Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[jackson33]

Look at it this way; You and your group of advisor's have a different viewpoint, than The President of the US and his advisor's. Since I do not recall your solutions to the worlds problem *Militant Islam*, I assume his solution has more merit, based on better analysis/facts and with knowledge we cannot possibly have.

[CraigD]

Craig; As the only working partner with in the teams employment, I think his authority was over everything or if nothing else any decision of his, FINAL.

Although I’m not familiar with the management structure of Texas Rangers baseball team between 1989 and 1994, I believe characterizing Bush as having had final decision making authority over everything is inaccurate. The ESPN article linked by my previous post states

Bush becomes the public face of the team, while co-general partner Rusty Rose assumes control over the financial side.

and notes later that Rose’s “escalator bonus” was only 5%, vs. Bush’s 10%. I don’t believe this description is disputed, and is repeated in multiple sources, such as this 10/17/2004 New York Times Magazine article. From my limited experience with for-profit partnerships, I believe that employees in positions such as Bush and Rose’s usually “answer to” either the majority of the partners, or a board elected by them.

 

The practice of companies employing officers as “public faces” who are popularly perceived to have more management authority than they actually do, doesn’t, to my inexpert eye, appear unusual. A well-known example is Donald Trump, who many people believe to be the executive, sole owner, or majority shareholder of the many companies either bearing his name or listing him as an officer, but in most of which he is a minority shareholder. In cases like these, the companies gain value not primarily from the officer’s work, but because the recognizable name of their officers increase their attractiveness to investors or companies with which they do business. I see no evidence that the investors group that purchased and later sold the Texas Rangers did not get their money’s worth and more from Bush’s service in this role.

[jackson33]

Craig; I do NOT, question your logic nor am I trying to claim success of the Rangers was entirely Bush's effort. I AM saying the investment, to the final sale, show signs of business success which Racoon couldn't accept. This really should not qualify a person for the presidency to begin with. The scenario may have helped get him into the governorship, but his actions and ideas which are now record, are very similar to his actions/ideas of his time in Washington. Lower taxes and big spending on the educational system, a couple.

 

For other reasons I do research Name/Face associations with a products. Many companies would not be around or at least not have the values they do, if it were not. Currently the biggest names are; Tiger Woods, Paris Hilton for international. Locals of no less importance to business have names that an area can associate with, even up to the National level.

[InfiniteNow]

Where is the substance of your argument?

Really, can you at least limit the request to a specific month or week of transgressions?

 

 

 

Okay, it's another week, so I suppose it's time to offer another transgression. It was a real toss-up, as the whole "Executive Privilege" story is really hot today.

 

Really? Preventing people from testifying on documents, and emails being deleted, then found, but not shared regarding the politically based terminations in the judicial department... Not very transparent for something about which they claim they did nothing wrong. However, maybe that one will be next week? For now...

 

 

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

 

The Bush administration has failed to fill roughly a quarter of the top leadership posts at the Department of Homeland Security, creating a "gaping hole" in the nation's preparedness for a terrorist attack or other threat, according to a congressional report to be released today.

 

As of May 1, Homeland Security had 138 vacancies among its top 575 positions, with the greatest voids reported in its policy, legal and intelligence sections, as well as in immigration agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard. The vacant slots include presidential, senior executive and other high-level appointments, according to the report by the majority staff of the House Homeland Security Committee.

 

<...>

 

"One of the continuing problems appears to be the over politicization of the top rank of Department management," concludes the report by the committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.). "This could lead to heightened vulnerability to terrorist attack."

 

<...>

 

Of the 138 vacant positions, the DHS provided no explanation for 70, according to the House report. Seven others had tentative or pending appointees and 60 were under recruitment.

 

The department currently has 130 vacancies at senior levels, Knocke said, with 92 now in the process of recruitment.

 

<...>

 

But, [Virgina Republican] Davis added: "This is an area where you can't afford to have these vacancies. The American people are counting on the administration to have these positions filled. This is our first line of defense in the fight against terrorism.

 

 

Seriously, it was like you were asking me to type the complete works of Shakespeare, Bill. One week at a time mate. :)

[jackson33]

First; There are some 300 current investigations under way instigated by Congress since the power change and most directed at the administration.

 

Second; The Bush administration, has NOT denied access to his advisor's or the documents requested. They are offered, but not for a public forum. This is the usual procedure when *separations* of powers are in jeopardy.

 

Third; The people *RELIEVED* of duty, not fired, where serving the administration, were appointed by the administration and subject to the administration wishes.

 

On vacancies of high level management in the Government, you need to notice the conditions which exist. You have an administration, which is going to be gone totally in a 18 months and for all practical purpose much sooner. You have a shortage of qualified for the same jobs in all the States own HS. You have every major Corporation, complaining of available labor and in fact their own management positions.

[InfiniteNow]

First; There are some 300 current investigations under way instigated by Congress since the power change and most directed at the administration.

Why is Congress investigating investigations?

