NationStates Jolt Archive

well, let's see... (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf)

Starting on page 22:

A year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger has intensified. Data from Zogby International in July 2004, for example, show that the U.S. is viewed unfavorably by overwhelming majorities in Egypt (98 percent), Saudi Arabia (94 percent), Morocco (88 percent), and Jordan (78 percent). The war has increased mistrust of America in Europe, weakened support for the war on terrorism, and undermined U.S. credibility worldwide. Media commentary is consistent with polling data. In a State Department (INR) survey of editorials and op-eds in 72 countries, 82.5% of commentaries were negative, 17.5% positive.
Negative attitudes and the conditions that create them are the underlying sources of threats to America's national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power are tactical manifestations of a pervasive atmosphere of hostility.

Although many observers correlate anti-Americanism with deficiencies in U.S. public diplomacy (its content, tone, and competence), the effectiveness of the means used to influence public opinion is only one metric. Policies, conflicts of interest, cultural differences, memories, time, dependence on mediated information, and other factors shape perceptions and limit the effectiveness of strategic communication [...]

There is consensus in these reports that U.S. public diplomacy is in crisis. Missing are strong leadership, strategic direction, adequate coordination, sufficient resources, and a culture of measurement and evaluation. America's image problem, many suggest, is linked to perceptions of the United States as arrogant, hypocritical, and self-indulgent. There is agreement too that public diplomacy could be a powerful asset with stronger Presidential leadership, Congressional support, inter-agency coordination, partnership with the private sector, and resources (people, tools, structures, programs, funding). Solutions lie not in short term, manipulative public relations. Results will depend on fundamental transformation of strategic communication instruments and a sustained long term, approach at the level of ideas, cultures, and values.

The number and depth of these reports indicate widespread concern among influential observers that something must be done about public diplomacy. But so far these concerns have produced no real change. The White House has paid little attention.


Hmm, so this administration style directly affects "the underlying sources of threats to America's national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities", but "The White House has paid little attention"

Interesting!

And what, one might wonder, do they think of the War on Terror? Let's skip ahead to page 43 shall we?


We call it a war on terrorism, but Muslims in contrast see a history-shaking movement of Islamic restoration. This is not simply a religious revival, however, but also a renewal of the Muslim World itself. And it has taken form through many variant movements, both moderate and militant, with many millions of adherents, of which radical fighters are only a small part. Moreover, these movements for restoration also represent, in their variant visions, the reality of multiple identities within Islam.

If there is one overarching goal they share, it is the overthrow of what Islamists call the "apostate" regimes: the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and the Gulf states. They are the main target of the broader Islamist movement, as well as the actual fighter groups. The United States finds itself in the strategically awkward -- and potentially dangerous -- situation of being the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive. Thus the U.S. has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle that is both broadly cast for all Muslims and country-specific.

This is the larger strategic context, and it is acutely uncomfortable: U.S. policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself.


What? The pentagon realizes that they hypocritically are propping up some authoritative regimes while invading another? And that to the Muslims this is a HUGE issue wheras most Americans simply ignore it? Refreshing! Let's go on...

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that "freedom is the future of the Middle East" is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World -- but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack -- to broad public support.

What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of "terrorist" groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.


So, the Pentagon report labels the Bush adminstration as patronizing, bereft of leadership at both the national and presidential level. It mocks the use of the insipid "they hate our freedoms" BS that has been like fingernails on a chalkboard to those of us with half a brain.

Anything else?

Oh yeah - page 47: it notes that the US has failed.

The information campaign -- or as some still would have it, "the war of ideas," or the struggle for "hearts and minds" -- is important to every war effort. In this war it is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.



and there, in a nutshell, is what policy wonks at the Pentagon honestly think about this administration and it's policies.


Not terribly flattering.

Whatever man, stop trolling.

I've talked to people on the ground in Iraq, and the majority of local Iraqis love the fact that the insurgents in Fallujah were wasted.

It's a lot harder to replace insurgents than you think. Sure, someone can carry a gun, but knowing how to use it in tactical combat takes a long time to learn.

You can run out of insurgents, weapons, and political backing.

Whole sections of Iraq are fairly peaceable now - far less dangerous than the streets of Washington, D.C.

The central part of the Sunni triangle is the main trouble spot - and it's being swept and cleaned repeatedly. Each time there are fewer insurgents.

I've been in combat, and the only place I was ever hit by someone who shot at me was in downtown DC in a major office building in the daytime.

