Supportive Bush?

[SonomaCat]

Which is why it would have been nice if Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush hadn't fired/silenced all of the military folks (including Powell, who at least had a little experience in the area) who were trying to tell them the right way to do things.

Why is everyone convinced that Secretary Powell was fired? Is it possible that he just decided that since 40 or so years of his life was given to his country, now he wants to spend some time with his wife, kids and grandchildren?

He pretty much let it be known that he would be interested in staying if they wanted him to and if they would accept his input, and he was essentially told to go away. I don't have that on first-hand knowledge, but that's the prevailing wisdom around D.C. I guess we'll have to wait for his tell-all book (which would be very interesting, I'm sure) to find out the full story.

['93HonoluluCat]

BAC wrote:
He pretty much let it be known that he would be interested in staying if they wanted him to and if they would accept his input, and he was essentially told to go away. I don't have that on first-hand knowledge, but that's the prevailing wisdom around D.C.

I would be very interested to hear what source you have for that, BAC, especially since Powell himself has said that he only planned on one term as our most senior diplomat:

Powell said Bush accepted the resignation Friday, adding, "It has always been my intention that I would serve one term."

(The entire article can be found here.)

[SonomaCat]

BAC wrote:
He pretty much let it be known that he would be interested in staying if they wanted him to and if they would accept his input, and he was essentially told to go away. I don't have that on first-hand knowledge, but that's the prevailing wisdom around D.C.

I would be very interested to hear what source you have for that, BAC, especially since Powell himself has said that he only planned on one term as our most senior diplomat:

Powell said Bush accepted the resignation Friday, adding, "It has always been my intention that I would serve one term."

(The entire article can be found here.)

Well, the article that you link to for one makes it pretty clear that Bush showed no interest in having him stay on board. I'm not sure how blunt of a message they had to send him -- not asking him to come back was a pretty direct one. Of course, as with every "resignation," there will be the gratuitious goodwill statements about "spending more time with family, only intended to be here this long, blah, blah, blah." That's PR 101. It's cliche. It just shows that Colin departed as he came in, a team player.

For another interesting article on the theory behind his dismissal:

http://slate.com/id/2109772

[El_Gato]

Does anyone think that maybe Powell resigned to prepare for a run at the White House in 2008?

['93HonoluluCat]

Well, the article that you link to for one makes it pretty clear that Bush showed no interest in having him stay on board. I'm not sure how blunt of a message they had to send him -- not asking him to come back was a pretty direct one. Of course, as with every "resignation," there will be the gratuitious goodwill statements about "spending more time with family, only intended to be here this long, blah, blah, blah." That's PR 101. It's cliche. It just shows that Colin departed as he came in, a team player.

I don't buy into the speculation of what he "really meant" when he explained his resignation. We would be better served not to put words in his mouth--or anyone else's for that matter.

I also don't think the relationship in the Cabinet Room was as bad as described by the Slate article for which you provided the link, and elsewhere. I can find links to articles that would describe the environment of the Cabinet Room less hostile than the Slate does. Regardless, there will always be differences of opinion--heck, that's what provides most of the posts on this board--but to call the differences of opinion enough to alienate professionals; well, I don't think we can prove anything without first-hand information.

[SonomaCat]

An interesting op-ed today that lines up with what I was saying about Rumsfeld. The Washington Post requires a log-in, so I have to post the full text:

The Defense Secretary We Have

By William Kristol
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,


Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.

[El_Gato]

...If you don't really want people to make that comparison then come up with all the differnces and show how they outweight what is common between the two.

The point I'M trying to make, iaa, is that these types of BS comparisons could undoubtedly be done with ANY 2 historical figures of your choice. YOU could probably argue that Hitler & Jesus Christ had a lot in common, if you really wanted to. Comparing Bush to Hitler is NOT meant as a true intellectual exercise; it is meant as an attack and an insult! The fact that you continue to try to defend it as a legitimate comparison is BS, pure & simple.

Quit trying to disguise your contempt for our President, iaa; you're not fooling anyone & I really don't think you truly WANT to fool any of us. It's obvious you (and a few others here) despise W and that's fine, that's your right as an American citizen. But please stop trying to "legitimize" your attacks and your insults; try using SPECIFIC, CURRENT issues to explain your displeasure with the man, rather than this mindless "Bush is Satan" dribble. Your legitimate points (if you have any) get drowned out by your "theatrics"; in other words, when you start out by telling me Bush is Hitler, I'm pretty sure you lose MOST of the audience you are trying to reach.

