I have no idea what the White House dynamic is, or what it was under Clinton.

The defence industry news (some writing for and some writing about) have been talking about who's got the clout of the week, at the White House. Both between state dept and the military and between factions of the military. Also struggles between the Defence dept and the Pentagon. I think Richlevy has a pretty good handle on it.

Yes, I was just referring to the collateral count. That's the only one that we can really nail down right now. And I can't argue that this assessment may turn out to be wrong.

As far as dollar cost, yeah it will be a lot, but not unjustifiable. We likely won't know of other costs for years to come, but my impression so far is that our relationship with the middle east in general hasn't really gotten worse. Of course that may change if we mismanage the aftermath and cleanup.

I've heard this argument many times before, and I don't buy it -- that G.W. is a mental lightweight who just surrounds himself with smart people. Some of his advisors may know more than he does in their areas of interest, but that's why they're advisors.

The impression that I get is that he's in complete control of his administration. They put on the face that he wants them to. Of course, we can read all the "inside accounts" we want to, but none of us will never know what actually goes on behind the closed doors in the White House. But that's my impression, and I haven't seen anything that changes it.

Quote:

I think that most people would agree that Clinton was clever enough to take opinions from those around him in context to the person holding them.

Um, what? How do you purport to know what "context" Clinton took advice from his staff under, and what makes you think "most people" agree with you?

It's true that none of us know exactly what goes on, and have to make our own impressions. I see a one-track, confrontational White House controlled by ultra-nationalistic hawks. You see whatever you see. The reason I believe that Clinton was the better politician is that even his enemies acknowleged that he was clever. If you look at Reagan, for example, and Iran-Contra, you see a man who did not appear to be in control, who 'forgot' signing off on a covert operation to sidestep a congressional ban using funds from arms sold to 'terrorists', including testimony from a trusted aide.

The toughest situation Clinton had was an impeachment based on lying about receiving oral sex. Susan MacDougal served 22 months for contempt and never gave up Clinton.

It's obvious that Clinton, for all of his personal misconduct, ran a better office and commanded better personal loyalty than Reagan.

Now we are beginning to see resignations from the Bush White House. The key ones will be the moderate advisors, who may give up if they feel shut out of the situations that develop. I think that Powell was overidden on Iraq. He is the one person in the White House who still has a great deal of credibility in the Middle East, even though he has no experience in the State Department. He is probably hanging on to see if the "Road Map" will work.

This is the most confrontational posture the US has taken since the Cuban Missile Crisis. 9/11 gave the government a blank check in terms of security and foreign policy and they stretched it to the limit. You might consider this unwavering resolve and singlemindedness decisive leadership, but I see it as signs of loss of balance in the advice being given in the White House. What you see as a strength, I see as an unhealthy fixation.

Because hindsight is 20/20, we constantly hear "if we had done (fill blank) back then, we wouldn't be having (fill blank) now". Well duh, no shit.
If someone or something is a threat to the U.S., then I say crush them/it like a bug as soon as possible. But having said that, I worry about the administrations perception of what is/will be/might be a threat. That's not a distrust of Bush but accepting how difficult a task it is.
It would be stupid for me to think, no matter how many sources I check, I have all the information available to Bush & Co. The only thing I can do is pay my taxes and watch what happens. Then if I think they're screwing up, vote against them.
Oh my goodness, what's a voter to do?

I think this article by Ron Suskind is interesting. Its gives a bit of gossipy, but I think fairly credible insight into Bush's West Wing and the influence of Karl Rove, with some comparisons to the Clinton administration. http://ronsuskind.com/writing/esquir...rove_0103.htmlSuskind Article

The main critique is based on a letter from John DiIulio to Suskind, apparently a bold desire to address the power of Rove.
the letter

These articles both relate to Bush's domestic policy/political machinery, a source of great concern to me as a citizen and voter, -. Particularly the proposed dismantling to impoverished state control the ridiculously cost effective and stunningly successful Head Start. No Child Left Behind? Yeah, right.

A Bush administration guy tells a journalist that the Bush administration admires the Clinton White House's ability to avoid politics in constructing policy. The journalist writes a story about it, and then the administration guy takes it all back. Hmmm.

But "Natural" didn't refer to Clinton's ability to write policy. Clinton's natural ability was that of the consummate politician, who could walk into any room, determine exactly what that room wanted to hear, and then TELL them exactly that. Klein was the guy who basically revealed circa 1993 that Clinton A) was relentlessly political and B) a total horn-dog who took any and every opportunity to hit on anything that moved, even during the campaign.

Suskind's article rings true in the dynamic of campaigns. The politician is the nice guy everyone loves. The political consultants and other staffers are the ones who are relentlessly and ruthlessly political. The candidates understand the game and are mostly concerned with message and fundraising. The real dirty stuff happens one layer down, or up depending on how you think of it.

Clinton improved the economy progress
 

Little Bush improve the weapon progress. I think in the future the world would produce more weapon for hisaction. It is a bad news for all of us.

Clinton had a good relation with China. In his duty time I can easily apply one USA visa. Now we difficultly get one. The good relation help two side economy and culture progress.

Re: Clinton improved the economy progress
 

You can blame the visa situation on 9/11. I agree that visas should be checked more carefully. I go to Irish/British/Celtic music events, and at least one had to be called off because the visa processing took much longer than expected.

As far as weapons proliferation, I think the war in Iraq will cause problems since WMD's will now be considered the only adequate deterrents to U.S. invasion. Every country in the world is going to want their own little 'peacekeeper'.

I don't follow you logic. Quite the contrary, WOMD have proved to be a magnet for attack.

...or the potential to be close to almost nearly having WMD when you are deemed to be nuts and angry.

TMD/NMD would upgrade the world weapon
 

The enemy would build more powerful weapon to attack the USA if the USA have NMD program. Soon and soon the weapon upgrade. At last it make us live one more dangerous world.

No, I don't agree.

Read Derelection of Duty.

Get back to us after ...

From Amazon.com is this telling little information:
Its rather difficult to give the book any credibity when those who buy the book clearly have that right wing extremist Replublican agenda. Even worse, the guy retired as only a Lt Colonel? Does the name Lt Colonel Oliver North sound familiar?

He could not even get full bird Colonel? Most good military men with lifetime service at least become Brigader Generals. He could not even become a fully bird Colonel. How then is he considered inciteful enough to write a book? Every 20 year military officer I went to school with retired full bird or higher. The author has a credibility problem.