Whatever man, stop trolling.


I were "trolling" for anything it would be for intelligent debate.



Thank you for your contribution.

:rolleyes:

You were trolling for something, you were trolling for someone to defend the Bush Adminstration so you could attack them then hide behind...

I've talked to people on the ground in Iraq, and the majority of local Iraqis love the fact that the insurgents in Fallujah were wasted.

It's a lot harder to replace insurgents than you think. Sure, someone can carry a gun, but knowing how to use it in tactical combat takes a long time to learn.

You can run out of insurgents, weapons, and political backing.

Whole sections of Iraq are fairly peaceable now - far less dangerous than the streets of Washington, D.C.

The central part of the Sunni triangle is the main trouble spot - and it's being swept and cleaned repeatedly. Each time there are fewer insurgents.

I've been in combat, and the only place I was ever hit by someone who shot at me was in downtown DC in a major office building in the daytime.

Interesting points.

They have nothing to do with the quotes from the article, but thanks for sharing them.

You were trolling for something, you were trolling for someone to defend the Bush Adminstration so you could attack them then hide behind...


Go on, finish the sentance.

I think my point is that you want to say that nothing Bush is doing is working, and I'm saying it is.

Iraq is a giant roach motel. Foreign militants (and local ones) check in, but they don't check out.

You, and they, do not realize that it's a giant lethal magnet for attracting and killing militants. Militants who would otherwise be flying planes into buildings over here.

I think my point is that you want to say that nothing Bush is doing is working, and I'm saying it is.

Iraq is a giant roach motel. Foreign militants (and local ones) check in, but they don't check out.

You, and they, do not realize that it's a giant lethal magnet for attracting and killing militants. Militants who would otherwise be flying planes into buildings over here.

Again, the sections of the report do not really focus on Iraq, however I find it odd that when you refer to "they" not realizing something you are refering to THE PENTAGON!!

Check the link - it is a Pentagon report.



Are you suggesting that the Pentagon has no idea about the strategic benefit of their own policies?

You, and they, do not realize that it's a giant lethal magnet for attracting and killing militants. Militants who would otherwise be flying planes into buildings over here.
Most militants there are actually just local peasants with a grudge. More grudges created every day.

The article does serve to illustrate a belief I have that the business of government and politics are entirely separate things. Government - the serious pragmatic administration of a nation and its overseas interests, politics - the emotional, ideological and sometimes amateur window-dressing that is the "necessary evil" interface with the public and the outside world.

In the US we may be seeing an extreme example of the elected ideologues and their appointees getting under the feet of the people who have been running the show behind the scenes the whole time. And, guess what, everything they carefully built up is being torn to shreds. Like a "bring your kids to work day" gone wrong.

and there, in a nutshell, is what policy wonks at the Pentagon honestly think about this administration and it's policies.

Not terribly flattering.

Except that:
1) The report uses the terms "American," "the United States" and "the White House" rather than "the current administration" or "George W. Bush" and
2) Many of the problems cited predate the Bush administration.

No, I believe the Pentagon knows exactly what it is doing.

If you'll care to note, a few days after 911, Rumsfeld mentioned in passing that the Pentagon was no longer going to share with the public or press the exact nature of any plans, and especially not the outcome nor the motivation behind those plans.

But plan they do. And we are not privy to them, until it is no longer useful information.

Several days before the actual invasion of Fallujah, the military called a press conference and announced that they were invading Fallujah that morning - a complete ruse - designed to F- with the press, with the insurgents, and with anyone who doesn't like the US military in the war.

To see who talks, who criticizes, who can be trusted, and what those insurgents will do when they get the word that we're coming.

The results were completely fatal for the insurgents, and embarassing to the press people who reported it. They are now, by definition, even though many of them hate the war, tools of the US military. Psychological operations tools.

Do you honestly think that a man as devious as Rumsfeld is limiting deception to small operations? Or do you believe that the deception is deeper and more pronounced?

Are the leaks from the Pentagon real? Or are they arranged?

You were trolling for something, you were trolling for someone to defend the Bush Adminstration so you could attack them then hide behind...


C'mon.... finish the sentance!




And while you're at it, explain to the group how putting forth a position on one side of an issue in the hopes of discussing it with those of varying viewpoints constitutes trolling.

Call me crazy, but it might just be what is expected on a discussion forum.

It's called.... DISCUSSION!

On the other hand, coming into threads and just complaining without addressing the topic of the thread IS trolling.

go figure.

:rolleyes:

Whatever man, stop trolling.

