NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/16179553.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay

So contrary to their claims that all the MSM "liberal media" does is report the bad information, the Bipartisan Iraq Survey Group find the Bush administration has been hiding much of the negative information for political gain. They didn't want people to see how bad their policies were failing so they chose to not report the information. Would this be another one of those "lies" that people say the fine, upstanding, "christian" Bush administration never does? We should be for more transparency in government, not less. It seems like all these people behave like school age children, lying and not telling the whole story to make themselves look better. These people are supposed to be intelligent adults leading us and not 4th graders. So when they've been saying over and over again "it's not as bad as you think" it's actually been worse? So were they lying or just "not telling the truth?"

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/16179553.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay

So contrary to their claims that all the MSM "liberal media" does is report the bad information, the Bipartisan Iraq Survey Group find the Bush administration has been hiding much of the negative information for political gain. They didn't want people to see how bad their policies were failing so they chose to not report the information. Would this be another one of those "lies" that people say the fine, upstanding, "christian" Bush administration never does? We should be for more transparency in government, not less. It seems like all these people behave like school age children, lying and not telling the whole story to make themselves look better. These people are supposed to be intelligent adults leading us and not 4th graders. So when they've been saying over and over again "it's not as bad as you think" it's actually been worse? So were they lying or just "not telling the truth?"

If you knew how much the government has always stunk on ice, and how little you knew about any of it, you would have an epileptic fit.

Give me a minute to stop laughing about the "transparency" you desire.

If you knew how much the government has always stunk on ice, and how little you knew about any of it, you would have an epileptic fit.

Give me a minute to stop laughing about the "transparency" you desire.

Oh, I see. Knowing where my tax dollars are going and that they are not being misused should not be my right to "transparant" government. Creating less mistrust of government should not be a goal one should have in a Democratic Society. We should be relegated to conspiracy theories over who controls our Energy Policy instead fo having Dick Cheney be open about who is at the meetings that shape those policies. I'm not talking about natioanl secrets here, I'm talking about how the government carries out my business in my name. Give me a minute to stop laughing at the mockery you think representative democracy is. Expecting that Halliburton will not lose, steal, misplace weaponsm aromor and supplies my tax money went towards is a ludicrous idea. I suppose I should give my money blindly to my government and say thank you when they do whatever it is they do. Give me the truth, I won't scare into paralysis I promise. Expecting the people who represent you to be held accountable is laughable to you then God help you. Personal responsibility used to bewhat the Republican party stood for, now it's a slogan. It makes me more liberatarian and less GOP every day.

Oh, I see. Knowing where my tax dollars are going and that they are not being misused should not be my right to "transparant" government. Creating less mistrust of government should not be a goal one should have in a Democratic Society. We should be relegated to conspiracy theories over who controls our Energy Policy instead fo having Dick Cheney be open about who is at the meetings that shape those policies. I'm not talking about natioanl secrets here, I'm talking about how the government carries out my business in my name. Give me a minute to stop laughing at the mockery you think representative democracy is. Expecting that Halliburton will not lose, steal, misplace weaponsm aromor and supplies my tax money went towards is a ludicrous idea. I suppose I should give my money blindly to my government and say thank you when they do whatever it is they do. Give me the truth, I won't scare into paralysis I promise. Expecting the people who represent you to be held accountable is laughable to you then God help you. Personal responsibility used to bewhat the Republican party stood for, now it's a slogan. It makes me more liberatarian and less GOP every day.

The Federal government has always been this "untransparent" regardless of which party is in the White House or Congress.

Wake up, will you?

The Federal government has always been this "untransparent" regardless of which party is in the White House or Congress.

Wake up, will you?

Really, I implore you to prove it. Unless that is just your opinion because "the government must be run by peiople far wiser than we are." Please, describe for my how this is true. You know there were laws put in place after the Nixon Presidency that made government far more transparent. They worked for a while and much of the government actions were easily learned through FOIA requests and such. Please, give me the wake up call you so desire. I do not accept that because this administration has chosen to claim "exucutive privelege" on everything that this is the way government should be. So put your money where your mouth is.

Really, I implore you to prove it. Unless that is just your opinion because "the government must be run by peiople far wiser than we are." Please, describe for my how this is true. You know there were laws put in place after the Nixon Presidency that made government far more transparent. They worked for a while and much of the government actions were easily learned through FOIA requests and such. Please, give me the wake up call you so desire. I do not accept that because this administration has chosen to claim "exucutive privelege" on everything that this is the way government should be. So put your money where your mouth is.

Come down to 1100 New Jersey avenue, and I'll give you a personal tour.

