This has been the Bush pattern. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill presciently says a second tax cut is unaffordable if we want to fight in Iraq—he's fired. Bush's economic adviser Larry Lindsey presciently says the war will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion (an underestimate)—he's fired. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki presciently says that winning in Iraq will require several hundred thousand troops—he's sent into early retirement. By contrast, CIA Director George Tenet, who presided over two of the greatest intelligence lapses in American history (9/11 and WMD in Iraq) and apparently helped spread "oppo ammo" to discredit the husband of a woman who had devoted her life to his agency, receives the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The conventional Washington explanation is that this is just old-fashioned politics. As long as you don't lie to a grand jury, there's nothing illegal here. But the consequences of a bias for loyalty over debate—even internal debate—have been devastating. The same president who seeks democracy, transparency and dissent in Iraq is irritated by it at home. O'Neill tells his story in a book by Ron Suskind called "The Price of Loyalty," and that title is the missing link in explaining the failure of the Bush presidency. The price of loyalty is incompetence. Issues don't get aired; downside risks remain unassessed. Instead of reaching out and encouraging disagreement, Bush let neocons like Libby and Paul Wolfowitz hijack his foreign policy. Amazingly, the pros and cons of invading Iraq were never even debated in the National Security Council. If you had doubts, like Colin Powell, you were marginalized. (Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said last week that a "cabal" of isolated policymakers ran a government of dangerous "ineptitude.") Consider the case of Brent Scowcroft. According to last week's New Yorker, former president Bush has tried to arrange a meeting between his old national-security adviser (and best friend) and his son. But after Scowcroft wrote a 2002 op-ed piece titled "Don't Attack Saddam," the president has consistently refused his own father's request. Now we know that Bush's lack of curiosity has proved fatal.
ClonedEmperor posted on 10/30/05 1:09pmthe fact is it makes it seem like "its my way or the highway"
VoijaRisa posted: ClonedEmperor posted on 10/30/05 1:09pmthe fact is it makes it seem like "its my way or the highway" Congratulations on not saying anything useful and only restating the question. I believe the topic of discussion is why Bush feels the need to force his way and fire anyone that dares disagree instead of using the wonderful skill of compromise and actually listening for a change. My take would be that Bush takes the idea that ignorance is bliss very seriously. By ignoring various problems, he feels that he won't have to deal with them.
KnightWriter posted:I think he set a "mission statement" for his administration which is "We have to remain united and present a strong front on everything." much like parents do with children. It goes beyond that, though. Internal dissent within the administration seems to be quashed and/or heavily discouraged, even if the general public doesn't know about it. That kind of unity strikes me as both dangerous and foolish. Perhaps I'm not understanding things properly, and I hope someone can speak up for a more accurate picture if that's the case.
Cyprusg posted:Maybe it's because more than ever a political party is united in their ideology? You look at the Republican party and their ideology is clearly defined, christians, family values, against abortion, against gun control, etc... Democrats on the other hand have a lot more varying views, they're not as easily defined, making them far less united. As we saw in the latest election the only unifying factor was that they hated George Bush. So what you get is political tunnel vision, where Republicans have a clear objective and anyone that steps outside that vision gets stepped on, republican or not.