 

 

Second; The Bush administration, has NOT denied access to his advisor's or the documents requested. They are offered, but not for a public forum.

This is counter to what I've been exposed to. Please provide a source.

 

 

Third; The people *RELIEVED* of duty, not fired, where serving the administration, were appointed by the administration and subject to the administration wishes.

Potato, Po-tot-oe...

 

On vacancies of high level management in the Government, you need to notice the conditions which exist.

So it's okay for the "the terrorists are going to murder our children" crowd to use this argument everywhere else, but as soon as they cannot get the staff in place to help protect us you turn your argument to, "Listen, we're really really busy, and nobody wants to work for the government. It's not our fault..."

 

You have an administration, which is going to be gone totally in a 18 months and for all practical purpose much sooner. You have a shortage of qualified for the same jobs in all the States own HS. You have every major Corporation, complaining of available labor and in fact their own management positions.

 

Your point?

 

 

Just the facts, ma'am. :doh:

[jackson33]

1- Its called pay-back, for what was perceived done to Clinton. Also called a political season, where for some reason the target seems to be some one not eligible to even run for re-election.

 

2- Any Newscast, giving the complete story. The latest was *Tony Snow on Fox News 7:30 EDT, 7/10/07*.

 

3- So long as the issue is claimed some how, illegal, I will say the same....

 

 

The terrorist are going to kill, I suppose even in the US, but are doing so daily around the world.

 

Not every American, will serve their country, especially in todays climate of mistrust/misunderstanding of government itself. Take away the long term incentive and those that would or have will not join a workforce which management will change in a short time. Maybe to an extreme...

[InfiniteNow]

Second; The Bush administration, has NOT denied access to his advisor's or the documents requested. They are offered, but not for a public forum.

This is counter to what I've been exposed to. Please provide a source.

2- Any Newscast, giving the complete story. The latest was *Tony Snow on Fox News 7:30 EDT, 7/10/07*.

I also sometimes enjoy works of fiction, but this week my fiction library is pigeon-holed more toward Harry Potter than Fox News.

 

So, I am still curious who is making up this story that the administration is freely sharing documents, which you claimed above, as I didn't even find this at the reference you yourself provided.

 

 

Here's some info from a source that is arguably more objective, and which is clearly counter to what you've stated:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/washington/10attorneys.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

President Bush invoked a broad interpretation of executive privilege on Monday in his confrontation with Congress over the dismissal of federal prosecutors, refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and blocking testimony from former White House aides.

 

Mr. Bush’s counsel, Fred F. Fielding, in a combative letter to the Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, said the White House and the two legislative panels had reached an impasse. The letter, which also said the White House would refuse to turn over materials explaining Mr. Bush’s legal claims, appeared to place the executive and legislative branches on a collision course.

 

Mr. Fielding wrote that Mr. Bush would not turn over any records related to the dismissals and that he had instructed Sara M. Taylor, the former White House political director, and Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, to refuse to testify in hearings this week.

 

 

Do you really believe what you post sir, or is just an unconscious tendency of placing misinformation in hopes of further confusing those who won't follow-up with their own research?

[jackson33]

As I have said, Bush will allow the people and records on the issue, be questioned; BUT NOT IN A PUBLIC FORUM. Can you imagine what would happen if in an investigation of even criminal activity, the FBI were to raid a Congressional Office, or that the White House requested information on how a determination of Congress was made. Maybe Congress should just start calling in all the Supreme Court Justices and just get rid of the whole separation idea....

 

Yes. my post was accurate with regards to intent, yours the fallacy inferring this Administration is NOT cooperating in any way...NOT TRUE...

[InfiniteNow]

As I have said, Bush will allow the people and records on the issue, be questioned; BUT NOT IN A PUBLIC FORUM.

I believe you exaggerate sir.

 

Not in a public forum. No records can be kept. They can leave at any time for any reason. They will not be placed under oath.

 

Wow. That's one beauty of a legal system right there mate.

 

Yes. my post was accurate with regards to intent, yours the fallacy inferring this Administration is NOT cooperating in any way...NOT TRUE...

I did not say say "in any way," so this sir is a straw man.

 

 

I believe that nicotine is not addictive.

[jackson33]

My comment said, 'inference", which stands...(Cooperation)

 

Correct, no minutes/records kept. Any presidential aid/adviser/department head, must have the freedom to express an opinion w/o someday being prosecuted for that opinion. Any president must protect that right even to the perceived ridicule of the public. Separations of powers, is vital and well laid out in the Constitution.

[InfiniteNow]

That's where we differ. Me? I'd rather hear an honest opinion and make a decision on what that opinion entails after the fact... than hear a false opinion given under the guise of "separation of powers."

 

IMO, This has little to do with with the freedom to openly express opinion and has much more to do with trying to hide truths from the already agitated public.

 

Further, these individuals are not being called in to "express their opinion," they're being called in to share their perception of what occured and testify to facts. Additionally, papers, documents, and emails have no "opinions" to be protected, yet they too are being withheld.