Come down to 1100 New Jersey avenue, and I'll give you a personal tour.

that doesn't quite suffice as proof. Try again.

that doesn't quite suffice as proof. Try again.

I guarantee you'll be protesting down in front of the Capitol after you take the tour.

Either that, or you'll be transported to the Washington Adventists Psychiatric Ward for 72 hour observation...

I guarantee you'll be protesting down in front of the Capitol after you take the tour.

Either that, or you'll be transported to the Washington Adventists Psychiatric Ward for 72 hour observation...

obfuscation doesn't make your point any more valid. Please advise.

obfuscation doesn't make your point any more valid. Please advise.

Ever see people spend millions of dollars in a day on absolutely nothing for absolutely no reason?

With absolutely no accountability, visibility, etc.?

Like I said, come on down.

To reply to the OP rather than Eve's tangent, it would appear from the article that it is not the Bush administration that is hiding the information.

It appears that the people who are gathering data are doing so in a way that it supports the policy decisions of the Bush administration.

It is possible that they are doing so under orders from the White House, but the article does not give any indication of that.

To reply to the OP rather than Eve's tangent, it would appear from the article that it is not the Bush administration that is hiding the information.

It appears that the people who are gathering data are doing so in a way that it supports the policy decisions of the Bush administration.

It is possible that they are doing so under orders from the White House, but the article does not give any indication of that.

It could also be that the people gathering the data are used to living in an environment where your sole occupation is covering your own ass.

Ever think of that? It's not a tangent - it's the way the fucking government works.

To reply to the OP rather than Eve's tangent, it would appear from the article that it is not the Bush administration that is hiding the information.

It appears that the people who are gathering data are doing so in a way that it supports the policy decisions of the Bush administration.

It is possible that they are doing so under orders from the White House, but the article does not give any indication of that.
What it does indicate at least is that those of us who have been saying for 3 out of the 4 years of the war that we haven't been getting the whole story were right. We were laughed at as conspiracy theorists or Dem/Lib losers desperately grasping at straws to prove that Bush's war was not going as well as claimed. But it turns out that we were right all along.

I think it is more important that the rest of the country get this reality check and get it good, if we have any hope of salvaging anything from this horrible situation. Later, we can parse out why we weren't being told the whole truth and whether anyone should be blamed for that. Right now, we just need to realize that it was being done and make it stop.

You know back in the good old days when we had a media that had some actual balls we had things called "Reporters". They actually investigated things, looked around, asked questions, that sorta thing. Now a days we have talking heads who read the rueters news wire on the air and call it reporting.

It could also be that the people gathering the data are used to living in an environment where your sole occupation is covering your own ass.

Ever think of that? It's not a tangent - it's the way the fucking government works.

You are correct in that it is possible that the people gathering the data are used to living in an environment where your sole occupation is covering your own ass.

Now, I am a liberal/leftist/hippie, so I am not very good at running a counterinsurgency or peacekeeping effort. Please explain to me why the White House would have these people responsible for collecting and disseminating data?

Would it not be more helpful to be provided the truth, so that any decisions you do make are more effective?

When you put it that way, it sounds like the Bush administration is incompetently putting the wrong people in important positions, or they are receiving the correct information, and this is some elaborate cover-up.

You are correct in that it is possible that the people gathering the data are used to living in an environment where your sole occupation is covering your own ass.

Now, I am a liberal/leftist/hippie, so I am not very good at running a counterinsurgency or peacekeeping effort. Please explain to me why the White House would have these people responsible for collecting and disseminating data?

Would it not be more helpful to be provided the truth, so that any decisions you do make are more effective?

When you put it that way, it sounds like the Bush administration is incompetently putting the wrong people in important positions, or they are receiving the correct information, and this is some elaborate cover-up.

No, the bureaucracy (which is the pool of people you have to choose from to do the work of the Executive) is full of people who have spent entire careers in the occupation "Ass Coverer".

When I put it this way, it sounds like no matter who the Executive is, or who is in Congress, we can't receive the correct information.

Let's take a short trip back in time.

Remember the CIA? Did they foresee 9-11? Nope. But they had plenty of ass covering memos. Did they think WMD were in Iraq? It was a "slam dunk".

Same guy - Tenet - in both cases - with the same ass covering staff.

Under two completely separate Presidents.

The government is so full of these people, they are the NORM.

No, the bureaucracy (which is the pool of people you have to choose from to do the work of the Executive) is full of people who have spent entire careers in the occupation "Ass Coverer".

When I put it this way, it sounds like no matter who the Executive is, or who is in Congress, we can't receive the correct information.

Let's take a short trip back in time.

