And speaking of pols shooting other pols...

wrote in newsq84l21iu2e9h1udmbhdot0rfpv1mku66f@
4ax.com:

Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job.

Hopefully, whoever ends up in the position will do a good job. That said,
given the situation, putting a career spook up for the civilian leadership
of the Pentagon with the current CIA role in the "questioning" of prisoners
in the national disgrace that Gitmo has become, not to mention a new
attempt at hiring one of his dad's old buddies, is a very strange thing to
do in this situation. It's almost like Bush is trying to bring things to a
head as quickly as possible, and I'm anxiously awaiting the DemocratIC
(maybe we can add the "IC" back on now!) response. My suspicion is that
the Dems will hold out the olive leaf, and seat him. Anything else might
look ungracious-- maybe Bush is taking advantage of this possible "new
honeymoon"-- but expect a rigorous hearing nonetheless.

Schwartzkopf would have been interesting. Powell would have been an
interesting choice as well, clearly conveying an attitude of national
reconciliation without actually putting a Democrat in the slot. Lieberman
would have been even more interesting, given the earlier rumors, and you
could almost envision a decision process deciding not offer him the job
last week because of his now critical Senate role.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

/daytripper

On 8 Nov 2006 19:01:50 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in newsq84l21iu2e9h1udmbhdot0rfpv1mku66f@
4ax.com:

Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job.

Hopefully, whoever ends up in the position will do a good job. That said,
given the situation, putting a career spook up for the civilian leadership
of the Pentagon with the current CIA role in the "questioning" of prisoners
in the national disgrace that Gitmo has become, not to mention a new
attempt at hiring one of his dad's old buddies, is a very strange thing to
do in this situation. It's almost like Bush is trying to bring things to a
head as quickly as possible, and I'm anxiously awaiting the DemocratIC
(maybe we can add the "IC" back on now!) response. My suspicion is that
the Dems will hold out the olive leaf, and seat him. Anything else might
look ungracious-- maybe Bush is taking advantage of this possible "new
honeymoon"-- but expect a rigorous hearing nonetheless.

Gates was an analyst, and generally, pretty well respected by objective
people. He, IMO, just isn't the best choice for a wartime Sec. As to
what them Dems might do, there's not really any way to claim, again,
objectively, that he is not qualified, only that, as I have,
subjectively, there are better choices. His connections to Bush, Sr.,
really isn't an issue.

Schwartzkopf would have been interesting.

Powell would have been an interesting choice as well,
clearly conveying an attitude of national reconciliation without
actually putting a Democrat in the slot.

"Interesting?" Almost certainly, except not in a good way. Powell
simply isn't qualified, and frankly, doesn't have what it takes to do
what will need to be done. Schwarzkopf and Honore do, and to do so
without being unnecessarily brutal about it.

TC,
R

daytripper wrote:
The right guy is Colin Powell.

I'd say the right guy *was* Colin Powell; but that was before that UN
fairy tale shredded his credibility. I'd be surprised if he'd touch
another BushCo appointment with a barge pole.

Joe F.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:17:14 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

He *is* the right guy, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is
in fact the misinformation campaign of which he was more victim than
co-conspirator.

I don't believe the American people feel poorly about him, and once the
"bygones" hand-shaking got out of the way, I truly believe he'd be a major
unifying force in solving the incredible problem Bush's puppeteers have gotten
the USA into, without continuing to throw young Americans on the fire.

There really *was* a good damned reason why Bush the Senior didn't take
Hussein off the count...

/daytripper

wrote in newska4l2hr177gcb26vkv43fg8c8gsb7sm78@
4ax.com:

Gates was an analyst, and generally, pretty well respected by objective
people. He, IMO, just isn't the best choice for a wartime Sec. As to
what them Dems might do, there's not really any way to claim, again,
objectively, that he is not qualified, only that, as I have,
subjectively, there are better choices. His connections to Bush, Sr.,
really isn't an issue.

