Saturday, November 04, 2006

When An Executive Is Not

Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute freedom scholar: "Ask yourself who the most powerful people in the White House are. They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes."

Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy: "[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric, and that's what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity."

Kenneth Adelman: "The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people. If he had been serious, the president would have realized that those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq."


whit said...

So Tommy Franks is a bad guy too?

Tiger said...

... you may have noticed I didn't highlight his name like the others. I think the author is wrong on that account. Gen. Franks did his job and left, like a good general does.

I can remember blogging about this awards ceremony long ago and just couldn't understand why the FUps were getting awarded! I think that's when my suspicions about G.W. started.

I also disagree with whole NEOCON v. Bush concept. Although certain, specific NEOCONs may have spoken out against Bush's performance, I don't think it's just NEOCONs. You and I don't come from the socialist point of view (like NEOCONS), but from the conservative direction. However, the article does state the situation clearly for me. Bush's lack of leadership on Iraq and the general WOT is painfully apparent.