This man is a nuts

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here is the kind of stuff that the mainstrem media was saying about the Bush foreing policy team when they first came into office. This article is from 2001:

The Bush Team Shares a Vision But Not How To Reach It
The Washington Post
September 30, 2001
By James Mann

"Suddenly, the Bush administration’s foreign policy team occupies center stage in Washington. After eight months of focus on domestic issues such as the tax cut, the nation will now be watching anxiously to see if the administration can deal with the rest of the world in a way that will prevent further attacks on American soil. Luckily, Bush’s foreign policy advisers have a remarkable record of experience to draw upon. They’re going to need it."

This is the type of thing that everyone was saying when they first came into office. That was my point. Even all my democratic friends thought Bush had a great foreign policy team.

I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I know that this is going to sound like redboarding, but i had my doubts from the start.

The experience they had was in war and not in diplomacy and never did any of them have anything to do with a rebuilding situation (although its been a long time since we have had to rebuild). How was Colin Powell qualified? He wasnt and it showed.

The foreign policy team was heavy in an agenda toward war and that is what we got.

You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You may have been right. I'm not saying that they were a great team. I'm saying that they looked like a great team to most people(myself included).

It's kind of similar to Robert Gates. Everyone is saying what a great choice he is and how qualified he is. For the most part, everyone is raving about him. He may or may not do a good job, but he certainly is not a controversial choice.

I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I really dont have an issue with Gates. He is doing mop up duty right now anyway and he cant really do anything "wrong". If he screws up, he can blame it on the mess he inherited. If he does anything marginally good, he is a hero.

The most qualified member of the original team was Richard Clarke and he was ignored and then demoted.

We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We must not be talking about the same Richard Clarke.

http://www.brookesnews.com/042903ecclewilkinson.html

Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Again, Rup, how is that link any more viable than commondreams?

It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not all that much different than commondreams but I think that many of their criticisms of Clarke are legitimate. They guy did lie. He totally changed his story. He totally changed his story and he was trying to sell a book. That certainly hurts his credibility.

By the way, with commondreams.com I've never said that everything they say is a flat out lie. Sure there are some lies but most of the things they say are half-truths and one-sided arguments. When you only hear half-truths and one-sided arguments, you are only getting half the story.

So with Richard Clarke, I'm not saying that the story I linked is the only truth or the whole story, but it is a point of view that some people have of Clarke. My point was that you may think Clarke is great but there are plenty of other people that think Clarke is a liar who has no credibilty at all. There are two sides to most things.

The credibility of clarke comes from having served under Reagan, HW Bush and Clinton. Those guys seemed to think he had credibility. For some reason, it didnt pan out with this guy when it worked with those guys. I wonder why.