Is This REALLY How Government is Supposed to Work???

1. They had accountability to their boss (Ashcroft) who had accountability to his boss (GWB) who has accountability to the American people. Congress can impeach him if they feel it necessary. The only way to remove Hillary from office is to have her divorce Bill!

2. Bush is the Chief Executive. Isn't this the kind of thing that executives do? Does he really need to ask their permission?

 

It is just a proposal, it still has to be ratified and debated, come on guys this is trivial.

Congress will have final say, sheesh, at least Bush is trying to get things done?

1. He admits that Global warming is a problem.
2. He wants to create a new cabinet position and Homelan security branch.

Both of these are big democrats issues, I think he is being the most level headed president we have had in years.

At least he is not TOTALLY one sided. (wanted to put bipartisin, but can't spell for doo doo)

DaDakota

 

No policy, no matter how sudden nor grave, can ever escape the question of it's rightness or it's wrongess. So in the end it does not matter how you arrive at a decision. The only thing that matters is what the people think of it.

And that goes for any country. In fact it goes for the whole world in which no government prevails.

 

This seems to be an argument between those who would promote pure democracy, and those who favor a representative democracy.

Our government is supposed to work this way- that is my answer.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7970/jefpco55.htm

 

Lol...

First, the issues at hand:

I am refering to this as part of a series of events which seem to be driven particularly by the John Ashcroft camp of the Bush administration. In order to be accountable to public opinion, the public has to be able to see what is really happening. Don't you think that Richard Nixon thought of himself as being beyond public scrutiny when he ordered the Watergate break in, or do you think he was trying to help the public make an informed decision? When the government hides what it's doing then it is, in fact, beyond scrutiny.

Secondly:

Why is it that whenever anybody criticizes Bush, the 'talk-radio-listening conservitive' set will imediately turn it into a partisan issue, bring up Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton and not discuss the issue on its merrits? It's sort of like someone disparages your mother, and it imediately illicits the 'I know you are, but what am I?" response.

Hillary Clinton was never any real threat to anything. Like a nosey housewife trying to run the PTA, everybody saw her for what she was up front.

It's like seeing a rattlesnake it the woods. Though it is dangerous, you can hear it making noise from far enough away that you can avoid it. What you have to worry about is the quiet snake in the grass. The one you don't realize is even there until it's already bit you.

For the record, my political views are perhaps best describes as libritarian/republican. I will never, however, be able to stomach the thought of joining the party and associate myself with the Jerry Faldwell croud, or the Rush Limbaugh croud. Like I've said before, I don't hate the Dallas Cowbows, but their obnoxious fans really bug the hell out of me.

Finally,
For DaDakota,

From what I understand, and from what I've seen and been told, Mr. Bush's 'big global warming admission' was totaly blown out of preportion by the media. I'm told that the document stated that the gasses in qestion were rising, but that it generaly downplayed the significance of this by pointing out that the primary computer model that projects what those gasses will do does not accurately predict what has occured over the last 10 or so years.

Personaly, I agree with the latter position, though I still think it'd be prudent to begin to take limited action, just in case.

Furthermore, I agree with you, about Bush. I think he's one of the most straightforward and well intentioed people in the White House since Harry Truman. Some of the 'groups' represnted his his cabinet, however, scare the hell out of me.

Particularly John Ashroft scares me because he just doesn't seem to 'get' the bill of rights/constitution (though, to his credit, I think he really tries to do the right thing) and especially the old-school 70's-Military-Industral-Complex-Nixonites, as represented by Dick Rumesfield.

 

The public saw what was really happening: a proposal was made in prime time on all the major networks and cable stations (how secret!)-- a proposal that must be approved by Congress. How sneaky is that!!! Bush and the Administratiion do not need public approval or permission to strategize. That's their job. We have a system of checks and balances which determine the final product.

