Bush the Lame Duck

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd have to agree with Pangloss, but only partly. While the stupid partisanship game will hide a lot of important things, with some effort the facts can be dug out regardless. However, the result is that the average person would be less aware of the facts, and I do think that is intentional.

[bascule]

I didn't think I was voting for an immature child at the time. The reason I didn't think so is because any evidence to that effect was obscured by the rampant partisanship that forced open-minded people like myself to view such evidence with a massive grain of salt.

 

You know, you really sound like Bill O'Reilly, claiming he's in a "no-ideology zone", attacking "the left" because of "groups like Media Matters and MoveOn.org PAC"

 

I wouldn't consider you or myself "open-minded", Pangloss. You have an ideology to push (as do I, and as does Bill-O), and you generally accept things which conform to it. That said, I'm not going to argue that open-mindedness is a particularly good thing either... people who are genuinely "open-minded" I would generally consider gullible (I'm looking at you, swing voters)

 

If you can't distill fact from spin, that's your own problem. Do you think I have trouble keeping my facts straight with people like Fox News/Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter out there? No. Nor do I blame these people for affecting my decision-making.

 

I'm certainly not going to judge a large group like the Democratic or Republican parties based on the actions of fringe members which may not even be directly associated with the party.

[Pangloss]

That's a tremendously interesting point, Pangloss. "It's not my fault I chose wrongly on this issue, it was those evil partisan spinsters distracting me." I think there's valid reason to suggest that the spinsters drive that partisan wedge between us for explicitly that reason. I just am not ready to attribute my own mistakes to the "noise" in the system, but I find the central point you're making to be incredibly thought provoking.

 

Well that's cool, but just to be clear I'm not attempting to dodge responsibility for my vote. In retrospect it was a bad choice. But I'm questioning whether, given my personal preferences on the issues in 1999/2000 and the input that was available, I could have been able to determine that it was a bad choice at the time.

 

If you can't distill fact from spin, that's your own problem. Do you think I have trouble keeping my facts straight with people like Fox News/Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter out there? No. Nor do I blame these people for affecting my decision-making.

 

Nice slur on my character, thanks a lot. But you've missed my point completely, which is that based on unbiased, NON-spun sources in 2000 I had no objective reasons not to vote against Bush in 2000 that had any relationship with what subsequently happened. There was no particular reason to think that he would react to 9/11 the way that he did, suspending key civil rights and taking us to war against a third party and ignoring key evidence telling him he was wrong about WMDs.

 

It's easy for left-partisans to sit back and say "vote Democrat and you'd never have had this problem". They can just cast slurs like the above around and say "see, we told you so", when in fact they did nothing of the kind. What they did was tell us that voting for Democrats was the answer to all of our problems. That told us nothing of value. Nothing.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Pangloss

[Phi for All]

Imagine: November 2000, either a few thousand more votes or a recount and now Gore is president. Gore reacts to 9/11 instead of Bush. The world reacts to Gore's reaction. The 2004 election then becomes Gore vs maybe McCain. If Hussein is still in Iraq then Al Qaeda isn't.

 

Sorry, sleep-typing while I dream....

[iNow]

You know, I truly thought that Bush didn't have enough time left in office to make my disgust of his style of governance any more intense. I thought wrong.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103359.html?nav=rss_politics

The president of the nation's largest general science organization yesterday sharply criticized recent cases of Bush administration political appointees gaining permanent federal jobs with responsibility for making or administering scientific policies, saying the result would be "to leave wreckage behind."

 

"It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."

 

His comments came as several new examples surfaced of political appointees gaining coveted, high-level civil service positions as the administration winds down. The White House has said repeatedly that all gained their new posts in an open, competitive process, but congressional Democrats and others questioned why political appointees had won out over qualified federal career employees.

 

 

A source familiar with the situation said the Justice Department raised concerns about the initial plan to hire Akers without opening the position for full competition. A Justice Department spokesman declined to elaborate but said the agency instructed the DEA to make the process fair and open.

[Mr Skeptic]

To be fair, it does seem Bush has done something recently for the environment. It seems he has recently placed under protection "the largest marine conservation area in the world." Anyone care to tell me why it doesn't matter?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026833.800-bush-to-go-out-with-a-green-bang.html

[Phi for All]

I was unaware of any "permanent federal jobs" besides a Supreme Court appointment. I've never had a civil service job. You mean they can't be fired for any reason? Are these jobs being created for them? If not, how are they suddenly available for these new appointees?