Remember the CIA? Did they foresee 9-11? Nope. But they had plenty of ass covering memos. Did they think WMD were in Iraq? It was a "slam dunk".

Same guy - Tenet - in both cases - with the same ass covering staff.

Under two completely separate Presidents.

The government is so full of these people, they are the NORM.


Let's pretend for a mnute there were more Presidents than guys named Bush and Clinton shall we? This is the accountability we look for.

Let's pretend for a mnute there were more Presidents than guys named Bush and Clinton shall we? This is the accountability we look for.

I think you're missing the point.

The bureaucracy lives on, across ALL presidencies, across ALL Congresses.

It is its own entity, with its own life, and IT is where people get the information.

Not from the desk of the President, or from some Congressional committee - every scrap of information they have comes from the bureaucracy.

And the bureaucracy DOES NOT CHANGE.

No, the bureaucracy (which is the pool of people you have to choose from to do the work of the Executive) is full of people who have spent entire careers in the occupation "Ass Coverer".

When I put it this way, it sounds like no matter who the Executive is, or who is in Congress, we can't receive the correct information.

Let's take a short trip back in time.

Remember the CIA? Did they foresee 9-11? Nope. But they had plenty of ass covering memos. Did they think WMD were in Iraq? It was a "slam dunk".

Same guy - Tenet - in both cases - with the same ass covering staff.

Under two completely separate Presidents.

The government is so full of these people, they are the NORM.

That may well be, but we are not discussing the previous administrations. We are discussing why the current one has been downplaying Iraqi violence.

If you wish to believe that it is simply bureacratic indolence, that is your prerogative. If you wish to convince me, you will have to try harder.

It is obvious that the Bush administration profits from a rosier picture of Iraq. What I am wondering is whether Bush and co. told the bureaucrats to fudge the numbers, and if not, why did the bureaucrats do it?

That may well be, but we are not discussing the previous administrations. We are discussing why the current one has been downplaying Iraqi violence.

If you wish to believe that it is simply bureacratic indolence, that is your prerogative. If you wish to convince me, you will have to try harder.

It is obvious that the Bush administration profits from a rosier picture of Iraq. What I am wondering is whether Bush and co. told the bureaucrats to fudge the numbers, and if not, why did the bureaucrats do it?

Is it so hard that I do not accept your answer because you claim that each and every instance is due to beuracracy? You don't think the leel of secrecy has changed throughout the years from administration to Administration? The Nixon administration and the Carter administration had the same level of intellectual honesty and expected the beuracrates to lie to them and just tell them what they wanted to hear? that type of cynicism may work within the beltway where the belief is, "that's just the way it is so it will never change" but not for the rest of us. I agree with Gift, you'll have to work just a wee bit harder to prove your point.

That may well be, but we are not discussing the previous administrations. We are discussing why the current one has been downplaying Iraqi violence.

If you wish to believe that it is simply bureacratic indolence, that is your prerogative. If you wish to convince me, you will have to try harder.

It is obvious that the Bush administration profits from a rosier picture of Iraq. What I am wondering is whether Bush and co. told the bureaucrats to fudge the numbers, and if not, why did the bureaucrats do it?

If not, the bureaucrats did it to cover their own ass.

I work at a government department that has nothing to do with Iraq - and no messages from Bush telling the people here to cover their asses - but they're doing it wholesale - in fact, that is ALL they do here.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html

www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=5631

just a few little ditties on the current administrations actions taken to purposely hide the truth from the public, and even from other members of the administration itself.

If not, the bureaucrats did it to cover their own ass.

I work at a government department that has nothing to do with Iraq - and no messages from Bush telling the people here to cover their asses - but they're doing it wholesale - in fact, that is ALL they do here.

and why has the culture become that way? That the people responsible for government would rather make things sounds nice than right? It's been happeneing since the days of Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson...?

If not, the bureaucrats did it to cover their own ass.

Please explain.

and why has the culture become that way? That the people responsible for government would rather make things sounds nice than right? It's been happeneing since the days of Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson...?

It's been that way in Washington since before I was born (before 1961).

You can't blame the culture of bureaucracy on any particular party, either.

Please explain.

No bureaucrat who has any responsibility for even the smallest thing is ever going to report anything except success and good news.

Maybe you're not familiar with bureaucrats, or how they think.

No bureaucrat who has any responsibility for even the smallest thing is ever going to report anything except success and good news.

Maybe you're not familiar with bureaucrats, or how they think.

Repeating vague truisms is not a valid explanation of this situation.

To me, it still seems more plausible that someone in the Bush administration told the bureaucrats to gather data in this manner.

Repeating vague truisms is not a valid explanation of this situation.