Nixon was a man who was President not The Government and not All Republicans. He desperately hoped against hope to be beyond public scrutiny. Did he order the Watergate break-in? News to me. Mitchell. Stans. Try them.

Nixon lied to us. Clinton lied to us "under oath." A lie is a lie but one is supposed to have deeper repercussions-- only it didn't. Why is that?

I didn't turn it into a "partisan" issue; I just thought of the best parallel example I could think of. Hillary's attempt was arrogant. Bush was just doing his job.

I discussed the issue on it's merits: he was doing his job. He doesn't have to ask for your or my help to do all of his dailly tasks. We have a system of government set up for that. If hs ideas are bad, they won't be ratified. If his ideas are really bad, he won't be re-elected.

It's called delegation of responsibilities, isn't it?

 

Apologies on the Nixon thing, you are correct about the 'insitgator'.

My point is that, by tacitly 'not knowing' about the stuff his re-election campaing was doing, he was attempting to obfuscate or color the truth about his political opponents. He then further attempted to obfuscate the truth about himself, when he altered the recordings that had been suppenaed. Bill Clinton did the same thing with his lie, attempting to limit the amount of information the public was able to desciminate about him.

IMHO, the same thing apply for holding secret meetings, or not turning over records. It is an attempt to limit the amount of information that gets out to the public about what really happend. Could have formulated his plans after consulting three crack whores, taking some peyote with an Indian shaman, and consulting with Ossama bin Laden about what he should do. Granted I'm pretty sure that that didn't happen, but because he won't let me see the process, I'll never know.

Bill Clinton thought he could get a rim job in the oval office, and not suffer the wrath of the morally outraged. Bush seems to think that it is not important for the public to know what his influences are in making decisions. Bush, it seems, plans to never have to lie about any nefarious decisions by making sure we never know about them. I don't really see how that is a better option.

As far as your question about Clinton, I'd have impeached him but to leave an open-ended question like there's some sort of conspiracy is misleading. I think, when it comes down to it, he didn't get impeached for several reasons, none of them good.

The main reason would be the same reason that nobody under 6'1" has been elected in recent memory. Clinton (apparently) left many people feeling like he should be in charge, and therefore were willing to follow their gut. (Before you hardline Republicans get all outraged, what do you think was the primary force behind Ronald Regan's appeal?) Can you imagine Nixon having to resign if he, perhaps, had walked around with the charisma and confidance of, say, Regan, or JFK?

Secondly, the public might have been more willing to forgive the reason for his deception, than they were for Nixon's reason. Clinton was perhaps seen as a weak-natured, hedonistic man, but he was still 'good-natured'. Nixon's guys were, on the other hand trying to screw the other guy.

I could go on and on, and there's more I could say, but I feel I'd just end up with a bunch of rhetorical, openended, ominous questions about Clinton. The point here is not what was done or should have been done, but how Bush should act now. I'm certanly not out to get him, and I hope he succedes, but I'm still going to worry about characteristics of his administration that I find troubling.

 

<b>Otto</b>: I never said there was a conspiracy, I just pointed out that these two men got treated very differentlly for their lying. I think it has more to do with a lowering of standards with no conspiracy whatsoever.

Nixon was not beloved in keeping with his effectiveness as a President. Clinton was generally beloved and.... well....!

I don't get it? Is the American populace that shallow or naive or what?

What are Bush's "nefarious" deeds? Recommending a new cabinet position? Isn't that kind of harsh?!

I bet that the information that doesn't get out <b>from every administration</b> would curl our hair ! ! !

 

I'm sorry. It's probably just me interpreting wrongly. When I listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh, I notice that when he wants to accuse somebody of something, but doesn't want to say anything slanderous, he'll word things in the form of a question that clearly lets you know what his answer is. Most notably, I remember hearing lost of murmered questions about 'What happened to Vernon Jordan, hm?', etc. This really bothers me. I wish that if he was going to be adamant enough to accuse something for which he had no evidence, that he'd come out and be straightforward about it.