[SonomaCat]

Well, the article that you link to for one makes it pretty clear that Bush showed no interest in having him stay on board. I'm not sure how blunt of a message they had to send him -- not asking him to come back was a pretty direct one. Of course, as with every "resignation," there will be the gratuitious goodwill statements about "spending more time with family, only intended to be here this long, blah, blah, blah." That's PR 101. It's cliche. It just shows that Colin departed as he came in, a team player.

I don't buy into the speculation of what he "really meant" when he explained his resignation. We would be better served not to put words in his mouth--or anyone else's for that matter.

I also don't think the relationship in the Cabinet Room was as bad as described by the Slate article for which you provided the link, and elsewhere. I can find links to articles that would describe the environment of the Cabinet Room less hostile than the Slate does. Regardless, there will always be differences of opinion--heck, that's what provides most of the posts on this board--but to call the differences of opinion enough to alienate professionals; well, I don't think we can prove anything without first-hand information.

Well, we can't prove anything to the standard of a criminal trial or anything, but the anecdotal evidence sure seems to suggest that the White House didn't want him back, and that it was probably due to the fact that he dissented a bit too much with the guys running the show. There's nothing wrong with that on its face -- that's the kind of decision the President's men get to make when they win an election.

Woodward's book was based largely on his interviews with Powell, and the following blurb about the book from the WaPo seems to suggest that maybe the relationship between Powell and others was a bit strained:

Woodward describes a relationship between Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact.

Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. The vice president, for his part, believed Powell was mainly concerned with his own popularity and told friends at a dinner he hosted a year ago celebrating the outcome of the war that Powell was a problem and "always had major reservations about what we were trying to do."

Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there "you're going to be owning this place." Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called "the Pottery Barn rule" on Iraq: "You break it, you own it," according to Woodward.

But, when asked personally by the president, Powell agreed to make the U.S. case against Hussein at the United Nations in February 2003, a presentation described by White House communications director Dan Bartlett as "the Powell buy-in." Bush wanted someone with Powell's credibility to present the evidence that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, a case the president had initially found less than convincing when presented to him by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin at a White House meeting on Dec. 21, 2002.

McLaughlin's version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence. "Nice try," Bush said when the CIA official was finished, according to the book. "I don't think this quite -- it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin's boss, and said, "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we've got?"

"It's a slam-dunk case," Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. "George, how confident are you?"

"Don't worry, it's a slam dunk," Tenet repeated.

Tenet later told associates he should have said the evidence on weapons was not ironclad, according to Woodward. After the CIA director made a rare public speech in February defending the CIA's handling of intelligence about Iraq, Bush called him to say he had done "a great job."

[iaafan]

Sorry for attaching this because it is so long, but it kind of explains the constructive nature of Bush-Hitler. It isn't so much that I'm trying to bash Hitler, rather to make people aware that he is (maybe just was now) on that path. The more he is aware that we are aware, the less likely he'll continue in that direction. Maybe.

Bush-Hitler Comparison
A lot of Bush supporters have expressed outrage over moveon.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" project, specifically with two entries that compared Bush with Hitler. Matt Drudge made a big to-do abpout it on his site, with many other pro-Bush sites following suit, all aghast that anyone could compare the two men. I've seen comparisons floating over the internet for over two years now, so it shouldn't have come as a shock. I am glad Drudge made a stink because thousands of outraged Republicans scoured the internet in search of the offensive videos, which means that thousands of Republicans saw two commercials showing the fascist parallels between the the two men. They might all still be in denial, but the important thing is that the seed was planted in their mind. If Drudge wasn't such a Republican suck up, I would almost think that this was his intention all along.

People want to say that Bush is not another Hitler. I think they need to add the word "yet". Actually, Hitler was far more astute than Bush. Hitler built up the German economy. Under Bush, we have lost 3,000,000 jobs in three years. Hitler's popularity was real, as opposed to the fabricated polls that keep telling us Bush is doing a great job. I have to say, I don't see many flags or signs that say "I support President Bush and our troops" in many neighborhoods, and I live in the guy's home state. With all the resignations from political appointees in his adminsitration, I am guessing that not even many Republicans support the guy.