To me, it still seems more plausible that someone in the Bush administration told the bureaucrats to gather data in this manner.

No, I think it's more plausible that they tell him crap to keep their asses covered, and he believed it (which is stupid).

I'm more likely to believe an explanation based on stupidity, rather than on some uberconspiracy.

No, I think it's more plausible that they tell him crap to keep their asses covered, and he believed it (which is stupid).

I'm more likely to believe an explanation based on stupidity, rather than on some uberconspiracy.

so is this not a result of the pressure brought about by the overseers? The boss doesn't want to hear bad news so you don't tell him any. Is it the fault of the stooge for giving him what he wants or the boss for not wanting to have the truth be told and possibly explore the idea they aren't mother Fing omnipotent? I clearly side it's the problem of the rulers who wish to only hear they are right rather than the people who fear for their jobs if they tell them they are wrong. And that my dear friend is the breeding cround for incompetence and beaurocracy.

so is this not a result of the pressure brought about by the overseers? The boss doesn't want to hear bad news so you don't tell him any. Is it the fault of the stooge for giving him what he wants or the boss for not wanting to have the truth be told and possibly explore the idea they aren't mother Fing omnipotent? I clearly side it's the problem of the rulers who wish to only hear they are right rather than the people who fear for their jobs if they tell them they are wrong. And that my dear friend is the breeding cround for incompetence and beaurocracy.

what's with the "stooge" and "ruler" thing?

Bureaucracy is the breeding ground of bureaucracy. No one (or virtually no one) at any level is willing to tell the truth here. No one is thinking, "OMFG! What will Bush think?!"

They have this down to a reflex, and the "boss" is now any audience that can shame, embarass, ridicule, or hurt them in any way.

what's with the "stooge" and "ruler" thing?

Bureaucracy is the breeding ground of bureaucracy. No one (or virtually no one) at any level is willing to tell the truth here. No one is thinking, "OMFG! What will Bush think?!"

They have this down to a reflex, and the "boss" is now any audience that can shame, embarass, ridicule, or hurt them in any way.

Wow, maybe we need to fiare all of you and hire a "life coach." Seriously, you've never given information to your boss they didn't like?

Wow, maybe we need to fiare all of you and hire a "life coach." Seriously, you've never given information to your boss they didn't like?

and no, u think, what will my boss, their boss, their boss, and eventually Bush think. He's the ultimate "decider" right?

Wow, maybe we need to fiare all of you and hire a "life coach." Seriously, you've never given information to your boss they didn't like?

I'm a consultant, I'm free to say whatever I like. I get paid either way.

The government employees, on the other hand, dare not displease anyone.

and no, u think, what will my boss, their boss, theor boss, and eventually Bush think. He's the ultimate "decider" right?

They never think that far out.

They never think that far out.

it all comes down to an instrument of fear from above.

it all comes down to an instrument of fear from above.

No, it doesn't. The "instrument of fear" is your immediate supervisor - whoever writes your personnel evaluation.

No, it doesn't. The "instrument of fear" is your immediate supervisor - whoever writes your personnel evaluation.

and who do they fear that they must keep you from reporting negative information. We have a saying where I work and it's that "shit rolls downhill." Well, that's just one of many. If the big boss and the top says no fuck ups and tie up all loose ends then it eventually filters down the the janitor as well. Pressure is exerted from the top of the sytem, not the middle or the bottom first.

and who do they fear that they must keep you from reporting negative information. We have a saying where I work and it's that "shit rolls downhill." Well, that's just one of many. If the big boss and the top says no fuck ups and tie up all loose ends then it eventually filters down the the janitor as well. Pressure is exerted from the top of the sytem, not the middle or the bottom first.

Sorry, it never rolls that far downhill.

The Federal government has always been this "untransparent" regardless of which party is in the White House or Congress.

Wake up, will you?

By necesity governments can't be fully transparent.

This administration has taken it to previously unheard of levels, though. They're not just hiding problems, they're hiding incompetence. The OP has a valid point.

You know back in the good old days when we had a media that had some actual balls we had things called "Reporters". They actually investigated things, looked around, asked questions, that sorta thing. Now a days we have talking heads who read the rueters news wire on the air and call it reporting.


you can thank Ronald Reagan who repealed the Fairness in Reporting Act in 1986 for that actually.

If you knew how much the government has always stunk on ice, and how little you knew about any of it, you would have an epileptic fit.

Give me a minute to stop laughing about the "transparency" you desire.

Previous administrations did it, so we may as well throw up our hands and give up, right? It's not like we have any chance whatsoever in changing the way things are run in this country. Just sit back, smoke some pot and trust the leaders.