 

I can understand wanting job security, and I realize that some programs need an even hand at the tiller guiding them through long-range purposes. You don't want good people being replaced every four years because of politics, but if you have positions within the federal government that can't be replaced for any reason, you sure as hell should have more accountability and transparency for the appointment process, especially at high levels.

 

It seems he has recently placed under protection "the largest marine conservation area in the world." Anyone care to tell me why it doesn't matter?

At this point, he's only considering it. I think it would indeed be laudable, and I will laud him for it if he does it.

 

It's interesting that it's close to Hawaii, and that the claim will give us jurisdiction all the way down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. I believe that's where Haliburton is going to be building that supersecret underwater sub base with the trillion dollars the Pentagon misplaced.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Phi for All
multiple post merged

[bascule]

Nice slur on my character, thanks a lot. But you've missed my point completely, which is that based on unbiased, NON-spun sources in 2000 I had no objective reasons not to vote against Bush in 2000 that had any relationship with what subsequently happened.

 

You're talking about 2000? Why'd you even bring Michael Moore up? That would actually make sense in the context of the 2004 election with Fahrenheit 9/11 (and in the context of the thread re: voting for a child repeatedly). Did you vote for Bush then?

[Pangloss]

Bad example, perhaps, but yes, I'm talking about 2000. There was no way to predict his reaction to 9/11, the suspending of certain civil liberties, taking us to war against a third party over previous wrongs and ignoring key evidence telling him he was wrong about WMDs.

 

And IMO calling open-minded people gullible is just a way of not dealing with the down side of partisanship. It never ceases to amaze me how many people who defend the principles of science are willing to close their minds and operate on a faith basis when it comes to politics. Here we even see the approach advocated as a general good!

 

I'm not going to argue that open-mindedness is a particularly good thing either... people who are genuinely "open-minded" I would generally consider gullible (I'm looking at you, swing voters)

 

Astonishing. But hey, if that's your opinion, more power to you. Kudos for saying what you feel.

[jackson33]

I was unaware of any "permanent federal jobs" besides a Supreme Court appointment. I've never had a civil service job. You mean they can't be fired for any reason? Are these jobs being created for them? If not, how are they suddenly available for these new appointees?

 

I can understand wanting job security, and I realize that some programs need an even hand at the tiller guiding them through long-range purposes. You don't want good people being replaced every four years because of politics, but if you have positions within the federal government that can't be replaced for any reason, you sure as hell should have more accountability and transparency for the appointment process, especially at high levels.

 

There are near 2 million Federal Employees, that do the day to day business of Government, in Washington DC and though out the US and every Foreign Embassy in the World. Top management and heads of most are appointments by an administration on taking office only. Most just resign with the end of one administration, others are asked to stay and others have just gone on through many administrations, such as in field offices, under some department. For example today, Obama may know exactly how many replacements will be needed on January 22, 2009 and as he picks his Cabinet, Staff and heads of these Departments, working together or delicates, the lower levels of managements are picked, several thousand in total. In most cases these jobs are a reward for the people who helped the most, getting a President elected.

 

There are several UNION'S, for Federal employee's and the strongest of any Unions in the US. The strongest of these under AFL/CIO is the American Federation of Government Employees, with over 600,000 members. In 2007, the average Federal Employee earned $77,143 in wages and with perk (cost to tax payers) $116,450 per year, more than the National Averages of $48k and 56K per year. They are eligible for retirement in some cases after 20 years (like military, but civilian) with partial benefits and after 30 can receive full benefits, including up to 95% of wages earned on the job and 100% paid health care for life and spouses receive a percentage beyond this. As Teachers Unions, Auto Workers and in general under most Union Contracts, there is a procedure for ending a job, replacing a members job or in fact firing that person.

[iNow]

Jackson - None of your post is relevant in the context of Phi's comments. Please, read the article and try again.

[D H]

I was unaware of any "permanent federal jobs" besides a Supreme Court appointment. I've never had a civil service job. You mean they can't be fired for any reason?

Most civil servant jobs are on the General Schedule and are more-or-less permanent. Firing civil servants, even the grossly incompetent, is nigh impossible. Agencies have come up with a variety of creative ways of solving the dead wood problem. Exceptional performers can be given an up-and-out (promoted to head a department of one with no budget), assigned to a "special projects office" full of similar stellar performers, ...

 

The civil service is structured the way it is because alternatives (at least the ones that have been tried) are even worse.

 

Are these jobs being created for them? If not, how are they suddenly available for these new appointees?

You tell me: from http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/11/now_nasas_cio_p.html,

Now NASA's Chief Information Officer (CIO) position is open at NASA HQ. But hurry up folks - once again it looks like NASA wants to slip this crucially important position under the Transition Team's nose in stealth mode between Thanksgiving and Christmas. The position is open 20 Nov - 4 Dec.

