![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8 Nov 2006 19:01:50 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news ![]() 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... Dems have the House. Dems have the Senate. Well, not yet, but IAC, I'd offer that there's a good chance that rather than Dems managing to block the most-right of the GOP's legislation, it'll simply be the GOP blocking the most-left of the Dems...the mundane (i.e., the non-vote-threatening) will get done as always. They were sufficiently united to pull that off. Yeah, just keep telling yourself that... There's going to be disagreement. There are going to be power grabs. BFD. A willingness to consider differing opinions is a *quality*, not a liability IMHO. Absolutely. And which of either end of the spectrum do you think will actually do it? Cumbayah, dude. Hey, get rid of the pinheads on both sides of the aisle, and sure, why not... HTH, R Joe F. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. ![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT? Shooting the shit. | Mike Connor | Fly Fishing | 0 | November 4th, 2005 01:01 AM |
OT - On shooting cats | Jim | Fly Fishing | 12 | April 16th, 2005 10:50 PM |
Living with shooting heads | Peter Charles | Fly Fishing | 14 | July 14th, 2004 06:43 AM |
Shooting heads etc. | Mike Connor | Fly Fishing | 2 | March 4th, 2004 10:29 PM |
more on shooting | RGarri7470 | Bass Fishing | 10 | January 16th, 2004 03:30 AM |