Nothing you didn't already know, but this is well-written.

quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...1607243,00.html The first three months of the new Democratic Congress have been neither terrible nor transcendent. A Pew poll had it about right: a substantial majority of the public remains happy the Democrats won in 2006, but neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has dominated the public consciousness as Newt Gingrich did when the Republicans came to power in 1995. There is a reason for that. A much bigger story is unfolding: the epic collapse of the Bush Administration. The three big Bush stories of 2007--the decision to "surge" in Iraq, the scandalous treatment of wounded veterans at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys for tawdry political reasons--precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys). Iraq comes first, as always. From the start, it has been obvious that personal motives have skewed the President's judgment about the war. Saddam tried to kill his dad; his dad didn't try hard enough to kill Saddam. There was payback to be had. But never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops and employing counterinsurgency tactics inappropriate to the situation on the ground. "There was no way he was going to accept [its findings] once the press began to portray the report as Daddy's friends coming to the rescue," a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission told me. As with Bush's invasion of Iraq, the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine. Iraq was invaded with insufficient troops and planning; the surge was attempted with too few troops (especially non-Kurdish, Arabic-speaking Iraqis), a purposely misleading time line ("progress" by September) and, most important, the absence of a reliable Iraqi government. General David Petraeus has repeatedly said, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible." Translation: This thing fails unless there is a political deal among the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds. There is no such deal on the horizon, largely because of the President's aversion to talking to people he doesn't like. And while some Baghdad neighborhoods may be more peaceful--temporarily--as a result of the increased U.S. military presence, the story two years from now is likely to resemble the recent headlines from Tall 'Afar: dueling Sunni and Shi'ite massacres have destroyed order in a city famously pacified by counterinsurgency tactics in 2005. Bush's indifference to reality in Iraq is not an isolated case. It is the modus operandi of his Administration. The indifference of his Environmental Protection Agency to the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions was rejected by the Supreme Court on April 2. On April 3, the President again accused Democrats of being "more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need." Such demagoguery is particularly outrageous given the Administration's inability to provide our troops "what they need" at the nation's premier hospital for veterans. The mold and decrepitude at Walter Reed are likely to be only the beginning of the tragedy, the latest example of incompetence in this Administration. "This is yet another aspect of war planning that wasn't done properly," says Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The entire VA hospital system is unprepared for the casualties of Iraq, especially the psychiatric casualties. A lot of vets are saying, 'This is our Katrina moment.' And they're right: this Administration governs badly because it doesn't care very much about governing." Compared with Iraq and Walter Reed, the firing of the U.S. Attorneys is a relatively minor matter. It is true that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, but they are political appointees of a special sort. They are partisans, obviously, but must appear to be above politics--not working to influence elections, for example--if public faith in the impartiality of the justice system is to be maintained. Once again Karl Rove's operation has corrupted a policy area--like national security--that should be off-limits to political operators. When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Nothing you didn't already know, but this is well-written.

Which is really seeming to be a bit of a mea culpa for Klein, who up to this point has been sheepish on directly pointing the finger at this Administration.

I think for him, a turning point may have been when he started his own blog, which happened a coupla months ago. I think only then did he realize just how far out of touch he was being with his views in the MSM prints, because the commentary he's received has been anything but complimentary. Furthermore, he's opened himself up to supported refutations of his assertions on his blog.

Granted, it's just speculation, but I don't think it's entirely unfounded.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

i joined the service in 1996. my first duty station after boot camp was SUBASE NLON, Groton Ct. the Navy just built two brand new state of-the-art school houses for the students but our barracks rooms were comparable, maybe worse, to Bldg. 18 at Walter Reed from what i've seen. rats, bugs, mold and all. i remember the Commander of CNET came one year and remarked about the conditions of the Barracks. they remained that way till i had left in '99.

if you've ever seen Army barracks or other Army facilities you immediately want to say, WTF?

1. bldg 18 at Walter Reed deserves to be blown the f**k up due to someones "incompetence", but Walter Reed Medical Center will continue to be the premiere veterans hospital in the world for injured soldiers. that hasn't and won't change.

2. the surge is working. if Commanders can't be "arrogant" during war with soldiers and civilians dying side by side on the battlefield at the hands of some of the most ruthless murderers in the history of warfare then by God outlaw war altogether.

3. he said it himself, USA's are purely political appointments. if being apolitical is just a matter of "appearances" to him and in the absence of any proof of wrongdoing then who's the "cynic"?