 

 

It's like we're talking about an entire museum of paintings and you're trying to restrict the converstation to one nail on one of the frames.

[jackson33]

Think your mis-understanding the purpose of an adviser. Its to give an opinion from that persons perspective period, regardless of legality. The legality is determined by a legal staff which only determines the legality of the decision. If Gonzalez/Miers/Taylor in giving an opinion, stating a reason for some statement, whether used in the final decision or not, then that opinion could be used against a person. Even here if the reasoning is based on some biased opinion of work ethics or what have you, the issue then becomes argumentative, which is not and still with in the powers of the Executive. This shows in your opinion, as the right to fire/terminate/release or any word, for any reason he/see chooses makes little difference in the reality of Executive Privilege. At least on this issue.

 

Apparently you have not watched many Congressional Oversight hearings. In short they are political speeches by the questioning member of Congress, to a member of, in most cases, the loyal opposition which rarely have an intended question. This done in public, on the record and subject to the media. In private meeting although not required by the President to participate, the oversight purpose is served.

 

If the purpose of being called is as you suggest, then why is there a need to make public those meetings. It was not me that brought *executive Privilege*, *Separation of Powers* into this thread.

 

One little thing on "the agitated public". Congress should look at there own standings with the public, when there own actions are questionable and that same public is aware of Congressional problems. Oversight via the 13 or 50 States was to include themselves, which I have seen little actions on...

[clapstyx]

In one sense he IS a moron (I think the question is on the degree of completeness). For instance in Australia our defence minister has made it public that the reason our troops are there is to maintain energy security for the developing world. This means that there is an exit strategy that does not by virtue of its own act acknowledge a defeat or victory by or to terrorism.

 

The issue that he has not instigated a public debate on is whether or not the nations that became involved in the middle east conflict (Holy War) in recent years have a desire to maintain an involvement that may last a couple of thousand years or so. A philosophical victory has not been one in that period of time and I think that Mr Bush is unlikely to produce an argument of sufficient weight to allow all parties to resolve to a higher state of harmony. That is to say that its my feeling that a Holy War can only truly be resolved on this basis. There is obviously a high standard of judgement / evaluation as to the truth that needs to be overcome in order for there to be a mutual and understanding agreement. In terms of honesty I feel that all parties would be accepting of a crucifixion standard of honesty for the judgement of whether a greater level of harmony has been achieved and I believe we should first get some consensus on what that standard of honesty should be. Perhaps truth to a crucifixion degree is a bit overblown under ordinary circumstances but we must remember that much of the problem was caused around the time of the crucifixion of Christ and on that score I feel its right that he takes some of the blame. Had he been more sensible in terms of extending his own life period and avoided pushing the boundaries of consciousness at such a young age and then actually written some of the bible from his own perspective of understanding I think his virtue could have been more truly judged and understood. Christianity, in the instance of a second coming, should ensure that he is reminded of that and he should be made to do some due diligence towards people actually understanding his mindset to a degree that they could realise in the same moment he was. For my thoughts I think this would mean that those who understand that would need to be thinking on some kind of symbiotic level..understanding the same template of logic if you like and that that logic would be virtually flawless in the pursuit of some type of excellence, if not absolute perfection, on some level relevent to the nature of their existence. I dont think that even Islam would disagree with the sentiment of that.

[CraigD]

Can you imagine what would happen if in an investigation of even criminal activity, the FBI were to raid a Congressional Office.

It’s not necessary to imagine this – such a raid of the Congressional office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA), occurred 5/20/2006. (sources: numerous, including FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned - washingtonpost.com)

[Qfwfq]

Correct, no minutes/records kept. Any presidential aid/adviser/department head, must have the freedom to express an opinion w/o someday being prosecuted for that opinion. Any president must protect that right even to the perceived ridicule of the public. Separations of powers, is vital and well laid out in the Constitution.

I have noticed in the past few years that the meaning of sepation of powers gets interpreted rather oddly by those that are staunchly supporting Bush and his ilk.

 

Separation of the three powers of state is what the enlightened revolutionaries were fighting for and has been laid out in many constitutions, to differing degrees, in modern democracies. Note for clarity: These "three powers" are what you call "branches of gov't" whereas in other modern democracies the word government indicates the executive.

 

The whole idea of separation is simply that these three powers should be embodied by separate organisms rather than by one and the same. Why? The very reason is so that there will be nobody that can do whatever they like w/o one day being held accountable for it, at least not someone in entire control of one of the powers. This is unlike absolute monarchy where the monarch legally has no checks. Yes, the point of it is actually that none of the three is totally unleashed from the others.

 

Isn't it enough that your executive is a one-man band and can't even be so easily knocked down by the legislative? You want him to be king as well, and each legislator to be a fief that can run away at will?

[jackson33]

It’s not necessary to imagine this – such a raid of the Congressional office of Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-LA), occurred 5/20/2006. (sources: numerous, including FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned - washingtonpost.com)

 

Craig; I hope you thought, I knew that. There was an uproar and "separation of powers" the cry from Democratic party....my point.