This is kind of similar to the stated topic of the thread, where I can understand where Bush might create his energry policy based on the advice of those people he knew at Enron, but when he refuses to let everybody know this it bugs me.

I read somehing into your statement that wasn't there, sorry.

Don't blame Americans, specifically. It's not that they're specifically shallow or naive, it's just that several million years of evolution have gone into developing a subconsious set of guidlines for leadership and trust. There was a study where someone got a series of pictures of peoples faces and asked them who was a nicer person. For 1 set of people they took a subset of the photos and used something like Kai's Power Goo, and enlarged the noses and eyes.

The group that got the altered photos responded, for no logical reason, with much higher ratings than did the group with unaltered photos.

Also, note that since the advent of TV, there have been no abnormaly fat, short, or particularly offensive looking presidents. Nixon, IMO, is the most 'repulsive' of the group, and look what happened to him. Bush the 1st wasn't particualrly big and strong, and he was not the most directly spoken person, and he somehow picked up the reputation of being wishy-washy. Ford was 'stupid' because he was clumsy, and I think alot of the younger Bush's reputatuion for being less than a genus comes from the Texas accent. This is just the way it is. You can't defeat your own biology.

When I said "nefarious" I should have said "potentialy nefarious", the point was that I don't know what they are and I can't therefore, make an informed decision about said policies. While I realize that there are some things that can't be spoken of for national security reasons, in my view the thing should be, that if there's no overriding reason that you wouldn't mind explaning to your mother, then it shouldn't be secret.

 

Rush Limbaugh is an enigma. The thing that people forget (and maybe this is disingenuous on his part) is that he describes himself as an entertainer not as a journalist. He just wants to be provocative, raise questions, and stir the pot.

 

I don't give much of a rip about how inclusive the White House was in coming up with its plan -- as a general principle, I think being inclusive and creating "buy-in" is the right thing to do, but the obvious bureaucratic infighting going on within and between the FBI and CIA is a warning sign that they would undoubtedly try to undermine any plan that affected their turf.

A more valid criticism, though, IMO is put forward by Joshua Micah Marshall on his "Talking Points Memo" website (the fine source of all the links in this post):

And that's assuming that Ridge, who's at least nominally responsible for some of that stuff despite his inexperience, was even involved:

Marshall's implied take is that Ridge's inclusion in the "Gang of Four" was purely for show ... kind of like his entire job as supposed Director of Homeland Security (ever notice that all the public pronouncements on domestic anti-terror efforts come from Ashcroft, not Ridge)?

And one last pertinent point from Marshall:

 

The price of that secrecy, however, was having the plan devised by four men -- Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels -- none of whom have any apparent knowledge or experience with law enforcement, counter-terrorism, intelligence or disaster preparedness.

This is basically my point. To devise a good plan, you HAVE to get input from the people most involved and most affected. Will they fight it? Absolutely. You still need their input, though, because they are the ONLY ones who can tell you what really needs improvement.

A plan created in secret and without their input is much more likely to be a piece of crap than one that was done with more feedback and openness.

 

What about the value of a fresh viewpoint? An objective look? etc... Isn't that what the whole profession of consultancy is about?!

 

What about the value of a fresh viewpoint? An objective look? etc... Isn't that what the whole profession of consultancy is about?!/

Yes, but consultants work WITH the people they are trying to streamline or whatnot. They, well, they consult. This little panel didn't consult anyone of value.

This would be like me going into any other business and telling them how to run it without knowing the details of why they do things the way they do it.

 

<b>Jeff</b>: I may be reaching, but I have Ming-like arms!

My consultancy example was an analogy not an equation. Your suggestions of the chef-surgeon and the cleric-lawyer take it to an extreme conclusion-- which is not what I meant at all.