You were trolling for something, you were trolling for someone to defend the Bush Adminstration so you could attack them then hide behind...


Hahahahaha! You're quite the amusing one.
I'm afraid it is us who determine what is trolling and what is not.
I believe you may be confusing "trolling" with "intelligent debate".

Do you honestly think that a man as devious as Rumsfeld is limiting deception to small operations? Or do you believe that the deception is deeper and more pronounced?

Are the leaks from the Pentagon real? Or are they arranged?
So, the Bush administration has from the beginning pursued an elaborate ruse to convince the world it is utterly incompetent? As internet conspiracy theories go, this one is original, I have to give you that. :p

Except that:
1) The report uses the terms "American," "the United States" and "the White House" rather than "the current administration" or "George W. Bush" and
2) Many of the problems cited predate the Bush administration.


That is fair statement, and I had several issues with many Clinton policies also. However failures in the past don't excuse failures in the present or future.

The idea is to learn from them.

No, I believe the Pentagon knows exactly what it is doing.

If you'll care to note, a few days after 911, Rumsfeld mentioned in passing that the Pentagon was no longer going to share with the public or press the exact nature of any plans, and especially not the outcome nor the motivation behind those plans.

But plan they do. And we are not privy to them, until it is no longer useful information.

Several days before the actual invasion of Fallujah, the military called a press conference and announced that they were invading Fallujah that morning - a complete ruse - designed to F- with the press, with the insurgents, and with anyone who doesn't like the US military in the war.

To see who talks, who criticizes, who can be trusted, and what those insurgents will do when they get the word that we're coming.

The results were completely fatal for the insurgents, and embarassing to the press people who reported it. They are now, by definition, even though many of them hate the war, tools of the US military. Psychological operations tools.

Do you honestly think that a man as devious as Rumsfeld is limiting deception to small operations? Or do you believe that the deception is deeper and more pronounced?

Are the leaks from the Pentagon real? Or are they arranged?


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh - so you are saying that this is a carefully leaked conspiracy to just make it LOOK like the Pentagon has some issues with Bush? But that they really don't? and that this serves.... what purpose exactly?


But if that is going to be your side of the argument - not to defend a published high-level report because tactical disinformation has been used in the past (and long before Rumsfeld I might ad), then there is, I guess, nothing to debate with you.

Except to note that several retired high-ranking officers stated pretty much the same thing when they decided to support Kerry in the past election, so clearly this is a viewpoint that has some backing within the military.

But hey.... maybe they were all plants too!

If you worked in this town long enough in the right places, you would know the truth is not obtainable. How are you getting a "true" picture of the Pentagon.

Presidents Johnson and Clinton did not engage in, or approve of, tactical disinformation. They wanted to "send signals". You know, just like in Operation Rolling Thunder, where by publicly signaling our displeasure and following up with a series of bombing runs, our enemies would capitulate.
Or where Clinton launched cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan to "send signals".

Obviously, our enemies do not speak "send signals". They understand death, though, pretty well.

I suppose you believe that people in the Pentagon sit around doing nothing all day long.

It's a common grouse in the military that we never know what's going on - they never tell us anything - and we always speculate about the real reason for what we're doing. But taking that seriously - we understand that there IS a plan.

So what you're hearing is either grousing (most likely), or disinformation, or someone who doesn't like being left out of the decisionmaking process.

That is fair statement, and I had several issues with many Clinton policies also. However failures in the past don't excuse failures in the present or future.

The idea is to learn from them.

That's true. I just don't see this report as being specifically directed at the Bush administration, which is the impression you gave.

That's true. I just don't see this report as being specifically directed at the Bush administration, which is the impression you gave.


Well, I'm not sure how you can feel that it wasn't given that it uses the recent Zogby polls to show how the opinions have slid, detailed how the current policies are increasing the threat, specifically referenced and critiqued the War on Terror while discussing the ramification with it in contrast to the continued US support of other authoritarian regimes in the area.


Those ARE all discussion of policies that are entirely in the domain of the Bush Administration.

I also find it amusing that people that generally hate Bush's policies are quick to point out the ignorance of Americans (they can't name important world leaders), but we're supposed to blindly acknowledge the poll results from these same Americans.

So, are we supposed to believe that they really aren't that ignorant, and we can believe the polls to have some substance, or should we believe Michael Moore, and disregard polls because Americans are too ignorant to eat dirt?

And we can't believe any poll by Zogby, can we? He got the election so wrong it wasn't funny. I could pull better numbers out of my butt.

