[TheMosco]

CNN) -- A former Air Force chief of staff and one-time "Veteran for Bush" said Saturday that America's foreign relations for the first three years of President Bush's term have been "a national disaster" but that the president's Democratic rival was "up to the task" of rebuilding.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...dio/index.html

[BRussell]

And how many of Bush's top anti-terrorism national security people have quit in disgust? And yet Bush is going to run on being tough on terrorism. It's quite strange. It's difficult to find anyone outside of the Bush campaign or the pro-Iraq war bloggers who think Bush will make the US safer than Kerry.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Bush's foreign policy is a major paradigm shift. Some people oppose that paradigm shift and prefer the pre-9/11 policy. Whether they are right or not is a matter of opinion, but just because they disagree with a policy doesn't make a policy wrong.

And to be honest, the Air Force has a vested interest in reversing this policy. You don't need as many super expensive fighter jets to fight a war on terror. It's not the kind of war that emphasises sexy dog fighting. It's more the kind of war that emphasises humble, boring, subsonic transport planes and "boots on the ground" infantrymen and special forces. So just as the Air Force was preeminent in the Cold War (nuclear bombers and missiles), they are rendered in a support role in the war on terror. That is bound to upset some institutional feathers. This is beyond the fact that generals are NOTORIOUS for their inability to absorb change. That's where the phrase "fighting the last war" comes from. History is full of generals who do that.

As for Clarke, he was just pissed off that he got demoted. Sorry, the rantings of a petty man aren't something to judge a foreign policy by. Bush is doing what many forward thinking people in the foreign policy community spent the 1990s saying that we need to do:- treat terrorism as a national security threat, and change the status quo in the middle east by promoting democracy.

[zigzag]

I find it remarkable that so many high-ranking and/or prominent military figures - many of them Republicans - have been openly critical of Bush. That some of them have publicly announced support for the opposition and appeared at the Democratic Convention is even more remarkable. I've never seen anything like it, even during the Vietnam era. And those are just the ones who are willing to speak out - I wonder how many are out there who can't speak out. Like, for instance, Colin Powell.

It doesn't make them right, but it pretty much deflates the "Bush-basher" label that gets thrown around here any time someone is so bold as to criticize the administration.

Edit: I just saw Simey's post. I would agree that at least some of the criticism probably stems from a resistance to change and/or turf wars, but neither do I think all of the criticism can be dismissed on that basis. Some of it has been quite pointed and has been borne out on the ground.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As for Clarke, he was just pissed off that he got demoted.

That's a pretty easy dismissal. But it's not just Clarke. Wayne Downing replaced Clarke as head of counter-terrorism, and he quit after 10 months, some say due to frustration:

Others argued that Downing was dismayed by the administration's halting progress on homeland security issues. It resisted creating a department of homeland security for months, for example, and then announced it would do so on short notice. "Homeland security is a fiasco, and that's probably why," said one security expert.

But the predominant view among officials and specialists who have worked with him was that Downing, a career Special Operations officer fond of talking about the need to "think like a bank robber," was uncomfortable with his limited advisory role as a White House staffer.

"He was told, and foolishly believed, that he would have co-equal status with Condi," said one Republican defense expert, referring to Rice. "He thought he would have involvement in all sorts of things that it turned out he isn't involved in. And he wasn't allowed to do the things he thought he was hired to do." Several other people in Downing's office also plan to leave the government, this person added.

Next was Rand Beers, who of course resigned in disgust and joined the Kerry campaign. Not exactly a great track record for counter-terrorism experts in the Bush administration. A few others resigned less than a year after they were put in that position. I'm not aware of anyone having replaced the last resignation. So it's hard to single Clarke out when it's put in context. It could be just a string of bad luck, but for a position that deals with what should be the focus of the Bush administration's national security team, luck shouldn't play that big of a role. At what point does one stop dismissing them all as Bush-haters and start wondering if there's something seriously wrong in the administration?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's a pretty easy dismissal. But it's not just Clarke. Wayne Downing replaced Clarke as head of counter-terrorism, and he quit after 10 months, some say due to frustration:
Next was Rand Beers, who of course resigned in disgust and joined the Kerry campaign. Not exactly a great track record for counter-terrorism experts in the Bush administration. A few others resigned less than a year after they were put in that position. I'm not aware of anyone having replaced the last resignation. So it's hard to single Clarke out when it's put in context. It could be just a string of bad luck, but for a position that deals with what should be the focus of the Bush administration's national security team, luck shouldn't play that big of a role. At what point does one stop dismissing them all as Bush-haters and start wondering if there's something seriously wrong in the administration?

