Clinton only gets paid like that cuz he includes porno tapes as part of his speech (Lewinsky does DC). It comes as a package, and all the immoral democrats show up and pay for it.
Cabinet turnover is healthy and a good thing if you are getting rid of incompents. But it looks like he's getting rid of anybody that is considered to be unloyal to George Bush by offering dissenting opinions. Groupthink sets in when nobody is allowed to voice honest opinions and bad decisions end up getting made. It allows a President to to with his "gut feeling" instead of paying attention to serious concerns from his experts. Thus the 9/11 intelligence failures, the remarkably bad economic policies, the record job losses, the WMD intelligence failures, the failure to prepare for the occupation of Iraq, etc, etc. There is also a major bloodletting happening among career civil servants in the CIA and it's starting to happen among the career diplomats of the State Department. Both departments have been bypasssed and had much of their work done by White House staff who have ignored established American policies that have been in place for decades, alienating the professionals. Rank and file in these departments are being "purged" of those who put loyalty to their country above personal loyalty to George Bush.
You could only say that about Colin Powell, maybe. Because Powell let it be known from day one he was here for one term. I've read in repeated "insider source" interviews that President Bush wants differing opinions on his tough decisions. Now, no doubt Powell was not the hawk Rumsfeld is, but he was in favor of taking down Hussein. He just disagreed with the timing. I don't think John Ashcroft or Rod Paige fit that description though in any way. One person brought up a good point; Bush has had less Cabinet turnover so far than Clinton. Bush has always had rankerous policy debates in his inner circle, if Time Magazine is to be believed. The 9/11 intelligence failures cannot be blamed on him or his Cabinet, they had been in office less than eight months when 9/11 happened and that attack took over three years of planning. EVERYBODY'S intelligence was flawed on Iraq (hindsight is quite beautiful, isn't it? Too bad you can't have it BEFORE you make a tough call). I will grant you that mistakes were made in planning the reconstruction of Iraq though, if you have any ideas about what should have been done differently. The Arabists and internationalists are being told to hit the road, and it's about time. They still don't get it; 9/11 changed everything, and the old Clinton and Bush Sr. "don't rock the boat" way of doing things simply isn't going to work anymore. They hate George W. Bush slightly more than they dislike America. Kissing Saudi behind and downplaying Iran is setting us and the rest of the world up for a big KABOOM! later down the road, but they want to just pretend nothing is wrong and everything can be fixed by diplomacy. It can't. Besides, I thought you'd be happy with "bloodletting" at the CIA, considering all the "intelligence failures" you previously cited.
It's Nostradamus. I gave you neg rep cause you spelled it wrong, then you gave me some kind of rep and insisted you were correct when in fact you are not.
Clearly, the entire war planning was wrong, from the reasons we went to war to the failure to control the occupation. Only the military assault itself was a success (except for the staggering cost). A prudent administration would have never invaded Iraq in the first place (as the US military and state department reccommended). Saddam's military was no longer a threat to anybody, he was hobbled by sanctions, never had any WMD's to give to terrorists and should have been ignored while we vigorously pursued Al Qaida instead. But given the fact that we are there, the solution to the occupation anarchy has always been known and was suggested up front by General Shenseki (who was then fired). It would take over 300,000 troops to properly guard the borders, secure the highways, and lock down urban resistance. The active generals all take the administration's line (Yes sir!), but the retired generals are in agreement that there aren't enough soldiers in Iraq to get the job done. But this administration ignores advice from experts who don't toe the preconceived party line. The notion that disloyalty to George Bush constitutes disloyalty to America is an unconstitutional, un-American notion that some might describe as fascist. Practically no American "dislikes America". Practically every American dislikes some facet of American policy. Dissent is a constitutional right that also happens to be essential in a democracy. To characterize someone who dissents as "disliking America" seems a little much. I think someone who blindly follows a leader without question is misguided, but painting them as un-American would be wrong. The intelligence failures I refer to was not the gathering of intelligence by the CIA and other professionals, but the selective and poor use of the existing intelligence by the elected and appointed policy-makers. You really should read the 9/11 report. It surprised the hell out of me.
Oh I didn't tell you, I could give a F about rep points so don't waist your time. I gave you a red mark b/c you know how to spell nastrdomis.
