think he has been out of favor for a bit longer than we know, or that Bush cared for us to know. On the subject of Bush coming clean, I quite agree that he doesn't come out and admit his mistakes. George Will's column should be quite illuminating for my fellow Republicans who wish to say that there is nothing wrong to admit to. I believe that back when Rumsfeld was making those statements, he was still in favor with Bush, and really, those statements perhaps did not concern him, although I'm sure Powell let him know of possible consequences. In any case, the war was waged brilliantly, in large part thanks to Rumsfeld, so Bush was right in staying in trust with him for the time being. It should be somewhat surprising, especially to those who held onto the convential wisdom, that such a brilliant strategist could be dumped so quickly. Whether the current Rumsfeld missteps and bumbles require a Trumanian moment, I don't know. As we have noted, Bush does not want to admit error, even if that error is appoint someone who subsequently made the error. In regards to what this reveals, certainly we should read implications, but let us keep in mind that there is limited evidence, and that we are only "reading," and we obviously have our own opinions on the war in the first place, which may color what is the reality on the ground.
I admit being somewhat skeptical of her as well. She is an academic after all, not a military person. But she is brilliant, I'll give her that. She is supposed to be an improvement of Rumsfeld, I believe.
Well, you see Deckard, what we have is this little social concern in the media that wants to promote the interest of black National Security Advisors above other white NSA's like Sandy Berger or Henry Kissinger. I know this is true because Michael Irvin agrees with me.
GW is "taking charge" after his administration is bleeding like a stuck pig in every major policy area. Come on. Karl Rove is taking charge, if you want to know what's really happening. I don't "give credit" to a five year old when they realise they **** their pants, why should I give the President some kind of special recognition for seeing that his policy in Iraq is a collosal failure? Especially when said "taking charge" really means shifting blame to the once golden boy Rumsfield and waging a PR battle about Iraq in the media. I would think that the 3 to 6 American bodybags coming home every week for the last three months would be enough of a wake-up call for GW.