We might also ask:

If Kerry said that catching Osama Bin Laden was the number one thing that would give us a win in the war on terror, why didn't Clinton take possession of OBL when he was a) already attacking the US multiple times and b) Sudan tried to hand OBL to us and Clinton wouldn't take him?

Or:

If Saddam was such a big threat that Clinton also believed Saddam had WMD, why didn't Clinton solve the problem through diplomacy? The problem was not solved over the EIGHT years of the Clinton presidency, and he ended up uselessly bombing Iraq.

BTW, the majority of officers I remember speaking to during the Clinton presidency openly discussed sedition because of their hatred for him. You don't find that kind of talk about Bush in the military. So let's talk about who was a more respected CINC, with a more respected Pentagon.

Still think Ron Brown was an accident? I've heard otherwise.

Whatever man, stop trolling.
He wasn't trolling, he was exposing how arrogant the current US administration is, in a brilliant post.

If you worked in this town long enough in the right places, you would know the truth is not obtainable. How are you getting a "true" picture of the Pentagon.

Presidents Johnson and Clinton did not engage in, or approve of, tactical disinformation. They wanted to "send signals". You know, just like in Operation Rolling Thunder, where by publicly signaling our displeasure and following up with a series of bombing runs, our enemies would capitulate.
Or where Clinton launched cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan to "send signals".

Obviously, our enemies do not speak "send signals". They understand death, though, pretty well.

I suppose you believe that people in the Pentagon sit around doing nothing all day long.

It's a common grouse in the military that we never know what's going on - they never tell us anything - and we always speculate about the real reason for what we're doing. But taking that seriously - we understand that there IS a plan.

So what you're hearing is either grousing (most likely), or disinformation, or someone who doesn't like being left out of the decisionmaking process.


You know something, either discuss the matter on point, prove that this report IS part of a disinformation campaign, or drop it. Trying to hold up your side of the debate by simply dismissing an official Pentagon report because you don't like it is a cheap tactic to use.

BTW, the majority of officers I remember speaking to during the Clinton presidency openly discussed sedition because of their hatred for him. You don't find that kind of talk about Bush in the military.

apologies for going off-topic somewhat:

I thought you steadfastly maintained that the function and purpose of the soldier was to fight, kill and destroy - not to call into question their leader's motives. Sedition? Because they hated their leader? Interesting. Very interesting...

What's the penalty for sedition, Gun?

Since when do you believe what the Pentagon tells you? That's what I'm asking.

They told you why we're going to Iraq, but I bet you don't believe that.

And now they're telling you something else (anything else). And because it sounds bad, you want to believe it.

So, go ahead, believe what the Pentagon tells you. We're in Iraq to liberate Iraqis and stop Saddam from possessing WMD.

See where you're going?

I thought you steadfastly maintained that the function and purpose of the soldier was to fight, kill and destroy - not to call into question their leader's motives. Sedition? Because they hated their leader? Interesting. Very interesting...

What's the penalty for sedition, Gun?

You wouldn't find any officers (and it's officers who bring you up on charges) who would convict you. The feeling for sedition was general after Clinton forbade wear of the uniform by officers visiting the White House during the first week in office. Few military personnel were permitted wear of their uniform after that (a few Marine guards and the Chairman of the JCS).

I also find it amusing that people that generally hate Bush's policies are quick to point out the ignorance of Americans (they can't name important world leaders), but we're supposed to blindly acknowledge the poll results from these same Americans.

So, are we supposed to believe that they really aren't that ignorant, and we can believe the polls to have some substance, or should we believe Michael Moore, and disregard polls because Americans are too ignorant to eat dirt?

And we can't believe any poll by Zogby, can we? He got the election so wrong it wasn't funny. I could pull better numbers out of my butt.


Actually, Zogby was correct on his predictions for all but two states - both of which went Bush's way by small margins. Lookign at the overall number of correct results predicted he was about the closest to the actual election outcome out of all of the major players.


However, the fact that you want to now also dismiss everything ever done by Zogby because he missed on one result shows that you have no knowledge whatsoever of statistics.


Is there anything you DO accept as a valid statement by anyone with a difering opinion than you?

You were trolling for something, you were trolling for someone to defend the Bush Adminstration so you could attack them then hide behind...

Ok how is it trolling when he posts a document with some rather interesting comments?

Sorry but it's fair.

Sedition may not be right - but it's frightening to hear. If you hear so much of it that it's generally spoken, you know the President doesn't have a prayer in any war he may want to prosecute.

