Setting the Bar Too Low...

News&Views

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 20, 2007



__________________________________________________________







Check out any career. There is always a standard that needs to be met to move up the ladder. If we need confirmation of that fact all we have to do is look back at history: From the pages of our own history it is either you perform or you get out of the way. We may be a land that touts ‘equal opportunity’ but we don’t cater to ‘slackers’ or those who don’t hustle. Therefore, it is not unfair to expect the same thing in government.



But in this government, we discover, the rules of survival, the rules of business seem to have been totally overlooked. : Our president hires people, not because of their sterling qualifications or their track records, but because they agree with him. For government, not so unusual; but in this administration when they fail in their job, they are given medals and a resounding endorsement from the president in mind-boggling display of anti-Darwinism. Survival of the fittest should have been rewritten for this Executive who considers loyalty next to Godliness….



Consider: CIA chief, Tenant. Tenant confirms that Saddam Hussein is guilty of WMD, buying Yellowcake in Niger, fomenting 9/11 and every other sin under the sun—which are all proven untrue; nevertheless, he retires with a rousing speech from the president and the requisite medal. One general after another, led by Tommy Franks, makes horrendous decisions in Iraq and they receive medals. The Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, who is expert at micromanaging, decides that technology will replace boots on the ground, receives a rousing retirement and a speech congratulating him for his good work. The man chosen to do the heavy=lifting, Paul Bremer, screws up big-time, writes a best selling book and is given a royal send-off.. In the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the head of FEMA is patted on the back for doing a good job when he only admits to learning about the devastation caused by Katrina after watching NBC’s coverage of the Superdome.



What’s wrong with this picture?



Where is the performance? Where is the ACCOUNTABILITY?



Take for example, Condy Rice. As Secretary of State, she has been in this powerful position for more than two years and it is fair to raise the question: What has our illustrious Secretary of State accomplished in that time except for convincing everyone that she lies through her teeth. The fact is that someone would have to look far and wide to see any kind of progress on any front despite her travels far and wide at taxpayer expense. Wouldn’t it be fair to subject her to the same scrutiny as any other executive charged with a duty?



At some point in time, your average supervising executive might say where is the “payback?” and one would be hard pressed to find an answer to that question.



The fact of the matter is that loyalty seems considerably more importance than qualifications or competence. The fact is that this president expects little more from his staff than loyalty and that sends out the wrong message. We, the people, are entitled to better treatment than that. We understand the rules that govern business. Why is it asking too much to expect our president to demand that his staff perform up at least a minimum standard. Or do we have to wait ‘til the final drumbeat on January 2009?



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

www.lesaaron.blogspot.com

THE COMMITTEE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE

The Snub as Policy

NewsBlurbs

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 18, 07

===============================================================



Question for the day:



Why does Bush look like he’s going to go forward with his program against Iran no matter what Congress says?



Answer 1; Congress has shown no-teeth and looks like no threat



Answer 2: The sharp-elbowed former cheerleader is used to getting his own way



Answer 3: He knows Iraq is going anywhere and he needs to look presidential





Answer 4: He needs to distract Americans from what’s going on and figures that his big successes have come from Shock and Awe scenarios before the reality sneaks in



Answer 5: He has an obligation to friends and family to keep republicans in office…





The answer is probably some combination of the above inasmuch as they all have some resonance considering Bush’s present predicament and the very real real prospects that “the surge” may just go crashing down as simply another failed policy; for, after all, if it were so necessary to add more troops to the mix, why wait ‘til now? .



Bush has also proven to be contemptuous of weakness and exceptionally stubborn in his ways. He sees in Congress’ attempts to hold him back with a “nonbinding resolution” something that might be considered laughable if so many of his own party weren’t engaged.



He also may truly believe that the Iranians are the cause of all of his troubles and that he seriously does need to consider taking them out to assure a better result from his new policy in Iraq.



