I have to say, James seems to have a point, Rick. You're always so intelligent in conversation with me, but then this blog is all blind (often ignorant) partisan attacks. Let's take this specific post as an example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you endorse See The Forest's conclusions in the post you like to—based on the fact that you link to it, and then add your own thoughts that this proves Bush is some sort of hypocrite. But let's take this "proof" of his hypocrisy on the merits, shall we?
(note: the following was posted as a comment to See The Forest's post, but I'd love to hear your response as well.)
1)Several Republican Senators have denied receiving this memo, belying the idea that it was an official GOP publication. So where's your evidence that W ever saw this memo? Your direct implication is that he came back because of the political implications of this situation, but shouldn't you back that up before making wild claims?
2)Even the article concerning the August 2001 article talks about the fact that there was nothing in it to imply that a strike was iminent, and I still have yet to see a single person suggest a single thing that Bush could have accomplished in August of 2001 to prevent what would happen in the second week of September at all, let alone why he would need to be in DC to accomplish it. Again, what's your suggestion. What should he have done in August of 2001?
The Schiavo case, by way of contrast to number 2 has a clear time-sensitivity to it. If the man firmly believes in this issue, why wouldn't he rush back before it's too late?
The answer to both 1 and 2 above is actually very much the same thing. Bush is the leader - the COE equivalent, and as such, he sets the tone for the White House.
I used to conduct training exercises for very complex supply, maintenance and transportation headquarters in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. After a few years, I realized that I could walk in and talk for half an hour to the battalion commander, then leave and write my after-action report. Then I'd compare it to what really happened later. I'd get at least half of it correct. The leader has that much impact on his organization. HIs attitudes and beliefs spread through it.
In short, the organization is to a significant extent the extension of its leader. So what are the implications for your items 1 and 2?
For item 1 - Bush didn't need to see the memo himself. If it reached the White House Staff (and we can be sure that it did - there were a lot of copies.) then it was part of the decision process and if it fit the guidelines people had for how to decide things, it was influential.
The most common single failure of those battalions I used to test was that one person would have information in his possession that someone else needed and that first person failed to pass it on. This is not a failure I attribute to the Bush White House. I don't fault their professinalism.
For item 2 - Bush had set the guidelines when he moved in. Nothing that the Clinton people told him was correct, and the things that mattered were ABM, ~State-Sponsored~ terrorism (not al Qaeda as his staff was repeatedly told) and tax cuts.
His second failure was that policy was always subordinate to politics. His first leader for his Coordinator of Christian organizations support (I forget his name or job title, but I'm sure you can figure it out.) stated that there was no policy organization, just political organization in the White House. Richard Clarkes description of how his efforts were reduced from reporting to the primnciples to reporting to the debuties confirms the lower priority of terrorism. I have seen nothing to cause me to believe anything has changed yet.
But Clinton knew that the non-state sponsored terrorists were important, and he shook the administrative branches. He let the FBI, CIA, etc. all know that they should be looking for stuff like that. The three efforts to attack the US during the Millenium celebrations were thwarted by that intense activity.
Bush, however, is a passive leader as his response to the memo in early September demonstrated. Clinton would have been on the phone to secutiry people, and would have had coordination meetings, and if nothing else, the symbolism would have seeped down. Bush simply expected the department leaders to do their jobs and didn't bother to ask or influence them regarding that memo. But Bush's job included seeing to it hat high priority data like that memo be spread throughout the top ranks of the government. He did nothing, and acting as her leader, Condi Rice similarly did nothing. That was not her failure as much as Bush's.
I can't imagine that the FBI administrators would have refused a warrant to search Mousarri's hard drive if they had been aware that the guys inthe head-shed considered things like that important.
Essentially, Bush failed as an administrative leader in (and prior to) August 2001. He failed to set proper priorities based on the information he got from the Clinton administration, and he totally failed to put the government on alert.
I'm going to respond to the Schiavo issue as another blog shortly, and I really appreciate your comment. I am still trying to find my writing voice, and you have helped me a lot.