Bush is very popular with the soldiers. Clinton was extremely unpopular.

Bush can appear in a crowd of armed soldiers. Clinton NEVER appeared in a field location where soldiers were armed - the Secret Service ALWAYS took their ammunition and weapons before the visit.

Ever wonder what would happen if Clinton tried to really send us to fight a war - it wouldn't happen.

Since when do you believe what the Pentagon tells you? That's what I'm asking.

They told you why we're going to Iraq, but I bet you don't believe that.

And now they're telling you something else (anything else). And because it sounds bad, you want to believe it.

So, go ahead, believe what the Pentagon tells you. We're in Iraq to liberate Iraqis and stop Saddam from possessing WMD.

See where you're going?


Actually, it was the President who told the world why he was going to IRaq.

The pentagon doesn't MAKE policy, it executes it. You'd think that someone as "knowledgeable" as you would understand that.




However, the fact that someone professing to be an ex-soldier is telling me to take his word on it that I shouldn't trust the word of .... soldiers....


now THAT'S funny!

1. If Kerry said that catching Osama Bin Laden was the number one thing that would give us a win in the war on terror, why didn't Clinton take possession of OBL when he was a) already attacking the US multiple times and b) Sudan tried to hand OBL to us and Clinton wouldn't take him?

2. BTW, the majority of officers I remember speaking to during the Clinton presidency openly discussed sedition because of their hatred for him.
1. Well, I would guess that Kerry doesn't control Clinton.
b) It was difficult to take bin Laden when the condition was to support Sudanese governent genocide.

2. Oh, poor guys, angry that the President isn't a Republican.

I just want to know what I'm supposed to believe:

1. Michael Moore - who believes that all Americans are too ignorant to form a true, valid opinion about anything that deals with important policy.
or
2. Zogby polls. If I believed Zogby, I wouldn't have voted.

You want me to believe polls. So, obviously, I can't believe Michael, because those polls are done on those same ignoramouses.

I'm supposed to distrust what comes out of the Pentagon (why should we believe what the evil Rumsfeld tells us - he's only lying for Halliburton and Cheney), but I'm supposed to believe any report that says that the Pentagon isn't working well, and things are bad.

I'm also supposed to believe that Democratic presidents are wildly popular with the military by comparison - a fact that I know not to be true.

So, tell me what I'm supposed to believe.

He wasn't trolling, he was exposing how arrogant the current US administration is, in a brilliant post.


Well I can't take credit for the Pentagon's position. I just take credit for being stuck on a really, really long conference call and having had the time to read it!

1. Well, I would guess that Kerry doesn't control Clinton.
b) It was difficult to take bin Laden when the condition was to support Sudanese governent genocide.

2. Oh, poor guys, angry that the President isn't a Republican.


Sudan offered to put OBL on a plane and fly him to the US. Three times they offered, and Clinton refused.

If Clinton had taken the offer, 9-11 would probably have never occurred.
There would have been no invasion of Afghanistan.
There would have been no invasion of Iraq (probably).
There would have been no second Bush term (probably).
There would have been no Patriot Act.

is Bill up to his same ol' tactics?

I just want to know what I'm supposed to believe:

1. Michael Moore - who believes that all Americans are too ignorant to form a true, valid opinion about anything that deals with important policy.
or
2. Zogby polls. If I believed Zogby, I wouldn't have voted.

You want me to believe polls. So, obviously, I can't believe Michael, because those polls are done on those same ignoramouses.

I'm supposed to distrust what comes out of the Pentagon (why should we believe what the evil Rumsfeld tells us - he's only lying for Halliburton and Cheney), but I'm supposed to believe any report that says that the Pentagon isn't working well, and things are bad.

I'm also supposed to believe that Democratic presidents are wildly popular with the military by comparison - a fact that I know not to be true.

So, tell me what I'm supposed to believe.

a) why drag Michael Moore into this.
b) you vote based on what polls say rather than on your own convictions?
c) which "ignoramouses" are you refering to? Americans? That's pretty harsh..
d) Rumsfeld has nothing to do with Halliburton. That's Cheney.
e) What has this to do with "popularity"? Or democratic presidents?


I'm not telling you what to believe. Feel free to dismiss EVERYTHING if you like. I'm just presenting a given point of view. You can take it, leave it, whatever. but, having dismissed it - please drop out of the debate because it's rather pointless just to try to come up with reasons to dismiss documents as your side of a debate.

