W'S DRIFT TO IMPOTENCE

N Y Post ^ | December 6, 2006 | JOHN O'SULLIVAN

[Sabramerican]

JOHN Bolton's resignation as the American ambassador to the United Nations makes it official: The Bush administration is now drifting idly toward a mixture of centrism and impotence.

In less than a month, two of President Bush's stronger and more independent aides - Donald Rumsfeld and Bolton - have been dispatched. Rumsfeld's designated successor, former CIA head Robert Gates, is a leading member of the Beltway's permanent bureaucracy.

The administration seems to be waiting for the Baker-Hamilton commission of old Washington hands to dictate U.S. policy on Iraq. Leaks from the commission suggest it will recommend a gradual U.S. withdrawal camouflaged by negotiations with Iran and Syria over a new Mideast grand bargain.

All of this feeds an exaggerated defeatism in the United States over Iraq.

.....

Rumsfeld's abrupt firing was an act of flagrant disloyalty to a loyal subordinate. The defense secretary had made his share of mistakes - notably, his failure to crush looting immediately after the fall of Baghdad - but he had followed the president's policy faithfully.

.......

We don't know for certain the reasons for Bolton's departure: Either the White House wasn't prepared to fight for him, or he was no longer prepared to lend his voice to the diplomatic charade over Iran and North Korea. Either way, his departure demonstrates timidity on the administration's part. The net result will be that Bush has one less loyal subordinate in the shrinking ranks of his own administration.

[ohioWfan]

Are you one of those 'failure to launch' kind of boys?

[Howlin]

variants of “this is how a commission should work in Washington,” “this has been great bi-partisanship,” “it’s too bad we can’t operate this way more,” “if any message is to be sent it’s the message that five Republicans and five Democrats of goodwill sat down since March and put together a remarkable document.”

That's it. That's what jumped out at me.

They are WAY too pleased with themselves!

And I do like that name, The Iraqi Surrender Group.

[Arizona Carolyn]

He picked out the same reporter Rush did today. It was very telling that they were all speechless when asked the obvious question and their speechlessness is indicative of how far removed they are from all of us.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Anytime..

[Howlin]

Roses, you should put that up as its own thread.

[Howlin]

What you should be apologizing for is being a girlie man.

[bonfire]

Bingo. NOT ONE. And I listened ALL FREAKIN' DAY.

I feel like I'm in a nightmare and can't wake up.

[NinoFan]

Another good one I heard today. I think it was:

Islamofascism Supporters Group

[NinoFan]

Another good one I heard today. I think it was:

Islamofascism Supporters Group

[NinoFan]

Aack, how did that happen so far apart? Sorry for the double post.

[Howlin]

Oh where were you all earlier today when I was so down in the dumps! I could have used that laugh!

[Howlin]

Do I get to be part of your Desperate Housewives club

I think you do!

It's just the latest incantation of my "Harpies group" and my "old ladies" group............you know? It's the place to be on FR!

There are a lot of people on this forum that are working out personal issues here instead of seeking the professional help they should be getting -- so they are jealous when some of us actually are friends and have fun!

[Dolphy]

I have the same feeling that I can't shake.

[dangerfield]

wanted to make sure you didn't miss this thread.

Who is out there, to lead us and be straighforward about the nature of this war? I'm trying to think of a pol who is outspoken and unafraid to say yes this war is against Jihadists and Islamism. First mistake: calling this a War on Terror. Next hundred mistakes: not immediatly and forcefully answering dishonest critics of the war. (For instance, why do WE always have to remind people that the Clinton policy for Iraq was regime change?)

I don't think we should have gone to the U.N. before invading, either. For a week or two it looked like Bush might actually skip the U.N. entirely, but there was the hugh and series.

It was there the administration over-sold the WMD case and bewildered people (those who couldn't understand there was more than one reason to go to war, those who shouted "they keep changing their story, why we're in Iraq!)

I remember before 9/11 , President Bush giving his major speech on embryonic stem cell research. I thought then he was a great man. I still believe history will be respectful, but GWB will be the man who was president BEFORE The War. And in a way, he kept it in America's peripheral vision, as if we were only glancing an iceberg.

[roses of sharon]

I'm embarrassed to say I have never done my own thread, I have never taken the time to learn. (maybe over Christmas break, lol), also I haven't a clue what is "legal" to post.

Anyway, after reading this from Bennett, we shouldn't feel so lonely in our disgust in the surrender group, I thought we were the only ones!

[Howlin]

IF you'll give me the link, I'll post it.

[You Dirty Rats]

The President is still the Commander in Chief, not these ten little Indians.

He needs to sh!tcan this waste of tree.

I'm not worried about the right-wing rats who are deserting the ship while we are under fire. They can post their lame attacks and smug attitudes all day long and they still won't be able to accomplish anything -- haters never do.

And as far as bipartisan action in Washington is concerned -- unlike these ten out of office hacks, official Washington in the form of Congress did vote to support the President's decision to remove Saddam. Now everyone wants to run like cowards away from that decision because it is politically profitable to do so. In effect, they are profiting by undercutting our armed forces -- just like many of these same people did with Vietnam.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Why.. doncha know, that's Hillary's favorite saying.

Right....and Nancy 'Bela' Pelosi speaks of a 'San Fran' style impeachment for the President. No reconciliation; not a drop of 'let's work together'.

Nope........it's 'bury the enemy'......that's how they are, and will be.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

This is the triumph of the therapeutic, where bipartisanship — a hug across the aisle — has become a higher value than justice. The crisis of the house divided has been inverted; we no longer are worried about the crisis but the House, the moral, the good, and the just take a backseat to collegiality. Does history really give a hoot about bipartisanship? Who cares whether they are getting along? The task is to do the right thing, especially in war. But, when relativism is the highest value, agreement becomes the highest goal, regardless of right and wrong. And, woe to those who disagree, they will be sent whence they came — the outer reaches of “extremism.” This is the tyranny of the “best people” today’s equivalent of the Cliveden set.

A marvelous paragraph...it captures beautifully what happens when personal or class preservation [preservation of position or power] triumphs over the "good of the nation." I'd hate to think this is what happens when western democracies become so successful that they lose what brought them success...but it has happened so often to great nations in the west that it's a bit concerning.

But so many are holding out unanimity, agreement, bi-partisanship and the lack of division or difference of opinion as the highest virtue that I must wonder if we are truly in such division and disarray that we are greatly endangered. The rush of all sides to embrace relativism -- which was formerly the sole province of the left -- looks a lot like a scramble to the lifeboats. Our enemies in the Islamic world must feel like a pack of wolves looking hard at a fattened herd of sheep planning to run across an open field looking for safety.

My greatest disappointment is for our valient and unconquerable military men and women, who must feel very, very alone today.

[Fledermaus]

You must be young or naive. He was fired. Period. Get over it.