Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
I don't know if you are kidding or not, but there are plenty of people in government in both parties who are very well respected on both sides of the aisle. For example, there are people in the Iraq Study Group such as Baker(R) and Warner(D) who are very well respected by both sides.
The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2.
You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided.
So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle.
|
Uh, Rupert, we werent talking about right NOW. We were talking about 2001. This was the quote I replied to:
I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled.
Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration.
Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom?
Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad.
What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.