The job of this new cabinet position is to coordinate the accumulation and distribution of information, right? That seems like a bureaucratic wet-dream rather than a venue for the law enforcement community. The "industry" we're dealing with is information processing and communication not criminal behavior isn't it?

They are trying to HELP the proper authorities catch the terrorists and prevent the terrorism not to do it themselves.

Exactly what was done that was so horrible? Recommending a new cabinet level position. Remember it's just a proposal.

By your definition, everything not divulged is a secret. I don't think that is at all practical.

<b>Major</b>: They aren't telling them anything. They have recommended a new structure which will affect efficiency. Why do the opponents feel so threatened by a proposal. This is the way this thing works. You can't choke off the ideas before they are born.

 

Exactly what was done that was so horrible? Recommending a new cabinet level position. Remember it's just a proposal.

There was more to the proposal than a new cabinet position, if I understand correctly. It also involved affecting the FBI/CIA/DoD/etc budgets and resposibilities. When some people who have limited experience in intelligence gathering start reorganizing how the intelligence gatherers should do their job, bad things tend to happen, in my opinion.

Major: They aren't telling them anything. They have recommended a new structure which will affect efficiency. Why do the opponents feel so threatened by a proposal. This is the way this thing works. You can't choke off the ideas before they are born.

The process is extremely important here. If you build a framework to start from, then everything Congress suggests are likely to be modifications to that framework. If the framework is fundamentally flawed (which its likely to be without good information), then the final proposal is going to be a bad idea with a bunch of bandaid solutions to improve it. You're supposed to get the best information at ALL levels, not only at the "fix it up" level.

 

<B>Major</b>: I thought that most of the information about the 9/11 failures was pretty well-known by now. Why do you seem to assume that these men doing this work are stumble-bums?

Can you document that the new re-organization would be telling the intelligence-gatherers HOW to do their job? I've not seen that. It seems to want to centralize and share the information gathered by all the arms of intelligence-- not tell them how to do their work.

These may be just some "band-aid" solutions but, don't forget, there is a time pressure and an ongoing threat at hand!

 

Major: I thought that most of the information about the 9/11 failures was pretty well-known by now. Why do you seem to assume that these men doing this work are stumble-bums?

The 9/11 intelligence failures ARE well-known right now. So, there are some problems. But there are also a TON of successes. And if this plan helps in one area and hurts in another, then is that really progress? I don't know whether it will or not, but that's why I said you need the input from the organizations involved. They are the ones that best know how to improve the communications inside and between their own agencies.

The reason I don't trust these people is simple. Look who they are -- White House Chief of Staff, Legal Counsel, and the Budget director. They have NO experience whatsoever in any of the organizations affected. The one person that has [very limited] experience here doesn't even appear to like the plan (Tom Ridge).

It seems to want to centralize and share the information gathered by all the arms of intelligence-- not tell them how to do their work.

I don't question what it conceptually WANTS to do -- everyone agrees that these organizations need to better coordinate themselves. I question whether any plan that doesn't talk to the agencies about what needs improving can be reasonably good, less alone the best possible plan.

These may be just some "band-aid" solutions but, don't forget, there is a time pressure and an ongoing threat at hand!

Any reorganization is going to take an extensive period of time. This isn't something that will implemented overnight. Given these two choices -- which would take relatively similar amounts of time:

(1) 3 men with no experience in the field reorganize the communications system between FBI/CIA/NSA/DoD/etc.

(2) The heads of each department work together to improve the communications between themselves

#2 will come out with a better solution every single time. If we're going to do a once-in-a-lifetime reorganization like this, we should make every effort to do it right. Yes, Congress will try to fix what it can, but it never should have been done this way in the first place.

On a side note -- I'm not saying this is a bad plan. It may be the best plan ever. I'm just saying the likelihood of it is slim, and if it is a good plan, it simply very lucky. You ALWAYS -- whether it be government, business, or whatever -- want input from people with more experience than you when redesigning things. These people didn't go out and get it.