Constructive gadfly

The site overwhelmingly is on the side of Bush’s approach to spying at home. Echoing fear-mongers across the nation on the spy issue, there is little room for debate. If we don’t go along with the manner in which the CIA and NSA gather evidence the following is shouted out:

            Listening in on terrorists will prevent another Sept. 11. [as though helter-skelter listening in on tens of thousands of citizens will defy the huge odds]

            Blocking this espionage would undercut the war on terror. [I thought the war on terror was in Iraq and we’re not apparently doing too well even there listening in on insurgents]

            Listening in is essential to our national security, according to Bush. He doesn’t even bother to add the end justifies the means. [I thought the development of democracy in the Middle East was the essence of the war on terrorism]

            Can’t fool around with red-tape and allow the warm tip to grow cold.[who are they kidding here? — you mean they are that stupid to listen in without taping the conversations]

            Opposing monitoring at a fearful time when vigilance should be at a high level of alert is irresponsible. [Like letting sharp-pointed scissors and not checking cargo on airplanes, huh]

            Terrorists don’t play by the rules, so why should we?[the high and mighty should stoop to their miserable level]

            Senators are more concerned over civil rights than saving lives and weaken defense.[You said that I didn’t]

            The president is the only elected official sworn to protect citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic.[therefore the right to violate the law]


Comments (Page 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Dec 30, 2005
The NSA is an executive branch agency that falls under the purview of the Department of Defense. It reports to the Director of National Intelligence, a Presidential appointee.
Is that a solution--an appointed position and an agency run by cronies? I doubt it. The whole damnable executive branch, regardless of party, needs to be free of cronyism.

every President since then has asserted that they would not abide by that "law" as they believe it infringes on executive authority.
But precedent in arrogance does not make it right.
on Dec 30, 2005
No system will be "free" of cronyism. Without the ability to appoint & fire at will, including putting people who are more or less aligned with your philosophy in place, we'd have nothing but an even larger and more unmanageable civil service than we already have. I would argue that the vast unappointed masses of government employees are the main reason the executive branch has such a hard time "doing" anything meaningful.

A "crony" is simply someone appointed by your opponent.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 30, 2005
Daiwa

This President has appointed people that are "unqualified cronies". That is different then appointing a "crony" that has the experience and education required for the job.
on Dec 30, 2005
Correction: A person appointed by someone you oppose is an "unqualified crony". A person appointed by someone you favor is a "qualified" crony.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 30, 2005
If a terrorist in Afghanistan is calling someone in the US, I want my government knowing about it.


I personally don't, But I sincerely believe it falls under the "International/interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8) AS LONG AS Congress was notified (as both Bush AND several of the key leaders say they WERE). After all, you can't regulate commerce without oversight, and we live in a world where much international/interstate commerce takes place over phones or the internet. The question arises, then, whether the notification of a few key members of Congress was sufficient or whether it should have been taken before both houses, and if the latter, then the culpability is there, but it lies on the members of CONGRESS, NOT the President.

I still think it kinda sucks, but I'm becoming more convinced it wasn't illegal...at least as far as the President's actions were concerned.
on Dec 30, 2005
Daiwa

Not true I had no opinion about Brown and the others in FEMA. They were simply unqualified people Bush gave jobs as a political favor.
on Dec 30, 2005
Daiwa

Not true I had no opinion about Brown and the others in FEMA. They were simply unqualified people Bush gave jobs as a political favor.


And just how did you find out they were unqualified? Just an fyi col.You can't tell a person is unqualified if they lie on their resume. Care of Time magazine.


When President Bush nominated Michael Brown to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003, Brown's boss at the time, Joe Allbaugh, declared, "the President couldn't have chosen a better man to help...prepare and protect the nation." But how well was he prepared for the job? Since Hurricane Katrina, the FEMA director has come under heavy criticism for his performance and scrutiny of his background. Now, an investigation by TIME has found discrepancies in his online legal profile and official bio, including a description of Brown released by the White House at the time of his nomination in 2001 to the job as deputy chief of FEMA. On Friday, Brown, who became director of FEMA in 2003, was relieved of his duties handling the Katrina response and was replaced in that role by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen.

Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."
on Dec 30, 2005
You can't tell a person is unqualified if they lie on their resume.


That's the most laughable thing I've read all day!

I hire many people every year not based on what their resume says, but on my investigation into their background. There's also this technique known as behavioral interviewing that helps you determine how a person will perform based on what they did in similar siutations in their past.

Correction: A person appointed by someone you oppose is an "unqualified crony". A person appointed by someone you favor is a "qualified" crony.


Come one Daiwa, you know what the difference is.

Brown = Crony, Rumsfeld = Not Crony, Powell = Not Crony

While there may be many (myself included) who are not fans of certain appointees (Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, etc), most would never refer to these people as cronies, even though they were appointed by the opposing party.
on Dec 30, 2005
Brown's only considered a crony because he muffed his chance. If the Katrina response had gone well, people would have a different attitude about him. The charge of cronyism is too facile and I agree with you that most people wouldn't consider Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, et al, cronies, but I wasn't responding to "most people" - rather to a specific one, who considers all Bush appointees (except Paul O'Neill) cronies.

Brown was technically unqualified, but had apparently performed well with previous FEMA responses to Florida hurricanes. What many are unwilling to recognize is that there was noone qualified for or prepared for the flooding of the city. The first line of responsibility was with the City of New Orleans, then the county, then the state. None of them were up to the task. There are an awful lot of folks very grateful to Brown for being such a mensch and thereby drawing all the fire while they busily CYA'd.

On a related note, I was flipping channels earlier this evening and caught a brief bit of the Katrina Congressional hearings. I was dumbfounded as I listened to a lawyer for some group seriously argue that the possibility of the levees having been intentionally blown up should be investigated. America, what a country.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 30, 2005
If you are asking me to believe the Office of the President can not check the references and background of the people being considered for key positions, you have lost your mind.
on Dec 30, 2005
Not asking you a thing, Gene, & not defending Brown or the process by which he was appointed. Just trying to point out the mindlessness of the cronyism charge. Someone's only a crony if they fail to meet expectations, regardless of their resume or prior experience. If they get the job done, noone accuses them a being a crony. So the onus is really on Brown, not Bush. All Presidents appoint "cronies" and no President can bat a thousand.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Dec 31, 2005

including putting people who are more or less aligned with your philosophy in place, we'd have nothing but an even larger and more unmanageable civil service than we already have.
Clinton and Gore reduced the bureaucracy.

A "crony" is simply someone appointed by your opponent.
I said, either party.

on Dec 31, 2005
but I'm becoming more convinced it wasn't illegal...at least as far as the President's actions were concerned.
A trade off: let the president do whatever he wants while the right desists from reopening Roe v Wade--who needs the court--no more oversight. Screw it all.
on Dec 31, 2005
Daiwa

Do YOU think the White House did their job when looking into Brown's Background?

The clip of Bush standing next to Brown saying " you have done a Hell of a Job Brownie" after Katrina is a classic and shows me Bush does not know much of anything!
on Dec 31, 2005
The clip of Bush standing next to Brown saying " you have done a Hell of a Job Brownie" after Katrina is a classic and shows me Bush does not know much of anything


Ahhhhh, here we go yet "again"! Jump on board, the col's bash-Bush bus is leaving! I suppose that "you" believe that you could have done a better job? Sort of like Kerry's "I'd have fought a smarter war"?
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6