Stop Loss

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper69:
Pina, I have a question though. You say the war was based on misinformation and falsehood. As President, Shrub has to be able to rely on his staff and subordinates to give him good intel. That they did not is not an indictment of Bush. Perhaps peoples anger at Bush is misplaced. W takes the heat cause he's the CEO. But I do not know of ONE CEO in a corporation of any significant size that gathers all market data by himself, does the books by himself etc.

In other words, it's not very fair to blame Bush for the failings of those he trusted to get him good information. You, me, hell, just about anyone may have made the same choices given what he was told.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If this was a case where he was purposefully being lied to and misled then you might have some valid points. I don't believe that to be the case and even if it were I have reservations.

I believe, and it is becoming increasingly believable as more and more information comes out, that he was very well aware of the "reliability" of the information that he used to support his invasion of Iraq. If he knew then it is a case of, well not to mince words, treason.

If, however, he did not know then it is a case of criminal incompetence. While we may not hold people responsible for the actions of renegade subordinates one of the basic tenets of the presidency, and corporate CEO's as well, is that responsibility rests at the top. They are tasked with bringing together and managing their teams and ultimately are responsible for ensuring that the information they recieve is correct.

The job of the president is to run the executive branch and hey, it may suck, but if you're a bad manager then you should get hung out to dry. This is "the most powerful man on the planet" and I don't think it's out of place to demand that he do his damned job and make sure that his people are good at what they do. Power and responsibility are two sides of the same coin, you don't get one without taking on the other.

To make an analogy. You're an ex-special forces guy right? Well who is held responsible for the actions of thier troops or team or squad or whatever terminology you spooky types use? You have someone not pulling their weight and you're in charge and the wrong people die because someone under your command fucks up. Who gets called on the carpet? Both of you. Them because they screwed up and you because you allowed them to screw up.

Same thing with the prez.

The buck stops there.

Quote:

---

You're an ex-special forces guy right? Well who is held responsible for the actions of thier troops or team or squad or whatever terminology you spooky types use? You have someone not pulling their weight and you're in charge and the wrong people die because someone under your command fucks up. Who gets called on the carpet? Both of you. Them because they screwed up and you because you allowed them to screw up.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have only a couple of issues with this:

1. Managing a team is infinetly easier than managing the gubment. Not making excuses but while the President may be the CinC, I believe a lot of his power is illusionary.

2. Military authority is a lot more clear and unambiguous(is that a word?) than civillian authority.

So...while it may be easy to say the buck stops with shrub, the ability to control what the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, DIA, ATF, FDA, FAA, Congress, the Pentagon et al can ONLY be managed by putting competent people in charge and hoping that they can do their jobs. When they can't then you get bad intel and make bad decisions.

Bush wouldn't be the first CEO to be snookerd by a resume'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jumper69:
So...while it may be easy to say the buck stops with shrub, the ability to control what the FBI, CIA, DEA, NSA, DIA, ATF, FDA, FAA, Congress, the Pentagon et al can ONLY be managed by putting competent people in charge and hoping that they can do their jobs. When they can't then you get bad intel and make bad decisions.

Bush wouldn't be the first CEO to be snookerd by a resume'.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe but if the president is suppossed to be the best of the best I expect damn near perfection in job performance.

When you accept the job of the person with thier finger on the button that makes the world go away I cut no slack in the performance of that job.

Sorry if that seems unfair to you but no one is drafted into the white house. They go in with eyes open and voluntarily take on the responsibility along with the power and the prestige so I have no sympathy if they can't pick good people. They have the resources to find out what you were thinking while suckling on your mama's teat, so bad resume? I don't think so. Especially in the top people who are supposed to be making damn sure that what you get, as president, is good and accurate information.

It's just not good enough to "hope" the people you pick are doing a good job. It's your job to make sure they're doing thier jobs.

Quote:

---

2. Military authority is a lot more clear and unambiguous(is that a word?) than civillian authority.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why yes, it is a word. And a very nice one at that.

Main Entry: un?am?big?u?ous
Pronunciation: "&n-am-'bi-gy&-w&s
Function: adjective
: not ambiguous : CLEAR, PRECISE
- un?am?big?u?ous?ly adverb

The most damning element in the Iraq war was Saddam Hussein. He refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors, he gave every indication he still had something to hide. Actually the only "justification" needed for the invasion was the fact that Saddam was in material breach of the accord that allowed him to remain in power after he lost the Gulf War. President Bush the elder should have never allowed him to remain in power when the war was over IMHO, but he may have bowed to Islamic pressure to not appear to be a "conquerer" and installing what other Arab nations no doubt would have claimed was a "puppet regime". Keep in mind Pina, the atrocities and killings going on today in Iraq are Saddam supporters and villainous thugs who do not want to see Iraq a free and prosperous country.

http://images.image-data.com/1/thumb...5/23405315.jpg

Quote:

---

I disagree. He believed Saddam Hussein to be hiding WMD. Hussein gave every indication he had done so. I wish President Bush had simply stated Saddam was going to be removed for material breach of the accord that ended the Gulf War. That was proven without question. Why did Saddam refuse to cooperate with weapons inspections? Very simple. If someone points a gun at you will you hope it isn't loaded or do you react as if it were?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it's fair to say Bush rode the WMD and Saddam/Al Qaeda connection as far as he could in order to gain support for invading Iraq.

I will agree that the pretty much most of the world - even those against the war in Iraq - believed Iraq possessed the weapons. So we can't blame Bush for using that argument.

On the other hand, I do think he took the anger of 9-11 and used it to carry a grudge against Hussein, and let popular misperceptions of reality carry his policies through.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ June 24, 2004 10:24 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Hussein ws a ticking time bomb, his supporters in Iraq continue to demonstrate what a dangerous and brutal regime he controlled. Capture/death of the key ringleaders causing the bombings, killings, assassinations, etc and I think the Iraqui people will be grateful the US stepped in. I think the world owes Israel a debt of gratitude for takng out Iraq's nuclear reactor back in the 1980s. Yes Pina, I know the United States supported and armed Hussein at that time but he was fighting Iran. "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic. We also armed and supported Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets for the same mindset. Maybe we need to take a closer look at whom we are willing to arm and support for short term objectives?

I don't feel like looking up right now, but a couple days ago, William Safire wrote a column on the recent 9-11 report and the lack of connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Safire asserts that the claim of lack of connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda is false. If anyone knows of the column and has access to it, please post. It's a good read.

For the record, I support the removal of Hussein and the invasion of Iraq. I admire Bush for sticking to his guns. I am, however, disgusted with the implentation. Seems like Bush was more concerned about simply doing than doing any meaningful planning about doing it right.

Quote:

---

I am, however, disgusted with the implentation. Seems like Bush was more concerned about simply doing than doing any meaningful planning about doing it right

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you may be right on that account. Seems our troops have been sent in with one hand tied behind their back for appearance sake which has allowed insurgents to attack at will. Do it right or don't do it at all....