One weakness I noticed in your analysis, Steve, is this charge that the Bush Administration is guilty of "groupthink." If that were true, then what's all this talk about factions inside the inner circle? Bush sometimes goes Powell's way on one thing and Cheney's or Rumsfeld's on another. Most of Bush's critics and friends alike say that he will draw on these various dissenting sources for guidance, as every good manager does.

I didn't believe that Bush was qualified to be President in 2000, and I voted against him. (I did vote for him against Ann Richards for Governor because I think she's a goddamned clown and a hack.) But Bush has committed himself to doing something once and for all about the Islamofascist threat and I am proud to support him. 11 September 2001 changed everything, but you folks don't realize that yet. On many, if not most, social issues, I disagree with him and his party, but on the central challenge of our time, which is the eventual annihilation or neutralization of Mohammedan psychopaths, I am completely down with Bush.

I saw the President's press conference in the Rose Garden today and I had a very good feeling that he knows what time it is and that he'd better get his ass in gear and do a better job of selling the American people on the war. I think he will. The facts and the right are on his side, as they are not with Frankenkerry. And I think Bush will win because the American people know that he is dedicated to a true cause, unlike your nominee who's only in it because our system requires an alternative, if only a nominal one.

Bush created Jesus Day in Texas. 'Nuf said?

Really? I live right here in Austin and I ain't never heard of it.

But nice job there of showing contempt for the Christian religion. I guess if Kwanzaa were a Federal holiday, you'd be happy as a lark. Sister.

Remember, comrades: it's freedom of religion, not from religion.

My favorite quote from the article:

"Bush, the first president with a master's degree in business administration, has taken pride in his approach to management. "I put a lot of faith and trust in my staff," he wrote in his 1999 autobiography, "A Charge to Keep.""

Uhh, yeah. "Wrote".

That's okay, Trent. Ted Sorensen could never convince anyone that he didn't write Profiles in Courage.

another day, another lame troll attack. Anyone with a eye to his work record can see Bush's failings as a manager. He was selected by Cheney to be the face-of-the-president because of name recongition, the ability to secure Texas' electoral college votes and his proven track record of being perfectly happy to let others do his thinking for him, as long as he got to strut around and play cowboy. The day he walks out in front of TV cameras to answer questions *without a script* , I'll be glad to reconsider.

In all seriousness Toby, my opinion is that the more serious the threat, the less you want some buffoon running things. If you like Bush because he talks purty, fine. Most of us want more.

Toby your support for the boy president speaks volumes for you. Thanks.

Toby once again spews silly sound bites instead of reasoned analysis.

"it's freedom of religion, not from religion."

I would be happy to hear exactly what Mr. Toby thinks this sentence means.

Does it mean that people who are not religious are second class citizens relative to people who are, since they have no right to be free of religion?

Does it mean that religious people can impose some basic level of religious observance on non-believers?

How would they do that in an effective way?

Can they use the government for this imposition?

This would require that the government to become entangled in the religious life of the people. What good would come out of that exactly?

In spite of his troll-like ways, I would love to hear Toby's answers to these questions.

The 9:09 posting is mine.

Growth Factor:

Toby once again spews silly sound bites instead of reasoned analysis.

"it's freedom of religion, not from religion."

I would be happy to hear exactly what Mr. Toby thinks this sentence means.

Only the help calls me Mr. Toby.

Does it mean that people who are not religious are second class citizens relative to people who are, since they have no right to be free of religion?

No.

Does it mean that religious people can impose some basic level of religious observance on non-believers?

If multiculturalism were not a euphemism for anti-Christian and anti-white bigotry, and if self-loathing Caucasoid atheists (i.e., Leftists) weren't so eager to reject the religious foundations of their own culture, they would probably be the tolerant types they think they already are. Regardless, there's plenty of such "imposition" all around you. That's because it's a natural part of our lives as Americans.

How would they do that in an effective way?

By putting it on your money. By exempting churches and temples and mosques from taxation. By filling your airwaves with their rituals and doctrines.

Can they use the government for this imposition?

They do already. Have you not noticed? But why look at it as an imposition? Why not be glad that the spiritual beliefs of the people around you are probably what keep them from fucking you over?

This would require that the government to become entangled in the religious life of the people. What good would come out of that exactly?

Like I say, religious convictions can give people a conscience. True, it can also give them holy license to use violence against you, but that's the nice thing about Muslims: they make sure you know how to identify them when you need to.

The presidential adviser said that Bush has had the same management style ever since he bought Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers and ran for governor and that he does not expect him to make any significant change despite his current straits. "When he started to use the strong-CEO's approach of delegation and real responsibility and real accountability, that's when he started to succeed mightily, both in business and in politics," the adviser said. "It's impossible to change a successful man."

