theloniusfleabag Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 It sees that recently a number of high ranking officials have bailed recently from the second term of Pres. Bush. there is also a tremendous split between the CIA and the administration. Partly, fresh blood is not new to new administrations. However, I suspect that these changes are largely to do with the famous "you are with us or you are against us" speech. This seems to include whether or not one is willing to blindly support outright lies in pursuit of a president's agenda or not. It seems Powell and the CIA are not. Rice and Rumsfeld, no questioning what a loyal dog will do for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted December 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Further to the above, I have begun reading "The Politics of Truth, Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity" by Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Evidently, Wilson was the one that de-bunked the myth that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. In retaliation, Carl Rove declared "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game". The sanctity of anonymity in the CIA is paramount. This, and the trust between the CIA and the Bush admin., has been shattered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Do you expect them to leave two months before the election rather than a month after? This is standard in the US. Remember Warren Christopher? (Warren who?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted December 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Dear August1991, This is standard in the US. Remember Warren Christopher?Departures are standard. The scale and breadth of these many departures is unprecedented.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4131639.stm The CIA does not historically lose 6 senior officials in such a short time. Pres. Bush knowingly misrepresented CIA info in his justification of the Iraq war. Those that criticized him for doing so have been punished or are gone, with the CIA and US intelligence headed in a 'new direction', away from worrying about truth or fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 it would seem to me that the 'moderates' are leaving (read: Powell especially) and are being replaced by Bush's inner circle of supporters (read: Gonzalez / Rice) who tote his neo Christian Conservative agenda like bad suits on sales guys. He is surrounding himself with those that espouse his mentality(?) and ideals. make no bones, you are going to see some scary stuff from a right wing christian whacko perspective in the next four years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I miss Reagan Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 make no bones, you are going to see some scary stuff from a right wing christian whacko perspective in the next four years. Intolerant liberalism at it's best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 You think? I edited my other comment out as it was childish. My apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 The changes in the Bush admin are not signs of an administration falling apart, but of one consolodating its grip on the levers of power and setting firm the course of U.S. policy towards idealogically-based aggression and militarism abroad. Heck, even conservatives are scared. At CIA, there is a new emphasis on loyalty to the president over readiness to provide objective analysis; Porter Goss will ensure that the agency provides information that the White House wants to hear. At the cabinet level, the direction is clear. Colin Powell is leaving, exhausted by his losing tussles with the Pentagon, semi-humiliated by the president. His crime was that he was right about war in Iraq, right that we needed allies and more forces for the invasion, right that postwar Iraq would be chaos and quagmire. His caution about the use of force —the Pottery Barn rule—must have irked the president every time he saw him, so better to banish him. Promoted instead are those who were consistently wrong. Rumsfeld remains, though his neocon aides “stovepiped” phony intelligence about Iraq’s WMD capacity, he botched the post invasion, and was responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture. Stephen Hadley, who “forgot” to remove the false claims about Iraq’s yellowcake purchases from the president’s 2003 State of the Union speech, is the new National Security Adviser. Condi Rice, whose TV musings about “mushroom clouds” helped frighten a nation into an unnecessary war, becomes the nation’s top diplomat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Heck, even conservatives are scared. Clicking onto the URL you provided above, the very first thing that jumped out at me was: "How inscrutable the last remaining superpower must seem to the outside world!" Do you really believe that bullshit about how the U.S. is the "last remaining superpower"? I didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 29, 2004 Report Share Posted December 29, 2004 Do you really believe that bullshit about how the U.S. is the "last remaining superpower"? Well, traditionally the term "superpowers" referred to either the U.S.A or the U.S.S.R. Since the latter doesn't exist anymore, I can't really see how one can quibble with the notion that the U.S. is the sole remaining superpower of the two. I also don't think China, the EU or Russia can be considered contenders for superpower status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceemes Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Do you really believe that bullshit about how the U.S. is the "last remaining superpower"? Well, traditionally the term "superpowers" referred to either the U.S.A or the U.S.S.R. Since the latter doesn't exist anymore, I can't really see how one can quibble with the notion that the U.S. is the sole remaining superpower of the two. I also don't think China, the EU or Russia can be considered contenders for superpower status. It all depends