Its an attitude thing. Bush surrounded himself with all these cold
warriors, and its been causing him problems. Now, he's replacing a cold
warrior with another cold warrior. He was tight with many who were
directly involved in Iran Contra. Plus the CIA is sort of a raw topic
among democrats these days. The plus is that he's part of the Baker team.
It really seems to be an odd choice, though, given that this is really
Bush's very first decision that can impact how he gets on as a minority
lame duck.

The only problem with Schwartzkopf and Honore (and Powell too, for that
matter, but I think his stint at State fixes things a little) is that folks
tend to shy away from putting a military man up for Civilian head. It's
almost like a mini check/balance that people want to maintain, whether good
or bad.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote in message
...
On 8 Nov 2006 10:12:22 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
but there's no sensible person who could
honestly and seriously claim his "stupid" remarks were an intentional
slap at troops

So when Bush and the wingnut talking heads used that remark *against*
Kerry, they were being dishonest? I'm shocked, shocked.


And I'd offer that those decent Dems might wish to compare those who
dumped Kerry with those that dumped Lieberman and those who might have
be involved in sending Obama to stump for Ford.

And I'd offer that you're transparent attempts to foment acrimony
within the Dem ranks are especially lame.

Er, you suspect that posting to ROFF would be a useful tool to "foment
acrimony within the Dem ranks?" You really do need to retune your
tinfoil, Gracie...

You think "useful tool" is a synonym for "transparent attempt"?

Hee, hee, hee.

Wolfgang
if the boy spins any faster he's going to drill a deep hole in the ground
and/or set himself on fire. fun.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:32:31 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:17:14 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:07:51 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:44:06 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:02:01 -0500, daytripper
wrote:

Rumsfeld is thrown on the barbie.

/daytripper (spin *that* ;-)

Nothing to spin. He's gone, and that's that. Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job. I'd offer others might be a better
choice, particularly Schwarzkopf or perhaps Honore, but time will tell.

TC,
R

The right guy is Colin Powell.

Er, no. See my reply to Scott. Powell isn't qualified, and IAC, he's
burned WAY too many bridges with WAY too many bureaucrats of all
political leanings.

TC,
R

/daytripper

He *is* the right guy, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is
in fact the misinformation campaign of which he was more victim than
co-conspirator.

Er, what? He's decent enough guy, at least as people generally go, but
he's a long-time military "yes man" and IMO, not particularly suited or
qualified for the job.

I don't believe the American people feel poorly about him,

No, they don't, and no real reason they should, as far as him as a
person.

and once the
"bygones" hand-shaking got out of the way, I truly believe he'd be a major
unifying force in solving the incredible problem Bush's puppeteers have gotten
the USA into, without continuing to throw young Americans on the fire.

Not IMO, but hey, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla....

There really *was* a good damned reason why Bush the Senior didn't take
Hussein off the count...

That was then, not now (or three years ago).

TC,
R

/daytripper

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
wrote in news:bf74l25rl7l51olcs71gj71vi3fdse5u63@
4ax.com:

Your connecting "intelligence" with "education level" and moreso,
"college grad" is telling.

That seems to be the context of Kerry's statement in front of the college
audience he was addressing, though.

FWIW, many use the military as a way to get
a college degree,

Yes. Unfortunately, the student aid structure is such that a college
education, because of loan interest, cost a poor person considerably more
than a rich person. The army is a fantastic way for a person of little
means to pursue an education without mounting large debts.

and IAC, given the structure of the military (18-21
y.o. initial enlistment, officers with degrees, etc.), the majority of
the military wouldn't have college degrees. That doesn't make them
"stupid," or even of low intelligence.


No, it of course doesn't.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Despite the fact that we have disagreed in the past, Richard hit the mark
here.I served 8+ years as a Marine and 8 years after that am finally using
the G.I. Bill to go to school. The G.I. Bill isn't the only higher education
opportunity afforded to those that serve. There are professional advancement
programs for most branches that are not only required for promotion, but
transfer to college credits. While I was in, our base worked with the local
community college to start a degree program for NCO's. Free to the Marines
that qualified. Most service members are bright young people with the
potential for greatness. The military often serves as a transition into the
real world and provides some guidance while these kids mature enough to be
independent later in life.

Jeremy Moe