Still, the parallels between Germany society post Reichstag and the United States post 9-11 are eerily similar and grow stronger with each passing day. Bush hasn't achived full dictator status yet, but all it take is one event and a bunch of paniced sheep. Another strike on American soil is of no benefit to a foreign terrorist. It will, however, benefit Bush. If someone really wanted to damage the American elite, would it not have made more sense (and saved time and money) to have carpet bombed the Cayman Islands? Just think of all the money and hidden assets that would have disapearred. And anthrax. If the anthrax attacks were from a foreign terror group, wouldn't they have struck the headquarters at Halliburton and Bechtel? Wouldn't that be a simple and fairly inexpensive way to shut down a war machine? Why target Leahy? Who benefits?

It's the Reichstag factor of 9/11 that has generated comparisons between Bush and Hitler.

I came across a letter to the editor on Truth Out called "The Bush Hitler Thing." The letter is written by a woman whose family members were victims of Hitler's regime. The author spoke to many people growing up, always asking, "How could this have happened? How could you remain silent." She repeats the answers given to her in her letter to Truth Out.

On the comparison of Hitler and Bush she says:



So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies.

There are too many Americans who say, "It could never happen here. This is America." Well, it's happening now. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. This is why I believe that the negative publicity of the infamous Bush-Hitler commercials is a good thing. At least we have a chance to stop this madman before it gets worse. But if we close our eyes to the past and the present, then history will certainly repeat itself. What are you going to do then?

[jagur1]

wow this board has sunk to a new low.

[SonomaCat]

I have to take exception to the Bush/Hitler thing as well... along with nearly everyone else, it appears. I don't think it is hard to draw analogies between people if you isolate certain character or leadership traits, and then run with it. In the strictest sense, you might be making a rational comparison.

However, anytime anyone compares anyone else to Hitler, they are not intending the effect to be based on a rational comparison/contrast of minor points about their leadership styles. When one invokes Hitler's name, they are doing so to associate that person with the image of the most vile, deranged, genocidal maniac of modern history.

Bush isn't a meth-addicted manic depressant anti-semitic lunatic bent on wiping out a whole race of people from the face of the earth. As that what Hitler is best known for, any comparisons between him and Bush are unfair, at best, and disgusting by most standards.

One could probably also find ways to draw a thin analogy between, say, John Kerry and Joseph Stalin (both were in favor of a greater role of government in health care than our current system, they could say). That, too, would be an unfair statement, as the legacy of Stalin that a person making such a derogatory comparison would be invoking would not be one of subtle policy preferences -- they would be trying to smear Kerry with the infamous legacy of the brutal dictator that was Stalin.

[SonomaCat]

Incidentally, it is groups like moveon.org that are killing the Democratic party. They are essentially the mouthpiece of the faction of the Democrats who seem intent on proving that their wacko element is just as frightening, or even more so, than the wackos on the extreme right.

It seems like there is a battle going on to see which fringe element of the respective parties can scare away the moderates the quickest. Arguments like Bush/Hitler go a long ways towards pushing moderates to the Republican side of the ledger.

It's not a coincidence that the DNC tries to distance itself from that element.

[iaafan]

You'll all be relieved to know that I've decided to stop Bush-bashing. I admit it's a little passe. "You don't have 'iaafan' to kick around anymore." Well, at least not for a while.

[velochat]

Hitler was meth addict?

[SonomaCat]

Hitler was meth addict?

Well, he used meth a lot, at least according to one of the History Channel (or maybe it was on HBO) shows I watched (and you have to assume that he was addicted if he used it daily, as they suggested). It was pretty commonly used by troops in WWII as pep pills -- I think it was actually a part of the army-issued packages they carried. It was commonly used in the states during that same period as a diet pill. That was before people figured out how nasty it really was.

In the spirit of "This is not based on personal experience, so I can't verify that it is true, but it probably is..." I have talked to people who have done meth (one accidentally), and they say that it basically makes you wide awake for a very long time, and totally kills your appetite, so that fits with the desired effects that the show I watched suggested.