on how you define the term "Super Power". If you consider that having numerous nuclear weapons and ICMB to deliver them to any point on earth qualifies a nation to be Super Power, then Russia still rates, as does the UK and France. If you consider economic power to be the qualifier, then both the EU and China rate. If you consider both to quailfiers, then again both China and the EU rate. It all depends on how you parse the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear ceemes, (and Black Dog) A couple of years ago, (just after Russia and the Berlin Wall officially crumbled) the USA declared 'global military superiority' and that "no other nation would be allowed, to not just match them, but to even come close". I am assuming that this is what Black Dog refers to with the term 'superpower'. The ability and the will to maintain a heavily funded and manned military presence throughout the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 There is no such thing as a superpower any more. Nuclear power is the great equalizer and it requires no vast arsenal to be as powerful as any other. While there is more than one nation with nuclear capabilities, then there is no preponderance of power only an excess of capacity. Everything comes back to ground war. There, as the US should have learnes, but has not yet, America is not a superpower. China or India have the potential to become the dominant land powers but will never be able to use the powerwhile there are WMDs. Vietnam and Iraq should have cured the US of its hubris but it seems to be a very slow learner. There is a political adage that says; " A Great Power should always be prepared to fight a Great War but, if it wants to remain a Great Power, it should not fight one." America has not learned that truism and its greatness is fading. It does not have the capacity to intervene around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 If you consider that having numerous nuclear weapons and ICMB to deliver them to any point on earth qualifies a nation to be Super Power, then Russia still rates, as does the UK and France. That's EXACTLY what I considered. And considering that Russia and the USA a few years back agreed to now hoard precisely the same number of nuclear weapons, they are equally qualified for Super Power status. The UK and France have so few of these babies, they're not even on the radar. Now, China .... THERE'S the country to worry about, because nobody really knows how many they have. We know it's many, but how many .... THAT'S what everybody's afraid to ask. And that's why I hope that George Bush and Vladimir Putin stay partners, allies and friends for a long long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 There is no such thing as a superpower any more. Nuclear power is the great equalizer and it requires no vast arsenal to be as powerful as any other. While there is more than one nation with nuclear capabilities, then there is no preponderance of power only an excess of capacity.Everything comes back to ground war. There, as the US should have learnes, but has not yet, America is not a superpower. China or India have the potential to become the dominant land powers but will never be able to use the powerwhile there are WMDs. Politically, economically, and militarily, the United States is the world's most powerful country. No other country has the ability to project its power around the globe in the way the U.S. is capable. Russia, even at it's peak Soviet-era power, was always several steps behind the U.S. in terms of economy and technology. The same holds true for China today, though it is rapidly modernizing. The EU is a collective body, not a single power and is only as strong as the will of its member states. Nuclear weapons are but one piece of the puzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Lets get back on topic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/4105229.stm And Pastor Johnson took a call on his mobile phone from a political insider about making sure the right man becomes the next Ohio governor - in other words, someone who shares the values of Pastor Johnson. These are the type of people who King George will be surrounding himself with, and make no mistake there is no rift, just gentle spacing going on. Gay rights, right to life, capital punishment.... Lets see were he goes with these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 No other country has the ability to project its power around the globe in the way the U.S. is capable. Are they projecting their power now? It is one thing to tango with Afghanistan, Iraq etc., it is another to boogie with the Chinese or Ruskies. Soo, what do you think would happen if China wanted to boogie? WOULD WE WIN? WOULD WE WIN? I hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Dear greyhound, Are they projecting their power now?They always are, in one form or another.It is one thing to tango with Afghanistan, Iraq etc., it is another to boogie with the Chinese or Ruskies.Soo, what do you think would happen if China wanted to boogie? The idea of MAD applied to the USSR, and now to a certain degree China. The idea of being a 'superpower' is to have that capability as a deterrent from anyone considering 'getting up on the dance floor'. The only conflict the USA and China might have is over Taiwanese independence. The USA recently aquiesced over recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, mainly to keep China a 'happy trading partner'. I don't think we''ll see them 'dance' anytime soon, but who knows. The USA is providing Taiwan with a lot of military hardware, but if China decides to invade, I doubt the US will 'get up and boogie' without the say-so of the treasury dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Dear greyhound, The USA recently aquiesced over recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, mainly to keep China a 'happy trading partner'. Well as long as they keep on aquiescing to their hearts' desires to keep China happy we're safe, I guess. Thanks, dear