However, according to informed military sources, this is misstating the case since the impact of the Iranians is estimated as much less than Bush suggests and that the real cause of American deaths is due more to Sunni attacks on Shia’ and vice versa…



In any event, what we are witnessing now seems more redolent of our four year old misadventure in Iraq and the reasons given for it.



In the end, the president does make the final decision and in the absence of a strong hand from congress can just ignore them until the clock runs out. And that may just be the case. The question then becomes will the democrats have blown their chances and fade again into the background.



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

Both Sides Now...

News and Views/Feb 17, 2007
The Armchair Curmudgeon
-___________________________________

Imagine Eisenhower having to pay for both sides of the War in Europe?


Sound crazy…but there’s enough evidence to suggest that’s exactly what’s happening in Afghanistan in our war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

A stepped up effort by the Taliban is expected after the
Spring melt, when the mountain passes between Afghanistan and Pakistan have thawed enough to permit the Taliban warriors to continue their war with the current regime.

Not only do we support the regime in power, we are asking for another fourteen billion dollars to support the War against the Taliban this year. We are also committing to another brigade of troops to engage Taliban forces; this is in addition to the contingents of English and Dutch who are willing to help with the heavy lifting.

So far, so good. But there is another dimension to the problem.
And it has economic underpinning. The bottom line: There’s a body of evidence to suggest that the Taliban’s efforts are being underwritten by Al Qaeda. Supporting this assertion is the fact that Taliban drivers on motorbikes have been seen escorting Al Qaeda paymasters to areas where Taliban units are supporting the attacks on the Afghan security forces and other incursions into Afghanistan. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that Al Qaeda has underwritten Tailiban expansionist plans.

This, of course, raises the question: Where does this economic support come from? This is where the wicket gets sticky. Here’s what we do know: Under the guise of giving to charity, a number of of Saudi princes support terrorist causes including Al Qaeda. The money flows from the princes to these causes. What that means indirectly is that America, with its impossibly heavy investment in fossil fuels, is providing the Saudis with the funding to support the War and that’s unsupportable.

If we needed a better reason to insist on conservation or to promulgate a switch to alternative energy, this has to be it. Good citizens, good patriots who send their progeny off to War should demand it. And it is unconscionable that the president who understands these facts has not taken strong action to limit our dependency on Saudi Arabia.

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon

How High?

NEWS AND VIEWS

The Armchair Curmudgeon

February 17, 2007





How High?





For the last few weeks, we have been treated to a lot of talk but not much in the way of tangible actions. It seems that all of the Dems “Whirling Dervish” activity has not yielded much.

And while they postulate and prevaricate like a lot of toothless chickens yapping and yawing the fact remains that what we are hoping to produce is a non-binding resolution.

A non-binding resolution, mind you. The only problem is that a non-binding resolution does not demand anything from Executive and so the build up goes on…whether we like it or lump it…



It seems a case of the president snubbing his nose at his Congress including those who had supported him in the past. Now, there is rumor that perhaps sixty Republicans may cast their vote against the president in future elections…



But the loyal minions still respond as concerned toadies: Bush says jump. And the Loyalists ask, “ How high, Mr. President?”



And while many decent ideas have been advanced from withholding funding for the new troops to a Federalization of the Country, an idea bandied about by Joe Biden, the president is under no obligation to do anything.



And while additional lives may be tossed into the maelstrom there is serious reservations about whether this action will result in any positive gains since the numbers are too small to bring about significant change in this upside down city of some six million that has known no peace made up of mostly Sunnis and Shia’ who can’t seem to tolerate each other long enough to sit down and bring about peace.



On the other hand, we are witnessing moves being made by the Executive Branch to hype the rumors that Iran is moving closer to war and is responsible for stepping up its involvement in Iraq with technologically advanced weaponry.



One cannot help but see the parallel with what Americans faced in the build-up to the Iraq War….and it is cause for grave concern. Currently, there are two carrier combat groups in the Persian Gulf and, shortly, we expect the third with the arrival of the Vincent.