Both Downing and Beers made their careers in Democratic Administrations. Although people at that level do serve in multiple administrations across party lines, they do still have personal politics and personal preferences for how they want things done. But the job is bigger than them.

Moving beyond the career interests of individuals, if you compare the strategies of the Kerry campaign with the strategy of the Bush campaign, I think it is night and day. Someone the other day characterized it as the 9/11 Republicans versus the 9/10 Democrats. I might criticize some aspects of Bush's handling as well. I agree with Downing that Bush was slow to accept the Lieberman/McCain idea f a Department of Homeland Security. And I also think that the FBI should have been in it. But mishandling can be corrected because at least Bush sees the problem. The Democrats are in complete denial. They just hope the problem will vanish in a puff of empty feel-good rhetoric.


And by the way, did you even read the article you posted about Downing?

Some security experts speculated that Downing was spurred to leave because his plan for Iraq had been rejected by the Joint Chiefs. But others dismissed that. "This isn't about some massive policy loss on Iraq. I think he wanted to get back to Colorado," where he has a home, one national security official said.

Others argued that Downing was dismayed by the administration's halting progress on homeland security issues. It resisted creating a department of homeland security for months, for example, and then announced it would do so on short notice. "Homeland security is a fiasco, and that's probably why," said one security expert.

But the predominant view among officials and specialists who have worked with him was that Downing, a career Special Operations officer fond of talking about the need to "think like a bank robber," was uncomfortable with his limited advisory role as a White House staffer.

"He was told, and foolishly believed, that he would have co-equal status with Condi," said one Republican defense expert, referring to Rice. "He thought he would have involvement in all sorts of things that it turned out he isn't involved in. And he wasn't allowed to do the things he thought he was hired to do." Several other people in Downing's office also plan to leave the government, this person added.

He may have resigned because he didn't like being an underling again after being a 4 star, but he doesn't sound like a natural Kerry supporter to me. A "leading hawk" on invading Iraq and favoring an unconventional approach to the war on terror. Kerry is the opposite of both those things.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by TheMosco:

And hundreds of military commanders signed a letter stating that John Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief.

We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Both Downing and Beers made their careers in Democratic Administrations. Although people at that level do serve in multiple administrations across party lines, they do still have personal politics and personal preferences for how they want things done. But the job is bigger than them.

Moving beyond the career interests of individuals, if you compare the strategies of the Kerry campaign with the strategy of the Bush campaign, I think it is night and day. Someone the other day characterized it as the 9/11 Republicans versus the 9/10 Democrats. I might criticize some aspects of Bush's handling as well. I agree with Downing that Bush was slow to accept the Lieberman/McCain idea f a Department of Homeland Security. And I also think that the FBI should have been in it. But mishandling can be corrected because at least Bush sees the problem. The Democrats are in complete denial. They just hope the problem will vanish in a puff of empty feel-good rhetoric.

And by the way, did you even read the article you posted about Downing?

He may have resigned because he didn't like being an underling again after being a 4 star, but he doesn't sound like a natural Kerry supporter to me. A "leading hawk" on invading Iraq and favoring an unconventional approach to the war on terror. Kerry is the opposite of both those things.

Kerry's reliance on his Vietnam service 30 years ago is pathetic, and it's getting really old to those of us interested in the campaign. But you say he's ignoring 9/11. As far as I can tell, he's been no less specific in his stated approach to terrorism than Bush has been about what he'll do from here on. Kerry talks a lot about how he wants to be more of an internationalist than Bush, which won't be too hard to do, and he wants a larger and better-funded military. Here's a quote you might like from Kerry's convention speech:

I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops, not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle.