2 comments:
I have to say, James seems to have a point, Rick. You're always so intelligent in conversation with me, but then this blog is all blind (often ignorant) partisan attacks. Let's take this specific post as an example.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you endorse See The Forest's conclusions in the post you like to—based on the fact that you link to it, and then add your own thoughts that this proves Bush is some sort of hypocrite. But let's take this "proof" of his hypocrisy on the merits, shall we?
(note: the following was posted as a comment to See The Forest's post, but I'd love to hear your response as well.)
1)Several Republican Senators have denied receiving this memo, belying the idea that it was an official GOP publication. So where's your evidence that W ever saw this memo? Your direct implication is that he came back because of the political implications of this situation, but shouldn't you back that up before making wild claims?
2)Even the article concerning the August 2001 article talks about the fact that there was nothing in it to imply that a strike was iminent, and I still have yet to see a single person suggest a single thing that Bush could have accomplished in August of 2001 to prevent what would happen in the second week of September at all, let alone why he would need to be in DC to accomplish it. Again, what's your suggestion. What should he have done in August of 2001?
The Schiavo case, by way of contrast to number 2 has a clear time-sensitivity to it. If the man firmly believes in this issue, why wouldn't he rush back before it's too late?
OK. Thanks for the question.
The answer to both 1 and 2 above is actually very much the same thing. Bush is the leader - the COE equivalent, and as such, he sets the tone for the White House.
I used to conduct training exercises for very complex supply, maintenance and transportation headquarters in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. After a few years, I realized that I could walk in and talk for half an hour to the battalion commander, then leave and write my after-action report. Then I'd compare it to what really happened later. I'd get at least half of it correct. The leader has that much impact on his organization. HIs attitudes and beliefs spread through it.
In short, the organization is to a significant extent the extension of its leader. So what are the implications for your items 1 and 2?
For item 1 - Bush didn't need to see the memo himself. If it reached the White House Staff (and we can be sure that it did - there were a lot of copies.) then it was part of the decision process and if it fit the guidelines people had for how to decide things, it was influential.
The most common single failure of those battalions I used to test was that one person would have information in his possession that someone else needed and that first person failed to pass it on. This is not a failure I attribute to the Bush White House. I don't fault their professinalism.
For item 2 - Bush had set the guidelines when he moved in. Nothing that the Clinton people told him was correct, and the things that mattered were ABM, ~State-Sponsored~ terrorism (not al Qaeda as his staff was repeatedly told) and tax cuts.
His second failure was that policy was always subordinate to politics. His first leader for his Coordinator of Christian organizations support (I forget his name or job title, but I'm sure you can figure it out.) stated that there was no policy organization, just political organization in the White House. Richard Clarkes description of how his efforts were reduced from reporting to the primnciples to reporting to the debuties confirms the lower priority of terrorism. I have seen nothing to cause me to believe anything has changed yet.
But Clinton knew that the non-state sponsored terrorists were important, and he shook the administrative branches. He let the FBI, CIA, etc. all know that they should be looking for stuff like that. The three efforts to attack the US during the Millenium celebrations were thwarted by that intense activity.
Bush, however, is a passive leader as his response to the memo in early September demonstrated. Clinton would have been on the phone to secutiry people, and would have had coordination meetings, and if nothing else, the symbolism would have seeped down. Bush simply expected the department leaders to do their jobs and didn't bother to ask or influence them regarding that memo. But Bush's job included seeing to it hat high priority data like that memo be spread throughout the top ranks of the government. He did nothing, and acting as her leader, Condi Rice similarly did nothing. That was not her failure as much as Bush's.
I can't imagine that the FBI administrators would have refused a warrant to search Mousarri's hard drive if they had been aware that the guys inthe head-shed considered things like that important.
Essentially, Bush failed as an administrative leader in (and prior to) August 2001. He failed to set proper priorities based on the information he got from the Clinton administration, and he totally failed to put the government on alert.
I'm going to respond to the Schiavo issue as another blog shortly, and I really appreciate your comment. I am still trying to find my writing voice, and you have helped me a lot.
Post a Comment