And while we preach for diplomacy, we have a president who doesn’t seem to respond to either the media or Congress and the danger is that we will shortly find ourselves in another War with Iran while Congress continues to strut around the barnyard moaning and groaning. The danger is that Bush thinks this is the way to build up his stock with red-blooded Americans and there is no way to dissuade him from this point of view; except, as I read it, most Americans have had it. And one suspects that if anything brings him down, it will be his amazing disconnect from the people who voted him in. But the question remains at what expense?



In the meantime, should you feel insecure because of the ratcheting up of the war machine you are not alone!



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon

Hillary's Moral Conundrum

NewsBlurbs
The Armchair Curmudgeon
Feb 16, 2007


In a message dated 2/16/2007 6:02:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hubmaster writes:
Here's the moral conundrum...

A recent Marist poll showed that 47% of the electorate will not vote for Hillary under any conditions no matter what!

Think about that!

If Hillary is the acknowledged front runner, does not that raise a moral dilemna.

If you know that you cannot win with such odds against you, would it not be morally the right thing to do to back out and leave the high ground to someone else? And show that you are more interested in your party than you are in your own plans?

If Hillary understands that 47% of the electorate will not vote for her, and she is unwilling to accommodate the needs of her party for a "winner," is she not subverting the best interests of her party for her own ego needs, spearheading its destruction??? Can the Democratic Party even survive another loss?

Don't get me wrong: This is not subjective: The Marist Poll is legitimate with a small projectable error and is determined on voter attitudes and preferences . With 47% guaranteed "no's" where does that leave the candidate? Where does that leave the democratic party?.

Hillary may be good and great. But if she can't win, she should get out of the way and let somebody else try...

That's the view of the Armchair Curmudgeon...

Les Aaron
The Armchair Curmudgeon

Bush Vs. Congress

NewsBlurbs

THE ARMCHAIR CURMUDGEON

February 15, 07

===============================================================



Question for the day:



Why does Bush look like he’s going to go forward with his program against Iran no matter what Congress says?



Answer 1; Congress has shown no-teeth and looks like no threat to hs intentions...



Answer 2: The sharp-elbowed former cheerleader is used to getting his own way



Answer 3: He knows Iraq is going anywhere and he needs to look presidential



Answer 4: He needs to distract Americans from what’s going on and figures that his big successes have come from "Shock and Awe "scenarios before the reality sneaks in



Answer 5: He has an obligation to friends and family to keep republicans in office…





The answer is probably some combination of the above inasmuch as they all have some resonance considering Bush’s present predicament and the very real real prospects that “the surge” may just go crashing down as simply another failed policy; for, after all, if this were a legitimate rationale, if more troops are needed immediately, why did we wait 'til now?....



Bush has also proven to be contemptuous of weakness and exceptionally stubborn in his ways. He sees in Congress’ attempts to hold him back with a “nonbinding resolution” something that might be considered laughable if so many of his own party weren’t engaged.



He also may truly believe that the Iranians are the cause of all of his troubles and that he seriously does need to consider eliminating them as a threat in order to ensure a better result from his new policy in Iraq.



However, according to informed military sources, this is misstating the case since the impact of the Iranians is estimated as much less than Bush suggests and that the real cause of American deaths is due more to Sunni attacks on Shia’ and vice versa…



In any event, what we are witnessing now seems more redolent of our four year old misadventure in Iraq and the reasons given for it.



In the end, the president does make the final decision and in the absence of a strong hand from congress, he believes he can just ignore them until the clock runs out. And that may just be the case. The question then becomes will the democrats have blown their chances and fade again into the background.



Les Aaron

The Armchair Curmudgeon



If you would like to receive additional copies of the Armchair Curmudgeon, please email hubmaster@aol.com and ask to be added to the AC Newsletter