Because at that point you haven't even supported your side. Hell, you haven't even really picked a viewpoint at all.

You are just wasting bandwidth.

Sudan offered to put OBL on a plane and fly him to the US. Three times they offered, and Clinton refused.

If Clinton had taken the offer, 9-11 would probably have never occurred.
There would have been no invasion of Afghanistan.
There would have been no invasion of Iraq (probably).
There would have been no second Bush term (probably).
There would have been no Patriot Act.


And if Clinton had had any evidence with which to hold Osama - he would have taken the offer. Unfortunately, he was constrained by having no legal grounds to hold him at that time.

It's a little detail in your constitution about due process, and maybe - just maybe - Billy Boy took that oath he swore to uphold that document more seriously than he did his wedding vows.....

Of course later, after the CIA finally HAD some proof on Osama, and Clinton tried to kill him - the Republicans shut him down because penises and blue dresses were the only thing they wanted to hear about that year. Osama wasn't considered to be as important.



There is lots of blame to throw around on what led up to 9-11.

and none of it is relevant to this thread.

Apparently, he did have something to charge him with. The first World Trade Center attack.

And, it's perfectly relevant. We're talking about how well the Pentagon (and by extension the military) perceives its civilian leadership. So, we're saying the Bush administration is doing a bad job, and thus I say we should compare it to a recent Democratic administration.

The whole blue dress thing, BTW, would have blown over if he had just said, "hell yeah, I f**ked her, so what?" It would have been funny, instead of a lie. And that was a whole year after the three offers.

And why don't you think that wholesale planning for sedition within the Clinton-era military was not a problem? That's the same topic - how does the military and Pentagon perceive its civilian leadership.

Clinton came in at a big fat Zero.

So where is the Pentagon paper that Denounces Clintons administration?

Apparently, he did have something to charge him with. The first World Trade Center attack.

And, it's perfectly relevant. We're talking about how well the Pentagon (and by extension the military) perceives its civilian leadership. So, we're saying the Bush administration is doing a bad job, and thus I say we should compare it to a recent Democratic administration.

The whole blue dress thing, BTW, would have blown over if he had just said, "hell yeah, I f**ked her, so what?" It would have been funny, instead of a lie. And that was a whole year after the three offers.

And why don't you think that wholesale planning for sedition within the Clinton-era military was not a problem? That's the same topic - how does the military and Pentagon perceive its civilian leadership.

Clinton came in at a big fat Zero.

People WERE charged and convicted of the First world trade center bombing, and again - the CIA had ZERO proof about any Osama involvement at the time the offer to extradite him was made. Indeed, I do not believe that there has ever been a direct link made back from that event.

However - and more to the point - Please stop trying to hijack the thread.

So far you have not adressed one element of the initial post. Not one.

Please do so or be gone.

First one:

"Hmm, so this administration style directly affects "the underlying sources of threats to America's national security and reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities", but "The White House has paid little attention""

Any administration's style directly affects the underlying sources of threats to America's national security. Ok. Reduced ability to leverage diplomatic opportunities. Hmm. Well, there's no persuading France to invade Iraq, since they already had the lucrative oil contracts and don't want to lose them. Plus, they had lucrative military equipment contracts worth billions, as did the Russians, who regardless of style would never have been persuaded, even if Saddam had held up a jar on anthrax on international television.

And the White House has paid little attention. Hmm. I suppose it would count as attention if Bush held all of his meetings on CSPAN, so we could check on whether or not attention was being paid. But hey, we'll go ahead with that one. After all, if we're not going to be able to persuade the French and Russians to give up their lucrative Iraqi stuff, and we're not going to be able to persuade Kofi Annan (who got his millions from Iraq as well), then why should we pay attention to them. It's not as though we didn't ask them, though. We asked plenty. And they all said no. Is that "not paying attention"?

I guess the Clinton White House, by comparison, never paid any attention to seditious talk, which they had to know about. I suppose that his administration's style also affected things...

Ok, I agree that an administration's style affects their effectiveness...

So, the Bush administration has from the beginning pursued an elaborate ruse to convince the world it is utterly incompetent? As internet conspiracy theories go, this one is original, I have to give you that. :p
The world needed convincing?

I believe that Anne Richards, the former governor of Texas, may have been on to something.

She said that Bush being ignorant is an act. He was apparently, in person with her (and she was his opponent), incredibly intelligent. Dangerously so, in her opinion.

She said his common man aura and all the rest was an elaborate act.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?