I think you said a week or two ago that Kerry needed to say something like "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Now that he says it, it's just empty rhetoric? That's really not fair.

About Downing - no definitely not a Kerry guy. But that's my point, not yours. If he was a Kerry guy you'd dismiss him as another Clarke or Beers.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And hundreds of military commanders signed a letter stating that John Kerry is unfit to be commander-in-chief.

http://pennlive.com/news/patriotnews...0480797670.xml

But way to address Bush's failures...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think you said a week or two ago that Kerry needed to say something like "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." Now that he says it, it's just empty rhetoric? That's really not fair.

Yup. It came too late, and with too little feeling and cost. Can I square those statements with the party that put Michael Moore in a presidential box next to Jimmy Carter? Would I take that risk?

Not on your life. The Democrats have spent the last 18 months utterly convincing me that they haven't a clue, and that their instincts are wrong. And Kerry's last minute makeover doesn't convince me that he would put a different face on a Democratic Administration.

A strange thing about extreme makeovers -- rather like those reality shows like Queer Eye, you just know that the person who receives the extreme makeover will revert to type once the cameras are off.

[BRussell]

I disagree with that, but that's OK, you're a Republican and I wouldn't expect you to vote for Kerry. But don't say, in another thread, that Kerry needs to say something, and then when he says exactly what you want, dismiss it.

Kerry's position on Iraq has ticked me off. I would much rather he supported the war through good times and bad, or not at all. His positions have been transparently political. But I think the premise that supporting the Iraq war is a litmus test for toughness on terrorism is flawed, and I think that's your premise. The primary argument against the Iraq war is that it was a diversion from the war on terrorism, not that it was too tough on terrorism.

[SimeyTheLimey]

When I said Kerry needed to say certain things, I guess I should have specified that I wanted to be assured that he meant them too. But I'm afraid I am not conviced of that. At least not enough to take such a leap in the dark.

There is an intersting op-ed about Kerry's foreign policy here.

The Kerry Doctrine

By Robert Kagan

Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B07
Someday, when the passions of this election have subsided, historians and analysts of American foreign policy may fasten on a remarkable passage in John Kerry's nomination speech. "As president," Kerry declared, "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. That is the standard of our nation." The statement received thunderous applause at the convention and, no doubt, the nodding approval of many Americans of all political leanings who watched on television.

Only American diplomatic historians may have contemplated suicide as they reflected on their failure to have the smallest influence on Americans' understanding of their own nation's history.

[Kagan then debunks this supposed tradition by reference to a 200 year history of discretionary wars]

* * *

The ironies abound. Three decades ago, Kerry came out in opposition to the war he had fought in Vietnam. Today, Kerry extols that service so that he may safely, patriotically distance himself from the war in Iraq that he had supported.

If Kerry has revealed himself in an unusual moment of honesty, it's time everyone took an equally honest look at where he would lead the country if elected. Kerry's "doctrine of necessity," if seriously intended, would entail a pacifism and an isolationism more thorough than any attempted by a U.S. government since the 1930s. It would rule out all wars fought for humanitarian ends, all interventions to prevent genocide, to defend democracy or even, as in the case of the Persian Gulf War, to uphold international law against aggression. For those are all wars of choice.

For someone who professes to seek better relations with the rest of the world, Kerry's doctrine of necessity would base American foreign policy on narrow, selfish interests far more than the alleged "unilateralism" of the Bush administration. Some Europeans have been quietly worrying that what they consider Bush's overambitious foreign policy will be followed in the United States by an isolationist backlash. After hearing Kerry's speech, they may worry a bit more.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
A strange thing about extreme makeovers -- rather like those reality shows like Queer Eye, you just know that the person who receives the extreme makeover will revert to type once the cameras are off.

Which is exactly what we expect from the U.S. government (and probably any other!) in the first place, considering where they get their $$$.

Talk about democracy!

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bush's foreign policy is a major paradigm shift. Some people oppose that paradigm shift and prefer the pre-9/11 policy. Whether they are right or not is a matter of opinion, but just because they disagree with a policy doesn't make a policy wrong.

And to be honest, the Air Force has a vested interest in reversing this policy.

Oh man this thread is something else.