*zombie imitation*

Previous administrations did it, so we may as well throw up our hands and give up, right? It's not like we have any chance whatsoever in changing the way things are run in this country. Just sit back, smoke some pot and trust the leaders.

*zombie imitation*

Actually, the bureaucracy is the Borg, and resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

I hate Bush, I hate Christians, but darnit I love this war in Iraq. Bush is pretty evil in all things except the war, sort of.

Bush demotes environmental scientists that dare to put forth solid research that is inconvenient to polluting companies. I hate him for this.

Christians are anti-abortion and spooky child molesters, closeted homosexuals, givers of money to lazy bums, and hate premarital sex. Some of the best sex I ever had was premarital! Plus they are for abstinence. I hate them so much. I wish the Democrats would take them.

Now we have the war which I support 100%. You know why? It is because I think human rights are worth fighting for even if we do not find that some horrible dictator had WMD that we worried that he might have had. I do not care if it is N. Korea, Iraq, Sudan, or China, I think we should stand up for human rights and lay down our lives (and the lives of piles of the enemy) for the cause of human rights everywhere.

That brings me to torture. This is one of if not the worst human rights violation there is. It is not something that Americans are supposed to do. It is not who we are. We also do not do an end run around this by shipping our detainees to places that will torture them for us. I hate this torture stuff. I would rather have our country attacked by terrorists on a daily basis than have the honor of our Republic stained with the practice or abbeting of torture.

We overthrew a horrible regime. It is our duty as human beings to stand beside our Iraqi brothers and defend them long enough for them to be able to have relatively safe and free elections.

That brings me to torture. This is one of if not the worst human rights violation there is. It is not something that Americans are supposed to do. It is not who we are. We also do not do an end run around this by shipping our detainees to places that will torture them for us. ...


Correction, it's not who you're supposed to be, it's not what you're supposed to do.
But after the last four years everybody is very well aware it is
exactly who you are and what you do.


(The you stands for Americans as in the people of the United States
as a whole as represented by their government and not necessarily you
personally, as long as you completely disown the methods and the people
who brought it all about. Even then you personally whether Chomsky or Rumsfeld are tainted by it.
As every citizen of every democratic state
is tainted by immoral actions of their governments against people)

Oh, I see. Knowing where my tax dollars are going and that they are not being misused should not be my right to "transparant" government. Creating less mistrust of government should not be a goal one should have in a Democratic Society. We should be relegated to conspiracy theories over who controls our Energy Policy instead fo having Dick Cheney be open about who is at the meetings that shape those policies. I'm not talking about natioanl secrets here, I'm talking about how the government carries out my business in my name. Give me a minute to stop laughing at the mockery you think representative democracy is. Expecting that Halliburton will not lose, steal, misplace weaponsm aromor and supplies my tax money went towards is a ludicrous idea. I suppose I should give my money blindly to my government and say thank you when they do whatever it is they do. Give me the truth, I won't scare into paralysis I promise. Expecting the people who represent you to be held accountable is laughable to you then God help you. Personal responsibility used to bewhat the Republican party stood for, now it's a slogan. It makes me more liberatarian and less GOP every day.

When Bush was first elected I heard many people say that he was stupid. I thought it was mean spirited slander, after all how could anyone stupid be elected President. But now after seeing what he has done he is either the biggest liar ever elected or he is honest but is the stupidest man ever elected President.

Sometimes rumors are true, the man is genuinely stupid, just my opinion.

No, it doesn't. The "instrument of fear" is your immediate supervisor - whoever writes your personnel evaluation.

and who pray tell do they fear that they must be so harsh on you for reporting to them the truth?

When Bush was first elected I heard many people say that he was stupid. I thought it was mean spirited slander, after all how could anyone stupid be elected President. But now after seeing what he has done he is either the biggest liar ever elected or he is honest but is the stupidest man ever elected President.

Sometimes rumors are true, the man is genuinely stupid, just my opinion.

Stupid yes, but honest?

Obviously the complex lies are not his work but he has told some simple lies
and even a dullard must know that insisting any group be exempted from
a law against torture means that they are being allowed to torture (just as an example).

Stupid yes, but honest?

Obviously the complex lies are not his work but he has told some simple lies
and even a dullard must know that insisting any group be exempted from
a law against torture means that they are being allowed to torture (just as an example).

The man has been dishonest on the national scale since "uniter not divider" came out of his mouth. I don't believe he, or his entire family know what ity is like to live a prupose driven life of honesty and integrity. To them it's all just a game and the only way to succeed in the game it to "win." Lie, cheat, steal, murder, they're just part of the moves made to win the game. After all, as long as it's not your blood being shed then it's all good.