theloniusfleabag, I feel much better now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleBear Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 "This seems to include whether or not one is willing to blindly support outright lies in pursuit of a president's agenda or not. It seems Powell and the CIA are not." Folks, it's time to wake up and realize, once and for all, that COLIN POWELL IS ONE OF THEM. I had that jackass pegged nearly a decade ago when he publicly supported a derelict ex-general who became superintendent of the school district I worked for - and wrecked it, just as George W. Bush is wrecking America. I agree with the posters who say Bush is simply replacing moderates with his hired guns. This is scary stuff, and things could very well come to a head. Bush has made too many enemies and done too many stupid things. He may have to start another war just to divert attention from the domestic holocaust he's unleasing on the United States. With the European Union, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Latin America all flexing their muscles, I suspect President Dumbass may be feeling a little hot under the collar. All I can is the morons who voted for Bush - along with the liberals who STILL aren't scraping together a credible resistance - deserve whatever Bush brings down on them during his second illegal term in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted December 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Dear greyhound, Well as long as they keep on aquiescing to their hearts' desires to keep China happy we're safe, I guess.After the Tiananmen Square debacle, "congress imposed sanctions against China. Pres. G.H.W. Bush secretly sent an emmisary in July to meet with China's political leaders; he acts in December to veto a bill that would extend the visas of some 40,000 chinese students in the United States and waives some congressional sanctions." source of quote: "The People's Chronology" by James Trager, 1992. Pres. Bush Sr. actually rewarded China for crushing democracy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 The CIA does not historically lose 6 senior officials in such a short time. Pres. Bush knowingly misrepresented CIA info in his justification of the Iraq war. Those that criticized him for doing so have been punished or are gone, with the CIA and US intelligence headed in a 'new direction', away from worrying about truth or fact.The CIA has been undergoing major changes in the past 10 or 15 years, accelerating in the past few years. The primary focus has had to shift from the Soviet Union to a nebulous security threat. There were serious errors in not predicting the September 2001 attacks.On this one, I think Bush and the politicians are ahead of the bureaucrats. Politically, economically, and militarily, the United States is the world's most powerful country. No other country has the ability to project its power around the globe in the way the U.S. is capable.The only power the US president possesses is military. The US president can order the military into action anywhere. No other world leader has that kind of power. (I don't mean nuclear weapons either since those are merely the power to obliterate. I'm referring to cruise missiles and soldiers on the ground. The US president can now order the capture of any leader anywhere in the world - from Saddam to Noriega.)Economic power? In the US, it is dispersed among literally millions of people. It is impossible to coordinate such power in any meaningful way. Cultural power? Same thing. No single committee or funding agency decides American culture. Political power? I don't know what is meant. If it is the power to pass laws or regulations, this is primarily a concern for ordinary Americans since they are most affected. The US Constitution limits severely such political power of the president and the federal congress. I think it is fair to argue that we have never known a world where economic, political and cultural power was so diffused. As to military power, the significant fact is that the Soviet Union no longer exists to limit the US president's actions. The UN is no longer a constraint either. At present, it appears that the only limit on the US president's military power is the US Congress. (Maybe at least some major foreign military allies are required too.) This is all to the good. The world as a whole benefits from the drafters of the US constitution. Consider, for a moment, what a world dominated by Canada or the Soviet Union would be like. PM PM has far more autocratic powers than any US president. The idea that the Politburo would dominate the world is horrific. The US is a product of the Enlightenment and we are all children of the Enlightenment. So, draw your own conclusion about who we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 August... Sept 11 was predicted by the various Intelligence communities and the President was given a brief, I believe Ms Rice said in her testimony to the 9/11 Commission that it was entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike with Aircraft" or something along those lines.... GW dropped the ball pure and simple. Course he may have been distracted what with all that brush that needed clearing in Crawford.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 At present, it appears that the only limit on the US president's military power is the US Congress. (Maybe at least some major foreign military allies are required too.)This is all to the good. The world as a whole benefits from the drafters of the US constitution. I think you would find citizens of many countries (including Canada) that would disagree, Allowing one nutcase to control that kind of military powers is very dangerous when they do not abide international law as Bush has and is doing. I think you would find many Americans that are not comfortable with this kind of power when it is used for aggression rather than defense such as is now the case with Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.