Simey has now dismissed criticism form any member of the Air Force because, he says, they have a vested interest. All based on the comments of a RETIRED AF General. That's precious. How you can the impugn the credibility of a entire branch of service based on the remarks of retired General is a mystery to me.

So criticism from military people don't count because they vested interests? Even if they're retired? Democrats don't count because they have political bias? Former members of the Administration don't matter because they have a personal axe to grind or are just out to make money?

Over the course of the last year you've dismissed every critical piece published based on the assumption of bias. It's either a political or personal vendetta, or done for monetary gain. I guess that's easier than trying counter the substance of the criticism.
____

Anyway, I spent all of yesterday with my brother-in-law who just returned (3 weeks ago) from Iraq. He's a former military lifer (20+ years in the Army) who now works for a defense contractor. He spent 3 months just south of Bagdad. Anyhow, I sat there stunned as he explained how he, as a life-long conservative always-voted Republican, couldn't support George Bush in november. It was amazing. I didn't have to pull out any of my finely hewed political arguments because he was already convinced. I don't know how much he likes Kerry but he seemed impressed enough by the speech he heard the other night. Maybe it's anecdotal but it sure seems like an indication of a topsy-turvy election this year.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yup. It came too late, and with too little feeling and cost. Can I square those statements with the party that put Michael Moore in a presidential box next to Jimmy Carter? Would I take that risk?

Not on your life. The Democrats have spent the last 18 months utterly convincing me that they haven't a clue, and that their instincts are wrong. And Kerry's last minute makeover doesn't convince me that he would put a different face on a Democratic Administration.

I guess that makes sense. You ask for a an explicit statement by Kerry, he makes it, and then you criticize it because you don't like the seating arrangement in the audience. Huh?

We have a Republican majority in the House. A Republican majority in the Senate and Republican Administration in the White House. Almost every sector of Government is worse off than when the Democrats were in power 4 years ago - international relations, domestic security, social policy and the economy. Yet, you say the Democrats don't have a clue. Huh?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Oh man this thread is something else.

Simey has now dismissed criticism form any member of the Air Force because, he says, they have a vested interest. All based on the comments of a RETIRED AF General. That's precious. How you can the impugn the credibility of a entire branch of service based on the remarks of retired General is a mystery to me.

I think you confuse things. I'm not saying that he would have a personal stake, merely that air force generals tend to see things the air force way, navy admirals the navy way, army generals the army way, marines the marine corps way, state department the state department way, and so on. Senior people who spend lifetimes in these institutions tend to absorb their institutional biases, and tend to be resistant to change. It's a fact of life, and it doesn't change after retirement.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you confuse things. I'm not saying that he would have a personal stake, merely that air force generals tend to see things the air force way, navy admirals the navy way, army generals the army way, marines the marine corps way, state department the state department way, and so on. Senior people who spend lifetimes in these institutions tend to absorb their institutional biases, and tend to be resistant to change. It's a fact of life, and it doesn't change after retirement.

Ok, I'll accept that and I'll re-read your posts here.

I just wish your first reaction wasn't to dismiss every criticism based on a supposed bias. I'd rather hear you countering the substance of their criticism rather than telling us what their bias is based on. We take that into account with everybody. Even with people who support my position.

Let's face it Simey. You're one of the few articulate, non-raving conservatives left on the board here. Contrary to what you may think about me, I sincerely want to hear a well-thought opposing position. Dismissing criticism because of perceived sour grapes doesn't move the discussion very far.

[zigzag]

There's no question that Kerry is all over the map: he'll only enter wars of necessity (but how will he define necessity? - he voted for Clinton's ventures and Iraq); he'll be multilateralist but will never let anyone else veto an American security action; he'll destroy al Qaeda (per Edwards), etc. He continues to say whatever needs to be said to keep the political ball in the air. But this doesn't really bother me - I neither want nor expect him to make promises that he probably couldn't keep even if he wanted to.

Which IMO illustrates Bush's problem: he might talk a good game but he can't deliver. He made a bold but ill-conceived venture into Iraq, and now we're over-extended abroad and over-exposed at home, with no relief in sight. So, by necessity, he has had to scale his ambitions back and now, for all practical purposes, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between him and Kerry. Even if there were, they'll probably both be hamstrung by Iraq for years to come.