But, in Bush's world no one is held accountable except those who he cares nothing about. Who has been fired because of 9/11? Or the lies about Iraq? Or the outing of Valerie Plame? Bush runs his business like a Mafia chief - nothing counts except loyalty to him and only disloyalty gets you put out. One piece I read said that it was probably Chalabi's dissing him (Bush) that was the straw that broke the back for Bush - and this would be easy to believe.

Aides said Bush was told that the Pentagon was dealing with these allegations and that he accepted those assurances. A presidential adviser who has discussed the crisis with officials in the West Wing said people closest to Bush "feel that the military chain of command let him down." The adviser called that conclusion "a rare point of agreement" among Vice President Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., senior adviser Karl Rove and former counselor Karen Hughes.

Just like Condi let Bush down when she didn't think Richard Clarke's concerns were important enough to raise to the President when Tenet was running around with his hair on fire? So why did Bush give the excuse that the PBO of Aug 6, 2001 wasn't enough warning that perhaps al Qaeda might want to attack the US because it didn't give a date or place? In that case, he didn't think he needed to do anymore because others would take care of the details. Bush risks looking like the "clueless" CEO with his complaints that others aren't doing their job keeping him informed.

Toby,

I knew that I could depend on you to come up with some truly inspired stupidity in response to my questions. I particularly like the bit about "self-loathing Caucasoid atheists". It is good every now and again to see some of the blatant stereotypes that are rummaging around in the right-wing brain stem.

It is also good to hear that the imposition of one religion's beliefs on the broader society is a "natural part of our lives as Americans", so it is nothing to worry about. I can imagine how Toby would change his tune if the imposing religion were Islam.

And clearly it is only the Muslims who inflict religiously inspired violence against non-believers. Christians have never done that before. Good one Toby. Is being a right-wing tool fun? Toby seems to think so.

"I saw the President's press conference in the Rose Garden today and I had a very good feeling that he knows what time it is...."

_And_ he can chew gum at the same time. My confidence in the wisdom of Boy George is renewed!

What this all reminds me of is a quote from William Sherrill's indispensable _Why They Call It Politics_; it's not terribly recent (the last edition came out in 2000) but still informative. Anyway, Sherrill quotes an incident from 1983 where a Russian fighter shot down a Korean airliner. Sec'y of State Shultz convened a meeting to deal with the crisis; the President was not there. When asked what the President's stance on the crisis was, Sec'y Shultz said, "I haven't told him yet. I'll tell him when he wakes up."

I wager dollars to donuts that much the same spirit pervades the Bush administration--the open secret tacitly but universally accepted that the Leader is a loser and that the underlings had better take care of things themselves, only letting the President in on the crises until a more convenient time when he can do less damage.

Mind you I'm not quite buying into the easy explanation that Bush is a dunce. Mark Crispin Miller and other commentators have noted his shrewdness in political infighting and back-stabbing and I believe them. From the available evidence, however, I cannot conclude that Bush is interested in much else; so long as he's at the top of the Republican dungheap, he probably says to himself, "Screw the rest of the country and the world, I'm going fishing." Which he has done for nearly two days out of every five of his presidency.

Toby Fillpot's desperate insistence that Bush _really_ knows what he's doing, _really_ he does, again makes me wonder how the Republican Party possibly could have decided to hitch their star, almost to the last man, to this liability. Almost anyone aside from W. would have been more credible, less burdened with an embarrassing past, and less in need of being displayed only in the most elaborately stage-managed public appearances for fear that he'll either say something really stupid or lose his rag and reveal to us what a foul temper and vile sense of humour he really has. So...why _this_ man of all men?

...but on the central challenge of our time, which is the eventual annihilation or neutralization of Mohammedan psychopaths, I am completely down with Bush.

Then you must be as ill-informed as he is.......do you have any knowledge of the state of Afghanistan, the site of our first "triumph" in the war on terror?

Bush's incompetence is so staggeringly obvious....how do you trust him to wage the "central challenge of our time"?

What evidence other than him saying "9-11 changed everything" can you show to prove he is competent?

"9-11 changed everything" is a simple-minded slogan that attempts to eliminate thought....it works for Bush..and apparently you as well.

another day, another lame troll attack.

Toby,
Isn't it amazing how the libs label us as attackers every time we post? We point out our opinions and they freak out. They have the "How dare you post here" attitude. It's shows just how shallow these people really are. They say "Let's debate" but when we do we are labeled as attackers and trolls once again. They say "ignore them". Why? Because they can't handle debate. It really is sad. If you libs can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen because we are not going anywhere.