The father-son 'feud' (or just disagreement) continues... I have never seen more 'dissent' from The Establishment people (Military, CIA, and State Dept. officials) during a time of conflict than right now; it far surpasses dissent from the establishment during any other period in recent memory... http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051021-051052-6225r Old Bush vs. new WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is bracing for a powerful new attack by Brent Scowcroft, the respected national security adviser to the first President George Bush. A Republican and a former Air Force general, Scowcroft is a leading member of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment, and his critique of both of the style and the substance of the Bush White House, is slated to appear in Monday's editions of the New Yorker magazine. The article also contains some critical comments on the handling of U.S. foreign policy by the current President Bush from his father, whose 1989-1993 presidency is hailed for deft management of the end of the Cold War, German unification, the first Gulf war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The new attack comes hard on the heels of the denunciation of "the cabal around Cheney's office" by Col. Larry Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell in a widely reported speech to the New American Foundation in Washington this week. Wilkerson said the national security decision-making process was effectively "broken." Scowcroft's criticisms will be taken seriously at the highest levels of the Bush administration because he is seen as a mentor by some of its senior figures, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose political career began when she worked under Scowcroft as an adviser on Soviet affairs. The attack also comes as President Bush's opinion poll approval ratings have sunk to around 37 percent, partly reflecting the ill-handled federal government response to Hurricane Katrina's devastation of the Gulf coast. But majorities of Americans are also telling pollsters the country "is on the wrong track" and saying the Iraq war was a mistake. The beleaguered Bush administration is also nervously waiting to see whether indictments in the CIA leak case are to be handed down next week against two key White House aides, Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby. The White House is facing heavy flak from its conservative base over the controversial nomination of the president's counsel, Harriet Miers, to the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. And traditional balanced-budget conservatives have been dismayed by the double deficit, a combined deficit on the federal budget and on the current account that adds up to over $1 trillion this year. A cartoon in the Washington Post Friday depicted the Bush White House being inundated by "The Perfect Storm" of Miers, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, Rove, the budget deficit and the indictment this week of the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, on charges of money laundering campaign funds.
Lies I tell you, LIES! The liberals are making all of this up. These are political witch hunts. Partisan attacks I tell you. I guess the **** is starting to hit the fan...
Fortunately then, and unfortunately now - Bush Sr. was in an infinitely better place to decide on foreign policy having been a congressman, an ambassador, the head of CIA, and Vice President. Jr. pales in comparison to his old man.
I'm a die hard Democrat, and i had no real problems with Bush Sr. He was alright. But his spawn....... is driving me to drink....and not in a good way.
How can you not like Reggie Bush? I mean he can run north/south/east/west, he can catch the ball and make the yards, he can return kicks and punts... he's the man!
Bush Sr's knowledge of foreign policy trumps even the most knowledgeable presidents of all time (and his staff was a foreign policy all-star team if there's ever been one). Clinton was a quick student of international relations, and he was a pragmatist/realist, and many of his policies were merely a continuation of Bush Sr's, which was a good thing of course (it doesn't surprise me that they are now the best of buddies). From what I gather, Jeb Bush is more similar to his father in that aspect.
Bill Mahrer had a great program on Friday night. He showed clips from approximately a dozen Fox News casters and guest all in the same day or two repeating the same mantra decrying "the criminalization of politics". Scott McClelland, too. It was hilarious. As Mahrer said it looked like they get a fax at Fox News from Karl Rove on the talking points for the day.
I have it on good authority that it's a fact, not a 'conspiracy'. Let's just say this: it's no 'coincidence'.
Hey, Hayes, how come you supported Bush Jr's war? -- when as you acknowlege: "Bush Sr. was in an infinitely better place to decide on foreign policy having been a congressman, an ambassador, the head of CIA, and Vice President" As you might know, Bush Sr. did not take over Iraq for reasons which history has so far shown to be correct.
I am able to distinguish between Bush and the policy. I am in favor of using our power to remove genocidal dictators, even when institutions like the UN don't - see Bosnia and Kosovo. That doesn't have anything to do with Bush Jr. I was in favor of action to remove us from the stalemate of containment. That doesn't have anything to do with Bush. I think some people's hatred of all things Dubya doesn't allow them to objectively assess a policy that may come from the current government. Just as I think Republicans should have supported the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and the Kyoto Treaty - even though they distained Clinton. Its something you've never been able to grasp: I don't like Bush, don't think he's smart, don't think he's a good president. That DOES NOT mean that every policy that comes from his administration is unlikeable, stupid, or bad. Sr. didn't remove Saddam because he was worried it would break up the coalition at the time (specifically that the Arab nations would throw a hissy fit). That doesn't mean he didn't WANT to overthrow Saddam - as exemplified by his call for the Shiites and Kurds to rise up. I think Bush Sr. would have done a better job executing the intervention - more troops, don't disband the Iraqi army, larger coalition, etc.
It's alway hard to decide between younger bush and older bush. Every tends to think younger is better but older bush has the experience.
I can't join any Bush Senior love-fest. He may have been a far better President than his son, not hard at all to do, but what George H. W. Bush did to the people of Iraq was unspeakable. He called on them to rise up and overthrow Saddam, and then left them hanging out to dry, causing thousands of needless deaths, injuries, and imprisonments. That bit of foreign policy was cold blooded and, in it's own way, as bad as the man Junior went to such lengths to overthrow. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
That was pure cold blooded 'realism' for you. No doubt about it. Neoconservatism may step in some **** by acting, but it isn't nearly as immoral as what realism does, IMO.
Hayes, and the neocons.Just a bunch of Mother of Theresa moralists. Nice try! That's chutzpah! Now the warmongerers are the only one with morals. It sort of reminds me of when Reagan called his new missiles "the peace keepers". We're in Animal Farm territory.