There's also the fact that Bush has already demonstrated, IMO, alarmingly poor executive skills. In that light, why would I want to go with him again? Moreover, his blunders have arguably left him with less credibility, which renders us weaker, not stronger.

There's also the phenomenon of Presidents playing against type - Bush could become gun-shy (note the recent rhetoric about wanting to be "the peace President") and Kerry could become surprisingly assertive. You just never know. I don't buy the argument that Kerry learned nothing from 9/11.

Of course, odds are that Kerry would take a more measured approach than Bush. Depending on one's point of view, this might or might not be a good thing, but in light of the aforementioned I'm not sure how much difference it will actually make. In any case, I don't expect Kerry to have any easy solutions and it's quite possible that he could do no better or do worse, but as of this point I'm willing to take that chance. In light of his cultural ultra-conservatism and the seeming fiscal irresponsibility of his party, I can't think of any other compelling reasons to vote for Bush anyway.

[chris v]

I like the way Ann Richards put it:

"You know, for American women in a Republican majority, their president has been like a marriage that's gone from bad to worse. You know the story. The guy has a great line, he's sort of cute, he tells you that life together will be bliss, and then in a few years he's snoring on the couch while the TV blares on the fifth football game of the day and the neighbors are screaming about the yard that never gets mowed, and there's a car up on blocks in the driveway, and your household budget is just stretched to the limit, and he's spending all the money on hunting trips, a new shotgun and a camo jumpsuit, and you're standing there at the sink thinking, 'I must have been out of my mind!' So here we are, almost four years past our shotgun wedding with this White House, and like we say in Texas: Honey, it's time to split the sheets and sign the legal papers."

CV

[tie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
When I said Kerry needed to say certain things, I guess I should have specified that I wanted to be assured that he meant them too. But I'm afraid I am not conviced of that. At least not enough to take such a leap in the dark.

Why do you bother saying them then? You're just like moki, who said he would support impeaching Bush if no WMDs were found in Iraq. Then he changed his mind. The truth is you'll vote for Bush no matter what he does, no matter what he tells you. You'll excuse any of his lies and dismiss the myriad administration insiders who have found that the administration is internally as incoherent as its policies suggest.

Every day there are new mistakes made by the administration that come to light. Recently,

- Killed verification system for nuclear arms treaty. According to the State Department, an inspection regime "would have been so extensive that it could compromise key signatories' core national security interests and so costly that many countries [i.e., the US] will be hesitant to accept it."
- Senior Al Qaeda operative in custody changes his statements about Iraq training terrorists with biological and chemical weapons. "In an October 2002 speech in Cincinnati, President Bush said: 'We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bombmaking and poisons and gases.' Other senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in a speech to the United Nations, made similar assertions. Libi's statements were the foundation of all of them, the officials said." (Who is responsible for this mistake? President Bush knew, or should have known, the source of the information, and decided to run with it anyway.)
- New whistleblower from the FBI, same story. They're all liars, I'm sure.

These are just taken from the newspapers in the last couple of days.

What more could the Bush administration do wrong? What kind of catastrophic mistake would make you decide Bush was unfit to be president? (Going to war with Iraq based on mistaken intelligence that was manipulated by Al Qaeda itself isn't enough?)

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by tie:
What kind of catastrophic mistake would make you decide Bush was unfit to be president?

Maybe if he nuked Hawaii...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by tie:
Why do you bother saying them then? You're just like moki, who said he would support impeaching Bush if no WMDs were found in Iraq. Then he changed his mind. The truth is you'll vote for Bush no matter what he does, no matter what he tells you. You'll excuse any of his lies and dismiss the myriad administration insiders who have found that the administration is internally as incoherent as its policies suggest.

If I remember correctly, the question came up in one of those perennial "how could you possibly disagree with me?" threads. At the time, I thought that a articulation of those thoughts by one of the Democratic candidates would be enough. But it wasn't enough, and it wasn't exactly what happened. What happened is after he was nominated, Kerry made a lot of vague promises at the end of a tightly scripted convention. It's jarring, and it doesn't convince me that he really means it. At the end of the day, issues like national defense are about trust.