[iNow]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6mH44rWD9yyZf_AZ7YxQDVFL7WwD94LJF9G0

Bush pardons 14 and commutes 2 prison sentences

 

President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others convicted of misdeeds ranging from drug offenses to tax evasion, from wildlife violations to bank embezzlement, The Associated Press learned Monday.

 

The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list also include offenses involving hazardous waste, food stamps, and the theft of government property.

 

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

 

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

 

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little — if any — chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

[Pangloss]

Right, as we were just discussing in the other thread, bringing charges like that would just be divisive when divisive is bad for the country, not good.

 

Anyway, nothing on the order of Mark Rich, sounds like. I guess that list is acceptable.

[foodchain]

I don't really care to attack voting, but I don't think its fair to bring up some other person in conjunction with bush when hating him. Not that such a move is wrong, just that its sort of the whole support the troops deal. I mean was it just me, or did bushco make it like attacking him was an assault on the military at large or something? How does that work? It was really bad at one point, he really tried to make it unpatriotic to hold any sort of a counter view to the bushco "vision", that was just gross.

 

He is one of the largest failures in just about forever, regardless of party affiliation or anything. The entire administration has proven itself beyond ignorant and corrupt.

 

The rest of his administration will basically be forgot I would think really. I think people just really would like to move on, and well I am all for it. The more I think about it, I think bush was sent back in time by skynet to help the machines win.

[ParanoiA]

Hopefully Bush will pardon those that were following orders.

[iNow]

Hopefully Bush will pardon those that were following orders.

 

That creates a bit of a problem for him, though, if the orders were filtered down from the top. It's a "buck stops here" kinda moment. If he pardons everyone who was only "following orders," then he's pretty much the only person who could be charged, as even his military leadership follow his orders, and hence they too would fall under the umbrella of the pardon.

[ParanoiA]

I'm thinking of the powerless here though, not those who are technically "under" Bush's orders, but holds the reasonable capacity to defy illegal orders - which also requires there to have been documented authority that such orders would be illegal. I don't like retroactively punishing people for wrongful actions that were ambiguous at the time. And I especially don't like punishing the lower ranks for following orders. Military efficacy depends on following commands without hesitation.

[iNow]

Well, I agree, but that "line" where you split lower and upper ranks is pretty fuzzy.

[ParanoiA]

I agree, and as long as that's the area of contention, then I'd say we're looking at this fairly level headed.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd say it is vitally important to punish those who knowingly followed illegal orders, or those who had reasonable expectation to know their orders were illegal but followed them anyways. Not punishing them simply because they were "just following orders" is just asking for illegal orders to be given more regularly.

 

On the other hand, those who didn't know that the orders were illegal, or who wouldn't be expected to know, probably shouldn't be punished. Maybe they should get a slap on the wrist to remind them to pay attention. But as others noted, putting a spotlight and magnifying glass on our people is just going to cripple us.

[ParanoiA]

I have this vision of a young 20 year old trying to follow his orders, do his job and not let his unit down while immersed in drama most of us will never really experience. In that environment, receiving an order to kill another human being is pretty intense - and that's not even an illegal order in combat. I don't see parsing the legal from the illegal in the middle of chaos or drama that most don't feel equal to in the first place.

 

We talk a good game here in the safety of an electronic forum where we are free to search, read, google whatever philosophical notion we want, no stop watch, no actual consequence to be responsible for whether or not we act or don't act.

 

We often overlook that any refusal to carry out an illegal order also carries consequences - in the form of dead american bodies they will be responsible for, or losing their career, or even facing charges for insubordination. And further, there's none of us around to share our insightful ideas of morality and legal perfection to influence them. They only have themselves to consult.

[doG]

How 'bout he resigns now so Cheney becomes President. Cheney appoint Condi as VP and then he resigns two weeks later. Now Condi gets to be the first black President and the first woman President Then maybe Condi could invade Iran.....

[Pangloss]

Actually the Secretary of State is already in the line of succession. She's next up after the Speaker of the House (who follows the VP), if memory serves (but don't quote me on it).

 

(That was why Al Haig tried to step up and say he was in charge after Reagan got shot.)

[doG]

Actually the Secretary of State is already in the line of succession. She's next up after the Speaker of the House (who follows the VP), if memory serves (but don't quote me on it).

 

There's no line of succession for VP though. Amendment 25 specifies that:

 

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

 

I do realize there's not a chance in hell that both houses of congress would actually confirm Condi for VP but then again, I was only making an antagonistic joke