In the end, looking at the whole picture, I don't think in his heart Kerry has changed from being the candidate he was to a new candidate suddenly committed to a muscular foreign policy, or that he will at the end of the day make the war on terror a priority. It's something he knows he has to talk about, but it isn't a policy he has adopted, and as president, I would expect him to realize that any time he did something that pleased me, he'd piss off a bit of his base.

Four years ago, the GOP put on a convention trying to convince people how moderate they were. I applaud them for trying, and for attempting to muzzle their extremists, but it turned out to be just show. Four years after allowing an openly gay congressman to address them, they are trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. I applaud the Democrats for trying to muzzle its extremists, but I don't expect it to stick either. A tightly scripted convention is not real, it's just a show. The Democratic arty has spent the last 2 years convincing me that they haven't made the transition to the post 9/11 world. Then they capped it all by rehabilitating and showcasing Jimmy Carter, who the nominee says he will send to the Middle East. On foreign policy, Carter is the worst the Democrats, or this country has. The only reason to send him anywhere would be the reason the Germans sent Lenin back to Russia. Carter and foreign policy is like King Midas, only everything he touches turns to a disaster. He can go to Iraq to monitor elections, but that's it. The fact that Kerry would consider anything more is a good indication of where his policies would take us -- right back to 1980 (shudders).

Kerry simply failed to make the sale. He did it because he is trying to appeal to both the war hawks, and the Michael Moore crowd. It can't be done, because a president can't be both. If Lieberman were the Democrats nominee, I would have believed him, because I trust him. But not Kerry. And not a party that gives only 3% to Lieberman and who roars with approval at Ted Kennedy when he fatuously says the only thing this country has to worry about is four more years of Bush. That is not a party that takes terrorism seriously.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Ok, I'll accept that and I'll re-read your posts here.

I just wish your first reaction wasn't to dismiss every criticism based on a supposed bias. I'd rather hear you countering the substance of their criticism rather than telling us what their bias is based on. We take that into account with everybody. Even with people who support my position.

Let's face it Simey. You're one of the few articulate, non-raving conservatives left on the board here. Contrary to what you may think about me, I sincerely want to hear a well-thought opposing position. Dismissing criticism because of perceived sour grapes doesn't move the discussion very far.

The substance is that they have their opinions, and I have mine. Most of the criticisms I have heard them express are demands that we come back to the foreign policy we had before 9/11. I think that policy was wrong. In fact, I thought that policy was wrong before 9/11.

There are also lots of criticisms I don't agree with because I think they are unreasonable. I think it is unreasonable to blame the US for the fact that parts of Europe have decided for internal reasons to decouple themselves. I think it is irresponsible for Kerry to promise what I don't think he can deliver.

There are lots of details about Bush's foreign policy that I think are mistaken, or inadequate. I don't think he has done enough to expand and restructure the armed forces for this war. I don't think that enough has been done to make our ports more secure. I don't think the Bush Administration spends enought time explaining their policies, or communicating in general. But none of these problems are solved by reversing the entire strategy back to what it was pre-9/11.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The substance is that they have their opinions, and I have mine.

That's not substance. That's opinion. There's a big difference between addressing specific actions versus examining the motivations of the speaker. Actions are specific. Motivation is speculative.

For example, dismissing every relevant point that the former Head of Couterterrorism brought just because you think he's a disgruntled ex-employee. That's not addressing the content of his experience. It's evasion.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
That's not substance. That's opinion. There's a big difference between addressing specific actions versus examining the motivations of the speaker. Actions are specific. Motivation is speculative.

For example, dismissing every relevant point that the former Head of Couterterrorism brought just because you think he's a disgruntled ex-employee. That's not addressing the content of his experience. It's evasion.

What did I start off with? "The substance is they have their opinions and I have mine." I said it was my opinion.

You seem to be suggesting that just because someone holds a political office I am forced to agree with them, and cannot examine their biases or motivations. What a strange idea. By that logic, you should be hanging on every word that Bush utters. After all, he is more senior.